Private Social Media Platform

Jury nullification is inadmissible in US Courts and 95% of criminal cases never make it to trial but rather are resolved through plea bargains

if the courts don’t hear that the jury is nullifying the prosecution, there’s not a thing the courts can do. And the plea bargain is government terrorism. They threaten the defendants with a trial tax of a hell of a lot more years in prison if the defendant takes their case to trial. FTG.

you realize a bailiff is supervising the jury while they deliberate? The court will know. If the prosecution believes a null took place they can appeal the jury verdict on those grounds.

Jury nullification is not a streamed line way to hold the government accountable and voice opinions on laws you don’t like.

Trials are expensive and the state has endless money to throw at any case. The average death penalty case costs 1.3 mil to prosecute. And most people being accused can’t afford an attorney. The public defenders office is overwhelmed as we speak. Their attorneys are advising them to take the deal.

I agree that system is broken but you cant fight it from within.

https://fija.org/
FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION

Dale Eastman still illegal…

What exactly do you mean by YOUR use of the word "illegal"?

I wish to drill down on ALL the minutia of what that word means.

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of illegal?

Dale Eastman by “illegal” I mean not allowed within the context a circumstance is being presented. In the same way holding is illegal in American football.

➽ by “illegal” I mean not allowed within the context a circumstance is being presented.

Not allowed by who?

Dale Eastman the officials regulating the activity? In the example of football, it would be the NFL.

➽ Can you skip the pedantic questioning to get straight to your point?

It's called Socratic Method. My purpose in asking my questions is to get you to answer, on the record. Too many people have refused to stipulate any agreement as to what words and terms mean. Hence my pedantic assholiness questions.

I did tell you my intent is to drill down on this concept of "illegal", so moving on from where we are at...

I asked you, "Not allowed by who?"
You answered:
➽ the officials regulating the activity

Officials doing the regulating by what authority. By that, I mean specifically: "Officials doing the regulating by what right-to-rule?"

I'm going to assume that you missed the notification of my last reply. Fecalbook has helped me miss notifications, So until proven otherwise, I will assume that you are not ignoring me.

Repeating my post from 21 September 18:29:
❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃
➽ Can you skip the pedantic questioning to get straight to your point?

It's called Socratic Method. My purpose in asking my questions is to get you to answer, on the record. Too many people have refused to stipulate any agreement as to what words and terms mean. Hence my pedantic assholiness questions.

I did tell you my intent is to drill down on this concept of "illegal", so moving on from where we are at...

I asked you, "Not allowed by who?"
You answered:
➽ the officials regulating the activity

Officials doing the regulating by what authority. By that, I mean specifically: "Officials doing the regulating by what right-to-rule?"
❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃
Your 21 September 18:32 post identified "WHO" the officials are regulating the activity:

➽  [JS] do you know how the law works? Congress writes the law, judges interpret the law.

My question to you still stands but modified by your additional info:
Congress writing law by what right-to-rule?"

Dale Eastman congress is irrelevant here. Someone we asking for legislation when I offered case law.

Case law (and the rules of civil and criminal procedure) are the laws that govern the courts, in which jury nullification is to take place. The law and or rights of a individual have no barring on the court proceedings.

We have freedom of speech but if you speak out of turn in a courtroom, the judge will hold you in contempt of court.

Authority is given through consent but taken through violence. Try to go to a court and declare yourself a sovereign citizen. They will laugh in your face and do what they want anyway. We are all at the mercy of those who are stronger than us.

I find your self-conflicting statements to be intriguing. Your Statist indoctrination runs so deep that I see you are not aware of the indoctrination you are repeating. You have partially described your limited understanding of what "government" is. Failing to understand what "government" is; you fail to accurately describe the problem to be repaired. Failing to accurately articulate the problem to be solved/repaired, you also fail to state what will be required to fix the problem.

I am not willing to go back through your replies to the others at this time. I will admit that I read every one of your replies/ opinions.

➽  Case law (and the rules of civil and criminal procedure) are the laws that govern the courts,

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "law"?
(Unnumbered as a rhetorical guidance at this time.)

1. Is not "law" a set of rules?

2. Are not the rule makers regulating what goes on in the court room?
(Yes, I am a pedantic asshole. I'm numbering my questions to assist me in knowing when questions get ignored.)

3. The rule makers are regulating what goes on in the court room by what right-to-rule?"

We have freedom of speech but if you speak out of turn in a courtroom, the judge will hold you in contempt of court.

BTDT. I refused and refuse to pay the fine. Perhaps I'll show you the letter I wrote to two county sheriffs and two county circuit courts. Tyranny will not end until cowardice ends.

Dale Eastman no the contradiction is you believing that the government will save you from the government. Unless you have documentation that they have absolved you of the fine you owe, it’s still in the books and if the don’t collect now they will collect later.

The idea that you can fight a corrupted system within a corrupted system is delusional.

Your pseudo analysis and idealistic philosophy of concepts I have clearly and consistently explained don’t stand a chance against the realities of the court system.

I’m not a statist, I just frankly could not care less about how things “should be”. Because people don’t suffer from ideals they suffer from reality.

Moreover, nothing entitles you to a response from me. So “making sure you aren’t ignored” is a waste of time. Because ignoring you bares no consequences

I'm sorry. I missed the text where you articulated precisely what the solution to the government scourge is.

Dale Eastman, you were probably distracted by your Socratic method. But change the laws. Not the application or interpretation of them. If you don’t want people to charged with drug crimes, do away with laws that create drug crimes. Start locally. And prepare yourself to fight the industry prison complex in the course of your effort. Because this isn’t about freedom or right vs wrong. This is about making money.

Am I correct in my interpretation that you just precisely articulated what the solution to the government scourge is for a second time?

Have I correctly quoted your precisely articulated solution to the government scourge to be,
and I quote:➽  change the laws?

Dale Eastman yes change the laws, but the key focus and probably the most difficult is to prepare to fight the industry prison complex. That is the source of corruption. When you remove the financial influence of the IPC, your government will naturally change.

And after that it is our responsibility to be vigilant to ensure another complex does not rise to power again.

I'm calling you out on your ➽ "Yes, But" denial and retraction that you think changing the law is the solution to the government scourge. I've called you out on that subtle fact. Now I will ignore it.

How, exactly, do you propose to get the laws of government changed?

Dale Eastman it’s not a “yes, but…” it’s the most basic reasonings of “if A then B”

If you want to change the law(B), then get rid of the pressures that structure the law the way it is (A).

Without the pressures (A), the law will naturally change (B). “Government” is really just a collection of people and people naturally change under the correct circumstances and pressures.

So to change people, we should change pressures.

In this specific case, to change the government (B), you need to attack the industrial prison complex (A).

In conclusion, if A then B, if the industry prison complex is changed, then the laws will change.

But to answer your question: how do we get the laws of government changed (B), we must change the pressures that make the law the way it is (A). I.e the industrial prison complex.

To further help you, the next logical question you should pose is how do you change the industrial prison complex?

I asked you: How, exactly, do you propose to get the laws of government changed?

➽ If you want to change the law(B), then get rid of the pressures that structure the law the way it is (A).

How, exactly, do you propose to get rid of the pressures that structure the law?

➽ In this specific case, to change the government (B), you need to attack the industrial prison complex (A).

How, exactly, do you propose to to attack the industrial prison complex?

Great questions!!

In general terms, to change pressures that structure laws, we must look at what causing the pressure and solve that issue. Laws are responses to what is perceived as bad behavior.

For example, laws against littering were enacted because people were throwing their trash on the ground. If we want to no longer need this law, we have to stop people from throwing their trash on the ground. Humans are simple creatures who will naturally follow the path of least resistance, such as stop them from littering we should provide more public trash cans. There are so many laws that aren’t enforced simply because they aren’t applicable anymore.

To fight the industrial prison complex, I would personally examine the crime rate in the area. Most crimes committed against a victim are crimes of opportunity or passion (ie theft, murder, assault etc). These are naturally unacceptable behaviors. Those behaviors are also coupled with socially unacceptable behaviors or victimless crimes.

So to attack the industry prison complex, we must stop the behaviors that allow them to incarcerate citizen.

To do this I would invest in mental health and education. I think there would be a benefit to re-introduce  apprenticeships of sort. Everyone should graduate high school with a trade or skill of some sort. Not only does this boost self esteem it fosters self reliance. Adults enter the market with passion direct and experience, this way the likelihood of someone being in a position where they need to steal or fight to survive.

With mental health, we teach people to regulate their emotions, to process their traumas, to understand themselves and their identity. We give them the tools they need to regulate themselves then we don’t see them in position where they fall deeply into drugs to cope and then steal to feed an addiction. Or not able to process their feelings and turn to violence when in conflict.

With less of these behaviors there are less people behind bars. If prisons are not incarcerating people they won’t have money and if they aren’t making money they will close. With less of these behaviors there will be less police. With less of these behaviors there will be less judges. With less of these behaviors there’s less interaction with the system and less chance to be hurt by it.

First things first. I almost did not find and read your post. Clicking the [reply] button automatically will tag the person being replied to. Sometimes the reply button has needed to be clicked again to have the tag placed in the text entry box.

Another way to tag non-friends is to use the "@" symbol (no-space) and the name of the person. That doesn't always work so the account name is used. In my case the "@" symbol (no-space) and dale.eastman.75 does the trick. In your case the @ symbol, no-space sb.toubiaii will do the trick.

In order to find your actual FB ID to use in the above paragraph I had to look at your status wall. I've seen enough to force me to being conflicted. I don't know if I should conclude you are Friend or Foe when it comes to liberty or slavery. I am intrigued by the contradictions I see.

I am still processing this puzzle. I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring your post(s).  As the attached image shows...

Dale Eastman In the time it took you to write this out and find a meme you could have just found my response right under your last response.
This overwhelming need for handholding is why we have such an oppressive government.
And I’ll reiterate, I am not entitled to a response so I really don’t care if you ignore me.
But the fact that you know I responded but you just didn’t get tagged tells me you already found my response and you are again being pedantic, which at this point, might border on autism. Something to be aware of when interacting with someone in the future.

The points presented are Self-Evident Facts.
Failure to deny is admission of the points presented.
I don't care if these Self-Evident Facts hurt your feelings, pop your delusional bubble, or give you Cognitive Dissonance.
My purpose in writing these facts in this manner is to make you choke on your stupidity.

At some point of time in your life you were made to believe you are required to obey humans called "government."
1. Admit or deny?

You don't own me. (YDOM)
2. Admit or deny?

I don't own you. (IDOY)
3. Admit or deny?

No person, corporate or human, owns any human.
4. Admit or deny?

This includes any human in "government."
5. Admit or deny?

Lack of ownership means: No Right-To-Enslave; No Right-To-Govern; No Right-To-Control; No Right-To-Rule.
6. Admit or deny?

The prior statement directly and correctly contradicts any belief that any human in government has a Right-To-Rule any other human.
7. Admit or deny?

Thank you for taking this intelligence test.

➽  [JR]nothing roundabout here. I speaking very clearly and literally. As I have previously stated, trying to effect change through the jury nullification is a waste of time and inadmissible. The jury is instructed to change to examine the law as it is written. But crimes are symptoms of bigger issues and laws are band aid solution.

21 September 19:38➽ I don’t consent to the system. I just survive it.

Your "Change the law" obsession betrays you for the Statist you actually are.

Dale Eastman if nobody votes, in your mind, what would be the outcome?

A question. Thank you.

And thank you again, I accept your invite to discuss our differing ideologies.

As I recollect, the few interactions you and I have had, have been minor head-bumping because of our differing ideologies. And I'm sure you've read enough of my posts in this group to understand that voting is "in my mind", a BIG negative.

I'm a pedantic asshole. Freely admitted. In fact, that is why I'm quoting these next 25 words from WickedPedia (sic):
A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.

Or in my own words: What is truth, what is fact, and what are the true facts?

I have had entirely too many discussions with people who refuse to define what they mean when they use a specific word or phrase. Their refusal to stipulate a meaning usually tells me they're posing bullshit and know they can't back their ideology with fact.

I now state what (in my mind) is a fact. I follow that with: "#. Admit or Deny?" Failure to deny defaults to admission of the fact presented. Actual denial of the fact presented opens up dialog to delve further into the now converted to "alleged" fact.

As the pedantic asshole I am, I want to know:
What, exactly is meant by the word, "vote"? What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of the word, "vote"?

A vote is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office.
1. Admit or deny?

An officeholder in a government office, gets authority from the office to do governmental things.
2. Admit or deny?

One of those governmental things is the authority to "govern."
3. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-govern."
4. Admit or deny?

"To govern" is "to control."
5. Admit or deny?

"To control" is "to rule."
6. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-rule."
7. Admit or deny?

The government office held delegates to the officeholder, a "right-to-govern", a "right-to-control", and a "right-to-rule".
8. Admit or deny?

That office was delegated the rights to govern, control, and rule.
9. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
10. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
11. Admit or deny?

The identified group called "We the People" can ONLY include all the people then living at the time of the ordination and establishment (September 17, 1787).
12. Admit or deny?

All government office rights to govern, control, and rule, were delegated from "We the People" existing in September 1787 by means of the United State's Constitution.
13. Admit or deny?

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
14. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
15. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
16. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
17. Admit or deny?

Candidates for public (government) offices are humans.
18. Admit or deny?

Voters are humans.
19. Admit or deny?

No voter has a right-to-rule any other human.
20. Admit or deny?

Therefore voting can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to any candidates for public (government) offices
21. Admit or deny?

➽ if nobody votes, in your mind, what would be the outcome?

The populace would no longer be enslaved.

Dale Eastman we’re at where we’re at, you think not voting is going to change things? Lol , dude , you ain’t beating this system, they’re too fat and rich

I appreciate that you are asking questions to understand what I am presenting. I'm not happy with your lack of ability to answer my questions attempting to establish understandings. So, sir, your questions are "New Business." My questions are "Old Business."

I see you doing the same thing many do now-days: Get overwhelmed and unable to properly respond to inquiries to find a common ground to use to communicate. My error. Sorry. So I'll post my inquiries one at a time.

A vote is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office.
1. Admit or deny?

I'm quoting what you wrote as "New Business" so I don't forget to address what you posted.

NEW BUSINESS:
➽ Dale Eastman we’re at where we’re at, you think not voting is going to change things? Lol , dude , you ain’t beating this system, they’re too fat and rich

Dale Eastman lol overwhelmed, projection is nice , when you’ve got nothing else , it’s ok. not voting is so cool, keep
It up, it’s really working , really

"got nothing else"? I've got the questions I've asked you in an attempt to find a common ground for communication. Since you have proven you do not wish to discuss our differences in ideology, Please STFU and remove your bullshit from the internet.

Third inquiry:
A vote is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office.
1. Admit or deny?

Dale Eastman you can remove me from the internet yourself tough guy , telling someone to STFU on the internet isn’t as tough as you think it is , you’re a real Facebook gangster lol

The probabilities of any person having congenital brain damage is just not that high. So I will assume you don't have Down syndrome. Therefore I conclude that your diminished mental capacity must be the brainwashing you received while you were incarcerated in day jail. A.K.A. public school. My STFU aimed at you was to emphasize the point that you have NOTHING to contribute to society with your EMPTY words.

Your willful FAILURE to engage in polite discourse about our difference in ideologies allows me to speculate about the cause.

Points 1 through 20 are supporting points for point 21. You know that if you deny the facts and logic presented your idiocy will be highlighted by your own denials. So you don't deny the points presented. And you know that if you admit to any of the facts you would be admitting to the stupidity of voting. So you can't do that either. So what are you left with! Red-herrings, non-sequiturs, and anything you can do to derail the focus on these facts that apparently you can't address.

Your cognitive dissonance is your problem. Deal with it.

Fourth inquiry:
A vote is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office.
1. Admit or deny?

Dale Eastman your ability to only project shows how little you could actually have a conversation with an adult so GFY and stop tagging me you big POS YOU !!!

Fifth inquiry:
A vote is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office.
1. Admit or deny?

Dale Eastman admit or deny.

You personally know someone incarcerated for trying to do exactly what your videos indicate as "unlawful"

Admit or deny

You personally know people that have lost their personal property via State seizure for attempting what you believe to be truth.

Best case scenario here you are correct but the State keeps you in court until you are made poorer via the exercise. Worst case you end up shot by an agent of the State for your belief and defending your personal liberty.

Trust me in saying I wish you were right, but I do not believe playing within the system will work. The system can be rendered useless though if enough people break free of it. Using the "legal" against the robed devils is no good.

Dale Eastman here is the deal Dale. You may not believe you are required to follow a "law" that is not in some assholes books, but in reality you could very easily take a bullet for your belief.

For instance in a State that is constitutional carry I could ride around with my sweet Lucy in the passenger seat next to me perfectly legal like.

I could get stopped because I have a brake light out or get directed in traffic to a sobriety check point.

With Lucy beside me I had better not sneeze in either scenario or I could be eating bullets and my kids would be fatherless.

Would my death be allowed in their books?

Maybe they walk scott free as an accidental shooting by a LEO. It happens. Best case my family wins a few bucks but either way I'm dead and can not teach my children the things they need to learn into adulthood.

You are gambling that your assertions that have been fought in court are correct when there is plenty of evidence that they are not. Just look at all of those that have argued what you are claiming in a court.

Most lose their property and many lose their "paper" rights altogether for a period of time. My rights come not from a piece of paper or any law of man's.

So arguing man's law with the robed devils is futile. I go ahead and render unto Caesar what is his.

It is just paper after all. Any time I can avoid anything to do with Caesar I do so. I am against advocating in nearly every way trying to fight the system from within it.

The battle is in escaping the system altogether and many many people are getting to the point they desire to do so.

I apologize for not responding to your 29 August post until now. Sorry. I was busy attempting to have a point by point discussion with JS in this very thread under your original post.

➽ You personally know someone incarcerated for trying to do exactly what your videos indicate as "unlawful"

Not my videos. Dave Champion's videos. So you and I are having a communication error. What are you referring to as unlawful?

I personally met Larken Rose. He was incarcerated for asking questions of the IRS. His line of inquiry was the written words of section 861. He could have done better in his defense. By standing on what the law says...

And what the law says is what the coward JS has refused to look at.

➽ You personally know people that have lost their personal property via State seizure for attempting what you believe to be truth.

I didn't know then what I know now. The IRS reached in and illegally coerced the bank to give them $2,000.

Your using my words "Admit or deny?" is actually disingenuous to whatever point you wish to present. <shrug>

➽ You may not believe you are required to follow a "law" that is not in some assholes books, but in reality you could very easily take a bullet for your belief.

This compound sentence of yours makes no sense.

From your words, I get the implication that you "believe" you are required to obey laws that don't exist. Have I correctly decoded your implied point?

➽ in reality you could very easily take a bullet for your belief.

"Belief" is the wrong word. You are correct: I could very easily take a bullet for my proper conclusion from reading the law.

Why did you conclude it was important for you to point this out to me?

Do you work in mainstream (lamestream) news media?

➽ Best case scenario here you are correct but the State keeps you in court until you are made poorer via the exercise.

Poorer how?

Dear prosecutor,

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Admit or deny.

26 CFR 601.602 states:
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.
(a) Tax return forms and instructions. The Internal Revenue Service develops forms and instructions that explain the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. The Service distributes the forms and instructions to help taxpayers comply with the law. The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.
(b) Other forms and instructions. In addition to tax return forms, the Internal Revenue Service furnishes the public copies of other forms and instructions developed for use in complying with the laws and regulations. These forms and instructions lead the taxpayer step-by-step through data needed to accurately report information required by law.
Admit or deny?

The IRS develops instructions that explain the requirements of the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions are to help the taxpayer comply with the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions lead the taxpayer "step-by-step" through the data needed to accurately report information required by the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The Form 1040 instructions state:
Foreign-Source Income
You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You also must report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources outside the United States.
Admit or deny?

These words are in the step-by-step instructions, usually just above the instructions for line 7 on the form.
Admit or deny?

This is an instruction regarding what is required to be reported on the 1040.
Admit or deny?

The IRS be remiss (negligent) if such instructions omit telling you to supply data that the law requires?
Admit or deny?

These are the words of the Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886):
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Admit or deny?

Law must specify who and what it applies to.
Admit or deny?

If the law doesn't specify that it applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that the law applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that you are required to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States, then you do not have to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States.
Admit or deny?

Dale Eastman awww how cute. Dave can sell his bullshit book elsewhere and most rational folks will find your "admit or deny" script as annoying as I do and stop reading any point you are trying to make regardless of its possible validity. Are you sure you're not a bot? No one else that read three sentences of what you have written is.

What is your purpose in replying to my post(s)?

Dale Eastman what is your point in commenting on my post?

You original post was about tax, taxing, taxes, & taxation. My point, after spending years reading the income tax laws, is that the IRS has done an excellent job of brainwashing folks that if they earn a living they owe some of the money earned to the IRS.

This scam, this lie, by the IRS is provably false.

I've answered your question. Now how about you answer mine:
What is your purpose in replying to my post(s)?