Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 19, 2022, 12:25:32 PM »

Quote from: 19 13:19
Only SLAVES think they can command their masters around.
Quote from: 19 13:20
"clear and unequivocal"

Says dictum.

Surely as someone who knows everything already, you know what dictum is.
Quote from: 19 13:25
❷ 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?

Never mind. Ignore that.

❸ What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, [---], makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 19, 2022, 12:18:02 PM »

Quote from: 19 13:02
You are a waste of my time and I will not be feeding you anymore of my energy because you're a vampire that needs it.

Good luck being a Useful Idiot. And a fake ass pretend sovereign.
Quote from: 19 13:03
Protip: only American SLAVES give a fuck about US Laws.

Good job at showing everyone how much of a SLAVE you are.

Enjoy your SLAVE mentality, arguing about SLAVE SHIT.
Quote from: 19 13:17
I'm sorry. I apologize. I did not know that English is not your native tongue.

I get the sense that you don't like using their own rules to hamstring how the Leviathan gets fed.
Or should I write, how their own rules don't impose any liability on a U.S. American's compensation for labor?

❷ 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?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 19, 2022, 11:43:22 AM »

Quote from: 19 12:39
Dale Eastman Dale Eastman State paid agent. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're not special enough for any Government to send agents your way. Especially when you're repeating the same CIA Disinformation about Taxation that they started in the 1950s that took off in the 1970s.

I will honor (something you're incapable of) your request because I have decency, respect, and a duty to the facts of existence that Pretend Sovereigns like you ignore:

Governments cannot enforce laws that don't exist; the only ones claiming that (income taxation) laws don't exist are the rabble that ignore the plethora of case law precedent that goes against their pitiful attempts at being a constitutional law scholar.

Fraudulent charlatan "natural law" philosophers are so utterly dependent on their master's acts, adjudications, and their master's system as a whole, they're completely incapable of creating their own lawful status in this world while purporting to have the ability to do so.

When you want to discuss practical solutions to perceived tyranny instead of protesting the contract you've put yourself into by your nescience, ignorance, and incompetence, I'll be more than willing to provide my perspective, perception, and EXPERIENCE with living a new paradigm of existence outside of the slave mentality everyone was born into.

Have a great day.
Quote from: 19 12:51
That was an excellent example of what I meant by shit you fling at the wall to see what sticks.

Of those 203 words, only these 7 are of interest:
➽ Governments cannot enforce laws that don't exist;

❷ 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?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 19, 2022, 10:45:09 AM »

Quote from: 19-11:44
Okay... I remember now. You and I were having a discussion awhile ago, where I ghosted you because real life got in the way.

In my now restarted discussion with you, I will be KISSing my posts, which means I will likely be ignoring all the shit you throw at the wall to see what sticks.

I do not know if your equivocation is deliberate or not. I am going to assume not deliberate, so I can assume no malice and no intent to deceive on your part.

You challenged this set of words I posted:
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) presented this fact:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

You wrote:
➽ Boyd v. United States has nothing to do with taxation;
You then later wrote:
➽ "Our books"? You had a direct hand in creating any of these laws?

How about you focus on the logic that's there, plain as day.

❶ Can any government enforce laws that don't exist?
Quote from: 19 11:55
"I will likely be ignoring all the shit you throw at the wall"

I do t expend my energy on people who already know everything.

Have a good day.
Quote from: 19 12:10
Answer the question you state paid disinfo agent.
❶ Can any government enforce laws that don't exist?
Quote from: 19 12:29
Answer the question.
❶ Can any government enforce laws that don't exist?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 19, 2022, 09:12:07 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012034181548
https://www.facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/posts/pfbid0xKHNB8otTuJH4dXskZzT3qUPPSGS51tYDnERo2kGDBXsCmK4iCp7P4CiDjXSnCv4l


Quote
Boyd v. United States has nothing to do with taxation; Spreckels v McClain is a case where the company was taxed for excise duties and they lost on appeal; Central Illinois Pub. Svc. Co. v. United States was an issue dealing with reimbursement of money for paid lunch and how it isn't wages under the IRS Code of 1954—which has no relevance since 1986; Southern Pacific Co v Lowe was a case regarding the legal status of specific funds of a corporation through the changes in the taxation system brought about by the 16th Amendment—which, again, has little to no relevance since the IRS Code 1986; ergo, to use these cases as a means to defend against the Terms of Use called "taxation" is ignoring how Case Law works in that system, and it is ignoring the evolutions of the taxation system since 1986—Dicta / dictum (what you've shared in all the cases you've pasted) is non binding and irrelevant. Dicta / dictum isn't even persuasive evidence in that system.

There's much more simple ways to prove one doesn't consent to taxation, and it doesn't involve *dependency* on someone else's adjudications or laws.
Quote
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.

Your point?

I don't think you have one, but that's merely my opinion base upon previous interactions..

To repeat "show me the law". Put up or shut up.
Quote from: 00:19
"Our books"? You had a direct hand in creating any of these laws? You had a hand in adjudication of said laws?

No—so how can you purport anything from that system is "ours" especially while you appeal to natural law and call for self-determination?

My point is what it always has been: nobody can appeal to natural law, or claim self-governance of any kind, while they're still dependent on the system that they've consented to have rule over them.
Quote from: 00:22
Thank you for your comment:
➽ My point is what it always has been: nobody can appeal to natural law, or claim self-governance of any kind, while they're still dependent on the system that they've consented to have rule over them.

Sorry, my question still stands: Your point?
Quote from: 00:26
Sorry that Fecalbook sucks. Uploaded before ready. Mea Culpa.
Are you for liberty or slavery?
Quote from: 00:30
Dale Eastman Here's some basics of the laws on Taxation:

26 U.S. Code §1(c) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1

26 U.S. Code §26(b) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/26#b

26 USC §26(b) is applicable to the entirety of the Chapter: https://www.law.cornell.edu/.../text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1

Taxpayer isn't explicitly defined because the USA goes off of tax liability, and anyone and everyone (foreign dignitaries included) that does any sort of commerce / business / trade for FRNs has a tax liability and therefore a taxpayer in their system.

Luckily for foreign dignitaries, they're only taxed on what they own within the USA and are exempt from income taxes.
Quote from: 00:33
I'm for self-determination and holistic self-control.

Liberty is permission. I don't need permission from anyone or anything to exist in whatever Status I want to exist in.
Quote from: 00:34
If your question still stands then allow me to rephrase what I've stated: Your ignorance is showing
Quote from: 00:35
As a friend pointed out, liberty has rules, freedom does not.
Quote from: 00:44
Liberty is permission: "You have the liberty of shore leave today" - Captain to sailors

Freedom doesn't exist: Throw one's self upwards and because of the bondage to natural forces in existence, they come right back down again because of the force called gravity.

The existence inside the invention / fiction called "law" is strictly agreements and contracts. If someone agrees with like minds to identify together, invent "rights" they all agree with, and make themselves a status to take upon a stance in unity then they have the natural abilities to do so, and they do not need liberty.

Nobody will be determining their own destiny, freely, without external influence, if they're too busy keeping Aristocratic ideas alive, such as rights and freedoms.
Quote from: 00:52
Nescience doesn't apply here because you're cognizant enough of how the USA judicial system works with regard to precedent; the ignorance comes from your use of the same arguments that the Sovereign-Citizens use, that "Cracking the Code" uses, wherein you attempt to claim that income taxation is fraud by trying to shift the burden of proof of your claims to the government when "he who makes the claim has the burden of proving it".

The ignorance is further fueled by (I'm pressuming nescience) not looking at the income tax as a "Terms of Use License" on property that isn't yours. Because all money in the USA is property of the USA Government via the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Central Bank—it is the epitome of logically consistent to look at income taxation as a license to use the government's property.