Chris Morris / Draccus v. Dale Eastman
|
Oddball2
said:
Just Cite the law that
says I am Liable
|
PMaffia
said:
USC26, no if, ands or
buts.
Believing or claiming
otherwise merely indicates you are either an moron or
crazy or both. Take your
pick.
|
Oddball2
said:
Cite the section please,
if you can.
|
Chris Morris
said:
Here is what you
do, you send a letter to the IRS tell them you will
not be paying income tax from this point forward since you do not feel
you are liable for such taxes. Then wait outside your house I am sure
the Federal Marshals will be long not too long afterwards to pick you
up. |
Please note
that Chris Morris has not cited the law.
Please note that Chris Morris has issued the typical statist
threat: Bad things are going to happen to you.
Please note that these bad things are going to happen to you because
you didn't follow a law Chris Morris can't cite.
|
|
Dale Eastman
(me) said:
Do you mean letters like this one: synapticsparks.info/admit_or_deny
Feel free to publicly admit or deny the statements of fact, since the
IRS WON'T.
----
Typical State Worshipper. Can't or won't answer questions about the
law, but threaten violence if the person doesn't believe as you do.
Now show the man the law... IF you can.
|
|
|
Chris Morris
said:
You really are a
brain-dead little twit aren't you? This shit would not
standup in a Kangaroo Court much less Tax Court. You are a real joke
have a nice time in prison buddy. |
Please note
Chris Morris first response to the challenging of Chris Morris to admit
or
deny a list of facts is some juvenile name calling by Chris Morris.
Please note that Chris Morris has NOT addressed the 139 issues of fact
placed before him.
Please note that Chris Morris AGAIN issues threats.
|
|
Dale Eastman
said:
I said "Feel free to publicly admit or deny the statements of fact..."
synapticsparks.info/admit_or_deny
You have failed to deny any of my 139 statements of fact. Your failure
to say anything of substance on the 139 statements means you have
NOTHING to say on any of the 139 statements. Basically, you have
NOTHING to say. My statements stand UNREFUTED by you, and by the IRS.
I said "Now show the man the law... IF you can."
synapticsparks.info/evidence
You have failed to "show the man the law". That means you have nothing
to say on that issue also.
"This shit
would not standup in a Kangaroo Court much less Tax Court."
This "shit"
stood up to you. It left you ineffectually sputtering insults and
threats with nothing of substance to say about any of the topic points
presented.
BTW, Tax Court IS a Kangaroo court, so you were actually correct on
that part. The WRITTEN words of law won't stand up in a corrupt,
kangaroo tax court.
BTW, part II, Tax Court is for taxpayers. If you are in tax court, you
have already admitted to being a "taxpayer". The only issue is how
much. My going to tax court would be like you going to a russian
traffic court for speeding... It just does NOT apply, just as tax court
does not apply to "nontaxpayers".
"brain-dead
little twit"
<snicker>
You're the one ineffectually sputtering insults and threats.
|
|
|
Dale Eastman said:
You have failed to deny any of my 139 statements of fact. Your failure
to say anything of substance on the 139 statements means you have
NOTHING to say on any of the 139 statements. Basically, you have
NOTHING to say. My statements stand UNREFUTED by you, and by the IRS. |
|
Chris Morris replied:
Since there was not
even one fact there is no need to deny any of them. There are a lot
assertions and a lot bullshit, but that does not raise to the level of
facts. You lose dumb ass say hello to bubba when he is corn holing your
ass for me. |
Please enjoy the irony of
Chris Morris' unfounded assertion that the 139 statements of fact are
assertions.
|
Dale Eastman
said:
I said "Now show the man the law... IF you can."
synapticsparks.info/evidence
You have failed to "show the man the law". That means you have nothing
to say on that issue also.
|
|
Chris Morris replied:
The law has been
shown to you as has the Constitutional Amendemnt,
your denial is not my issue, but your own. |
Please note
that the consistent challenge to Chris Morris has been for him to
provide evidence of the law.
Please note that Chris Morris has failed to provide ANY evidence of the
law.
It is interesting that Chris Morris claims I am in denial when I can
and do provide evidence of the law. A whole website devoted to
doing just that. What has Chris Morris done? Threatened
people again and again, a typical IRS mindset. |
Dale Eastman said:
"This shit
would not standup in a Kangaroo Court much less Tax Court."
This "shit"
stood up to you. It left you ineffectually sputtering insults and
threats with nothing of substance to say about any of the topic points
presented.
BTW, Tax Court IS a Kangaroo court, so you were actually correct on
that part. The WRITTEN words of law won't stand up in a corrupt,
kangaroo tax court.
|
|
Chris Morris replied:
Yeah, Well feel
free to challenge it if you like, but as you and all the others before
you have tried and failed I guess I will just stand on the side of the
law and watch you be hauled off to prision. |
Please note that Chris
Morris is going to "stand on the
side of the law" that he can't cite
|
Dale Eastman said:
BTW, part II, Tax Court is for taxpayers. If you are in tax court, you
have already admitted to being a "taxpayer". The only issue is how
much. My going to tax court would be like you going to a russian
traffic court for speeding... It just does NOT apply, just as tax court
does not apply to "nontaxpayers".
|
|
Chris Morris replied:
You just work with
that rational there Bud, isn't time for your medication and shock
therapy? |
And this insult is a
citation of exactly which law that creates liability?
|
Dale Eastman said:
"brain-dead
little twit"
<snicker>
You're the one ineffectually sputtering insults and threats.
|
|
Chris Morris replied:
Son, telling you
the consequnces of breaking the law is not a threat
and calling you a brain dead twit is stating the obviouse. |
"Son, telling you
the consequnces SIC of breaking the
law..."
Uh, daddy, is that the law you can't show to that mean man who's
laughing at you?
calling you a brain
dead twit is stating the obviouse.
SIC
<snicker> |
|
Chris Morris said:
Since there was not
even one fact there is no need to deny any of them. There are a lot
assertions and a lot bullshit, but that does not raise to the level of
facts. You lose dumb ass say hello to bubba when he is corn holing your
ass for me. |
|
Dale Eastman replied:
Chris Morris thinks you are stupid.
Chris Morris thinks you won't look at the "facts" presented in the link.
As a boiler room IRS disinformation agent, it's Chris Morris' job to
keep you from clicking the link to my 139 statements of fact.
If you click the link, you will see the citations SUPPORTING those 139
statements of fact.
Chris Morris thinks you will buy his BS that his naked assertions carry
more weight than my citations of the written words of the law and the
Supreme Court.
Chris Morris has just admitted publicly to the entire world that he
wants to corn hole me.
|
|
Chris Morris
said:
The law has been
shown to you as has the Constitutional Amendemnt,
your denial is not my issue, but your own. |
|
Dale Eastman replied:
Please note that the consistent challenge to Chris Morris has been for
him to provide evidence of the law.
Please note that Chris Morris has failed to provide ANY evidence of the
law.
It is interesting that Chris Morris claims I am in denial when I can
and do provide evidence of the law. A whole website devoted to
doing just that. What has Chris Morris done? Threatened
people again and again, a typical IRS mindset.
|
|
Chris Morris said:
Yeah, Well feel
free to challenge it if you like, but as you and all the others before
you have tried and failed I guess I will just stand on the side of the
law and watch you be hauled off to prision.
|
|
Dale Eastman replied:
Challenge what? Oh. Challenge "it".
What is "it"?
That which others have tried and failed.
What have others tried and failed?
To challenge "it".
Please note that Chris Morris is going to "stand on the side of the
law" the he can't cite.
|
|
Chris Morris said:
You just work with
that rational there Bud, isn't time for your medication and shock
therapy? |
|
Dale Eastman replied:
Chris Morris has an intense need to reply, to say something, even if it
makes no sense.
And of course, the typical IRS drone insult.
|
|
Chris Morris said:
Son, telling you
the consequnces of breaking the law is not a threat
and calling you a brain dead twit is stating the obviouse. |
"Son, telling you
the consequnces SIC of breaking the
law..."
calling you a brain
dead twit is stating the obviouse.
SIC
|
Dale Eastman replied:
"Son,
telling you the >>>consequnces<<<
SIC of
breaking the law..."
Uh, daddy, is that the law you can't show to that mean man who's
laughing at you?
"calling
you a brain dead twit is stating the >>>obviouse<<<."
SIC
<snicker>
Thank you Mr. Morris for showing me in such an entertaining manner that
I may now ignore you.
www.synapticsparks.info/them/chrismorris
|
|
|
Click@Knicklas.com
puts two cents worth into the discussion:
Why not PROVE what an
authority on non-payment of required federal income tax you are and
SHOW US some verification in the form of a letter YOU send to the IRS
telling them YOU WILL NOT PAY TAXES and list your reasons?
|
Dale
Eastman replied to ClickKnicklas:
What an interesting opening gambit.
My "authority" is the WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW itself.
My "authority" is the failure of the IRS to live up to its mission
statement, which says, and I quote:
“IRS Mission: Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by
helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by
applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.”
My "authority" is the IRS' DELIBERATE FAILURE to answer specific
questions about the tax law.
Please feel free to visit my web site if you really want to see the
letters I have sent to the IRS.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/admit_or_deny
http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence
|
At the time of my reply to the
following post, I did not catch the fact that Chris [L] Morris
<Draccus@adelphia.net>
is also "Draccus" <clm874@aol.com>
|
Chris Morris
as Draccus said:
Well, then Dale you
can show
how you have not paid any taxes because they are wrong and you are
right, but I suspect you pay your taxes and file your return every year
before April 15th. You would not have the balls to take a chnace at
ending up in Prision for tax evasion, but hey prove us all wrong there
spud. |
|
|
Chris Morris
as Draccus said:
1. Well, then Dale
you can show how you have not paid any taxes because they are wrong and
you are right,
2. but I suspect you pay your taxes and file your return every year
before April 15th.
3. You would not have the balls to take a chnace at ending up in
Prision for tax evasion, but hey prove us all wrong there spud.
|
Please note
that I have numbered the statements in order to reply to them.
|
Dale Eastman Replied:
1. You hope to make an issue of my actions. You hope to somehow imply
that I am wrong. I now ask you, Exactly how many hours have you
spent reading Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations
thereunder?
2. Your "suspicions" don't mean jack. Whether I do, or I
don't, will not change what the WRITTEN WORDS of law say. I ask
you again: Exactly how many hours have you spent reading Title 26 of
the United States Code and the regulations thereunder?
3. If you had bothered to read the linked page: synapticsparks.info/admit_or_deny
you would know what I have challenged the IRS on. You would also
know that the IRS does "not have the balls to " to actually address
questions on what the law says, because of what the law DOES say.
If you had bothered to read the linked page, you would know what
certain laws do say. If you had bothered to read the linked page,
you would know that 26 USC 7201 & 7203 do NOT and never did apply
to me.
|
Please note that Chris
Morris fails to address the points I make in regard to his spew.
|
|
Chris Morris
as Draccus said:
This is why I have
both an accountant and a lawyer there Sparky so I do not have to read
the tax laws and so I make sure I am in complience with them and gain
the full benefits thereof, but I have spent many hours reading up on
Constitutional Law as it is one of the things that interests me a great
deal. Guess what Sparky the Constitution allows the Income tax via an
Amendment there to, funny how you missed that huh Sparky. |
|
|
Chris Morris
as Draccus said:
4. This is why I
have both an accountant and a lawyer there Sparky
5. so I do not have to read the tax laws
6. and so I make sure I am in complience with them
7. and gain the full benefits thereof, but
8. I have spent many hours reading up on Constitutional Law as it is
one of the things that interests me a great deal.
Guess what Sparky
9. the Constitution allows the Income tax via an Amendment there to,
funny how you missed that huh Sparky.
|
Please note
that I have numbered the statements in order to reply to them. |
Dale Eastman Replied:
4a. Objection your honor. Accountants and/or lawyers speaking of
what the law requires is Hearsay evidence of what the law requires.
4b. Objection your honor. Accountants and/or lawyers speaking of
what the law requires violates the best evidence rules that a bona fide
copy of the written words of the law provides.
4c. How do you know whether your accountant or lawyer is
4c1. Telling the truth;
4c2. Telling a lie; or
4c3 flat out ignorant of the written words of law. (Are they gods
you worship with great faith, faith being belief without proof?)
5. If you do not read the tax laws, the same questions arise as asked
in 4c. above.
6. Please explain how you "make sure" you are "in complience" with laws
you have NEVER read?
8. Since you "have spent many hours reading up on Constitutional Law",
you will be a welcome change and challenge from the idiot accounts and
lawyers I have debated with in the past. I thank you for the time
you have already spent, and I thank you in advance for the time you
will spend on this debate.
9. Since "the Constitution allows the Income tax via an Amendment
there to", I yield the honor of posting the words of that amendment to
you.
|
Please note that Chris
Morris fails to address the points I make in regard to his spew with
the exception of his posting of the 16th Amendment. |
|
Mr. Morris replied to the above with
two different 'points' in two separate posts. I have merged them
as one post in reply to the above.
|
Chris Morris
as Chris Morris said:
Dale, everyone is
entitled to be a fool, but you are abusing the privilege. You talk a
great game, but you do not have the balls to actually take the action
which makes you less than a worthless fuck.
Chris Morris as Chris Morris also said:
Try reading the
16th Amendment and just to help you out I will even show it to you in
the exact words being as I keep a copy of the Constitution on my desk.
So, what part of this do you not believe applies to you?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
|
Remember, dear
readers, Mr. Morris was challenged to produce the law (statute) that
creates liability for the federal income tax.
Do you see ANY citation of liability creating statutes?
|
|
Chris Morris
as Chris Morris said:
Dale, everyone is
entitled to be a fool, but you are abusing the privilege. You talk a
great game, but you do not have the balls to actually take the action
which makes you less than a worthless fuck.
|
|
I'm still waiting for you
to show the statute creating the liability for the income tax.
|
|
Chris Morris as Chris
Morris also said:
Try reading the
16th Amendment and just to help you out I will even show it to you in
the exact words being as I keep a copy of the Constitution on my desk.
[10] So, what part of this do you not believe applies to you?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on [11] incomes,
from
whatever [12]source derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
|
[11] Present the
definition of "INCOME" as used in the 16th Amendment, and be prepared
to support your statement.
[12] Present the definition of "SOURCES" as used in the 16th Amendment,
and be prepared to support your statement.
[9] Your previous statement: "the
Constitution allows the Income tax via an Amendment there to,"
is wrong. Support and proof of the assertion will be presented
upon demand AFTER you begin to address points [11] & [12].
|
|
|
[4a] Objection
your honor. Accountants and/or lawyers speaking of
what the law requires is Hearsay evidence of what the law requires.
Chris Morris
as Chris Morris said:
[4a] Actually under Hearsay
rules the opionions of both Accountants and Attorneys is valid as they
are recognized experts in the fields of tax law. If you are going to
use terms of a court you should learn what they mean in context first.
[4a]
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 28 - APPENDIX
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of
an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient
facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles
and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case.
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 28 - APPENDIX
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
Rule 607. Who May Impeach
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including
the party calling the witness.
I call your expert witnesses, the accountants and lawyers back to the
stand to cross examine them on their knowledge with the intent of
impeaching them and their testimony.
And as anybody reading the other threads where I attempt to dialog with
said accountants and lawyers can see, I get called names instead of
truthful answers to my cross examining questions.
|
|
[4b] Objection your honor.
Accountants and/or lawyers speaking of what
the law requires violates the best evidence rules that a bona fide copy
of the written words of the law provides.
[4b] But it does not as they
are in fact professionals charged with knowing and helping their
clients to traverse the laws and make sure they are in complience with
them and not breaking them.
[4b1] Let us look at the obverse of your statement. Are you
implying that a copy of the WRITTEN words of law are NOT the best
evidence of the law?
To be fair, I suggest you read a little further and then come back to
answer that question.
[4b2] How many times have you heard; "Ignorance of the law is no
excuse"?
You still have not wrapped your mind around the fact that your
"experts" just might be wrong.
If your "expert" lies to you by malice, omission, or plain ignorance,
YOU are not qualified to determine their error, since you have NOT
examined the WRITTEN words of the law in question.
If your "expert" lies to you by malice, omission, or plain ignorance,
YOU are the one liable to penalty for their error, because YOUR
ignorance is no excuse.
There was an episode of Bill Cosby where his teen son was saying he was
going to be a great business man without learning math. As
Cosby's character pointed out, 'You're going to be a broke business
man.'
Let me spell it out, if the boy can't understand math, he will never
figure out what his books tell him. He will be robbed blind.
[4b3] The "Void for Vagueness" doctrine removes your
professionals as being of any importance.
CONNALLY v. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)
That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be
sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what
conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a
well- recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of
fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either
forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as
to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to
conjecture. The citizen cannot be held to answer charges based upon
penal statutes whose mandates are so uncertain that they will
reasonably admit of different constructions. A criminal statute cannot
rest upon an uncertain foundation. The crime, and the elements
constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person
can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him
to pursue. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and
providing a punishment for their violation, should not admit of such a
double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of its
requirements and the courts upon another.'
Void For Vagueness
Doctrine
A doctrine derived from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal
laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average
person to comprehend.
If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are
regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be
imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed
unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one
may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as
to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the
government commands or forbids.
The void for vagueness doctrine advances four underlying policies.
First, the doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish
conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the Due
Process Clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their
legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When
individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute,
the law becomes a standardless trap for the unwary.
...
Cite:
http://www.answers.com/
topic/void-for-vagueness-doctrine
|
|
[5] If you do not read the
tax laws, the same questions arise as asked in 4c. above.
[5] While I can and have read
tax law I am not expert in them, but they are thus why I hired them.
[6] Please explain how you "make sure" you are "in complience" with
laws you have NEVER read?
[6] I have read them, but I am
not an expert in them that is why I have professionals who are experts.
My statements in [4b2] above apply in response to your points [5] &
[6] commentary.
|
|
Dale, everyone is entitled to
be a fool, but you are abusing the privilege. You talk a great game,
but you do not have the balls to actually take the action which makes
you less than a worthless fuck.
I'm still waiting for you to show the statute creating the liability.
As you have been
shown the statues repeatedly I will not repeat the work of others that
you will ignore.
Your admission that you can NOT supply the law is noted.
Even if I "have been shown the statutes repeatedly" you have NOT proven
they exist in this thread where you and I have engaged. THAT is
what is going in the newsgroup archives; THAT is what is going on my
web site. THAT is what every reader of this exchange is going to see:
Chris Morris, a.k.a. Draccus can't show a law that creates liability.
|
|
The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes on [11] incomes, from whatever [12]source derived,
without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to
any census or enumeration.
[11] Present the definition of "INCOME" as used in the 16th
Amendment, and be prepared to support your statement.
[11] Since all these matters
are actually spelled out in the statues which many others have already
supplied you with I will not bother with repeating it again.
[11] Again, your failure to provide proof is what is going on my web
site. The novice to the topic is going to read this dialog and
clearly see you run away from proving the point you assert: that such a
liability statute exists.
|
|
[9] Your previous
statement: "the Constitution allows the Income tax via an Amendment
there to," is wrong. Support and proof of the assertion will be
presented upon demand AFTER you begin to address points [11] & [12].
[9a] Aww this is of
course your poorly stated opionin and based not in the law but in your
own fantasies.
[9b] If you feel it
is not constitutional your remedy is clear you file suit in Federal
Court and pursue it to the USSC who is the final word on the
Consititutionality of the law.
[9c] As of this
date the Courts have found all argumenets to be without merit.
|
|
[9a] Suit yourself.
[9a1] It is clear on the face of
this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes
in a generic sense, -an authority
already possessed and never
questioned, ...
Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the
decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in
that case was based, there is no
escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose
of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock
Case was decided; ...
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
[9a2] But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition,
intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the
previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, ...
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
[9b] The best you can do is to attempt to put words in my mouth so that
you can knock down a straw man of your making?
[9c] That statement is appropriately without meaning. Do you even know
what you are referring to?
|
|
|
Mr. Morris chose to ignore the above
post. He then started posting in other named opponent
threads. I re-iterated in the root post that I am NOT going to
engage anybody in a named opponent thread who is not THAT named
opponent. Mr. Morris chose to engage that general
statement. His engagement of my general statement is the very
next thing below, followed by his last statement that he actually
posted in HIS named opponent thread.
|
I
will be splitting this thread, and naming each thread with the name
of each opponent. I will be ignoring anything posted by anybody
else
other than the named opponent in that named opponent's thread.
No Dale we all just are
not going to allow you to dictate the rules of
debate, thought it would be nice if this battle of wits was not with
someone who is so woefully unarmed as yourself.
Ah, yes... The rules of debate.
I have personally challenged you in debate to show the law that makes a
Citizen "liable" for the income tax SEVEN TIMES after you ignored the
same challenge by the original poster to produce the "liability"
statute.
I suggest it is you who is unarmed since you can't or won't cite the
statute (challenge number [8]) that says Oddball2 is liable.
Oddball2
said:
"Just Cite the law that
says I am Liable" and "Cite
the section please,
if you can."
[1] I said:
"Now show the man the law... IF you can."
[2] I said:
"I said "Now show the man the law... IF you can.""
[3] And I said:
"
You have failed to "show the man the law". That means you have nothing
to say on that issue also."
[4] I said:
"Please note that the consistent challenge to Chris Morris has been for
him to provide evidence of the law." (Making one "liable".)
[5] And I said:
"Please note that Chris Morris has failed to provide ANY evidence of
the
law."
[6] And I said:
"
Please note that Chris Morris is going to "stand on the side of the
law" that he can't cite."
[7] I said:
"I'm still waiting for you
to show the statute creating the liability for the income tax."
Let the record show that Chris Morris has failed to address the
numbered points by number.
Dale let the record show
you are a fucking loon.
I'm still waiting for you to show the statute creating the liability
for the income tax. (Challenge number [9].)
|
I
have personally challenged you in debate to show the law that makes a
Citizen "liable" for the income tax SEVEN TIMES after you ignored the
same challenge by the original poster to produce the "liability"
statute.
Dale you have been
provided this information more than once and you choose to ignore that
fact and keep going on with your mindless rant.
|
The
issue is YOUR FAILURE to provide the "liability" statute.
You were challenged by the original poster to produce the "liability"
statute.
You were challenged by me to produce the "liability" statute.
Your failure to produce the "liability" statute means you can't.
No amount of your innuendo implying that "somewhere", "sometime"
"somebody" showed me the "liability" statute will cover for YOUR
FAILURE to produce said statute on demand.
No amount of your innuendo implying that "somewhere", "sometime"
"somebody" showed me the "liability" statute will change your "can't"
into "won't."
The reason you "won't" produce the "liability" statute is because YOU
"CAN'T".
Dear Readers,
Can you imagine getting this type of answer from an IRS agent?
IRS Agent:
Our records show you haven't paid the taxes you are liable for.
NONtaxpayer:
Produce the "liability" statute and prove I am "liable" for this tax.
IRS Agent:
I won't.
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral
duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior
by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the
taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the
government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel
You are a "defacto" IRS agent, since you are parroting the party
line. Therefore, you have a duty to speak... Or withdraw from the
field.
Until you produce the "liability" statute, you have nothing to say to
me.
|
|
|