Paul Maffia v. Dale E.
|
I
created the above linked
[this] page to attempt to give equal opportunity to my opponents.
I hope that Mr. Maffia will engage in a meaningful manner, unlike his
past, and typical, resort to calling names in lieu of factual debate.
In response to the Week 10 posting of The Weekly Dale E, Mr. Maffia
posted what follows.
Poor, moronic Dale. He
chooses to ignore the fact that in the Cheek case the Supreme Court said, in so
many words and far more delicately, that anyone who believes that
compensation for labor is not income subject to the income tax is crazy.
Mr. Maffia, Please quote the exact words from the Cheek case that you
are referring to.
|
Dale, I can only engage in someone
in a meaningful, factual debate if the second party, you, presented any
rational factual data to debate about.
Just to make it real easy
for a moron like you, I will acknowledge your greater wisdom (?) if you
can name even one person who has ever won in any court using any of
your moronic arguments. And by a win I don't mean escaping conviction
on a criminal charge. I mean the Court rendering a decision of no taxes
owed because the arguments made by one of your fellow morons was
conclusive in proving they owed no tax.
You have thousands of
cases since 1913 (hell since 1862) among which to find that one
win. Good luck on your fruitless quest, boob.
On the Cheek case, I
paraphrased the Court accurately, so look it up yourself if you
want the exact wording. It is accessible on the web or your local
library. In the end, he did go to jail just like your hero Barken
Larken and his wife Tessa, Dr. Tim, Big Al Thompson, Irwin Shieff,
etc.,etc., etc., et al.
|
Comments
like "a moron like you"
and "one of your fellow morons"
shows that Mr. Maffia doesn't do anything in good faith.
Maffia:
"He [Mr. Eastman] chooses
to ignore the fact that in the Cheek case the Supreme Court said, in so
many words... "
Eastman:
"Please quote the exact words from the Cheek case that you
are referring to."
Maffia:
"On the Cheek case, I
paraphrased the Court accurately..."
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. Mr.
Maffia, you are wrong.
As for Mr. Maffia's comment: "On
the Cheek case, I paraphrased the Court accurately, so look it up
yourself if you want the exact wording";
I have near half
the text of the Cheek case decision already quoted on my web
site.
I challenged Mr. Maffia on his Cheek case comments because I have
read the text of the case. There are certain specific points the
Cheek
case made that Mr. Maffia and the rest of the Legal Plunderers will
ignore or dance away from because it highlights the criminal action of
the USDOJ
and the USIRS.
Mr. Maffia dances at the event of my focussing on the Cheek case
so there will be no debate because Mr. Maffia is a coward.
I may now return to ignoring Mr. Maffia as the lying idiot he is.
|
Wait folks. There was an
inkling of proper topic discussion in this post. I'll give him another
chance to dialog civilly.
Eastman:
Comments like "a moron like you" and "one of your fellow morons" shows
that Mr. Maffia doesn't do anything in good faith.
Maffia:
Actually, Dale, it shows that I don't suffer fools like you. How else
can anyone describe your mental abilities so accuratelly
stated by the Court in Cheek, a person of less than normal mental competance.
Eastman:
I think I'll call it "Silent Red"... My answer to people like Mr.
Maffia calling me a moron.
(To appreciate "Silent Red", one needs to read this post on my web page
with color added.)
http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/pmaffia.html
|
Eastman:
An assertion without
proof may be refuted without proof. Mr. Maffia, you are
wrong.
Maffia:
Capt. Banjo quoted the relavent
language used by the Court in Cheek,sincehe knew
you would ignore the challange I
laid down to look it up.
Eastman:
Now what capt banjo wrote in another thread isn't in this one where I'm
having a debate with you, Is It?
Maffia:
Since you lie by ignoring the language of the Court, I have repeated
the language in another post.
Repeating the language in another post isn't posting it here in this
thread where I'm having a debate with you, Is It?
|
Eastman:
As for Mr. Maffia's
comment: "On the Cheek case, I paraphrased the Court accurately, so
look it up yourself if you want the exact wording" I have near
half the text of the Cheek case decision already quoted on my web site.
Maffia:
Obviously not the
part where the Court states that only aperson with
less than normal mental competance wopuld make the assertion you do about
compensation for labor.
Except that it's not the court making that statement.
QUOTE: "JUSTICE BLACKMUN,
with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting." made that statement.
You didn't do your homework. You copied your answers off of banjo's
homework. Banjo didn't get that one right. Neither did you.
|
Eastman:
I challenged Mr.
Maffia on his Cheek case comments because I have read the text of the
case. There are certain specific points the Cheek case made that
Mr. Maffia and the rest of the Legal Plunderers will ignore or dance
away from because it highlights the criminal action of the USDOJ and
the USIRS.
Maffia:
Like what Dale? The
fact that the court found that the trial judge and the Appellate Court
erred in not allowing Cheek to make his "less than menatally competant" argument in an attemnpt to
prove he did not have the intent to break the law. Or the fact that
because of that error the Court remanded the case back to the original
Court to be retried. Or that at his retrial, Cheek was tried and
convicted.
Eastman:
Since you are copying banjo's homework, it is only fitting that having
opened the door to discussion of Cheek, you answer these questions.
[1] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"1. A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief
that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not
the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.
Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from
prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax
laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , is the voluntary,
intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio,
429 U.S. 10 .
Characterizing a belief as objectively unreasonable transforms what is
normally a factual inquiry into a legal one, thus preventing a jury
from considering it. And forbidding a jury to consider evidence that
might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth
Amendment's jury trial provision..."
[2] Admit or deny that "Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
[3] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"Title 26, 7201 of the United States Code provides that any person "who
willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by
this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under
26 U.S.C. 7203, "[a]ny person required under this title . . . or by
regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who
willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor. [498 U.S. 192, 194] This case turns on the
meaning of the word "willfully" as used in 7201 and 7203."
[3a] Admit or deny that the court is examining sections 7201 &
7203.
[3b] Admit or deny that both statutes refer to "any PERSON".
[3c] Admit or deny if one is not the PERSON to which the statute
applies, then the penalties of 7201 & 7203 do not apply.
[4] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury
that, to prove "willfulness," the Government must prove the voluntary
and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could
not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence. The court
further advised the jury that an objectively reasonable good-faith
misunderstanding of the law would negate willfulness, but mere
disagreement with the law would not."
[5] Admit or deny that "Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
[6] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no
defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal
system. ... Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable,
the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common law
rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing
criminal statutes."
[6a] Admit or deny that there is a "notion that the law is
definite and knowable".
[6b] Admit or deny that any law that is not "definite and
knowable" is "void for vagueness".
[7] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the
standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the "voluntary,
intentional violation of a known legal duty.""
[8] Admit or deny that "Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
[9] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax
cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on
the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he
voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty."
[10] Admit or deny that if there is no duty, there can NOT ever be
a willful failure to do such non-existent duty.
|
Eastman:
Mr. Maffia dances at
the event of my focussing on the Cheek case so there will be no debate
because Mr. Maffia is a coward.
Maffia:
Moron, you have completed
ignored the Cheek case in this public forum and you say I am the Coward.
Aren't you the
moron who specifically stated, when you started your moronic weekly
idiocy that you would not debate anyone here?
Your failure to read and comprehend is exposed yet again. Here
are the exact words to which you are referring:
"Because the cockroaches attempt
to drown out my voice, attack me personally in an attempt to make the
novice reader dismiss my words, or threaten the reader with ‘the
government will do bad things to you if you pay attention to Dale E, I
will not be directly responding to any posts in reply to any Weekly
Dale E's."
In other words, I will NOT reply to any post in that thread, that is in
that thread.
I am very aware of the dishonest debate and discussion techniques the
lot of you attempt to use to shut me up and drown out the truth.
I will engage ANY one of you... One on one, point by point. That
is why I started so many subthreads naming each of you (opponents of
mine) in the subject line.
If this were a playground fist fight, It would be 10 of you punching me
at the same time. It's not. And if it was, I would find each one
of you alone, and have that fist fight, one on one. So you tell
me who's the coward... The Ten, or The One?
By the way, you
improperly title your weekly blurb. It should be, "WEAKLY Dale E."
What a dolt!
Thank you for showing your true character, Mr. Maffia.
Please... Call me moron a few more times.
I'm sure that will get your point across to the lurking reader of this
news group, or the casual reader visiting my web site.
|
|
The debt of your
stupidity knows no bounds.
|
Except that it's not the
court making that statement.
QUOTE: "JUSTICE BLACKMUN,
with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting." made that statement.
Well, you moron,
(aside from the fact that the Majority stated opinion is that, in my
words, anyone who believes that wages and salary are not taxable income
are crazy) when they dissented they were not saying Cheek was right.
They are in fact saying his conviction should have been upheld by the
Court.
That is the problem
with the fact that your reading ability did not progress appreaciably
beyond the first grade level.
You prefer to quote
out of context snippets that appear to support your posion which is that of a a less than that
of a normally mentally competent person.
I am so sorry Mr. Maffia. Your name calling reflects upon you,
not upon me. Of your 103 words attacking me, only 2 might have
been worth discussing. But since you don't really want to
discuss, I'm ignoring those 2 words just like the your other 101 words
of self representation.
|
> they decented from
the Court's position
Tha's right
Dale, their dissent was that Cheek was properly convicted and
not entitled to a
new trial.
When I first read: "they decented from
the Court's position", I thought to myself, I don't think I
misspelled dissented, but I have been known to phonetically spell a
word incorrectly when I was concentrating upon a topic or point.
So I went looking in the previous post to see where "decented" was
located. Lo and behold, such a word was NOT posted by me, does not show
up in the previous post, yet here it is, attributed to me by its
location to the right of a single ">" symbol denoting a quotation
from the previous post.
I can only conclude that "Silent Red" is bothering my adversary. Why
else would he falsely attribute such a noticeable misspelling to me?
|
[1] Admit or deny the
following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"1. A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief
that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not
the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable."
Which I referred to
in my challenge to you, moron
Your admission by implicit reference that: "1. A good-faith
misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief
that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not
the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable" is
accepted. Thank you.
Therefore, you admit by construction, that "a good-faith belief" (in
your words, "anyone who
believes that wages and salary are not taxable income are crazy")
"negates willfulness."
|
Statutory willfulness,
which protects the average citizen from
prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax
laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , is the voluntary,
intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio,
429 U.S. 10 .
The statement does
not say that Cheek's claim that salaries and wages are not taxable is
correct.
The statement DOES say, "
Statutory willfulness ... is the voluntary,
intentional violation of a known legal duty."
Key words: "KNOWN LEGAL DUTY".
|
Characterizing a belief as
objectively unreasonable transforms what is
normally a factual inquiry into a legal one, thus preventing a jury
from considering it. And forbidding a jury to consider evidence that
might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth
Amendment's jury trial provision..."
Which does not
address the question of the factualness of his and your moronic belief.
It only says that he, as a defendent, has the right to try to convince
a jury that he really belienes what is, in fact, an absurd position.
You will get your chance to "question
of the factualness of" my belief. That's if I can keep you
focussed on MY belief, and not focussed on YOUR belief about MY belief.
Your focus upon "moronic beliefs"
and "absurd positions"
is an interesting way to delay addressing the points that so far, you
have refused to address. You, like the 'government', ignore those
points.
|
[2] Admit or deny that
"Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
So what Dale?
Obviously when given the right, at his new trial, to try to convince a
jury that he was not willfully violating the law, he failed and was
convicted and was jailed and fined as well as requiredto pay his
taxes,m plus initerest and assessed penalties for his willful disregard
of the law.
"willful disregard of the law"?????
[2] Admit or deny that "Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
[2] Admit or deny that "Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation" "of the law"
|
[3] Admit or deny the
following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"Title 26, 7201 of the United States Code provides that any person "who
willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by
this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under
26 U.S.C. 7203, "[a]ny person required under this title . . . or by
regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who
willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor. [498 U.S. 192, 194] This case turns on the
meaning of the word "willfully" as used in 7201 and 7203."
And at his retrial
he was found guilty of willfully breaking the law.
In short all your
posturing and idiotic challenges is nothing more than
a moron trying to argue soemthing he knows absolutely
nothing about,and worse,willfully unwilling to
learn anythng
about.
Your assertion does not make it so.
Dear Readers and Lurkers,
Please take notice of how Mr. Maffia refuses to address numbered
points.
Please take notice that Mr. Maffia does not want to focus on these
points in particular:
[8] Admit or deny that "Statutory willfulness ... is the
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
[9] Admit or deny the following language is to be found in Cheek
v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991):
"Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax
cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on
the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he
voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty."
[10] Admit or deny that if there is no duty, there can NOT ever be
a willful failure to do such non-existent duty.
Points [8], [9], & [10] focus on the "legal duty" and the fact that
the 'government' is required to "prove that the law imposed a duty on
the defendant".
The 'government' consistently fails to prove duty in tax cases as this
excerpt from the Simkanin trial clearly shows:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/simkanin/railroaded.html
|
|
Well, you moron, <snip>
I am so sorry Mr. Maffia. Your name calling reflects upon you,
not upon me.
Accurately
describing your lack of mental ability is not name calling. It is
accurately describing your mental ability.
<snicker>
|
When I first
read: "they decented from the Court's position", I thought to myself, I
don't think I misspelled dissented, but I have been known to
phonetically spell a word incorrectly when I was concentrating upon a
topic or point. So I went looking in the previous post to see
where "decented" was located. Lo and behold, such a word was NOT posted
by me, does not show up in the previous post, yet here it is,
attributed to me by its location to the right of a single ">" symbol
denoting a quotation from the previous post.
Right, Dale, it is alla partof the IRS plot against you. What a
dolt! Accept the simple fact, moron, you misspelled it. I didn't care
and neither should you.
<shrug> As I said, I could have misspelled the word, but I
didn't think so. So now I will REPEAT what I said just
above: "SO I WENT LOOKING IN THE PREVIOUS POST TO SEE WHERE
"DECENTED" WAS LOCATED."
You call me moron, but you are the one who needs tutoring on how to use
the google archives.
First, I will look at the header of your post. When I do, I to find
this:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
Knowing that you are using the standard newsreader that I don't use, I
know I have to open my copy of Outhouse Express to give you the proper
instructions so that you may look at the newsgroup posting headers.
After you open the newsgroup post, click File > Properties, then
click the Details Tab.
(Netscape users click View > Message Source to view the headers
after you open the post.)
When I do this with your post, I find this line:
Message-ID: <hJmdnfg1l8bblpnbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@centurytel.net>
I also find this information:
References:
<37tHh.124750$_73.119037@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<IpXHh.10462$Jl.3926@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<dfSdnSwq1fe5y23YnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@centurytel.net>
<jCFJh.9564$PL.135@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<6qadnRCtha9B_WrYnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@centurytel.net>
<jWVJh.9852$PL.6993@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<ZtydnRmIJ41aNGXYnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@centurytel.net>
<HgSMh.130449$_73.14685@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
The above listed references are all the message ID's for the messages
in the thread. The oldest message ID's are in the beginning of
the line / top of the multi lines.
Message-ID: <ZtydnRmIJ41aNGXYnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@centurytel.net> is
the message where you changed my spelling.
Message-ID: <jWVJh.9852$PL.6993@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
is the message that you replied to when you changed my spelling.
Here is what the readers need to do to see the proof:
Go to Google Groups: Advanced Search:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
On the bottom of the page is a box for entering the message ID.
Copy this message ID and paste it into the box:
ZtydnRmIJ41aNGXYnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@centurytel.net
Click the Lookup Message button.
Do a CTRL + F search for DECENTED. This will take you right to the
changed spelling.
On the top of that page, you will see a hyperlink that starts with the
characters of this message ID:
jWVJh.9852$PL.6993@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
Click that link and it will take you to the previous message (mine)
that Mr. Maffia replied to. Again, Do a CTRL + F search for
DECENTED. If I misspelled the word, the search will take you
right to the word. (It won't because I didn't post
"decented". Mr. Maffia did.)
After you do this, ask yourself why Mr. Maffia wants to argue about
this.
|
I can only
conclude that "Silent Red" is bothering my adversary. Why else would he
falsely attribute such a noticeable misspelling to me?
Moron, I didn't
attribute anything to you. When I replied, Outlook Express placed your
note, exactly as you wrote it into my note. I may well have cut out
stuff that was of no importance (a lot of your stuuff is unimportant
and meaningless) but I changed nothing, no spellings or meanings.
Google Archives say otherwise.
|
You will get
your chance to "question of the factualness of" my belief. That's if I
can keep you focussed on MY belief, and not focussed on YOUR belief
about MY belief.
Dufass, we know
what your supposed beliefs are. Those "beliefs" have been proven wrong
to you over and over again on this forum. The Courts which you like to
misqupte
or misapply what
they say, has said over and over again,in thousands of cases that your
"beliefs" are wrong. But you choose to ignore that.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. Your
assertions are wrong.
|
Your focus
upon "moronic beliefs" and "absurd positions" is an interesting way to
delay addressing the points that so far, you have refused to address.
Accurately lableing them what they are, moronic beliefs
and avbsurd
positions, is, IN
FACT, directly addressing the issues. nort avoiding them.
<snicker> Okay. If you say so.
|
You, like the
'government', ignore those points.
Since the points
are moronic and absurd, they can be ignored. But them I did not ignore them.
You claim you did not (and by implication, are not) ignoring the
points. We shall see the truth of that when I reply to certain
points you yourself have raised in your post below.
|
Yes,dale, thatis whatthe jury found at his retrial. They
convicted him of wilful violation of the law.
Admit or deny,
moron, Cheek was convicted of willfully breaking the law
at his retrial.
Everyone will note
how you avoid and deny the reality that Cheek was convicted by a jury
of his peers at his retrial for willfully
breaking the law.
I would be glad to admit that Cheek was found guilty of "willfully
breaking the law".... Just as soon as you produce the law Cheek
broke.
|
|
|
|
|