| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
|
011
012 013 014
015 016 017
018 019 020
I have been observing what has been posted on the Trial Logs Blogspot Haloscan comment sections by a person using the 'nym of "Perspective". For awhile, I was going through all this poster's previous posts. This person posts very little of value for all his words. This person also has posted posts that are nothing but personal attacks of myself, Most often and especially when I was ignoring this person. Okay Mr. Perspective, You have my attention. I'm recording our dialog for posterity. Take your time and error check your posts before hitting the publish button. Sloppy posts will be recorded with all the slop intact. I'll start the dialog by asking you the same question I have asked you 29 times already. In a previous blog post, you stated: "...you're under taxable privilege like it or not..." This is my Thirtieth request for you to answer a SIMPLE question regarding your statement: "...you're under taxable privilege like it or not..." This is my Thirtieth request for you to state: What privilege?
"guru dale" That would be the first (#1) ad hominem attack since you gained my attention.
"Gee I like you, it’s your beliefs that suck." Tom, he just called you stupid, but he made sure you think he likes you first. "As for Mr. Champion he plays at what makes him money, mostly his NON-TAXPAYER claim." He just called Mr. Champion a greedy fake. By innuendo and implication delivered with the equivalent of a sneer, perspective dismisses the NON-TAXPAYER point solely on persepective's implied authority as some sort of "guru". "To each his own, but to me it’s just one more so-called “tax honesty,” deal." "To each his own, but". In verbal communications, when a point is stated such as "To each his own" followed by the words "but" (or "however"), the reality is that the previous point that (so to speak) was put on the table, is immediately removed. The word "but" erases the previous words "To each his own". Therefore, perspective does NOT believe in to each his own. With the equivalent of a sneer, perspective also dismisses the the entire tax honesty movement. With the subtle innuendo of the words, "so-called", perspective has called the entire tax honesty movement a bunch of liars. "He doesn’t address the real legal issues whatsoever, but attempts to hide the dirt under the rug." This entire sentence is a naked assertion. It is naked because it has no proof or facts to back it up. Although the accusation about addressing real legal issues could be debated, there is no reason to. An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. Perspective is wrong. "Buy his package/programs—but before anyone does the buying Dave should, as the guru, TEST HIS THEORY OUT IN THE COURTS?" "Dave should, as the guru" is an ad hominem insult and attack. Perspective is letting his hate show. "TEST HIS THEORY OUT IN THE COURTS?" You mean the corrupt courts like the ones that railroaded Simkanin, Schiff, Rose, and outright ignored the interrogatories of Ken Evans? "If it passes muster you’ve got a winner—but until then I’d stay clear—but maybe he’ll give you a discount—since you’re his friend?" By that same logic, I suggest everyone stay clear of you and your assertions. "I’ve listened to Dave many times on his program—he makes a few good political points, which I agree with." The knife is in Dave's back, so I can be his friend, so long as I can twist that knife at will. "But as for helping anyone, by using the scheme of non-taxpayer, or even by using “trusts,” won’t stop the government from eventually breaking his programs down." Twist knife one-quarter turn counter-clockwise. I'm not personally aware that Mr. Champion discusses using trusts, thus this appears to be an attempt to link something that does not belong linked to Mr. Champion. Nevertheless, the entire sentence is another naked assertion. "He has a good delivery, with an over riding and suffocating ego complex however." As to "an over riding and suffocating ego complex", perspective ascribes to Mr. Champion, that which those following the Trial Logs blogspot see in perspective himself. Regardless this entire sentence is a naked assertion. "Only Irwin Schiff could surpass Dave’s inflated ego." Ad hominem attack and another naked assertion. Twist that knife clockwise to its original position. "I’m sure he means well however, and believes himself to be correct in his positions." "I’m sure he means well however". In verbal communications, when a point is stated such as "I’m sure he means well" followed by the words "however" (or "but"), the reality is that the previous point that (so to speak) was put on the table, is immediately removed. The word "however" erases the previous words "I’m sure he means well". Therefore, perspective does NOT believe Mr. Champion means well. "After all he’s study law for over 10 years now—that qualifies him to instruct the courts how wrong they are." Innuendo and implication: Mr. Champion has "only" studied the law for 10 years, therefore Mr. Champion is stupid.... No where near as smart as perspective. "No thanks, as I’ve said many times I’m done with patriot gurus with their snake oil." Another batch of sneering ad hominem insult.
Dear Readers, Please note perspective's failure to answer a simple question. And no I'm not kidding, I have asked that question of perspective 30 (Three Zero) times. "Somethings need repeating. Guru" Ad hominem #2. Perspective won't answer a simple question, but throws names. "Dale: My best advice: Is for you to get out of the “psychologist or legal” amateur advice business." You make the naked assertion that I'm in "the “psychologist or legal” amateur advice business". I'm not in "the “psychologist or legal” amateur advice business", so that assertion makes you a liar. Your advice, best or not, is your opinion. And your opinion has no more stature or standing than your reputation. So you have wasted 18 words to say nothing while stating a lie. "You’re just perpetuating the same off point positions that keep getting people hurt." This entire sentence is a naked assertion. So, to help you back up your naked assertion so as to not get caught stating a lie again, I'm asking you these questions: Q1. Please state exactly what position you claim I am perpetuating that keeps "getting people hurt"? Q2. Please state exactly how the answer to Q1, (the position you claim I am perpetuating) gets "people hurt"? "You frankly are stuck in a RUT and cannot see the forest for the trees." This entire sentence is a naked assertion. Besides being a naked assertion, the assertion itself is metaphor that appears to have meaning only to you. "Don’t believe me" I don't. You have lied twice already in 53 words "Don’t believe me I don’t mind, but when the gavel comes down the court will say: Dale Eastman: FRIVOLOUS!!" This entire sentence is a naked assertion. This entire sentence is also an Argumentum ad Baculum.
Entire post is an ad hominem (#3). Entire post is devoid of substance. Dear Readers, Please note perspective's failure to answer a simple question. And no I'm not kidding, I have asked that question of perspective 30 (Three Zero) times.
"A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind" You think I'm "FRIVOLOUS!!" and you cannot change your mind. "A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and won't change the subject." I've asked you to change the subject 30 times. 30 times I have asked "What privilege?" are speaking of with your statement: "...you’re under taxable privilege like it or not..." I guess you are a fanatic.
"Tom your ignorance continues to show through." Ad hominem and naked assertion. "You actually listen to Dale and the other fools because you're just a follower." Another naked assertion. "Dale and the other fools" Ad hominem #4. (I'm only counting the insults directed at me... While I await for this troll to actually post something of substance.) "because you're just a follower. Pathetic!" Translation: You're pathetic because you are not following perspective.
"I’ve stated my purpose and my reasoning for being here, which is to stop as much victimization as I can." And the preferred perspective persecution preventative is presentation of .... (Drum roll please) .... .... .... .... Argumentum ad Baculum. A.K.A. "Resistance is Futile." "Like it or not, the reality is, you’re getting you asses kicked and that’s not good and some are even starting to enjoy it." Okay, we're getting our asses kicked. They're our asses. Q3. Why is it "not good" for you? After all, They're our asses. "and some are even starting to enjoy it." So what... Besides the fact that those 8 words are just some more of your keyboard diarrhea "I’d call that pretty dumb." Well of course... You're good at calling names.
You now have three numbered questions, plus the one you have been asked to answer 30 times, that you stepped over to post ad hominem #5 and naked assertion #9. You have no substance. No wonder I sound foolish to you....
"It is ridiculous for patriots to hang onto so many pathetic legal issues, that the courts, over and over again have shot down." Argumentum ad Baculum. A.K.A. "Resistance is Futile." "It is ridiculous for patriots to hang onto so many pathetic legal issues" No evidence that the issues are "pathetic legal issues" have ever been posted by perspective... And argumentum ad baculum is NOT evidence. Thus this part of the sentence is another naked assertion. "And the best you can do is being mad at anyone who attempts to point you in another direction." The only method you have used in all your posts to point anyone in "another direction" is to keep saying other people are stupid; other people are wrong; and other people are all going in the wrong direction. An analogy of what you have been doing is this: You and I are hiking in the mountainous wild. I see a certain peak in the distance that is a familiar land mark. My compass and map concurs that heading in the direction of the distant peak is where the car is parked. You keep saying don't look at that peak; Don't look at that compass; Don't look at that map, the courts have ruled that direction is frivolous. I say, "Okay, how do we get back to the car." You say, "Not by going that direction." "Do you people like losing on a regular bases?" Loosing on a regular basis when the facts are not admitted into the court is what serves notice to the sleeping masses that tyranny is on the doorstep with one foot in the door. But in order to prove that facts are not admitted in the court, those facts must be made clear for those sleeping masses as they awake. Here is a FACT that the Kangaroo Courts have refused entrance to, "The WRITTEN WORD of LAW; That is the WRITTEN WORDS of the statutes and the WRITTEN WORDS of the regulations; as well as the following WRITTEN WORDS of the Cheek decision:
In order to prove the law imposes a duty, THE LAW MUST BE ADMITTED so the jury can judge the FACT of whether the WRITTEN WORDS of LAW actually apply to the defendent and the defendent's situation. I will expound upon this point via the analogy of the 22 year old beer drinker below. "The courts tell you your arguments are FRIVIOLOUS" Without a solid reason given as to why, the result is "because I said so." 'It's frivolous because I said so.' Defendent says, "Show me the law and I'll plead guilty." Court ignores defendent. Defendent says, "The law I read says this..." Court screams "FRIVOLOUS" pant pant, or just recently "SANCTION". Meaning you go to jail for defending yourself. That is NOT rule of law. That is rule of man. That is what you are here on this blog promoting. "The courts tell you your arguments are FRIVIOLOUS because they are." Neither you nor the court can tell us WHY its "FRIVIOLOUS". In your case, this simply means your statement: "FRIVIOLOUS because they are" is just another naked assertion. Q4. Please explain: EXACTLY why the written words of the statutes and regulations are "FRIVIOLOUS"? "When I say fanatic it’s because you promote more people to join this kind of madness." Another naked assertion. Q5. Please explain: Exactly what do you mean by "this kind of madness"? Q6. Please explain: Exactly how do we "promote more people to join this kind of madness"? An answer to Q6 without an answer to Q5 is NOT an answer. "Hey, if you like getting crucified do it on your own time, don’t encourage others to martyr themselves for your losing positions." Argumentum ad Baculum. A.K.A. "Resistance is Futile." Q7. Please explain: Exactly what is my (losing) position? Q8. Please explain: Exactly HOW do I "encourage others to martyr themselves"? In fact, my WARNING shows that you are LYING (again), in my case. "You’ll note: I didn’t say a losing cause, because the cause of freedom is still the issue." The secondary statement underlying the "Freedom Rah, Rah" statement is 'I am one of you'. You are NOT one of us. You ARE a LIAR for implying that you are one of us. "It simply cannot be won in the direction the patriot community foolhardily continues to go." And what "direction" is that? You never state what "direction the patriot community" should be going that is not a "foolhardily" "direction". Thus then entire sentence is another naked assertion. "Nor does it seem any of you have the patients nor the intelligence to change your destructive way of thinking." You have been spewing nonsubstantive crap since November '05. I think everybody on the blog has been MORE than patient with you. Your sentence is but naked assertion. Q9. Please explain: Exactly WHAT is our "destructive way of thinking"? "Your anger against Reasonable Guy, Frank, and even myself, down deep, is because we make you face the fact we’re telling you the truth. And the truth hurts." You haven't told us anything. THAT is "the truth". "You have no plan and without a workable one your direction will only continue to be a dead end." Q10. And your "workable" "plan" and "direction" is?
"TROLL". I skim through the Trial Logs Blogspot comment posts and read the posts that are funny or touch upon solid topics. I post comments of my own, most especially when I see a topic about certain WRITTEN WORDS of the statutes or regulations that I know from my own studies, is flat out WRONG. I only glanced through perspective's posts from November on, not paying him much attention until he got in my face. He got in my face to tell me my arguments are all wrong. I asked him "What Arguments?" In his substantive reply: He said: " " Those of you that have been reading Trial Logs know that one recurring theme in perspective's posts basically amounts to 'don't look at the law'. Here's the scenario: Minimum drinking age in your state is 21. You are 22. You have a quart of beer in a paper bag. A cop looks in your bag and gives you a ticket for underage possession of alcohol. In discussing this you say you're going to look at the WRITTEN WORDS of the LAW. Perspective says; "As for your arguments they've been dead since the mid 70's." You say; "What argument?" Perspective says; "It is ridiculous for [drinkers] to hang onto so many pathetic legal issues, that the courts, over and over again have shot down." Why doesn't perspective want you to know these following things? 125.02 Definitions. Except as
otherwise provided, in this chapter:
125.02 (20m) “Underage person” means a person who has not attained the legal drinking age. 125.02 (8m) “Legal drinking age” means 21 years of age. You've now LOOKED at the WRITTEN WORDS of LAW. In doing so, you have learned a few things about perspective: He does NOT want you to read the law;
He is NOT your friend; He is NOT on your side; He IS a LIAR. Now to continue with the analogy: Perspective spouts some BS to the 22 year old; "...you're under [ticketable nexus] like it or not..." The 22 year old then asks perspective 30 different times: You said I'm "under [ticketable nexus] like it or not...". I'm asking you to answer a simple question about the statement you made. WHAT NEXUS? Perspective stated "...you're under taxable privilege like it or not..." Perspective was asked 30 (three zero) times to explain his statement by answering a simple question. Perspective's statement "...you're under taxable privilege like it or not..." is a VERY LARGE NAKED ASSERTION. It is an assertion that he has been asked to dress with the answer to the question: WHAT PRIVILEGE?
Since perspective can't name
that "privilege", perspective is a
troll.
Only one thing left to do: |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLONK!
Go and waste my time no more.
|