Constitution and Taxes.
Dale Eastman
Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
the RIGHT to just take my property?
--
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 IN THIS POST.
Go look it up for yourself. That is the only way to know you have
found the truth.
I may be contacted off group via this page:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/Contact.html
Examine what the government doesn't want you to see, here:
http://www.861.info/
Richard Macdonald
Amendment XVI Congress has the Power to Tax Income
Article II in general The Executive has the duty to execute the laws enacted
by Congress
Article III in general the courts enforce the taxes enacted by Congress
Your blithering drivel has lost EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS BEEN USED IN COURT.
Thread Closed.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
I don't think so.
Unless you are willing to admit that you are about to get your ass
beat on this issue, just like every other issue you have raised, that
I have taken the time to study.
The first question is aimed specifically at Mr. Macdonald.
Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
the RIGHT to just take my property?
Answer the question Komrade
Dave Johnson
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> Article I, Section 8, Congress Has the POWER to TAX
> Amendment XVI Congress has the Power to Tax Income
> Article II in general The Executive has the duty to execute the laws
enacted
> by Congress
> Article III in general the courts enforce the taxes enacted by
Congress
> Your blithering drivel has lost EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS BEEN USED IN
COURT.
> Thread Closed.
> I don't think so.
> Unless you are willing to admit that you are about to get your ass
beat on this issue, just like every other issue you have raised, that
I have taken the time to study.
Answer the question Komrade
Komrade Eastman === FESS UP to your internet scams and
the proletariat will welcome you to the New World Order.
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatlosers.com larken rose "861" internet tax scams
http://www.fraudsandscams.com
Dale Eastman
Dale Eastman wrote:
>
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Article I, Section 8, Congress Has the POWER to TAX
>>
>> Amendment XVI Congress has the Power to Tax Income
>>
>> Article II in general The Executive has the duty to execute the laws
>> enacted by Congress
>>
>> Article III in general the courts enforce the taxes enacted by Congress
>>
>> Your blithering drivel has lost EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS BEEN USED IN
>> COURT.
>>
>> Thread Closed.
>
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Unless you are willing to admit that you are about to get your ass beat
> on this issue, just like every other issue you have raised, that I have
> taken the time to study.
>
>
> The first question is aimed specifically at Mr. Macdonald.
>
> Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
> the RIGHT to just take my property?
>
> Answer the question Komrade
>
Obviously the answer is NO.
And just as obviously Mr. Macdonald doesn't want this line of inquiry
used to expose his Constitutional ignorance.
Next question:
Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any individual
and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or
breach of contract?
Martin Holterman
Will you stop with this nonsense! As I've explained to you (Dale) at
least twice in the last weak, I can give the government the power to tax
me, and if everybody else does the same, the government has the power to
tax everyone. Which is why one of the enumerated powers listed in the
constitution is the power to levy certain taxes.
Martin Holterman
Dave Johnson
>> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> Article I, Section 8, Congress Has the POWER to TAX
>>>
>>> Amendment XVI Congress has the Power to Tax Income
>>> Article II in general The Executive has the duty to execute the
laws
>>> enacted by Congress
>>>
>>> Article III in general the courts enforce the taxes enacted by
Congress
>>> Your blithering drivel has lost EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS BEEN USED
IN
>>> COURT.
>>>
>>> Thread Closed.
> Will you stop with this nonsense! As I've explained to you (Dale) at
> least twice in the last weak, I can give the government the power to
tax
> me, and if everybody else does the same, the government has the power
to
> tax everyone. Which is why one of the enumerated powers listed in the
> constitution is the power to levy certain taxes.
>
> Martin Holterman
Dale Eastman's "nonsense" is selling internet tax scam videos!
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatlosers.com 861 internet tax scams
The constitutionality of the 16th Amendment to the United States
Constitution was sustained by the United States Supreme Court as early
as
1916. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
Subsequently, an uninterrupted line of decisions by various United
States
Courts of Appeals have reaffirmed that conclusion against claims that
the
16th Amendment was either "not ratified" or "fraudulently adopted."
See,
e.g., Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1989); United
States
v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1988); Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d
603
(11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir.
1986);
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986); Sisk v.
Commissioner,
791 F.2d 58, 60 (6th Cir. 1986); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d
200,
202 (5th Cir. 1984); Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th
Cir.
1984).
Richard Macdonald
news:6Yzke.5251$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Dale does not want to actually discuss the Constitution and Taxes.
The Constitution gives the power to Tax to Congress.
The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the Constitution
to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws enacted by Congress
and signed by the President until such time as the Courts may rule on the
Constitutionality of any Tax Laws. True or False.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Non responsive answer noted.
Snippage of context the Mr. Macdonald is afraid of noted and repaired.
Context presented and being developed replaced:
Obviously the answer is No.
And just as obviously Mr. Macdonald doesn't want this line of inquiry
used to expose his Constitutional ignorance.
Question 3:
In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do anything
in the name of the master that the master can not do?
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6Yzke.5251$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Dale does not want to actually discuss the Constitution and Taxes.
>>
>> The Constitution gives the power to Tax to Congress.
>>
>> The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
>> Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
>> enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
>> the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws. True
>> or False.
>
> Non responsive answer noted.
Dale has been afraid of questions like this for a long time and seems
to insist by his interpretation of the regulations that the Secretary of
the Treasury has some mystical extraconstitutional authority that
allows the Secretary to alter the laws enacted by Congress.
Of course the Courts realize that this is not so and that is why
assertions such as Dales have been rejected in every single
court where they have been argued.
So again Dale:
Dale Eastman
Martin Holterman wrote:
> Will you stop with this nonsense!
Your opinion is noted.
You are wrong about the 16th amendment as shown in my rather lengthy
treatise explaining that the 16th did not remove the rule of
apportionment from any direct tax.
That reply has been put here:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/16th.html
As you have admitted, you are not an "American". You do not live
under the U.S. Constitution. You are NOT one of "We the People".
You HAVE posted politely, and with considered opinion. I give much
weight to that. You lose that credibility with me when you start
posting your opinions that are based upon emotion.
You are a useful example of how many, including those within the
dumbed down U.S. of A. who are clueless about what the Constitution
really is.
> As I've explained to you (Dale) at
> least twice in the last weak, I can give the government the power to tax
> me,
Yes, you can. You can give the government the RIGHT to tax yourself.
What you can NOT do, is give the government the RIGHT to tax ME.
You don't have that RIGHT. You can NOT grant a RIGHT to somebody else
that you DON'T HAVE.
> and if everybody else does the same,
Not everybody has done the same.
Then they (those who have done the same) can still ONLY allow the
government to tax themselves. They still DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tax
anybody else, thus they can NOT grant that RIGHT to anybody else.
Do not confuse RIGHTS with POWER.
> the government has the power to tax everyone.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/images/service.jpeg
Just like a robber with a gun has the power to "tax" an unwary "taxpayer".
Tax is taking.
Robbery is taking.
Theft is taking.
If A = D, and B = D, and C = D, then the unescapable conclusion is;
A = B = C = D.
To say that <nasal> "It's the law" </nasal> does not change that fact.
It only verifies that tax is taking. How so, you might ask? A law is
nothing but a command back by threat of force, up to, and including
killing you.
Where is that any different than a robber pointing a gun at you and
saying "Give me your money or I will kill you" and the government
saying "Pay your tax or I will kill you"?
> Which is why one of the enumerated powers listed in the
> constitution is the power to levy certain taxes.
Key word: "CERTAIN". You are correct and don't even know why.
Here's a clue, certain does not mean 'any and all'.
> Martin Holterman
Dave Johnson
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com>
> He, and the We The People, certainly can. You may not like it, you
> may not think it's right, but they certainly /can/.
>
> BTW, your apportionment argument won't work in a court of law, will
> result in your argument being deemed frivolous, and will add copious
> fines to your back tax bill.
>
> C//
"Dale Eastman"is our wacko tax scammer in the
misc.taxes newsgroup !
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
ww.quatlosers.com "861" internet tax scams
various tax scams "gross income", 861 constitution, etc. rest upon
quotations out of context from the regulations. For example, tax
protesters like to quote the first sentence of Treas. Reg. ("Part I
(section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and
the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes
of the income tax.") but steadfastly ignore the second sentence of the
same paragraph ("These sections explicitly allocate certain important
sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United
States, as the case may be....") because the second sentence makes it
clear that the purpose of the regulations is to determine the
geographical source of income, which is relevant only to nonresident
aliens, foreign corporations, and certain other taxpayers
Dale Eastman
Courageous wrote:
>>Yes, you can. You can give the government the RIGHT to tax yourself.
>>What you can NOT do, is give the government the RIGHT to tax ME.
>
>
> He, and the We The People, certainly can. You may not like it, you
> may not think it's right, but they certainly /can/.
>
> BTW, your apportionment argument won't work in a court of law, will
> result in your argument being deemed frivolous, and will add copious
> fines to your back tax bill.
Your assertion of your opinion is noted.
Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions from elsewhere in this thread:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you have the RIGHT to just
take my property?
2. Can you assign power of attorney to any individual and give them
the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
The short way is for some adversaries to answer the questions.
The long way is for me to answer the questions myself, in which case
my adversaries agree with the answers by their silence, or they
disagree and will have to bring up their objections to the answers and
support those answers with fact and reason.
Dale Eastman
Dave Johnson wrote:
> "Courageous" <dont...@spam.com> wrote
>
>>"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com>
>
>
>>He, and the We The People, certainly can. You may not like it, you
>>may not think it's right, but they certainly /can/.
>>
>>BTW, your apportionment argument won't work in a court of law, will
>>result in your argument being deemed frivolous, and will add copious
>>fines to your back tax bill.
>>
>>C//
>
>
> "Dale Eastman"is our wacko tax scammer in the
> misc.taxes newsgroup !
Dave Johnson, AKA:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/netabuse.html
is our resident sock puppet and spammer in misc.taxes
> www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
> ww.quatlosers.com "861" internet tax scams
>
> various tax scams "gross income", 861 constitution, etc. rest upon
> quotations out of context from the regulations. For example, tax
> protesters like to quote the first sentence of Treas. Reg. ("Part I
> (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and
> the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes
> of the income tax.") but steadfastly ignore the second sentence of the
> same paragraph ("These sections explicitly allocate certain important
> sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United
> States, as the case may be....") because the second sentence makes it
> clear that the purpose of the regulations is to determine the
> geographical source of income, which is relevant only to nonresident
> aliens, foreign corporations, and certain other taxpayers
>
--
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
"It is elementary law that every statute is to be
read in the light of the constitution. However broad
and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as
extending beyond those matters which it was within
the constitutional power of the legislature to reach."
"So, although general language was introduced into
the statute of 1871, it is not to be read as reaching
to matters in respect to which the legislature had no
constitutional power, but only as to those matters
within its control. And, if there were, as it seems
there were, certain special taxes and dues, which,
under the existing provisions of the state
constitution, could not be affected by legislative
action, the statute is to be read as though it in
terms excluded them from its operation."
McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)
The above cite of McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia tells us two things.
1.) Statutes can have broad and general language that makes the
statute appear to reach where it Constitutionally can not.
2. Statutes are to be read as if they do not embrace that which they
may appear to embrace, if what they appear to embrace is not allowed
by the Constitution.
4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
Income Tax Regulations
1. The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are
the official Treasury Department interpretation of
the Internal Revenue Code and follow the numbering
sequence of Internal Revenue Code sections.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html
Since the regulations are the OFFICIAL TREASURY DEPT. interpretations,
those interpretations (regulations) must have been done with an eye on
the Constitution.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws
-HEAD-
Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations
-STATUTE-
(a) Authorization
Except where such authority is expressly given by this title
to any person other than an officer or employee of the
Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all
needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this
title, including all rules and regulations as may be
necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to
internal revenue.
With or without your argument, I am now going to make the
Constitutional issue.
Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a
tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
Martin Holterman
>
>
> Martin Holterman wrote:
>
>
>> Will you stop with this nonsense!
>
>
> Your opinion is noted.
>
> You are wrong about the 16th amendment as shown in my rather lengthy
> treatise explaining that the 16th did not remove the rule of
> apportionment from any direct tax.
>
> That reply has been put here:
> http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/16th.html
>
> As you have admitted, you are not an "American". You do not live under
> the U.S. Constitution. You are NOT one of "We the People".
>
> You HAVE posted politely, and with considered opinion. I give much
> weight to that. You lose that credibility with me when you start posting
> your opinions that are based upon emotion.
>
My opinions are never based on opinion, but sometimes expressed with
some annoyance, if you want to call that an emontion.
> You are a useful example of how many, including those within the dumbed
> down U.S. of A. who are clueless about what the Constitution really is.
>
Hardly.
>> As I've explained to you (Dale) at least twice in the last weak, I can
>> give the government the power to tax me,
>
>
> Yes, you can. You can give the government the RIGHT to tax yourself.
>
> What you can NOT do, is give the government the RIGHT to tax ME.
> You don't have that RIGHT. You can NOT grant a RIGHT to somebody else
> that you DON'T HAVE.
>
No question. In civil (property) law, this is called the nemo plus rule,
which is short for the quote of Roman Lawyer Ulpianus: "Nemo plus iuris
ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet." (Digesti, 50, 17, 54)
(Lawyers like latin, because it is a bit of an international language of
law. A lot of legal doctrines are referred to by the same latin
shorthands in different countries. Actually, until the 1960s, you had to
have taken latin in high school to go to law school in my country. I
dropped latin after the 10th grade, but even I can translate this one:
One can never transfer more rights to another than one has oneself.)
>> and if everybody else does the same,
>
>
> Not everybody has done the same.
>
Yes you have. Sign on to the social contract or move out. It's that simple.
> Then they (those who have done the same) can still ONLY allow the
> government to tax themselves. They still DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tax
> anybody else, thus they can NOT grant that RIGHT to anybody else.
>
> Do not confuse RIGHTS with POWER.
>
I don't confuse them. Actually, it appears you do. People have rights,
the government has powers. Enumerated powers, to be exact. (At least the
US federal government.) One of these enumerated powers, number 1
actually, is the power to levy certain taxes.
>
>> the government has the power to tax everyone.
>
>
> http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/images/service.jpeg
>
> Just like a robber with a gun has the power to "tax" an unwary "taxpayer".
>
> Tax is taking.
> Robbery is taking.
> Theft is taking.
> If A = D, and B = D, and C = D, then the unescapable conclusion is;
>
> A = B = C = D.
>
> To say that <nasal> "It's the law" </nasal> does not change that fact.
> It only verifies that tax is taking. How so, you might ask? A law is
> nothing but a command back by threat of force, up to, and including
> killing you.
>
> Where is that any different than a robber pointing a gun at you and
> saying "Give me your money or I will kill you" and the government saying
> "Pay your tax or I will kill you"?
>
Legitimacy. Look it up.
>
>> Which is why one of the enumerated powers listed in the constitution
>> is the power to levy certain taxes.
>
>
> Key word: "CERTAIN". You are correct and don't even know why.
>
> Here's a clue, certain does not mean 'any and all'.
>
Both in this post and in previous posts, I've always said that the US
governmet has the right to levy *certain* taxes. That was not a mistake,
it was a deliberate shorthand for the restrictions imposed on the
government's right to levy taxes by art. I (9) (4) and (5) as well as
the 16th amendment.
Martin Holterman
James Chamblee
Dale Eastman <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Non responsive answer noted.
>
> Snippage of context the Mr. Macdonald is afraid of noted and repaired.
>
> Context presented and being developed replaced:
Dale:
Youy have made clear several times that you know very little about the
Constitution OR taxes.
You're simply trolling without any chum or bait.
Lantern
read with interest how Hamilton ( who Mr. Chenow gives credit for
writing the Constitution) as the first Treasury Secretary, had to come
up with a way to raise money for the new nation. The wild and woolie
patriots just fought a bloddy revolution over unfair taxes. Hamilton's
first tax was a tariff on imports. His whiskey tax dammed near sunk the
"great experiment". I recommend the book.
Richard Macdonald
Since none of the IRC has been ruled unconstitutional since
the 1954 rewrite, it is until ruled otherwise Constitutional.
> "So, although general language was introduced into
> the statute of 1871, it is not to be read as reaching
> to matters in respect to which the legislature had no
> constitutional power, but only as to those matters
> within its control. And, if there were, as it seems
> there were, certain special taxes and dues, which,
> under the existing provisions of the state
> constitution, could not be affected by legislative
> action, the statute is to be read as though it in
> terms excluded them from its operation."
> McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)
>
> The above cite of McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia tells us two things.
>
> 1.) Statutes can have broad and general language that makes the statute
> appear to reach where it Constitutionally can not.
>
> 2. Statutes are to be read as if they do not embrace that which they may
> appear to embrace, if what they appear to embrace is not allowed by the
> Constitution.
>
> 4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
> Income Tax Regulations
>
> 1. The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are
> the official Treasury Department interpretation of
> the Internal Revenue Code and follow the numbering
> sequence of Internal Revenue Code sections.
> http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html
You keep citing this and yet ignoring this from the SAME PAGE:
4.10.7.2.1 (05-14-1999)
Internal Revenue Code
The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is the primary source of Federal
tax law. It imposes income, estate, gift, employment, miscellaneous
excise taxes, and provisions controlling the administration of Federal
taxation. The Code is found at Title 26 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.). The United States Code consists of fifty titles.
The regulations may be the Treasury's interpretation, but they MUST
be interpreted in accordance with the PRIMARY Source, the IRC.
If you are not in total agreement with BOTH, you are wrong; and
every court that has heard your assertions have said they are NOT
in agreement with the Statutes.
Dave Johnson
> Dale Eastman <dalere...@sprintmail.com
> > Non responsive answer noted.
> >
> > Snippage of context the Mr. Macdonald is afraid of noted and
repaired.
> >
> > Context presented and being developed replaced:
>
> Dale:
>
> Youy have made clear several times that you know very little about
the
> Constitution OR taxes.
>
> You're simply trolling without any chum or bait.
dale lacks the bait and the rod
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> So again Dale:
>>
>> The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
>> Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
>> enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
>> the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws.
>> True or False.
>
> "It is elementary law that every statute is to be
> read in the light of the constitution. However broad
> and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as
> extending beyond those matters which it was within
> the constitutional power of the legislature to reach."
The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury regulation
(however inconsistent with the statutory text) may be relevant to whether
penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be assessed, see Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. ____, ____ (1991) (slip op., at 9-11), but it cannot
control the determination of whether the tax was due and owing according to
Congress's command.
-- United States v. Burke, KTC 1992-106 (S.Ct. 1992)
Dale Eastman
You opinion is noted.
My opinion is just as valid as yours.
My opinion is that you are wrong.
Dale Eastman
James Chamblee wrote:
Your opinion is noted.
My opinion is just as valid as yours.
My opinion is that you are wrong.
Here are the questions you didn't answer:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you have the RIGHT to just
take my property?
2. Can you assign power of attorney to any individual and give them
the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
Dale Eastman
Martin Holterman wrote:
> Dale Eastman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Martin Holterman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Will you stop with this nonsense!
>>
>>
>>
>> Your opinion is noted.
>>
>> You are wrong about the 16th amendment as shown in my rather lengthy
>> treatise explaining that the 16th did not remove the rule of
>> apportionment from any direct tax.
>>
> Regardless, congress has the right to levy certain taxes.
I think, in general, that we actually agree on this point. Now as to
WHICH "certain" taxes.....
Thus "regardless" is not a valid dismissal of my point because direct
taxes MUST be laid by the rule of apportionment, and this DOES effect
"certain" taxes.
>> That reply has been put here:
>> http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/16th.html
>> You HAVE posted politely, and with considered opinion. I give much
>> weight to that. You lose that credibility with me when you start
>> posting your opinions that are based upon emotion.
>>
> My opinions are never based on opinion, but sometimes expressed with
> some annoyance, if you want to call that an emontion.
I'm content to let this subtopic of emotion slide for a bit. I think
though, that if you continue discourse with me on the subject line
topic, the emotion(s) to which I refer, will come to the fore.
I do wish to clarify that by emotion, I refer to the energy that will
come forth to defend your belief. That belief is what will be exposed.
By belief, I specifically do not mean verifiable fact, I mean belief
supported by emotion and not by logic.
In spite of that, I do wish to again extend my appreciation for the
measured manner in which you engage in dialog with me.
>>> As I've explained to you (Dale) at least twice in the last weak, I
>>> can give the government the power to tax me,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can. You can give the government the RIGHT to tax yourself.
>>
>> What you can NOT do, is give the government the RIGHT to tax ME.
>> You don't have that RIGHT. You can NOT grant a RIGHT to somebody else
>> that you DON'T HAVE.
>>
> No question. In civil (property) law, this is called the nemo plus rule,
> which is short for the quote of Roman Lawyer Ulpianus: "Nemo plus iuris
> ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet." (Digesti, 50, 17, 54)
> (Lawyers like latin, because it is a bit of an international language of
> law. A lot of legal doctrines are referred to by the same latin
> shorthands in different countries. Actually, until the 1960s, you had to
> have taken latin in high school to go to law school in my country. I
> dropped latin after the 10th grade, but even I can translate this one:
> One can never transfer more rights to another than one has oneself.)
Now sir, that's the type of posting that I like. I, as well as the
lurkers, can learn something from your digression.
>>> and if everybody else does the same,
>>
>>
>>
>> Not everybody has done the same.
>>
> Yes you have.
Please post a scan of my signature on this alleged contract.
> Sign on to the social contract or move out. It's that simple.
Please post a copy of this alleged contract.
Oops. You can't.
My RIGHT to LIFE, my RIGHT to LIBERTY, my RIGHT to acquire, possess,
own, use, enjoy, and divest property is antecedent to the existance of
government Ref: The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to
the Constitution.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with inherent and inalienable 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;
We the people of the United States, in order to form
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
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.
Perhaps this is the Social Contract to which you refer:
From: (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Social contract?
Date: 14 May 92 08:53:22 GMT
We've all heard of the "Social Contract" -- the unwritten
agreement between individuals and "society" (i.e. the
government.) The following is an attempt to write down, once
and for all, just what the contract is that we've all
supposedly agreed to.
SOCIAL CONTRACT
between an individual and the United States Government
WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and
WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the
continent on which I wish to reside, and WHEREAS tacit or
implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,
I agree to the following terms:
SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to
the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by
the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The
amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value
of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other
criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in
determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government
identification number that I will use in all my major
financial transactions.
SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender
my liberty for a period of time determined by the government
and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I
will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including
military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice
my life.
SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the
government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the
Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those
permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs
that conflict with the Government's determination of
propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.
SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government
will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that
will be determined by the Government. These limits may
restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.
SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the
area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government
will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined
by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.
SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and
my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree
not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me
or my property.
SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me.
The nature and extent of these services will be determined by
the Government and are subject to change at any time.
SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote
for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote
will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I
understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not
to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting
against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if
those promises motivated me to vote for them.
SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully
liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event,
the Government may confiscate any property that I have not
previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a
period of time to be determined by the Government. I also
agree that the Government may alter the terms of this
contract at any time.
_____________________________
signature
_____________________________
date
Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.
May be distributed freely.
Would you sign that piece of shit?
>> Then they (those who have done the same) can still ONLY allow the
>> government to tax themselves. They still DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tax
>> anybody else, thus they can NOT grant that RIGHT to anybody else.
>>
>> Do not confuse RIGHTS with POWER.
>>
> I don't confuse them. Actually, it appears you do. People have rights,
> the government has powers. Enumerated powers, to be exact. (At least the
> US federal government.) One of these enumerated powers, number 1
> actually, is the power to levy certain taxes.
"Certain" taxes. Good. Our discourse can build upon this common ground.
>>> the government has the power to tax everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/images/service.jpeg
>>
>> Just like a robber with a gun has the power to "tax" an unwary
>> "taxpayer".
>>
>> Tax is taking.
>> Robbery is taking.
>> Theft is taking.
>> If A = D, and B = D, and C = D, then the unescapable conclusion is;
>>
>> A = B = C = D.
>>
>> To say that <nasal> "It's the law" </nasal> does not change that fact.
>> It only verifies that tax is taking. How so, you might ask? A law is
>> nothing but a command back by threat of force, up to, and including
>> killing you.
>>
>> Where is that any different than a robber pointing a gun at you and
>> saying "Give me your money or I will kill you" and the government
>> saying "Pay your tax or I will kill you"?
>>
> Legitimacy. Look it up.
le·git·i·ma·cy (l…-j¹t“…-m…-s¶) n. The quality or
fact of being legitimate.
le·git·i·mate (l…-j¹t“…-m¹t) adj. 1. Being in
compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate
business. 2. Being in accordance with established or
accepted patterns and standards: legitimate
advertising practices. 3. Based on logical reasoning;
reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem. 4.
Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint. 5. Born
of legally married parents: legitimate issue. 6. Of,
relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a
legitimate monarch. 7. Of or relating to drama of
high professional quality that excludes burlesque,
vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the
legitimate theater.
I have to assume that your intent bounds definition #1, "Being in
compliance with the law; lawful".
Law must have "authority" to be valid.
au·thor·i·ty (…-thôr“¹-t¶, …-th¼r“-, ô-thôr“-,
ô-th¼r“-) n., pl. au·thor·i·ties. Abbr. auth. 1.a.
The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command,
determine, or judge. b. One that is invested with
this power, especially a government or government
officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies
were given authority to make arrests. 3. A public
agency or corporation with administrative powers in a
specified field: a city transit authority.
That "authority" is a chain of "authority", much like a chain of command.
Let us look at the "legitimacy" of government saying "Pay your tax or
I will kill you."
We have "tax laws" passed by Congress. Congress is empowered by the
Constitution to pass these laws. Where did the Constitution get the
"authority" to pass on to Congress, their lawmaking power?
>>
>>> Which is why one of the enumerated powers listed in the constitution
>>> is the power to levy certain taxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Key word: "CERTAIN". You are correct and don't even know why.
>>
>> Here's a clue, certain does not mean 'any and all'.
>>
> Both in this post and in previous posts, I've always said that the US
> governmet has the right to levy *certain* taxes. That was not a mistake,
> it was a deliberate shorthand for the restrictions imposed on the
> government's right to levy taxes by art. I (9) (4) and (5) as well as
> the 16th amendment.
There are other restrictions which will be made clear in this entire
thread. I have respect for your considered posts. I have no such
respect for Mr. Macdonald because we, (you might say), have a history.
Nevertheless, you are to his advantage because you espouse a position
the same or similar to his. So far, you seem to be an honest poster,
tackling the topics forthrightly.
What is it about the adversarial contest in court? Out of the
strenuous debate and argument, the truth is supposed to fall out and
be found?
Dale Eastman
Courageous wrote:
>>Your assertion of your opinion is noted.
>
>
> My opinion happens to be
YOUR OPINION. PERIOD. FULL STOP.
> a fact that you would best heed.
Your (implied) threat is meaningless.
Evidence of truth of your opined fact is not in evidence.
> Believing to the contrary is not only delusional, but presents a clear and present
> danger to yourself if acted upon.
Your denigrating commentary is noted.
Your implied, faceless threat, attempting to use the fear of the
unknown, is noted... And ignored.
>>Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions from elsewhere in this thread:
>
>
> It's been often said that your election to make of this nation your domicile
> is an implied social contract.
It's not my "election". It's my "birthright". And the rights I have at
birth are antecedent (prior) to the creation of the government of the U.S.
> Perhaps there is some truth in both perspectives? That some shade of gray
> social contract is reasonable and that some level of confiscatory taxation
> is unreasonable?
Produce a scan of this alleged social contract with my signature on
it... If you can even find a copy of this alleged social contract in
the first place.
_____________________________
signature
_____________________________
date
I do not have much patience for sock puppets that are too chicken shit
to post under their real names. You style of post hints of other sock
puppets I have dealt with. I reserve making that judgment fully until
I have read some of your other posts.
And you have answered my post and failed to answer the outstanding
questions also:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you have the RIGHT to just
take my property?
2. Can you assign power of attorney to any individual and give them
the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
Dave Johnson
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com>
>Your (implied) threat is meaningless.
>
> You have misspelled the word "inferred".
>
> Warning you that your misapprehension of the law is dangerous
> to you is no threat. The court has no patience for this sort
> of childish frivolousness.
>
> Not only will you not win your case, it's quite likely you'll
> be punished for attempting to make it. This is the same reason
> you'll find essentially /no/ attorneys attempting to make these
> arguments for you. They could be disbarred.
>
> As for my privacy, learn to live with it.
>
> Your "Dale R Eastman" nym is in no sense an identity. If you
> would like to establish one for us, we can try your city and
> date of birth, mother's maiden name, and social security number?
>
> No?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> C//
I will attest that the nym "Dale R Eastman" is a kook and usenet
scammer in misc.taxes and other groups
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Again with the straw man. Richard, if you want to be able to wear them
bib overalls again without your ass hanging out of them, be careful
you don't tear them while you are knocking the stuffing out of them.
And in accordance with the Constitution. A point you keep running from.
Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a
tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
Your shenanigans are in front of a wider audience now.
Question 4:
Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a
tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
Dale Eastman
Courageous a.k.a. AllYou! wrote:
>>Your (implied) threat is meaningless.
>
>
> You have misspelled the word "inferred".
>
> Warning you that your misapprehension of the law is dangerous
> to you is no threat. The court has no patience for this sort
> of childish frivolousness.
>
> Not only will you not win your case, it's quite likely you'll
> be punished for attempting to make it. This is the same reason
> you'll find essentially /no/ attorneys attempting to make these
> arguments for you. They could be disbarred.
>
> As for my privacy, learn to live with it.
>
> Your "Dale R Eastman" nym is in no sense an identity. If you
> would like to establish one for us, we can try your city and
> date of birth, mother's maiden name, and social security number?
>
> No?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> C//
>
--
Richard Macdonald
Since none has been reule unconstutional in spite of many attempts,
the IRC is therefore presumed to be Constitutional until PROVED otherwise.
And prey tell what Article, Section and clause has any effect on
taxes other than Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and Amendment XVI?
Drivel not pertaining to the Constitution snipped.
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:EoJke.2235$oT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>So again Dale:
>>>>
>>>>The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
>>>>Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
>>>>enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
>>>>the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws.
>>>>True or False.
>>>
>>> "It is elementary law that every statute is to be
>>> read in the light of the constitution. However broad
>>> and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as
>>> extending beyond those matters which it was within
>>> the constitutional power of the legislature to reach."
>>
>> The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury regulation
>> (however inconsistent with the statutory text) may be relevant to whether
>> penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be assessed, see Cheek v.
>> United States, 498 U.S. ____, ____ (1991) (slip op., at 9-11), but it
>> cannot control the determination of whether the tax was due and owing
>> according to Congress's command.
>>
>> -- United States v. Burke, KTC 1992-106 (S.Ct. 1992)
>
> Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
I see Dale continues to run and attempt to misdirect from the real issue
which is the serious flaws in his assertions.
Richard Macdonald
>
> Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
> the RIGHT to just take my property?
>
> 2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any individual
> and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach
> of contract?
>
> 3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do anything
> in the name of the master that the master can not do?
>
> 4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
Here's the answers, since taking and taxing are different types of actions
your questions are not pertinent to taxation. This is all the answers you
are
going to get since the questions do not pertain to the Constitution even
though you will not like my answer, your questions ARE answered.
"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."
Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Amendment XVI
"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."
Now answer my question.
The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws.
True or False.
The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury regulation
(however inconsistent with the statutory text) may be relevant to whether
penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be assessed, see Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. ____, ____ (1991) (slip op., at 9-11), but it cannot
control the determination of whether the tax was due and owing according to
Congress's command.
An agency's interpretation of its own rule or regulation is entitled to
"controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with
the regulation." Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S.
410, 414 (1945)
-- Ballard v. Commissioner, KTC 2005-43 (S.Ct. 2005)
We are required, however, to "defer to an agency's construction of
the statute it administers," where that interpretation is not contrary to
congressional intent. Cornejo-Barreto v. Seifert, 218 F.3d 1004,
1014 (9th Cir. 2000)
-- Miller v. Commissioner, KTC 2002-376 (9th Cir. 2002)
An agency's (in this case, the Commissioner's) interpretation of
its own regulation is to be accorded substantial deference and
"reversal is warranted only when that interpretation is plainly
erroneous." Florez v. Callahan, 156 F.3d 438, 442 (2d Cir.
1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
-- Cinema '84 v. Commissioner, KTC 2002-170 (2d Cir. 2002)
We grant great deference to the IRS's interpretation of its
regulation and will uphold this interpretation "unless it is
plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45 (1993)
-- Connor v. Commissioner, KTC 2000-337 (7th Cir. 2000)
Once an agency has adopted regulations interpreting the statute,
the agency's consistent interpretation of its own regulation will
also be accorded substantial deference. We "must defer to the
[agency's] interpretation unless an 'alternative reading is compelled
by the regulation's plain language or by other indications of the
[agency's] intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation.'
" Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994)
(quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430 (1988));
accord Shell Oil Co. v. Babbitt, 125 F.3d 172, 176 (3d Cir. 1997).
-- United States v. Koziol, KTC 1999-248 (9th Cir. 1999)
Dave Johnson
"Dale Eastman" <dalereast...@sprintmail.com>
>> I see Dale continues to run and attempt to misdirect from the real issue
which is the serious flaws in his assertions.
c'mon dale - no scams, just the truth - show us the law!
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatlosers.com "gross income" internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Archmedes
news:1117073611....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
It's interesting to watch delusional dale reach out and touch someone in other
newsgroups. And they reply, probably thinking they are entering into a rational
conversation with a rational person. Little do they realize...they are
traveling to another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound, but
of mind. A journey into a looneytoons land whose boundaries are that of your
wildest delusions. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight
Zone!
Dave Johnson
> "Dave Johnson
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com>
> It's interesting to watch delusional dale reach out and touch someone in other
newsgroups. And they reply, probably thinking they are entering into a
rational
conversation with a rational person. Little do they realize...they are
traveling to another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and
sound, but
of mind. A journey into a looneytoons land whose boundaries are that
of your
wildest delusions. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the
Twilight
Zone!
the funny thing is dale believes others will read his posts and buy his
tax scam CD and become tax-exempt, apparently he thinks there are
delusional people just like him!
Dale Eastman
It's also interesting to watch the cockroachs scurry out of their dark
nooks and crannies to spew scorn, ridicule, and denigration while at
the same time studiously avoiding the issues presented.
Dale Eastman
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 26 May 2005 05:06:06 -0700, "Dave Johnson" <nosp...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>the funny thing is dale believes others will read his posts and buy his
>>tax scam CD and become tax-exempt, apparently he thinks there are
>>delusional people just like him!
>
>
>
> Hey, it's like spam. One or two in a million will bite. There are
> other delusional people who want so badly to believe there's a reason
> they shouldn't pay taxes they only need a voice outside their own head
> to validate it.
>
> Shoot I mean there's still people who believe Saddam had involvement
> in 9-11.
> -----
> During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
> revolutionary act.
> - George Orwell
Thus saith another that doesn't answer to the substance of the posts.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
It pertains, and it is going to cut your argument position off at the
knees. The dramatic effect is much better if you state YOUR answers to
the questions.
Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a
tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Your slimy attempt to slip the issue by ignoring the questions is not
going to help you.
Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions that you snipped:
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions that you snipped:
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
> the RIGHT to just take my property?
He might, depending on the facts and circumstances.
> 2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any individual
> and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach
> of contract?
He might, depending on the facts and circumstances.
> 3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do anything
> in the name of the master that the master can not do?
He might, depending on the facts and circumstances.
> 4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
True authority came from, and continues to come from, the consent of the
governed as a whole.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia dot net
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qNcle.719$MI4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Here's the presently UNANSWERED questions:
>>
>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
>>the RIGHT to just take my property?
>>
>>2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any individual
>>and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach
>>of contract?
>>
>>3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do anything
>>in the name of the master that the master can not do?
>>
>>4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
>
>
> Here's the answers, since taking and taxing are different types of actions
Wrong. Taxing IS taking.
Worker A agrees to work for Company B. Worker A and Company B agree
that $10.00 is the contract and 40 hours per week is the norm.
After the 40 hour week, how much money does Company B owe Worker A?
How much money does Worker A actually receive in cash or payroll
check? Assume Single Zero.
What happened to the money that Worker A did NOT receive?
It was TAKEN as a tax.
> your questions are not pertinent to taxation.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.
You are wrong.
> This is all the answers you are going to get since
by answering my questions you will be helping in the destruction of
your own misguided theories.
> the questions do not pertain to the Constitution
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.
You are wrong.
> even though you will not like my answer, your questions ARE answered.
Question 4 is partially answered directly below. The Context questions
1, 2, & 3 have NOT been answered.
> "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."
The rest of the answer to question 4 is thus:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested
in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article I Section 1.
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a
tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
> Now answer my question.
Why should I? You're the one who refuses to answer questions you find
inconvenient or worse.
> The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
> Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
> enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
> the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws.
> True or False.
"It is elementary law that every statute is to be
read in the light of the constitution. However broad
and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as
extending beyond those matters which it was within
the constitutional power of the legislature to reach."
"So, although general language was introduced into
the statute of 1871, it is not to be read as reaching
to matters in respect to which the legislature had no
constitutional power, but only as to those matters
within its control. And, if there were, as it seems
there were, certain special taxes and dues, which,
under the existing provisions of the state
constitution, could not be affected by legislative
action, the statute is to be read as though it in
terms excluded them from its operation."
McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)
The above cite of McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia tells us two things.
1.) Statutes can have broad and general language that makes the
statute appear to reach where it Constitutionally can not.
2. Statutes are to be read as if they do not embrace that which they
may appear to embrace, if what they appear to embrace is not allowed
by the Constitution.
4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
Income Tax Regulations
1. The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are
the official Treasury Department interpretation of
the Internal Revenue Code and follow the numbering
sequence of Internal Revenue Code sections.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html
Since the regulations are the OFFICIAL TREASURY DEPT. interpretations,
those interpretations (regulations) must have been done with an eye on
the Constitution.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws
-HEAD-
Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations
-STATUTE-
(a) Authorization
Except where such authority is expressly given by this title
to any person other than an officer or employee of the
Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all
needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this
title, including all rules and regulations as may be
necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to
internal revenue.
Cited corrupt crap flushed.
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a
tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
Richard Macdonald
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
> the RIGHT to just take my property?
I don't do contracts or torts, ask someone who does.
> 2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any individual
> and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach
> of contract?
I don't do contracts or torts, ask someone who does.
> 3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do anything
> in the name of the master that the master can not do?
Also not in my field, ask some who does.
> 4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
See the preamble, now back to taxes and the Constitution
The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws.
True or False.
The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury regulation
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nYlle.156$q4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
>>the RIGHT to just take my property?
>
>
> I don't do contracts or torts, ask someone who does.
Proof again of your inability to either read or understand what you read.
The questions starts with, and I quote, "Absent a tort".
I'm not asking you a tort question. I have specifically excluded the
context of tort.
By grammatical construction, the question also starts with "Absent a"
'breach of contract'. I am not asking you a breach of contract
question. I have specifically excluded the context of breach of contract.
1b. Do you, Richard Macdonald, have the right to just take my property?
>>2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any individual
>>and give them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach
>>of contract?
>
>
> I don't do contracts or torts, ask someone who does.
Proof again of your inability to either read or understand what you read.
The questions starts with, and I quote, "Absent a tort".
I'm not asking you a tort question. I have specifically excluded the
context of tort.
By grammatical construction, the question also starts with "Absent a"
'breach of contract'. I am not asking you a breach of contract
question. I have specifically excluded the context of breach of contract.
Since that has confused you, I'll reword the question.
2b. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to any
individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my property?
>>3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do anything
>>in the name of the master that the master can not do?
>
>
> Also not in my field, ask some who does.
"Ask someone who does", WHAT?
It is a simple question,
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
>>4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
>
>
> See the preamble, now back to taxes and the Constitution
>
> The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority
We don't look at the Secretary's authority until we nail down the
Constitution's authority. Something you are strenuously attempting to
avoid.
> See the preamble, now back to taxes and the
> Constitution
Nope. We are not going back to taxes until we nail down the authority
of the Constitution.
As to seeing the preamble, you again try to avoid context. The context
for the preamble is the Declaration of Independence. Specifically this
passage therefrom:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with inherent and inalienable 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;
Please note that the rights endowed by the Creator are ANTECEDENT to
the government instituted.
an·te·ce·dent (²n”t¹-s¶d“nt) adj. 1. Going before;
preceding. --an·te·ce·dent n. 1. One that precedes
another. 2.a. A preceding occurrence, cause, or event.
Then we can look at the Preamble you reference.
We the people of the United States, in order to form
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
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.
And to this, we add the interlocking context from Article 1, Section 1
All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested...
So a quick little summary:
The people have RIGHTS.
Governments are created to secure these RIGHTS.
The government of the United States was created to protect these RIGHTS.
The power this government has was "GRANTED" by the PEOPLE.
Question 5. If you, Richard Macdonald, do not have the RIGHT to just
take my property, how can you give that right to any other entity, be
it a natural person, corporation, or government?
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> 1b. Do you, Richard Macdonald, have the right to just take my property?
He might given the right set of facts and circumstances.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Dale Eastman
There is a second line of inquiry. Again the questions are directed at
Mr. Macdonald.
Can the State of Wisconsin make laws that are applicable to the
residents of the State of Florida?
Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise known as
'police powers', does the State of Wisconsin have police powers to
enforce its laws upon residents of Florida?
Can the State of Florida make laws that are applicable to the
residents of the State of Wisconsin?
Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise known as
'police powers', does the State of Florida have police powers to
enforce its laws upon residents of Wisconsin?
What limits the Jurisdictions of the States of Florida and Wisconsin?
Dale Eastman
Paul A Thomas wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" wrote
>
>>1b. Do you, Richard Macdonald, have the right to just take my property?
>
>
>
> He might given the right set of facts and circumstances.
The facts and circumstances confused him. This is the original question:
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
Hale Westman
> Proof again of your inability to either read or understand what you read.
YES it does apply to you dale !
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
The computation of taxable income begins with gross income. Section 61
of the Code provides that "gross income means all income from whatever
source derived ...." The Supreme Court has long recognized that the
definition of gross income sweeps broadly and reflects Congress'
intent to exert the full measure of its taxing power and to bring
within the definition of income "any accession of wealth." Commissioner
v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 327 (1995); United States v. Burke, 504 U.S.
229, 233 (1992). Accordingly, any receipt of funds by a taxpayer is
presumed to be gross income unless the taxpayer can demonstrate that
the accession fits into one of the exclusions created by other sections
of the Code. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., [348] U.S. 426,
431 (1955). "[A]ll income from whatever source derived" thus includes
income earned or received from any geographic source.
In the case of an individual, section 62 of the Code defines "adjusted
gross income" as gross income minus certain listed deduction. Pursuant
to section 63, "taxable income" generally means gross income minus
those deductions allowed by the Code. For individuals who do not
itemize their deductions, section 63(b) defines "taxable income" as
adjusted gross income minus the standard deduction and the deduction
for personal exemptions.
Sections 861 through 865 of the Code address the source of items of
gross income and deductions. Under these provisions, taxable income is
"sourced" as either from within the United States or from without
(i.e., outside of) the United States. These source rules are utilized
under several parts of the Code. In the case of a U.S. citizen, the
most notable of these parts concerns the foreign tax credit. While the
determination of a U.S. citizen's foreign source and U.S. source
taxable income may affect the amount of his or her tax liability by way
of the foreign tax credit, it does not affect which items are
considered for purposes of the taxpayer's overall taxable income.
This determination is made under the rules of sections 61 through 63.
Thus, in summary, the source rules of sections 861 through 865 of the
Code do not limit or exclude items from consideration for purposes of
determining a U.S. citizen's taxable income under sections 61 through
63.
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> The facts and circumstances confused him. This is the original question:
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
> the RIGHT to just take my property?
And my answer doesn't change. He might, given the right set of facts and
circumstances.
--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia.net
Martin Holterman
>
> There is a second line of inquiry. Again the questions are directed at
> Mr. Macdonald.
>
> Can the State of Wisconsin make laws that are applicable to the
> residents of the State of Florida?
>
> Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise known as
> 'police powers', does the State of Wisconsin have police powers to
> enforce its laws upon residents of Florida?
>
> Can the State of Florida make laws that are applicable to the residents
> of the State of Wisconsin?
>
> Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise known as
> 'police powers', does the State of Florida have police powers to enforce
> its laws upon residents of Wisconsin?
>
> What limits the Jurisdictions of the States of Florida and Wisconsin?
>
>
>
>
All of which explains why I don't pay taxes to the states of Wisconsin
or Florida, nor to the Federal government of the United States. After
all, I don't live in any of these places. But you, Dale, do
(presumably). So how does any of this help your argument?
Martin Holterman
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> Can the State of Wisconsin make laws that are applicable
> to the residents of the State of Florida?
Yes.
> Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise
> known as 'police powers', does the State of Wisconsin have
> police powers to enforce its laws upon residents of Florida?
Yes.
> Can the State of Florida make laws that are applicable
> to the residents of the State of Wisconsin?
Yes.
> Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise
> known as 'police powers', does the State of Florida have police
> powers to enforce its laws upon residents of Wisconsin?
Yes.
> What limits the Jurisdictions of the States of Florida and Wisconsin?
In reality, not much.
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
Dale Eastman
Paul A Thomas wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" wrote
>
>>The facts and circumstances confused him. This is the original question:
>>
>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
>>the RIGHT to just take my property?
>
>
>
> And my answer doesn't change. He might, given the right set of facts and
> circumstances.
I have given THE set of facts and circumstances I am interested in.
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald,
have the RIGHT to just take my property?
If you are not going to answer the question, drop out of this thread.
Dale Eastman
Paul A Thomas wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" wrote
>
>>Can the State of Wisconsin make laws that are applicable
>>to the residents of the State of Florida?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise
>>known as 'police powers', does the State of Wisconsin have
>>police powers to enforce its laws upon residents of Florida?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>Can the State of Florida make laws that are applicable
>>to the residents of the State of Wisconsin?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>Since a law is a command backed by threat of force, otherwise
>>known as 'police powers', does the State of Florida have police
>>powers to enforce its laws upon residents of Wisconsin?
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>What limits the Jurisdictions of the States of Florida and Wisconsin?
>
>
>
> In reality, not much.
>
Richard Macdonald, please show us proof of your Wisconsin Property
taxes paid on your Florida home. Also Please show us your Wisconsin
vehicle registration for your vehicle garaged and driven primarily in
the State of Florida.
It is your duty to do this to support Paul Thomas' assertions.
Dale Eastman
Martin Holterman wrote:
There is a reason The State of Florida, The State of Wisconsin, and
The State of the United States can not reach you.
It is the same reason that the State of Wisconsin can not reach into
the State of Florida and vice versa.
I'll develop the argument as certain others either answer or show
there canary colors and refuse to answer.
You have noted the replies of one Paul Thomas?
Likely not yet, since he posted his reply approximately 2 minutes
after you did.
Paul
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> Richard Macdonald, please show us proof of your
> Wisconsin Property taxes paid on your Florida home.
Wisconsin doesn't have such a law.
Dale, you should at least try to use real life situations to make a point.
Hell boy, if you have to go that far out on a limb to "prove" you are
correct, it should tell you how fucked up your version of reality is.
> Also Please show us your Wisconsin vehicle registration for
> your vehicle garaged and driven primarily in the State of Florida.
That may actually happen, especially where a Wisconsin citizen is a Florida
resident (to use your terms).
If I can find one person who for all intents and purposes resides in
Florida, but claims (for some strange reason) a Wisconsin citizenship, and
has their vehicle taged in Wisconsin, will you jump off the Sears building
from the 30th floor?
> It is your duty to do this to support Paul Thomas' assertions.
No, it's not. It's yours to decide if you want to continue down this road
till you lose.
--
Paul
"Dale Eastman" wrote
>> All of which explains why I don't pay taxes to the states of Wisconsin or
>> Florida, nor to the Federal government of the United States. After all, I
>> don't live in any of these places. But you, Dale, do (presumably). So how
>> does any of this help your argument?
>>
>> Martin Holterman
>
> There is a reason The State of Florida, The State of Wisconsin, and The
> State of the United States can not reach you.
Not too bright there, are ya Dale.
> It is the same reason that the State of Wisconsin can not reach into the
> State of Florida and vice versa.
Ummm.......no.
> I'll develop the argument as certain others either answer or show there
> canary colors and refuse to answer.
So, you'll change your tune when the true facts surface.
> You have noted the replies of one Paul Thomas?
>
> Likely not yet, since he posted his reply approximately 2 minutes after
> you did.
Martin is like........in another time zone, to be sure.
In fact, it's possible that it's tomorrow there already, if not damn close
to it.
Dale Eastman
Paul wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" wrote
>
>>Richard Macdonald, please show us proof of your
>>Wisconsin Property taxes paid on your Florida home.
>
>
>
> Wisconsin doesn't have such a law.
Why not?
> It's yours to decide if you want to continue down this road
> till you lose.
Uh,huh.
Dale Eastman
Paul wrote:
> Not too bright there, are ya
> Martin is like........in another time zone, to be sure.
>
> In fact, it's possible that it's tomorrow there already, if not damn close
> to it.
Screen capture.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/collaborators/timezone.GIF
Archmedes
You mean like this:
"I'm willing to die while fighting tyranny. Are you as willing in your fight to
attempt to impose it? Don't you ever fucking celebrate the fourth of July again.
You dishonor it with your ignorance of freedom."....delusional dale eastman
Dale Eastman
Archmedes wrote:
> You mean like this:
>
> "I'm willing to die while fighting tyranny. Are you as willing in your fight to
> attempt to impose it? Don't you ever fucking celebrate the fourth of July again.
> You dishonor it with your ignorance of freedom."....delusional dale eastman
That answers these questions, how?
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you have the RIGHT to just
take my property?
2. Can you assign power of attorney to any individual and give them
the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
5. If you do not have the RIGHT to just take my property, how can you
give that right to any other entity, be it a natural person,
corporation, or government?
The lurker is requested to observe how certain individuals will
attempt to derail certain discussions.
Sorry ackmed, I'm not in the mood to play uproar with you today.
Maybe next week will be good.
Dave Johnson
> >>> I will attest that the nym "Dale R Eastman" is a kook and usenet
> >>> scammer in misc.taxes and other groups
> >>
> >> It's interesting to watch delusional dale reach out and touch
> >> someone in other newsgroups. And they reply, probably thinking they
> >> are entering into a rational conversation with a rational person. Little do
> >> they realize...they are traveling to another dimension --
> >> a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey
> >> into a looneytoons land whose boundaries are that of your wildest
> >> delusions. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight
> >> Zone!
> > It's also interesting to watch the cockroachs scurry out of their dark
> > nooks and crannies to spew scorn, ridicule, and denigration while at
> > the same time studiously avoiding the issues presented.
>
> You mean like this:
>
> "I'm willing to die while fighting tyranny. Are you as willing in your fight to attempt to impose it? Don't you ever fucking celebrate the fourth of July again. You dishonor it with your ignorance of freedom."....delusional dale eastman
Delusional dale tries to sell his tax scam CD's on the fourth of July !
www.quatlosers.com www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
When a scam gets rolling, all sorts of human cockroaches come out of
the woodwork to try to cash in. This is the perfect description of
Larken Rose, a scammer come lately to the world of tax protesting Not
being smart enough to come up with any unique theory of his own, Larken
has simply latched on to the "861" or "Income Can't Be
Defined" arguments that end up with the conclusion that only
foreigners are required to pay income tax. taxableincome. 861.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
The claim is that the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to most of
the income of citizens of the United States because the only
definitions of "sources of income" apply only to nonresident aliens and
foreign corporations. (See I.R.C. section 861 and its regulations.)
This argument is completely contrary to the express language of the
Internal Revenue Code and its regulations.
http://www.fraudsandscams.com
For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income
from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services.
I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be
income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is
specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d
228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of
federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income
means all income from whatever source derived."
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatlosers.com larken rose "861" internet tax scams
Paul
"Dale Eastman" wrote
>>>Richard Macdonald, please show us proof of your
>>>Wisconsin Property taxes paid on your Florida home.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wisconsin doesn't have such a law.
>
> Why not?
Beats the hell out of me.
You'd have to ask Wisconsin though.
Archmedes
> Archmedes wrote:
>
>> You mean like this:
>>
>> "I'm willing to die while fighting tyranny. Are you as willing in
>> your fight to attempt to impose it? Don't you ever fucking celebrate the
>> fourth of
>> July again. You dishonor it with your ignorance of freedom."....delusional
>> dale
>> eastman
> That answers these questions, how?
<snip delusional gibberish>
In other words, it's okay for the "cockroach to scurry out of his dark nooks and
crannies to spew scorn, ridicule, and denigration while at the same time
studiously avoiding the issues presented", as long as the cockroach is
delusional dale.
Dale Eastman
Archmedes wrote:
Sorry ackmed, I'm not in the mood to play uproar with you today.
Maybe next week will be good.
Welcome one and all to the tumultuous and contentious world of misc.taxes.
Now ackmed, about these questions....?
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you have the RIGHT to just
take my property?
2. Can you assign power of attorney to any individual and give them
the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of contract?
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
5. If you do not have the RIGHT to just take my property, how can you
give that right to any other entity, be it a natural person,
corporation, or government?
The lurker is requested to observe how certain individuals will
attempt to derail certain discussions.
--
Martin Holterman
I'm going to guess that he wasn't being serious...
Martin Holterman
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> I have given THE set of facts and circumstances I am interested in.
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard Macdonald, have
> the RIGHT to just take my property?
Yes, he can.
> If you are not going to answer the question, drop out of this thread.
Make me.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Archmedes
> Now ackmed, about these questions....?
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you have the RIGHT to just
> take my property?
>
> 2. Can you assign power of attorney to any individual and give them
> the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of
> contract?
> 3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant do
> anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?
>
> 4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
>
> 5. If you do not have the RIGHT to just take my property, how can you
> give that right to any other entity, be it a natural person,
> corporation, or government?
Here you go:
http://answers.google.com/answers/
More than 500 carefully screened Researchers are ready to answer your question
for as little as $2.50 -- usually within 24 hours. Your satisfaction is
completely guaranteed.
Dale Eastman
Martin Holterman wrote:
LOL.
If you can't say something nice about somebody, you shouldn't say it.
With that in mind;
Mr. Thomas is a regular in misc.taxes.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> Now answer my question.
What a wonderful segue Mr. Macdonald.
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you,
Richard Macdonald, have the RIGHT to just take my
property?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of
attorney to any individual and give them the RIGHT to
just take my property absent a tort or breach of
contract?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the
servant do anything in the name of the master that
the master can not do?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come
from?
It's an open ended question to which you answered, "See the preamble".
This was the answer of a hostile witness. The correct answer is "The
People". As a hostile witness, the lawyers are allowed to lead the
witness. Here is were you were led;
5. If you, Richard Macdonald, do not have the RIGHT
to just take my property, how can you give that right
to any other entity, be it a natural person,
corporation, or government?
It's a Yes/No question.
This question was posted on the 26th. You posted on the 27th, but did
not post a reply where this question was posted, thus;
You have failed to answer, so I'm answering for you. The answer is NO.
Additional questions posted on the 26th that you ignored in your
posting on the 27th:
Can the State of Wisconsin make laws that are
applicable to the residents of the State of Florida?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
Since a law is a command backed by threat of force,
otherwise known as 'police powers', does the State of
Wisconsin have police powers to enforce its laws upon
residents of Florida?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
Can the State of Florida make laws that are
applicable to the residents of the State of Wisconsin?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
Since a law is a command backed by threat of force,
otherwise known as 'police powers', does the State of
Florida have police powers to enforce its laws upon
residents of Wisconsin?
It's a Yes/No question. You have failed to answer, so I'm answering
for you. The answer is NO.
What limits the Jurisdictions of the States of
Florida and Wisconsin?
This is an open ended question that you have failed to answer.
I will address this question in an upcoming post.
Richard Macdonald
Richard Macdonald
news:Riqme.3268$MI4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>> Now answer my question.
>
> What a wonderful segue Mr. Macdonald.
>
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you,
> Richard Macdonald, have the RIGHT to just take my
> property?
Yes
> 2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of
> attorney to any individual and give them the RIGHT to
> just take my property absent a tort or breach of
> contract?
Yes
> 3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the
> servant do anything in the name of the master that
> the master can not do?
Yes
> 4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come
> from?
See the preamble.
The Secretary of the Treasury has NO authority under the
Constitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Laws
enacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time as
the Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws.
True or False.
The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury regulation
(however inconsistent with the statutory text) may be relevant to whether
penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be assessed, see Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. ____, ____ (1991) (slip op., at 9-11), but it
cannot control the determination of whether the tax was due and owing
according to Congress's command.
-- United States v. Burke, KTC 1992-106 (S.Ct. 1992)
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Riqme.3268$MI4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now answer my question.
>>
>>What a wonderful segue Mr. Macdonald.
>>
>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you,
>>Richard Macdonald, have the RIGHT to just take my
>>property?
>
>
> Yes
Please elaborate.
>>2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of
>>attorney to any individual and give them the RIGHT to
>>just take my property absent a tort or breach of
>>contract?
>
>
> Yes
Please elaborate.
>>3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the
>>servant do anything in the name of the master that
>>the master can not do?
>
>
> Yes
Please elaborate.
>>4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come
>>from?
>
>
> See the preamble.
It's an open ended question to which you answered, "See the preamble".
Richard Macdonald
answer because he cannot do so without destroying his assertions:
26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(H) The INCOME DERIVED FROM
GUAM by an individual who is subject to section 935;
Larken Rose lists this clause on the first page of his assertions as a
"source" of income, it is also listed as listed in the 861evidence.com
webpage.
And
26 USC SECTION 935. [REPEALED. PUB. L. 99-514, TITLE
XII, SECTION 1272(d)(2), OCT. 22, 1986, 100 STAT. 2594]
Is this clause in the Regulation still valid when the statute referenced
was been repealed in 1986, 19 years ago?
-----
Dale still avoids this question of who has Constitutional
Power to Tax, Congress or the Secretary of the Treasury.
Of course Dale does not want to discuss the Constitution
and Taxes as it will completely invalidate his position.
1. Can the Department of the Treasury write a legally valid regulation
that is not in accordance with Statutes enacted by Congress.
Yes or No?
2. Can a Person make a legally valid interpretation a Treasury Regulation
in ways that are not in accordance with Statutes enacted by Congress.
Yes or No?
The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury regulation
(however inconsistent with the statutory text) may be relevant to whether
penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be assessed, see Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. ____, ____ (1991) (slip op., at 9-11), but it
cannot control the determination of whether the tax was due and owing
according to Congress's command.
-- United States v. Burke, KTC 1992-106 (S.Ct. 1992)
"A legislative regulation is to be upheld unless "arbitrary, capricious,
or manifestly contrary to the statute."
-- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
"Congress has not delegated power or authority to make such a regulation."
-- LYNCH v. TILDEN PRODUCE CO, 265 U.S. 315 (1924)
--
These are just a few of the many questions that Dale Eastman has refused to
answer or just thrown up walls of BS as a diversion.
--
Richard A Macdonald, CPA/EA
Dedicated student of Fr Luca Paccioli, Master Juggler.
Gib mir schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> Of course there are a whole lot of questions that Dale won't answer
> because he cannot do so without destroying his assertions:
>
> 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(H) The INCOME DERIVED FROM GUAM by an
> individual who is subject to section 935;
>
> Larken Rose lists this clause on the first page of his assertions
> as a "source" of income, it is also listed as listed in the
> 861evidence.com webpage.
>
> And
>
> 26 USC SECTION 935. [REPEALED. PUB. L. 99-514, TITLE XII, SECTION
> 1272(d)(2), OCT. 22, 1986, 100 STAT. 2594]
>
> Is this clause in the Regulation still valid when the statute
> referenced was been repealed in 1986, 19 years ago?
>
> ----- Dale still avoids this question of who has Constitutional
> Power to Tax, Congress or the Secretary of the Treasury. Of course
> Dale does not want to discuss the Constitution and Taxes as it will
> completely invalidate his position.
Normally I would just flush your crap. I'm leaving it here for the new
lurkers in the cross posted groups. I'm just pushing it down to the
bottom of the post.
The segue you provided leads right back to the post you just ignored.
You want to distract on the Constitutional power to tax, but you don't
want to examine were the Constitution gets its authority and power.
To that end, your strenuous attempt to avoid the issue is to give a
facetious answers totally devoid of substance. So from the post you
replied to, I'm replacing the questions, answers, and clarifying
follow-ups to show just who is the coward here.
>>>> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; Do you, Richard
>>>> Macdonald, have the RIGHT to just take my property?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>>
>>>> 2. Can you, Richard Macdonald, assign power of attorney to
>>>> any individual and give them the RIGHT to just take my
>>>> property absent a tort or breach of contract?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>>
>>>> 3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, can the servant
>>>> do anything in the name of the master that the master can not
>>>> do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Please elaborate.
You halfway correctly answered question 4:
>>>> 4. Where does the authority of the Constitution come from?
>>>
>>> See the preamble.
Then you snipped and totally ignored the rest of the post, meaning you
also snipped and ignored these questions.
The rest of your crap is ignored as the cart does not belong before
the horse.
> 1. Can the Department of the Treasury write a legally valid
> regulation that is not in accordance with Statutes enacted by
> Congress. Yes or No?
>
> 2. Can a Person make a legally valid interpretation a Treasury
> Regulation in ways that are not in accordance with Statutes enacted
> by Congress. Yes or No?
>
> The existence of an ever-so-rare "taxpayer-friendly" Treasury
> regulation (however inconsistent with the statutory text) may be
> relevant to whether penalties for blameworthy failure to pay can be
> assessed, see Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. ____, ____ (1991)
> (slip op., at 9-11), but it cannot control the determination of
> whether the tax was due and owing according to Congress's command.
> -- United States v. Burke, KTC 1992-106 (S.Ct. 1992)
>
> "A legislative regulation is to be upheld unless "arbitrary,
> capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." -- Chevron
> U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
>
> "Congress has not delegated power or authority to make such a
> regulation." -- LYNCH v. TILDEN PRODUCE CO, 265 U.S. 315 (1924) --
> These are just a few of the many questions that Dale Eastman has
> refused to answer or just thrown up walls of BS as a diversion. --
> Richard A Macdonald, CPA/EA Dedicated student of Fr Luca Paccioli,
> Master Juggler. Gib mir schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!
>
>
>
--
Dave Johnson
Normally I would just flush your crap. I'm leaving it here for the new
lurkers in the cross posted groups. I'm just pushing it down to the
bottom of the post.
dale, the "lurkers" think you're just a "pile of crap" !!!!!!!!!!!!!
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
Various tax scams ("861", irwin schiff, gross income, etc.) rest upon
quotations out of context from the regulations. For example, tax
protesters like to quote the first sentence of Treas. Reg. ("Part I
(section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and
the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes
of the income tax.") but steadfastly ignore the second sentence of the
same paragraph ("These sections explicitly allocate certain important
sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United
States, as the case may be....") because the second sentence makes it
clear that the purpose of the regulations is to determine the
geographical source of income, which is relevant only to nonresident
aliens, foreign corporations, and certain other taxpayers.
Courageous
>Yes, you can. You can give the government the RIGHT to tax yourself.
>What you can NOT do, is give the government the RIGHT to tax ME.
He, and the We The People, certainly can. You may not like it, you
may not think it's right, but they certainly /can/.
BTW, your apportionment argument won't work in a court of law, will
result in your argument being deemed frivolous, and will add copious
fines to your back tax bill.
C//
LMBrown
...nothing of relevance...again.
LMBrown
LMBrown
...nothing of relevance...again.
LMBrown
LMBrown
"Courageous" <dont...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:othf91h90rvu74eqh...@4ax.com...
|
| >It's interesting to watch delusional dale reach out and touch someone in
other
| >newsgroups. And they reply, probably thinking they are entering into a
rational
| >conversation with a rational person.
|
|
| C//
|
Thanks for your $0.02. Now go play in the street, will you?
LMBrown
Dale Eastman
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; NONE of you have the
RIGHT to just take my property. To do so would be theft.
2. NONE of you can assign power of attorney to any individual and give
them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of
contract. To do so would be theft on the part of your agent.
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, the servant can NOT do
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do. The
servant is the agent of the master. If the master can not steal my
property by theft, the servant can not do it either. Whether the
servant does it in the name of the master, or in the servant's own
individual capacity, it is still theft.
4. The authority of the Constitution comes from The People. That means
that the The People are the Sovereigns. Power and Authority flow FROM
the Sovereign.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with inherent and 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;
"From the Consent of the Governed." I will re-address this below. The
purpose of government of the United States is to protect the
individual's rights.
We the people of the United States, in order to form
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
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.
We the people, grant to the government the power that we have.
If we don't have it, we can NOT grant it to the government.
All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested...
Article 1, Section 1
5. If NONE of you have the RIGHT to just take my property, NONE of you
can give that right to any other entity, be it a natural person,
corporation, or government. Therefore, you can NOT grant that action
as a right, through the Constitution, to the Legistative Branch. Not
having that right, the Legislative can NOT give to the Executive any
license to do the same.
To argue, as some will, that is what the Constitution allows, is to
ignore basic logic. Reductio ad absurdum; To protect you from people
taking your stuff, the government will use the powers granted by The
People...... To take your stuff.
Eminent Domain arguments are addressed by the founders with this phrase:
[N]or shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Amendment V
This presents an interesting conundrum. Money is property. Labor is
property.
The right to labor, the right to one's self
physically and intellectually, and to the product of
one's own faculties, is past doubt property, and
property of a sacred kind.
IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/83/36.html>
The Supreme Court in the Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111
U.S. 746 (1884) quoted Adam Smith’s wealth of nations, in a case about
a monopoly that affected individuals rights to labor at common
occupations.
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that
great document, is the right of men to pursue their
happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any
lawful business or vocation, in any manner not
inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which
may increase their prosperity or develop their
faculties, so as to give to them their highest
enjoyment.
The common business and callings of life, the
ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in
themselves, and have been followed in all communities
from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this
country to all alike upon the same conditions. The
right to pursue them, without let or hindrance,
except that which is applied to all persons of the
same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing
privilege of citizens of the United States, and an
essential element of that freedom which they claim as
their birthright.
It has been well said that 'the property which every
man has in his own labor, as it is the original
foundation of all other property, so it is the most
sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man
lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands,
and to hinder his employing this strength and
dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without
injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this
most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment
upon the just liberty both of the workman and of
those who might be disposed to employ him. As it
hinders the one from working at what he thinks
proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom
they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.
Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,
111 U.S. 746 (1884)
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=111&page=746>
In Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) the Supreme Court
makes a Constitutional connection regarding the Right of personal
Liberty and the Right of Private Property, as well as the connection
to the Right to labor and contracts.
And the court has reached a conclusion which, in its
judgment, is consistent with both the words and
spirit of the Constitution, and is sustained as well
by sound reason.'
The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in
the right of personal liberty and the right of
private property-partaking of the nature of each- is
the right to make contracts for the acquisition of
property. Chief among such contracts is that of
personal employment, by which labor and other
services are exchanged for money or other forms of
property.
If this right be struck down or arbitrarily
interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of
liberty in the long-established constitutional sense.
The right is as essential to the laborer as to the
capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast
majority of persons have no other honest way to begin
to acquire property, save by working for money.
[N]or shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Amendment V
If both money and labor are PRIVATE property owned by a PRIVATE
individual, how then is the taking of money or the taking of labor to
be "just[ly] compensated"?
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> 1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; NONE of you have the
> RIGHT to just take my property. To do so would be theft.
There are other ways besides a tort or a breach of contract in which someone
else would have a right to your property.
> 2. NONE of you can assign power of attorney to any individual and give
> them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of
> contract. To do so would be theft on the part of your agent.
See my answer above. Once the right to the property passed, they could do
whatever they wanted, and yes, they could send someone to collect it from
your cold dead hands.
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
Dale Eastman
Mr. Macdonald chose to totally ignore the questions about State
jurisdictions. I'm now focusing on this part of the Constitution
thread.
I doubt Mr. Macdonald will answer, because once a Constitutional
reason is proven for the way the regulations of the tax law read at
face value, his argument attempting to erase the clear words in this
regulation come to naught.
"income not taxable by the Federal Government under
the Constitution"
[26 CFR 1.312-6]
Can the State of Wisconsin make laws that are applicable to the
residents of the State of Florida?
Can the State of Florida make laws that are applicable to the
residents of the State of Wisconsin?
Does the State of Wisconsin have police powers to enforce its laws
upon residents of Florida?
Does the State of Florida have police powers to enforce its laws upon
residents of Wisconsin?
Can the State of Wisconsin reach into Florida to tax Florida residents?
Can the State of Florida reach into Wisconsin to tax Wisconsin residents?
The answer is no... unless the residents of the one State are within
the territory and thus the jurisdiction of the other State.
Jurisdiction ends where the territory ends.
One State can not tell another State what to do within its own territory.
The State of Florida has no police power to tell anybody to do
anything in the State of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin has no
police power to tell anybody to do anything in the State of Florida.
Dale Eastman
Courageous wrote:
>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; NONE of you have the
>>RIGHT to just take my property. To do so would be theft.
>
>
> This is argumentum ad nauseum. Old, tiring, repetitive, and [unrefuted].
Dale Eastman
Paul A Thomas wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" wrote
>
>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; NONE of you have the
>>RIGHT to just take my property. To do so would be theft.
>
>
>
> There are other ways besides a tort or a breach of contract in which someone
> else would have a right to your property.
>
>
>
>>2. NONE of you can assign power of attorney to any individual and give
>>them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of
>>contract. To do so would be theft on the part of your agent.
>
>
>
> See my answer above. Once the right to the property passed, they could do
> whatever they wanted, and yes, they could send someone to collect it from
> your cold dead hands.
That's nice paul.
Wonderful attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant trivia.
I ain't dead, thus;
1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; NONE of you have the
RIGHT to just take my property. To do so would be theft.
2. NONE of you can assign power of attorney to any individual and give
them the RIGHT to just take my property absent a tort or breach of
contract. To do so would be theft on the part of your agent.
3. In the relationship of MASTER and SERVANT, the servant can NOT do
Richard Macdonald
>
> Mr. Macdonald chose to totally ignore the questions about State
> jurisdictions. I'm now focusing on this part of the Constitution thread.
>
> I doubt Mr. Macdonald will answer, because once a Constitutional reason is
> proven for the way the regulations of the tax law read at face value, his
> argument attempting to erase the clear words in this regulation come to
> naught.
>
> "income not taxable by the Federal Government under
> the Constitution"
> [26 CFR 1.312-6]
Dale, cite any Constitutionally excluded income from earlier cases,
that was not later overturned, that is not excluded or exempted
by statute under the 1954 code, if I am wrong, it should be quite
easy for you to cite my error.
Dave Johnson
> "income not taxable by the Federal Government under
> the Constitution"
> [26 CFR 1.312-6]
Dale, cite any Constitutionally excluded income from earlier cases,
that was not later overturned, that is not excluded or exempted
by statute under the 1954 code, if I am wrong, it should be quite
easy for you to cite my error.
dale cannot provide any cites - just more tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
Various tax scams ("861", gross income, etc.) rest upon quotations out
Paul A Thomas
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> That's nice paul.
>
> Wonderful attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant trivia.
So are you claiming that "Absent a tort, or breach of contract" no one can
ever have your property?
AllYou!
AllYou!
AllYou!
AllYou!
Dale Eastman
Courageous wrote:
>>>>1. Absent a tort, or breach of contract; NONE of you have the
>>>>RIGHT to just take my property. To do so would be theft.
>
>
>>>This is argumentum ad nauseum. Old, tiring, repetitive, and [unrefuted].
>
>
> It's an /assertion/, not an argument. Learn the difference.
You're proving yourself to be the intellectual equal of AllYou! or
DaveJohnson. bye now.
Hale Westman
Courageous wrote:
> This is argumentum ad nauseum. Old, tiring, repetitive, and [unrefuted].
> You're proving yourself to be the intellectual equal of
> DaveJohnson. bye now.
dale,
are you now ashamed of your scams?
or has Kitty slapped a restraining order on you --
you can get help ---->>>>>
Dale Eastman
misc.taxes that Hale Westman, Cale Northman, and DaveJohnson are all
the same sock puppet.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/netabuse.html
Dave Johnson
Courageous wrote:
> This is argumentum ad nauseum. Old, tiring, repetitive, and [unrefuted].
> I reply only to apprise the Lurkers in the groups other than misc.taxes that DaveJohnson
> the same sock puppet.
but what happens if the "lurkers" know all about your internet scams
dale?
( hint: everyone is part of the worldwide government conspiracy to
thwart your mind)
Dave Johnson
> I reply only to apprise the Lurkers in the groups other than misc.taxes that DaveJohnson is evil >>>>
but what happens if the "lurkers" know all about your internet scams
dale?
( hint: everyone is part of the worldwide government conspiracy to
"mess with your mind")
Dale Eastman
Paul A Thomas wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" wrote
>
>>That's nice paul.
>>
>>Wonderful attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant trivia.
>
>
>
> So are you claiming that "Absent a tort, or breach of contract" no one can
> ever have your property?
I'll consider answering your question when you replace the context of
the question.
Paul
"Dale Eastman" wrote
> I'll consider answering your question when
> you replace the context of the question.
Your refusal to answer is noted.
--