Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[notorial dissent]

Actually, there is a simple, concise, and precise answer to Eastman's intellectually dishonest and equally pointless question. "It depends." But then, that is his stock in trade, intellectual and factual dishonesty.

[grixit]

Government power is an emergent property.

[wserra]

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

[Demosthenes]

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

When someone is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot, complimenting his aim in polite terms doesn't save his foot.

[wserra]

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

When someone is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot, complimenting his aim in polite terms doesn't save his foot.

He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him. Proverbs 13:24. In other words, spareth the feelings, spoileth the ass.

Hey, this is fun.

[LPC]

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post.

There is nothing about politeness or respect that requires calling bullshit "rainbow sherbet".

Eastman's tone and attitude seems to be calculated to demonstrate (and to reassure himself and the other voices in his head), that he is the polite and rational one, much like Norman Bates tried to demonstrate how he "wouldn't hurt a fly" at the end of "Psycho."

[Famspear]

In fairness to Mr. Dale Eastman, I would note that in the past he has been a bit more polite than many other tax protesters who, as a group, tend to be pretty nasty characters.

Having said that, Mr. Eastman might need to remind himself that the purpose of this web site is to expose scams. On the internet, Mr. Eastman has repeatedly posted his beliefs in the form of the rhetoric of a scam -- a tax protester-tax denier scam.

He might not himself be regarded as a "promoter" of the scam in the strictest sense. He is not (to my knowledge) selling books or taking money from other people. So, he is not as bad as the Irwin Schiffs, the Pete Hendricksons, the Larken Roses of the world.

But he nevertheless must be held to account for his own pronouncements, whether he made them here or in some other place on the internet. He is free to post his own wackadoodle views about tax law and anarchism. He is not entitled to be free from the effects of the responses that he has received in this thread. The responses of Quatloos regulars here have been eminently reasonable.

[notorial dissent]

As pointed out by Famspear, Eastman does not appear, at least currently, to be a promoter, and has maintained a level of politeness and civility, albeit condescendingly, that few of the ilk ever attempt or could manage.

That being said, and again as Famspear so correctly points out, he, Eastman, is free to believe whatever asinine thing he chooses to. He is not free, however, to attempt to twist answers out of people that suit his requirements for reality, and he is not free to expect others, particularly those with functioning gray matter to fall down and worship at his revealed truth. It ain't a gonna happen, for one thing, and for the most obvious reason, that he is quite frankly full of it, and not only not right, he is not even close to right.

Now laughed and snickered at he is just going to have to cope with, since that is going to be his lot in life if he continues with his chosen avocation. Politeness aside, if one is going to spend ones time making an utter and complete fool of oneself the occasional guffaw has to be expected, even under the best of circumstances, politeness can only extend so far even under the best of intentions. If one is going to make a career of making a spectacle of oneself, then one must come to terms with being laughed at.

Unfortunately comedy, albeit unintended, is not his forté, so I rather suspect he is going to have to settle for being largely ignored and written off. He has managed to be neither original, nor more importantly amusing, so his interest to me is negligible at best, I fear his intended career in unintended comedy is doomed to failure, rather coincidentally not unlike his quest to prove his delusions fact.

And, as someone or other has written, as trolls go, he should, having provided neither interest nor amusement here, his time is done.

[Mr. Eastman]

Eastman's question is a thinly-veiled introduction to discuss his argument against the concept of authority -- i.e., that since no one has the right to impose his will on another, no individual or group can grant the government the right to do so.

Now you've gone and spoiled the surprise.

If that's his point, then he really is delusional, because almost all of the major functions of government are functions that individuals can NOT perform, including trial and punishment, taxation, and police powers generally.

Bold emphasis mine. Very important assertion noted for future examination.

Eastman, like Larken Rose, got tired of getting beat up over the asinine 861 argument, so he stopped trying to argue law and became an anarchist. He has been regurgitating his verbal diarrhea* on another website that started out focusing on Cracking the Code but later degenerated into sheer idiocy.

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forum ... son?page=1

*I know that's a terribly mixed metaphor, but it somehow fits Eastman's posts to a T.

Personal attack noted.

Well, you know what they say, if you can't argue the law, argue fantasy, and if you can't argue fantasy, argue (poorly) semantics

Personal attack noted.

What's next, Dale? I know you were busy yesterday copying and pasting these posts to your site, but you're keeping us on pins and needles waiting for the other shoe to drop in the bucket. (Has anyone ever written a metaphor thesaurus? A metaphorus?)

Oh, and Dale, you do understand that synapses don't actually spark, right?

Mr. (?) notorial dissent, You are correct, I was busy copying and pasting the posts to my site. I was busy with other mundane tasks of life as well.

If you were all excited with anticipation of my post, I apologize for taking my time and making you suffer through learning some patience. If I only post one post a week, that's what you're just going to have to learn to live with.

Oh, and N.D., you do understand that your attempted distraction and attempted personal ridicule about my site metaphor is meaningless, right?

Oh, and Dale, you do understand that synapses don't actually spark, right?

His do.

Personal attack noted.

[Mr. Eastman]

Dale Eastman is a slow learner.

Mr. Williams' opinion, personal attack noted.

He has been wandering around the internet for years, posing questions. For federal income tax law, it used to be his “78 questions” (I think that was the number; it kept changing). In his quaint, amateurish way, he had tried to set up the questions so that (he believed) they required yes-or-no answers.

Ridicule, disrespect, and disdain noted.

For the casual reader:
If a question broaches a topic where an answer of yes or no is self-evident, and the person or persons asked the question refuse to answer the question, do you think it indicates that the person(s) refusing to answer the question do not want to admit to the self-evident truth contained in the question? For instance, do you need to breathe? Do you own yourself?

I ask the reader to note how my first question, in my first post, has been responded to by the regulars of Quatloos.

Dale thought he had figured out that he was not subject to federal income tax, and that if he could just get others to walk through the questions with him one by one, he could “prove” to others and to himself that he was right.

I'm only subject to the federal income tax if I have income. I'll not be addressing that subject at this time. There are other issues to be addressed first.

He held the false belief that the questions could properly be answered only the way he wanted them to be answered, of course.

Well then, you and the other regulars at Quatloos should have some fun decimating my "false belief" that questions about self-evident truths can only honestly be answered one way.

He also incorrectly thought that the answer to each question would inexorably, logically, and necessarily lead all the way to the conclusion he wanted so desperately to reach.

He still thinks that honest answers to each question will inexorably, logically, and necessarily lead to a conclusion that is the truth. (Obviously, Mr. Williams et al do not agree with him as to what that truth is.)

Dale tried the stunt with me six years ago, but was frustrated when I obliterated his goofy Merchants’ Loan argument that “income” somehow meant only “corporate profit” or “corporate gain” (which argument of course was not original with him but had been tried unsuccessfully in court by Irwin Schiff and many other tax protesters just as dumb as Dale is).

Actually at that time Mr. Eastman didn't have the time required to pursue his objective. Personal attack noted.

He folded his tent and slithered away.

And now that he has some time he is here to beard the lion pride in its den. Slowly and methodically.

Mr. Williams calling Mr. Eastman a snake by innuendo noted. True Colors.

Come on, Dale! You’ve received several answers to your question. Why can’t you answer our questions?

Dale Eastman’s question was: “Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?”

He obviously wanted the answer to be “No.” The answer everyone gave was: Yes. And Dale was given several examples of why the answer is Yes.

At the time the impatient Mr. Williams posted this post, Mr. Eastman had not yet posted a reply to those examples. If the casual reader is reading this topic in chronological order, the casual reader has already read those replies.

On Tuesday, I explained to Dale that it is possible for a private individual to direct a disposition of property when the individual not only does not possess the property, but doesn’t even own it. My example was:

For example, let's think about a trust (an arrangement whereby one person, called a trustee, holds legal title for the use and benefit of another person, called a beneficiary). Let's say that Bob is the Trustee and Mary is the beneficiary of our trust. It is legally possible in certain circumstances for the trust to have been set up so that an individual -- let's call him Joe (who is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary of the trust) -- to direct that the ownership of certain property in the trust be transferred to someone else, even though Joe has no legal right to the property himself, and has no right to transfer the property to himself, to his own estate, to his creditors, or to the creditors of his estate.

Due to Mr. Williams' impatience, he has posted this post before reading my reply.

My question for Dale was: Does he know the technical legal term for what Joe has?

As already pointed out in the reply that Mr. Williams had not had chance to read before making this post, Mr. Williams is setting up a straw man on the issue of knowledge of "the technical legal term" for his scenario. Also, as should be evident already, Mr. Williams wants to "poison the well" and paint a picture for the casual reader in an attempt to get said casual reader to discount and dismiss anything I post.

The answer is that Joe has a special power of appointment. Joe does not own or possess the property, but he has the power to transfer the property from the current owner to someone else. Every tax lawyer who deals with estate planning is familiar with this legal term.

Well, Mr. Williams, thank you for satisfying my curiosity on the name of the authority vested in Joe. As I stated in the post you had not had the chance to read, "As to my original question, the technical term for the authority vested in Joe has no bearing."

The casual reader is asked to note the very subtle innuendo contained in his statement. The implication you are supposed to subconsciously pick up, is that I don't know certain things a "tax lawyer" knows, so obviously nothing I say could ever be correct.

Dale Eastman is still posing questions, and is still getting nowhere.

Mr. Williams is only aware of my overt agenda. In time he will figure out my covert agenda.

To expand on what another poster here said: The things Dale Eastman does not know about tax law, property law, the U.S. Constitution, and philosophy would fill volumes.

(shrug) So you assert.

EDIT: I shouldn't rub it in, though. No. No, I shouldn't do that. Mr. Eastman has been humiliated enough, right? Oh....... what the heck........

Oh please do Mr. Williams. Please do rub it in and show the world your True Colors.

In the case of a trust, a power of appointment is

a right allowing a person other than the trust grantor to direct the disposition of property that he or she does not own.

---William P. Streng, Estate Planning, BNA Tax Management Portfolio, Volume 800, Bloomberg BNA (rev. 2012) (italics added).

And, hats off to William P. Streng, who was one of my tax professors in law school!

Powers are granted. Authorities are granted. Permissions are granted. Privileges are granted. Rights are not granted by anybody with a rank of less than God. Whether or not God exists is immaterial because no human has that rank.

That which is granted can be rescinded by the grantor. (The casual reader is asked to observe the argument that will now ensue regarding "rights".)

Mr. Streng is confused. So is Mr. Williams. They wordsmith the English language so that therein, usage such as Mr. Williams has quoted of Mr. Streng is common and thus continues the social engineering to get the peons to believe their rights were granted to them by "government".

By the way, Mr. Dale Eastman, if you'd actually like to learn something about tax law, I would not suggest that you start with Professor Streng's treatise, Estate Planning. A hard copy printout of the online version runs over 540 pages.

The text includes over 2,440 footnotes.

If you'd like to buy the hard copy version of the treatise, it will run you about $400.

I think some of the material may be beyond you, Mr. Eastman.

The casual reader is asked to notice the personal attack. The reader is also asked to notice the economic class arrogance, After all, Mr. Williams knows the price of his law school tax professor's book.

Oh, but wait! Maybe Dale R. Eastman has deep insights about the philosophy of law -- more so than Professor Streng!

Well now, that remains to be seen, doesn't it.

As typical of lawyers, when discovery rolls around and the opposite side needs that one piece of paper, that one document that ends the case with a win, they get sent 48,000 pounds of documents of which that one piece of paper may, or may not be in the shipment.

The casual reader is asked to notice how Mr. Williams et al (and others) will dump 48,000 pounds of information that has no bearing on the issue, in order to bury the issue.

For example:

Let’s compare credentials! I’ll post Professor Streng’s credentials, and then Dale Eastman can come here and post his own credentials.

So Mr. Williams wants to deflect, distract, or disrupt for reasons that will become apparent when I do post my questions and points beyond the first question I have posted.

Mr. Williams quote of Mr. Streng's credentials abridged (ignored). So:

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

Uh, OK, Dale. Now, you can post your own credentials below.

Go ahead.

We’ll be waiting.

The casual reader is asked to notice that Mr. Williams as again attempting to "poison the well" and again attempt to get said casual reader to discount and dismiss anything I post.

Come on Dale. Show everybody why the rest of the world should answer your questions about your deeeeeeep philosophy on tax law – your marvelous, important philosophy that “when the State passes laws that tax the people, the State is initiating violence”.

I will develop the proof of that statement in due course. First I have to wade through all your innuendo and personal attacks to address them.

Come on, Dale Eastman. Give us your credentials. Show us what you’ve accomplished in life that had led you to the point where you believe that others should take note of your philosophy.

The casual reader is asked to notice that Mr. Williams is asserting that one can not have a "philosophy" without credentials. As it appears, Mr. Williams wants you to believe that one can not have any philosophy without credentials.

Since I don't have credentials, Mr. Williams thinks you should not pay attention to my philosophy. One of my tenets of philosophy is that you should not put a bullet between Mr. Williams' eyes just because he is being an internet dick.

I'm sure that Eastman's reply would be somethign along the lines of "Professor Streng is a highly educated elitist who considers himself above ordinary, simple people like me. I'm just as good as he is, so I am just as capable of reading the law and figuring out what it means as he is."

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A civil or criminal statute that is so unclear or ambiguous that a reasonable person of average intelligence could not determine its meaning or application. A vague criminal statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge which could not be understood.

A doctrine derived from the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend.

If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.

The void for vagueness doctrine advances four underlying policies. First, the doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the Due Process Clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, the law becomes a standardless trap for the unwary.

Do you wish to assert that I need Mr. Streng to tell me what the law says?

People like Eastman and his ilk are big boobs, and frankly if I want to be involved with big boobs, I want it to be hands on, with a woman who has such attributes, and not some bloviating, know-nothing, gas-bag like Eastman.

Personal attack noted.

Hey, come on - you've run off the first good troll we've had around here in months in just a day!! You could have at least let the rest of the forum have some fun first. Not fair.

You must be patient, Grasshopper.

[Mr. Eastman]

Hey, come on - you've run off the first good troll we've had around here in months in just a day!! You could have at least let the rest of the forum have some fun first. Not fair.

Yup, after only four posts, Brave Sir Robin bravely ran away...

Believe what you will.

Wes, you just had to encourage him, couldn't just leave bad enough alone, now we're going to subjected to an inundation of his verbal wanderings, like he needed encouragement to begin with, of course, on the other hand, it far exceeds anything we were likely to get from Eastman, so I guess it is an improvement...... I think the comealong and the rice swamps explains a whole when it comes right down to it.

Personal attack noted.

Sadly, not only have we lost the troll, but he also quit copying and pasting to his site after Dan's last post. Only the first of Famspear's poetic efforts has been archived.

What is it with you people jumping to conclusions... No, I did not quit copying all the inane commentary like yours over to my website.

And if I am the troll you believe me to be, why would you post such a comment to feed said troll. (There is no question mark, it's a rhetorical question, that is, a comment.)

And Mr. Williams' other creative verbiage has nothing to do with me, so it won't be copied to my site unless I have reason to upload the Quatloos webpages, saved complete.

The troll is probably too traumatized, by our rejection of his profound legal scholarship, to be able to do more than cuddle his teddy bear.

Personal attack noted.

Oh, you mean our abject failure to fall down in awe and raise praise and to sing hosannas unto him for his revealed wisdom and greatness?????? Yeah, I suspect you might have something there.

On the other hand we didn't let Famspear recite poetry(or whatever that is he does) at him, he should be thankful for smallish favors where he gets them, even if he does then choose to sulk off in a snit.

Sarcastic insult noted.

Believe what you will.

[Mr. Eastman]

I don't think Dale will be back any time soon, so we'll have to play without him.

Oy vey, another one with the assumptions.

Dale has challeged all comers to find fault with any of the statements below. I suspect that Dale thinks he has proven that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes.

Unless you can refute the numbered statements (propositions) and prove the refutation, I have proven that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes FROM THE PEOPLE.

However, the most that can be concluded, even if one accepts all of Dale's statements as true, is that IRS's authority arises other than by delegation from the people.

Mr. (?) Quixote, You just contradicted yourself. If you accept all of my statements as true arguendo, then you have accepted the existence of a chain of delegation of authority from the people to the IRS.

Regardless, you have concluded and asserted: "the most that can be concluded" [...] "is that IRS's authority arises other than by delegation from the people." That is your assertion, and it appears to me that your intention is to support that assertion with what you have written in the rest of your post.

I appreciate your posting of what you think will support your conclusion and assertion.

Despite the apparent belief of some revenue officers, I doubt that IRS's authority comes straight from God, but I haven't completely ruled it out.

To recognize the humor presented is to assume that you don't really believe IRS authority comes from God. So the issue you appear to address in your post is about where the IRS' authority does come from.

As to the apparent belief of some revenue officers: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". See also Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org/

Dale's argument, or whatever this is.

What it is, is an affidavit. The lawyers among the Quatloos crew can explain what an unrebutted affidavit is when it gets into a court room if they so choose. Choosing to do so may be a moot point since this affidavit is being challenged.

1. In order to enforce or collect a tax, the IRS in general, must have authority.

2. The authority for the IRS to collect a tax is suffused throughout Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

3. The authority imbued within the IRC or the Statutes-At-Large is a delegation of authority from Congress.

4. Congress gets its authority from the Constitution.

5. The Constitution gets its authority from “The People”.

6. The People (as a collective) can NOT delegate any authority to the Constitution that The People (as a collective) does not have.

7. No individual in the collective can delegate an authority to the collective that the individual does not have.

8. If nobody in the collective has the authority of taxation, then such authority can not be delegated to the collective, to the Constitution, to the Congress, to the IRC, and finally, to the IRS.

I, Dale R. Eastman, do hereby certify under penalties of perjury, that the affidavit of the forgoing eight ( 8 ) facts is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first error I see is in proposition 4. Congress has legislative power and authority. The IRS authority to collect taxes is executive. Congress has delegated legislative authority of a sort to the Sec. Treas. by allowing him to write regulations, but the IRS's basic administrative authority is executive, not legislative. That authority can not have been delegated by Congress because Congress has no executive power. The authority of the IRS to collect taxes derives from its position within the executive branch, not as a delegation of authority from Congress.

You state: "The first error I see is in proposition 4." Proposition 4 states: "Congress gets its authority from the Constitution." So based on a narrow reading of your words, you seem to be inferring that Congress does NOT get its authority from the Constitution. I don't want to misunderstand your intent. Are you asserting that Congress does NOT get its authority from the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states:

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.

If you are asserting that Congress does NOT get its authority from the Constitution you are in error.

Perhaps you meant to state: "The first error I see is in proposition 3." If so, I admonish you to take a moment to proof read your posts before posting. I'm just guessing based upon the rest your text.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states in part:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

Bold emphasis mine. You state: "The IRS authority to collect taxes is executive." Yet here we see the Constitution giving authority to Congress (the legislative) to collect taxes.

To lay said taxes is to create the law that imposes said taxes. Here we see the Constitution giving authority to Congress to lay taxes.

As shown above in the quote of article 1, section 8, Congress is delegated authority to create law. Such laws created by Congress now follow.

26 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws
Sec. 7801 - Authority of Department of the Treasury
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Treasury, BY LAW, the authority, the power, to administrate and enforce the title 26 Internal Revenue Code.

Contained in that collection of laws is:

26 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 64 - COLLECTION
Subchapter A - General Provisions
Sec. 6301 - Collection authority
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§6301. Collection authority

The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws.

Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Treasury, BY LAW, the authority, the power, to execute the collection of taxes that was delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

You state: "That authority" [to collect taxes] "can not have been delegated by Congress because Congress has no executive power." It seems you are contradicted by 26 USC 6301

26 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
Sec. 7701 - Definitions
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(11) Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary
(A) Secretary of the Treasury

The term “Secretary of the Treasury” means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally, and shall not include any delegate of his.
(B) Secretary

The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.
(12) Delegate
(A) In general

The term “or his delegate”—

(i) when used with reference to the Secretary of the Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context; and

(ii) when used with reference to any other official of the United States, shall be similarly construed.

Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Treasury's delegates, BY LAW, the authority, the power, to execute the collection of taxes that was delegated to Congress by the Constitution. The Secretary of Treasury need only designate his tax collection delegates.

You state: "That authority" [to collect taxes] "can not have been delegated by Congress because Congress has no executive power." It seems you are contradicted by 26 USC 7701(a)(11) and (12) in conjunction with 26 USC 6301.

26 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws
Sec. 7805 - Rules and regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§7805. Rules and regulations
(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.


(c) Preparation and distribution of regulations, forms, stamps, and other matters

The Secretary shall prepare and distribute all the instructions, regulations, directions, forms, blanks, stamps, and other matters pertaining to the assessment and collection of internal revenue.

Rules = regulations. Since properly promulgated regulations "have full force and effect of law", regulations are de facto executively created laws. Google regulations "full force and effect of law"

26 USC 7805 confirms your statement: "Congress has delegated legislative authority of a sort to the Sec. Treas. by allowing him to write regulations,"

Congress has delegated to the Secretary (and per 7701(a)(12), the Secretary's delegates), BY LAW, the authority, the power, to make rules and regulations.

26 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws
Sec. 7803 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue; other officials
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§7803. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; other officials
(a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(1) Appointment
(A) In general

There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such appointment shall be made from individuals who, among other qualifications, have a demonstrated ability in management.

(2) Duties

The Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as the Secretary may prescribe, including the power to—

(A) administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party; and

Congress, BY LAW, has created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and given the Secretary (and his other delegates ) permission to delegate tax collection to the Commissioner (of the IRS).

Quick recap: Constitution delegates tax collection to Congress; Congress delegates tax collection to the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary's delegates; Congress creates the office of Commissioner of the IRS and delegates authority to delegate tax collection authority to the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of Treasury need only designate his tax collection delegates.

The Secretary of Treasury designates his tax collection delegates via the rules and regulations that Congress has delegated authority to the Secretary to make.

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 26 - Internal RevenueVolume: 18Date: 2011-04-01Original Date: 2011-04-01Title: Section 301.6301-1 - Collection authority.Context:
Title 26 - Internal Revenue. CHAPTER I - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (CONTINUED). SUBCHAPTER F - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION. PART 301 - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION. - Collection. - General Provisions.

§ 301.6301-1
Collection authority.
The taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws shall be collected by district directors of internal revenue.

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 26 - Internal RevenueVolume: 18Date: 2011-04-01Original Date: 2011-04-01Title: Section 301.7701-9 - Secretary or his delegate.Context:
Title 26 - Internal Revenue. CHAPTER I - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (CONTINUED). SUBCHAPTER F - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION. PART 301 - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION. - Definitions.

§ 301.7701-9
Secretary or his delegate.
(a) The term Secretary or his delegate means the Secretary of the Treasury, or any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary (directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority) to perform the function mentioned or described in the context, and the term “or his delegate” when used in connection with any other official of the United States shall be similarly construed.
(b) In any case in which a function is vested by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or any other statute in the Secretary or his delegate, and Treasury regulations or Treasury decisions approved by the Secretary or his delegate provide that such function may be performed by the Commissioner, assistant commissioner, regional commissioner, assistant regional commissioner, district director, director of a regional service center, or by a designated officer or employee in the office of any such officer, such provision in the regulations or Treasury decision shall constitute a delegation by the Secretary of the authority to perform such function to the designated officer or employee. If such authority is delegated to any officer or employee performing services under the supervision and control of the Commissioner, such provision in the regulations or Treasury decision shall constitute a delegation by the Secretary to the Commissioner of the authority to perform such function and a redelegation thereof by the Commissioner to the designated officer or employee.
(c) An officer or employee, including the Commissioner, authorized by regulations or Treasury decision to perform a function shall have authority to redelegate the performance of such function to any officer or employee performing services under his supervision and control, unless such power to so redelegate is prohibited or restricted by proper order or directive. The Commissioner may also redelegate authority to perform such function to other officers or employees under his supervision and control and, to the extent he deems proper, may authorize further redelegation of such authority.
(d) The Commissioner may prescribe such limitations as he deems proper on the extent to which any officer or employee under his supervision and control shall perform any such function, but, in the case of an officer or employee designated in regulations or Treasury decision as authorized to perform such function, such limitations shall not render invalid any performance by such officer or employee of the function which, except for such limitations, such officer or employee is authorized to perform by such regulations or Treasury decision in effect at the time the function is performed.

Bold emphasis mine.

The chain of authority starts with The People. Since that has not yet been discussed, I will for the moment state that the chain of authority to collect taxes starts with the Constitution delegating tax collection authority to Congress. You have been shown the delegated chain of authority from the Constitution down to the various functionaries within the IRS.

You stated: "That authority can not have been delegated by Congress because Congress has no executive power. The authority of the IRS to collect taxes derives from its position within the executive branch, not as a delegation of authority from Congress." You are contradicted by the various statutes and regulations I have just presented.

Without that initial delegation from Congress, BY LAW, to the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary doesn't have a tax collection authority to re-delegate to the IRS. In such a case, the IRS' position in the executive branch under the Secretary of Treasury is meaningless in regard to tax collection authority.

Directly contradicting your statement I state: The authority of the IRS to collect taxes derives from the "re-delegation" of the authority of Congress.

The authority for "government" to collect taxes is the organic law known as the Constitution.

THE ORGANIC LAWS

OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION - 1777
ORDINANCE OF 1787: THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 1787

The very existence of the Federal "United States" is a creation of law.
(The United States is not to be confused with the united States (the 50 States united.)

I'll leave the major flaws, propostions 6 - 8, to the pros.

Okay with me.

[Mr. Eastman]

As I work my way through all the posts in this thread, I see that Mr. Williams' has weighed in on the issue as well.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8585&start=80#p143538
or
http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/i ... 2#msg14422

I do not contest any of what Mr. Williams has put in that post. (Huh? How'dat happen?)

In reply to Mr. Williams' post:

The power to tax is an enumerated power to congress, not the executive branch. I would argue that the IRS derives it authority from congress, as Famspear said, through legally enacted statutes, which have been upheld by the judicial branch and executed through the executive branch. Congress has delegated a certain amount of authority to an agency, but not legislative, but certainly the collection function has been delegated.

I think the major flaws are found in the "social contract" type gibberish at the bottom.

Please elaborate on the "gibberish at the bottom" by quoting it and then please elaborate on "the major flaws". While it is most likely my affidavit you are challenging, the context of your post does not make clear what you are objecting to and why.

Sadly, not only have we lost the troll, but he also quit copying and pasting to his site after Dan's last post. Only the first of Famspear's poetic efforts has been archived.

Ah, the irony. Instead of capturing all the off-topic blather, Mr. Eastman instead memorializes LPC's on-point post that rebuts his inane theories. Does the phrase "hoisted by one's own petard" come to mind?

The Observer should observe that I have captured some of the off-topic blather. And as evidenced by this reply, I sometimes even reply to off-topic blather.

The main problem with 6-8 is that Eastman is arguing that none of the powers that we normally associate with government (policing, justice, defense, etc.) are legitimate for the government to use. So labeling him as an anarchist appears to be the correct description.

The Observer, through no fault of his own, has failed to observe what Mr. Eastman accepts as legitimate government powers. The flow of discussion and debate with the diverse regulars of the Quatloos forum will determine when Mr. Eastman presents what he accepts as legitimate government powers.

More to the point, however, is his failure to realize that it is the very act of the collective will of the people to grant the government these powers that makes it a legitimate power for the government. It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy. Eastman is just the lone voice in the wilderness trying to convince anyone willing to listen that his selfishness trumps the will of the people.

Mr. (?) Observer presents the concept that "the collective will of the people" is what makes certain powers legitimate for government to use. As his own words indicate: "It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy."

So if "the people" are three wolves and a lamb, and the collective will of the people is to have lamb chops for dinner, according to Mr. Observer, that consensus grants legitimacy to have lamb chops for dinner.

Putting the lamb into Mr. Observer's statement accusing me of being selfish, the lamb "is the lone voice in the wilderness trying to convince anyone willing to listen that his selfishness trumps the will of the people."

Does the phrase "hoisted by one's own petard" come to mind? Uh, now that you mention it.

The main problem with 6-8 is that Eastman is arguing that none of the powers that we normally associate with government (policing, justice, defense, etc.) are legitimate for the government to use. So labeling him as an anarchist appears to be the correct description.

More to the point, however, is his failure to realize that it is the very act of the collective will of the people to grant the government these powers that makes it a legitimate power for the government. It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy. Eastman is just the lone voice in the wilderness trying to convince anyone willing to listen that his selfishness trumps the will of the people.

As you may surmise, my 25 cent theory is that Eastman is engaged in a psychological transference. I argue that it is not psychologically normal to believe what people like Dale Eastman and Larken Rose believe, and especially that it is not normal for these people to believe these things so strongly.

Larken Rose in particular seems to be a very, very bitter individual. The emotion, the anger, the bitterness, comes right out in his video posts.

With Eastman, I think it comes out in his writing. These are people who (I suspect) have had problems with Mommie or Daddy (or some parental figure) in their very early life, and are unconsciously trying to deal with these problems as an adult. But they're trying to deal with these problems in a pathological, unhealthy way.

I see the emotion that people like Eastman show in their writings and speeches about things like taxes and especially about Authority and Authority Figures. Occasionally, I see the Freudian slip (as I have with Dale Eastman) that might indicate the existence of some infantile conflict that has never been properly resolved.

Didn't you make a big issue about credentials in an earlier post? Psychology credentials are now at issue, don't ya think?

Mr. Williams has stated: "I argue that it is not psychologically normal to believe what people like Dale Eastman and Larken Rose believe, and especially that it is not normal for these people to believe these things so strongly."

Applying what Mr. Williams "believes" to the lamb in the previous reply: "it is not psychologically normal to believe what " the lamb from the previous reply believes", and especially that it is not normal for these" lambs "to believe these things so strongly."

So because the lamb believes it should not be dinner for some wolves, Mr. Williams believes the lamb "had problems with Mommie or Daddy (or some parental figure) in their very early life, and are unconsciously trying to deal with these problems as an adult" lamb. "But they're trying to deal with these problems in a pathological, unhealthy way." I'm sure the wolves in the previous reply would say the same thing about the lamb that Mr. Williams is saying about Larken Rose and myself.

The unstated innuendo that Mr. Williams wants you to subconsciously accept is that since people like Mr. Rose or myself have strong emotions about something, somehow that makes us wrong in our conclusions. Non-sequitur. It does not follow. Does the lamb have strong emotions about not wanting to be dinner?

I'm sure if challenged, Mr. Williams would insist that he is psychologically normal to believe what he believes and especially he would insist that it is normal for Mr. Williams to believe these things so strongly. I ask the casual reader to consider the emotional tone of Mr. Williams' posts, especially the ones where he does personal attacks on myself.

To assist in that consideration, I have segregated several of Mr. Williams posts here: http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/i ... opic=598.0

I see the emotion that people like Mr. Williams show in their writings and speeches about people who challenge taxes and authority and especially when what Mr. Williams believes is his authority as an expert is challenged. Occasionally, I see the Freudian slip (as I have with Larry Williams) that might indicate the existence of narcissistic feelings of grandiosity such as is evidenced by Mr. Williams belief that no one can have a philosophy that is correct unless the have credentials like Mr. Williams.

Re-iterating in part what Mr. Williams stated: "it is not psychologically normal to believe what people like Dale Eastman and Larken Rose believe".

If I'm as loony as Mr. Williams continually implies, why doesn't Mr. Williams trust that you, the casual reader, will come to the same conclusions about myself that Mr. Williams has. Why does Mr. Williams try so hard to poison the well regarding myself. Why does Mr. Williams try so hard to get you to discount and dismiss my "philosophy" before you even read it?

[Mr. Eastman]

1. In order to enforce or collect a tax, the IRS in general, must have authority.

2. The authority for the IRS to collect a tax is suffused throughout Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

3. The authority imbued within the IRC or the Statutes-At-Large is a delegation of authority from Congress.

4. Congress gets its authority from the Constitution.

5. The Constitution gets its authority from “The People”.

I don't think that's quite right, because I don't think that the Constitution has "authority" in the usual sense of the word.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Constitution is the method by which The People have delegated their authority and by which they exercise their authority.

I can accept your assertion that "the Constitution is the method by which The People have delegated their authority and by which they exercise their authority."

Implied in your statement is the fact that The People are the principal and they are delegating their authority to the agent. (Hence the term "servant government".)

The People have delegated a specific authority in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which states in part:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

If the principal does not have authority to steal, can the principal delegate authority to the agent to steal?

My original question was, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to steal or authority to tax?

6. The People (as a collective) can NOT delegate any authority to the Constitution that The People (as a collective) does not have.

That seems tautological. The People can't authorize what the People can't authorize?

If the principal (The People) does not have authority to steal, can the principal (The People) delegate authority to the agent to steal?

The People can not delegate any authority to steal if the people do not have authority to steal.
The People can not delegate any authority to tax if the people do not have authority to tax.
The principal can not delegate more authority to the agent than the principal has.

Would you like those assertions posed as questions? Then they would be those questions with self-evident answers I wrote of in one of my replies to Mr. Williams.

7. No individual in the collective can delegate an authority to the collective that the individual does not have.

Here's where it breaks down, because this is Eastman's conclusion masquerading as an argument.

Why can't The People collectively assert powers that individuals cannot? Well, they just can't, that's all. I (Eastman) don't like it.

There are examples in law which clearly refute his "argument," such as the operation of corporations. No one shareholder can bind the corporation or act on behalf of the corporation, and yet the shareholders collectively can elect directors who *can* bind the corporation and act for the corporation. How can shareholders collectively do something that individual shareholders cannot? Well, it's just the nature of corporations.

Mr. Evans, I must call you on your Technically Correct Pseudo-Refutation and your equivocation.

As you technically and correctly state, The elected directors can *bind* the corporation. What they can not do, is *bind* the shareholders.

The shareholders are the principals. The elected directors are the agents.

If you want to elaborate on how a board of elected directors can tell the shareholders how they must live and run their lives, I'd love to read it because this is what you are going to need to prove regarding the prior situation containing Principals and Agents (The People and their Servant government).

Please elaborate how an Agent has more authority regarding his principal than the principal has regarding himself.

And, as I've said before, it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have. Why? Well, it's the nature of governments.

"it's in the nature of governments [...] Why? [...] it's the nature of governments."

That seems tautological. The People can't authorize what the People can't authorize?

That seems tautological. It's in the nature of governments because it's in the nature of governments.

Mr. Evans' statement "it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have" is specifically noted for future dissection.

it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have. [...] It's an assumption we make in order to allow governments to work and societies to function

So Mr. Evans, are you saying that if I don't assume it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have then society won't function? Are you saying if I don't assume it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have, then government won't work?

If I refuse to assume said assumption, how does society fail to function, how does government fail to work?

(Sniff, sniff.) Where's the bull you're hiding?

Putting the paragraph back together.

And, as I've said before, it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have. Why? Well, it's the nature of governments. It's an assumption we make in order to allow governments to work and societies to function, much like we assume that 1+1=2 in order to make arithmetic work. (Actually, you can "prove" that 1+1=2 using a set of assumptions called Peano's axioms, but there are still assumptions being made.)

"it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers [...] that individual persons do not have."

I actually agree with Mr. Evans' statement as modified. The issue is whether the federal United States, (you know, the land of the free) has authority to exercise powers that individual persons do not have.

You can make a different assumption if you want, and assume that a government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, but it would be like assuming 1+1>2, and would make it difficult to function in the world that everyone else understands.

It's not that government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, governments do that all the time. It's that government SHOULD NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals.

Mr. Evans is correct regarding problems of "understanding". And what better place for a person such as myself to get my "understanding" vetted than in a place where I am so hated that simply asking a question elicits... (let me check)... 110 posts.

[wserra]

The flow of discussion and debate with the diverse regulars of the Quatloos forum will determine when Mr. Eastman presents what he accepts as legitimate government powers.

We wait with bated breath.

You may recall that you have been asked since your first appearance on the board to simply state your proposition. Instead of doing that, you post lengthy blather of the sort that will eventually grow hair on your brain, sparking synapses or no.

Personal attack noted.
...
Personal attack noted.
...
attempted personal ridicule
...
Personal attack noted.
...
personal attack noted.
...
Ridicule, disrespect, and disdain noted.
...
Personal attack noted.
...
notice the personal attack.

Perhaps if you spent less time noting all the personal attacks, and more time explaining WTF you're talking about, you'd get fewer personal attacks. OTOH, it seems you like to play the martyr.

I will develop the proof of that statement in due course.

At this rate we won't be able to read it, because the sun will have gone dead.

Could it be that you are intentionally avoiding specific claims, knowing that otherwise whatever you say will be instantly eviscerated?

[LPC]

My original question was, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to steal or authority to tax?

And my question is, What makes you think that the authority of individuals is comparable to the authority of governments?

As you technically and correctly state, The elected directors can *bind* the corporation. What they can not do, is *bind* the shareholders.

Of course the directors can bind the shareholders. An individual shareholder cannot rescind a contract of the corporation entered into by the directors, acting within their lawful power.

The directors can't bind the shareholders as to non-corporate matters, but that's a different question.

The shareholders are the principals. The elected directors are the agents.

And agents can bind principals. That's the whole purpose of agency.

That seems tautological. It's in the nature of governments because it's in the nature of governments.

It's not tautological, but definitional. Questioning why a government can exercise powers not exercisable by individuals is like questioning why a dog has fur and four legs. Why not scales? Or feathers? Or two legs? Or six? The short answer is that without fur and four legs, it wouldn't be a dog.

Mr. Evans' statement "it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have" is specifically noted for future dissection.

That is THE central issue of your entire thesis, and you haven't yet figured out a response?

Great work, Sherlock.

[Famspear]

Dale Eastman wrote:

....you do understand that your attempted distraction and attempted personal ridicule about my site metaphor is meaningless, right?

You do understand that the question in your very first post in this thread is meaningless, right?

Ridicule, disrespect, and disdain noted.

Mr. Eastman, you are the one who is wandering around the internet with your questions. The fact that you have an attitude problem, and that you have earned ridicule, disrespect and disdain, is noted.

I'm only subject to the federal income tax if I have income. I'll not be addressing that subject at this time.

Aw, shucks.....

There are other issues to be addressed first.

My heart is all a-pitter-patter in anticipation......

And, no, Mr. Eastman, the reason you were humiliated with respect to your Merchants' Loan argument is that not that you didn't have time to "pursue your objective." The reason you were humiliated is that while you attempted to come across as someone who knew what you were talking about, you were WRONG.

Oh, and by the way: You were the one who raised the "issue" of "credentials" back then, not I.

Rights are not granted by anybody with a rank of less than God.

No, not exactly. Depends on whether what kind of rights you're talking about.

Mr. Streng [Professor William Streng] is confused. So is Mr. Williams.

No, Mr. Eastman. I am not confused. Professor Streng is not confused.

And regarding your quote regarding appeals to authority always being "deductively fallacious" -- that's a bit misleading. In logic, there is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority," but not every use of authority is fallacious. For example, my use of Professor Streng's material earlier in this thread is not a fallacious "appeal to authority" as that term is used in the study of logic.

One of my tenets of philosophy is that you should not put a bullet between Mr. Williams' eyes just because he is being an internet dick.

Oh, what's the matter, Mr. Eastman? You don't like the idea that other people don't respect you? Got your iddy-biddy feelings hurt? Getting a taste of your own medicine doesn't suit you? Too bad. Respect is lost when you write things that cause you to lose respect. That's what you did.

Mr. Eastman, whether you like it or not, this web site is devoted to exposing and illustrating scams, such as tax scams. Many of the regulars who post here have been studying people like you -- and your arguments -- for years. It's going to be difficult (not impossible, but difficult) for you to come up with any really original arguments.

Give it your best shot.

[Arthur Rubin]

For the casual reader:
If a question broaches a topic where an answer of yes or no is self-evident, and the person or persons asked the question refuse to answer the question, do you think it indicates that the person(s) refusing to answer the question do not want to admit to the self-evident truth contained in the question? For instance, do you need to breathe? Do you own yourself?

Actually, your questions are such that "an answer of yes or no" is possible.

Also note that it is the assertion of trolls that "Famspear" is Mr. Williams. Please address pseudonyms who are not identified with real names by their pseudonyms.

[Pottapaug1938]

Mr. Eastman: you seem unable to comprehend one simple point: we are all looking for a simple answer to a simple question.

You asked, originally, if someone can give something to someone else which they did not possess; and more than once I (to say nothing of the others on this forum) asked you why you felt the need to ask that question. Your responses have consisted of mounds of bafflegab, statutory extracts and other things which puts us to sleep halfway through.

What we are looking for is something like "I am asking this question because I assert that X cannot delegate the power to collect taxes, to Y, because it does not possess that power." Then, and only then, will you have raised a valid question for which we can formulate an answer.

[Quixote]

There is a problem of symantics that needs to be resolved before any reasonable discussion can take place. It appears to me that the verb "delegate" is being used to mean two things that, to me at least, are significantly different. I would not, for example, say that the people delegated the taxing power to Congress. I would say rather that the people established or created a taxing power for Congress. To me, delegation is the assignment of a power or duty held by the delegator. Earlier I said that Congress did not delegate the tax administrative authority to the Commissioner. I should have clarified at that time that I meant Congress created that authority under their power to impose taxes and granted it to the Commissioner.

If the phrase "Congress delegated the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws" means the same as "Congress granted the authority to IRS to administer the tax laws", then Dale Eastman is just wrong when he says one cannot delegate a power he does not have. If, on the other hand, there is a distinction between the verbs "delegate" and "grant", then Dale Eastman's error is in believing that delegation is the only means by which IRS could obtain the authority to administer the tax laws.