Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[Judge Roy Bean]

It's been so quiet around here that I almost (repeat, almost!) replied to the troll.

But I thought better of it.

[grixit]

You know, i was really cheering for him to persevere and earn that title "Sovereign Socrates", but so far he's been a disappointment.

[notorial dissent]

Since he is a purveyor of "When did you stop beating your wife" style questions, a firm believer of quoting only selected portions of a statute, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt his grammatical illiteracy, what is the point?

On top of everything else, he isn't even entertaining, so that on top of just flat out boring equals ignore as far as I am concerned. Troll be damned!!!

[The Observer]

No. It's "All you base are belong to us."

Never misquote the CATS.

Why? What happens?

[Arthur Rubin]

Never misquote the CATS.

Why? What happens?[/quote]

You don't want to find out.

[LPC]

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.

[Cathulhu]

Never misquote the CATS.

Why? What happens?

You don't want to find out.[/quote]

I'll give you a hint. It involves 2:40 am and having your face drooled on.

[LPC]

I direct your attention to this part of my previous post:

possess tr.v. possessed, possessing, possesses. 1. To have as property; own. 2. To have as a quality, characteristic, or other attribute: possessed great tact. 3. To acquire mastery of or have knowledge of: possess valuable data. 5. To cause to own, hold, or master something, such as property or knowledge: She possessed herself of the unclaimed goods. 7. Obsolete. To gain or seize.
Source: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

I further direct your attention to #1.

I direct your attention to #5.

If your definition of "possess" excludes the concept of custody separate from ownership, then your definition is incomplete.

The on-line version of the dictionary includes a 1b, "Law To have under one's power or control:possess illegal drugs." Which was my point, which is that it is possible to own something that is not currently in your possession, and to make a gift of the ownership.

It's also possible to be in possession of something with only a partial ownership interest. A life tenant of property has the right of exclusive possession, but is not the only owner of the property because the remainderman has ownership rights without any current right of possession.

I could go on, but perhaps you'll now get the point. (But probably not.)

I posted that definition with my question for a reason. Your post illustrates that reason.

You wanted to illustrate that you didn't understand the definition you posted? Or that your definition was incomplete?

[Cpt Banjo]

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.

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.

[notorial dissent]

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

[Quixote]

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?

[wserra]

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

His do.

[Famspear]

Dale Eastman is a slow learner. 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. 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. He held the false belief that the questions could properly be answered only the way he wanted them to be answered, of course. 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. 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). He folded his tent and slithered away.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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........

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!

[Famspear]

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.

[Famspear]

Oh, but wait! Maybe Dale R. Eastman has deep insights about the philosophy of law -- more so than Professor Streng! Let’s compare credentials! I’ll post Professor Streng’s credentials, and then Dale Eastman can come here and post his own credentials.

Here’s the data on Professor William P. Streng, from the University of Houston Law Center:

Professor Streng received his bachelor's degree from Wartburg College and his law degree from Northwestern University School of Law. He teaches federal income taxation, corporate tax, international tax and estate planning.

Prior to joining the faculty in 1985, he practiced tax law with firms in Houston and Cincinnati, was deputy general counsel for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and an attorney with the United States Department of the Treasury.

From 1973 to 1980, Professor Streng taught at the Southern Methodist University School of Law. He has also been a visiting professor or visiting fellow at The Ohio State University Law School, New York University, The University of Texas, Hong Kong University School of Law, University of Stockholm, Sweden Law Faculty (Fulbright Professorship), University of Leiden, The Netherlands, Victoria University School of Law, Wellington, New Zealand, and Yokohama National University in Japan. He is the author of numerous books, portfolios, and articles dealing with a variety of tax subjects.

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

Go ahead.

We’ll be waiting.

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”.

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.

[Pottapaug1938]

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."

[Imalawman]

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.

[The Observer]

Hey, come on - you've run off the first good troll we've had around here in months in just a day!!

Yup, that's "Let's-pile-it-on" Famspear, killjoy of our little group here. No sense of sharing with others in the sandbox or giving equal time. The least he could do is go out and get some smaller game and drag it in here and give the rest of us something to do.

[Famspear]

I... I.... I can't help it.... I just can't control myself......

[Quixote]

Hey, come on - you've run off the first good troll we've had around here in months in just a day!!

Yup, that's "Let's-pile-it-on" Famspear, killjoy of our little group here. No sense of sharing with others in the sandbox or giving equal time. The least he could do is go out and get some smaller game and drag it in here and give the rest of us something to do.

Yeah, Famspear. We need a troll rainmaker.