Constitution and Taxes.

[Dale Eastman]

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?







--
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]

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.

[Richard Macdonald]

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.

[Dale Eastman]

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 ***
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



--
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/

[Dale Eastman]

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 ***
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



--
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/

[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 *** 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?



--
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/

[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 *** 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?



--
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/

[Martin Holterman]

Dale Eastman wrote:

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 *** 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?

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

[Martin Holterman]

Dale Eastman wrote:

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 *** 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?

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

[Richard Macdonald]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.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.

[Richard Macdonald]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.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:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.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.

Snippage of context the Mr. Macdonald is afraid of noted and repaired.

Context presented and being developed replaced:

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 *** 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?

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?




--
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/

[Dale Eastman]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.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.

Snippage of context the Mr. Macdonald is afraid of noted and repaired.

Context presented and being developed replaced:

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 *** 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?

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?




--
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]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:aVHke.5326$X92.4283@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.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:

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.

[Richard Macdonald]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:aVHke.5326$X92.4283@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.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:

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]

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/~dalereas...s/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

--
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/

[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/~dalereas...s/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

--
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/

[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.


--
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/

[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.


--
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/

[Dale Eastman]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:aVHke.5326$X92.4283@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.e arthlink.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 theConstitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Lawsenacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time asthe Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws. Trueor 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: 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.



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
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?




--
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/

[Dale Eastman]

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:aVHke.5326$X92.4283@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@newsread2.news.pas.e arthlink.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 theConstitution to do any more than simply execute the Tax Lawsenacted by Congress and signed by the President until such time asthe Courts may rule on the Constitutionality of any Tax Laws. Trueor 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: 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.



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
anything in the name of the master that the master can not do?




--
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/

[Martin Holterman]

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.

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/~dalereas...s/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

[Martin Holterman]

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.

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/~dalereas...s/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 <dalereastman@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.

[James Chamblee]

Dale Eastman <dalereastman@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.

[Richard Macdonald]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:EoJke.2235$oT1.1035@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:aVHke.5326$X92.4283@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:>"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message>news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@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: 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."

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.

[Richard Macdonald]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:EoJke.2235$oT1.1035@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:aVHke.5326$X92.4283@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Richard Macdonald wrote:>"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message>news:6Yzke.5251$X92.68@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: 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."

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.

[Guest]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:38:48 GMT, "James Chamblee"
<jim-chamblee@mindspring.com> wrote:

Dale Eastman <dalereastman@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 theConstitution OR taxes.You're simply trolling without any chum or bait.

And BS makes lousy bait --- well except on usenet.

--
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.

[Guest]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:38:48 GMT, "James Chamblee"
<jim-chamblee@mindspring.com> wrote:

Dale Eastman <dalereastman@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 theConstitution OR taxes.You're simply trolling without any chum or bait.

And BS makes lousy bait --- well except on usenet.

--
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.

[Richard Macdonald]

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:EoJke.2235$oT1.1035@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.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)