UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2.
The court ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.
The District Court issued an order holding We the People Foundation in contempt of court, imposing fines of $2,000 per day.
On May 5, 2008, Schulz filed a document with the court asserting that he had turned the material over to the United States attorney's office earlier that day.
Banister has never won a failure to file case. He pays his taxes.
On August 27, 2008, the United States Tax Court ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to file his 2002 federal income tax return and report, as income, over $23,000 in a distribution from a retirement plan and other income.
It turns out some IRS agents figured out they can make more money of suckers who don't like paying taxes than holding a regular job.
Sherry Peel Jackson, Joe Banister, and the rest of the clan are a hoax! Title 26 has never been defeated before. Do you think you will be the first to do so? Go ahead and try!
The IRS can be repealed but not through tax evasion. Be smart and ignore these goons!! Look up Roan Paul and Peter Schiff.
10 30 2010 Dr. Mark E. Hopkins and Sharon J. Hopkins were convicted of seven counts of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy.
"Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joe Banister."
Mr. Banister's proposed testimony is comprised largely of legal conclusions, which are not a proper form of expert testimony. United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Government's Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of Joseph R. Banister [Doc 142] is GRANTED
"At approximately 2 p.m. on the 14th floor of the Federal Court Building in Sacramento, California, Joe Banister supporters got word that the judge had received a note from the jury and quickly moved from the hallway into the courtroom. He announced that the jury had reached a unanimous decision.
The verdicts were read by the clerk of the court with Judge William Shubb presiding: "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty".
well what about the 5 years in jail for tax evasion? Even if I'm right in the end for not payin my taxes I can't afford to be in jail for a month or however long it takes for me to be proven innocent.
The power to tax the domestic earnings of the vast majority of American citizens was never granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. because working and making a living is a natural or enalible right not a mear privlage. Such a broad direct tax could never pass constitional muster and would most certainly struck down by the Supream Court .
We the people shall draft our new fair taxation policy and have it noterized, signed, sealed and deliverd to 1111 Costitution Ave. and if the new policy is not put in place by a noted time we the people (meaning everyone) will not go to work or buy anything for one week. Simple,
go back to the goldsmiths and fractional receipts. this has been going on for hundreds of years. this government has sold the public into debt slavery. Look at Greece! When the shit hits the fan we will all bow down to our master. The money master.
Also, why is Joe not in jail if he did the same the Sherylle woman did in not file returns etc? does he get assaulted too and what way and what does it look like.
Alleged "former" IRS-CID agent Joseph Banister is a regular speaker at "tax protestor" events and has published the book "Investigating the Income Tax". In just a couple of years, Banister has emerged as the poster child of the de-tax gurus, appearing on national TV interviews -- where, amazingly, he admits that he himself reports and pays his income tax, although advocating to others that the payment of income taxes is "voluntary"
He is paying protection money so that they don't burn his house down. Just like any other criminal organization does. As for you? HOW dark is your yellow streak running down your spine..SLIME.
oh, and exactly did I gain responsibilities to the federal govt.? Because you say so? Amazing coming from a brain dead troll who wouldn't know what freedom is if it bit him in the ass.
@courageouslion Well, if it wasn't for the federal govt., you'd be speaking German . . or perhaps Japanese. Learn your history, moron. That's right, preaching freedom, but send somebody else to do your dirty work because you don't have any responsibilities. I think they call that freeloading.
OK, so let me get this straight...I was born in the late 1950's and somehow the federal government saved me from speaking German or Japanese. So you are assuming that the Germans or Japanese would have invaded the mainland and we wouldn't have been able to defeat them without the feds...Damn you are SO SMART! And let's see, the Feds violate the Constitution and print all the money they want and somehow if we don't pay taxes they will fall on their faces? And who needs a history lesson?
@courageouslion I was born in the 50's as well. And strange as it may seem, yes, history didn't start with us. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the generation before us for stopping the Axis powers. And yes, the grand army of California would not have been able to stop them. Got that, smart guy.
People, what everyone needs to do is learn EXACTLY what the code says, and this is very important, HOW it says it. The code IS constitutional, yet taxing your private sector, unprivileged receipts is not. So, how can this be? You have told, and have allowed others to tell the Government your pay IS taxable so they tax you. How the hell did I do that you say? Find out the way I did. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his website and start reading. Wake-up from the Matrix people
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER AND TELL THE LEGAL THIEVES WHOS IN CHARGE.
Poor baby gubermint troll & legal thief wannabe RetSquid. He's been involved in over 24 YouTube discussions spam labeling on top of trolling. You got blocked from making comments in the Country of Laws (not men) Pursuit of Happiness Video because YOU'RE A SPAM-O-LABELER? You have other accounts as well.
Don't you hate it when I play your game better than you do?!! LOL You should have left me alone.Now I'm going to make you work again & earn the legal plunder you need to exist on.
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
easy that would be fruad and you would go to jail.. and that is where every congressmen and senator and present president and x-president should go...
Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.
RetSquid's 1/2 truth; repeatS his lie, that free people are subject to murder, rape, stealing & physical harm if there is a "legal" law.
['all persons..] followed by
Yick Wo v Hopkins
Sovereignty itself is, of course, NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, for it is the author & source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom & for whom all government exists & acts. And the law is the definition & limitation of power
The key to a true utopian society is human productivity. If all human beings strived for innovation and technological advance, then we wouldn't have to spend our lives in toil to earn meaningless paper to buy basic resources like food and shelter! If we eliminate mundane jobs, prehistoric technologies, and ass bkwards GOVTs and instead work for efficiency and sustainiblilty - then ultimately there is no need for money because all resources will be readily available and abundant to EVERYONE!
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.
Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.
There are some commentors here that seem to believe that "Case Law" is above the Constitution! The Constitution does not say that Congress shall lay and collect 'INCOME" taxes. It just says "taxes." But...this is irrelevant to our problem today. Why is the Executive branch COLLECTING taxes? If you want to get to the bones of our problem, blame the Executive branch. NO PRESIDENT has Constitutional authority to raise "levy", collect, or lower taxes. SOLEY the Legislative branch's authority! ONLY!
'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
The President is enforcing the law, Congress has no power to enforce law.
The power in a state to which none other is superior or equal, itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..while the power in a state to which none other is superior or equal are delegated to the agencies of government, The power in a state to which none other is superior or equal itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
People instinctively know that Joe Banister is a good and honest man. The fact that he's involved in law enforcement makes him *extremely special*. Most cops and public officials will, (and do) sell their souls for a dollar.
If Joe doesn't go down in history as a great American, then we should all be ashamed of what this country has become. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree.
Tax protesters and thier attorneys are piss poor Chess Players...the DOJ kicks thier asses because they are legally wrong.....end of story.....The system of taxation is based upon volumtary compliance....they are tunneled vision on the erroneous and frivolous arguements....think outside the box and figure the system out legally......
Here are some more facts you'll never hear from RetSquid. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS, Because the government breaks the law and denies it, the government is not your friend. Content of Part 1 Rights and Liberties Chapters 1 Breaking the law to enforce it 2 Attacking the Innocent 3 Creating Crime 4 Grabbing Guns, Endangering Citizens 5 Filching Property 6 Gagging Free Speech 7 Bribing Witnesses, Buying Convictions 8 Assaulting the People
Truths you'll never hear from RetSquid. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS,
'Because it breaks the law, the government is not your friend...after witnessing first-hand how the criminal justice system works to subvert and shred the Constitution. You think you have rights that are guaranteed? Well think again.'
'The government is simply stretching and twisting federal law & the Constitution in whatever way it sees fit for whatever contemporary need it may have.'
If the law creates stealing or the corrupt interpretation of law permits stealing, RetSquid opinion is that people are subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power"
'***all persons*** within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and ***shall be subject to*** like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
Legal thief wannabe RetSquid now that you AGREE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, that would: steal (can we include clever stealing too) from, rape, or murder the people; or make slaves of the people why do persist in an academic debate?
Kinda pointless don't you think? C'mon, grow up and move on.
BTW [all persons...shall be subject]
Does that mean all people shall be subject to legal stealing, legal murder and legal slavery and can't resist such mischief?!
Legal thief wannabe ReTSquid thanks for saying it so plainly. I'll let other people read the words for themselves and see if they feel subject to mischief.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, for it is the author and source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power
Senate Joint Resolution , 1909, Congressional Record Volume 44, Part 3, page 3377:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population"
Senate Joint Resolution 40, Congressional Record Volume 44, Part 4, page 3900. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the States and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Is this information available at the library of congress? Can any Citizen go there and look up these documents? Generaly there is a papertrail... and usualy a one so large it is hard to erradicate, prior to the days go "Google". Id like to see this information with my own eyes, at the source, Im sure you can understand why, whoever you are ;)
Good luck submitting the refusal of volunteer paperwork to the irs. I have been hoping to get out from under the yoke for all my life. blueballs anyone?
I really liked your channel and this video. If you need any help getting this video exposed I use a site called tubeviews (dot) net It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position.
There is software im using to send atleast 30,000 text message a day advertising my online business...it is amazing. I think they have free demos to try as well.
autotextsender (dot) com and autotextmailer (dot) com
Have you heard of this program that actually send thousands of text m
You keep tryin with your lyin, but I aint buyin. The USSC erred in its opinion or there is conflict?
**Yick Wo won back his freedom because he was not subject to law that hurt him.**
Doesnt the paragraph with the words 'not subject to law' come two paragraphs after the paragraph 'shall be subject' which youve taken completely out of context to prove your lie as if truth? **In fact this paragraph is the beginning of the reasoning for reversing previous courts malicious error in Yick Wo**
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Legal Thieves cant seem to read when painted into a corner. The first part of Yick Wo is the explanation of the questions and controversy put before the USSC. A duh.
The next part of Yick Wo is the reasoning as to the reversal of previous courts error. Not only does the opinion quote previous opinion and law as well it logically concludes,
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
What makes people subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law...For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
You keep tryin with your lyin, but I aint buyin. The USSC erred in its opinion or there is conflict?
**Yick Wo won back his freedom because he was not subject to law that hurt him.**
Doesnt the paragraph with the words 'not subject to law' come two paragraphs after the paragraph 'shall be subject' which youve taken completely out of context to prove your lie as if truth? **In fact this paragraph is the beginning of the reasoning for reversing previous courts malicious error in Yick Wo**
I think you missed the part about the "exclusive jurisdiction", as in only Congess has jurisdiction, not the ONLY place Congress has jurisdiction. They also have concurrent Jurisdiction in the States.
Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. [T]he word exclusive was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
Hi Ret! How ya doing? I understand, but never the less, the income tax is a tax on privileges, not rights. Income according to EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) is restricted to profits wherein the capital can be 100% restored. In Brushaber the tax is identified as a tariff. Tariffs are taxes on commerce with foreign nations.
Article 1 section 8. Sorry if I seem a little edgy some times. I am dealing with depression and I am trying very hard not to think about suicide. I feel good now.
so what you are suggesting is that I should pick cotton and be grateful for what the government allows me to keep as that portion of my personal property (labor) as though it actually belonged to them in the first place. The right to follow any of the common occupations of
life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the
phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence,
BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
We have all heard it before. I do not protest taxes. The income tax law enacted under the authority of the 16th amendment is the Underwood Simmons TARIFF act of Oct,3 1913. This is spelled out clearly in the Brushaber decision. A tariff is a tax on foreign commerce within the states. Under the requirements of Paper Work Reduction Act the, IRS tells us we must file form 2555 for § 6012 of the code. 26 CFR 602.101. It is the ONLY tax return that say it is for use by U.S. citizens.
The purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.
Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913. The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens shall make a return on Form 1040.
The term "income tax" has been around since at least the 1890's. I was used in the Pollack case. The High court has defined the term "income" as a gain or profit that remains and stands alone after the capital invested is recovered and made whole. Being reimburse for lost time and expended effort in the exercise of a natural right, constitutes nothing more than a mere conversion of human capital. It does not produce "income" or make anyone "liable" for an income tax. Most people don't know that.
26 USC 7701"taxpayer" The term taxpayer means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. Botta v. Scanlon 288 F.2d 504
Tax officials are not vested with absolute power of
assessment against individuals "not specified in
statutes" as persons "liable" for tax without opportunity
for judicial review of status...26 CFR 602.101 list form 2555 as the mandated form for section 6012. So if you are a "taxpayer" as defined,and made "liable" by a statute then you must file a return.
Once again I don't disagree. The IRS is required by law to have their tax forms approved by the Office of Management and Budget. OMB assigns OMB control numbers to the forms only after IRS provides statutory and regulatory authority for collecting information on the forms. 26 CFR 602.101 exist to inform the public of the forms required by provisions of the Code. § 6012
requires form 2555 foreign earned income. See 2008 1040 instruction book page 20. See the index at the back of the booklet.
Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. The control number on Form 1040 appears on OMB's web site as a current, valid number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer's say-so to establish the proposition.
I never suggested that the IRS failed to comply with the PRA. I merely pointed out that the form listed in Part 602.101 of 26 CFR as the form required to be filed for section 6012 is form 2555. By the way Ret I want to thank you for helping me hone my understanding of the Code. Keep up the good work.
lower court definitions of income means nothing. The Supreme Court has forbidden congress from defining income in.
Congress cannot by any "definition"(of income) it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
The IRS is bound by the decisions of the High court. IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8
The definition of "income", however you look at it does not negate the fact that before a tax is due, one must be made "liable" by a clearly laid statutory provision of liability. Example: § 5005. Persons liable for tax.
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon
§ 5703. Liability for tax
The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be "liable" for the taxes imposed thereon.
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.
Section 1 is not a provision of statutory liability. Liability must be clearly laid.
The net income of the divorced husband subject to taxation was not decreased by payment of alimony under the court's order; and, on the other hand, the sum received by the wife on account thereof cannot be regarded as income arising or accruing to her within the enactment.
The decision of the court in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. was that those things not clearly specified as subject to tax in the statute are exempt from tax. Taxing statutes must be strictly construed. No implication, or inference or presumption of liability can create a liability where none exist by a clearly laid statutory provision of law. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen. Internal Revenue manual 4.10.7.2.9.8.
"The decision of the court in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. was that those things not clearly specified as subject to tax in the statute are exempt from tax. "
The decision in Gould specifically forbids the "extension" of statutes levying tax by "implication" beyond the clear import of the language used. Example: § 1, § 61, § 63,
§ 6012, § 6151 and any other section that "does not specifically" use the word or words "shall be liable for" or something to that effect, then those sections DO NOT impose a liability on anyone.
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code does not define income. The United States, however, is correct that income is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. In addition, the Code explicitly defines gross income, from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., wages.
EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). There is a fundamental difference between working for a living, and making living from the labor of others. One produces a gain or profit and the other does not. Physical labor is an expenditure that cannot be restored by the worker. The Employer may deduct the cost of the labor paid to His employees. The worker cannot. This is so much fun.
I don't know where you are getting your reasoning but:
No reasonable person could seriously think that, for example, the revenue laws can be avoided, and the governments tax collection efforts can be brought to a standstill by the contention that wages are not income.
The revenue laws will not be brought to a stand still because the IRS correctly follows their procedures restricts their collection actions to persons made "liable" by a clearly laid provision of statutory liability. Billions of tax revenues will be realized if the service held congress to it's constitutional restrictions for collecting taxes. Many good people work with the service with the power to hold congress's feet to the fire and can save America from socialism. We need your support.
No, Ret. The word "liable" doesn't exist in sec. 1. Sec. 1 "imposes" a tax on "taxable" income then give rates. Nothing more. Here is what a liability statute looks like.
§ 5005. Persons liable for tax.
(a) General: The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be "liable" for the taxes imposed thereon..
§ 5703. Liability for tax
(a)The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable..
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, ***there is no difference***. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.
Inferior courts do not overturn Supreme Court cases. Internal Revenue Manual under examinations at 4.10.7.2.9.8 Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. Section 1 applies to those persons made "LIABLE" 26 USC 6001.
Technically correct, but irrelevant. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income, from which taxable income is calculated, as all income from whatever source derived and gives a number of examples of the types of income included in gross income in section 61, including compensation for services
2. That the authority conferred upon Congress by section 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is ***EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED***, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine.
So are you admitting that the income tax imposed on "taxable" income at sec. 1, is an excise tax under article 1 sec. 8? Power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO new power of taxation STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO., 240 U.S. 103.
The Brushaber Court said that article 1 sec.8 and article 1 sec.9 remain in "full" force and effect, unamended & unaltered. The assumption that the 16th Amendment gave congress the power to levy an UNapportined "direct" tax was an "erroneous assumption". As a result Commissioner issued. T.D. 2313 providing for withholding at the source on nonresident aliens. Not citizens.
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
Legal thief wannabe RetSquid now that you AGREE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, that would: steal (can we include clever stealing too) from, rape, or murder the people; or make slaves of the people why do persist in an academic debate?
Kinda pointless don't you think? C'mon, grow up and move on.
If the law creates or administers theft it's your opinion people are subject to law that harms them?
"NOT SUBJECT TO (COLOR OF OR ABUSIVE) LAW" Yick Wo v Hopkins
'***all persons*** within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and ***shall be subject to*** like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
26 Code of Federal Rregulations § 1.312-6 Earnings and profits.
b) Among the items entering into the computation of corporate earnings and profits for a particular period are all income exempted by statute, income "not taxable" by the Federal Government under the "Constitution", as well as all items included in gross income under section "61" or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts. So here we have an admission that there is income beyond congress to tax because of the Constitution
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What makes people subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
To be more specific, IRS agents are enforcing laws against individuals who are not actually under their jurisdiction, but use 'Color of Law' to make it seem that they have the power to do so.
Judges tend to rule in favor if IRS despite their entire case is circumstantial, rather then require that the trial assume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
Look at Dave Champion. He went to court vs the IRS. The judge railroaded him, but he is still practicing to help non-taxpayers now.
you are still there! Why don't you prove something for a change? Ya I figured you wouldn't be able to answer that. Oh by the way I've already proven a hell of alot more then you ever could even think of proving.
It isnt' a trick. I posted an example of a Judge that refused to allow Rights to enter 'his' court, in fact, calling it contempt of his court for falling on the right to remain silent. The judge in fact said, "You waved your 5th amendment rights" when the defendant never did.
He knows exactly how the fifth amendment rights work. He was ordered to go to the IRS building and bring his paperwork. He did, with a _real_ attorney, which surprised them, who advised him to answer each question with the right to remain silent. When The meeting was over and he went back to court. The judge threw him in jail.. for a little while for standing on his correctly used fifth amendment rights.
ANd I'll even give you a youtube video proving that there are Judges who are children in black robes.
"Ian Freeman arrested and jailed for 93 days RAW FOOTAGE"
I see that Ret is a romantic, wanting to believe the system can't be corrupt. The system is run by men. Judges tend to have total authority, with almost no oversight, while in their courtrooms. They can suggest to the court stenographer, assuming one is being used a the time, to strike a phrase from the records, as not being needed.
"Every one be seated." He looked for his chair and started to sit. "Sit down!Sit Down!Sit DOWN!" Then when he just touched his ass to the chair, "Everyone rise." Then he is arrested for contempt of court.
The judge required his jailing for him being confused at what he was supposed to do, because as he was sitting, the Judge spoke his name. So he stood up, then the judge yelled at him to sit down.
The Bailiff was on him even before the Judge did the 'contempt' thing.
But, in truth, Ret is not a Romantic, because a romantic is someone who is initially ignorant of the state of things.
Ret, on the other hand is 'Willfully Ignorant' or just plain dishonest in his opinions, which he holds despite the evidence that people have shown him time and time again.
When the evidence is irrefutable, he closes his eyes trying to figure out why it doesn't fit with his world view.
see that Ret is a romantic, wanting to believe the system can't be corrupt. Ya he is one of the sorriest excuses I've come across and a disgrace as an American person. All in all his actions just further insure he's just still a sheeple who has yet to wake up. He was in the Navy and likes to brag about it if that tells you anything.
Here's a question you won't answer: Can you name one part of our debate where you proved ANYTHING I've said wrong? Uhhh ya all of it I've disproven, your just to ignorant or to heavily hopped up on meds to realize it. And yes I've answered it many times over.
This has been flagged as spam show
Google "Ron Paul Petition 60 minutes"
Sign this petition to get Ron Paul featured on 60 minutes!!!
RON PAUL 2012!! Please rate this up to keep at top ^_^
The other candidates can not speak the truth like Ron Paul can.
0-0-0 Plan.
Zero Fed.
Zero IRS.
Zero War.
kwkeim 3 months ago
UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2, UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2.
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER Part 2
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
The IRS Chief Counsel and DoJ attorneys compete to get cases such as this.
These slam-dunks add in nicely to the win-loss record which helps determine their annual bonus.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The court ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.
The District Court issued an order holding We the People Foundation in contempt of court, imposing fines of $2,000 per day.
On May 5, 2008, Schulz filed a document with the court asserting that he had turned the material over to the United States attorney's office earlier that day.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Banister has never won a failure to file case. He pays his taxes.
On August 27, 2008, the United States Tax Court ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to file his 2002 federal income tax return and report, as income, over $23,000 in a distribution from a retirement plan and other income.
Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-201, CCH Dec. 57,522(M), docket no. 1356-06 (Aug. 27, 2008).
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
It turns out some IRS agents figured out they can make more money of suckers who don't like paying taxes than holding a regular job.
Sherry Peel Jackson, Joe Banister, and the rest of the clan are a hoax! Title 26 has never been defeated before. Do you think you will be the first to do so? Go ahead and try!
The IRS can be repealed but not through tax evasion. Be smart and ignore these goons!! Look up Roan Paul and Peter Schiff.
MrSupernova111 1 year ago 4
10 30 2010 Dr. Mark E. Hopkins and Sharon J. Hopkins were convicted of seven counts of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy.
"Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joe Banister."
Mr. Banister's proposed testimony is comprised largely of legal conclusions, which are not a proper form of expert testimony. United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Government's Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of Joseph R. Banister [Doc 142] is GRANTED
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
IRS Agent Joe Banister Acquitted !!! Quote
"At approximately 2 p.m. on the 14th floor of the Federal Court Building in Sacramento, California, Joe Banister supporters got word that the judge had received a note from the jury and quickly moved from the hallway into the courtroom. He announced that the jury had reached a unanimous decision.
The verdicts were read by the clerk of the court with Judge William Shubb presiding: "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty", "Not Guilty".
QuietOneOnLine 1 year ago
@QuietOneOnLine
Joe Banister's (Thompson) case did not even involve the question of the liability for federal income taxes.
A jury acquitted Joe Banister of multiple counts of assisting Al Thompson file a fraudulent tax return.
Al Thompson was sentenced in a separate trial to six years in a federal penitentiary.
His wife has divorced him and he lost his business.
Banister pays his income taxes.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
@Tubeusercomm What are your sources, you running mouth? lol fuck off! bitch
rdknight6 1 year ago
@rdknight6
Read your Channel Comments!
ROTFL!
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
See "Aaron Russo- Reflections and Warnings" -- he explains that Govt started deducting tax at source out of wages without asking,
(as nobody would do it otherwise),
sometimes taxing people twice, when once is illegal anyway. SLAVERY
Kill the Fed
starzus 1 year ago
well what about the 5 years in jail for tax evasion? Even if I'm right in the end for not payin my taxes I can't afford to be in jail for a month or however long it takes for me to be proven innocent.
delta3303 1 year ago
@delta3303 Yeah, prove your innocence. Oh wait, it's impossible to prove a negative...
almsfsdjgx 1 year ago
NON-TAXPAYER
The power to tax the domestic earnings of the vast majority of American citizens was never granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. because working and making a living is a natural or enalible right not a mear privlage. Such a broad direct tax could never pass constitional muster and would most certainly struck down by the Supream Court .
Tealy855 1 year ago
and it amazes me....how do I end up paying nearly 2000 a month in taxes? how could this have happened?
generalmaximus53 1 year ago
@generalmaximus53 See "Aaron Russo- Reflections and Warnings" -- he explains that Govt started deducting tax at source out of wages without asking,
(as nobody would do it otherwise),
sometimes taxing people twice, when once is illegal anyway. SLAVERY
Kill the Fed
starzus 1 year ago
Those made liable within the several states are:
1. non resident alliens with domestic income
2. foreign corporations with domestic income
3.. withholding agents for the above
4. U.S Persons holding the income of the above.
Tealy855 1 year ago 2
the government is an endentured servant to a private bank.
FieldingYost 1 year ago 2
THIS MAN IS A TRUE AMERICAN. joe bannister
firefox8192 1 year ago
We the people shall draft our new fair taxation policy and have it noterized, signed, sealed and deliverd to 1111 Costitution Ave. and if the new policy is not put in place by a noted time we the people (meaning everyone) will not go to work or buy anything for one week. Simple,
7777dmith7777 1 year ago
go back to the goldsmiths and fractional receipts. this has been going on for hundreds of years. this government has sold the public into debt slavery. Look at Greece! When the shit hits the fan we will all bow down to our master. The money master.
vultureofawhore 2 years ago
Also, why is Joe not in jail if he did the same the Sherylle woman did in not file returns etc? does he get assaulted too and what way and what does it look like.
robwiley01 2 years ago
protest something that doesnt exist. ?
robwiley01 2 years ago
He's not stupid.Maybe hes trying to learn how to fight back wihout being ignorant."
But,if you know the code well enough,you can use it against them.Right eric.
asicit2b 2 years ago
Alleged "former" IRS-CID agent Joseph Banister is a regular speaker at "tax protestor" events and has published the book "Investigating the Income Tax". In just a couple of years, Banister has emerged as the poster child of the de-tax gurus, appearing on national TV interviews -- where, amazingly, he admits that he himself reports and pays his income tax, although advocating to others that the payment of income taxes is "voluntary"
proferic 2 years ago
He is paying protection money so that they don't burn his house down. Just like any other criminal organization does. As for you? HOW dark is your yellow streak running down your spine..SLIME.
courageouslion 1 year ago
@courageouslion Your'e a whining idiot. Your'e not man enough to man-up about your responsibilities to the federal govt. Why? Because your'e a pussy.
proferic 1 year ago
oh, and exactly did I gain responsibilities to the federal govt.? Because you say so? Amazing coming from a brain dead troll who wouldn't know what freedom is if it bit him in the ass.
courageouslion 1 year ago
@courageouslion Well, if it wasn't for the federal govt., you'd be speaking German . . or perhaps Japanese. Learn your history, moron. That's right, preaching freedom, but send somebody else to do your dirty work because you don't have any responsibilities. I think they call that freeloading.
proferic 1 year ago
OK, so let me get this straight...I was born in the late 1950's and somehow the federal government saved me from speaking German or Japanese. So you are assuming that the Germans or Japanese would have invaded the mainland and we wouldn't have been able to defeat them without the feds...Damn you are SO SMART! And let's see, the Feds violate the Constitution and print all the money they want and somehow if we don't pay taxes they will fall on their faces? And who needs a history lesson?
courageouslion 1 year ago
@courageouslion I was born in the 50's as well. And strange as it may seem, yes, history didn't start with us. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the generation before us for stopping the Axis powers. And yes, the grand army of California would not have been able to stop them. Got that, smart guy.
proferic 1 year ago
just dont work son of beach
chokko13rico 2 years ago
Sun at the Beach! ..not son of beach?
thoushaltnotask 2 years ago
People, what everyone needs to do is learn EXACTLY what the code says, and this is very important, HOW it says it. The code IS constitutional, yet taxing your private sector, unprivileged receipts is not. So, how can this be? You have told, and have allowed others to tell the Government your pay IS taxable so they tax you. How the hell did I do that you say? Find out the way I did. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his website and start reading. Wake-up from the Matrix people
FredandShell 2 years ago 5
It's too easy for them to take the blue pill.
courageouslion 1 year ago
@courageouslion The blue pill tastes like grape.
pburto 1 year ago
@FredandShell Thanks for this information
Xinoutorah 1 year ago
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER AND TELL THE LEGAL THIEVES WHOS IN CHARGE.
CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM
RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM
TRUTHATTACK*ORG
ifreemantoo 2 years ago 12
Retsquid... your quoting a law from 1886...
Back when it was legal to shoot your wife in the head if you think she is cheating on you. It was legal to beat colored people and hang them...
I pity your ignorance
Blainne1 2 years ago
THINKFREE*ca
wigdomeitsallthesame 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Poor baby gubermint troll & legal thief wannabe RetSquid. He's been involved in over 24 YouTube discussions spam labeling on top of trolling. You got blocked from making comments in the Country of Laws (not men) Pursuit of Happiness Video because YOU'RE A SPAM-O-LABELER? You have other accounts as well.
Don't you hate it when I play your game better than you do?!! LOL You should have left me alone.Now I'm going to make you work again & earn the legal plunder you need to exist on.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
RetSquid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM
RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM
TRUTHATTACK*ORG
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
easy that would be fruad and you would go to jail.. and that is where every congressmen and senator and present president and x-president should go...
joe24fanIam 2 years ago
Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.
But what to do about a spamOlabeler?
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
RetSquid's 1/2 truth; repeatS his lie, that free people are subject to murder, rape, stealing & physical harm if there is a "legal" law.
['all persons..] followed by
Yick Wo v Hopkins
Sovereignty itself is, of course, NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, for it is the author & source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom & for whom all government exists & acts. And the law is the definition & limitation of power
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"that free people are subject to murder, rape, stealing & physical harm if there is a "legal" law.'
You just can't stop lying, can you?
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"that free people are subject to murder, rape, stealing & physical harm if there is a "legal" law.'
You just can't stop lying, can you?
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I-FEEL-MAN-TOOLS, I-FEEL-MAN-TOOLS3, I-FEEL-MAN-TOOLS4, stoplegalthiefspam2, stoplegalthiefspam3, stoplegalthiefspam4, stoplegalthiefspam5,
stopspamOlabelers, SpamOLabelerRetSquid.And says, and therefore I define the words to my benefit and protection."
RetSquid 2 years ago
Stop using their Federal Reserve Notes and Stop paying their income tax to use them.
junkmob 2 years ago
Then what will we use
05311990frog 2 years ago
The key to a true utopian society is human productivity. If all human beings strived for innovation and technological advance, then we wouldn't have to spend our lives in toil to earn meaningless paper to buy basic resources like food and shelter! If we eliminate mundane jobs, prehistoric technologies, and ass bkwards GOVTs and instead work for efficiency and sustainiblilty - then ultimately there is no need for money because all resources will be readily available and abundant to EVERYONE!
steved943 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Utopia - an imaginary place considered to be perfect or ideal.
RetSquid 2 years ago
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM
RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM
TRUTHATTACK*ORG
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's hard to have a logical debate with someone who says, "...and therefore I define the words to my benefit and protection. "
-ifreemantool
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
RetSquid 2 years ago
Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.
But what to do about a spamOlabeler?
ifreemantoo2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.
But what to do about a spamOlabeler?
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
INCOME TAX IS A FRAUD
FYRFOX198 2 years ago
There are some commentors here that seem to believe that "Case Law" is above the Constitution! The Constitution does not say that Congress shall lay and collect 'INCOME" taxes. It just says "taxes." But...this is irrelevant to our problem today. Why is the Executive branch COLLECTING taxes? If you want to get to the bones of our problem, blame the Executive branch. NO PRESIDENT has Constitutional authority to raise "levy", collect, or lower taxes. SOLEY the Legislative branch's authority! ONLY!
MatosUpNorth 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
The President is enforcing the law, Congress has no power to enforce law.
Wanna try again?
RetSquid 2 years ago
Consider.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
The power in a state to which none other is superior or equal, itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..while the power in a state to which none other is superior or equal are delegated to the agencies of government, The power in a state to which none other is superior or equal itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
RetSquid 2 years ago
People instinctively know that Joe Banister is a good and honest man. The fact that he's involved in law enforcement makes him *extremely special*. Most cops and public officials will, (and do) sell their souls for a dollar.
If Joe doesn't go down in history as a great American, then we should all be ashamed of what this country has become. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Tax protesters and thier attorneys are piss poor Chess Players...the DOJ kicks thier asses because they are legally wrong.....end of story.....The system of taxation is based upon volumtary compliance....they are tunneled vision on the erroneous and frivolous arguements....think outside the box and figure the system out legally......
iwtfunow 2 years ago
ifreemantoo 2 years ago 2
Truths you'll never hear from RetSquid. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS,
'Because it breaks the law, the government is not your friend...after witnessing first-hand how the criminal justice system works to subvert and shred the Constitution. You think you have rights that are guaranteed? Well think again.'
'The government is simply stretching and twisting federal law & the Constitution in whatever way it sees fit for whatever contemporary need it may have.'
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
If the law creates stealing or the corrupt interpretation of law permits stealing, RetSquid opinion is that people are subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power"
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'***all persons*** within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and ***shall be subject to*** like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS
RetSquid 2 years ago
Legal thief wannabe RetSquid now that you AGREE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, that would: steal (can we include clever stealing too) from, rape, or murder the people; or make slaves of the people why do persist in an academic debate?
Kinda pointless don't you think? C'mon, grow up and move on.
BTW [all persons...shall be subject]
Does that mean all people shall be subject to legal stealing, legal murder and legal slavery and can't resist such mischief?!
Is that what you're saying? LOL
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Does that mean all people shall be subject to legal stealing, legal murder and legal slavery and can't resist such mischief?!"
That's what the court said in Yick Wo, so it must be right!
RetSquid 2 years ago
Legal thief wannabe ReTSquid thanks for saying it so plainly. I'll let other people read the words for themselves and see if they feel subject to mischief.
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, for it is the author and source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
where did he go? ;)
PhillipOrion 2 years ago
Senate Joint Resolution , 1909, Congressional Record Volume 44, Part 3, page 3377:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population"
Senate Joint Resolution 40, Congressional Record Volume 44, Part 4, page 3900. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the States and without regard to any census or enumeration."
almartin77 3 years ago
Comment removed
almartin77 3 years ago
Comment removed
almartin77 3 years ago
Comment removed
almartin77 3 years ago
Is this information available at the library of congress? Can any Citizen go there and look up these documents? Generaly there is a papertrail... and usualy a one so large it is hard to erradicate, prior to the days go "Google". Id like to see this information with my own eyes, at the source, Im sure you can understand why, whoever you are ;)
Good luck submitting the refusal of volunteer paperwork to the irs. I have been hoping to get out from under the yoke for all my life. blueballs anyone?
nazaxprime 3 years ago
Be careful how you try to become free from tyranny. But please examine this web site. w w w truthattack . o r g
almartin77 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Best suggestion around and you can add
Campaignforliberty*com
ifreemantoo 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your channel and this video. If you need any help getting this video exposed I use a site called tubeviews (dot) net It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position.
There is software im using to send atleast 30,000 text message a day advertising my online business...it is amazing. I think they have free demos to try as well.
autotextsender (dot) com and autotextmailer (dot) com
Have you heard of this program that actually send thousands of text m
anibhaju 3 years ago
You keep tryin with your lyin, but I aint buyin. The USSC erred in its opinion or there is conflict?
**Yick Wo won back his freedom because he was not subject to law that hurt him.**
Doesnt the paragraph with the words 'not subject to law' come two paragraphs after the paragraph 'shall be subject' which youve taken completely out of context to prove your lie as if truth? **In fact this paragraph is the beginning of the reasoning for reversing previous courts malicious error in Yick Wo**
ifreemantoo4 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Legal Thieves cant seem to read when painted into a corner. The first part of Yick Wo is the explanation of the questions and controversy put before the USSC. A duh.
The next part of Yick Wo is the reasoning as to the reversal of previous courts error. Not only does the opinion quote previous opinion and law as well it logically concludes,
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
ifreemantoo 3 years ago
What makes people subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law...For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
ifreemantoo 3 years ago
'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right... and ***shall be subject*** to like punishment, pains, penalties, ***taxes***, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
RetSquid 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You keep tryin with your lyin, but I aint buyin. The USSC erred in its opinion or there is conflict?
**Yick Wo won back his freedom because he was not subject to law that hurt him.**
Doesnt the paragraph with the words 'not subject to law' come two paragraphs after the paragraph 'shall be subject' which youve taken completely out of context to prove your lie as if truth? **In fact this paragraph is the beginning of the reasoning for reversing previous courts malicious error in Yick Wo**
ifreemantoo 3 years ago
Comment removed
almartin77 3 years ago
I think you missed the part about the "exclusive jurisdiction", as in only Congess has jurisdiction, not the ONLY place Congress has jurisdiction. They also have concurrent Jurisdiction in the States.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. [T]he word exclusive was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)
RetSquid 3 years ago
So is the "income tax" an indirect excise tax or an unapportioned direct tax.
almartin77 3 years ago
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
RetSquid 3 years ago
Hi Ret! How ya doing? I understand, but never the less, the income tax is a tax on privileges, not rights. Income according to EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) is restricted to profits wherein the capital can be 100% restored. In Brushaber the tax is identified as a tariff. Tariffs are taxes on commerce with foreign nations.
Article 1 section 8. Sorry if I seem a little edgy some times. I am dealing with depression and I am trying very hard not to think about suicide. I feel good now.
almartin77 3 years ago
so what you are suggesting is that I should pick cotton and be grateful for what the government allows me to keep as that portion of my personal property (labor) as though it actually belonged to them in the first place. The right to follow any of the common occupations of
life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the
phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence,
BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
almartin77 3 years ago
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
RetSquid 3 years ago
We have all heard it before. I do not protest taxes. The income tax law enacted under the authority of the 16th amendment is the Underwood Simmons TARIFF act of Oct,3 1913. This is spelled out clearly in the Brushaber decision. A tariff is a tax on foreign commerce within the states. Under the requirements of Paper Work Reduction Act the, IRS tells us we must file form 2555 for § 6012 of the code. 26 CFR 602.101. It is the ONLY tax return that say it is for use by U.S. citizens.
almartin77 3 years ago
The purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.
Brushaber v. UPRR Company
RetSquid 3 years ago
TREASURY DECISION 2313
Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913. The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens shall make a return on Form 1040.
almartin77 3 years ago
You do know that the name of the Act has nothing to do with the name of the tax?
It lowered tariffs and imposed the income tax.
RetSquid 3 years ago
The term "income tax" has been around since at least the 1890's. I was used in the Pollack case. The High court has defined the term "income" as a gain or profit that remains and stands alone after the capital invested is recovered and made whole. Being reimburse for lost time and expended effort in the exercise of a natural right, constitutes nothing more than a mere conversion of human capital. It does not produce "income" or make anyone "liable" for an income tax. Most people don't know that.
almartin77 3 years ago
Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990).
Form 2555 is for foreign earned income and is to be attached to your 1040.
§ 6012 says absolutely nothing about any forms to be used.
RetSquid 3 years ago
26 USC 7701"taxpayer" The term taxpayer means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. Botta v. Scanlon 288 F.2d 504
Tax officials are not vested with absolute power of
assessment against individuals "not specified in
statutes" as persons "liable" for tax without opportunity
for judicial review of status...26 CFR 602.101 list form 2555 as the mandated form for section 6012. So if you are a "taxpayer" as defined,and made "liable" by a statute then you must file a return.
almartin77 3 years ago
Once again I don't disagree. The IRS is required by law to have their tax forms approved by the Office of Management and Budget. OMB assigns OMB control numbers to the forms only after IRS provides statutory and regulatory authority for collecting information on the forms. 26 CFR 602.101 exist to inform the public of the forms required by provisions of the Code. § 6012
requires form 2555 foreign earned income. See 2008 1040 instruction book page 20. See the index at the back of the booklet.
almartin77 3 years ago
Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. The control number on Form 1040 appears on OMB's web site as a current, valid number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer's say-so to establish the proposition.
United States v. Denny R. Patridge
RetSquid 3 years ago
I never suggested that the IRS failed to comply with the PRA. I merely pointed out that the form listed in Part 602.101 of 26 CFR as the form required to be filed for section 6012 is form 2555. By the way Ret I want to thank you for helping me hone my understanding of the Code. Keep up the good work.
almartin77 3 years ago
lower court definitions of income means nothing. The Supreme Court has forbidden congress from defining income in.
Congress cannot by any "definition"(of income) it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
The IRS is bound by the decisions of the High court. IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8
almartin77 3 years ago
"In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the 'ordinary, everyday senses' of the words."
Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1993)
RetSquid 3 years ago
The definition of "income", however you look at it does not negate the fact that before a tax is due, one must be made "liable" by a clearly laid statutory provision of liability. Example: § 5005. Persons liable for tax.
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon
§ 5703. Liability for tax
The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be "liable" for the taxes imposed thereon.
almartin77 3 years ago
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.
Porcaro v. United States
RetSquid 3 years ago
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.
Section 1 is not a provision of statutory liability. Liability must be clearly laid.
almartin77 3 years ago
The net income of the divorced husband subject to taxation was not decreased by payment of alimony under the court's order; and, on the other hand, the sum received by the wife on account thereof cannot be regarded as income arising or accruing to her within the enactment.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151
Your point is what?
RetSquid 3 years ago
The decision of the court in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. was that those things not clearly specified as subject to tax in the statute are exempt from tax. Taxing statutes must be strictly construed. No implication, or inference or presumption of liability can create a liability where none exist by a clearly laid statutory provision of law. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen. Internal Revenue manual 4.10.7.2.9.8.
almartin77 3 years ago
"The decision of the court in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. was that those things not clearly specified as subject to tax in the statute are exempt from tax. "
No, the decision was exactly as I posted
RetSquid 3 years ago
The decision in Gould specifically forbids the "extension" of statutes levying tax by "implication" beyond the clear import of the language used. Example: § 1, § 61, § 63,
§ 6012, § 6151 and any other section that "does not specifically" use the word or words "shall be liable for" or something to that effect, then those sections DO NOT impose a liability on anyone.
almartin77 3 years ago
I don't disagree with this. Remember "Income" is not defined in the Code.
almartin77 3 years ago
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code does not define income. The United States, however, is correct that income is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. In addition, the Code explicitly defines gross income, from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., wages.
Tornichio v. United States
RetSquid 3 years ago
The operative word here is "derived from"
EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). There is a fundamental difference between working for a living, and making living from the labor of others. One produces a gain or profit and the other does not. Physical labor is an expenditure that cannot be restored by the worker. The Employer may deduct the cost of the labor paid to His employees. The worker cannot. This is so much fun.
almartin77 3 years ago
I don't know where you are getting your reasoning but:
No reasonable person could seriously think that, for example, the revenue laws can be avoided, and the governments tax collection efforts can be brought to a standstill by the contention that wages are not income.
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611
RetSquid 3 years ago
The revenue laws will not be brought to a stand still because the IRS correctly follows their procedures restricts their collection actions to persons made "liable" by a clearly laid provision of statutory liability. Billions of tax revenues will be realized if the service held congress to it's constitutional restrictions for collecting taxes. Many good people work with the service with the power to hold congress's feet to the fire and can save America from socialism. We need your support.
almartin77 3 years ago
Here is your 'liability':
TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I,
§ 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed a tax determined in accordance with the following table[s]:
RetSquid 3 years ago
No, Ret. The word "liable" doesn't exist in sec. 1. Sec. 1 "imposes" a tax on "taxable" income then give rates. Nothing more. Here is what a liability statute looks like.
§ 5005. Persons liable for tax.
(a) General: The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be "liable" for the taxes imposed thereon..
§ 5703. Liability for tax
(a)The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable..
Need more examples? I have plenty.
almartin77 3 years ago
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, ***there is no difference***. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.
Porcaro v. United States
RetSquid 2 years ago
Inferior courts do not overturn Supreme Court cases. Internal Revenue Manual under examinations at 4.10.7.2.9.8 Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. Section 1 applies to those persons made "LIABLE" 26 USC 6001.
almartin77 2 years ago
Technically correct, but irrelevant. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income, from which taxable income is calculated, as all income from whatever source derived and gives a number of examples of the types of income included in gross income in section 61, including compensation for services
RetSquid 3 years ago
Comment removed
almartin77 3 years ago
You need to post more that the paragraph number.
Also:
1. That is corporate income tax not individual.
2. That the authority conferred upon Congress by section 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is ***EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED***, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine.
Brushaber v. UPRR Company
RetSquid 3 years ago
So are you admitting that the income tax imposed on "taxable" income at sec. 1, is an excise tax under article 1 sec. 8? Power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
almartin77 3 years ago
No, the power to tax.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...
as modified by the 16th Amendment.
RetSquid 2 years ago
the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO new power of taxation STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO., 240 U.S. 103.
The Brushaber Court said that article 1 sec.8 and article 1 sec.9 remain in "full" force and effect, unamended & unaltered. The assumption that the 16th Amendment gave congress the power to levy an UNapportined "direct" tax was an "erroneous assumption". As a result Commissioner issued. T.D. 2313 providing for withholding at the source on nonresident aliens. Not citizens.
almartin77 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
RetSquid 2 years ago
Legal thief wannabe RetSquid now that you AGREE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LAW, that would: steal (can we include clever stealing too) from, rape, or murder the people; or make slaves of the people why do persist in an academic debate?
Kinda pointless don't you think? C'mon, grow up and move on.
If the law creates or administers theft it's your opinion people are subject to law that harms them?
"NOT SUBJECT TO (COLOR OF OR ABUSIVE) LAW" Yick Wo v Hopkins
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'***all persons*** within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and ***shall be subject to*** like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.'
YICK WO v. HOPKINS
RetSquid 2 years ago
26 Code of Federal Rregulations § 1.312-6 Earnings and profits.
b) Among the items entering into the computation of corporate earnings and profits for a particular period are all income exempted by statute, income "not taxable" by the Federal Government under the "Constitution", as well as all items included in gross income under section "61" or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts. So here we have an admission that there is income beyond congress to tax because of the Constitution
almartin77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What makes people subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
ifreemantoo 3 years ago
I saw part 1. and now watching part 2. HOLY WHIT!
Very brave of Bannister to come forth with his findings. More power to him.
LemonAndYoghurt 3 years ago
This is america. We are not supposed to live without liberty. As sure as the wind blows...we know whats really going on, deep down......
tomstruss 3 years ago
Joe BANNISTER is Correct. IRS agents are enforcing LAWS that do NOT EXIST.
THEREFORE, IRS agents are criminals. Wow, an honest man.
DId not stop, them IRS/ Criminals from prosecuting Joe B.
superpencil007 3 years ago
"IRS agents are enforcing LAWS that do NOT EXIST."
LOL, look up Title 26.
RetSquid 3 years ago
To be more specific, IRS agents are enforcing laws against individuals who are not actually under their jurisdiction, but use 'Color of Law' to make it seem that they have the power to do so.
Judges tend to rule in favor if IRS despite their entire case is circumstantial, rather then require that the trial assume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
Look at Dave Champion. He went to court vs the IRS. The judge railroaded him, but he is still practicing to help non-taxpayers now.
eklypse0 3 years ago
Ah yes, the old 'courts are corrupt and the judges fear the IRS' trick.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Ah yes, the old 'courts are corrupt and the judges fear the IRS' trick Prove that they don't. Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
you are still there! Why don't you prove something for a change?
RetSquid 3 years ago
you are still there! Why don't you prove something for a change? Ya I figured you wouldn't be able to answer that. Oh by the way I've already proven a hell of alot more then you ever could even think of proving.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
It isnt' a trick. I posted an example of a Judge that refused to allow Rights to enter 'his' court, in fact, calling it contempt of his court for falling on the right to remain silent. The judge in fact said, "You waved your 5th amendment rights" when the defendant never did.
eklypse0 3 years ago
If you start to talk and answer questions you have waived your rights to remain silent.
RetSquid 3 years ago
He knows exactly how the fifth amendment rights work. He was ordered to go to the IRS building and bring his paperwork. He did, with a _real_ attorney, which surprised them, who advised him to answer each question with the right to remain silent. When The meeting was over and he went back to court. The judge threw him in jail.. for a little while for standing on his correctly used fifth amendment rights.
eklypse0 3 years ago
ANd I'll even give you a youtube video proving that there are Judges who are children in black robes.
"Ian Freeman arrested and jailed for 93 days RAW FOOTAGE"
I see that Ret is a romantic, wanting to believe the system can't be corrupt. The system is run by men. Judges tend to have total authority, with almost no oversight, while in their courtrooms. They can suggest to the court stenographer, assuming one is being used a the time, to strike a phrase from the records, as not being needed.
eklypse0 3 years ago
That vid proves....nothing. What happened before this incident? Do you have the vid for that?
RetSquid 3 years ago
"Every one be seated." He looked for his chair and started to sit. "Sit down!Sit Down!Sit DOWN!" Then when he just touched his ass to the chair, "Everyone rise." Then he is arrested for contempt of court.
eklypse0 3 years ago
What took place BEFORE this vid?
RetSquid 3 years ago
What difference does it make?
The judge required his jailing for him being confused at what he was supposed to do, because as he was sitting, the Judge spoke his name. So he stood up, then the judge yelled at him to sit down.
The Bailiff was on him even before the Judge did the 'contempt' thing.
eklypse0 3 years ago
"The Bailiff was on him even before the Judge did the 'contempt' thing."
Thereby proving my point that there is more going on than shown in the video.
RetSquid 3 years ago
.. not being needed.
But, in truth, Ret is not a Romantic, because a romantic is someone who is initially ignorant of the state of things.
Ret, on the other hand is 'Willfully Ignorant' or just plain dishonest in his opinions, which he holds despite the evidence that people have shown him time and time again.
When the evidence is irrefutable, he closes his eyes trying to figure out why it doesn't fit with his world view.
eklypse0 3 years ago
see that Ret is a romantic, wanting to believe the system can't be corrupt. Ya he is one of the sorriest excuses I've come across and a disgrace as an American person. All in all his actions just further insure he's just still a sheeple who has yet to wake up. He was in the Navy and likes to brag about it if that tells you anything.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You live in your own little world don't you?
When did I ever 'brag' about the Navy?
I'm beginning to think you DO have a tinfoil hat!
Here's a question you won't answer: Can you name one part of our debate where you proved ANYTHING I've said wrong?
RetSquid 3 years ago
Here's a question you won't answer: Can you name one part of our debate where you proved ANYTHING I've said wrong? Uhhh ya all of it I've disproven, your just to ignorant or to heavily hopped up on meds to realize it. And yes I've answered it many times over.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You keep saying that but can not or will not cite an example.
Let us know when you check back into reality.
Bye
RetSquid 3 years ago
You keep saying that but can not or will not cite an example
All one has to do Ret is go back to the numerous video threads here and read the back posts to see for themselves. That speaks for itself.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"All one has to do Ret is go back to the numerous video threads here and read the back posts to see for themselves. That speaks for itself. "
That you avoid the issue and are constantly mis-informed.
RetSquid 3 years ago