@RetSquid that is so funny. Government stealing and you justifying it. Maybe she did not owe any redistribution taxes. Have you heard of the Constitution which mandates a trial by jury on all disputes over 20 dollars?
The Seventh Amendment says, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.."
This is not a Common Law dispute, it's Statutory law.
@RetSquid Common law has been incorporated into statutory law a long time ago and the right of trial has been preserved it is part of due process. If you think that a statute can take that right away then there is no right at all.
It's a Common Law right, not a Statute one, if they were being charged with a Common Law violation then it might work, but they are not. And Common Law is still being used today.
"The Supreme Court has also stated that there is no 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil litigation against the United States because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 426, 440 (1880); see also Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 430 U.S. 442, 450-51 (1977); Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981) (“It has long been settled that the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury does not apply in actions against the Federal Government.” )."
@RetSquid So the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus Acts mean nothing to the federal govt? You are admitting to the yse of dark ages law in our federal govt?
@RetSquid It's called Due Process of Law ... Habeas Corpus is the reason you have the right to know what charges are brought against you and gives your your day in court ... Learn about Law if your going to talk about it.
As For the Magna Carta in 1215, it established the first concepts of Habeas Corpus bringing the world out of Dark Ages Law ... after NDAA, they can deny your right of Habeas Corpus which overturns 800 years of evolving civilized law. No Habeas Corpus = no rights!
Well, due process still works with income tax cases like this and they are not being charged with any crime here so Habeas Corpus, by your definition, doesn't apply.
So again, what do these have to do with what I posted?
I find it rather curious as well that, important information that was posted has been removed. So RetSquid, do you own this site as well? Have you been removing my information?
To undo citizenship? Hmmmmmm thank you for the info. I just don't sign anything where as I have to check that I am a US CITIZEN. The only contract I have with the defacto government is a driving contract, and nothing else.
@RetSquid a US CITIZEN by contract is what I was talking about, where you give up your rights by contract. Where did the choice of an American on the government contracts go?
The case you are talking about here in your comment and I quote "You do know that he was convicted in that case, right? The only issue was whether or not he knew that the information on the W-43 was a lie or not. He was convicted of felony tex evasion."
@VictoriaWarrior Do you know how to undo US CITIZEN ship? Once that W-4 is in place with your employer it sticks, they don't even renew those from year to year so the correct date is on it. You would have to change employer, learn who you really are, record it as a matter of public record with the state you live in, start again. I have read the comments about RetSquid and asked him what part of the defacto, incorporated, bankrupt gov. he works for, his language is just that.
1 of 9 The right to contract by which labor is exchanged for money or other forms of property
Retsquid! It is a right to contract or not. The W-4 is an internal revenue CONTRACT! Your signature is needed to hold you accountable to the rules of that contract. Everything set up concerning the government to hold you accountable for anything, is by
@RetSquid You are not entirely right about that, because your employment form gives you one choice as citizenship, and that is US CITIZEN, the American choice no longer exists on the employer form but it is not income from that labor, we are talking about wage in exchange for the sweat of your labor, there is no profit or gain on that. Income has been ruled as corporate profit in the Supreme Court rulings I posted. That definition cannot be expanded, is another court ruling I posted.
@MsLawman7 People are US CITIZENS by contract with their employer form and their W-4 form. The choice for American no longer exists. This is so you can be held accountable for all the rules, laws, regulations, and enforcement. This is not common law, but commercial law.
Wrong, anyone born in any of the States is a U.S. citizen. It has nothing to do with paying income tax in the U.S. or the W-4. The law says "Every individual" is liable for income tax.
2 of 2 3401(c)people it specifically mentions is 3401(c)an officer, employee, or elected official for the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbian or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term employee also includes an officer of a corporation. The individuals they are talking about are the individuals mentioned above.
@MsLawman7 1 of 2 The individuals they are talking about are, defined in 3401 (c) and corporations, and of course those who volunteer. The IRC was set up for our government officials, corporations, and those who sign a W-4. It also states over and over again that if a person is liable...it does not come right out and say everyone is liable for taxes, the only class of
Yet again, you are totally wrong. The law clearly says "every individual" not just those YOU mentioned, which is also only for the withholding, not the original liability.
Did you even read the part that says "...the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer..."???
You need to talk to your lawyer boss and appologize for calling yourself a paralegal.
"Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute..."
754 F.2d 747: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ronald E. Latham, Defendant-appellant
“As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.”
Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).
2 of 9 “CONTRACT!” Where as in this court ruling “COPPAGE” is talking about your employment contract, however the W-4 contract is separate from the employment contract. The right of private property they are talking about here…is your wage, which in reading the other court rulings I have posted are a specialized type of property. If I remember correctly, RIGHTS
3 of 9 CANNOT BE TAXED! Unless you volunteer, if a person has not been given full disclosure of the contracts they have signed, it is FRAUD! And for an employer to fill out a W-4 form for an employee is FRAUD, it is a FORCED contract! And because the employer has gotten away with it for so many years, they continue to do so because people do not know how to
Sorry, but according to the Constitution there are only two limits on Federal taxes, direct ones have to be apportioned and exports can't be taxed. That's it, no other rules apply.
@RetSquid Direct and Excise! That would be a direct tax on your wage if you are not given a choice whether to volunteer or not. So, it is forced compliance, why don't they just call it forced compliance then? Hmmmm? The W-4 is a trick to get people to sign their sweat from the labor of their wage away under the guise of a voluntary taxing system? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Taxing system is voluntary, but you will pay like it or not! Is this how it works? And it will be forced.
This is just more proof that you are not what you claim to be. A 'direct tax' is one on property, like a house or land. Nowhere in the law does it say that income tax is voluntary. The W-4 has nothing to do with your liability for income tax.
@RetSquid Sorry, but it is proof of nothing, absolutely nothing, because the court rulings I posted concerning wage, specifically state that wage is a special type of property! The W-4 has everything to do with your liability. It is a contract! You agree of so many deductions and your employer withholds and it is called income because of the contract.
Sorry, there are no court rulings that agree with your claims, SCOTUS has always said that your income from wages can be taxed. Title 26, Section 1 makes you liable for income tax, the W-4 is ONLY to determine the amount withheld at the source, not the total you owe.
4 of 9 protect themselves against this fraudulent action. How many people would volunteer to pay something that is voluntary? The government needs people like you to put out disinformation. But court rulings do not lie. Regardless of what the court ruling is about if a specific line has ruled on a subject and that subject has not been overruled it stands as fact about that
5 of 9 subject regardless of what the court matter is about! So I reposted footnote 2, reiterating the W-4 form is an internal revenue form (it is a CONTRACT!). People need to learn how to combat their employer, because at this point the employer has become the policing entity for the IRS.
The ONLY purpose of the W=4 is to determine how much is withheld from your check to pay the taxes that you owe on your income. If you don't file a W-4 then your income taxes will be withheld at the highest rate possible.
Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each. is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property, chief
among which is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are
7 of 9 exchanged for money or other forms of property.
Page 236 U. S. 13 Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of
8 of 9 property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich, for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money. 956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
You do know that he was convicted in that case, right? The only issue was whether or not he knew that the information on the W-43 was a lie or not. He was convicted of felony tex evasion.
The levy is form 668-B, not the 668-W or 668-C Notice of levy forms.
Disclosure office for the IRS is incapable of producing the 668-b forms, so the notices of levy in the absence of the levy is a notice of something that does not exist. IF the IRS cannot produce the 668-B (levy form), then there is no levy and the notice of levy is a Fraudulent document.
1 of 4-Retsquid, I could not find your court ruling in my court reference. If your court ruling is unpublished, it holds no basis in law. However I did find IRC code 6331 for Levy and Distraint please read all 4.
IRC 6331 - Levy and distraint.
(a) Authority of Secretary. If “any person” liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay
2 of 4the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.
3 of 4Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official).
4 of 4If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section. [Emphasis Added]
Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IR Code that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc., and the "limitation" of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their employer, the government.
Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).
you sign this form under penalty of perjury. When the IRS wants to collect for whatever reason and contacts your employer, the employer is sent a "NOTICE OF LEVY" which has not been perfected under law. To perfect a full LEVY is in violation of your rights because, a perfected LEVY can only be done on specific entities, and the average AMERICAN is not one. So, the IRS uses again the ignorance of its employees to send to your employer a 'NOTICE OF A LEVY" using your employer as enforcement.
@MsLawman7 “Appellant contends that the IRS, by using a ‘Notice of Levy’ form rather than a ‘Levy’ form, did not properly make a levy upon his property... This argument is absolutely meritless...It is well established that a ‘[l]evy on property in the hands of a third party is made by serving a notice of levy on the third party.’...Without exception the case law supports the use of a notice of levy.”
This form,stats you will have income by contract, the IRS through your employer will collect that income, which is actually a wage for your labor.
956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
The government uses the ignorance of our own citizenry called enforcement officers regardless of title to enforce code that does not apply to Americans. These very same people believe it is their duty to enforce code, they have been taught enforcement as part of their jobs. Most have never opened an IRS code book, where income is not defined. If these people realized the truth, the government would not have any enforcement officers. Do a private specific negative averment against all.
Also the IRS isn't affiliated or part of the US government. It is not a US government Agency. their seizure of property is completely illegal under any US law unless they have secured a court order to do so because of debts unpaid.
Just remember that they are NOT IN ANY WAY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. This gives them even more rights to do dirty things. They are a company owned by the Royal Family of England. That's also where our "national debt" payments go to.
You should have told the wrecker driver that you do not need his services and to leave you car and that he was trespassing. Then tell the officer that he was trespassing ( the wrecker driver) and that you wanted him to arrest him or remove him from the property. The wrecker driver has no legal right to conduct business on your property once he is asked to leave.
Too bad the IRS has the right to haul the car away for non-payment of taxes. The wrecker was hauling away the IRS's car, the property owner had no right to keep him away.
@RetSquid If no court order had been issued after a court case had taken place then they had no legal rights to the car. People that don't know the law often allow things like this to happen. Another example of this is allowing the social services or child welfare into your home with no search warrant or court order. Another example is allowing an officer to search your car.- Be smart drive to a parking lot and if asked to get out of the car, roll the window up and lock the door when you getout
"The plaintiffs’ premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice."
1. Property subject to forfeiture may be seized pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41). The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) must submit an application for the seizure of particular property, as well as a special agent's sworn affidavit setting forth the facts that provide probable cause for the seizure
2. A seizure warrant may be issued in any judicial district in which a civil forfeiture action against the property may be filed, and may be executed in any judicial district in which the property is found. In the event that an out-of-district seizure is contemplated, it must involve consultation and coordination with the US Attorney's Office and the field office within the judicial district in which the seizure is to occur.
3.Title 18 USC §985 requires that civil forfeiture of real property proceed judicially. Except as provided in the statute, the real property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action cannot be seized before entry of an order of forfeiture.
@mrrodneyalong .Note:The owners or occupants of the real property cannot be evicted absent notice and a hearing or an ex parte determination that there is probable cause for the forfeiture and that there are exigent circumstances that permit the seizure of the property without prior notice and an opportunity for the property owner to be heard.
@RetSquid Refer me to the specific area in Title 26 or any where else that releases the IRS or its employees from the burden of a judicial process ( outlined above ) before any property can be seized.
@RetSquid "Your employer is required to use you SSN to with hold taxes"
of The Privacy Act of 1974 (PA)7(a) , 88 Stat. 1896, et seq., Public Law 93-579, codified at 5 U.S.C. 552(a). - they can enter into the record that the employee refused and by law cannot fire you for not complying.
@mrrodneyalong I would like to take this time to state that all this is in good fun- I own a business and I do pay all my taxes- what sparked me about this is I see time and again that 3 parties just go with what ever the police or government employee says. 6 times I was hired to recover property for the IRS and 3 of those times their paper work was not in order. 1 time they had no paper work at all. We must hold a high standard in business for the law and the people that inforce it.
Agreed, but the law says the IRS does not have to have a court order to levy your property for payment of taxes, only if they have to do somthing like enter your house.
paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, r they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com.
Im hearing that people are so mad that they want to start all over with a new and honest goverment...a new monetary system and get rid of the police and judges .. privite jails for profit / the DMV ...Birth certificates SS numbers / IRS / Banks / This system has ran it;s course , And now it is an epic fail. you can only hide behind a book for so long ( Title 26 ) I don't think people care if it's the law or Not, THEY DON'T WANT IT !
WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with "RetSquid." He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS, spouting the same old arguments again and again. He only trolls videos of this type as well. Strange, don't you think?
Give me a break, the minute some low life breaks into your house I bet your calling the cops who don't work for free and drive on the roads that aren't free either. 50-60% of Americans are getting some kind of handout. You wonder why the countries in trouble, the culture is all about me but F paying into it.
@casp3rization I Agree that there is no law in the US that states that a "citizen" has to pay Income tax. There is a law(or code) that states that the only people required to pay Federal Income Tax are "persons who reside in Washington DC" and Federal employees. When you get a SS# you become an "employee" of the "United States" Corporation and thus are able to be taxed. Also when you sign the docomunent required to start employment it gives the IRS the right to audit you :( :( :(
Actually, no. The law (Title 26 Section 1) says "Every individual". Having an SSN does not matter either, we had income taxes decades before Social security even existed.
cant believe that this....native americans are good people and they deserve to have some respect.. besides they were here first before any other race in united states.
Wake up idiots! 1.WE THE PEOPLE are sovereign! Figure out what that means. 2.We are Subject only to NATURAL LAW (see Dec. of Independence). 3.The Government is SUBJECT to the Constitution AND the people! 4.Government has no Constitutional authority to create LAW for WE THE PEOPLE, only "LAW" (Code/Regulations) necessary to carry out it's Enumerated authority(see Constitution)! 5.Only those contracted with Government (public servants, States, corporations etc) are subject to Code! I.E. Title 26.
You are one very confused person. The laws of this country (laws/statutes/codes) apply to everyone equally, no contract required. Please take a basic civics class and get educated on the subject.
Poor RetSquid. He spent so long in the military being told what to do, he can't think for himself anymore. All he can do is parrot what he's been told, and heard in the mainstream media. He has no idea what a Republic is and what that means. He thinks we live in a Democracy where 51% of the people can tell the other 49% how to live. All he wants to do is spread the lies he's been told, backing it up with only "everyone knows the world is flat". A shining example of public education!
WOW, you really are confused!! I quote laws, you quote yourself. You think we live in an Autocracy where the laws only apply to certain people, not a Republic where they apply to everyone. Why don't you post something...ANTHING...authoritative to back up your moronic claims?
What can be more authoritative than the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution? It's not my fault if you can't comprehend the implications of one, and the limitations of the other! My original comment was meant as a starting point for people to do their own research, and hopefully, realize why you, and most people, are completely missing the point!! Be a Subject if you want. I wish you'd stop being an IRS cheerleader, and spreading your "police state" mentality here!?
OH, you mean the same document that says Congress can lay taxes, including unapportioned taxes on income? The same one that guarantees a Republican form of government to the States?
@RetSquid In a Republic, the law would only apply to those who consent, you know the way it is supposed to be now.... but our traitorous goberment deceived us and turned it into a democracy! O and yes, you are a troll... you come on here just to insight an argument spewing the same old B.S. STATUTES, and CODES NOT law!! Get a life
all she had to do was ask for badge numbers,ask for a receipt,and ask for the lieut.on duty.also ask for the irs agents badge number,bond number a receipt and supv.name.instantly she would have gotten answers to her questions.maybe even kept her car.
@WORLDWIDE187HUT First, the local PD was only there as a support role in case somebody tried to attack the other agents, so their badge numbers wouldn't mean anything. The CID agents aren't required to speak to them, as the siezing of property is a last resort collection issue and they would be there because some form of criminal activity caused the seizure or a threat was made prior to it taking place. Property seizures are the last in a long line of attempts to get people to pay what they owe.
@zentner18 You can't be fuckin serious. Are you really this stupid? Let me guess, you also think you own your house too don't you? Try not paying your property taxes (goverment rent) and see who really owns your house. Wake the fuck up shit head.
@outlawracer2229 First, you need to be hostile. Second, you didn't answer my question. Third, property taxes are not collected by the IRS, it is a local tax not federal. Fourth, the property tax is used to fund local projects, such as your county and city roads, local schools, local police and fire departments. If you can think of how to fund all these things without taxes, I would love to hear it.
@zentner18 I take it your a polititan. I hate fuckin polititans. They are the biggest crooks and liars on the planet. Ambulance services are no longer free, even volunteer services charge. Some taxes are nessacary yes. But the amount is way too high for the services provided. Want lower taxes? Trim the goverment waste. Instead of sending billions of dollars to rebuild "3rd world countries" rebuild the USA first.
@RetSquid WTF are you babbling about? I never said one word about having higher taxes or bigger goverment. I basically said the taxes are too damn high and the goverment is too big now. Take your ritilan and go lay down.
@RetSquid You got a reply. The question was answered. In fact it was answered before it was asked. Your the idiot who doesn't have the ability to understand. I'm done with this conversation.
@RetSquid You never quit do you? You have been trolling this stuff for 2 years now, then you have the balls to call other people trolls??? You sir, are a LOSER....
Judge Gale, of the US tax court, had a chance to restore the American dream for Arab-Americans but instead joined the ranks of other corrupt judges in supporting the Jewish takeover of Mourad's real estate development worth > $40 million. Mourad has been left penniless, owing $800k to the IRS for taxes on money he neve...r received .
It’s the 21st Century, isn’t is about time that we expose the IRS as the exterminator of capitalism? They swoop in like terrorists and unlawfully seize years of hard work and leave you bankrupt – all in the name of justice. They gave my property away with a $12 Million tax credit to line the pockets of Jewish developers at the expense of 1500 low-income tenants and one Middle Eastern developer. Join my crusade against this governmental injustice.
@mouradprotest Well, in all honesty, you won't win, half of the americans are idiots who are republicans, republicans of course are the corporate party...
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 were both modified by the 16th Amendment. Sherry Jackson is a felon and a liar who doesn't know what an 'individual' is.....or at least that is what she claims.
@RetSquid → Where← is the law that requires the American citizen to pay income tax?
In before the excuse of not directly saying it and pointing towards Title 26.
The 16th amendment is a fraud period
Sherry Jackson a felon? She committed no crime, a political prisoner for telling the truth. Taking her away from her family that is a crime in which all the evil will be rightfully & justly rewarded with suffering. An ignorant indoctrinated pawn as yourself only knows the rules of your masters.
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
@RetSquid Since you won't state the law, the deception in the use of trickery words won't cut it the tax code is not law. The pawns & the trash in the IRS are cons in this ponzi scheme perverting the working class to be slaves of debt.
Unless the people start a real revolution evil men & their pawns will continue to profit off suffering. In the end our cries will be heard to the evil doers. Sincerely, you have time to change & rejoin the right side choice is ultimately yours to make.
You really can't read, can you? I've posted the exact law multiple times, closing your eyes and claiming I didn't post it is just idiotic. No matter what you say, Title 26 IS the law and if you violate it you WILL end up in court and maybe prison, just like sherry.
@RetSquid Don't patronize me, why don't you go collect the 50k reward being offered by William Conklin? Let's see your confidence in that task I'm sure that's plenty of money to pay for your schooling. In before another rhetoric demeanor. Shameful apathetic actions from people(s) disregarding the constitution of our country someone has forgotten their oath.
Patronize? You are the one who refuses to read my comments and can't understand that Title 26 IS the income tax law. Conklin will never pay out on any claim...he has no reason to (only he decides what is 'right') and can't be forced to do it either, it's not a legally binding offer.
Walder v. Conklin -- Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was bogus. Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued when Conklin welched. The court ruled that Conklin has structured his argument so that he was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch on the bet.
Should ask why is the police stealing her car.
Michaelbenoit7 1 week ago
@Michaelbenoit7
She didn't pay her taxes, so the car gets taken to pay the debt.
RetSquid 1 week ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid that is so funny. Government stealing and you justifying it. Maybe she did not owe any redistribution taxes. Have you heard of the Constitution which mandates a trial by jury on all disputes over 20 dollars?
Michaelbenoit7 1 week ago
@Michaelbenoit7
The Seventh Amendment says, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.."
This is not a Common Law dispute, it's Statutory law.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid Common law has been incorporated into statutory law a long time ago and the right of trial has been preserved it is part of due process. If you think that a statute can take that right away then there is no right at all.
Michaelbenoit7 1 week ago
@Michaelbenoit7
It's a Common Law right, not a Statute one, if they were being charged with a Common Law violation then it might work, but they are not. And Common Law is still being used today.
RetSquid 1 week ago
"The Supreme Court has also stated that there is no 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil litigation against the United States because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 426, 440 (1880); see also Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 430 U.S. 442, 450-51 (1977); Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981) (“It has long been settled that the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury does not apply in actions against the Federal Government.” )."
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid So the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus Acts mean nothing to the federal govt? You are admitting to the yse of dark ages law in our federal govt?
ben5017 2 days ago
@ben5017
What do either of those have to do with my comments?
RetSquid 2 days ago
@RetSquid It's called Due Process of Law ... Habeas Corpus is the reason you have the right to know what charges are brought against you and gives your your day in court ... Learn about Law if your going to talk about it.
As For the Magna Carta in 1215, it established the first concepts of Habeas Corpus bringing the world out of Dark Ages Law ... after NDAA, they can deny your right of Habeas Corpus which overturns 800 years of evolving civilized law. No Habeas Corpus = no rights!
ben5017 16 hours ago
@ben5017
Well, due process still works with income tax cases like this and they are not being charged with any crime here so Habeas Corpus, by your definition, doesn't apply.
So again, what do these have to do with what I posted?
RetSquid 15 hours ago
@RetSquid You are void of understanding of the law ... turn to the writings of the founders of America.
SO again, what don't you understand about the effect of Habeas Corpus on modern day law?
ben5017 15 hours ago
@ben5017
LOL!! Let's start over. What do you think is wrong in this video or my comments about it?
RetSquid 15 hours ago
HAHAHAHAHA...YOU BROKE AS BITCHES GETTIN YA CAR REPOED BY IRS......YOU NEED TO STFU AND TAKE IT LOL
navyseal100 2 weeks ago
I find it rather curious as well that, important information that was posted has been removed. So RetSquid, do you own this site as well? Have you been removing my information?
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Information from where?
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
To undo citizenship? Hmmmmmm thank you for the info. I just don't sign anything where as I have to check that I am a US CITIZEN. The only contract I have with the defacto government is a driving contract, and nothing else.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
If you were born in any of the States, you are a Citizen of the United States.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid a US CITIZEN by contract is what I was talking about, where you give up your rights by contract. Where did the choice of an American on the government contracts go?
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You are a Citizen due to birth or naturalization, not from a tax form. You give up no rights by signing a W-4.
Was there EVER a choice of "American" any forms? And why would it matter? "American" could mean anyone from the Western Hemisphere.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
wrong
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
city cops are losers lol
petechef27nj 2 weeks ago
disgusting people who work in law
petechef27nj 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The case you are talking about here in your comment and I quote "You do know that he was convicted in that case, right? The only issue was whether or not he knew that the information on the W-43 was a lie or not. He was convicted of felony tex evasion."
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsLawman7
Your case again: 956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
when you discover that the income tax is voluntary, do you continue to volunteer?
VictoriaWarrior 3 weeks ago
@VictoriaWarrior
The Federal income tax is not voluntary.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@VictoriaWarrior Do you know how to undo US CITIZEN ship? Once that W-4 is in place with your employer it sticks, they don't even renew those from year to year so the correct date is on it. You would have to change employer, learn who you really are, record it as a matter of public record with the state you live in, start again. I have read the comments about RetSquid and asked him what part of the defacto, incorporated, bankrupt gov. he works for, his language is just that.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 It is too bad we all need our jobs, because if we didn't what control would the government have? There would be nothing to take.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
To 'undo' your Citizenship you have to go to a U.S. embassy overseas and denounce your Citizenship.
And I don't work for any part of any Government, I'm retired and a full-time student.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid Now who is the liar? Hmmmmmmmm, I don't think any one is going to believe that! I don't
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
show me the case and I will read it.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You mean you are citing a case and you want ME to give YOU the case so you can read it!?!?!?!
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
1 of 9 The right to contract by which labor is exchanged for money or other forms of property
Retsquid! It is a right to contract or not. The W-4 is an internal revenue CONTRACT! Your signature is needed to hold you accountable to the rules of that contract. Everything set up concerning the government to hold you accountable for anything, is by
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Your right to contract for your labor has nothing to do with being taxed on the income from that labor.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid You are not entirely right about that, because your employment form gives you one choice as citizenship, and that is US CITIZEN, the American choice no longer exists on the employer form but it is not income from that labor, we are talking about wage in exchange for the sweat of your labor, there is no profit or gain on that. Income has been ruled as corporate profit in the Supreme Court rulings I posted. That definition cannot be expanded, is another court ruling I posted.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 People are US CITIZENS by contract with their employer form and their W-4 form. The choice for American no longer exists. This is so you can be held accountable for all the rules, laws, regulations, and enforcement. This is not common law, but commercial law.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Wrong, anyone born in any of the States is a U.S. citizen. It has nothing to do with paying income tax in the U.S. or the W-4. The law says "Every individual" is liable for income tax.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
2 of 2 3401(c)people it specifically mentions is 3401(c)an officer, employee, or elected official for the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbian or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term employee also includes an officer of a corporation. The individuals they are talking about are the individuals mentioned above.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 1 of 2 The individuals they are talking about are, defined in 3401 (c) and corporations, and of course those who volunteer. The IRC was set up for our government officials, corporations, and those who sign a W-4. It also states over and over again that if a person is liable...it does not come right out and say everyone is liable for taxes, the only class of
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Yet again, you are totally wrong. The law clearly says "every individual" not just those YOU mentioned, which is also only for the withholding, not the original liability.
Did you even read the part that says "...the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer..."???
You need to talk to your lawyer boss and appologize for calling yourself a paralegal.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid You really need to stop telling me what to do, I don't take orders from you!
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
BWAAHAAA!!!!
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute..."
754 F.2d 747: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ronald E. Latham, Defendant-appellant
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"there is no profit or gain on that"
“As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.”
Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
2 of 9 “CONTRACT!” Where as in this court ruling “COPPAGE” is talking about your employment contract, however the W-4 contract is separate from the employment contract. The right of private property they are talking about here…is your wage, which in reading the other court rulings I have posted are a specialized type of property. If I remember correctly, RIGHTS
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 of 9 CANNOT BE TAXED! Unless you volunteer, if a person has not been given full disclosure of the contracts they have signed, it is FRAUD! And for an employer to fill out a W-4 form for an employee is FRAUD, it is a FORCED contract! And because the employer has gotten away with it for so many years, they continue to do so because people do not know how to
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Sorry, but according to the Constitution there are only two limits on Federal taxes, direct ones have to be apportioned and exports can't be taxed. That's it, no other rules apply.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid Direct and Excise! That would be a direct tax on your wage if you are not given a choice whether to volunteer or not. So, it is forced compliance, why don't they just call it forced compliance then? Hmmmm? The W-4 is a trick to get people to sign their sweat from the labor of their wage away under the guise of a voluntary taxing system? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Taxing system is voluntary, but you will pay like it or not! Is this how it works? And it will be forced.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"direct tax on your wage"
This is just more proof that you are not what you claim to be. A 'direct tax' is one on property, like a house or land. Nowhere in the law does it say that income tax is voluntary. The W-4 has nothing to do with your liability for income tax.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid Sorry, but it is proof of nothing, absolutely nothing, because the court rulings I posted concerning wage, specifically state that wage is a special type of property! The W-4 has everything to do with your liability. It is a contract! You agree of so many deductions and your employer withholds and it is called income because of the contract.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Sorry, there are no court rulings that agree with your claims, SCOTUS has always said that your income from wages can be taxed. Title 26, Section 1 makes you liable for income tax, the W-4 is ONLY to determine the amount withheld at the source, not the total you owe.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
4 of 9 protect themselves against this fraudulent action. How many people would volunteer to pay something that is voluntary? The government needs people like you to put out disinformation. But court rulings do not lie. Regardless of what the court ruling is about if a specific line has ruled on a subject and that subject has not been overruled it stands as fact about that
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
5 of 9 subject regardless of what the court matter is about! So I reposted footnote 2, reiterating the W-4 form is an internal revenue form (it is a CONTRACT!). People need to learn how to combat their employer, because at this point the employer has become the policing entity for the IRS.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
The ONLY purpose of the W=4 is to determine how much is withheld from your check to pay the taxes that you owe on your income. If you don't file a W-4 then your income taxes will be withheld at the highest rate possible.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
6 of 9 Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
Page 236 U. S. 2
Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each. is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property, chief
among which is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
7 of 9 exchanged for money or other forms of property.
Page 236 U. S. 13 Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
8 of 9 property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich, for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money. 956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You do know that he was convicted in that case, right? The only issue was whether or not he knew that the information on the W-43 was a lie or not. He was convicted of felony tex evasion.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
The levy is form 668-B, not the 668-W or 668-C Notice of levy forms.
Disclosure office for the IRS is incapable of producing the 668-b forms, so the notices of levy in the absence of the levy is a notice of something that does not exist. IF the IRS cannot produce the 668-B (levy form), then there is no levy and the notice of levy is a Fraudulent document.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
What is your reference for this claim?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
1 of 4-Retsquid, I could not find your court ruling in my court reference. If your court ruling is unpublished, it holds no basis in law. However I did find IRC code 6331 for Levy and Distraint please read all 4.
IRC 6331 - Levy and distraint.
(a) Authority of Secretary. If “any person” liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
2 of 4the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 of 4Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official).
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
4 of 4If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section. [Emphasis Added]
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IR Code that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc., and the "limitation" of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their employer, the government.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
you sign this form under penalty of perjury. When the IRS wants to collect for whatever reason and contacts your employer, the employer is sent a "NOTICE OF LEVY" which has not been perfected under law. To perfect a full LEVY is in violation of your rights because, a perfected LEVY can only be done on specific entities, and the average AMERICAN is not one. So, the IRS uses again the ignorance of its employees to send to your employer a 'NOTICE OF A LEVY" using your employer as enforcement.
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 “Appellant contends that the IRS, by using a ‘Notice of Levy’ form rather than a ‘Levy’ form, did not properly make a levy upon his property... This argument is absolutely meritless...It is well established that a ‘[l]evy on property in the hands of a third party is made by serving a notice of levy on the third party.’...Without exception the case law supports the use of a notice of levy.”
Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.,
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
This form,stats you will have income by contract, the IRS through your employer will collect that income, which is actually a wage for your labor.
956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
If you don't file a W-4 then the income tax will be withheld at the highest rate.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid I violation of contract rights without a significant signature is fraud.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
There are no contract rights involved with any of the income taxes mentioned.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid 8 of 8 Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
The government uses the ignorance of our own citizenry called enforcement officers regardless of title to enforce code that does not apply to Americans. These very same people believe it is their duty to enforce code, they have been taught enforcement as part of their jobs. Most have never opened an IRS code book, where income is not defined. If these people realized the truth, the government would not have any enforcement officers. Do a private specific negative averment against all.
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
Also the IRS isn't affiliated or part of the US government. It is not a US government Agency. their seizure of property is completely illegal under any US law unless they have secured a court order to do so because of debts unpaid.
Just remember that they are NOT IN ANY WAY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. This gives them even more rights to do dirty things. They are a company owned by the Royal Family of England. That's also where our "national debt" payments go to.
Greatzky2 4 weeks ago
@Greatzky2
The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Fuck the income tax I'm tired of paying for other people's welfare!
damiion666 1 month ago
You should have told the wrecker driver that you do not need his services and to leave you car and that he was trespassing. Then tell the officer that he was trespassing ( the wrecker driver) and that you wanted him to arrest him or remove him from the property. The wrecker driver has no legal right to conduct business on your property once he is asked to leave.
mrrodneyalong 1 month ago
@mrrodneyalong
Too bad the IRS has the right to haul the car away for non-payment of taxes. The wrecker was hauling away the IRS's car, the property owner had no right to keep him away.
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid If no court order had been issued after a court case had taken place then they had no legal rights to the car. People that don't know the law often allow things like this to happen. Another example of this is allowing the social services or child welfare into your home with no search warrant or court order. Another example is allowing an officer to search your car.- Be smart drive to a parking lot and if asked to get out of the car, roll the window up and lock the door when you getout
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong
"The plaintiffs’ premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice."
Brian v. Gugin
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
9.7.2.7.1 (07-25-2007)
Seizure Warrant
1. Property subject to forfeiture may be seized pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41). The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) must submit an application for the seizure of particular property, as well as a special agent's sworn affidavit setting forth the facts that provide probable cause for the seizure
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
2. A seizure warrant may be issued in any judicial district in which a civil forfeiture action against the property may be filed, and may be executed in any judicial district in which the property is found. In the event that an out-of-district seizure is contemplated, it must involve consultation and coordination with the US Attorney's Office and the field office within the judicial district in which the seizure is to occur.
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
3.Title 18 USC §985 requires that civil forfeiture of real property proceed judicially. Except as provided in the statute, the real property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action cannot be seized before entry of an order of forfeiture.
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong .Note:The owners or occupants of the real property cannot be evicted absent notice and a hearing or an ex parte determination that there is probable cause for the forfeiture and that there are exigent circumstances that permit the seizure of the property without prior notice and an opportunity for the property owner to be heard.
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong
We are not talking about real estate or things that are covered by privacy laws/4th Amendment.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong
"Except as provided in the statute,..." Like Title 26, for example.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
@RetSquid Refer me to the specific area in Title 26 or any where else that releases the IRS or its employees from the burden of a judicial process ( outlined above ) before any property can be seized.
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong
Title 26 U.S.C. §6331, as previously stated in the case law mentioned.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
@RetSquid "Your employer is required to use you SSN to with hold taxes"
of The Privacy Act of 1974 (PA)7(a) , 88 Stat. 1896, et seq., Public Law 93-579, codified at 5 U.S.C. 552(a). - they can enter into the record that the employee refused and by law cannot fire you for not complying.
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong I would like to take this time to state that all this is in good fun- I own a business and I do pay all my taxes- what sparked me about this is I see time and again that 3 parties just go with what ever the police or government employee says. 6 times I was hired to recover property for the IRS and 3 of those times their paper work was not in order. 1 time they had no paper work at all. We must hold a high standard in business for the law and the people that inforce it.
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong * enforce
mrrodneyalong 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong
Agreed, but the law says the IRS does not have to have a court order to levy your property for payment of taxes, only if they have to do somthing like enter your house.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
@mrrodneyalong
Your employer cannot HIRE you without an SSN, and that privacy act is for Government agancies, not employers
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, r they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com.
Harv7340 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Im hearing that people are so mad that they want to start all over with a new and honest goverment...a new monetary system and get rid of the police and judges .. privite jails for profit / the DMV ...Birth certificates SS numbers / IRS / Banks / This system has ran it;s course , And now it is an epic fail. you can only hide behind a book for so long ( Title 26 ) I don't think people care if it's the law or Not, THEY DON'T WANT IT !
ConsitutionBlues 1 month ago
Check out this Tax Relief Consumer Software article at my blog- too many ripoffs of the internet
frugalmoneydude.blogspot
FrugalMoneyDude 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with "RetSquid." He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS, spouting the same old arguments again and again. He only trolls videos of this type as well. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
fucken goons leave her alone ill put a curse on you
aztec714ok 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The system that you protect will not protect you from it when if ever you decide you no longer want to pay for it's protection.
yinzjagoffs 2 months ago
IRS criminal theft and extortion. If they will not follow the law there is no reason for us to.
packrat541 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@packrat541
What makes you think they are not following the law?
RetSquid 2 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
they are all soooo rude
TheMysterygirl34 2 months ago
Oh there the sheriff is. That deputy is just another mindless IDIOT!
sickasso72 2 months ago
FUckin dumbfucks---wheres the sheriff ?
sickasso72 2 months ago
Low lifes that are just doing their jobs. What a joke these people are!
twn5858 2 months ago
Give me a break, the minute some low life breaks into your house I bet your calling the cops who don't work for free and drive on the roads that aren't free either. 50-60% of Americans are getting some kind of handout. You wonder why the countries in trouble, the culture is all about me but F paying into it.
wtyczka69 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pay your taxes
wtyczka69 2 months ago
SHOW US THE LAW THAT WE NEED TO PAY INCOME TAX !
casp3rization 2 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@casp3rization
Here is 'the law': Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
Anything else?
RetSquid 2 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
This has been flagged as spam show
@casp3rization
Here is 'the law': Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@casp3rization I Agree that there is no law in the US that states that a "citizen" has to pay Income tax. There is a law(or code) that states that the only people required to pay Federal Income Tax are "persons who reside in Washington DC" and Federal employees. When you get a SS# you become an "employee" of the "United States" Corporation and thus are able to be taxed. Also when you sign the docomunent required to start employment it gives the IRS the right to audit you :( :( :(
Greatzky2 4 weeks ago
@Greatzky2
Actually, no. The law (Title 26 Section 1) says "Every individual". Having an SSN does not matter either, we had income taxes decades before Social security even existed.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Welcome to the USSR!
MyITRcom 3 months ago
damn wtf does that tall chickenshit eat?
cydonianman 3 months ago
cant believe that this....native americans are good people and they deserve to have some respect.. besides they were here first before any other race in united states.
PBWillyWonka 3 months ago
Wake up idiots! 1.WE THE PEOPLE are sovereign! Figure out what that means. 2.We are Subject only to NATURAL LAW (see Dec. of Independence). 3.The Government is SUBJECT to the Constitution AND the people! 4.Government has no Constitutional authority to create LAW for WE THE PEOPLE, only "LAW" (Code/Regulations) necessary to carry out it's Enumerated authority(see Constitution)! 5.Only those contracted with Government (public servants, States, corporations etc) are subject to Code! I.E. Title 26.
mckx5 4 months ago
@mckx5
You are one very confused person. The laws of this country (laws/statutes/codes) apply to everyone equally, no contract required. Please take a basic civics class and get educated on the subject.
RetSquid 3 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid
Poor RetSquid. He spent so long in the military being told what to do, he can't think for himself anymore. All he can do is parrot what he's been told, and heard in the mainstream media. He has no idea what a Republic is and what that means. He thinks we live in a Democracy where 51% of the people can tell the other 49% how to live. All he wants to do is spread the lies he's been told, backing it up with only "everyone knows the world is flat". A shining example of public education!
mckx5 3 months ago
@mckx5
WOW, you really are confused!! I quote laws, you quote yourself. You think we live in an Autocracy where the laws only apply to certain people, not a Republic where they apply to everyone. Why don't you post something...ANTHING...authoritative to back up your moronic claims?
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid
What can be more authoritative than the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution? It's not my fault if you can't comprehend the implications of one, and the limitations of the other! My original comment was meant as a starting point for people to do their own research, and hopefully, realize why you, and most people, are completely missing the point!! Be a Subject if you want. I wish you'd stop being an IRS cheerleader, and spreading your "police state" mentality here!?
mckx5 3 months ago
@mckx5
OH, you mean the same document that says Congress can lay taxes, including unapportioned taxes on income? The same one that guarantees a Republican form of government to the States?
Just what are you arguing for?
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid In a Republic, the law would only apply to those who consent, you know the way it is supposed to be now.... but our traitorous goberment deceived us and turned it into a democracy! O and yes, you are a troll... you come on here just to insight an argument spewing the same old B.S. STATUTES, and CODES NOT law!! Get a life
toreyw100 1 month ago
@toreyw100
Sorry, you are wrong, you might want to break out the dictionary again, look up 'statutes', 'law', 'code' 'democracy' AND 'troll'.
RetSquid 1 month ago
Only in the land of the free,... hahaha.
ozzirt 4 months ago
America die a little more when IRS became it's own police force,
They are so ashamed of shat they are doing they can't even look the lady in the eye.
toolmkr1 4 months ago
paid whores
biomechanical1976 4 months ago
the guy must be over due with tax payments, you know the law even if it is an arse its still the law and this doesnt need a youtube video about it
magnusalexa 4 months ago
all she had to do was ask for badge numbers,ask for a receipt,and ask for the lieut.on duty.also ask for the irs agents badge number,bond number a receipt and supv.name.instantly she would have gotten answers to her questions.maybe even kept her car.
WORLDWIDE187HUT 4 months ago
@WORLDWIDE187HUT First, the local PD was only there as a support role in case somebody tried to attack the other agents, so their badge numbers wouldn't mean anything. The CID agents aren't required to speak to them, as the siezing of property is a last resort collection issue and they would be there because some form of criminal activity caused the seizure or a threat was made prior to it taking place. Property seizures are the last in a long line of attempts to get people to pay what they owe.
zentner18 4 months ago
@zentner18 The people don't OWE the fuckin goverment a damn thing to begin with.
outlawracer2229 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229 Really, then why do they all want the government to fund things FOR THEM?
zentner18 3 months ago
@zentner18 You can't be fuckin serious. Are you really this stupid? Let me guess, you also think you own your house too don't you? Try not paying your property taxes (goverment rent) and see who really owns your house. Wake the fuck up shit head.
outlawracer2229 3 months ago
@outlawracer2229 First, you need to be hostile. Second, you didn't answer my question. Third, property taxes are not collected by the IRS, it is a local tax not federal. Fourth, the property tax is used to fund local projects, such as your county and city roads, local schools, local police and fire departments. If you can think of how to fund all these things without taxes, I would love to hear it.
zentner18 3 months ago
@zentner18 I take it your a polititan. I hate fuckin polititans. They are the biggest crooks and liars on the planet. Ambulance services are no longer free, even volunteer services charge. Some taxes are nessacary yes. But the amount is way too high for the services provided. Want lower taxes? Trim the goverment waste. Instead of sending billions of dollars to rebuild "3rd world countries" rebuild the USA first.
outlawracer2229 3 months ago
@outlawracer2229
Is anyone on here arguing for higher taxes or a bigger Government?
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid What does that have to do with anything I typed? Learn to read and comprehend what you read shit-fer-brains.
outlawracer2229 3 months ago
@outlawracer2229
I guess your just an angry troll.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid Your just an idiot trying to pick an argument.
outlawracer2229 3 months ago
@outlawracer2229
YOU are the one who started with a lie, just too pick a fight.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid WTF are you babbling about? I never said one word about having higher taxes or bigger goverment. I basically said the taxes are too damn high and the goverment is too big now. Take your ritilan and go lay down.
outlawracer2229 3 months ago
@outlawracer2229
You fail to understand what an introgatory sentence is.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid You got a reply. The question was answered. In fact it was answered before it was asked. Your the idiot who doesn't have the ability to understand. I'm done with this conversation.
outlawracer2229 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outlawracer2229
Right, you have no clue.
RetSquid 3 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid You never quit do you? You have been trolling this stuff for 2 years now, then you have the balls to call other people trolls??? You sir, are a LOSER....
toreyw100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toreyw100
I'll be here as long as people post lies. And if you think this is trolling, you need a dictionary.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@toreyw100
You might want to look up the definition of 'troll'.
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@outlawracer2229 Oops, the first should be "need NOT be hostile."
zentner18 3 months ago
Damn, these mofos are gangsta, didnt even speak!!! Pay those taxes!!!
shermanr6 4 months ago
fuck the IRS
NOTSODOTCALM 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Judge Gale, of the US tax court, had a chance to restore the American dream for Arab-Americans but instead joined the ranks of other corrupt judges in supporting the Jewish takeover of Mourad's real estate development worth > $40 million. Mourad has been left penniless, owing $800k to the IRS for taxes on money he neve...r received .
mouradprotest 5 months ago
It’s the 21st Century, isn’t is about time that we expose the IRS as the exterminator of capitalism? They swoop in like terrorists and unlawfully seize years of hard work and leave you bankrupt – all in the name of justice. They gave my property away with a $12 Million tax credit to line the pockets of Jewish developers at the expense of 1500 low-income tenants and one Middle Eastern developer. Join my crusade against this governmental injustice.
mouradprotest 5 months ago
@mouradprotest Well, in all honesty, you won't win, half of the americans are idiots who are republicans, republicans of course are the corporate party...
HRHippieRanger 5 months ago
@RetSquid Sir, have you ever wondered why we all have to pay income tax?
Make the connection between 1913 Federal Reserve & 16th Amendment it's a ponzi scheme!
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 - Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 - Article I, Section 9, Clause 4.
It's never too late to open your eyes to the real truth.
If you're open minded please view: watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k
I won't be surprised if no small change takes place after watching that many are so deeply indoctrinated since childhood.
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 were both modified by the 16th Amendment. Sherry Jackson is a felon and a liar who doesn't know what an 'individual' is.....or at least that is what she claims.
RetSquid 5 months ago
Comment removed
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@RetSquid → Where← is the law that requires the American citizen to pay income tax?
In before the excuse of not directly saying it and pointing towards Title 26.
The 16th amendment is a fraud period
Sherry Jackson a felon? She committed no crime, a political prisoner for telling the truth. Taking her away from her family that is a crime in which all the evil will be rightfully & justly rewarded with suffering. An ignorant indoctrinated pawn as yourself only knows the rules of your masters.
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
Title 26, Section 6151 is the law and requires the payment of the income tax, Citizen or not.
Why do you think the 16th Amendment was a fraud when there were ZERO people at the time who thought that?
Jackson failed to file or pay imcome tax and was convicted by a jury of her peers, therefore she is a felon.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
Title 26 is Prima Facie law.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid I'll ask again...
WHERE is the LAW that requires the American citizen to pay income tax?
The Constitution is the law of the land.
Tax code is not a law or I should say the tax code law that never was so again.
WHERE is the LAW that requires the American citizen to pay income tax?
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
I just posted it. Public Law 99-514, Public Law 83-591, etc.
Title 26 is also THE law, and it is the law that has been codified. This tax code IS law, how hard is that to understand?
RetSquid 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
‘Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law’. Plaintiff’s positive law argument is without merit.”
Bilger v. United States
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Since you won't state the law, the deception in the use of trickery words won't cut it the tax code is not law. The pawns & the trash in the IRS are cons in this ponzi scheme perverting the working class to be slaves of debt.
Unless the people start a real revolution evil men & their pawns will continue to profit off suffering. In the end our cries will be heard to the evil doers. Sincerely, you have time to change & rejoin the right side choice is ultimately yours to make.
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
You really can't read, can you? I've posted the exact law multiple times, closing your eyes and claiming I didn't post it is just idiotic. No matter what you say, Title 26 IS the law and if you violate it you WILL end up in court and maybe prison, just like sherry.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Don't patronize me, why don't you go collect the 50k reward being offered by William Conklin? Let's see your confidence in that task I'm sure that's plenty of money to pay for your schooling. In before another rhetoric demeanor. Shameful apathetic actions from people(s) disregarding the constitution of our country someone has forgotten their oath.
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
Patronize? You are the one who refuses to read my comments and can't understand that Title 26 IS the income tax law. Conklin will never pay out on any claim...he has no reason to (only he decides what is 'right') and can't be forced to do it either, it's not a legally binding offer.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@kantoriX1
Walder v. Conklin -- Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was bogus. Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued when Conklin welched. The court ruled that Conklin has structured his argument so that he was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch on the bet.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@kantoriX1 Since you don't want to believe Ret when it is stated that Title 26 is the law, then how about the constitution for the basis of taxation.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
zentner18 5 months ago