@Tubeusercomm i have seen your comments. The fact that these people went to jail for their beliefs does not discredit them but accredits them. " " You are a fucking goon!
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.
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The IRS can be repealed but not through tax evasion.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.
Sherry Peel Jackson is a former Internal Revenue Service Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant. On February 14th, 2008 she was sentenced to four years in federal prison for failure to file her tax returns.
On February 1, 2008, actor Wesley Snipes was found guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file Federal income tax returns.
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
Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve System et al., 08-CV-991.
The Complaint alleges that Schulz pays taxes to the United States and New York State.
Schulz alleges as his injury that he is a “payer of federal taxes” and has a legal interest “not to have his money taken from him” for purposes he deems illicit.
Schulz admits that he pays his income taxes while leading his sheep to prison.
I want to see a "Robert Schulz" failure to file case.
Charles Thomas Clayton was convicted on two counts of making false tax returns + six counts of willful failure to file + was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Clayton himself prepared the amended returns for 1997 and 1998 sent them to Banister for approval, and then sent them to the IRS.
It was Banister who was instructing Clayton as to the method for making claims for refunds.
As a result of his conviction, the Texas Medical Board revoked Clayton's license to practice medicine.
SHERRY PEEL JACKSON, a former IRS Revenue Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant was sentenced on February 14, 2008 to four years in federal prison on four counts of failure to file her individual tax returns for the years 2000 to 2003.
In 2000, defendant came into contact with Joseph Banister, a
former IRS agent, who is a supporter of WTP; defendant later became
a member of Banister's tax protestor's "Hall of Fame." See
Richard Michael Simkanin was found guilty of ten counts of willful failure to collect, account for and pay over taxes due; 15 counts of making false claims against the United States; and four counts of failure to file individual income tax returns.
The defense called Joseph Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigator, who now claims there is no law mandating income taxes. Simkanin was sentenced to 7 years
Mr. Banister has many followers, including Matthew J. Allen, a sheriff's deputy in Marin County, Calif., who was found guilty of one felony count of filing a false state income tax return, and two felony counts of filing a fraudulent Form W-4 Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate.
Allen said he subscribes to the philosophies of Joseph Banister.
Joe Banister's attorney Bernhoft is a known tax fraud proponent. In 1999, he was permanently enjoined from promoting his "De-Taxing America Program" tax protester scheme. United States v. Robert R. Raymond
The district court concluded that the "De-Taxing America" program contained false statements and false advice concerning the federal income tax.
Revenue Agent Hawkins learned that Bernhoft makes substantial annual payments to Banister.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Government’s petition to enforce the IRS summons for “[a]ny form, document or letter prepared by Joseph Banister for [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” and “[a]ny correspondence (including e-mails) between Joseph? Banister and [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” is GRANTED.
Bernhoft MUST PRODUCE those materials to the Government no later than November 30, 2009.
Rather than evidence, Banister presents wild hypotheticals. Below he speculated about due process in Rwanda; now he raises the possibility that fanatic Islamists would ban female witnesses. Neither hypothetical is factually supported, of course. But Banister's resort to hypotheticals instead of evidence is telling. His appeal masquerades as a question of law when it is nothing more than an abstraction.
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's assertions have been addressed by so many federal courts that they are no longer afforded the dignity of repeating the explanations as to why the claims are meritless.
JOSEPH R. BANISTER, is hereby ORDERED DISBARRED from practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
Sherry went to jail NOT because she didnt pay taxes.
She went to jail because she went to the Masonic courts system and answered "Here" when they called the "dba/person/strawman" known as: SHERRY PEEL JACKSON.
Therefore, she agreed to the liability of that "dba/person/strawman" and entered into a "compact" agreement also known as: UNITED STATES CITIZEN. And at that time can be prosecuted by the UNITED STATES CODE which says: Federal Income Tax (tribute) CAN be enforced or compulsory.
silence of the media is a rule when it comes to big things...like in 9/11...
well...in fact its worst cause instead of silence, they LIE blatantly...
big fishes share the same club...they only consider crime anything that lowers their power....so truth is their enemy...(and those who tell the truth of course)
cause its simple....to reach some heights you cant get with clean hands
and of course...clean concience...(if they do have one wich is doubtful)
The media has silent this great lady. Fuck AL and Jesse they could give a damn about you regardless what color. Never heard a goddamn word from either in her defence. Thank You S.P.J. You are a very courageous lady with great honor.
because that secret society does exist and they were all trying to expose them..most importantly michael jackson..was murderd by the illuminati cus in his this is it tour he was going to expose everything..its a big puzzle
Why do you think they made the law so complicated if it wasn't meant to keep people from understanding it? What ever happened to full disclosure? Isn't that the law too?
Why do people defend these thugs like they're gods? Don't you see that you're just perpetuating the scam?
@RetSquid A statute is not a law....A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority, GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW. An 'ACT' is not a law either, rather The process of doing or performing something; A 'PRODUCT', such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body. And an ACT is NOT what law/statute is before it is passed by Congress, that would be a BILL.. didn't you watch Schoolhouse Rock?
You are still confused. A Bill becomes an ACT when passed by Congress and becomes a LAW when signed by the President. That LAW is posted in the STATUTES at Large and when they are grouped together by subject matter they are called "CODE"s.
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law.
LAW, STATUTE. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed by the constitution; an act of the legislature.
@RetSquid Common Law applies in all cases once you remove 'color of law'
color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of **statute**, when in reality NO SUCH RIGHT exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration.
Good point, except that there is no 'color of law' defence. There IS the LAW and the RIGHT to impose income taxes on everyone. Common law is only good where there is no written law.
@RetSquid Correct, IF the UNITED STATES has established jurisdiction over you. I know.. I know where's the proof (yada yada) Search you tube for 'Moors in Court got the Judge SHOOK!' Plenty of those court disasters floating around youtube. Maybe you can debate those guys too, lol...
The United States has jurisdiction over everyone within it's borders. I've seen some of those 'moors' videos, they are just as full of crap as the rest of the tax protestor videos.
Who are you talking about? The 'moor' in the video? Do you have more video of him being released without any other charges? Maybe the judge dismissing all charges? Being an idiot in court is not the same as being in contempt.
@RetSquid Your argument will keep you in bondage.. a subordinate. But you should be use to that already. Keep up the good work, you'll make house negro in no time flat.. ROFLMAO!
Seems like I've whacked every single one of your posts that claim the income tax is illegal of does not apply to most people, which is the claim of this video.
@RetSquid not the fraudulent activities of the IRS and you're already accepted the fact that they do not assess taxpayers correctly during the lien/levy process (so I've caught you in a LIE again) I don't believe you can touch that. But I'm waiting if you wish to take a shot at it. And let's be grown up about it for once instead of you acting like a 6 year old
The income tax law is not a commercial contract, it is the law. You don't have to agree to a law for it to be binding on you. If you have to agree to a law for it to be binding on you, there would be no criminals in the world.
@RetSquid If the 'law' is written it's a contract, period end of story there. You have to agree to the law in order for it to be binding on you, (with or without full disclosure) otherwise that would be SLAVERY wouldn't it???, now as a man in the armed forces aren't you 'fighting the good fight' in order to prevent that kind of thing from happening in America?
CODE, legislation. Signifies in general a collection of laws. It is a name given by way of eminence to a collection of such laws made by the legislature.
Why do people like you make claims that are so EASILY proved wrong? Can't you look these things up yourself? Do you just listen to people who claim to know things that happen to fit with your ideas and think that THEY must be right because they have the same wacky ideas as you??
if you dont reply to a claim you loos by default , its about liability that is created by the w-4 that create a w-2 . cancel the w-4 . and learn how to use a 1040 to get all withheld returned. not a federal employee ? then they owe you
Read those sections again carefully, RedSquid. When you read "Any person liable...", you do not have a law that has made a person liable. You only have instructions for those who have found a law making them liable for the tax.
So where is the section making anyone resembling the ordinary American wage earner liable? It's not in Sec. 1 as you insist, nor in Sec 63.
We can find sections of Title 26 making federal employees, foreigners, and Corporations liable, but not wage earners.
The sections you directed me to, RedSquid, are very broad and filled with references to other sections which palliate the rules cited. I apologize if you thought I was asking for the law requiring federal employees to pay a tax. I'm interested in cites requiring average wage earning citizens.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses...Heads of households...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns....
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
RedSquid, You're overlooking the phrase "on the taxable income..."
That's the issue, isn't it? How did the individual's income become taxable? What activity were they involved in that was taxable? The manufacture of of Tobbaco is taxable, as is the manufacture of alcohol. That liability is specified in the code.
What was this married individual's occupation? Perhaps he was a government employee. That's a taxable occupation. Liability cannot be assumed, it must be specified in law.
Income is taxable once you recieve it, the activity is the receipt of the income, nothing more. A few specific items of income may be tax exempt, but the vast majority are taxable.
Governement employee has nothing to do with income tax. That is why I posted section 7701. Government employees are included in the normal definition of 'employee' i.e. someome who works for a wage/salary.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701. Definitions
(c) Includes and including
The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Your argument has never worked in court, or gotten anyone out of paying income tax.
@RetSquid I never said that dishonest judges and prosecutors would honor the law. But yes, MANY people have avoided paying taxes they were not assesed for.
It's a maxim of law no one can be held liable for a law that that is vague and unspecific; you are suggesting that Title 26 can circumvent Supreme Court holdings simply by declaring within its self under Sec. 7701 that anything goes.
Rather than argue here with me, you might do well to watch the video. If that doesn't help, dig deeper.
uumm u dumb ass uno that it has to go throught the states uno dat rite..uno that none of the states agreed to that law for watso fukn ever..u dumb fuk do ur research before u try leadin ppl to the wrong fuking way wit u n ur bullshit ass information
no dumbass states have to ratifiy the laws congress wants to pass uno nothing of the us govnerment or how it works as i can c spelling doesnt hav to do with nething with my intelligence u stupid fuk being iliterate doesnt say nething about my inteligence stupid fuk so if paying taxes is a law show me the law n ill apologise to u
u just a lil bitch trying to deceive ppl n shit 1st da income tax is unconstitutional 2nd none of the states never ratified the 16th amendment 3rd no one tells ppl that its illegal 4th its not a law it never passed through congress it never was a law it was always a fuking lie to decieve ppl for there hard earned money our consitution specifically says that putting taxes on our labor is illegal n unconstitutional the irs r nuthing but gangsters yea wat a fukn kid comment
leep researching baby girl ull soon find out that u r wrong and please write to me wen u do so i can laff at ur stupid ass wit ur dumbass information i told u stop deceiving ppl
Congresss failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryans rights by enforcing it.
Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985).
how stupid r u they have irs agents that r proving and saying that the irs is illegal unlike u i refuse to b a slave of this system that law does not exist they lied about it so rockefeller and his gay buddies can make money off of us
#1) "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."
harah for u u can insult me and give me false information good for u ..now show me something that is legit and legal not the irs cus der illegal u shud noe dis cus u found all dat information but yet u seemed to skip the part were it was falsely made an amendment ironic
i can skool u on how the federal reserve works how this monetary works with inflation deflation(the stage were in now if ur dumass didnt noe) how our shitty ass piece of shit president is doing its all going down man were there slaves and u dont seem to hav a problem with that..ur fuking weird
#2) "the various state resolutions are [not] materially different in purpose or effect from the language of the congressional joint resolution proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment, and because the sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted upon since 1913, the Court rejects defendants' argument that the sixteenth amendment is not a part of the United States Constitution.
UNITED STATES of America v. George M. HOUSE and Marion M. House Defendants.
#4). The petitioners argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.
Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).
i havent seen u prove to me anything u have no idea how this corrupt govnerment works..looks to me like ur a slave and u like being a slave i cant wait to c ur children hating u for being such a fuking moron ur deceived by this false information if only u knew as much information as i did u wud b in shock..and then u will b in anger u will c our conversation will echo in ur mind wen u c that write to me so we can fiht against them together and help our country out from this tyranny
the day will come wen were in concetration camps n i really hope were in da same one so i kud kill u myself and ride this world of another asshole ..but its u who is so naieve and arrogant that u cant c the chains on ur ankles i wonder if u hope that ur rite or wrong i really hope that u think ur wrong cus if ur rit i will kill u even if ur wrong and u think ur rite ur still guna die i will choke u with my bare hands and ur whole family and burn u all at stake jus to c how burned body look
Grow up, go back to school, learn more, then MAYBE you can come back and debate me intelligently.....but probably not, you are to stupid to learn anything, even how to spell simple words. While you are at it, learn to use punctuation.
i seriously do not noe how n y u do not find my points to b facts and true all u give me is corrupt aquasations against innocent people ..i dont noe if u like being rite about this subject or watever but ur more fuked up in the head than i am theres nothing to b proud of if u think u r write
i dont need to prove myself to anybody punctuation gramma who gives a fuk wat they do or impose a words a word if u cant read a mixed message then ur not as smart as u say u r now r u
its like telln a mathmatical savant hes retarded ..how does that work my grammar has nothing to do with the point that i am expressing u seriously need to look deeply into the irs and u will find out all u gave me were court cases that the judge refused to let the defendant speak and defend himself thats injustice unconstitutional cus every american citizen has the right to a fair trial either ur badly misguided or the us constitution doesnt exist u pick 1
heres my proof i highly advise for ur stupidass to watch
freedom to facisim with arron russo n watch both of the zeigeist movies and look for that lady sherry peel a former irs agent ...specifically sayn dat ur bullshit information isnt legit i dont noe were u got all dat information thinkn ur rit n shit from but u seriously need to double think before u tell me sumtin that i study almost every fuking day ino that shit like the bak of my hand
on the zeitgeist movies u can fastforward to the federal reserve part or u can also learn about the biggest lie ever told..RELIGION..and yea enjoy urself ull learn quiet alot hope ta hear from u
haha there not a secret anymore freemasons there all exposed ..the illuminati run this country and most of the world..u might know them better as banks..the federal reserve ..the bank of england..the bank of germany ...its all there u just hav to look for it..and of course they are real..9/11 was an inside job..they cant keep it a secret anymore they fuked up on there part buildings dont fall like that and heat wudnt cause steel to crumble like that the evidence is there u jus dont wanna believe
unlike u i only smoke marijuana nota crack head like u who refuses to believe the truth and all u do is show ur ignorance cus u cant handle the truth..haha the federal reserve is the bank of america they take ur taxes and loan them to other world banks none of that money goes to us..9/11 was an inside job seriously it lost some of its strength haha u r a fuking retard if u knew the architecture of the building u wud noe that its was constructed to withstand any type of hit especially a plane
last time i checked anything natural isnt a drug..a drug is something that is man made..cmon keep embarassing urself ur only gettn stupider n stupider as u go..and marijuana is the best medicine this world can produce if u didnt noe dat
aaww wats wrong da lil bitch had to much to handle or wat huh ..u cant handle da trutha mudafuka haha u lame ass bitch..dont try to decieve me mudafuka dont try to think ur smarter den me cus i mispell every fukng word i say i tell the truth n nun but the truth BITCH
haha man man haha the steel didnt crumble it jus lost sum of its strength haha r u fucking serious man wat type of dumbass makes an excsue like dat haha u obviously believe all the propoganda this govnerment gives u like terrorisim and homosexuals give u aids haha tell me r u one of those dumbasses
the bankers rule us and the 16th amendment were there slaves..why would our country contradict itself like that..sumtins fishy ..i mean were suppose to b a republip not a democratict country ..the founding fathers hated democracy u shud noe that..were suppose to b civialized free people were suppose to b the only country that differs from the rest of the world..the illuminati assasinated abraham lincoln,martin luther king jr,john/robert kennedy,tupac,notoriousbig, uno y..
We know them laws to be The Declaration Of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and The Most important is The Constitution. That's why it's so important to take them away from us as they've doing at quite rapid pace since The Patriot Act which resulted from 9/11. This is the sole reason to get to the Bottom of 9/11 with an Independant Investigation. Once we establish the fact that 9/11 was Sponsored by the American Government everything after becomes Null and Void!
OK, wait a minute! The federal reserve is not owned by the Americcan People. The reserve itself isn't even a Federal Entity! The Sole owner of the Federal Reserve is The Rothschilds which is Foreign Born! In the American Revolution the Private Banking Cartel was Financing the British. So in all reality it was The Private banking Cartel VS. our ForeFathers. Our Forefathers put in place laws to attempt to keep the Private banks from destroying America. Now look what happened 200 years later.SAD!!!
Yep know it is illegal but we need the chutzpah to NOT PAY.:-))) No guts American.;-)))
nancyl2 5 months ago
Rumor has it that Sherry was released from prison on Feb. 15th.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
@Tubeusercomm i have seen your comments. The fact that these people went to jail for their beliefs does not discredit them but accredits them. " " You are a fucking goon!
2tame4fame 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2tame4fame says: i have seen your comments. The fact that these people went to jail for their beliefs does not discredit them but accredits them. "
---
Your conclusion is based on the your false premise which is "these people went to jail for their beliefs."
Tubeusercomm 4 months 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
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
This has been flagged as spam show
Sherry Peel Jackson is a former Internal Revenue Service Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant. On February 14th, 2008 she was sentenced to four years in federal prison for failure to file her tax returns.
On February 1, 2008, actor Wesley Snipes was found guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file Federal income tax returns.
MrSupernova111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 3
This has been flagged as spam show
The iRS was established July 1, 1862 by an act of Congress -
Previous IRS Commissioners -
George S. Boutwell Massachusetts July 17, 1862 to March 4, 1863 -
Joseph J. Lewis (Acting) Pennsylvania March 5 to March 17, 1863 -
Joseph J. Lewis Pennsylvania March 18, 1863 to June 30, 1865 -
William Orton New York July 1, 1865 to Oct. 31, 1865-
Edward A. Rollins New Hampshire Nov. 1, 1865 to March 10, 1869-
Columbus Delano Ohio March 11, 1869 to Oct. 31, 1870.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
We the People Congress and Foundation
Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve System et al., 08-CV-991.
The Complaint alleges that Schulz pays taxes to the United States and New York State.
Schulz alleges as his injury that he is a “payer of federal taxes” and has a legal interest “not to have his money taken from him” for purposes he deems illicit.
Schulz admits that he pays his income taxes while leading his sheep to prison.
I want to see a "Robert Schulz" failure to file case.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago 2
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.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Charles Thomas Clayton was convicted on two counts of making false tax returns + six counts of willful failure to file + was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Clayton himself prepared the amended returns for 1997 and 1998 sent them to Banister for approval, and then sent them to the IRS.
It was Banister who was instructing Clayton as to the method for making claims for refunds.
As a result of his conviction, the Texas Medical Board revoked Clayton's license to practice medicine.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
SHERRY PEEL JACKSON, a former IRS Revenue Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant was sentenced on February 14, 2008 to four years in federal prison on four counts of failure to file her individual tax returns for the years 2000 to 2003.
In 2000, defendant came into contact with Joseph Banister, a
former IRS agent, who is a supporter of WTP; defendant later became
a member of Banister's tax protestor's "Hall of Fame." See
attached Govt. Exhibit 1.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
JANUARY 8, 2004
Richard Michael Simkanin was found guilty of ten counts of willful failure to collect, account for and pay over taxes due; 15 counts of making false claims against the United States; and four counts of failure to file individual income tax returns.
The defense called Joseph Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigator, who now claims there is no law mandating income taxes. Simkanin was sentenced to 7 years
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Mr. Banister has many followers, including Matthew J. Allen, a sheriff's deputy in Marin County, Calif., who was found guilty of one felony count of filing a false state income tax return, and two felony counts of filing a fraudulent Form W-4 Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate.
Allen said he subscribes to the philosophies of Joseph Banister.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Banister's attorney Robert Bernhoft represented Wesley Snipes who was convicted of three counts of willful failure to file.
Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Joe Banister's attorney Bernhoft is a known tax fraud proponent. In 1999, he was permanently enjoined from promoting his "De-Taxing America Program" tax protester scheme. United States v. Robert R. Raymond
The district court concluded that the "De-Taxing America" program contained false statements and false advice concerning the federal income tax.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Revenue Agent Hawkins learned that Bernhoft makes substantial annual payments to Banister.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Government’s petition to enforce the IRS summons for “[a]ny form, document or letter prepared by Joseph Banister for [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” and “[a]ny correspondence (including e-mails) between Joseph? Banister and [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” is GRANTED.
Bernhoft MUST PRODUCE those materials to the Government no later than November 30, 2009.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
CPA appeal
BANISTER v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY
September 21, 2010. No. C062435
Rather than evidence, Banister presents wild hypotheticals. Below he speculated about due process in Rwanda; now he raises the possibility that fanatic Islamists would ban female witnesses. Neither hypothetical is factually supported, of course. But Banister's resort to hypotheticals instead of evidence is telling. His appeal masquerades as a question of law when it is nothing more than an abstraction.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
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
Director, Office of Professional Responsibility,
v.
Joseph R. Banister
Banister's assertions have been addressed by so many federal courts that they are no longer afforded the dignity of repeating the explanations as to why the claims are meritless.
JOSEPH R. BANISTER, is hereby ORDERED DISBARRED from practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
Judge William B. Moran
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Joe Banister pays his income taxes while his followers go to prison.
Charles Thomas Clayton - 5 years.
SHERRY PEEL JACKSON - 4 years.
Richard Michael Simkanin - 7 years.
Matthew J. Allen - guilty 3 felony counts.
Wesley Snipes - 3 years.
Walter Allen Thompson - six years.
Joe provides job security for IRS agents
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Slavery is ALIVE and well. If you pay Fed tax, you are a slave. FACT
bobkbrown 1 year ago
Sherry went to jail NOT because she didnt pay taxes.
She went to jail because she went to the Masonic courts system and answered "Here" when they called the "dba/person/strawman" known as: SHERRY PEEL JACKSON.
Therefore, she agreed to the liability of that "dba/person/strawman" and entered into a "compact" agreement also known as: UNITED STATES CITIZEN. And at that time can be prosecuted by the UNITED STATES CODE which says: Federal Income Tax (tribute) CAN be enforced or compulsory.
CastingStonez 1 year ago
@retsquid give it up man... It's not your fault your brainwashed!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
wow..shes in jail for a victim less crime..??...wow.....i think someone else needs to go to jail!
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
I can see why people are upset with RetSquid. It's not that he's right, he's just too stupid. Easy to expose once he's back in a corner.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
LOL!! There is the claim of the loser right there!
Ad hominem FTW!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
silence of the media is a rule when it comes to big things...like in 9/11...
well...in fact its worst cause instead of silence, they LIE blatantly...
big fishes share the same club...they only consider crime anything that lowers their power....so truth is their enemy...(and those who tell the truth of course)
cause its simple....to reach some heights you cant get with clean hands
and of course...clean concience...(if they do have one wich is doubtful)
leddobrasil 1 year ago
Yeah where are Al Sharpton and Jesse jackson on this woman's imprisonment?
Oh, yeah they didn't give a shit becasue she called them out.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
The media has silent this great lady. Fuck AL and Jesse they could give a damn about you regardless what color. Never heard a goddamn word from either in her defence. Thank You S.P.J. You are a very courageous lady with great honor.
1INACTION 1 year ago
y the fuck is sherry jackson in jaill. we are coming for you love!
MrAngelothegreat 1 year ago
because that secret society does exist and they were all trying to expose them..most importantly michael jackson..was murderd by the illuminati cus in his this is it tour he was going to expose everything..its a big puzzle
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
Why do you think they made the law so complicated if it wasn't meant to keep people from understanding it? What ever happened to full disclosure? Isn't that the law too?
Why do people defend these thugs like they're gods? Don't you see that you're just perpetuating the scam?
heartuvgold 2 years ago
@heartuvgold
I'm not defending anyone. I'm just stating the fact that the law is the law.
RetSquid 2 years ago
@RetSquid Do you know the difference between a law, a stutue, and an act?
heartuvgold 1 year ago
@heartuvgold
Yes, an Act is what a law/statute is before it is passed by Congress and signed by the President.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid A statute is not a law....A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority, GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW. An 'ACT' is not a law either, rather The process of doing or performing something; A 'PRODUCT', such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body. And an ACT is NOT what law/statute is before it is passed by Congress, that would be a BILL.. didn't you watch Schoolhouse Rock?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
You are still confused. A Bill becomes an ACT when passed by Congress and becomes a LAW when signed by the President. That LAW is posted in the STATUTES at Large and when they are grouped together by subject matter they are called "CODE"s.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@yankdini99
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law.
Bouvier's law dictionary
RetSquid 1 year ago
@yankdini99
LAW, STATUTE. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed by the constitution; an act of the legislature.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid you forgot the rest....
2. This word is used in CONTRADISTINCTION to the common law. Statutes
acquire their force from the time of their passage unless otherwise
provided. 7 Wheat. R. 104: 1 Gall. R. 62.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
You are learning, Statutes take over where Common law leaves off, they do not mean the same thing, hense "CONTRADISTINCTION".
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Common Law applies in all cases once you remove 'color of law'
color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of **statute**, when in reality NO SUCH RIGHT exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Good point, except that there is no 'color of law' defence. There IS the LAW and the RIGHT to impose income taxes on everyone. Common law is only good where there is no written law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Correct, IF the UNITED STATES has established jurisdiction over you. I know.. I know where's the proof (yada yada) Search you tube for 'Moors in Court got the Judge SHOOK!' Plenty of those court disasters floating around youtube. Maybe you can debate those guys too, lol...
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
The United States has jurisdiction over everyone within it's borders. I've seen some of those 'moors' videos, they are just as full of crap as the rest of the tax protestor videos.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So if that is the case, why wasn't he thrown in jail for being in contempt? Show me some proof as to why that is please?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Who are you talking about? The 'moor' in the video? Do you have more video of him being released without any other charges? Maybe the judge dismissing all charges? Being an idiot in court is not the same as being in contempt.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Maybe, BUT you don't know that now do you? Watch the court cases, since you seem to use some of them to prop up your worthless argument
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
LOL!! I'll stick with the established law and facts. My 'argument' will keep you out of jail, your argument will put people in jail.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Your argument will keep you in bondage.. a subordinate. But you should be use to that already. Keep up the good work, you'll make house negro in no time flat.. ROFLMAO!
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Your insults just prove that you cannot win with facts.
Nice job loser!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid you still haven't answered all of my questions.... Don't sweat it though, I'm bored with you now.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
I'm glad you have given up, usually the T.P.'s do when they find that I do know the law and that they don't.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Given up? Oh ok in that case I aint going nowhere then.. Better get use to me.. I'll be a that broom stick up your ass.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
You said you were bored? I thought you would be doing some actual research to back up your claims.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid oh you mean the research you refuse to look at? riiiiiiiiiight........
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
If you post something for me to research, I can, but I don't waste time watching BS videos.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid that's funny you think the video that we are posting in now is BS but you've spent alot of time here... Hypocrite
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
I don't waste time watching whatever videos others post as proof of their posts. As I said, I didn't even look at your posting.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You're doing a terrible job at 'Playing 'Whack-a-mole' with Jordan Maxwell fans, tax protesters, etc.'
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
LOL!!
Seems like I've whacked every single one of your posts that claim the income tax is illegal of does not apply to most people, which is the claim of this video.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid not the fraudulent activities of the IRS and you're already accepted the fact that they do not assess taxpayers correctly during the lien/levy process (so I've caught you in a LIE again) I don't believe you can touch that. But I'm waiting if you wish to take a shot at it. And let's be grown up about it for once instead of you acting like a 6 year old
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
You really are nuts, huh?
You lied when you claimed that they HAD to have a return receipt, they don't. They don't even have to mail you the notice of a levy.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid so what else are you gonna lie about?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@RetSquid I've had way better challenges than you (hence the boredom)
yankdini99 1 year ago
@RetSquid oh you mean the research that you've improperly refuted? riiiiiiiiiiight.....
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Post an item that I have "improperly refuted".
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid check your home page
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
ACT: an instrument in writing to verify facts, as act of assembly, ***act of congress***, act of parliament, act and deed.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid ACT, civil law, contracts. A writing which states in a legal form that a thing has been said, done, or agreed.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
SEE?? You CAN look some things up for yourself!!!! Why didn't you do that to start with???
That is ALSO a definition of an 'act'.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I didn't agree to the contract so how does it apply to me? Key word here skipper is contract.. CONTRACT IS LAW buddy.....
The contract makes the law. ....
Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent.....
Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
Maxims of Law ( look em up)
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Contracts may be law, but laws are not contracts. Look up "false syllogism".
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So exactly what do you reference if I were to break said law? Do you just pull it out of your ass or something?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
If you were not paying or fileing income tax?
Title 26 Section 6151 says you have to pay the income tax imposed in Section 1, Section 6012 says that you have to file an income tax return.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid And exactly how did I agree to the contractual agreement(s) in your beloved Title 26?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
The income tax law is not a commercial contract, it is the law. You don't have to agree to a law for it to be binding on you. If you have to agree to a law for it to be binding on you, there would be no criminals in the world.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid If the 'law' is written it's a contract, period end of story there. You have to agree to the law in order for it to be binding on you, (with or without full disclosure) otherwise that would be SLAVERY wouldn't it???, now as a man in the armed forces aren't you 'fighting the good fight' in order to prevent that kind of thing from happening in America?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
CODE, legislation. Signifies in general a collection of laws. It is a name given by way of eminence to a collection of such laws made by the legislature.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Why do people like you make claims that are so EASILY proved wrong? Can't you look these things up yourself? Do you just listen to people who claim to know things that happen to fit with your ideas and think that THEY must be right because they have the same wacky ideas as you??
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Nope, you're assumptions are a little bit off.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
And what are my 'assumptions', exactly?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I don't know I don't think like a slave
yankdini99 1 year ago
haha you guys are so funny. i cant even tell what you guys are talking about!....?
2Mo0N1maN2 2 years ago
there is no law that says you have to pay.but there is a law saying if you dont pay you go to jail.
dionreedsamurai 2 years ago
which doesnt make a whole lot of sense does it
coolpapa73 2 years ago
if you dont reply to a claim you loos by default , its about liability that is created by the w-4 that create a w-2 . cancel the w-4 . and learn how to use a 1040 to get all withheld returned. not a federal employee ? then they owe you
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
@dionreedsamurai No, there is no such law. If you believe there is, please cite it.
rockwaterman 2 years ago
@rockwaterman
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 2 years ago
Read those sections again carefully, RedSquid. When you read "Any person liable...", you do not have a law that has made a person liable. You only have instructions for those who have found a law making them liable for the tax.
So where is the section making anyone resembling the ordinary American wage earner liable? It's not in Sec. 1 as you insist, nor in Sec 63.
We can find sections of Title 26 making federal employees, foreigners, and Corporations liable, but not wage earners.
rockwaterman 2 years ago
The sections you directed me to, RedSquid, are very broad and filled with references to other sections which palliate the rules cited. I apologize if you thought I was asking for the law requiring federal employees to pay a tax. I'm interested in cites requiring average wage earning citizens.
rockwaterman 2 years ago
@rockwaterman
Try reading Section 1 again.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses...Heads of households...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns....
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
RetSquid 2 years ago
RedSquid, You're overlooking the phrase "on the taxable income..."
That's the issue, isn't it? How did the individual's income become taxable? What activity were they involved in that was taxable? The manufacture of of Tobbaco is taxable, as is the manufacture of alcohol. That liability is specified in the code.
What was this married individual's occupation? Perhaps he was a government employee. That's a taxable occupation. Liability cannot be assumed, it must be specified in law.
rockwaterman 2 years ago
@rockwaterman
Taxable income=Gross income-deductions
Income is taxable once you recieve it, the activity is the receipt of the income, nothing more. A few specific items of income may be tax exempt, but the vast majority are taxable.
Governement employee has nothing to do with income tax. That is why I posted section 7701. Government employees are included in the normal definition of 'employee' i.e. someome who works for a wage/salary.
RetSquid 2 years ago
@rockwaterman
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701. Definitions
(c) Includes and including
The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Your argument has never worked in court, or gotten anyone out of paying income tax.
RetSquid 2 years ago
@RetSquid I never said that dishonest judges and prosecutors would honor the law. But yes, MANY people have avoided paying taxes they were not assesed for.
It's a maxim of law no one can be held liable for a law that that is vague and unspecific; you are suggesting that Title 26 can circumvent Supreme Court holdings simply by declaring within its self under Sec. 7701 that anything goes.
Rather than argue here with me, you might do well to watch the video. If that doesn't help, dig deeper.
rockwaterman 2 years ago
@rockwaterman
Title 26 is in full accord with SCOTUS rulings. This law is not vague or unspecific.
And yes, there are many tax cheats out there, that is why 1/3 of all income tax never gets recovered.
RetSquid 2 years ago
1st of all the law was never ratified by any of the states of the union ssssoooooo it aint a law dduuhh
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
First of all, DUH, laws are not ratified by the States, DUH!
Get a clue before you post, moron.
RetSquid 2 years ago
uumm u dumb ass uno that it has to go throught the states uno dat rite..uno that none of the states agreed to that law for watso fukn ever..u dumb fuk do ur research before u try leadin ppl to the wrong fuking way wit u n ur bullshit ass information
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
No, you moron, laws do NOT go to the States, Congress passes them and the President signs them into law.
You are just an idiot with no clue and ZERO spelling skills.
Now, go away so the intelligent people can talk.
RetSquid 2 years ago
no dumbass states have to ratifiy the laws congress wants to pass uno nothing of the us govnerment or how it works as i can c spelling doesnt hav to do with nething with my intelligence u stupid fuk being iliterate doesnt say nething about my inteligence stupid fuk so if paying taxes is a law show me the law n ill apologise to u
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
So you are functionally illiterate, don't know how the U.S. government works, AND a moron? If I showed you the law could you read it?
STATES NEVER RATIFY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS.
RetSquid 2 years ago
if i showed u my ass wud u kiss it ignorant ass nigga show me da law cmon
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
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.
You probably couldn't FIND your ass without help.
RetSquid 2 years ago
u just a lil bitch trying to deceive ppl n shit 1st da income tax is unconstitutional 2nd none of the states never ratified the 16th amendment 3rd no one tells ppl that its illegal 4th its not a law it never passed through congress it never was a law it was always a fuking lie to decieve ppl for there hard earned money our consitution specifically says that putting taxes on our labor is illegal n unconstitutional the irs r nuthing but gangsters yea wat a fukn kid comment
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
1) WRONG, moron.
2) WRONG, moron.
3) WRONG, moron.
4) WRONG, moron.
Learn to spell, my brain hurts from lowering myself to your thought level.
RetSquid 2 years ago
its funny how u become all ignorant wen u r proven to b wrong isnt it a shame u cudnt prove me wrong shows u how smart u r u dumb fuk pusyy ass bitch
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Would you like me to embarass you one point at a time?
RetSquid 2 years ago
leep researching baby girl ull soon find out that u r wrong and please write to me wen u do so i can laff at ur stupid ass wit ur dumbass information i told u stop deceiving ppl
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
Congresss failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryans rights by enforcing it.
Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985).
RetSquid 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
That wasn't too many big words, was it?
RetSquid 2 years ago
how stupid r u they have irs agents that r proving and saying that the irs is illegal unlike u i refuse to b a slave of this system that law does not exist they lied about it so rockefeller and his gay buddies can make money off of us
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
#1) "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
if u r smart as u say research that the irs is a fraud do it please do it ull soon learn all this false information ur giving me isnt doing u ne gud
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
ALL I see is YOU making a complete FOOL of yourself on here.
You can't spell, you don't know English and you have no knowlege of civics.
I suprised you know how to turn your computer on, or did you have help with that?
RetSquid 2 years ago
harah for u u can insult me and give me false information good for u ..now show me something that is legit and legal not the irs cus der illegal u shud noe dis cus u found all dat information but yet u seemed to skip the part were it was falsely made an amendment ironic
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
i can skool u on how the federal reserve works how this monetary works with inflation deflation(the stage were in now if ur dumass didnt noe) how our shitty ass piece of shit president is doing its all going down man were there slaves and u dont seem to hav a problem with that..ur fuking weird
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
#2) "the various state resolutions are [not] materially different in purpose or effect from the language of the congressional joint resolution proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment, and because the sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted upon since 1913, the Court rejects defendants' argument that the sixteenth amendment is not a part of the United States Constitution.
UNITED STATES of America v. George M. HOUSE and Marion M. House Defendants.
RetSquid 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
#3) People do tell other people that income tax is illegal, just like you are doing now.
LOL!! YOU just called yourself a LIAR!!!!!
RetSquid 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
#4). The petitioners argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.
Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).
RetSquid 2 years ago
u seriously have no knowledge how this system works do u
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
I have already proven I know FAR more than you can possibly comprehend.
RetSquid 2 years ago
i havent seen u prove to me anything u have no idea how this corrupt govnerment works..looks to me like ur a slave and u like being a slave i cant wait to c ur children hating u for being such a fuking moron ur deceived by this false information if only u knew as much information as i did u wud b in shock..and then u will b in anger u will c our conversation will echo in ur mind wen u c that write to me so we can fiht against them together and help our country out from this tyranny
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
I told you that you couldn't understand it.
You don't know squat! :)
RetSquid 2 years ago
the day will come wen were in concetration camps n i really hope were in da same one so i kud kill u myself and ride this world of another asshole ..but its u who is so naieve and arrogant that u cant c the chains on ur ankles i wonder if u hope that ur rite or wrong i really hope that u think ur wrong cus if ur rit i will kill u even if ur wrong and u think ur rite ur still guna die i will choke u with my bare hands and ur whole family and burn u all at stake jus to c how burned body look
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
LOL!!
That proves me right.
You are a moron with homocidal tendencies.
Grow up, go back to school, learn more, then MAYBE you can come back and debate me intelligently.....but probably not, you are to stupid to learn anything, even how to spell simple words. While you are at it, learn to use punctuation.
RetSquid 2 years ago
i seriously do not noe how n y u do not find my points to b facts and true all u give me is corrupt aquasations against innocent people ..i dont noe if u like being rite about this subject or watever but ur more fuked up in the head than i am theres nothing to b proud of if u think u r write
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
I proved every single one of your points wrong, you can't refute the truth.
All of your points were lies, including the bit about States ratifying laws.
RetSquid 2 years ago
oo dey were lies haha i cant wait till u find out how fuking wrong u r
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Yes, YOU are a liar and I will find out that I am not wrong at all, but I already know that.
RetSquid 2 years ago
i dont need to prove myself to anybody punctuation gramma who gives a fuk wat they do or impose a words a word if u cant read a mixed message then ur not as smart as u say u r now r u
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Learn to speak like a grown up and stop playing around like a little baby.
GOO-GOO-GAAA-GAAA, moron.
RetSquid 2 years ago
i talk lik 1 but my punctuation doesnt make me ne less intelligent stuppidass
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Your lack of ability to communicate properly DOES indicate your mental age and/or disabilities.
If you are trying to make people think you are stupid, it's working.
RetSquid 2 years ago
its like telln a mathmatical savant hes retarded ..how does that work my grammar has nothing to do with the point that i am expressing u seriously need to look deeply into the irs and u will find out all u gave me were court cases that the judge refused to let the defendant speak and defend himself thats injustice unconstitutional cus every american citizen has the right to a fair trial either ur badly misguided or the us constitution doesnt exist u pick 1
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
So, you're not just stupid, you are delusional also?
Where is the proof for any of your claims?
RetSquid 2 years ago
ur obviously a fukng retard
heres my proof i highly advise for ur stupidass to watch
freedom to facisim with arron russo n watch both of the zeigeist movies and look for that lady sherry peel a former irs agent ...specifically sayn dat ur bullshit information isnt legit i dont noe were u got all dat information thinkn ur rit n shit from but u seriously need to double think before u tell me sumtin that i study almost every fuking day ino that shit like the bak of my hand
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
I've seen it and have proved it wrong many times.
Jackson is in Federal prison because she was wrong about taxes.
RetSquid 2 years ago
on the zeitgeist movies u can fastforward to the federal reserve part or u can also learn about the biggest lie ever told..RELIGION..and yea enjoy urself ull learn quiet alot hope ta hear from u
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Watch the zeitgeist debunked movies and find out how you have been lied to.
RetSquid 2 years ago
haha do u noe y she is in federal prision? i bet u have no fuking idea y..ok so explain to me wats false about the movies
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Would you mind repeating your question in English?
RetSquid 2 years ago
heres unuther 1 for u do u believe the illuminati is real or just a conspiracy theory
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
They are not real, the whole purpose of a secret society is to keep it secret.
RetSquid 2 years ago
haha there not a secret anymore freemasons there all exposed ..the illuminati run this country and most of the world..u might know them better as banks..the federal reserve ..the bank of england..the bank of germany ...its all there u just hav to look for it..and of course they are real..9/11 was an inside job..they cant keep it a secret anymore they fuked up on there part buildings dont fall like that and heat wudnt cause steel to crumble like that the evidence is there u jus dont wanna believe
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Lay off the crack pipe and learn English and how to spell.
The Fed is only owned by U.S. banks, 9/11 was not an inside job.
The steel did not 'crumble', it just lost some of it's strength.
You really need to learn better communication skills if you want to get a real job when you grow up.
RetSquid 2 years ago
unlike u i only smoke marijuana nota crack head like u who refuses to believe the truth and all u do is show ur ignorance cus u cant handle the truth..haha the federal reserve is the bank of america they take ur taxes and loan them to other world banks none of that money goes to us..9/11 was an inside job seriously it lost some of its strength haha u r a fuking retard if u knew the architecture of the building u wud noe that its was constructed to withstand any type of hit especially a plane
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
Drugs rot your brain, you are proof.
RetSquid 2 years ago
last time i checked anything natural isnt a drug..a drug is something that is man made..cmon keep embarassing urself ur only gettn stupider n stupider as u go..and marijuana is the best medicine this world can produce if u didnt noe dat
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
More proof that you are insane.
do us all a favor and go away.
RetSquid 2 years ago
y am i insane
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
aaww wats wrong da lil bitch had to much to handle or wat huh ..u cant handle da trutha mudafuka haha u lame ass bitch..dont try to decieve me mudafuka dont try to think ur smarter den me cus i mispell every fukng word i say i tell the truth n nun but the truth BITCH
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
You have not said anything true yet, except that you are on drugs.
RetSquid 2 years ago
haha man man haha the steel didnt crumble it jus lost sum of its strength haha r u fucking serious man wat type of dumbass makes an excsue like dat haha u obviously believe all the propoganda this govnerment gives u like terrorisim and homosexuals give u aids haha tell me r u one of those dumbasses
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
You need to check yourself into rehab.
RetSquid 2 years ago
haha is that all u can say man im done arguing wit ur dumbass u aint as smart as u thought huh bitch
haha lame as foo
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
if u didnt noe marijuana cures cancer.helps control diabetes, controls ur metabolisim, helps against glacouma and many many many other things
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
the bankers rule us and the 16th amendment were there slaves..why would our country contradict itself like that..sumtins fishy ..i mean were suppose to b a republip not a democratict country ..the founding fathers hated democracy u shud noe that..were suppose to b civialized free people were suppose to b the only country that differs from the rest of the world..the illuminati assasinated abraham lincoln,martin luther king jr,john/robert kennedy,tupac,notoriousbig, uno y..
prettyboyrodriguez 2 years ago
@prettyboyrodriguez
I have to give it to you, I've never seen anyone abuse the English language like this before...at least I think you are trying to use English.
RetSquid 2 years ago
We know them laws to be The Declaration Of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and The Most important is The Constitution. That's why it's so important to take them away from us as they've doing at quite rapid pace since The Patriot Act which resulted from 9/11. This is the sole reason to get to the Bottom of 9/11 with an Independant Investigation. Once we establish the fact that 9/11 was Sponsored by the American Government everything after becomes Null and Void!
MrJLusty 2 years ago
OK, wait a minute! The federal reserve is not owned by the Americcan People. The reserve itself isn't even a Federal Entity! The Sole owner of the Federal Reserve is The Rothschilds which is Foreign Born! In the American Revolution the Private Banking Cartel was Financing the British. So in all reality it was The Private banking Cartel VS. our ForeFathers. Our Forefathers put in place laws to attempt to keep the Private banks from destroying America. Now look what happened 200 years later.SAD!!!
MrJLusty 2 years ago
now she is ill in jail
DCUPtoejuice 2 years ago 2