>>>> 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 Inc.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
to ladymerakina-- there is plenty of info in books and online about the unconsitituionality of taxes--- read your Constitution for Pete's sake. Look into Bernie Goldberg, for starters. Funny how the net cuts off some of those sites. . . . In short the 16th Amendment was never ratified.
In 2006, he was charged again with three counts of criminal failure to file Illinois income tax returns for 1996, 1997, and 1998, and was convicted on all three counts on 12/17/2008... On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.
I pay federal taxes not because i think it's legal, because i know it's not but because i know that our US government operates above the law, like the mafia and with an air of corruption.
I, like many other Americans, know that it doesn't take much for the government to ILLEGALLY send a little guy, with little resources to prison for something like not paying taxes and it will be YEARS if ever by the time they release you from prison on the grounds of "unconstitutionality".
I love it, this guy made all these idiots look like .... well idiots I have found an easier and less stressful way to deal with the matter. Make your life invisible, make you business private, interact with the system, but make it so you can do it on a comfortable level. Don't sweat it, very soon the corrupt system will fail and all these thieves will be running for their lives. Me, I will sit back drink a beer and watch these idiots get whats coming to them.
This lady is a moron. She thinks Mr. Harrell is doing something patriotic by making the rest of tax payers pick up his slack. Does Mr. Harrell use roads or the library or the police department? I hope not, because all were paid for by taxes - including INCOME tax.
Hi folks, HERE IS ONE VIDEO THAT GIVES YOU THE TOOLS TO STOP the Government Abuse. Learn how you, your family and friends have the power, you just need a little knowledge. Learn what it means to be a Juror, and register to vote, not so you can vote, but so you can be the one Juror who saves that one Citizen who refuses to be a SLAVE. Help educate those around you. liberatedjoe@ yahoo.com
Would you support an effort to pass a State Amendment to stop the illegal confiscation of peoples's property in your State? This Amendment will allow you to prosecute any Gov agent who violates your rights, period. Contact Burt at propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com unless you are ok with hanging your neighbor for not voluntarily giving up his "Property Rights" or other "Rights".
All property Tax so called Laws are written so that you convince your self you owe it. I can prove it. Call your County assessors office and ask for the Law that requires you to pay his assessment on your home, then read the Statute for your self, you will not find the words Required or Liable associated with the payment. Burt propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
I'M RETSQUID, I THINK TAX PROTESTERS ARE DUMD AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT AND ALMOST NO ONE AGREES WITH THEM AND THEY DON'T MATTER....
....SO I AM GOING TO DESPERATELY ARGUE WITH THEM DAY AFTER DAY AS THOUGH I AM AFRIAD PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE THEM ON EVERY ANTI-INCOME TAX VIDEO I FIND.
DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY! HOW DO I MAKE MONEY OR HAVE TIME TO STUDY AS A STUDENT? IF ONLY I GOT PAID TO DO THIS.
LOL!! You get a D for imagination and an A for "loud and stupid". Obviously you did not read my channel, I'm retired, moron. You are paying my retirement, disability and my tuition.
Please keep going as you are proving my points about your mental instabilities. Luckly your type is rare and when they find you. you get convicted and sent away.
Not one single person has ever gotten out of paying their income tax using your arguments...not...one...ever...
@RetSquid No, corporate income taxes pay all that. Certain taxes are set aside for certain expenses, just like gas taxes pay for roads.
Corporate income taxes are designed to pay for war and military.
You can say I'm stupid all you want but I do have a point. If there was a video that said the moon was made of cheese and a few bloggers believed it but almost no one else on the planet did I would not spend years of my life every day trying to refute them. You have a strong motive for doing this
Its youtube, not the department of defense. You could just put anything you want on your channel. The fact that you would irrationally point to your channel as evidence shows how desperate your are to discredit. Everyone reading this knows that you could be some fat lady in an office building, theoretically.
Hello there. I'm not going to sit here and judge you or call you names, but seriously, brother, you have too much time on your hands. I have viewed a few of these videos regarding the tax laws, and everyone of them, you have had these long debates with people. I understand your retired and everything, but there's got to be something else you can do with your time other than arguing that you are right and someone else is wrong. Oh, I'm using "brother" in the cosmic sense.
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).
Citizen, non-citizen, SNN or not, it's doesn't matter.
Why would the IRC define 'anything' and why would it need to? Everything in Title 26 is positive law and has been enacted into law. "Federal jurisdiction aka U.S.not the USof A." is meaningless. U.S./U.S.A/USofA are all the same thing.
Title 26 has not been enacted into postive law because of the constant changes to it, however, everything IN Title 26 IS positive law. That argument has no legal meaning.
In order to be a Citizen of a State, you must be a Citizen of the United States.
The "U.S.A." and the "Us of A" are the same. The dementions of D.C. do not limit the power of the Federal Government to that area, it excludes the States' power from that area.
“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”
“The first observation we have to make of this clause (14th Amendment, clause 1) is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
@RetSquid OMG, are you f'ing kidding me........the 10 mile square CONFINES the United States Corporation. The States have Supreme Sovereignty by the power of the 10th Amendment. You are delusional! NONE of Title 26 is positive law, doesn't matter if it changes or not. Get a clue! Get off youtube and go find a hobby. Stop trying to practice law without a license.
Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. ‘[T]he word “exclusive” was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.’
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)
States have sovereignty, except where they gave it up to the Federal government in the Constitution, the 10th doesn't change that. Everything IN Title 26 is positive law. Wake up and get some education.
@RetSquid Positive law is the term generally used to describe man-made a laws which bestow or remove specific privileges upon an individual or group. Contrast this with natural law which are inherent rights, not conferred by act of legislation.
Legal positivism: A school of Jurisprudence whose advocates believe that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. (Sounds a lot like you..lol)
No, The only differencve is that Title 26 AS A WHOLE, was not passed by Congress. BUT the entire contents of Title 26 WAS passed by Congress, just not at one time.
Yes, Title 26 is Prima facie evidence of the law itself.
“The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of Title 26 is frivolous. The validity of Title 26 is not affected merely because it has not been codified as ‘positive law’.”
@RetSquid Opposing party didn't present enough evidence or assert a affirmative defense. The argument was frivolous, not the 'subject' of the argument. Title 26 is prima face... You should have NEVER hipped me to that.. THANKS!!!!!!
To LITERALLY "show the law" would involve many volumes of the Statutes at Large. But in court all you need in the evidence that the law exists...Title 26
@RetSquid Plaintiffs argued the matrix and identity of the additional properties would reveal the analysis and methodology used by the IRS to determine the value of Plaintiffs' easements and enable Plaintiffs to bear their burden of rebutting the valuation made by the IRS and putting forth the appropriate valuation. The court agreed
@RetSquid Yep an effective example in challenging the presumption of correctiveness. This is where TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a comes into play. Figured you'd miss that...
@RetSquid I know someone who works for the IRS Her trained "advice" is to Ignor the first five notices. Do you know what that would look like when you go to court ?
Respond to this video...If you are claiming to be a non-taxpayer one can't have anything to tax then nothing could truly be yours free and clear from Gov. intrusions. Hence the reason I asked if anything was defined in the IRC.
“Much of Becraft’ reply is also devoted to a discussion of the limitations of federal jurisdiction to United States territories and the District of Columbia and thus the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to a resident of one of the states...this claim also has no semblance of merit.” Lowell H. Becraft (United States v. Nelson)
"Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. ‘[T]he word “exclusive” was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.’"
"The difference between the fully capitalized and the first-letter capitalized versions of the Defendants’ names is immaterial, and provides no defense to the claims asserted by the Government.”
@RetSquid "There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of full caps when writing a proper name. To do so is considered a legal fiction."
"Use of the legal fiction JOHN SMITH in place of the proper name John Smith implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, then unless the assumption is proven wrong, it is considered valid."
@Kenzofeis - Which is sort of like accepting a situation where it is assumed that you are guilty until proven not guilty, and the "Law of the Land" is sort of gone out the window unless you protest.
It would seem like the use of the word "difference .. immaterial" is a fib to obscure this trap.
The use of the word "fact" in place of "truth" is just an escape route, although the word "truth" has been abused so badly it has almost lost it's validity... But it is still absolute.
“Wright brings what he has labeled a ‘motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s lack of standing and misjoinder of parties.’ First, he contends that since the amended complaint states that this action is brought against ‘FLOYD A. WRIGHT’ and his name is ‘Floyd A. Wright’, he is not the proper defendant. ... These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.”
I don't know where you got that quote, but it's legal crap. There is nothing in any law that makes an all caps name a legal fiction, but there are cases that prove it isn't.
"In summary, because the manner in which plaintiff’s name is spelled, printed, or punctuated on filings in this case does not, in the court’s view, impact on the substance of the pleadings, the court denies plaintiff’s motions to strike as meritless.”
@Kenzofeis Further, a ruling from a corrupt court does not prove anything but corruption, in this matter so much is at stake that it is not any wonder if much effort is put into getting a desired outcome.
"Much effort" is a polite understatement, really.
Anything not rooted in law but practiced as law are fictions if not given substance by contract, which is where the trap is, woe to those who fall for it.
This is the difference between De Jure and De Facto.
And De Facto and De Jure...there is no legal meaning to an all caps name. If you like I can post a few more cases...unless you are going to claim that EVERY judge is corrupt.
How about you find a single authoritative piece of evidence that says an all caps name is a legal fiction? Look back in history and find out WHY all cap names were used.
You claim that all capital letter names have a legal meaning, but can provide any evidence of that claim, I provide many pieces of evidence that prove it does not mean anything, legally.
That does not mean it does not serve a purpose, it sets apart the names of the participants in legal cases and contracts.
@Kenzofeis The word person/persona means "mask" or "an act" which indicates that it is not necessarily the real soul that is portrayed, the inner being and spirit so to speak.
Thus, the word is used in commerce, because it is the interface on which one may attach "handles" and act through/on; this is what brand/etat names are - and they can be used as deflectors.
person: early 13c., from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask,"
So even in Latin it means a human being.
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
"...the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
You keep replying so you must want a disscussion. Your 'goats' analogy is pretty stupid. To get an opinion of what the law means, you need court cases. That is what I posted, if all caps names are to be used by the law for ANY reason, then judges CAN'T say that they have no legal meaning. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The only evidence you have posted to support your claims is just your opinion, which is worthless whenit comes to the law.
@RetSquid You always make use of downtalk and namecalling in you intimidation attempts, it chews away at your validity.
This boils down to courts upholding something unlawful and not founded even in grammar rules and instructions. I say unlawful as it is not founded in law, other than what is possibly "made up as we go".
Your citation of the definition of "person" is tainted, as it focuses on a new meaning attached to a word. It is done a lot, but two wrongs don't make one right.
@Kenzofeis The point is, that as there is another meaning to a word or term it may be used and the _assumed_ meaning by the accused may send him/her into the bushes where there be dragons.
You are still not making sense, there are clear LEGAL definitions of the term "person" which does not agree with YOUR definition. Your 'all caps name' is also a non-starter as not a single LEGAL source agrees with your claim that it makes a LEGAL difference. That YOU are assuming a false definition of a word is your problem.
@RetSquid Now you are really starting to waste time. I have walked through doors and slept in a bunk older than the consept of the USA. I am talking about milleniæ, and the twisting of words until people don't know anymore what they really mean. I am compiling a work about such things, be patient..
That's nice, too bad it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. You are trying to apply a thousand year old meaning to a word (person) that does not have the same definition as when the documents were written.
@RetSquid You can't just go around changing the meaning of words as it suits you, they are not yours to change - do you own them?
One week yes means yes and no means no, the next week yes means yes and no, and no means maybe and no and bubblegum, next week yes means no and no means yes .. or sort of yes, also no, and durr durr?
Words has meaning, already established long ago unless they are new, to doctor this is to mess with peoples property - language.
YOU are the one changing meanings of words that have meant the same thing for hundreds of years. You don't know very much about languages in general do you? They change every single day.
@spitchill Make two columns of the 50 Titles. Put all the positive law Titles on the left. Now put all the Non-positive Titles on the right. Study and compare.
@RetSquid : His type is "rare, convicted, and sent away"? Hardly! This is the propaganda the IRS wants to put out. Our Founders would have taken arms up against a dictatorial regime as the IRS had they been alive today. Best way to fend off the IRS for business owners is by use of video cameras. When they come crashing into someone's business the jury looks unfavorably on their actions if they're caught on tape. They have a lot of nerve ridiculing Al Capone!
You are posting this crap just so your post will be on the top of the list??? You do know that the first few are displayed not only the first one, right? I'm trying to help other people for being sent to jail for believeing the crap that you are posting. I have proved all of your ideas wrong and an independent observer will see that, you are just too hard-headed to see anything outside of your preconcieved ideas.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…” -The constitution
duty = tax for import, export or sale of manufactured good
impost= tax specifically for imports
excises= taxes on manufacture, sale, and consumptions of goods
“[duty], is the most comprehensive next to the generical term tax; and practically in Great Britain, (whence we take our general ideas...) embraces taxes on stamps, tolls for passage, etc. etc. and is not confined to taxes on importation only.”
"If the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate other taxes than direct taxes, and duties, imposts, and excises, there is great inaccuracy in their language. If these four species of taxes were all that were meditated, the general power to lay taxes was unnecessary.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796)
“Whether the tax is...an ‘excise’ is...not of critical importance. If not that, it is an ’impost’...or a ‘duty’....”
@RetSquid Don't quote me court case, the courts are in on it, just watch the video above. They do the same thing you are doing. You say I wrong but don't outline why.
As I posted before everyone is out to get you except for those six people that agree with you, right? Have you ever thought about how illogical and..well..just STUPID your ideas are? Are you on medication for your paranoid delusions?
@RetSquid No it isn't. Anyone who studies history know that government does in fact, in mass.... carry out false flag operations, lie about laws, censor news, censor learning material of things that are facts..... like the Nazis, Stalin, the old Roman government and our government. How is my so called paranoia historically unwarranted.
Retsquid reply: "Its just is.... now I will cite more court cases that don't address the issue to look creditable."
Kudos to Mr. Harrell. The IRS loses again, and a citizen gains his freedom from slavery. Mr. Harrell was very fortunate to have a Juror as the woman wearing the red blouse. We don't need the IRS, the IRS needs us.
Actually, Woody later lost his case in Federal Court. On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.
@RetSquid You are wasting your time with this dipshit. He's citing an amendment that never passed. LOL!!! Further income from labor is considered personal property and not taxable. PERIOD. Leave him to the coolaid. Regards, izzy
@arch571332 If you lack the critical thinking and deductive resaoning skills of a doorknob i.e. cant see that you are being bent over and fucked dry by criminals within the FED IRS congress AND the crooked judges that occupy the bench I wont waste my time with a statutory/Constitutional/20th century history lesson for you. Go back to sleep. Fair warning tho: The law of natural selection is about to be employed en masse. The uninformed will be the weak link.
@RetSquid Everyone knows by now that you just make circular arguments. Why don't you try proving your case for a change instead of pretending like you won an argument right after you lost.
Everyone knows by now that you just make nonsensical arguments, that are only your opinion of things with no facts behind them. Why don't you try and prove your case by posting something factual, not your opinion, just facts?
People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215 (Cir. Ct. of Logan Co. Ill.).....Gaylon L. Harrell v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1998-207, 98 TNT 115-13, No. 7339-95 (6/15/1998), aff'd 1999 TNT 163-9, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5194, No. 98-4120 (7th Cir. 8/19/1999).
"there is nothing in petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic gibberish."
@RetSquid Here is the interesting thing. If there is only a judge involved and no jury, then of course he is going to be found guilty because the corrupt judicial system has full control over the verdict.
OF COURSE!!! Everyone is corrupt except for you, right? Have you always had these delusions? Do you know how STUPID you continue to sound??? No one has ever won a court case (and not paid the income tax), jury or not, using your argument....not...one....person...ever...
@RetSquid The Government/Judicial system is not everyone but me. You are exaggerating to prove a point you don't have. I have seen you post on every single income tax video I have looked at and you repeat the same arguments over and over with out being able to explain where the law is, or why you would ignore the word "sources" in the tax law without defining.
There is an entire section devoted to defining sources and I can find anywhere in title 26 that would be referenced. Show me the law!
You are the one that claims all of the courts/judges/juries..whatever...are corrupt, how can all of them be wrong and a tiny percentage of peope (you tax protestors) be right?
I search for videos like this because people like you keep lying on them and I repeat the same arguments because YOU keep repeating the same stupid claims. Sources of gross income are defined in Section 61.
"The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a [vast] majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax. That is what the law is. There is no question about it."
You still have not explained why the 861 argument is false. Where is the word "sources" require for definition to have such a section for t 26.
You still have not explained why the income tax is constitutional when it clearly is not. They must be apportioned, they must be either duties, imposts, or excises. How does this give congress the power to directly tax income when it is so obviously forbidden.
“As a citizen of the United States during the years at issue, petitioner is subject to United States Federal income tax on his worldwide income. Sec. 1; Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924); sec 1.1-1(a)(1) and (c), Income Tax Regs. It is unnecessary to determine whether that income was from sources within or without the United States since petitioner is not a nonresident alien. See sec. 861.”
“Petitioner’s reliance on section 861 likewise is misplaced. Petitioner reads section 861 to provide that items not defined therein are not subject to tax. Section 861(a)(1) and (3) provides that interest from the U.S. and compensation for labor or personal services performed in the U.S....are items of gross income which shall be treated as income from sources within the U.S. Nothing in section 861 operates to exclude from income any of petitioner’s receipts.”
But then again all of the courts are corrupt and Congress is corrupt so all of the laws are corrupt and are totally meaningless, which means your 861 argument is meaningless, right?
And the Constitution gives Congress the power have an unapportioned income tax, so "direct" or "indirect" is meaningless.
@RetSquid -“Congress shall have the power to lay duties, imposts, and exises.... must be apportioned through the states” ONLY TAX ACTIVITIES
-“the 16th amendment grants congress no new powers of taxation” ACTIVITIES
-““taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions....gross income means all income from whatever source derived......” source means income from foreign activity as though you ONLY TAX ACTIVITIES
-THE FEDERALIST PAPERS do not mention direct taxation once ONLY ACTIVITIES.
“[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed ‘tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish’, and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion.”
The Constitution was changed by the 16th Amendment. The Federalist papers are NOT "Allmighty", only a good source of information. Everything backs you up except for the Government, the Law, the Congress, the Constitution, the Courts and the vast majority of the Population. Do they all have a motive to lie? Or is it just you that has the motive?
You already know you have lost this debate, only losers feel the need to swear at their opponent. :)
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 Inc.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
retsquid the shill. you and your ilk are finished.
sssssjjjj1 5 months ago
@sssssjjjj1
"My ilk"? You mean people who tell the truth even if others don't like to hear it?
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
11 people love paying taxes
snic104049 8 months ago
@snic104049
11 people know a lie when they hear it and don't blindly follow someone who sounds nice.
RetSquid 7 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
to ladymerakina-- there is plenty of info in books and online about the unconsitituionality of taxes--- read your Constitution for Pete's sake. Look into Bernie Goldberg, for starters. Funny how the net cuts off some of those sites. . . . In short the 16th Amendment was never ratified.
1celticChef 8 months ago
@1celticChef
Too bad that every State says that the 16th WAS ratified, because the States were the ones who ratified it.
RetSquid 7 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
2012 there world is over. we are waking up fast. god bless the republic.
bigpoppa20010 8 months ago
My case in point (a quote from another site)--
In 2006, he was charged again with three counts of criminal failure to file Illinois income tax returns for 1996, 1997, and 1998, and was convicted on all three counts on 12/17/2008... On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.
ladymerakina 9 months ago
I pay federal taxes not because i think it's legal, because i know it's not but because i know that our US government operates above the law, like the mafia and with an air of corruption.
I, like many other Americans, know that it doesn't take much for the government to ILLEGALLY send a little guy, with little resources to prison for something like not paying taxes and it will be YEARS if ever by the time they release you from prison on the grounds of "unconstitutionality".
ladymerakina 9 months ago
@ladymerakina
So, how are income taxes not legal?
RetSquid 9 months ago
We need a federal Sales Tax so EVERYONE, even the welfare bums, pay their share
jimbritttn 11 months ago
@jimbritttn Please, define fair share?
DougKendall 9 months ago
I love it, this guy made all these idiots look like .... well idiots I have found an easier and less stressful way to deal with the matter. Make your life invisible, make you business private, interact with the system, but make it so you can do it on a comfortable level. Don't sweat it, very soon the corrupt system will fail and all these thieves will be running for their lives. Me, I will sit back drink a beer and watch these idiots get whats coming to them.
unclefixer 1 year ago
This lady is a moron. She thinks Mr. Harrell is doing something patriotic by making the rest of tax payers pick up his slack. Does Mr. Harrell use roads or the library or the police department? I hope not, because all were paid for by taxes - including INCOME tax.
m015094 1 year ago
@m015094
He was convicted later on the same charges.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi folks, HERE IS ONE VIDEO THAT GIVES YOU THE TOOLS TO STOP the Government Abuse. Learn how you, your family and friends have the power, you just need a little knowledge. Learn what it means to be a Juror, and register to vote, not so you can vote, but so you can be the one Juror who saves that one Citizen who refuses to be a SLAVE. Help educate those around you. liberatedjoe@ yahoo.com
Watch this training video with your folks.
youtube.com/watch?v=wNHcKnjrSNE&feature=related
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago
Would you support an effort to pass a State Amendment to stop the illegal confiscation of peoples's property in your State? This Amendment will allow you to prosecute any Gov agent who violates your rights, period. Contact Burt at propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com unless you are ok with hanging your neighbor for not voluntarily giving up his "Property Rights" or other "Rights".
propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago
All property Tax so called Laws are written so that you convince your self you owe it. I can prove it. Call your County assessors office and ask for the Law that requires you to pay his assessment on your home, then read the Statute for your self, you will not find the words Required or Liable associated with the payment. Burt propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago
@ asicit2b not going to repeat myself here my debate is with squid. See ex IRS agent tells it like it is part 1 and 2
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99 O.K. sorry I interrupted YOUR debate.
asicit2b 1 year ago
NO TAXATION WITHOUT CLARIFICATION
Tealy855 1 year ago
Just acquit him. Easier for all of us.
Topazman12 1 year ago
I'M RETSQUID, I THINK TAX PROTESTERS ARE DUMD AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT AND ALMOST NO ONE AGREES WITH THEM AND THEY DON'T MATTER....
....SO I AM GOING TO DESPERATELY ARGUE WITH THEM DAY AFTER DAY AS THOUGH I AM AFRIAD PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE THEM ON EVERY ANTI-INCOME TAX VIDEO I FIND.
DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY! HOW DO I MAKE MONEY OR HAVE TIME TO STUDY AS A STUDENT? IF ONLY I GOT PAID TO DO THIS.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
LOL!! You get a D for imagination and an A for "loud and stupid". Obviously you did not read my channel, I'm retired, moron. You are paying my retirement, disability and my tuition.
Please keep going as you are proving my points about your mental instabilities. Luckly your type is rare and when they find you. you get convicted and sent away.
Not one single person has ever gotten out of paying their income tax using your arguments...not...one...ever...
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
arch571332 1 year ago
@RetSquid No, corporate income taxes pay all that. Certain taxes are set aside for certain expenses, just like gas taxes pay for roads.
Corporate income taxes are designed to pay for war and military.
You can say I'm stupid all you want but I do have a point. If there was a video that said the moon was made of cheese and a few bloggers believed it but almost no one else on the planet did I would not spend years of my life every day trying to refute them. You have a strong motive for doing this
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
Corporate income taxes are only about $200 billion, The Defense budget is over $600 billion, and that does NOT include the VA, explain your claim.
I do have a strong motive, I hate liars like you.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid "Obviously you did not read my channel"
Its youtube, not the department of defense. You could just put anything you want on your channel. The fact that you would irrationally point to your channel as evidence shows how desperate your are to discredit. Everyone reading this knows that you could be some fat lady in an office building, theoretically.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
Life for you must suck if your starting point is that everything is a lie. My channel is absolute truth.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
You won this debate.
818infinite 1 year ago
@818infinite
Great, another illiterate idiot.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Hello there. I'm not going to sit here and judge you or call you names, but seriously, brother, you have too much time on your hands. I have viewed a few of these videos regarding the tax laws, and everyone of them, you have had these long debates with people. I understand your retired and everything, but there's got to be something else you can do with your time other than arguing that you are right and someone else is wrong. Oh, I'm using "brother" in the cosmic sense.
818infinite 1 year ago
@818infinite
Why did you post that he "won the debate" when his claims were completely false?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So what is the Positively enacted Law requiring non Federal (aka U.S.citizens without Social Security Numbers) to pay taxes to the IRS.
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
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).
Citizen, non-citizen, SNN or not, it's doesn't matter.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Although Title 26 has not been enacted,
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
As a complete Title, no, but everything IN Title 26 has been enacted as law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Which would apply only to taxpayers?
What make one liable for taxes and how does one become a non-taxpayer so as to not feed a out of control Government?
Thanks for the replies.
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
You become a non taxpayer by not having anything to tax. The law makes you liable.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Please define anything in the IRC.
Again are you talking about title26 that hasn't been positively enacted outside the Federal jurisdiction aka U.S.not the USof A.
Sorry if I'm not to bright just seeking clarification.
Again thanks for the replies without insults.
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
Why would the IRC define 'anything' and why would it need to? Everything in Title 26 is positive law and has been enacted into law. "Federal jurisdiction aka U.S.not the USof A." is meaningless. U.S./U.S.A/USofA are all the same thing.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49
Seal
Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Where are you seeing title 26? I'm not finding it.
People of their respective states and citizens of the us are not the same.
Isn't the Usof A the land mass ans the U.S. the 10 sq mile district?
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
Title 26 has not been enacted into postive law because of the constant changes to it, however, everything IN Title 26 IS positive law. That argument has no legal meaning.
In order to be a Citizen of a State, you must be a Citizen of the United States.
The "U.S.A." and the "Us of A" are the same. The dementions of D.C. do not limit the power of the Federal Government to that area, it excludes the States' power from that area.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid "In order to be a Citizen of a State, you must be a Citizen of the United States."What is the cite for this please?
So if title 26 isn't positive then would it not only derive it's authority by contract?
Constant changes UGH.Road map at high noon for sure.
If so what is the contract? Forgive my ignorance and I appreciate your knowledge on the subject.
Looks like I've got some more reading assignments to do? LOL
RetSquid 3 hours ago
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”
Colgate v. Harvey
RetSquid 1 year ago
@spitchill
Again, Title 26 is not positive law, everything IN Title 26 IS positive law. It's the law, there is no need for a "contract".
RetSquid 1 year ago
“The first observation we have to make of this clause (14th Amendment, clause 1) is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
The Slaughterhouse Cases
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid OMG, are you f'ing kidding me........the 10 mile square CONFINES the United States Corporation. The States have Supreme Sovereignty by the power of the 10th Amendment. You are delusional! NONE of Title 26 is positive law, doesn't matter if it changes or not. Get a clue! Get off youtube and go find a hobby. Stop trying to practice law without a license.
videocommenter67 1 year ago
@videocommenter67
Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. ‘[T]he word “exclusive” was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.’
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@videocommenter67
States have sovereignty, except where they gave it up to the Federal government in the Constitution, the 10th doesn't change that. Everything IN Title 26 is positive law. Wake up and get some education.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Positive Law: more proof legal and lawful are not the same thing
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Unless you are trying to compare "laws" with "regulations", that makes no sense.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Positive law is the term generally used to describe man-made a laws which bestow or remove specific privileges upon an individual or group. Contrast this with natural law which are inherent rights, not conferred by act of legislation.
yankdini99 1 year ago
Legal positivism: A school of Jurisprudence whose advocates believe that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. (Sounds a lot like you..lol)
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Yes, it does sound like me...and you. Would you like to be arrested for some unwritten, unadopted, unrecognized "law"?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So there is a difference isn't not? Things could go so much easier between us if you grow up a little :)
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
But this has nothing to do with Title 26 being a positive law or not. Title 26 is not positive law, everything contained in Title 26 IS positive law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid more doublespeak I see....
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
No, The only differencve is that Title 26 AS A WHOLE, was not passed by Congress. BUT the entire contents of Title 26 WAS passed by Congress, just not at one time.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Then based on your reply and 1 U.S.C. § 204. it's considered to be Prima facie is it not?
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Yes, Title 26 is Prima facie evidence of the law itself.
“The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of Title 26 is frivolous. The validity of Title 26 is not affected merely because it has not been codified as ‘positive law’.”
Hackett v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Opposing party didn't present enough evidence or assert a affirmative defense. The argument was frivolous, not the 'subject' of the argument. Title 26 is prima face... You should have NEVER hipped me to that.. THANKS!!!!!!
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
The only defense would be that the info in Title 26 was different than the law passed by Congress.
I'm here posting truth, not hiding it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Still prima face, which is why no one can show 'the law' Makes sense
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
To LITERALLY "show the law" would involve many volumes of the Statutes at Large. But in court all you need in the evidence that the law exists...Title 26
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Still prima facie Better get to work then
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Yep, you have to prove that Title 26 is different than the Statutes.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid actually I was thinking more like challenging the IRS's presumption of correctness
yankdini99 1 year ago
@RetSquid Plaintiffs argued the matrix and identity of the additional properties would reveal the analysis and methodology used by the IRS to determine the value of Plaintiffs' easements and enable Plaintiffs to bear their burden of rebutting the valuation made by the IRS and putting forth the appropriate valuation. The court agreed
RCL PROPERTIES, INC., KOZAD PROPERTIES, LTD., GLENHILLS RANCH,
LTD., AMY HILL KOZELSKY, BOBBY F. HILL, AND DOROTHY A. HILL, V UNITED STATES
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99 Try taking a look at this. Take all 50 Titles. Make two columns.
Put all the POSITIVE LAW Titles on the left. Now put all the NON-POSITIVE Titles on
the right. Study the difference between the two columns and ask yourself questions
of WHY are these ones here and WHY are these ones over here ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
We already had this conversation, where were you?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid What are you talking about ? Your lame explanation of the difference between Positive and Non-positive Law being typo errors is ridiculous.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Except it is a better explaination than any you have given.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid Offcourse, Why would I be spending all my time on this subject if I understood what was going on ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid "Except it is a better explaination than any you have given."
The reason you say this is because it drags one into the legalese realm.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
No, I say that because you provide questions without explaination or answers.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@yankdini99
Did you have a point?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Yep an effective example in challenging the presumption of correctiveness. This is where TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a comes into play. Figured you'd miss that...
yankdini99 1 year ago
@yankdini99 Can you explain your point on this ? Thank you.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@yankdini99
You can challenge their information to see if it correct. You keep getting bogged down in particular details that don't matter to the big picture.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I see his point was presumption of correctiveness. That was the answer
I think.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid if the particulars are erroneous, the presumption of correctness is overcome. Chess not checkers.......
yankdini99 1 year ago
@RetSquid Make it simple for me, explain "the big picture" ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
That the tax(s) on your wages/salary/income is/are constitutional.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid This is "the big picture" answer ???? When have I EVER commented
about wages/salary/"income" being either ? And you claim this is "the big picture" ?
You continue to be ridiculous Abby (abnormal taxes) the entire floor is still laughing over that one.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
So you agree that the income tax is constitutional and it applies to your wages.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I know someone who works for the IRS Her trained "advice" is to Ignor the first five notices. Do you know what that would look like when you go to court ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Like you have a stupid friend?
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid
Again you admit you are stupid.
dude58677 1 year ago
Respond to this video...If you are claiming to be a non-taxpayer one can't have anything to tax then nothing could truly be yours free and clear from Gov. intrusions. Hence the reason I asked if anything was defined in the IRC.
Thanks again for your time. Peace
spitchill 1 year ago
“Much of Becraft’ reply is also devoted to a discussion of the limitations of federal jurisdiction to United States territories and the District of Columbia and thus the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to a resident of one of the states...this claim also has no semblance of merit.” Lowell H. Becraft (United States v. Nelson)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@spitchill
"Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. ‘[T]he word “exclusive” was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.’"
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So it seems that property ownership is dead in the land of the free?
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
That question came out of 'left field'.
Here is a quote for you:
"The difference between the fully capitalized and the first-letter capitalized versions of the Defendants’ names is immaterial, and provides no defense to the claims asserted by the Government.”
US v. Glen H. Stinson
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid "There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of full caps when writing a proper name. To do so is considered a legal fiction."
"Use of the legal fiction JOHN SMITH in place of the proper name John Smith implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, then unless the assumption is proven wrong, it is considered valid."
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis - Which is sort of like accepting a situation where it is assumed that you are guilty until proven not guilty, and the "Law of the Land" is sort of gone out the window unless you protest.
It would seem like the use of the word "difference .. immaterial" is a fib to obscure this trap.
The use of the word "fact" in place of "truth" is just an escape route, although the word "truth" has been abused so badly it has almost lost it's validity... But it is still absolute.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
“Wright brings what he has labeled a ‘motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s lack of standing and misjoinder of parties.’ First, he contends that since the amended complaint states that this action is brought against ‘FLOYD A. WRIGHT’ and his name is ‘Floyd A. Wright’, he is not the proper defendant. ... These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.”
United States v. Wright
Do you have anything to support your claims?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
I don't know where you got that quote, but it's legal crap. There is nothing in any law that makes an all caps name a legal fiction, but there are cases that prove it isn't.
"In summary, because the manner in which plaintiff’s name is spelled, printed, or punctuated on filings in this case does not, in the court’s view, impact on the substance of the pleadings, the court denies plaintiff’s motions to strike as meritless.”
Cris Timothy, Hillman v. Secretary of Treasury
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid It is a bit odd how you use just that against other people, and when you get some you call it "legal crap"..
As there is no support anywhere in the "grammar instructions" for all caps names, they are uncalled for - if not a special meaning is behind it.
One shall demand ones persons name written properly.
That it is not expressed in any law or regulation may be just what makes it a legal fiction.
It is no rare unknown thing that corrupt judges exist.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis Further, a ruling from a corrupt court does not prove anything but corruption, in this matter so much is at stake that it is not any wonder if much effort is put into getting a desired outcome.
"Much effort" is a polite understatement, really.
Anything not rooted in law but practiced as law are fictions if not given substance by contract, which is where the trap is, woe to those who fall for it.
This is the difference between De Jure and De Facto.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
And De Facto and De Jure...there is no legal meaning to an all caps name. If you like I can post a few more cases...unless you are going to claim that EVERY judge is corrupt.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@
How about you find a single authoritative piece of evidence that says an all caps name is a legal fiction? Look back in history and find out WHY all cap names were used.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid "a single authoritative piece of evidence" what authority? What would that be? The goat set as guard of the sack of oats?
Maybe you would be so kind as to tell us all why, then, Doctor.
"there is no legal meaning to an all caps name."
You don't say! So, there is no ground for it, it becomes a construct; a fiction; immaterial.
See the trickery of words?
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
So, you babble a lot, don't you?
You claim that all capital letter names have a legal meaning, but can provide any evidence of that claim, I provide many pieces of evidence that prove it does not mean anything, legally.
That does not mean it does not serve a purpose, it sets apart the names of the participants in legal cases and contracts.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I am not attempting a discussion with you, as you are not here to debate but to profess.
Your evidence, as mentioned, comes from the goat guarding the sack of oats.
As also mentioned, if it has no basis in the law it becomes a fiction, as the law will (shall) not come from fictions but vice versa.
If law emerge from fiction it is not law but more fiction and it will carry the flag of fascism.
Setting apart names does not require all caps names.
The old romans only had capital letters.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis The word person/persona means "mask" or "an act" which indicates that it is not necessarily the real soul that is portrayed, the inner being and spirit so to speak.
Thus, the word is used in commerce, because it is the interface on which one may attach "handles" and act through/on; this is what brand/etat names are - and they can be used as deflectors.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
person: early 13c., from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask,"
So even in Latin it means a human being.
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
"...the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
You keep replying so you must want a disscussion. Your 'goats' analogy is pretty stupid. To get an opinion of what the law means, you need court cases. That is what I posted, if all caps names are to be used by the law for ANY reason, then judges CAN'T say that they have no legal meaning. Why is that so hard for you to understand? The only evidence you have posted to support your claims is just your opinion, which is worthless whenit comes to the law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You always make use of downtalk and namecalling in you intimidation attempts, it chews away at your validity.
This boils down to courts upholding something unlawful and not founded even in grammar rules and instructions. I say unlawful as it is not founded in law, other than what is possibly "made up as we go".
Your citation of the definition of "person" is tainted, as it focuses on a new meaning attached to a word. It is done a lot, but two wrongs don't make one right.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
So you think that YOUR grammar rules outweigh the law?
You don't like Section 8 that proves your claim as absolutely worthless?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid My grammar? No, you go to official grammar sources and see.
"Section 8" .. is that a "lol" I hear? Yes I think it is.
Anyway, "as we go".
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
"as we go".
Is that just a mis-spelled lake?
And yes Section 8 proves you wrong and I am "LOL-ing".
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis The point is, that as there is another meaning to a word or term it may be used and the _assumed_ meaning by the accused may send him/her into the bushes where there be dragons.
It is not difficult to see what this praxis is.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
You are still not making sense, there are clear LEGAL definitions of the term "person" which does not agree with YOUR definition. Your 'all caps name' is also a non-starter as not a single LEGAL source agrees with your claim that it makes a LEGAL difference. That YOU are assuming a false definition of a word is your problem.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Yes, the new and legal definitions "made up as we go" by .. someone. Just someone.
For this to be in effect it must mean that these "someones" owns you and everybody else somehow.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
Nope, those legal definitions have been around for a VERY long time.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Now you are really starting to waste time. I have walked through doors and slept in a bunk older than the consept of the USA. I am talking about milleniæ, and the twisting of words until people don't know anymore what they really mean. I am compiling a work about such things, be patient..
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
That's nice, too bad it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. You are trying to apply a thousand year old meaning to a word (person) that does not have the same definition as when the documents were written.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You can't just go around changing the meaning of words as it suits you, they are not yours to change - do you own them?
One week yes means yes and no means no, the next week yes means yes and no, and no means maybe and no and bubblegum, next week yes means no and no means yes .. or sort of yes, also no, and durr durr?
Words has meaning, already established long ago unless they are new, to doctor this is to mess with peoples property - language.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis
YOU are the one changing meanings of words that have meant the same thing for hundreds of years. You don't know very much about languages in general do you? They change every single day.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@spitchill Make two columns of the 50 Titles. Put all the positive law Titles on the left. Now put all the Non-positive Titles on the right. Study and compare.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid How were his claims false? Please point them out.
spitchill 1 year ago
@spitchill
Do you mean arch, 818 or harrell?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid : His type is "rare, convicted, and sent away"? Hardly! This is the propaganda the IRS wants to put out. Our Founders would have taken arms up against a dictatorial regime as the IRS had they been alive today. Best way to fend off the IRS for business owners is by use of video cameras. When they come crashing into someone's business the jury looks unfavorably on their actions if they're caught on tape. They have a lot of nerve ridiculing Al Capone!
joe80dman 1 year ago
@joe80dman
If you have proof, post it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
You know Retsquid... IF I AM SO "STUPID" THE WHY DO YOU CONTINUE REPLYING TO ME?
ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE NONE OF MY POSTS ARE ON THE FACE OF THE VIDEO?
IF TAX PROTESTORS ARE WRONG, WHY ARGUE ON THESE MESSAGE BOARDS? WHY NOT JUST LET THEM GO TO JAIL?
WHY TRY TO DISCREDIT VIDEOS THAT "90% DOESN'T BELIEVE" AND "ARE FALSE" ANYWAY?
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
You are posting this crap just so your post will be on the top of the list??? You do know that the first few are displayed not only the first one, right? I'm trying to help other people for being sent to jail for believeing the crap that you are posting. I have proved all of your ideas wrong and an independent observer will see that, you are just too hard-headed to see anything outside of your preconcieved ideas.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetSquid 1 year ago
Just some more info
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…” -The constitution
duty = tax for import, export or sale of manufactured good
impost= tax specifically for imports
excises= taxes on manufacture, sale, and consumptions of goods
arch571332 1 year ago
“[duty], is the most comprehensive next to the generical term tax; and practically in Great Britain, (whence we take our general ideas...) embraces taxes on stamps, tolls for passage, etc. etc. and is not confined to taxes on importation only.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
"If the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate other taxes than direct taxes, and duties, imposts, and excises, there is great inaccuracy in their language. If these four species of taxes were all that were meditated, the general power to lay taxes was unnecessary.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796)
“Whether the tax is...an ‘excise’ is...not of critical importance. If not that, it is an ’impost’...or a ‘duty’....”
Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Don't quote me court case, the courts are in on it, just watch the video above. They do the same thing you are doing. You say I wrong but don't outline why.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
As I posted before everyone is out to get you except for those six people that agree with you, right? Have you ever thought about how illogical and..well..just STUPID your ideas are? Are you on medication for your paranoid delusions?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
But nothing I post matters because the Government, courts, congress, et. al. are all completely corrupt and are only out to steal your money, right?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Actually.... Yes!
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
Proof that you are paranoid / stupid / high / mentally deranged. Thank you.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid No it isn't. Anyone who studies history know that government does in fact, in mass.... carry out false flag operations, lie about laws, censor news, censor learning material of things that are facts..... like the Nazis, Stalin, the old Roman government and our government. How is my so called paranoia historically unwarranted.
Retsquid reply: "Its just is.... now I will cite more court cases that don't address the issue to look creditable."
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
You are paranoid, delusional and a liar.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Kudos to Mr. Harrell. The IRS loses again, and a citizen gains his freedom from slavery. Mr. Harrell was very fortunate to have a Juror as the woman wearing the red blouse. We don't need the IRS, the IRS needs us.
joe80dman 1 year ago
@joe80dman
Actually, Woody later lost his case in Federal Court. On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I have not found a single record of Harell ever being convicted. Where did you find that information?
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215 (Cir. Ct. of Logan Co. Ill.).
And: Gaylon L. Harrell v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1998-207, 98 TNT 115-13, No. 7339-95 (6/15/1998), aff'd 1999 TNT 163-9, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5194, No. 98-4120 (7th Cir. 8/19/1999)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are wasting your time with this dipshit. He's citing an amendment that never passed. LOL!!! Further income from labor is considered personal property and not taxable. PERIOD. Leave him to the coolaid. Regards, izzy
izzysykopth 1 year ago
@izzysykopth How am I the dipshit? Read our posts, he just keeps making circular arguments.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332 If you lack the critical thinking and deductive resaoning skills of a doorknob i.e. cant see that you are being bent over and fucked dry by criminals within the FED IRS congress AND the crooked judges that occupy the bench I wont waste my time with a statutory/Constitutional/20th century history lesson for you. Go back to sleep. Fair warning tho: The law of natural selection is about to be employed en masse. The uninformed will be the weak link.
izzysykopth 1 year ago
@izzysykopth
Looks like you will be one of the first to go, as you are SEVERLY uniformed!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@izzysykopth OK, so I think your trying to say you agree with me.
arch571332 1 year ago
@izzysykopth
You are wrong on both items and that is easy to prove, now admit you are wrong and stop lying.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Everyone knows by now that you just make circular arguments. Why don't you try proving your case for a change instead of pretending like you won an argument right after you lost.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
Everyone knows by now that you just make nonsensical arguments, that are only your opinion of things with no facts behind them. Why don't you try and prove your case by posting something factual, not your opinion, just facts?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You never told me where you discovered that Whitey Harrell later lost his case? Where did you find this information?
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215 (Cir. Ct. of Logan Co. Ill.).....Gaylon L. Harrell v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1998-207, 98 TNT 115-13, No. 7339-95 (6/15/1998), aff'd 1999 TNT 163-9, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5194, No. 98-4120 (7th Cir. 8/19/1999).
"there is nothing in petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic gibberish."
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The second trial did not have a jury, yes?
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
"Tax Protester Dossiers"
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Here is the interesting thing. If there is only a judge involved and no jury, then of course he is going to be found guilty because the corrupt judicial system has full control over the verdict.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
OF COURSE!!! Everyone is corrupt except for you, right? Have you always had these delusions? Do you know how STUPID you continue to sound??? No one has ever won a court case (and not paid the income tax), jury or not, using your argument....not...one....person...ever...
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The Government/Judicial system is not everyone but me. You are exaggerating to prove a point you don't have. I have seen you post on every single income tax video I have looked at and you repeat the same arguments over and over with out being able to explain where the law is, or why you would ignore the word "sources" in the tax law without defining.
There is an entire section devoted to defining sources and I can find anywhere in title 26 that would be referenced. Show me the law!
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
You are the one that claims all of the courts/judges/juries..whatever...are corrupt, how can all of them be wrong and a tiny percentage of peope (you tax protestors) be right?
I search for videos like this because people like you keep lying on them and I repeat the same arguments because YOU keep repeating the same stupid claims. Sources of gross income are defined in Section 61.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
"The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a [vast] majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax. That is what the law is. There is no question about it."
-Dan Evans
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Obviously there is a question about it.
You still have not explained why the 861 argument is false. Where is the word "sources" require for definition to have such a section for t 26.
You still have not explained why the income tax is constitutional when it clearly is not. They must be apportioned, they must be either duties, imposts, or excises. How does this give congress the power to directly tax income when it is so obviously forbidden.
You have not given a straight answer.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
“As a citizen of the United States during the years at issue, petitioner is subject to United States Federal income tax on his worldwide income. Sec. 1; Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924); sec 1.1-1(a)(1) and (c), Income Tax Regs. It is unnecessary to determine whether that income was from sources within or without the United States since petitioner is not a nonresident alien. See sec. 861.”
Norman F. Dacey, T.C. Memo 1992-187.
RetSquid 1 year ago
“Petitioner’s reliance on section 861 likewise is misplaced. Petitioner reads section 861 to provide that items not defined therein are not subject to tax. Section 861(a)(1) and (3) provides that interest from the U.S. and compensation for labor or personal services performed in the U.S....are items of gross income which shall be treated as income from sources within the U.S. Nothing in section 861 operates to exclude from income any of petitioner’s receipts.”
Furniss v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
But then again all of the courts are corrupt and Congress is corrupt so all of the laws are corrupt and are totally meaningless, which means your 861 argument is meaningless, right?
And the Constitution gives Congress the power have an unapportioned income tax, so "direct" or "indirect" is meaningless.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid -“Congress shall have the power to lay duties, imposts, and exises.... must be apportioned through the states” ONLY TAX ACTIVITIES
-“the 16th amendment grants congress no new powers of taxation” ACTIVITIES
-““taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions....gross income means all income from whatever source derived......” source means income from foreign activity as though you ONLY TAX ACTIVITIES
-THE FEDERALIST PAPERS do not mention direct taxation once ONLY ACTIVITIES.
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
Again, you forget the second part of "no new powers"..."CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."---Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
"Source" does NOT mean "foreign activity", if it did, why would there even BE a Section 861? There would be logical reason for it to exist.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
“[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed ‘tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish’, and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion.”
Heisey v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@arch571332
If you can only tax "activities", then the act of receiving income is the "activity".
“From the beginning the revenue laws have been interpreted as defining ‘realization’ of income as the taxable event....”
Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 115 (1940)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The original constitution does not permitt the a direct income tax, only on activities
The Allmighty Federalist papers don’t mention a direct income tax, ony taxing activities
The 861 issue looks like a circuspect way of saying a tax on foreign activites
An it was declared that the 16th amendment gave no new powers of taxation to congress as though it was just written to fool us.
Everything backs me up but the f***ing government which has motive to lie!
SLAM DUNK YOU SON OF A B****!
arch571332 1 year ago
@arch571332
The Constitution was changed by the 16th Amendment. The Federalist papers are NOT "Allmighty", only a good source of information. Everything backs you up except for the Government, the Law, the Congress, the Constitution, the Courts and the vast majority of the Population. Do they all have a motive to lie? Or is it just you that has the motive?
You already know you have lost this debate, only losers feel the need to swear at their opponent. :)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You don't have any real rebuttle at all and you have yet to explain why any of those things, except the government don't back me up.
You cannot just say "thats not true!" and then declare that you have won the argument or made a point.
I explained why I thought of the U.S. code, you said I was wrong but did not explain
I outline that part of the constitution which specified non- direct taxes, you just say I'm wrong
I explain that the Federalist papers...ect... and you say no
arch571332 1 year ago