PNWScout2 ...I would like to thank you for sitting here and putting up with ret to prove your point. You did a great job of showing the facts. This helps for those trying too see the big picture.
PNWScout2 ....GREAT job buddy!!! I can see you have clearly done your homework too!!! I have done my homework to. I have spent many years now looking into this matter and also looking into the the straw man theory . Its really quit scary when u wake up and see the big picture and learn the history behind it all.
This lady did a awesome job!!! She is not only sticking up for the people in here county she is sticking up for all of us. This lady clearly has some big balls to get up there and set them straight!!! I would love to be friends with this lady she has clearly done here homework!!!
Yes you could see them squirming in there seats, as someone here had stated. I like after she has presented all these problems and scams going on,
They ask here if they change the name on one document will she be happy...lmao were they freaken kidding....I bet that old lady wanted to smack the shit out of that guy!!! lol
I think its time for the sheeple o' I mean people to wake up and do there home work!!!
See what shes saying is NOTICE of lein. You have to have a Judge give a judgement to put a lein on a property. These IRS tax theives. Just slip in a NOTICE of lein. So its a trick. The county puts up with this. Files all deeds for taxation. County property taxes are a fraud because. They are not a King. Its stealing from God. Churchs pay no taxes. They understand whats going on.
See they had to create a district linked to a state. To make this half way legal. Don't show up in any federal court (maryland) they can't do anything to you.
All they will send is nasty letters. Just like the collection agencys that don't want usury laws tested in court. Don't ever show up on marylands property all they can do is issue opinions by the way.
The fact they do have a central government. Which is really no goverment. Just a lot of hot wind put out by their business partners the Bank owned media. They get the usury and the people that run this scam get the taxes. They live really well I bet a regular person does not even know where these politicians or even their mail carrier lives. They live really well on this fraud.
Whats actually funny are the people that respond to something like this in a negative matter. The greasy indiginous people of this land love perpetrating fraud. The Central government is a fraud. What they are saying christian bible wise. AND THEY KNOW BETTER. Is that God backs our authority and to tax. He does not. God has only made provision for a King to have tribute or tax.
blah blah blah!!! This is just to much bullshit! All I need to know is that the Real Luciferian's that made this B.S. are robbing you! It is illegal or you wouldn't have all these people complaining about it! Why is there always all this fucking code here and there! HUH!! ITS CALL THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!! FIGURE THE FUCK WHY WE BECAME AMERICA!! Figure out why we got out of Britain's fucking taxing ways. Its simple learn that Satan rules this world and stop coming up with bullshit!
@WEAREREALNEWS this really doesn't make that much sense, but then again it does. It's illegal point blank, all they have done is put a whole bunch of code here and there. So noone can really understand it! How about this when you really want to save America for these Satanists e-mail me. BTW i'm not kidding they really do worship Satan!
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 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).
So once again Ret, where is it stated that Congress has given the Treasury authoritive powers?
Title 31 U.S.C., Chapter 3 is entitled "Department of the Treasury". It clearly shows the Federal agencies actually created by law through Acts of Congress. Where's the iRS Ret?
Not to mention the fact that you can go to the IRS's own website and search for the individual code or codes which specifies the liability of tax for u.s. citizens and come up with nothing. The IRS's own website doesn't even post the so-called laws which they say applies. There's a legal reason for this Ret. You don't think it's just coincidental do you?
So Ret by you reading the "Grace Commission" you've just conceeded that none of the income tax dollars goes to any of the services claimed by lies that it does. It all goes solely to paying off the deficit.
Correct, and it wrote the report TO HIM. Ahhh you see how you're holding me to my exact wording Ret, why don't you do that with the so-called income tax laws Ret? You're being a little more lax with them.
You obviously dont know who you are .are you a United states citizen? or are you an American ? are you an individual from any other country on earth working in the united states, What are you ? after you decide then look inside title 26 and pay for your privilege to be here. if you are exempt, then live free. but obey the law.
Alright Ret here's what I promised earlier for you to try and prove wrong about the IRS not being a legal government agency. Title 31 U.S.C., Chapter 3 is entitled "Department of the Treasury". It clearly shows the Federal agencies actually created by law through Acts of Congress. Within this code you'll see a list of legal government agencies, what you won't see is the IRS listed there. Why not Ret? If it actually is to exist by law then why isn't it there Ret?
(cont. part 2) Because the IRS is NOT found in this list, it cannot legitimately claim to be a Congressional agency. It is nothing more than a mere (internal) office of the Treasury with authority over internal Federal affairs. IF it doesn't need to be listed here, then why are all the others listed Ret?
(cont.part3) If a Department or Bureau within the Treasury is not shown in this list of statutes (within this Title), then it cannot be anything more than the Treasury itself, and, of course, cannot possess any more power than the Treasury itself possesses. The Treasury, if you remember, is a Cabinet position within the Executive branch of the government. Have you read your Constitution yet Ret? If you have then you should already know this Mr. Patriotic Navy man.
If a Department or Bureau within the Treasury is not shown in this list of statutes (within this Title), then it cannot be anything more than the Treasury itself, and, of course, cannot possess any more power than the Treasury itself possesses.The Treasury, if you remember,according to the Constitution, is a Cabinet position within the Executive branch of the government.
EXACTLY what will you find Ret when you examine the statute claimed by the IRS as the justification for its existence and power: 26 USC Sec. 7802. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Assistant Commissioners; Taxpayer Advocate- (cont.)
26 USC 7802 states- (a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.Can the Secretary of the Treasury prescribe powers and authorities applicable outside of the administration of the Federal government ??
Where is it written in the Constitution Ret which allows the treasury to have authoritive powers?? Notice Ret that this statute does not actually create a Federal Agency, or Bureau, or even an office, It merely creates the "Officer", without even creating any "office" for him to hold. So once again how can the IRS be considered even a legal agency when it isn't even listed by Congress to be one?
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 63 > Subchapter A > §6201. Assessment authority
(a) Authority of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title,
So where's the authority for the creation of the IRS Ret? You've just merely copied and pasted what I mentioned earlier thus further backing up my claims....Thanks Ret. You should have a better understanding of what you're posting before posting it Ret.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury So like I said earlier Ret, How does the treasury have any enforcement power?
You seem to be stuck in a rut
How so Ret? there are many proven facts which lead to the illegality of the income tax being wrongfully applied to citizens. This in itself is just a small ingredient of the corruption pie, how's that pie taste anyway Ret?
Congress authorized it. Pay attention Ret here's some more learning for you if you want to become a true American Patriot- The Treasury, if you remember, is a Cabinet position within the Executive branch of the government. Since it is within the Executive Branch of government, it can ONLY exercise those powers actually possessed by the Executive Branch, over internal Federal affairs.
(cont.part2) Without Congressional enactment (statute) extending power for a particular "bureau" into the 50 States, ALL Treasury operations are INTERNAL to the administration of the U.S. government, and there is no legal authority over the public that exists, or that can be legitimately established ! Indeed this is EXACTLY what we find when we examine the statute claimed by the IRS as the justification for its existence and power.
Ummm, No Ret, Congress never enacted Title 26 into positive law, you obviously haven't googled that, or you did and your just still in denial to the fact you can't believe you've been lied to all this time.
Just like Title 10 is the Military.
You are correct there, and Title 10 was enacted into positive law by Congress Ret. Hmmm imagine that. Is this getting to complex for you to understand Ret?
26 USC Sec. 7802. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Assistant Commissioners; Taxpayer Advocate- (a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
So you see Ret once again as usual you your false beliefs are basewd upon lies which you've been told over your lifetime and brainwashed into believing them. Better go back and reread your constitution, if you even have one in your household!! Every true patriotic American should have a copy of the constitution in their possession.
What you've posted Ret, is the authority of the Secretary, not the authority for the creation of the IRS.....Shall we jump to a different subject now Ret?
Once more here ya go Ret. TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 63 > Subchapter A > §6201. Assessment authority Hey Ret you forgot to post the rest of that code, here it is- imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DULY PAID BY STAMP at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
Now Ret you see within that code the words "which have not been duly paid by stamp"? Are subtitle A taxes payable by stamp Ret? No Ret, TAX STAMPS ONLY apply to alcohol and tobacco products, not your income Ret........Next. keep trying though Ret it was a good try.
If you read on you will see that it also covers income tax.
Ya for the THE SUBTITLE E, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes that are properly authorized for collection by imposed assessment (based on the un-stamped inventory items that have been found in the businesss stores, warehouses, boats, trucks, etc.)! Like I said earlier the code you posted only deals with income which can be payable with a tax stamp Ret, can your income be payable with a tax stamp Ret?
Did you read where it said "ALL taxes imposed by this Title"? So now we get to determine "Which taxes" are imposed by that title Ret? and if we're talking about Title 26 then only foreign taxes are imposed in that title Ret. Besides it's been proven that Congress never enacted Title 26 into positive law Ret.
Now Ret, which specific code directly states that it's authorizing a tax on the typical citizen earning a domestic income since you're so positive there is one?
Where does it say that this Law, made in the US does NOT apply to Citizens? Like I've told you numerous times before Ret. TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7806 Says that codes which have not been enacted into positive law cannot be given any legal effect. Now since Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, Where does it state, once again Ret, where an authorization for the income tax is aurhorized for the typical citizen?
Wrong again. It does not mention positive law at all. I know because Title 26 and all of it's contents as a whole have never been properly enacted into positive law.
Correct, but each individual part of Title 26 HAS been enacted into law. So it's still law.
You are high on meds again aren't you? You can't have Title 26 not being enacted into positive law yet have it's contents enacted into positive law. Title 26 and all of it's contents fall under the title 26 otherwise the contents wouldn't be considered title 26.
The status of a particular provision in a title that is "non-positive" law has no bearing on the "legality" of that provision except to the extent that the text of the Code does not exactly match the Act of Congress as published in the United States Statutes at Large that is the source of the provision.
Ya exactly so if Congress has the only authority to pass the tax laws and congress has never enacted title 26 into "tax law" how can another code be enforced if congress did not give the authority to do so?
Congress passed tax laws and put them all together and called it 'Title 26' Ya ok Ret. I see this is your lame-brain rendition of how you think it works when in reality it works like this, according to the House of Representatives Ret,Positive law codification is the process of preparing and enacting, one title at a time, a revision and restatement of the general and permanent laws of the United States. One title at a time Ret, not specific codes within the title.
Can YOU tell me how a law (Title 26) written in the US does not apply to residents of the US? Because Tax law has to have 3 things 1)The subject of the tax. 2) The amount of the tax; and 3)The persons or entities liable for the tax. Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much. For example- (cont.)
The income tax law, however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision applicable to those the IRS claims are liable for the tax. For example- Estate Tax: 26 U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable for the tax.
FICA: 26 U.S.C. § 3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the tax.
Railroad Retirement Tax: 26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the tax.
Employment Taxes in General: 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability Luxury Passenger Automobile Excise Tax: 26 U.S.C. §§ 4002 and 4003 specify who is primarily liable and who is secondarily liable. Tire Manufacture Excise Tax: 26 U.S.C. § 4071 specifies who is liable for the tax Tax on Wagers: 26 U.S.C. § 4401 specifically states who is liable for the tax. Wagering Occupational Tax: 26 U.S.C. § 4411. and many others.
Now Ret, the mere fact that there is no specific code which addresses the liability of a tax imposed on the typical working people is more then enough proof to those with even half a brain that the income tax does not apply to those citizens earning a domestic income. Show the specific code again Ret.
Now we said Title 26 was never enacted into positive law, so it doesn't apply but I'll still prove you wrong here Ret. Look at the word "person" that is considered a "legal term" under title 26, look at title 26 definitions, because it is considered a "legal term" and has been defined as not to have it's "common word" term like it is deceived to apply. The legal term person under title 26 has been defined as an officer of a corporation or partnership. Does this apply to you?
You're looking up the wrong word, try looking up 'individual'...There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— (1) every married individual...
Ok let's look at that statement you've posted and instead of looking at individual let's look at the term "taxable income", How does one know if he has taxable income when in fact the codes themselves don't define the term "income" how does one know if they have "Taxable Income?"
Since the term "Taxable income" comes before the word "Individual" we have to see if that taxable income pertains to those so-called individuals. How do we do that Ret? How do we find out if those individuals have "Taxable Income" Ret.
If you sign and return the 1040 form you are voluntarily giving up your freedom under the preamble of the Constitution , and yes you will pay . Just like when you promise to pay your credit card statement with one exception ,with your credit card you will receive goods. With your 1040 you get to be a taxpayer/slave for life.
I think Samual Adams was quoting this directly to you Ret when he said-
Samual Adams:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!!!
Where'd ya go Ret, you were just here a few minutes ago debating? Must be visiting the tax protestor faq website to see if anythings listed to disprove the various assortment of info you've just been shown. Good Luck!!
I have to sleep sometime, I'm a full time student. Ya I can understand the sleep, it was a little late , but shouldn't you be all done with school since you're retired?
What does that have to do with the LEGALITY of income tax? I see you really aren't paying attention are you? This point was made in reference to you thinking our taxes were paying for your GI Bill when in fact they aren't. Just proving your misconception of the lies you've been told. Which is much like the lies of the income tax laws that you've been told.
They are legal when it comes to foreign based income enforcement. The application of the income tax law being applied to typical citizens earning a domestic income make them illegally applied!!
We've argued this before but since you weren't paying attention why don't you google the fact that "title 26 was never enacted into positive law" there's your proof if you can read.
The end result is that the IRS is a creature of "positive law" because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff's own "positive law" premise, then, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a "private corporation." It enjoys the sovereign immunity of the United States, and thus is entitled to summary judgment in this cause of action.
You obviously dont know who you are .are you a United states citizen? or are you an American ? are you an individual from any other country on earth working in the united states, What are you ? after you decide then look inside title 26 and pay for your privilege to be here. if you are exempt, then live free. but obey the law.
If you promise to play nice and study hard I will give you a searchable copy of title 26 in its 2002 entirety . So you can have a good discussion on tax law and also when watching a U-tube video you can look up the entire tax law section. Title 26 is the law , the IRS. must obey. Not their office regulations.
It is 13 meg. and is in abobe 8.1 send e-mail address large enough to hold .
study hard, I will give you a searchable copy of title 26 in its 2002 entirety . So you can have a Educated discussion on tax law and also when watching a U-tube video you can look up the entire tax law section. Title 26 is the law , the IRS. must obey. Not their office regulations.
It is 13 meg. and is in abobe 8.1 send e-mail address large enough to hold .
All tax laws must be interpreted literally, what lawyers call strict construction. You have a right to insist that the government obey the law and in the case of tax laws, the letter of the law. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE unless you are withholding taxes on a nonresident alien or a foreign corporation, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR AN INCOME TAX!
Tax laws are clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests and are, therefore, subject to strict construction, and any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax. In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction:
"Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff'd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."
Yowza!! Look at all those tax fraud cases ruling in favor of the citizen.
That line you quoted is nowhere in that case: Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914) That's because you couldn't find it, moron!! Keep going to school you need it!!
That line you quoted is nowhere in that case: Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914) I know this to be a proven fact and it's already been through court recently as well. You just don't have access to court documents like you think you do. Your lack of access to qualified legal information is your downfall Ret.
How about you show me the best sites to get this 'information'? Nah, not yet, I'm gonna add that to the ever growing list of items I refuse to show you.
"it's already been through court recently as well"
If it has then put that case up here.
"You just don't have access to court documents like you think you do"
Where do you get your info? Facebook?
Look at the way you answer these posts, you say I'm wrong, but with no proof. Then you change the subject, or start a personal attack. When you do that people will see that you have conceded the point as lost.
Look at the way you answer these posts, you say I'm wrong, but with no proof. Then you change the subject, or start a personal attack. When you do that people will see that you have conceded the point as lost. ROFLMAO!!!!!!BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHA!!!
To the fact that you support a government that: fleeces all of its citizens, lies, cheats, steals, murders at home and abroad, neglects the poor, neglects the family, neglects and brainwashes the child, rapes the environment, destroys the quality of food, is concerned only for the welfare of the very rich, obscures the truth, and systematically removes every constitutional right of its citizens.
So as you can see Ret there's many many more court cases ruling against the legality of the income tax in favor for the citizen then just the common ones which you can go to a tax protestor faq website and dismiss such as Pollock, Brushaber, Evans, etc. You get the picture.
You are incorrect, there is no section in all of title 26 that says an American must file a tax return. Only the ones I quoted earlier are listed in title 26
You really are as dense as a shit brick aren't you Ret? I haven't lost anything, there's more then just "one" argument as to why the income tax doesn't apply to typical citizens you moron. By me jumping around I'm merely disproving your B.S. posts such as this.
Then give just one RATIONAL argument You haven't been paying attention have you? If you start calling names then you have already lost. Truth hurts dont it?
Like I said before Ret. I'll believe the existance of a non-existant law when the IRS can come forward with those laws and show cause of them, NOT YOU!! You have proven to us and everyone else here that you know nothing about proper interpretation of the laws, you have no legal background Ret. That's like trusting a butcher to do open heart surgery on you Ret. It's not gonna happen.
The best way to lower your odds further is by following the advice of IRS spokesman Robert Marvin: "Taxpayers should take deductions and credits that they are legitimately entitled to and that make economic sense," Marvin said. "They also should keep accurate books and records." So this is another Quote from "The Spokesman" should you not listen to him since he doesn't know what he's yalking about?
Most of the people you cite are in jail or on thier way there No most of them are NOT in jail, the only ones that are, are the ones who've had their "due process" rights violated from a corrupt judge whom wouldn't allow the defense to show proof of a non-existant law. Besides it's proven fact that most attornies don't know shit from shineola about tax laws other then what the IRS has taught them.
The law is there, you have to prove that it doen't say what nearly everyone else says it does
Already have proven it and so have others. The reason people thinks it says what it doesn't is because they've been told that it does all their life. Are you a lawyer? Have you been trained in the law? Would you believe me then if I told you I was and I had?
Don't worry about me, I'll keep posting the truth about laws that you say don't exist.
Ya and I'll keep posting the truth showing your so-called laws are bullshit to anyone with a brain that can interpret the laws for how they're legally written. Let them decide for themselves Ret. You don't decide for them!
Explain this then- Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment." You see Ret. You think you know the law when in fact you don't! That's why the IRS refuses to show a law, it's because they can't, they know there isn't one. Actions speak louder then words Ret. and they're sure speaking loudly lately.
One spokesman has a 'no comment' and you think it invalidates decades of laws?
Shouldn't an IRS spokesman know the tax laws if they're to be an IRS spokesman? He does and he couldn't cite any law becasue he knew there were none! However it's not just one spokesman Ret, it's the whole IRS, they fail to cite the specific code which authorizes a tax on typical citizens. That's just one of the many many arguments of the "Tax Fraud" movement.
He's a spokesman not a tax expert. A spokesman rarely knows the details of whatever they are spokesman of.
Ok Ret, Whatever, that's just plain comical of a response from you, I was only joking about taking your meds but I guess it clearly shows now that you have been.
PNWScout2 ...I would like to thank you for sitting here and putting up with ret to prove your point. You did a great job of showing the facts. This helps for those trying too see the big picture.
ssupermann101shane 1 year ago
PNWScout2 ....GREAT job buddy!!! I can see you have clearly done your homework too!!! I have done my homework to. I have spent many years now looking into this matter and also looking into the the straw man theory . Its really quit scary when u wake up and see the big picture and learn the history behind it all.
ssupermann101shane 1 year ago
This lady did a awesome job!!! She is not only sticking up for the people in here county she is sticking up for all of us. This lady clearly has some big balls to get up there and set them straight!!! I would love to be friends with this lady she has clearly done here homework!!!
Yes you could see them squirming in there seats, as someone here had stated. I like after she has presented all these problems and scams going on,
ssupermann101shane 1 year ago
They ask here if they change the name on one document will she be happy...lmao were they freaken kidding....I bet that old lady wanted to smack the shit out of that guy!!! lol
I think its time for the sheeple o' I mean people to wake up and do there home work!!!
ssupermann101shane 1 year ago
See what shes saying is NOTICE of lein. You have to have a Judge give a judgement to put a lein on a property. These IRS tax theives. Just slip in a NOTICE of lein. So its a trick. The county puts up with this. Files all deeds for taxation. County property taxes are a fraud because. They are not a King. Its stealing from God. Churchs pay no taxes. They understand whats going on.
lrrrosterman 1 year ago
See they had to create a district linked to a state. To make this half way legal. Don't show up in any federal court (maryland) they can't do anything to you.
All they will send is nasty letters. Just like the collection agencys that don't want usury laws tested in court. Don't ever show up on marylands property all they can do is issue opinions by the way.
lrrrosterman 1 year ago
The fact they do have a central government. Which is really no goverment. Just a lot of hot wind put out by their business partners the Bank owned media. They get the usury and the people that run this scam get the taxes. They live really well I bet a regular person does not even know where these politicians or even their mail carrier lives. They live really well on this fraud.
lrrrosterman 1 year ago
Whats actually funny are the people that respond to something like this in a negative matter. The greasy indiginous people of this land love perpetrating fraud. The Central government is a fraud. What they are saying christian bible wise. AND THEY KNOW BETTER. Is that God backs our authority and to tax. He does not. God has only made provision for a King to have tribute or tax.
lrrrosterman 1 year ago
blah blah blah!!! This is just to much bullshit! All I need to know is that the Real Luciferian's that made this B.S. are robbing you! It is illegal or you wouldn't have all these people complaining about it! Why is there always all this fucking code here and there! HUH!! ITS CALL THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!! FIGURE THE FUCK WHY WE BECAME AMERICA!! Figure out why we got out of Britain's fucking taxing ways. Its simple learn that Satan rules this world and stop coming up with bullshit!
WEAREREALNEWS 1 year ago
@WEAREREALNEWS this really doesn't make that much sense, but then again it does. It's illegal point blank, all they have done is put a whole bunch of code here and there. So noone can really understand it! How about this when you really want to save America for these Satanists e-mail me. BTW i'm not kidding they really do worship Satan!
WEAREREALNEWS 1 year ago
ROFL people trying to get all lawyerly and stuff! HOW ABOUT CONGRESS AND THE IRS SHOW ME THE FUCKING LAW!
WEAREREALNEWS 1 year ago
@WEAREREALNEWS
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 is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 1 year ago
Great looking video.....(clearing throat)
Seriously, isn't there a visible copy?
gold95 3 years ago
Well write a letter to the treasury and see if you own them any money..........bet you don't.
Flohoff 3 years ago
So once again Ret, where is it stated that Congress has given the Treasury authoritive powers?
Title 31 U.S.C., Chapter 3 is entitled "Department of the Treasury". It clearly shows the Federal agencies actually created by law through Acts of Congress. Where's the iRS Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You feel yourself getting any smarter yet Ret? Remember Ret "Ignorance can be cured through knowledge, however stupidity remains forever."
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I'm learning all the time, You seem to be stuck in a rut.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Not to mention the fact that you can go to the IRS's own website and search for the individual code or codes which specifies the liability of tax for u.s. citizens and come up with nothing. The IRS's own website doesn't even post the so-called laws which they say applies. There's a legal reason for this Ret. You don't think it's just coincidental do you?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
So Ret by you reading the "Grace Commission" you've just conceeded that none of the income tax dollars goes to any of the services claimed by lies that it does. It all goes solely to paying off the deficit.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Do you think that the Gov't has a special box in a bank marked 'income tax only'? It all goes into a general fund and is spent from there.
You could just as easily say that the income tax pays 'X' amount of the Defense budget.
RetSquid 3 years ago
You obviously have never read "The Grace Commission" from the former President Ronald Reagan have you Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Actually it was 'to' not 'from' President Reagan, and yes I did.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Actually it was 'to' not 'from' President Reagan, and yes I did. Wrong again Ret as usual for you, the commitee was put together by Ronald Reagan.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"commitee was put together by Ronald Reagan. "
Correct, and it wrote the report TO HIM.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Correct, and it wrote the report TO HIM. Ahhh you see how you're holding me to my exact wording Ret, why don't you do that with the so-called income tax laws Ret? You're being a little more lax with them.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You obviously dont know who you are .are you a United states citizen? or are you an American ? are you an individual from any other country on earth working in the united states, What are you ? after you decide then look inside title 26 and pay for your privilege to be here. if you are exempt, then live free. but obey the law.
permlock 3 years ago
Alright Ret here's what I promised earlier for you to try and prove wrong about the IRS not being a legal government agency. Title 31 U.S.C., Chapter 3 is entitled "Department of the Treasury". It clearly shows the Federal agencies actually created by law through Acts of Congress. Within this code you'll see a list of legal government agencies, what you won't see is the IRS listed there. Why not Ret? If it actually is to exist by law then why isn't it there Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(cont. part 2) Because the IRS is NOT found in this list, it cannot legitimately claim to be a Congressional agency. It is nothing more than a mere (internal) office of the Treasury with authority over internal Federal affairs. IF it doesn't need to be listed here, then why are all the others listed Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(cont.part3) If a Department or Bureau within the Treasury is not shown in this list of statutes (within this Title), then it cannot be anything more than the Treasury itself, and, of course, cannot possess any more power than the Treasury itself possesses. The Treasury, if you remember, is a Cabinet position within the Executive branch of the government. Have you read your Constitution yet Ret? If you have then you should already know this Mr. Patriotic Navy man.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
If a Department or Bureau within the Treasury is not shown in this list of statutes (within this Title), then it cannot be anything more than the Treasury itself, and, of course, cannot possess any more power than the Treasury itself possesses.The Treasury, if you remember,according to the Constitution, is a Cabinet position within the Executive branch of the government.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
EXACTLY what will you find Ret when you examine the statute claimed by the IRS as the justification for its existence and power: 26 USC Sec. 7802. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Assistant Commissioners; Taxpayer Advocate- (cont.)
PNWScout2 3 years ago
26 USC 7802 states- (a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.Can the Secretary of the Treasury prescribe powers and authorities applicable outside of the administration of the Federal government ??
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Where is it written in the Constitution Ret which allows the treasury to have authoritive powers?? Notice Ret that this statute does not actually create a Federal Agency, or Bureau, or even an office, It merely creates the "Officer", without even creating any "office" for him to hold. So once again how can the IRS be considered even a legal agency when it isn't even listed by Congress to be one?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"why isn't it there"
Because it is covered under Title 26.
It is still a part of the Treasury.
RetSquid 3 years ago
It is still a part of the Treasury.
Exactly Ret and since when does the Treasury have authoritive powers Ret? Because it is covered under Title 26. Where at Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 63 > Subchapter A > §6201. Assessment authority
(a) Authority of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title,
RetSquid 3 years ago
So where's the authority for the creation of the IRS Ret? You've just merely copied and pasted what I mentioned earlier thus further backing up my claims....Thanks Ret. You should have a better understanding of what you're posting before posting it Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
RetSquid 3 years ago
the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury So like I said earlier Ret, How does the treasury have any enforcement power?
You seem to be stuck in a rut
How so Ret? there are many proven facts which lead to the illegality of the income tax being wrongfully applied to citizens. This in itself is just a small ingredient of the corruption pie, how's that pie taste anyway Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
How does the treasury have any enforcement power?
Congress authorized it.
"how's that pie taste anyway Ret?"
How's that TP Kool-Aid?
RetSquid 3 years ago
How's that TP Kool-Aid? Alot better then that corruption pie I'm sure of it.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
How does the treasury have any enforcement power?
Congress authorized it. Pay attention Ret here's some more learning for you if you want to become a true American Patriot- The Treasury, if you remember, is a Cabinet position within the Executive branch of the government. Since it is within the Executive Branch of government, it can ONLY exercise those powers actually possessed by the Executive Branch, over internal Federal affairs.
(cont.part1)
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(cont.part2) Without Congressional enactment (statute) extending power for a particular "bureau" into the 50 States, ALL Treasury operations are INTERNAL to the administration of the U.S. government, and there is no legal authority over the public that exists, or that can be legitimately established ! Indeed this is EXACTLY what we find when we examine the statute claimed by the IRS as the justification for its existence and power.
(cont.)
PNWScout2 3 years ago
They did enact it, it's Title 26.
Just like Title 10 is the Military.
RetSquid 3 years ago
They did enact it, it's Title 26
Ummm, No Ret, Congress never enacted Title 26 into positive law, you obviously haven't googled that, or you did and your just still in denial to the fact you can't believe you've been lied to all this time.
Just like Title 10 is the Military.
You are correct there, and Title 10 was enacted into positive law by Congress Ret. Hmmm imagine that. Is this getting to complex for you to understand Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Would you understand it better if I had said,"They did enact it, it's IN Title 26"?
RetSquid 3 years ago
(cont.part3)
26 USC Sec. 7802. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Assistant Commissioners; Taxpayer Advocate- (a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(cont.)
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(cont.part4)
So you see Ret once again as usual you your false beliefs are basewd upon lies which you've been told over your lifetime and brainwashed into believing them. Better go back and reread your constitution, if you even have one in your household!! Every true patriotic American should have a copy of the constitution in their possession.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
What you've posted Ret, is the authority of the Secretary, not the authority for the creation of the IRS.....Shall we jump to a different subject now Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Once more here ya go Ret. TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 63 > Subchapter A > §6201. Assessment authority Hey Ret you forgot to post the rest of that code, here it is- imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DULY PAID BY STAMP at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Now Ret you see within that code the words "which have not been duly paid by stamp"? Are subtitle A taxes payable by stamp Ret? No Ret, TAX STAMPS ONLY apply to alcohol and tobacco products, not your income Ret........Next. keep trying though Ret it was a good try.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
If you read on you will see that it also covers income tax.
RetSquid 3 years ago
If you read on you will see that it also covers income tax.
Ya for the THE SUBTITLE E, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes that are properly authorized for collection by imposed assessment (based on the un-stamped inventory items that have been found in the businesss stores, warehouses, boats, trucks, etc.)! Like I said earlier the code you posted only deals with income which can be payable with a tax stamp Ret, can your income be payable with a tax stamp Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Did you read where it said "ALL taxes imposed by this Title"? Not a subtitle, the entire Title. It also expressly says "Income taxes".
RetSquid 3 years ago
Did you read where it said "ALL taxes imposed by this Title"? So now we get to determine "Which taxes" are imposed by that title Ret? and if we're talking about Title 26 then only foreign taxes are imposed in that title Ret. Besides it's been proven that Congress never enacted Title 26 into positive law Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Now Ret, which specific code directly states that it's authorizing a tax on the typical citizen earning a domestic income since you're so positive there is one?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
So here it is: Title 26
Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
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.
Where does it say that this Law, made in the US does NOT apply to Citizens?
RetSquid 3 years ago
Where does it say that this Law, made in the US does NOT apply to Citizens? Like I've told you numerous times before Ret. TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7806 Says that codes which have not been enacted into positive law cannot be given any legal effect. Now since Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, Where does it state, once again Ret, where an authorization for the income tax is aurhorized for the typical citizen?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Wrong again. It does not mention positive law at all.
It says that you can't draw any conclusions from "Arrangement and classification" or from "Cross references".
Can YOU tell me how a law (Title 26) written in the US does not apply to residents of the US?
RetSquid 3 years ago
Wrong again. It does not mention positive law at all. I know because Title 26 and all of it's contents as a whole have never been properly enacted into positive law.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"all of it's contents as a whole have never been properly enacted into positive law"
Correct, but each individual part of Title 26 HAS been enacted into law. So it's still law.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Correct, but each individual part of Title 26 HAS been enacted into law. So it's still law.
You are high on meds again aren't you? You can't have Title 26 not being enacted into positive law yet have it's contents enacted into positive law. Title 26 and all of it's contents fall under the title 26 otherwise the contents wouldn't be considered title 26.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Now you need to expain how something can be enacted into law yet not be the law.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Now you need to expain how something can be enacted into law yet not be the law.
What was enacted into positive law Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
The status of a particular provision in a title that is "non-positive" law has no bearing on the "legality" of that provision except to the extent that the text of the Code does not exactly match the Act of Congress as published in the United States Statutes at Large that is the source of the provision.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Ya exactly so if Congress has the only authority to pass the tax laws and congress has never enacted title 26 into "tax law" how can another code be enforced if congress did not give the authority to do so?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Congress passed tax laws and put them all together and called it 'Title 26'.
What other 'code' are you talking about?
RetSquid 3 years ago
Congress passed tax laws and put them all together and called it 'Title 26' Ya ok Ret. I see this is your lame-brain rendition of how you think it works when in reality it works like this, according to the House of Representatives Ret,Positive law codification is the process of preparing and enacting, one title at a time, a revision and restatement of the general and permanent laws of the United States. One title at a time Ret, not specific codes within the title.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I've already agreed that Title 26 is not positive law. BUT the entire contents of Title 26 IS LAW.
RetSquid 3 years ago
I've already agreed that Title 26 is not positive law. BUT the entire contents of Title 26 IS LAW. How does that work Ret?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You ever watch "School House Rock"?
That might explain it on a level you can understand.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Congress passed tax laws and put them all together and called it 'Title 26'
And Congress failed to enact them...er....uh...they have yet to enact title 26 and all of title 26's contents!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"And Congress failed to enact them...er....uh...they have yet to enact title 26 and all of title 26's contents"
WRONG, everything in Title 26 has been enacted as law.
You need to look up what 'positive law' really is.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Can YOU tell me how a law (Title 26) written in the US does not apply to residents of the US? Because Tax law has to have 3 things 1)The subject of the tax. 2) The amount of the tax; and 3)The persons or entities liable for the tax. Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much. For example- (cont.)
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(cont.part2)
The income tax law, however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision applicable to those the IRS claims are liable for the tax. For example- Estate Tax: 26 U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable for the tax.
FICA: 26 U.S.C. § 3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the tax.
Railroad Retirement Tax: 26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the tax.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(cont.part3)
Employment Taxes in General: 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability Luxury Passenger Automobile Excise Tax: 26 U.S.C. §§ 4002 and 4003 specify who is primarily liable and who is secondarily liable. Tire Manufacture Excise Tax: 26 U.S.C. § 4071 specifies who is liable for the tax Tax on Wagers: 26 U.S.C. § 4401 specifically states who is liable for the tax. Wagering Occupational Tax: 26 U.S.C. § 4411. and many others.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
(Cont.part4)
Now Ret, the mere fact that there is no specific code which addresses the liability of a tax imposed on the typical working people is more then enough proof to those with even half a brain that the income tax does not apply to those citizens earning a domestic income. Show the specific code again Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
Tax imposed...(a)[PERSON LIABLE]Married individuals...If[SUBJECT]taxable income is: [AMOUNT] Not over $36,900 The tax is: 15% of taxable income...
RetSquid 3 years ago
Now we said Title 26 was never enacted into positive law, so it doesn't apply but I'll still prove you wrong here Ret. Look at the word "person" that is considered a "legal term" under title 26, look at title 26 definitions, because it is considered a "legal term" and has been defined as not to have it's "common word" term like it is deceived to apply. The legal term person under title 26 has been defined as an officer of a corporation or partnership. Does this apply to you?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You're looking up the wrong word, try looking up 'individual'...There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— (1) every married individual...
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
RetSquid 3 years ago
1) Person
The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
And where did you find this definition of "person" at?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
RetSquid 3 years ago
There is no section in all of title 26 that says an American must file a tax return. Only the ones I quoted earlier are listed in title 26
permlock 3 years ago
WRONG.
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...
RetSquid 3 years ago
Absolutely correct permlock
PNWScout2 3 years ago
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income a) General rule
RET SQ Who is required ? ( it doesn't say)
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...
permlock 3 years ago
You're looking up the wrong word, try looking up 'individual'...There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— (1) every married individual...
Ok let's look at that statement you've posted and instead of looking at individual let's look at the term "taxable income", How does one know if he has taxable income when in fact the codes themselves don't define the term "income" how does one know if they have "Taxable Income?"
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Since the term "Taxable income" comes before the word "Individual" we have to see if that taxable income pertains to those so-called individuals. How do we do that Ret? How do we find out if those individuals have "Taxable Income" Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Using the tax forms like 1040 or 1040EZ etc..
These will determine you taxable income.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Using the tax forms like 1040 or 1040EZ etc..
These will determine you taxable income.
Prove it Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
OK, send me all your tax info, bank statements, W-2's, pay stubs, etc. and I'll tell you how much you owe.
OR, just look up "1040" and follow the directions.
RetSquid 3 years ago
If you sign and return the 1040 form you are voluntarily giving up your freedom under the preamble of the Constitution , and yes you will pay . Just like when you promise to pay your credit card statement with one exception ,with your credit card you will receive goods. With your 1040 you get to be a taxpayer/slave for life.
permlock 3 years ago
What freedom are you 'giving up'?
RetSquid 3 years ago
I think Samual Adams was quoting this directly to you Ret when he said-
Samual Adams:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!!!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
No, it means I'm younger than you and far more well informed.
RetSquid 3 years ago
lol ya RetSquid is very seriously uneducated, you can tell just by reading his posts.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Where'd ya go Ret, you were just here a few minutes ago debating? Must be visiting the tax protestor faq website to see if anythings listed to disprove the various assortment of info you've just been shown. Good Luck!!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I have to sleep sometime, I'm a full time student.
RetSquid 3 years ago
I have to sleep sometime, I'm a full time student. Ya I can understand the sleep, it was a little late , but shouldn't you be all done with school since you're retired?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
No, I'm using my GI Bill to go back to school.
(That money comes out of your (and my) TAXES) :)
RetSquid 3 years ago
(That money comes out of your (and my) TAXES) :)
More proof of your stupidity Ret, Read the "Grace Commision" and see if you still think that.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I just read the report, it confirms much of what I already know...the Government is good at wasting money.
What does that have to do with the LEGALITY of income tax?
RetSquid 3 years ago
What does that have to do with the LEGALITY of income tax? I see you really aren't paying attention are you? This point was made in reference to you thinking our taxes were paying for your GI Bill when in fact they aren't. Just proving your misconception of the lies you've been told. Which is much like the lies of the income tax laws that you've been told.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
So...nothing to do with the LEGALITY of the law just it's application?
I see that you whole heartedly agree with the lies that YOU have been told.
We're not debating 'right' and 'wrong', we're debating 'legal' and 'illegal'.
Income taxes MAY be wrong but they are LEGAL.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Income taxes MAY be wrong but they are LEGAL.
They are legal when it comes to foreign based income enforcement. The application of the income tax law being applied to typical citizens earning a domestic income make them illegally applied!!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Prove that last statement.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Prove that last statement
We've argued this before but since you weren't paying attention why don't you google the fact that "title 26 was never enacted into positive law" there's your proof if you can read.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
The end result is that the IRS is a creature of "positive law" because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff's own "positive law" premise, then, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a "private corporation." It enjoys the sovereign immunity of the United States, and thus is entitled to summary judgment in this cause of action.
YOUNG v. IRS
RetSquid 3 years ago
Is this what you believe cause this can be proven wrong as well?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Instead of saying you CAN do something, why don't you DO it?
RetSquid 3 years ago
Instead of saying you CAN do something, why don't you DO it?
Think you can handle it or do you really want to spend the rest of today trying to prove it wrong?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
well i do have class in a few minutes...
RetSquid 3 years ago
well i do have class in a few minutes...
It'll take you longer then that to try and prove it wrong, and I do stress "To try and prove it wrong."
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You keep switching arguments and avoiding the facts. Grow up and learn how to lose gracefully. No personal attacks, just talk about the facts.
RetSquid 3 years ago
learn to read context RET SQ.
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income a) General rule RET SQ Who is required ? ( it doesn't say)
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...
permlock 3 years ago
Can you read?
...shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having ...
RetSquid 3 years ago
You obviously dont know who you are .are you a United states citizen? or are you an American ? are you an individual from any other country on earth working in the united states, What are you ? after you decide then look inside title 26 and pay for your privilege to be here. if you are exempt, then live free. but obey the law.
permlock 3 years ago
"are you a United States citizen?"
Yes.
"are you an American ?"
Yes.
"are you an individual"
Yes.
"if you are exempt"
Anyone who makes less than whatever amount is the minimum is exempt from income tax.
What is you point?
RetSquid 3 years ago
If you promise to play nice and study hard I will give you a searchable copy of title 26 in its 2002 entirety . So you can have a good discussion on tax law and also when watching a U-tube video you can look up the entire tax law section. Title 26 is the law , the IRS. must obey. Not their office regulations.
It is 13 meg. and is in abobe 8.1 send e-mail address large enough to hold .
permlock 3 years ago
I have access to the current Title 26 online.
What office regs are you talking about?
RetSquid 3 years ago
study hard, I will give you a searchable copy of title 26 in its 2002 entirety . So you can have a Educated discussion on tax law and also when watching a U-tube video you can look up the entire tax law section. Title 26 is the law , the IRS. must obey. Not their office regulations.
It is 13 meg. and is in abobe 8.1 send e-mail address large enough to hold .
permlock 3 years ago
I'm not sure if I am ready to play nice just yet permlock, however I'll get back to you on that report soon.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income a) General rule RET SQ Who is required ? ( it doesn't say)
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...
permlock 3 years ago
All tax laws must be interpreted literally, what lawyers call strict construction. You have a right to insist that the government obey the law and in the case of tax laws, the letter of the law. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE unless you are withholding taxes on a nonresident alien or a foreign corporation, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR AN INCOME TAX!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Tax laws are clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests and are, therefore, subject to strict construction, and any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax. In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction:
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff'd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."
Yowza!! Look at all those tax fraud cases ruling in favor of the citizen.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I couldn't find all of them, but the ones I did find DID NOT invalidate tax laws.
You still need to decide if you are argueing that the 'laws' aren't 'laws' or that they are just not being used correctly.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Once again you are WRONG!!
That line you quoted is nowhere in that case: Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914)
You really need to do your homework more.
WHACK!!
RetSquid 3 years ago
Once again you are WRONG!!
That line you quoted is nowhere in that case: Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914) That's because you couldn't find it, moron!! Keep going to school you need it!!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Here's where I found it, you just aren't using the right arguments.
supreme(DOT)justia(DOT)com/index(DOT)html
RetSquid 3 years ago
Once again you are WRONG!!
That line you quoted is nowhere in that case: Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914) I know this to be a proven fact and it's already been through court recently as well. You just don't have access to court documents like you think you do. Your lack of access to qualified legal information is your downfall Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
How about you show me the best sites to get this 'information'?
RetSquid 3 years ago
How about you show me the best sites to get this 'information'? Nah, not yet, I'm gonna add that to the ever growing list of items I refuse to show you.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"it's already been through court recently as well"
If it has then put that case up here.
"You just don't have access to court documents like you think you do"
Where do you get your info? Facebook?
Look at the way you answer these posts, you say I'm wrong, but with no proof. Then you change the subject, or start a personal attack. When you do that people will see that you have conceded the point as lost.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Where do you get your info? Facebook? Walt Disney!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Look at the way you answer these posts, you say I'm wrong, but with no proof. Then you change the subject, or start a personal attack. When you do that people will see that you have conceded the point as lost. ROFLMAO!!!!!!BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHA!!!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You just proved my point.
RetSquid 3 years ago
PNWScout2 3 years ago
If that's what ya mean then ya I just proved your point.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
We're discusing income tax not your view of the Government.
RetSquid 3 years ago
We're discusing income tax not your view of the Government.
The mis-application of the income tax law is just a small part of a much grander scale of the corruption of government.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Other then what I've just listed you had no other point!!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
So as you can see Ret there's many many more court cases ruling against the legality of the income tax in favor for the citizen then just the common ones which you can go to a tax protestor faq website and dismiss such as Pollock, Brushaber, Evans, etc. You get the picture.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Show the exact source and I'll refute that one too.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Show the exact source and I'll refute that one too ROFLMAO!!! Sure ya will Ret.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You are incorrect, there is no section in all of title 26 that says an American must file a tax return. Only the ones I quoted earlier are listed in title 26
permlock 3 years ago
RetSquid can't grasp this concept. He's in denial of the fact he's been lied to all his life.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
You're in denial that you have lost every single point in this debate.
After you lose one point you just skip around for another one to lose, then claim victory.
RetSquid 3 years ago
You really are as dense as a shit brick aren't you Ret? I haven't lost anything, there's more then just "one" argument as to why the income tax doesn't apply to typical citizens you moron. By me jumping around I'm merely disproving your B.S. posts such as this.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"there's more then just "one" argument as to why the income tax doesn't apply to typical citizens you moron"
Then give just one RATIONAL argument.
If you start calling names then you have already lost.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Then give just one RATIONAL argument You haven't been paying attention have you? If you start calling names then you have already lost. Truth hurts dont it?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I guess that means you HAVE no rational arguments.
Don't worry about me, I'll keep posting the truth about laws that you say don't exist.
You've been WHACKed again.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Like I said before Ret. I'll believe the existance of a non-existant law when the IRS can come forward with those laws and show cause of them, NOT YOU!! You have proven to us and everyone else here that you know nothing about proper interpretation of the laws, you have no legal background Ret. That's like trusting a butcher to do open heart surgery on you Ret. It's not gonna happen.
You've been WHACKed again.
Keep taking your meds Ret for your false beliefs!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
I have no training in laws, but I can read English.
Are you a lawyer? Have you been trained in the law?
The law is there, you have to prove that it doen't say what nearly everyone else says it does.
These interpretations are not mine, I never said they were. They belong to the people and Courts that I have cited.
Most of the people you cite are in jail or on thier way there.
RetSquid 3 years ago
The best way to lower your odds further is by following the advice of IRS spokesman Robert Marvin: "Taxpayers should take deductions and credits that they are legitimately entitled to and that make economic sense," Marvin said. "They also should keep accurate books and records." So this is another Quote from "The Spokesman" should you not listen to him since he doesn't know what he's yalking about?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
That is just good general advice. You don't have to be a spokesman to understand that.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Most of the people you cite are in jail or on thier way there No most of them are NOT in jail, the only ones that are, are the ones who've had their "due process" rights violated from a corrupt judge whom wouldn't allow the defense to show proof of a non-existant law. Besides it's proven fact that most attornies don't know shit from shineola about tax laws other then what the IRS has taught them.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
AH, yes the old 'corrupt judge' argument.
I'm suprised at how many 'corrupt' judges there are, close to 100% huh?
RetSquid 3 years ago
AH, yes the old 'corrupt judge' argument.
I'm suprised at how many 'corrupt' judges there are, close to 100% huh? Sure
PNWScout2 3 years ago
The law is there, you have to prove that it doen't say what nearly everyone else says it does
Already have proven it and so have others. The reason people thinks it says what it doesn't is because they've been told that it does all their life. Are you a lawyer? Have you been trained in the law? Would you believe me then if I told you I was and I had?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Don't worry about me, I'll keep posting the truth about laws that you say don't exist.
Ya and I'll keep posting the truth showing your so-called laws are bullshit to anyone with a brain that can interpret the laws for how they're legally written. Let them decide for themselves Ret. You don't decide for them!
PNWScout2 3 years ago
"You don't decide for them! "
You're right I don't all your 'corupt' judges have over many decades.
RetSquid 3 years ago
You're right I don't all your 'corupt' judges have over many decades. Not all of "em
PNWScout2 3 years ago
Explain this then- Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment." You see Ret. You think you know the law when in fact you don't! That's why the IRS refuses to show a law, it's because they can't, they know there isn't one. Actions speak louder then words Ret. and they're sure speaking loudly lately.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
One spokesman has a 'no comment' and you think it invalidates decades of laws?
RetSquid 3 years ago
One spokesman has a 'no comment' and you think it invalidates decades of laws?
Shouldn't an IRS spokesman know the tax laws if they're to be an IRS spokesman? He does and he couldn't cite any law becasue he knew there were none! However it's not just one spokesman Ret, it's the whole IRS, they fail to cite the specific code which authorizes a tax on typical citizens. That's just one of the many many arguments of the "Tax Fraud" movement.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
He's a spokesman not a tax expert. A spokesman rarely knows the details of whatever they are spokesman of.
He was probably thinking,'Don't these guys read? Just look up Title 26, it's all there!'
RetSquid 3 years ago
He's a spokesman not a tax expert. A spokesman rarely knows the details of whatever they are spokesman of.
Ok Ret, Whatever, that's just plain comical of a response from you, I was only joking about taking your meds but I guess it clearly shows now that you have been.
PNWScout2 3 years ago