>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and 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?
@RetSquid Actually you are factually half wrong. While congress has the power to set taxes, the income tax in place was not ratified by the states.
Also, your name in all caps refers to your incorporated taxable straw man and THERE IS a legal process to take control of your straw man. Do the research. If I have time I'll post the link.
@RetSquid I would also say her questioning what is an individual is a likely reference to the 'straw man' principle that's says the Govt cannot force you to incorporate at birth and so John Q. Public the man is not the same as JOHN Q PUBLIC the taxable entity. Your SS card represents a history of transactions between two corporate entities.
It's been fun, but we obviously will never agree and I think I hear the black helicopters circling.... Good luck.
@RetSquid the fact we are debating it now means 'debatable' is an appropriate choice for words. You can say, "it's the law" all you want, my point is it's unconstitutional so in effect I'm not "breaking the law."
Its 'against the law' for a soldier to disobey orders, although if the orders are illegal or immoral, they have an OBLIGATION to disobey.
@RetSquid debatable. There is a plethora of information on both sides. Either way, I don't pay. It's the ultimate non-violent civil disobedience. I also do not take public benefits because I haven't paid into them, but really anybody my age who thinks they have SSI waiting for them is a fool.
If they didn't use my money to murder children, brown people, and pay off criminals around the world I might feel different.
Sovereign citizens are above the state and they have lost the consent of the g
@RetSquid - I haven't read her defense but I imagine she is challenging the definition of individual as written in the law. Of course she knows what am individual is. For example, the drug laws as written apply only to animals, but they enforce the laws on humans. A federal drug case was just tossed out over this issue.
I believe there is a little known exclusion on income from labor that is the basis for people who don't pay federal tax, like me. I haven't paid in over 10 years.
The IRS is formerly the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) situated in and with authority only in the Philippine Islands, and moved into Puerto Rico. In the 1950s, with the stroke of the pen, the BIR was transformed into the current notorious IRS and brought onto the 50 united States. This was done without any Congressional authority whatsoever. There is no Congressional authority for the IRS to exist and operate in the 50 states recorded anywhere in any law-books.
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
Here it is in a nutshell. The IRS is a private, debt collection agency for the private banking system known as the Federal Reserve Bank. The IRS is not a government agency. I repeat, the IRS is not a government agency. Never has been, never will be.
you can talk technicalities all day, but in the end its all BS. No one has any authority to come and claim your earned money. And then spend it as they choose
Where do these people get the authority to do this?. And even if they did get their authority from the constitution. Where does the constitution gets its authority? From GOD?
The authority to tax come from The People (and States) via the Constitution. The fact that there are a very few people who protest the income tax, does not negate that authority.
where does society or a person get its rights from?
A society is just a bunch of people who have the same authority you do. If these people do not have the authority or right to initiate force on anyone else. How can they delegate it to someone else?
@RetSquid Thats not true, the whole has to be controlled by a few people then. Which means that some people have magical powers over others that they got from thin air.
A state is not a person it is a idea. Ideas do not have special powers where they grant monopoly of force to certain individuals and not others.
The base point is that no one has any authority over u except the one u give them. No one gets their authority from a special place. Its made up
By continuing to live in an area, you give power (submit) to the government of that area to control certain things. The vast majority of people know this and accept it. If you want more details go read about 'social contracts' or take a government philosophy course.
In this case, Sherry broke the laws of the State where she lives and that State has the power to punish her for violating those laws put in place by representatives of the People.
“It is clear that the Internal Revenue Code gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the Internal Revenue Service, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute.”
I would, but you also have to prove 'wrong' many things that are correct. And even if you do everything the ad stats, you still lose because only that person decides who 'wins', if he says, "nope, I don't believe you.", you have no legal recourse to make him pay.
the law should be blindingly evident for all to see not hidden so the average person has to search for it.innocent until proven guilty ,so present the wording of the law.
I think... Some people are just too brainwashed... And Retsquid quit stalking me you weirdo!! You are one obsessed "person" (Someone that falls in the jurisdiction of a corporation) as for me! I'm threw with you and your BS! Bye!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PINNACLE QUEST INTERNATIONAL
A federal court in Pensacola, Fla., has sentenced three of nine promoters of a fraudulent tax-and-debt-elimination scheme to prison terms for their roles in tax fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Four others were sentenced in July to prison terms ranging from 5 to 12 years.
@RetSquid Statutes are not law, they only have the force of law when consented to. They are enforcing policy which are just contracts, thus requiring consent of all parties involved.
Acts, when passed by Congress and signed by the President, become Law and are recorded it the Statutes at Large and when grouped by subject matter are called "Codes". "Consent" for each law is not required, you consent by remaining where that law is operative, in the case, the United States.
Where did you get the idea that laws need your consent?
Go read what I just posted. All U.S. Courts are De Jure, by definition, they are creatures of law, each has been set up by Acts of Congress (Laws/Statutes) or by the Constitution itself.
@RetSquid Many sources over the years. The Law covers harm, loss or injury to a third party. Which cover pretty much all breaches of the law. Anything else is just policy.
On March 31, 2010, a federal jury returned guilty verdicts against eight people, following a month-long trial involving the promotion of fraudulent schemes through Pinnacle Quest International, also known as PQI and Quest International. The ninth, Lyon, entered a guilty plea and testified against the other eight at trial.
PQI was an umbrella organization for numerous vendors of tax and credit card debt elimination scams.
Sherry Peel Jackson is a convicted tax defier who advances her frivolous tax arguments on PQI’s Q1 audio course. At PQI’s June 2004 Q2 conference in Cabos San Lucas, Jackson also promoted a tax-fraud product known as the “861 Evidence Disc,” which purports to show why U.S. citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes. Jackson also spoke on pre-recorded phone calls available to PQI Qualified Consultants as a tool to recruit new PQI members.
@RetSquid Agree, however it's technically a statute . Occasionally laws and morality are congruent. This isn't one of them.
Happily for me, right & wrong isn't derived from law! Imagine when slavery was legal in the U.S.! Or a husband raping a wife in some Middle East country! And so on.
And it really doesn't matter if one calls it "law", "statute", or nothing. Those who have the guns, gold, and goons ARE the most common violent, coercive force in our daily lives. They are "law".
@RetSquid I don't usually lie, but I was not correct. Youtube doesn't provide a way of editing posts.
Relax, just don't obey laws that are wrong. You may go to jail, but so did Ghandi, MLK, Rosa Parks, etc. Heck they hung Gabriel Prosser.
Freedom is measured by the extent at which you are willing to defend it; that the boundaries of Liberty are drawn along points you would rather risk being deprived of your life than to be deprived of your freedom.
They intentionally make title 26 so difficult for the average public school graduate to understand... Thank god I didn't attend public school all my teen age years!!
Do you want my current location? I'm in Idaho right now. Tomorrow I'll be in Washington and 2 days from tomorrow I'll be in sunny California. And the rest is unknown. Wack job? After reading all of title 26, who wouldn't be a wack job? Lol!
Who here thinks the government isn't corrupt? Who here thinks the government is too big? Who here thinks they should be forced to pay for services, benefits, and privileges at gun point or with threats of prison? Anyone? Who here wants to pay for someone else to have medical insurance?
If you give me a dollar and I gave you a dollar, no profit, gain, income, loss, compensation, gross income, etc was made. Same goes for labor vs money. It's all fair trade! Threw the years fair trade has been dissolved by corruption and tyranny.
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Check out the blacks law definition of "Wage" I don't make a wage, income, gross income, gain, compensation or profit! I give an equal share of labor for an equal share of money. That's called Fair Trade!
“[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. No court has ever accepted this argument for the purpose of determining taxable income. Indeed, it has always been rejected. For once and for all, wages are taxable income.”
Example: When you want the privilege and benefits to "Drive" you MUST sign a contract to get that privilege and benefit! And when you sign that contract you MUST follow the rules and regulations that are stipulated with it! Same goes for Privileges and benefits of social security! They just don't hand anyone a social security number unless you signed for it! OMFG how stupid can you get? Contracts people!!!! Contracts!!!
It's not authorized by the Constitution! And NO! I am not anti tax! Lol! The excise tax is a good thing! But being forced to pay for privileges and benefits and services is WRONG! Retsquid do you think Obamacare is good or bad? What's your opinion on obamacare?
Amendment 16 - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
@chrishufstetler " What is your opinion on Obamacare" COULD obamacare be used as a live example of what was done to the "income" tax of the early 1900s ? The 1099s, fines, 2% "income" taxing. hiring of 16,000 IRS agents ect... What do you think ?
Did you sign your name on a piece of paper, to get social security number, driver license, marriage license, w-4, 1040, Navy, bank account, etc? If you did... You indeed signed yourself into contract! If you break that contract, fines, penalties and possible jail/prison may apply:)
Yes the courts are corrupt! The judge gets more money from finding people guilty. It's unfortunate for that man that signed contracts... Too bad for him!
Let's say I have an apple (Labor). And you have an orange (Money). You want my apple and I want your orange. We therefore make an agreement to trade my apple for your orange. So we traded. You and I did not lose or gain anything because my apples value was the same value as you valued your orange. No profit, gain, income, gross income or compensation was made! Fair trade was made:)
@chrishufstetler “The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Yes if you want legal advice call a tax lawyer. Not one man or woman on this you tube forum is a lawyer. So I recommend doing your own research and find out the truth yourself! I recommend the Bernhoft Law firm. They specialize in tax law.
Sherry Jackson found out that she has to pay even in prison when they attached her prison work wages. Her conditions of parole will ensure that she pays her income taxes.
Our founding fathers were not afraid to go to prison/jail for their rights and freedoms! Lol your funny! You still don't get it! No contract, no taxes. Those found guilty signed contracts but did not pay, hence prison.
“The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin’s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.”
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).
title 26 has had it's azz kicked many times! A lot of people have been found not guilty of tax evasion! Just because the media didn't tell you other wise didn't mean it didn't happen. This country is corrupt! You know it, I know it and The World knows it! But what are the Americans going to do about it? Hmmmmm Not a dam thing! Most Americans are ignorant! Most don't even know what their rights and freedoms are let alone defend them. Lol! America is going down!
It turns out some IRS agents figured out they can make more money of suckers who don't like paying taxes than holding a regular job.
Sherry Peel Jackson, Joe Banister, and the rest of the clan are a hoax! Title 26 has never been defeated before. Do you think you will be the first to do so? Go ahead and try!
The IRS can be repealed but not through tax evasion. Be smart and ignore these goons!! Look up Ron Paul and Peter Schiff.
People sign contracts to pay money to the Federal Corporation to receive privileges and benefits of Social Security, Drive in Commerce, Armed Forces, Medicare, public school etc. When you sign these contracts but refuse to pay for the privileges and benefits you get locked up in Federal Corporate prison. If you never signed contracts, the Federal Corporation can't touch you!
"The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin's protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts."
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).
10 30 2010 Dr. Mark E. Hopkins and Sharon J. Hopkins were convicted of seven counts of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy.
"Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joe Banister."
Mr. Banister's proposed testimony is comprised largely of legal conclusions, which are not a proper form of expert testimony. United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Government's Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of Joseph R. Banister [Doc 142] is GRANTED
Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve System et al., 08-CV-991.
The Complaint alleges that Schulz pays taxes to the United States and New York State.
---
Schulz alleges as his injury that he is a “payer of federal taxes” and has a legal interest “not to have his money taken from him” for purposes he deems illicit.
Schulz admits that he pays his income taxes while leading his sheep to prison.
I want to see a "Robert Schulz" failure to file case.
Banksters + Wall Street crooks run control frauds to loot banks and companies so they can get rich through bankruptcy as the loses are insured by the US government.
The FBI warned of these problems and an economic crash in 2004.
There has not been one arrest of these crooks responsible for the 2008 crash.
Rather than evidence, Banister presents wild hypotheticals. Below he speculated about due process in Rwanda; now he raises the possibility that fanatic Islamists would ban female witnesses. Neither hypothetical is factually supported, of course. But Banister's resort to hypotheticals instead of evidence is telling. His appeal masquerades as a question of law when it is nothing more than an abstraction.
Walder v. Conklin -- Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was bogus.
Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued when Conklin welched.
The court ruled that Conklin has structured his argument so that he was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch.
This opinion does not mention the Fifth Amendment except in the context of Conklin welching on his bet.
Legal fallacies are only evidence of a person's state of mind. They are not evidence of the law pertaining to any case as all the law applicable to the case will be contained in the jury instructions.
SHERRY PEEL JACKSON, a former IRS Revenue Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant was sentenced on February 14, 2008 to four years in federal prison on four counts of failure to file her individual tax returns for the years 2000 to 2003.
In 2000, defendant came into contact with Joseph Banister, a
former IRS agent, who is a supporter of WTP; defendant later became
a member of Banister's tax protestor's "Hall of Fame." See
The income tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). IRS was established July 1, 1862 by an act of Congress. Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them.
Charles Thomas Clayton was convicted on two counts of making false tax returns + six counts of willful failure to file + was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Clayton himself prepared the amended returns for 1997 and 1998 sent them to Banister for approval, and then sent them to the IRS.
It was Banister who was instructing Clayton as to the method for making claims for refunds.
As a result of his conviction, the Texas Medical Board revoked Clayton's license to practice medicine.
Revenue Agent Hawkins learned that Bernhoft makes substantial annual payments to Banister.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Government’s petition to enforce the IRS summons for “[a]ny form, document or letter prepared by Joseph Banister for [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” and “[a]ny correspondence (including e-mails) between Joseph? Banister and [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” is GRANTED.
Bernhoft MUST PRODUCE those materials to the Government no later than November 30, 2009.
Richard Michael Simkanin was found guilty of ten counts of willful failure to collect, account for and pay over taxes due; 15 counts of making false claims against the United States; and four counts of failure to file individual income tax returns.
The defense called Joseph Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigator, who now claims there is no law mandating income taxes. Simkanin was sentenced to 7 years
Joe Banister has many followers, including Matthew J. Allen, a sheriff's deputy in Marin County, Calif., who was found guilty of one felony count of filing a false state income tax return, and two felony counts of filing a fraudulent Form W-4 Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate.
Allen said he subscribes to the philosophies of Joseph Banister.
Joe Banister's attorney Robert Bernhoft represented Wesley Snipes who was convicted of three counts of willful failure to file. Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison.
On August 27, 2008, the United States Tax Court ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to file his 2002 federal income tax return and report, as income, over $23,000 in a distribution from a retirement plan and other income.
Joe Banister's attorney Bernhoft is a known tax fraud proponent. In 1999, he was permanently enjoined from promoting his "De-Taxing America Program" tax protester scheme. United States v. Robert R. Raymond
The district court concluded that the "De-Taxing America" program contained false statements and false advice concerning the federal income tax.
Banister's assertions have been addressed by so many federal courts that they are no longer afforded the dignity of repeating the explanations as to why the claims are meritless.
JOSEPH R. BANISTER, is hereby ORDERED DISBARRED from practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and 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
I was just arrested and raped orally by 3 men in black... I'm def paying my taxes from now on. Ouch my ass hurts
TruthHurts9111111 2 months ago
Just google Moses g Washington straw man ucc-1
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
Ha! You tube won't even allow me to post the link.
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@TheGovtIsBehind911 just post the link replacing dotcom with dotcom
occupationamerica 1 week ago
Test test
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@RetSquid Actually you are factually half wrong. While congress has the power to set taxes, the income tax in place was not ratified by the states.
Also, your name in all caps refers to your incorporated taxable straw man and THERE IS a legal process to take control of your straw man. Do the research. If I have time I'll post the link.
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@TheGovtIsBehind911
No, all of the States agree that the 16th WAS ratified, but Congress could tax wages even before that.
An "all caps name" has no legal meaning, NONE.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid I would also say her questioning what is an individual is a likely reference to the 'straw man' principle that's says the Govt cannot force you to incorporate at birth and so John Q. Public the man is not the same as JOHN Q PUBLIC the taxable entity. Your SS card represents a history of transactions between two corporate entities.
It's been fun, but we obviously will never agree and I think I hear the black helicopters circling.... Good luck.
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGovtIsBehind911
John Q. Public -IS- the same as JOHN Q PUBLIC. There is no legal difference in those names.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid the fact we are debating it now means 'debatable' is an appropriate choice for words. You can say, "it's the law" all you want, my point is it's unconstitutional so in effect I'm not "breaking the law."
Its 'against the law' for a soldier to disobey orders, although if the orders are illegal or immoral, they have an OBLIGATION to disobey.
Enjoy paying your taxes.
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@TheGovtIsBehind911
Too bad you are factually wrong, the income tax is not unconstitutional, Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid just my opinion, but if I taken by rendition to Thailand to die in prison you'll know your tax money is well spent.
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@RetSquid debatable. There is a plethora of information on both sides. Either way, I don't pay. It's the ultimate non-violent civil disobedience. I also do not take public benefits because I haven't paid into them, but really anybody my age who thinks they have SSI waiting for them is a fool.
If they didn't use my money to murder children, brown people, and pay off criminals around the world I might feel different.
Sovereign citizens are above the state and they have lost the consent of the g
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@TheGovtIsBehind911
"debatable"?
Really? No court would debate it with you, the law is very clear on this issue.
If it is "civil disobedience", fine, just don't lie about it.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid - I haven't read her defense but I imagine she is challenging the definition of individual as written in the law. Of course she knows what am individual is. For example, the drug laws as written apply only to animals, but they enforce the laws on humans. A federal drug case was just tossed out over this issue.
I believe there is a little known exclusion on income from labor that is the basis for people who don't pay federal tax, like me. I haven't paid in over 10 years.
Oh wait, t
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@TheGovtIsBehind911
"little known exclusion on income from labor "
Nope, that income is specifically listed as taxable.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@graandhustlemafia- they put innocent people in jail for bullshit reasons all the time. Doesn't mean that what she says isn't true.
TheGovtIsBehind911 4 months ago
@TheGovtIsBehind911
But it is easy to prove she is a liar. Her defence in court was that she didn't know what an 'individual' was!
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD BLESS YOU Sherry P Jackson.
You are one of a few REAL American patriots.
You lead by example.
Simo x
sim0b 1 month ago
Reposted
rainbo5250 6 months ago 2
Does anyone wonder why the Federal Reserve DOES NOT PAY TAXES?
Why are they NOT SUBJECT TO AN AUDIT,.....when TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS have gone missing?
The private families who OWN the Federal Rserve have amassed a fortune,....that is suspected to be in the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Why don't they pay taxes on the profit they make,... from their printing of money out of thin air,........and SELLING it to the United States?
rainbo5250 6 months ago 6
they keep saying we dnt have to pay income tax, but then when we dont pay it we go to jail..... so whos telling the truth here? hmm not this lady!
GraandHustleMafia 7 months ago
Again, keep in mind, that the IRS is the “Private, debt collection agency for the private banking system known as the Federal Reserve Banks”.
mydozer 8 months ago 2
The IRS is formerly the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) situated in and with authority only in the Philippine Islands, and moved into Puerto Rico. In the 1950s, with the stroke of the pen, the BIR was transformed into the current notorious IRS and brought onto the 50 united States. This was done without any Congressional authority whatsoever. There is no Congressional authority for the IRS to exist and operate in the 50 states recorded anywhere in any law-books.
mydozer 8 months ago 2
@mydozer
Correct. There is a group of attorneys fighting on behalf of the people and winning every case.
Income tax, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
rainbo5250 6 months ago 2
@rainbo5250
That's not what the Supreme Court says:
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
-Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
RetSquid 6 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Here it is in a nutshell. The IRS is a private, debt collection agency for the private banking system known as the Federal Reserve Bank. The IRS is not a government agency. I repeat, the IRS is not a government agency. Never has been, never will be.
mydozer 8 months ago 2
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE
LoveVanillaRose 8 months ago 2
you can talk technicalities all day, but in the end its all BS. No one has any authority to come and claim your earned money. And then spend it as they choose
Where do these people get the authority to do this?. And even if they did get their authority from the constitution. Where does the constitution gets its authority? From GOD?
I cant even take the argument serious.
You can not delegate a right you do not have
Galicia1981 8 months ago 5
@Galicia1981
The authority to tax come from The People (and States) via the Constitution. The fact that there are a very few people who protest the income tax, does not negate that authority.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid and where do the states and constitution gets its authority from?
PLease dont say god
Galicia1981 8 months ago
@Galicia1981
You didn't read my comment did you? It clearly says "The People".
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid and where do the people get the authority to delegate a power that they themselves do not have?
Galicia1981 8 months ago
@Galicia1981
Because they are The People, not just a person. Society can do things an individual cannot.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid but ret,
where does society or a person get its rights from?
A society is just a bunch of people who have the same authority you do. If these people do not have the authority or right to initiate force on anyone else. How can they delegate it to someone else?
Galicia1981 8 months ago
@Galicia1981
It is a natural function of a State, like punishing criminals, making war/peace, and making laws. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid Thats not true, the whole has to be controlled by a few people then. Which means that some people have magical powers over others that they got from thin air.
A state is not a person it is a idea. Ideas do not have special powers where they grant monopoly of force to certain individuals and not others.
The base point is that no one has any authority over u except the one u give them. No one gets their authority from a special place. Its made up
Galicia1981 8 months ago 2
@Galicia1981
By continuing to live in an area, you give power (submit) to the government of that area to control certain things. The vast majority of people know this and accept it. If you want more details go read about 'social contracts' or take a government philosophy course.
In this case, Sherry broke the laws of the State where she lives and that State has the power to punish her for violating those laws put in place by representatives of the People.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid in the beggining i meant authority, not rights. Sorry
Galicia1981 8 months ago
@Galicia1981
Same answer. States (governments) have authority to do some things just because they are States.
RetSquid 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD BLESS YOU Sherry P Jackson.
You are one of a few REAL American patriots.
You lead by example.
Simo x
sim0b 8 months ago
@sim0b
And her example leads right to prison, just like her.
RetSquid 8 months ago
Comment removed
sim0b 8 months ago
what a brave lady ,SPEAKS THE TRUTH .THERE IS NO LAW TO PAY TAX!!!peace dazza
2012fortruth 8 months ago
@2012fortruth
Go read Title 26 Section 1 then come back.
RetSquid 8 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
No more paying, fuck them bastards
gerryboy3699 8 months ago
The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF.
(Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No.
26, Public Law 102-391.)
mydozer 8 months ago
@mydozer
“It is clear that the Internal Revenue Code gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the Internal Revenue Service, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute.”
Snyder v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (N.D. In. 1984).
RetSquid 8 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
this women is a genuine hero.God bless her.
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
why would God bless someone for lying and breaking the law for personal, greedy, gains?
RetSquid 8 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid
are you talking about the bankers and government ?
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
LOL!! Who were you talking about? I'm obviously talking about the liar and cheat in the video, the Convict Sherry.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid
I know I was being jocular.Why is she a liar and cheat.As she says show the law where people have to pay taxes on money earned.
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
She is a liar becasue she claims there is no law that requires someone to file or pay income tax. She was convicted of not filing.
Here is 'the law': Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid
if you could just print the part where it says you are required to pay tax on earned income.
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
I just posted it for you. I can't read it for you too.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid
I thought so.you shoulkd collect the 50000 dollars ftrom that guy.
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
I would, but you also have to prove 'wrong' many things that are correct. And even if you do everything the ad stats, you still lose because only that person decides who 'wins', if he says, "nope, I don't believe you.", you have no legal recourse to make him pay.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid
the law should be blindingly evident for all to see not hidden so the average person has to search for it.innocent until proven guilty ,so present the wording of the law.
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 Tax imposed
...There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...
(1) every...individual...a tax determined in accordance with the following table[s]...
There you go, "blindingly evident".
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid
"...There is hereby imposed on the taxable income" what constitutes taxable income?
dragszes 8 months ago
@dragszes
That would be covered in Sections 61 and 63. Basically, your gross income(pay/wages/interest/whatever), minus the allowed deductions.
But your question about the law has already been answered.
RetSquid 8 months ago
IRS, IMF, WHO, All frauds
Jacksonville166 8 months ago 2
Everyone is a criminal to the 'people in power' its just a matter of time before they decide its you they want to setup, kill, torture, imprison etc.
slickwillywize 8 months ago
I think... Some people are just too brainwashed... And Retsquid quit stalking me you weirdo!! You are one obsessed "person" (Someone that falls in the jurisdiction of a corporation) as for me! I'm threw with you and your BS! Bye!
chrishufstetler 10 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Third cut-and-paste.
RetSquid 9 months ago
Rumor has that Sherry gives really good face.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
JACKSON IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ihavethebrain 10 months ago
@ihavethebrain
She is not free. Read the conditions of her release.
Most likely she will be returned to her prison cell where her licker license is valid.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Tubeusercomm liquor
ihavethebrain 10 months ago
@Tubeusercomm oh wait. licker ah hhahahahhahah a lesbian joke hahahahahahahahahahahahahah dont talk to me ever again fuck
ihavethebrain 10 months ago 2
Whose the "victim" when I don't pay unconstitutional income taxes?
Answer = incompetent rich wall street executive assholes...
FoxifiedNutjob 10 months ago
Tubeusercomm and RetSquid = current IRS agents, traitors to our constitution, scumbags, extortioners...
FoxifiedNutjob 10 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
You are one CLUELESS idiot. Go read a book or something.
RetSquid 10 months ago 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PINNACLE QUEST INTERNATIONAL
A federal court in Pensacola, Fla., has sentenced three of nine promoters of a fraudulent tax-and-debt-elimination scheme to prison terms for their roles in tax fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Four others were sentenced in July to prison terms ranging from 5 to 12 years.
ROTFL
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Tubeusercomm Was this tried in a de jure or de facto court?
Namaste1001 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Namaste1001 asks: "Was this tried in a de jure or de facto court?"
No!
ROTFL
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
All U.S. courts are De Jure courts, by definition.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid Then why are they able to enforce corporate policy when there has be no victim of crime?
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
They are enforcing the law.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid Statutes are not law, they only have the force of law when consented to. They are enforcing policy which are just contracts, thus requiring consent of all parties involved.
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
Incorrect.
Acts, when passed by Congress and signed by the President, become Law and are recorded it the Statutes at Large and when grouped by subject matter are called "Codes". "Consent" for each law is not required, you consent by remaining where that law is operative, in the case, the United States.
Where did you get the idea that laws need your consent?
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid Laws don't require consent. Statutes and acts do. US courts are acting as de facto's unfortunately.
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
Go read what I just posted. All U.S. Courts are De Jure, by definition, they are creatures of law, each has been set up by Acts of Congress (Laws/Statutes) or by the Constitution itself.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid They are supposed to be, you are correct in that sense. But they don't always operate that way.
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
Nothing always operates the way it should.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid Have it your way, You can lead a horse to water............
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
...But you can't make them believe the truth...I know I've tried with you.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
Where did you get the idea that law/statute/code are not the same and that they need consent?
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid Many sources over the years. The Law covers harm, loss or injury to a third party. Which cover pretty much all breaches of the law. Anything else is just policy.
No Victim - No Crime.
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
Nice try, but your opinion of someone else's opinion is not valid proof. Go look up the actual definition of the words you are trying to use.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid I've done that, but thanks for the advice.
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
If you have done it, why are you still posting this crap?
RetSquid 10 months ago
Promoters of Debt Elimination and Tax Relief Scheme Get Hard Jail Time.
The individuals who speak on PQI’s Q1 audio course include Bill Benson,
purveyor of the discredited Reliance Defense Package; Dan Shaw, a
representative of IMF Decoder; and Sherry Peel-Jackson, a convicted tax
defier. These individuals make false and fraudulent statements about the
internal revenue laws on PQI’s Q1 audio course.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Tubeusercomm Of course they get time. It takes just one case to show the whole system to be the fraud that it is.
Namaste1001 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
Yawn; zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Namaste1001
There has been no such case in almost 100 years....
RetSquid 10 months ago
For each Q1 sold to a customer at $1,350 the Qualified Consultant
receives $1,000. For each Q2 conference ticket sold for $7,500 the
Qualified Consultant receives between $5,000 and $6,000. For each Q3
conference ticket sold for $18,500 the Qualified Consultant receives
$12,000. For all three products, PQI receives the balance.
PQI’s Q1 product consists of 21 audio compact discs, each of which
contains an interview of a person who PQI touts as an expert in a
particular subject matter.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
On March 31, 2010, a federal jury returned guilty verdicts against eight people, following a month-long trial involving the promotion of fraudulent schemes through Pinnacle Quest International, also known as PQI and Quest International. The ninth, Lyon, entered a guilty plea and testified against the other eight at trial.
PQI was an umbrella organization for numerous vendors of tax and credit card debt elimination scams.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
Sherry Peel Jackson is a convicted tax defier who advances her frivolous tax arguments on PQI’s Q1 audio course. At PQI’s June 2004 Q2 conference in Cabos San Lucas, Jackson also promoted a tax-fraud product known as the “861 Evidence Disc,” which purports to show why U.S. citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes. Jackson also spoke on pre-recorded phone calls available to PQI Qualified Consultants as a tool to recruit new PQI members.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
The REAL answer:
1.) They use force (gun & imprisonment) to punish you if you DON'T.
2.) There is no law.
You can be legally (and certainly MORALLY) right but still get in the SLAMMER!
RodCornholio 11 months ago
@RodCornholio
Too bad for you that there is a law...Title 26.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid Agree, however it's technically a statute . Occasionally laws and morality are congruent. This isn't one of them.
Happily for me, right & wrong isn't derived from law! Imagine when slavery was legal in the U.S.! Or a husband raping a wife in some Middle East country! And so on.
And it really doesn't matter if one calls it "law", "statute", or nothing. Those who have the guns, gold, and goons ARE the most common violent, coercive force in our daily lives. They are "law".
RodCornholio 11 months ago
@RodCornholio
Laws are Statutes, as are Codes. So stop lying and saying that "there is no law".
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid I don't usually lie, but I was not correct. Youtube doesn't provide a way of editing posts.
Relax, just don't obey laws that are wrong. You may go to jail, but so did Ghandi, MLK, Rosa Parks, etc. Heck they hung Gabriel Prosser.
Freedom is measured by the extent at which you are willing to defend it; that the boundaries of Liberty are drawn along points you would rather risk being deprived of your life than to be deprived of your freedom.
Thanks for your help!
Best Regards
RodCornholio 11 months ago
They intentionally make title 26 so difficult for the average public school graduate to understand... Thank god I didn't attend public school all my teen age years!!
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
The basics of it are VERY simple.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Do you want my current location? I'm in Idaho right now. Tomorrow I'll be in Washington and 2 days from tomorrow I'll be in sunny California. And the rest is unknown. Wack job? After reading all of title 26, who wouldn't be a wack job? Lol!
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
I don't think anyone has read all of it.
RetSquid 11 months ago
That's what I thought loser
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Do you actually think I would give you my name or address out on the internet so whack-jobs like you can stalk me? Where do YOU live?
RetSquid 11 months ago
Retsquid how about we chit chat in person? Where do you live?
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
Who here thinks the government isn't corrupt? Who here thinks the government is too big? Who here thinks they should be forced to pay for services, benefits, and privileges at gun point or with threats of prison? Anyone? Who here wants to pay for someone else to have medical insurance?
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
"Who here thinks they should be forced to pay for services, benefits, and privileges at gun point or with threats of prison?"
That is one of the privileges that the Government has.
RetSquid 11 months ago
You have not proven me wrong about anything! Nothing have you proved me wrong with! Lol man your delusional! Lol
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Anyone reading this sees that you are a liar and a fool.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Ohhh plz!!! No matter what you say in defense to the corruption and tyranny, your still a brainwashed federal corporate kangaroo! Lol!
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Now that you have been conclusively proven wrong, you pull out the Ad Hominem...
RetSquid 11 months ago
Fair trade is not a wage! Sorry try again!
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Sorry, that claim will lose in every court, every time. so you are factually, legally, wrong.
RetSquid 11 months ago
If you give me a dollar and I gave you a dollar, no profit, gain, income, loss, compensation, gross income, etc was made. Same goes for labor vs money. It's all fair trade! Threw the years fair trade has been dissolved by corruption and tyranny.
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Connor v. Commissioner
RetSquid 11 months ago
Retsquid I don't get paid or compensated. No loss or gain was made when there's fair trade.
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Should I get my boots out? Your B.S. is getting pretty deep.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Yes! Obamacare is the same thing! Forcing people to get medical insurance... Forcing people to pay for services, privileges and benefits! Same thing!
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
Congress has the power! But nowhere have they enforced their power!
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
Yeah, they did, in Title 26 Section 1.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Yes income is defined as profits and gains threw excise. But I don't make income so the income tax does not apply to me.
chrishufstetler 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler
If you were compensated for your labor, THAT is income and can be taxed as such.
Go read PETH again.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Check out the blacks law definition of "Wage" I don't make a wage, income, gross income, gain, compensation or profit! I give an equal share of labor for an equal share of money. That's called Fair Trade!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
Sorry, that is not how the law defines it.
“[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. No court has ever accepted this argument for the purpose of determining taxable income. Indeed, it has always been rejected. For once and for all, wages are taxable income.”
Peth v. Breitzmann
RetSquid 11 months ago
Example: When you want the privilege and benefits to "Drive" you MUST sign a contract to get that privilege and benefit! And when you sign that contract you MUST follow the rules and regulations that are stipulated with it! Same goes for Privileges and benefits of social security! They just don't hand anyone a social security number unless you signed for it! OMFG how stupid can you get? Contracts people!!!! Contracts!!!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
None of that has ANYTHING to do with you haveing to pay income tax, there is no contract involved, nor does there have to be...its the LAW.
You 'privilege' argument loses everytime it is tried in court.
RetSquid 11 months ago
It's not authorized by the Constitution! And NO! I am not anti tax! Lol! The excise tax is a good thing! But being forced to pay for privileges and benefits and services is WRONG! Retsquid do you think Obamacare is good or bad? What's your opinion on obamacare?
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
Amendment 16 - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@chrishufstetler " What is your opinion on Obamacare" COULD obamacare be used as a live example of what was done to the "income" tax of the early 1900s ? The 1099s, fines, 2% "income" taxing. hiring of 16,000 IRS agents ect... What do you think ?
asicit2b 11 months ago
Did you sign your name on a piece of paper, to get social security number, driver license, marriage license, w-4, 1040, Navy, bank account, etc? If you did... You indeed signed yourself into contract! If you break that contract, fines, penalties and possible jail/prison may apply:)
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
Yes the courts are corrupt! The judge gets more money from finding people guilty. It's unfortunate for that man that signed contracts... Too bad for him!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
LOL!!! How about you find ONE, just ONE, law, case or dicta that says the income tax is based on some kind of contract?
RetSquid 1 year ago
Let's say I have an apple (Labor). And you have an orange (Money). You want my apple and I want your orange. We therefore make an agreement to trade my apple for your orange. So we traded. You and I did not lose or gain anything because my apples value was the same value as you valued your orange. No profit, gain, income, gross income or compensation was made! Fair trade was made:)
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler “The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Connor v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
Yes if you want legal advice call a tax lawyer. Not one man or woman on this you tube forum is a lawyer. So I recommend doing your own research and find out the truth yourself! I recommend the Bernhoft Law firm. They specialize in tax law.
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
Have fun taking her advice, kids. You too can end up in Federal prison getting fucked in the ass, just like she is.
ginandtacos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sherry Jackson found out that she has to pay even in prison when they attached her prison work wages. Her conditions of parole will ensure that she pays her income taxes.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Our founding fathers were not afraid to go to prison/jail for their rights and freedoms! Lol your funny! You still don't get it! No contract, no taxes. Those found guilty signed contracts but did not pay, hence prison.
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
“The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin’s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.”
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).
RetSquid 1 year ago
title 26 has had it's azz kicked many times! A lot of people have been found not guilty of tax evasion! Just because the media didn't tell you other wise didn't mean it didn't happen. This country is corrupt! You know it, I know it and The World knows it! But what are the Americans going to do about it? Hmmmmm Not a dam thing! Most Americans are ignorant! Most don't even know what their rights and freedoms are let alone defend them. Lol! America is going down!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler -
You must have a secret desire to have your your poop chute packed by Big Bubba.
I certainly would not want to go to a federal prison of a corrupt country.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
It turns out some IRS agents figured out they can make more money of suckers who don't like paying taxes than holding a regular job.
Sherry Peel Jackson, Joe Banister, and the rest of the clan are a hoax! Title 26 has never been defeated before. Do you think you will be the first to do so? Go ahead and try!
The IRS can be repealed but not through tax evasion. Be smart and ignore these goons!! Look up Ron Paul and Peter Schiff.
MrSupernova111 1 year ago
People sign contracts to pay money to the Federal Corporation to receive privileges and benefits of Social Security, Drive in Commerce, Armed Forces, Medicare, public school etc. When you sign these contracts but refuse to pay for the privileges and benefits you get locked up in Federal Corporate prison. If you never signed contracts, the Federal Corporation can't touch you!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrishufstetler
Stop cutting and pasting the same old lies. They are not even close to a logical argument, much less a legal one.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrishufstetler
"The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin's protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts."
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).
RetSquid 1 year ago
No contracts, no tax.
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
Stop with the lies already.
RetSquid 1 year ago
10 30 2010 Dr. Mark E. Hopkins and Sharon J. Hopkins were convicted of seven counts of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy.
"Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joe Banister."
Mr. Banister's proposed testimony is comprised largely of legal conclusions, which are not a proper form of expert testimony. United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Government's Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of Joseph R. Banister [Doc 142] is GRANTED
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We the People Congress and Foundation
Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve System et al., 08-CV-991.
The Complaint alleges that Schulz pays taxes to the United States and New York State.
---
Schulz alleges as his injury that he is a “payer of federal taxes” and has a legal interest “not to have his money taken from him” for purposes he deems illicit.
Schulz admits that he pays his income taxes while leading his sheep to prison.
I want to see a "Robert Schulz" failure to file case.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Want something real to bitch about:
Youtube search: To rob a country, own a bank
It's by William K Black
Banksters + Wall Street crooks run control frauds to loot banks and companies so they can get rich through bankruptcy as the loses are insured by the US government.
The FBI warned of these problems and an economic crash in 2004.
There has not been one arrest of these crooks responsible for the 2008 crash.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
CPA revocation appeal
BANISTER v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY
September 21, 2010.
Rather than evidence, Banister presents wild hypotheticals. Below he speculated about due process in Rwanda; now he raises the possibility that fanatic Islamists would ban female witnesses. Neither hypothetical is factually supported, of course. But Banister's resort to hypotheticals instead of evidence is telling. His appeal masquerades as a question of law when it is nothing more than an abstraction.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Walder v. Conklin -- Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was bogus.
Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued when Conklin welched.
The court ruled that Conklin has structured his argument so that he was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch.
This opinion does not mention the Fifth Amendment except in the context of Conklin welching on his bet.
Bill Conklin - Quatlosers Hall of Shame
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Legal fallacies are only evidence of a person's state of mind. They are not evidence of the law pertaining to any case as all the law applicable to the case will be contained in the jury instructions.
I did not hear the mention of "ruling case law."
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
SHERRY PEEL JACKSON, a former IRS Revenue Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant was sentenced on February 14, 2008 to four years in federal prison on four counts of failure to file her individual tax returns for the years 2000 to 2003.
In 2000, defendant came into contact with Joseph Banister, a
former IRS agent, who is a supporter of WTP; defendant later became
a member of Banister's tax protestor's "Hall of Fame." See
attached Govt. Exhibit 1.
Who will be Joe Banisters next victim?
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments
By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP
This is a Treasure trove of cases debunking "Patriot for Profit" and Phony de-taxer idiot legal arguments.
Quatloos has a "Hall of Shame" on which Banister and Devvy Kidd are listed.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
The income tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). IRS was established July 1, 1862 by an act of Congress. Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Charles Thomas Clayton was convicted on two counts of making false tax returns + six counts of willful failure to file + was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Clayton himself prepared the amended returns for 1997 and 1998 sent them to Banister for approval, and then sent them to the IRS.
It was Banister who was instructing Clayton as to the method for making claims for refunds.
As a result of his conviction, the Texas Medical Board revoked Clayton's license to practice medicine.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Revenue Agent Hawkins learned that Bernhoft makes substantial annual payments to Banister.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Government’s petition to enforce the IRS summons for “[a]ny form, document or letter prepared by Joseph Banister for [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” and “[a]ny correspondence (including e-mails) between Joseph? Banister and [Bernhoft] and/or [his] entities” is GRANTED.
Bernhoft MUST PRODUCE those materials to the Government no later than November 30, 2009.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
JANUARY 8, 2004
Richard Michael Simkanin was found guilty of ten counts of willful failure to collect, account for and pay over taxes due; 15 counts of making false claims against the United States; and four counts of failure to file individual income tax returns.
The defense called Joseph Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigator, who now claims there is no law mandating income taxes. Simkanin was sentenced to 7 years
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Joe Banister has many followers, including Matthew J. Allen, a sheriff's deputy in Marin County, Calif., who was found guilty of one felony count of filing a false state income tax return, and two felony counts of filing a fraudulent Form W-4 Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate.
Allen said he subscribes to the philosophies of Joseph Banister.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Joe Banister's attorney Robert Bernhoft represented Wesley Snipes who was convicted of three counts of willful failure to file. Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
On August 27, 2008, the United States Tax Court ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to file his 2002 federal income tax return and report, as income, over $23,000 in a distribution from a retirement plan and other income.
Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-201, CCH Dec. 57,522(M), docket no. 1356-06 (Aug. 27, 2008).
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Joe Banister's attorney Bernhoft is a known tax fraud proponent. In 1999, he was permanently enjoined from promoting his "De-Taxing America Program" tax protester scheme. United States v. Robert R. Raymond
The district court concluded that the "De-Taxing America" program contained false statements and false advice concerning the federal income tax.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Banister's attorney admitted that Banister pays his federal income taxes.
Banister's (Thompson) case did not even involve the question of the liability for federal income taxes.
A jury acquitted Joe Banister of multiple counts of assisting Al Thompson file a fraudulent tax return.
Al Thompson was sentenced in a separate trial to six years in a federal penitentiary.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
Director, Office of Professional Responsibility,
v.
Joseph R. Banister
Banister's assertions have been addressed by so many federal courts that they are no longer afforded the dignity of repeating the explanations as to why the claims are meritless.
JOSEPH R. BANISTER, is hereby ORDERED DISBARRED from practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
Judge William B. Moran
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago