Income Tax Law: Dave Champion "Tax Freedom 2007" Speech. P1

[Thereisonlythetruth]

Go check out Original Intent Treatise



[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”

Colgate v. Harvey

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Close. A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a

citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a

person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen

of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to

the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right

to declare who are its citizens.  [State v. Fowler

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Can you give a complete citation for the case and a site to find it? (Besides supremelaw DOT o r g?)

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Can you? I've at least shown my source. Where is yours??

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Your source is well know for creating it's own cases. Post an ORIGINAL/PRIMARY source for the case.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”

The Slaughterhouse Cases

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Don't you mean this:It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the

United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct

from each other and which depend upon different characteristics

or circumstances in the individual. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] [(1873) emphasis added]

Post 14th Amendment

[kubush]

The IRS doesn't give you any information? Are you kidding me? You can go to their website irs(dot)gov and find PLENTY of information on the tax code including the income tax.

[Tealy855]

"NO TAXATION WITHOUT CLARIFICATION"

[RetSquid]

He missed a fifth 'class of person'...all U.S. Citizens with income from anywhere.

"Filing Requirements These rules apply to all U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and resident aliens." Form 1040

[shopken1]

@RetSquid - Look deeper as in definition of "US Citizens" and you will find that it is a 14th amendment creation... and it only applies to a limited type of "person" that has “civil rights” granted by government, not "inherent rights" that created government to protect these rights. You must grant your agreement through the contract of participation; to waive your inherent rights in favor of becoming a 2nd class citizen, and become a government subject & ward

[RetSquid]

@shopken1

WRONG! The only reason the 14th was passed was to ensure that blacks had the same rights as other citizens. Everyone has inherent rights given by God, the 14th ensures that racists included 'other-than-whites' in the definition. You become a Citzen by birth, the only way to get rid of that is to renounce it after you leave the country.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid I like how you neglect to mention that the 14th Amendment did not apply and never was intended to apply to any persons other than the citizens of Confederate States. It did not apply to the Citizens of the Union. Read it again.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Sorry, wrong! The first clause of the 14th Amendment applies to everyone. Only the other clauses mention the rebellion.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid they mean the same thing; for "the Citizens of each

State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens

in the several States," and "Citizens of the United States***"

are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.  [44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid ... [F]or  it is certain, that in the sense in which the word

"Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each

State," and "Citizen of the United States***," are convertible

terms;

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Check this link out. I hope this helps.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

If you post something from a person who was there at the time and thought as you do it MIGHT be more helpful.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid That's just it. The people who were there at the time, who think like I do were the founders of our country. There are still those who think the same way our founders did, they are called Patriots.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

And there are many called "Patriots" wjho are suckered into things that they are TOLD the Founders believed, but never did.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid And you would know this how??

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Because of all the 'patiiots' like yourself who are so ignorant on the real history of the United States.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Where does ol' Dave here get his ideas from? They sure don't come from the law or how the law actually works.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid So you're saying that everybody born in this country is a 14th Amendment citizen? If this is so, then we are subjects of the government. Meaning we have no Rights, only priveliges. That cannot be. Where are you getting your court case information? I would love to actually see it. Because if it is not a Supreme Court case, then it has no bearing on State law. Because it is the States that govern themselves. Each State is sovereign unto itself.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

No, everyone born in this country is a Citizen. You are a Citizen of the U.S. and then a Citizen of the State where you reside. Your rights/priveleges are the same either way you look at it.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid If you think that Rights are the same as Priveleges, then we have nothing more to discuss. Rights are given to us by our creator, they cannot be taken away, modified, or ignored. Priveleges are given by government. There is quite a difference.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Yes, there is, and you have yet to say how they are being taken away or what that has to do with citizenship.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid This is the difference. I will use the 2nd Amendment as an example. Under the 14th Amendment "citizenship" is given by Congress as a federal citizen, not an Original Class of Citizen of the State. Meaning federal citizens do not have unalienable rights. But Original Class Citizens do. McDonald vs. Chicago only applies to 14th Amendment citizens, because under the 2nd Amendment the courts do not have the authority to remove, alter, deny, etc. an unalienable right.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

You are VERY confused, there is no "". Nor is the Second Amendment and "unalienable right", it can have reasonable restrictions. Every Citizen has the same exact rights, even if you call yourself by the fictional term "Original Class of Citizen".

[RetSquid]

@RetSquid

**there is no "Original Class of Citizen".

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Oh yes there is. Read the article I asked you to, then get back to me. And the 2nd Amendment IS most definitely an unalienable right. Our God given right of self defense. And what exactly are those reasonable restrictions?? These I would love to hear.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

The Second Amendment is a right given by the Government, change the Constitution and it goes away. You DO have a right to self-defense you do not have a right to an RPG.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid WRONG!!! The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally recognised Right. It was NOT given by the government. I don't carry an RPG. I carry a .45. My God are you serious??

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

If the Constitution recognizes it, it can also take it away.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid "Tyrranny is when something is legal for the government, but illegal for the Citizenry."-Thomas Jefferson

If the Government can have one, then I can have one. I may not have a use for one, but I can still have one.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Meaning as an Original Class Citizen I do not have to ask permission to strap a sidearm to my waist. It is an unalienable Right. If I want to put a jacket over it, I damn well can. I strongly suggest that you read the Citizenship article at OriginalIntentDOTorg. It is explained extremely well. And there is no need for insults, I have not said anything insulting to you, this is a debate. If all you want to do is throw insults at me, then it only proves ignorance.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

I have not insulted you at all, I stated a fact that you are ignorant on United States history.

You CAN strap that sidearm on, you can also go to jail if it violates local or State laws. Claiming you are above the law because of some fictional "class" of Citizenship, is not a viable defense.

Anything on that site is suspect because the author/owner is also ignorant about U.S. law.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid You have a completly closed mind, you aren't even open to others thoughts. State and local laws must follow the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. What part of ......"Shall not be infringed". do you not understand?

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

I did read that article, it's about half crap.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid I have nothing more to say to you. You have proven that you are a Leftist and are therefore, my enemy. Good day, sir.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

Actually, I'm a Conservative Constitutionalist.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid You cannot be. You obviously believe that the government has all the power. The first three words of the Preamble of the Constitution says loud and clear who has all of the power. Like I said, the Constitution merely recognises rights given by God. These cannot be taken away. A Conservative does not believe in infringing upon other Citizens rights. You seem to be ok with it as long as the government says so.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

There are very few absolute rights. do you think you have an absolute right to free speech?

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid Freedom of speech is meant as speech spoken in opposition to what the government says. Freedom of speech is absolute with the following exception, private property. If I am at someone else's home and they do not like what I am saying about the government, they can indeed subvert my 1st Amendment Right. But I am not aware of any other instance(s) where it can be subverted.

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

So you have never heard of slander or libel or the old "yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater"?

"Right to bear arms is the same way, it is not an absolute right to carry whatever weapons you want, some States have 'reasonable' restrictions...some have extemely stupid ones.

[Thereisonlythetruth]

@RetSquid I am also still learning. I know that there are SO many things that are misinterpreted about government, law, the Constitution, etc. But right is right and wrong is wrong. There is no getting around that. This is SUPPOSED to be the greatest REPUBLIC the world has ever seen, but how can we be with a government that runs unchecked, a Citizenry that refuses to stand up, and backwards thinkers like Leftists and many "Democrats" and "Republicans"?

[RetSquid]

@Thereisonlythetruth

The answer is to get more involved, not to try and remove yourself from the situation by claiming something does not exist.

[RetSquid]

@shopken1

“Relying on this Supreme Court authority, circuit and district courts have treated the question before us today as one long decided: ‘[I]n order to be a citizen of a state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the United States.’”

Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.

[smatthewsauthor]

Just realized that RetSquid is the only one on this site that has received major thumbs down for almost all of his comments. How much does the government pay you RetSquid? lol You must have carpel tunnel by now.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

Interesting comment, almost an exact quote from other videos, how much are you getting paid to spread your lies?

Everything I post is easily verified as truth.

[smatthewsauthor]

So are mine...

If you swore an oath to defend the constitution what is your opinion of the patriot act that passed without being read immediately after 9/11?

How did they write it so fast? (wait...it was already written and just needed to be passed?)

I'm done with you... enjoy all the readers thumbs down. Enjoy your disinformation job. : )

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

"I'm done with you... "

Good, I'll go back to reality and you go back to your padded cell.

[smatthewsauthor]

Watch my videos and see how far the rabbit hole goes... you won't be able to handle it Retsquid so don't bother.

[smatthewsauthor]

Odd fact about the war of 1812... There have been a few actual "ratified" American Constitutions found that Amended the 13th Amendment to BAN LAWYERS from being in Congress. This could be one of the major reasons that the war occurred and the White House was burnt down (the newly printed Constitutions were inside). The BAR stands for British Accreditation Registry.... Check it out! They control us through the courts and laws. Check out my videos...

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

Google:

Jol A. Silversmith(*), 8 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 577 (April 1999)

The Bar is: a railing in a courtroom separating the general public from the part of the room occupied by the judges, jury, attorneys, etc.

You definition does not exist. If it did, what would the ABA stand for?

TONA was never ratified, get over it.

[smatthewsauthor]

The US is a corporation too, so is the FED (privately held corp), the IRS (not a govnt agency) and your STRAWMAN. Look at your credit cards, DL, and any other license or financial instrument with your name on it: its in CAPS everywhere! Its actually not you, but an alter ego (STRAWMAN) you are VOLUNTARILY signing for. I can go on for days!

Since the US, the BAR etc are corporations the UCC is the foundation. Thats why the courts have to follow the UCC.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

You are just full of crap aren't you?

The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury...Snyder v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (N.D. In. 1984)

Capital letters in your name mean nothing...United States v. Glen H. Stinson et al. 2005.

[smatthewsauthor]

The term BAR is an acronym for British Accredited Registry [see comments below]. These snakes are in fact working for the Crown of England. And that is why the gold fringed flags are in the courtrooms. It signifies admiralty jurisdiction* [maritime law], which is another way of saying British jurisdiction [England is a maritime nation]. When you cross the bar in a courtroom, you are entering a British colonial forum. There is your bar definition...

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

The Bar is just that. the Bar, it is not an acronym.

Gold fringe on flags mean nothing... United States v. Greenstreet.

"When you cross the bar in a courtroom. There is your bar definition... "

But you said BAR was "British Accredited Registry", now it's not? LOL!! What does ABA mean? "American British Acredited Registry Association"??

[smatthewsauthor]

And that is why the gold fringed flags are in the courtrooms. It signifies admiralty jurisdiction* [maritime law], which is another way of saying British jurisdiction [England is a maritime nation]. When you cross the bar (the definition you provided) in a courtroom, you are entering a British colonial forum.

Fact

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

LIAR.

[smatthewsauthor]

A.B.A. is an acronym of an acronym. Did you you go to school? Probably public...

[smatthewsauthor]

I am proposing that TONA was ratified and that is a major reason the war occurred and why the White House was burnt down by England and the Canadians (containing the ratified constitutions). Best way to cover it up is to get rid of it... Just like all the Enron evidence that was solely in the FBI / CIA building (7) that went down after the twin towers, in 6 seconds (free fall rate). No plane hit that building...

[smatthewsauthor]

By the way... find out who was in charge of security for the entire Trade Center before and during the 9/11 attacks. It was yet another brother of G.W.B. AND google Thermate / thermite.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom and left in June 2000 and was NEVER "in charge" of security at the WTC.

Thermate/thermite..BS..go to '911myths' click on 'demolition' scroll down to 'thermate signature' and learn.

[smatthewsauthor]

You said "Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom and left in June 2000 and was NEVER "in charge"

and you don't find that moderately odd?

I think everyone else in the world that would see that would consider that VERY odd.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

I don't find it odd at all that you lied about him being in charge when he wasn't even there, and that the company he worked for was NEVER in chage of security at the WTC.

You pattern of lies is normal for 911toofers.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

Why don't we take our 911 stuff to a 911 video?

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

But TONA was never ratified and the evidence for that fact does exist, unlike your evidence.

WTC 7 Had hugh gashes up to the 20th floor from parts of WTC1 that hit it. It didn't fall in 6 seconds, more like 16 seconds.... watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk

[smatthewsauthor]

WTC 7 did fall at free fall (demolition) speed.  It was not hit by any debris from either tower. LMAO. Look at the layout of the WTC and it isn't even close. Moron... No response to thermate/thermite or GWB brother huh? AND find out the only two sources/manufacturers of thermate / thermite (nano technology manufacturing). Then reply with intelligence...

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

MORON.

[smatthewsauthor]

watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM Architects don't seem to agree with you.  Watch and learn!

[smatthewsauthor]

Disinformation agent... read the constitution and start supporting it before you don't have any rights either.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Why don't you stop trying to distort it?

[smatthewsauthor]

@RetSquid

LMAO . . . you are so naive. So you think lawyers spend years of study and months of prep to take a test to be a physical object in a courtroom AND that is what the acronym B.A.R. stands for? (A physical beam to separate people in a court?) No... it means B.ritish A.ccredidation R.egistry.

[RetSquid]

@smatthewsauthor

Yes, it is the bar exam to work in a court at the bar.

Your acronym only exists in the fevered dreams of conspiracy nuts.

There is no "BAR" or "B.A.R.". it does not even exist.

[proferic]

This guy sounds very impressive. But he's just passing out a load of bullshit. the tax protesters deserve to go to jail. And that's exactly where they'll end up.

[asicit2b]

Wrong again, I NEVER said that the "law" isn't "law" Check all my post.Stop missappling your point.Your either one or the other.

[asicit2b]

Nothing wrong with being a "income"TAX proTESTER.A ProGRESSIVE tax needs to be stopped.Just watch,people are sick of it.

[RetSquid]

That's fine with me.

Just stop claiming that the law isn't the law.

[asicit2b]

Do your OWN research,do not believe EVERYTHING that you are told.

[asicit2b]

Shadowcii,i do not know you or your liabilities,not my place to answer your question.

[asicit2b]

Post censor on me again

[asicit2b]

Like I asked .What law have I broken ? I as in ME ?Not what law "applies" to those who are MADE LIABLE. Your wearing THIN.

[RetSquid]

Why do you think that it DOESN'T apply to you?

[shadowcii]

I guess no one has been able to answer your objections to their arguments. Very interesting. How do you think pete Hendrickson will do next month?

[RetSquid]

Does he have another case up or is it just his sentencing?

[shadowcii]

That's a good question. According to his emails Oct 20th is his case and it's scheduled for 3 days. It is his criminal willfull failure to file case. also, have you read Dave Champions website, originalintentdotorg? I would be curious to get your read on that line of thinking aswell.

[RetSquid]

I just looked at some of his tax protesting stuff. His claims go against logic and well settled law. It's like he's playing connect-the-dots, but with no numbers.

[RetSquid]

Since you use the exact same wording and diction as others I have debated on here, I suggest you just look back over the past posts and find the answer to the same questions that have already been asked and answered..

It will save me much time from having to repeat myself.

Do you and "BourneArgonaut" get your talking points from the same place?

[shadowcii]

I am curious as well, why don't you think the law applies to you? I am hoping that it doesnt apply to me aswell

[asicit2]

O.K. Again, if I choose not to file a 1040 what LAW is broken ?

[RetSquid]

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART II > Subpart B >

§ 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

There is your law.

[shadowcii]

what is the 861 argument?

[RetSquid]

That's the argument named after section 861 of Title 26.

It covers foreign income and what is taxable if you have foreign and domestic income.

[asicit2]

26F61APart IIB 6011 (a) any "Person" "MADE"Liable (b) proper identification Chapter 21 or Chapter 24 of subtitle c......Part 1 6671(b) Defines the "person" is WHO ?

[asicit2]

No I am not a "Person" or "Indivi"dual"Can't you spell.... idividual... see how it works now. I divide u all

[asicit2]

Define"compensation" Part 1 6671 (b) Defines The"person" is WHO ?what ties me to 6672 that I need to obey what it says ?Do not think any LAW has been broken yet.

[RetSquid]

Congresss failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryans rights by enforcing it.

Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328

[RetSquid]

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART II > Subpart B > § 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]

Compensation: something (such as money) given or received as payment or reparation (as for a service or loss or injury) --worldnetweb princeton

Are you not a 'person" or an 'idividual'?

[asicit2]

Gains,profits and "income" DERIVED for personal service.Again if i receive "certain" amount of money for work i did in my local area, what taxable activity has occured ?

[RetSquid]

There need to be no 'taxable activity'.

If you recieved compensation for services you are taxed on that.

[asicit2]

If i choose not to file a 1040 what LAW is broken ?

[RetSquid]

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I >

§ 6672. Failure to collect and pay over tax, or attempt to evade or defeat tax

(a)General rule

Any person required to ...pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails... pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded.

[RetSquid]

The petitioners argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.

Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).

[asicit2]

...while hiding the picture behind your back ask him ,what did you see? he replies,"nothing"....

[asicit2]

Thats what i said it was to cover for tariffs"Income" and be removed after the war.I would have liked to have kept my $12,000 + the 10,000 loan i had to take out. 15.1 percent self emp + 38 percent for the rest of it !

[asicit2]

Yes there is no silver bullit,but there is a "formula" being worked on.HR1207 is a LITTLE start.Enjoy the internet while you can....

[asicit2]

Another part of the "trick" watch G Edward Griffin creature from jekyll island part 2. Why do you have such a strong interest in defending a "legal"corupt system as "income" taxes?

[RetSquid]

Why do I do this?

Because I really hate liars who say that 'there is no law' and get others to follow them into trouble.

[asicit2]

What war ??? What was the personal "Income" tax imposed for ?Canada had the same type of players if not THE players (?) involved in there system at the time.Arguments fail due to IGNORance and closed minds, not just lies.

[RetSquid]

The income tax was imposed before WWI.

Why? To raise revenue.

[asicit2]

Because it covered for tariffs and was not removed after the war is the"trick" the gov. does not get it.Any argument will fail thats the nature of the beast.

[RetSquid]

What war?

Arguments fail because they are based on a lie.

[iwtfunow]

argument fail because they are irrelevant...end of story

[asicit2]

RetSquid, is this mans "concept" Correct or misleading ?

[RetSquid]

"Correct or misleading ? "

Neither, he's just plain wrong.

He is using the '861' argument, which always fails in court.

Why do so many people think that the income tax is just some kind of 'trick' to get money for the Gov.?

[iwtfunow]

Champion is correct as far as he goes, but, he stops short of what is needed to put the whole system in the proper perspective. A lot of his truths are not on point and therefore in a legal sense frivolous. He is missing what is needed to put one on the correct bunny trail that leads to the hole without using the known tax protest crap which will kill you. People lose for using the wrong reasons. It is what it is and no more. Never get a position where you have to prove a negative.

[iwtfunow]

Look up the legal definition of Duty.........Frivolous is a good place to look why courts cannot help because they are given nothing to work with.....

[RetSquid]

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.

[iwtfunow]

Duty also means a moral or legal obligation. In the system of voluntary TAXATION the duty to file and pay is a moral obligation and not a imposed obligation

[RetSquid]

WRONG!

TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I,

§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed a tax determined in accordance with the following table[s]:

It is a legal obligation.

[iwtfunow]

What part of tax don't you understand

AND

What part of taxation don't you understand

you ASSUME they are the same...

Assume stands for ASS U ME. You certainly are a ASS, therefore you do not have the capability to rising to the level of a Moron...

[RetSquid]

LOL!

I assumed you would be intelligent and have a debate.  I guess I was wrong.

[RetSquid]

Why do you say that I assume that 'tax' and 'taxation' are the same?

[iwtfunow]

Because you use them as the same. Do you know the difference?

[RetSquid]

Taxation: The act of imposing taxes and the fact of being taxed.

Tax: charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government.

Where have implied they are the same?

[iwtfunow]

you keep coming back with a missing link....

[RetSquid]

What do you think is the missing link?

[iwtfunow]

I KNOW what the missing link is...Trying to tell you would be like casting pearls before swine. You are too closed minded. You argue to prove a point rather than to discover things as they are. Your like the some of the people in the Wilderness with Moses who would not look.

[RetSquid]

So, either YOU are the missing link or there is none.

Arguing with tax protesters is like playing whack-a-mole. As soon as you have slammed down one crazy argument, another one pops its head up.

[iwtfunow]

Nowhere have I protested the income tax. That proves to me that you do not really read my responses and only respond with automatic programed diatribe

[shopken1]

Maybe its you in the whack a mole game.. not the "Tax protester".. Look up the facts. Your just plain wrong here.

[RetSquid]

If I am wrong post some proof.

I've already post stuff toprove him wrong.

[iwtfunow]

It's impossible to prove a negative....There is no statute that makes the person recieving the income liable for the tax imposed on his or her income.

Now if it exists as you say....produce the statute or shut up and go away....Don,t come with a "cluster XXXX"

[RetSquid]

TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I,

§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed a tax determined in accordance with the following table[s]:

The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919,... imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,'

LUCAS v. EARL, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

[RetSquid]

SECTION II.

A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States,

The United States Revenue Act of 1913

[RetSquid]

"It's impossible to prove a negative"

Nice saying but incorrect, you can prove that there are no living T-Rex's on the Earth.

[iwtfunow]

Your asinine...end of story...your posts are off the point and are nothing but cluster fxxxx's

[RetSquid]

The point is: income tax is legal and you gotta pay.

[RetSquid]

The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.

Porcaro v. United States

[shadowcii]

what do you know about the differences between 14th amendment citizenship and citizenship layed out in the federal constitution?

[RetSquid]

I know that there is no difference, as the 14th Amendment is the only definition of a Citizen in the Constitution.

[JustAboutMyPolitics]

RetSquid is a government groupie. He spends his time spreading misinformation & defamation against patriots & the freedom movement. He evidently loves bowing down and licking the boots of his Masters. Especially after they've just stepped in bullshit. Because that's what he's full of.

[RetSquid]

You can't prove anything I've said is incorrect.

You are just hinding from the truth.

Why don't you unblock me?

[RetSquid]

How about you stop name calling and actually try and prove a point?

[proferic]

Great. Go for the personal attacks. It's a sure sign your'e wrong on the facts and the law.

[warnerpa03]

"Frivolous"study that word learn what it means. Learn how it applies to avoid it.

[almartin77]

Thank you Dave. You are an Island of truth. It disturbs me deeply to see how brain drained the American public has become.

[sunnygirl213]

Its not just that the tax code "has nothing to do with you"...the United States (a commercial corporation) has nothing to do with you -- unless you're engaging in smuggling or counterfeiting etc.

You have to deal with the people across the pond to opt out of the IRS, by the way.

Against the Grain Press

[AnteroC77]

The rich who the IRS works for and was established by doesn't want to pay income tax...that's the only reason there is no authoritative citation (or 'law') that citizens working in the U.S. must work. Good work Dave.

[Mastr9]

Great Video....Thanks for posting!!!!!