@RetSquid not a single person but you (A disinfo artist) are on here calling EVERYONE that is pretty sure the goverment and court systems are corrupt and full of criminals -DELUSIONAL- no matter what their background education or expertise they are paranoid and stupid... And the experts are always framed as being nuttier than everyone else, they are confused and dont know what theyre talking about.. that is the mark of a disinfo artist....
@RetSquid "Called me out??"where are they, disinfo artist?? And keep following that play book... keep defending you evil masters... Anyone expert and educated suspecting the government of corruption and speaks out about it are wrong, their education/expertise doesn't mean anything. And those that DONT have an education or expertise HAVE TO BE highly educated and experts to see that the government is corrupt and dont know what they're talking about.LOL!! spook you have no conscience
You are clueless. You said,"14,310 views and not a word." And I pointed out that NOBODY has left any comments, so how can you claim that as proof you are right?
Now, AGAIN, what is your education and expertise that makes you special? And where is your evidence of any corruption?
>>>> 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?
For all of you claiming Peter was 'wrong' have never read his Cracking the Code book and do not understand the magnitude of his works. The Judge in his case instructed the jury on what his definition of what the law was, so he never stood a chance from the beginning. Look up the 'Whitey Harrell' case and understand the differences. Our system has become so corrupt, that doing the right thing can seem wrong. If Peter is wrong, so was Rosa Parks and everyone else standing up against oppression.
Try again, Rosa Parks knew the law and never pretended that it did not exist, she protested it.
These guys don't even admit there is a law, EVEN AFTER THEY ARE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING IT. They are just confused frauds who take others money for nothing but trouble in return.
@RetSquid You obviously haven't looked up the Whitey Harrell case as encouraged or your response would not have been full of confusion. It does not matter if people are convicted, it does matter that it was up to the bias of the Judge to instruct the jury as to what the definition of income is as it is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code leaving room for ambiguity and thus, unlawful enforcement. Look up the Whitey Harrell case before responding please.
You cannot argue the law in a jury case, only on appeal. Harrell lost because his definitions are not the legal ones used for income tax. If you have a link to the decision, I'll read it.
@RetSquid WRONG! Harrell was acquitted because their was no law defining what an 'income' meant in the internal revenue code. O.J. was acquitted to prevent the projects from becoming war zones. Two completely different reasons. The jury was confused only because the Judge had no law in hand defining what an 'income' was. The jury in his second trial had not a clue! You need to get your facts straight!
@RetSquid and it seems you are confused as well because it wasn't just Harrell. The judge couldn't produce the law himself to the jury as the jury requested it twice. Title 26 Section 61 does not apply to Harrell's case. Section 63 defines taxable income, but that only applies to those mentioned in Section 6331.
@RetSquid negative ghostrider. you completely took that out of context. You extracted "every individual" out of "taxable income of every individual". "Income" under the tax law is any gainful activity involving the federal government meaning if you work for the federal government under any capacity, an investor in federal entities or a recipient of federal benefits. A taxable event in this respect is the tax on the activities or resulting gains/profits including but not limited to, dividends.
@RetSquid You are taking terms out of context AGAIN! This time you extracted "income" from "gross income" and your definition of "compensation for services" comes from trade and business. With respect to taxation, "income" is net profit or gain not of which apply to labor where neither profits or gains are realized.
Perhaps it is not me making a mistake. You see someone convicted and assume they must be wrong. I guess that goes for the innocent folks convicted of rape and sentenced to 25 years.
Everything is in context, you keep trying to change what it plainly means, just like the convict-Pete.
"compensation for services" is what you get paid for working, i.e. "wages" and it is all gain. Not a single person has gotten out of paying income tax using these claims.
@RetSquid You are clueless. Tom Cryer, Joe Banister, Dave Champion, and Whitey Harrell are just a few who have have rightfully been acquitted of charges filed against them by the IRS. You don't see them in the newspaper do you? You see people who lose to the IRS in the lamestream media and that is about it.
Tom Cryer is still waiting for the civil trial, Whitey was convicted multiple times, as was Shiff, Hendrickson, and many others. If there were so many others, these morons would have those cases posted everywhere.
@RetSquid Cryer was acquitted of all charges the first time, but the IRS will continue to do everything it can. Whitey was acquitted of all charges the first time, but the IRS will continue to do everything it can. Schiff was not allowed to bring the tax law to court on the bias of the Judge. The jury couldn't even use it. So, that conviction was reached on the will of the Judge and not law. Hendrickson had a similar deal and you would know that if you looked at these cases objectively.
Whitey was convicted multiple times, Cryer STILL owes over $1.4 million. Schiif claimed 'insanity' at his trial. Hendrickson lost again. None of them will succeed in proving that income tax law does not apply to them, because IT DOES APPLY! There was nothing wrong in any of the court cases, you cannot argue the law at a jury trial, only on appeal.
@RetSquid Whitey was convicted multiple times retroactively after being fully acquitted the first. Is this not double jeopardy and a violation of the fifth amendment? Same with Cryer. If Cryer is convicted the ruling would stand on the will of the Judge and not the law. Would that not also be double jeopardy? Schiff did not claim insanity and you got that argument from Larkin Rose who aided in Wesley Snipes' incarceration. Hendrickson is losing on the will of the Judge and not according to law.
You didn't read his cases either did you? The first case was a State income tax case, the second was Federal. He was convicted of violating income tax law, but it was not the same offence, it was also for different years. Cryer is going to a civil court, no double jeopardy there. Schiff claimed "mental defect", A/K/A 'insanity'. Hendrickson lost on the law, plain and simple, as have some of his followers.
Snipes used Larkins losing argument and also lost. Is that supposed to be suprising? How about you post someone who actually got out of paying income tax? Not the few that convinced a jury they were to stupid to be 'willfully' violating the law.
OH, of COURSE..Everyone is wrong except YOU!! Forget what the laws plainly say and hundreds of years of Common Law traditions. You guys are the ones who miraculously know how the law is suppoed to work...and everyone except the Chosen Few are sheeple....
@RetSquid When we started needing lawyers to "understand the laws" in this country that is when things went corrupt..
Now the hundreds of thousands of laws work however the lawyers say it works and they have the guns to back it up... They have purposely made things so convoluted and confusing no one knows what is legal in those laws they created but them ..the whole system is corrupt and the sheep blindly follow that system.. everyone is wrong EXCEPT those that follow the constitution
Well, when you start to follow the Constitution, let me know. Otherwise, you are the sheeple following some weird Master who denies truth at every turn.
@RetSquid Youre so evil I bet you actually belive youre not a scumbag... I am following the constitution.. Along with most of the others here including the poster of this video.. THATS WHY YOURE HERE...To cause confusion- to be a distraction...
@RetSquid when you have criminal scumbags running the goverment and the courts and criminal lawyers making laws and a dumbed down uninformed people who dont care about anything but entertaiment, the constitution says whatever they want it to say... What is written in it frankly dosent matter..
So you don't CARE what the Constitution and the laws say, you just want to get your own way. I bet you didn't even read it. You sound like a childish brat who lost an argument.
@RetSquid Spin?? what you said is just how the criminals that run the goverment and courts feel about the constitution. They constution says whatever they want it to say when they want to say it.This what happens when criminals make and interpet laws. they are childish brats who want have things their way... the sheep dont care about anything but entertaiment. they were breed to be that way.
@RetSquid Wrong...My claims have No basis in your reality.... which is of deception.. which only works on those that havent been awakened (sheep) to what is going on...
@RetSquid We have criminals running our government and courts...Anyone speaking and acting against them are called names and ridiculed no matter WHAT their expertise and credentials say they are ok UNTIL They start speaking out against the corrupted government and courts. that should ALWAYS be a red flag..but the sheep dont care
@RetSquid "We live in delusion and our claims have no basis in reality" yep,everyone of no matter what education expertise or credentias law experts constitutional experts, tax experts, congressmen, senators..As long as they go against criminal activity in the goverment they are all "just a bunch of nut cases."
Thats why youre on every internet page of those against the crook in goverment trying to distract everyone with your deciet.. that kind of suspect behavior is what woke me up.
Well, what you claim is "criminal" everyone else thinks is "normal". The income tax law is legal,lawful and Constitutional, you just think it's not right.
If you want to get away from being called delusional, change your arguments.
@RetSquid that's becuase we have crooked lawyers making laws,running the goverment and the courts they can make anything they want legal.. like john doe warrents,legitimization homosexual behavior in various ways, making it legal for corprations to control the free press, and phone tapping.. people paying over 50% of thier inccome in all kinds of taxes permits,fees, licenses and other schemes.. the crooks in goverment can do anything they want because the sheep have been taught not to care
@RetSquid Yet for years youre on every anti criminal goverment youtube channel you can(some with experts on video) going back and forth debating delusionals??
Most people dont waste time with delusionals..even sheep.. but youre always here...
saying 1+1=4 when it dosent..in other words the goverment is not a corrupt rogue goverment run by highly educated criminals
@RetSquid We have highly educated criminals in the government making laws and criminals interpreting laws. they can make any law they want constitutional or un constitutional doesn't matter what the constitution says,that is how the laws are corrupt. they just do what they want. they have the guns and the sheeple dont care.. so how can you be shown wrong when the law making is corrupt??
@RetSquid "The income tax law is legal,lawful and Constitutional, you just think it's not right."
Because the U.S. Co. is in a "state of emergency"/martial law (gold tassels on flag and all that - although sometimes not tasseled, at occasions, but this serves to mix it all together) since Lincoln?
@rogueronin82 "My claims have No basis in your reality...."
Here you touch upon something essential; La-La-Land vs. the Real World.
La-La-Land is a construct, it is built off of assumptions, a.k.a. "facts".
In that land there be dragons. Words have different meanings than in the regular world, there is the need for magical formulæ, games are played, traps everywhere.
In this world you are not of flesh and blood unless you make it clear and are able to separate person and soul.
Everything is in context, you keep trying to change what it plainly means, just like the convict-Pete.
"compensation for services" is what you get paid for working, i.e. "wages" and it is all gain. Not a single person has gotten out of paying income tax using these claims.
@RetSquid If everything was in context, the Internal Revenue Code would be saying that ALL "income" is taxed from whatever sources derived. Being that the "income tax" is not apportioned, the Judge in the case of Brushaber v Union Pacific (1916) ruled that "the confusion arises from an unknown power of taxation...and the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it."
Did you even read the casse? The "erroneous assumption" is that the 16th Amendment gave Congress a new taxing power, it didn't. Congress ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes.
@RetSquid You are going in circles and I do not have the time nor the patience to debate and discuss these matters with you any longer. I do not surrender in defeat, but in matter of frustration because of your unwillingness and incapacity to objectively perceive rulings, your over-bearing biases on the decisions reached in favor of the nontaxpayer, and your deliberate perversion of taking terms out of context. Happy New Year's Eve!
I know I am going in circles, you keep forcing the debate that way. Go read the cases again and check out Dan Evans Tax Protestor FAQ. It is very informative.
I have taken nothing out of context, I have put it IN context. We are talking law, not coulda/shoulda/woulda, court cases define the laws of this country.
"Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject"
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
“[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.”
LOL!! No lies? What about your pay from your neighbor? You said it was not 'wages', that is a lie. You claim not to be liable for income tax because you coose not to be, that is a lie. You lied about the Fed., then changed your mind when proved wrong and squirmed about a 'type' of audit.
Look back one week in comments, you said,"They have never been audited." I have showed that was a lie. All of your other claims are just as wrong as that one.
How about the one where you "choose" not to be liable for income taxes? Or the one where your wages are not really 'wages"? Or the one where Section 6012 is just for foreign corporations? Should I go on or will you 'clarify' these lies also?
What about your other lies...comments...whatever you call them, it's just a waste of time for me, I already know the truth and you are just clueless about it.
Took retsquid about 30 Min. on THIS video. For those who want to know about
the different types of "audits" that are done and not done, Do your own research and due diligence and make up your own mind. Break the cycle of Ignorance.
So you agree and have admitted that you are a liar....AGAIN....
You said, "They have never been audited.", but they have been. You are the ignorant one here trying to sound intelligent....but it still has not worked.
The IRS is a corporation, not a governmental entity. It was set up to collect unconstitutional taxes on income of individuals in order to pay INTEREST to the Internationalist bankers who own the federal reserve, another private corporation, not a governmental entity, to print up their funny money. It is a strong arm of the internationalist bankers. Congress is to mint our money, to be backed by precious metals, not the illegal, unconstitutional entity known as the Federal Reserve.
You are absolutely wrong. The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, it collects the Federal income tax which is fully Constitutional. The interest on the debt is only about 25% of the amount of tax collected.
What's really funny is 100% of federal income tax collected goes to paying back the interest the U.S. owes to the privately owned Federal Reserve. We all need to reclaim our SOVEREIGN Citizenship. Research Tim Turner and the American Sovereignty Movement.
It would be impossible to jail 150 million people.
If the economy 'fully collapses' there would be little income and less income tax now wouldn't there? But, yes, it would be legal. You seem to be still confused on the subject of legal/lawful/moral/right. Something can be legal/lawful and not moral or right....but that is NOT what the video is about, it's about legal/illegal.
YEah...I'm just totally insane...and you are just a genius...we get it.
I can only imagine the things you could accomplish if you put your mental energy into figuring out constructive ways to benefit our economic system..rather than perpetuate the fear of th IRS
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.
, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call Social Insurance.
They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser,
@gladiator1010 The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses...Heads of households...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns....
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
This argument has lost in every court and the reasons it has lost usually fall into one of three different categories: (1) the OMB control number on Form 1040 is valid and complies with the PRA; (2) the instructions and regulations for Form 1040 do not require OMB control numbers; and (3) even if Form 1040 did not comply with the PRA tax penalties could still be imposed because the PRA penalty protection provision does not apply to reporting requirement imposed by statute.
If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect. Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments
@RetSquid [Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.
In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file...if not you DO NOT HAVE TO FILE
Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number
Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. The control number on Form 1040 appears on OMB's web site as a current, valid number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer's say-so to establish the proposition.
if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond
to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number
Here is just ONE of the ways that proves the IRS is operating in an illegal fashion..
44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).
In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form)
@gladiator1010 In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection
provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency's administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding
Just because you claim something exists does not make it so. There is no account set aside for you to pay your income tax, that would be a rediculous idea,
An SSN is used to track your payments to the Government.
You just dont see to understand......WE are SECURITY behind our currency...our autographs are BONDED which allows us to add value through your autograph
This is not a theory...read Modern Money Mechanics straight from the FED themselves...WE CREATE THE DEPOSITS
What is a check?..it isn't a Federal Reserve Note...why isn't it "worth" anything until we "activate" it with our commercial-energy-autograph?
@gladiator1010 That is the ONLY way money is currently created...there is no other way..we are accessing our exemption-bond-account everytime we sign ANY promissary note and "deposit" it into a bank
Modern Money Mechanics is a complete lie-sham huh....Walker Todd is a complete idiot and you are the biggest genius on planet earth...right along with the bum on the street that repeats the mindless phrase..."just PAY your TAX TAXPAYERS!"
Yeah..sure...so some guys got together in some room long ago and decided that we no longer have the authority to control our own economic freedom...and we have no say in the matter...sure
You obvisouly dont know what an affidavit is.....so what you are saying is the the COUNSEL for the Federal Reserve of New York waived his immunity, signed under full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury that the DEPOSITOR creates the funds NOT the bank..the bank loaned NOTHING..he declared this under PENALTY OF PERJURY..he is a lawyer..but I guess he doesn't have a clue about reality...but you do of course
As for helping the outcome of the case...I could care less. The point remains the same whether he allowed tacit procuration or not. Winning in contracts is not easy...it takes much work, but at least this understanding of the creation of money is a start
However, the whole solution I believe to all these issues is to operate not-for-profit
through trusts and foundations....business whose existence would be solely for the benefit of the community. Therefore, no taxes are needed cause the whole point of taxes is to pay for services that benefit the community.
@gladiator1010 "One of the main objectives of a trust contract is to obtain most of the advantages of corporations, but with freedom from the burdens, restrictions, and regulations generally imposed upon them". Ashworth v. Hagen Estates, 165 Va 151, 181 SE 381
That being said...I study the economic system every single day...and there is always something more to learn.
I have spoken with scores of other very intelligent constatnly researching commercial law experts and they have only corroborated the revelations I have stumbled upon...how much time do you spend studying commerical law?
And if one of these people actually got remedy in their case and won...do you really think the courts-banks are going to shout the results from the rooftops?
People get remedy everyday but many get a gag order against them...I even got MY OWN REMEDY 2 months ago...so say what you like...but I have my proof and you just admitted you no nothing about contracts...which leaves you with a limited perception
@gladiator1010 Contracting, commerical law, banking are all part of the imposition and maintenance of the income tax...I dont see how you can come to such a final conclusion after being so blatant about your lack of inclusiveness of other subjects when understanding the "legalities" of the "income tax"
@gladiator1010 In fact I have helped several others completely "pay" off their taxes using their "exemption"...no court case on that..they just go away.
Same with mortgage cases...people get remedy and the case disappears...the monetary system would not last if they didn't do this..they have no choice
I know, you can hide your fraud in many ways. Why is it that all of you nutjobs claim to have tons of proof....but you just can't show any of it due to gag orders, threats, etc.etc.
I can show you TONS of things that prove you wrong, you just keep ignoring it.
You are babbling again. If your case has "disappeared", maybe it never existed, except in your mind. If you can't prove your claims, then your claims are worthless.
@gladiator1010 Plus...I could have the perfect example...but you would be way too close-minded and you would find some little excuse to believe that I am somehow still wrong...that would be way too much work...I am just letting you know..
People have much different understanding of the tax system structure than you do...and just cause you spit out a couple statutues doesn;t make you have any more "proof" on your side either...there is a much bigger equation to what you are preaching
@gladiator1010 You say you know the law 100 percent...you think it is illegal AND unlawful to not "pay" the "income" tax...but it is ONLY illegal NOT unlawful...because lawful money is gold and silver.
Therefore...you are advocating that people NOT PAY taxes but DISCHARGE their taxes THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
Your taxes are not paid by that piece of paper (check) you send the IRS, it's paid after the bank takes the money out of your account and transfers it to the IRS.
Why do you try so hard to mis-understand these simple things?
The bank takes the "money"...you mean the digital bookkeeping entry....again I am not going to waste my time proving anything to you cause I already did and you don't even undertsand what I am saying to you.
Modern Money Mechanics lays it out perfectly....there is no money until you sign the check...period. The depositor adds the value.
WHFITs are fixed investment trusts (meaning the original holdings of the trust are not changed or rebalanced) that are held by at least one third party rather than the owner of the trust.
We are basically fungible (uniform) agricultural commodities operating in a non-mortgaged widely held-fixed investment trust system
To truly understand this would require hundreds if not thousands of hours of research
14,310 views and not a word..
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
And you have read all the comments on here?
RetSquid 2 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid yes
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
And how many others (besides me) have left comments after yours?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid not a single person but you (A disinfo artist) are on here calling EVERYONE that is pretty sure the goverment and court systems are corrupt and full of criminals -DELUSIONAL- no matter what their background education or expertise they are paranoid and stupid... And the experts are always framed as being nuttier than everyone else, they are confused and dont know what theyre talking about.. that is the mark of a disinfo artist....
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Good call, so your claim that 14,310 have viewed this and not called you out is bogus.
Now do you have any education or expertise on this subject? Or are you just mad you are wrong and have to call names?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid "Called me out??"where are they, disinfo artist?? And keep following that play book... keep defending you evil masters... Anyone expert and educated suspecting the government of corruption and speaks out about it are wrong, their education/expertise doesn't mean anything. And those that DONT have an education or expertise HAVE TO BE highly educated and experts to see that the government is corrupt and dont know what they're talking about.LOL!! spook you have no conscience
rogueronin82 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rogueronin82
You are clueless. You said,"14,310 views and not a word." And I pointed out that NOBODY has left any comments, so how can you claim that as proof you are right?
Now, AGAIN, what is your education and expertise that makes you special? And where is your evidence of any corruption?
RetSquid 2 months ago
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 2 months ago
THIS JACK ASS IS IN JAIL! "FUCK THAT SHIT" ! I AIN'T GOING TO JAIL LIKE THIS DUMB ASS!
nonassumsit 3 months ago
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE
LoveVanillaRose 9 months ago
The first two words sum it up.
"Moron that"
LorinTone 11 months ago
For all of you claiming Peter was 'wrong' have never read his Cracking the Code book and do not understand the magnitude of his works. The Judge in his case instructed the jury on what his definition of what the law was, so he never stood a chance from the beginning. Look up the 'Whitey Harrell' case and understand the differences. Our system has become so corrupt, that doing the right thing can seem wrong. If Peter is wrong, so was Rosa Parks and everyone else standing up against oppression.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Try again, Rosa Parks knew the law and never pretended that it did not exist, she protested it.
These guys don't even admit there is a law, EVEN AFTER THEY ARE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING IT. They are just confused frauds who take others money for nothing but trouble in return.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You obviously haven't looked up the Whitey Harrell case as encouraged or your response would not have been full of confusion. It does not matter if people are convicted, it does matter that it was up to the bias of the Judge to instruct the jury as to what the definition of income is as it is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code leaving room for ambiguity and thus, unlawful enforcement. Look up the Whitey Harrell case before responding please.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
You cannot argue the law in a jury case, only on appeal. Harrell lost because his definitions are not the legal ones used for income tax. If you have a link to the decision, I'll read it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The point was Harrell didn't lose because the jury did their jobs.
watch?v=J370TMhghnE
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Harrell being acquited is the same as O.J. being acquited, neither one means they didn't do what they were accused of.
The jury was confused in that case. Later he was convicted on the same charges.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid WRONG! Harrell was acquitted because their was no law defining what an 'income' meant in the internal revenue code. O.J. was acquitted to prevent the projects from becoming war zones. Two completely different reasons. The jury was confused only because the Judge had no law in hand defining what an 'income' was. The jury in his second trial had not a clue! You need to get your facts straight!
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Harrell is confused on the simplest things, gross income is defined in Title 26, Section 61, taxable income is defined in Section 63.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid and it seems you are confused as well because it wasn't just Harrell. The judge couldn't produce the law himself to the jury as the jury requested it twice. Title 26 Section 61 does not apply to Harrell's case. Section 63 defines taxable income, but that only applies to those mentioned in Section 6331.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Nope, it applies to "every individual" as mentioned in Section 1.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid negative ghostrider. you completely took that out of context. You extracted "every individual" out of "taxable income of every individual". "Income" under the tax law is any gainful activity involving the federal government meaning if you work for the federal government under any capacity, an investor in federal entities or a recipient of federal benefits. A taxable event in this respect is the tax on the activities or resulting gains/profits including but not limited to, dividends.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thnksmarter
"under the tax law is any gainful activity involving the federal government "
Incorrect, income is "compensation for services" i.e. wages. The "taxable event" is your reciept of the income.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are taking terms out of context AGAIN! This time you extracted "income" from "gross income" and your definition of "compensation for services" comes from trade and business. With respect to taxation, "income" is net profit or gain not of which apply to labor where neither profits or gains are realized.
Perhaps it is not me making a mistake. You see someone convicted and assume they must be wrong. I guess that goes for the innocent folks convicted of rape and sentenced to 25 years.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Everything is in context, you keep trying to change what it plainly means, just like the convict-Pete.
"compensation for services" is what you get paid for working, i.e. "wages" and it is all gain. Not a single person has gotten out of paying income tax using these claims.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are clueless. Tom Cryer, Joe Banister, Dave Champion, and Whitey Harrell are just a few who have have rightfully been acquitted of charges filed against them by the IRS. You don't see them in the newspaper do you? You see people who lose to the IRS in the lamestream media and that is about it.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Tom Cryer is still waiting for the civil trial, Whitey was convicted multiple times, as was Shiff, Hendrickson, and many others. If there were so many others, these morons would have those cases posted everywhere.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Cryer was acquitted of all charges the first time, but the IRS will continue to do everything it can. Whitey was acquitted of all charges the first time, but the IRS will continue to do everything it can. Schiff was not allowed to bring the tax law to court on the bias of the Judge. The jury couldn't even use it. So, that conviction was reached on the will of the Judge and not law. Hendrickson had a similar deal and you would know that if you looked at these cases objectively.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Whitey was convicted multiple times, Cryer STILL owes over $1.4 million. Schiif claimed 'insanity' at his trial. Hendrickson lost again. None of them will succeed in proving that income tax law does not apply to them, because IT DOES APPLY! There was nothing wrong in any of the court cases, you cannot argue the law at a jury trial, only on appeal.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Whitey was convicted multiple times retroactively after being fully acquitted the first. Is this not double jeopardy and a violation of the fifth amendment? Same with Cryer. If Cryer is convicted the ruling would stand on the will of the Judge and not the law. Would that not also be double jeopardy? Schiff did not claim insanity and you got that argument from Larkin Rose who aided in Wesley Snipes' incarceration. Hendrickson is losing on the will of the Judge and not according to law.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
You didn't read his cases either did you? The first case was a State income tax case, the second was Federal. He was convicted of violating income tax law, but it was not the same offence, it was also for different years. Cryer is going to a civil court, no double jeopardy there. Schiff claimed "mental defect", A/K/A 'insanity'. Hendrickson lost on the law, plain and simple, as have some of his followers.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Snipes used Larkins losing argument and also lost. Is that supposed to be suprising? How about you post someone who actually got out of paying income tax? Not the few that convinced a jury they were to stupid to be 'willfully' violating the law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid snipes lost because the courts are corrupt and most people are just sheep..
rogueronin82 2 months ago in playlist More videos from HobieOneKinobie
@rogueronin82
OH, of COURSE..Everyone is wrong except YOU!! Forget what the laws plainly say and hundreds of years of Common Law traditions. You guys are the ones who miraculously know how the law is suppoed to work...and everyone except the Chosen Few are sheeple....
Moron.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid When we started needing lawyers to "understand the laws" in this country that is when things went corrupt..
Now the hundreds of thousands of laws work however the lawyers say it works and they have the guns to back it up... They have purposely made things so convoluted and confusing no one knows what is legal in those laws they created but them ..the whole system is corrupt and the sheep blindly follow that system.. everyone is wrong EXCEPT those that follow the constitution
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Well, when you start to follow the Constitution, let me know. Otherwise, you are the sheeple following some weird Master who denies truth at every turn.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Youre so evil I bet you actually belive youre not a scumbag... I am following the constitution.. Along with most of the others here including the poster of this video.. THATS WHY YOURE HERE...To cause confusion- to be a distraction...
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
If you follow the Constitution, what does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 say about taxes?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid when you have criminal scumbags running the goverment and the courts and criminal lawyers making laws and a dumbed down uninformed people who dont care about anything but entertaiment, the constitution says whatever they want it to say... What is written in it frankly dosent matter..
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
So you don't CARE what the Constitution and the laws say, you just want to get your own way. I bet you didn't even read it. You sound like a childish brat who lost an argument.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Spin?? what you said is just how the criminals that run the goverment and courts feel about the constitution. They constution says whatever they want it to say when they want to say it.This what happens when criminals make and interpet laws. they are childish brats who want have things their way... the sheep dont care about anything but entertaiment. they were breed to be that way.
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Your claims have no basis in reality.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Wrong...My claims have No basis in your reality.... which is of deception.. which only works on those that havent been awakened (sheep) to what is going on...
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
You are delusional, like most tax protestors on here.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid We have criminals running our government and courts...Anyone speaking and acting against them are called names and ridiculed no matter WHAT their expertise and credentials say they are ok UNTIL They start speaking out against the corrupted government and courts. that should ALWAYS be a red flag..but the sheep dont care
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Luckily, you are the tiny minority who live in delusion.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid "We live in delusion and our claims have no basis in reality" yep,everyone of no matter what education expertise or credentias law experts constitutional experts, tax experts, congressmen, senators..As long as they go against criminal activity in the goverment they are all "just a bunch of nut cases."
Thats why youre on every internet page of those against the crook in goverment trying to distract everyone with your deciet.. that kind of suspect behavior is what woke me up.
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Well, what you claim is "criminal" everyone else thinks is "normal". The income tax law is legal,lawful and Constitutional, you just think it's not right.
If you want to get away from being called delusional, change your arguments.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid that's becuase we have crooked lawyers making laws,running the goverment and the courts they can make anything they want legal.. like john doe warrents,legitimization homosexual behavior in various ways, making it legal for corprations to control the free press, and phone tapping.. people paying over 50% of thier inccome in all kinds of taxes permits,fees, licenses and other schemes.. the crooks in goverment can do anything they want because the sheep have been taught not to care
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Like I said, delusions.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Yet for years youre on every anti criminal goverment youtube channel you can(some with experts on video) going back and forth debating delusionals??
Most people dont waste time with delusionals..even sheep.. but youre always here...
saying 1+1=4 when it dosent..in other words the goverment is not a corrupt rogue goverment run by highly educated criminals
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Go ahead and show where anything i have said is wrong.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid We have highly educated criminals in the government making laws and criminals interpreting laws. they can make any law they want constitutional or un constitutional doesn't matter what the constitution says,that is how the laws are corrupt. they just do what they want. they have the guns and the sheeple dont care.. so how can you be shown wrong when the law making is corrupt??
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
"so how can you be shown wrong when the law making is corrupt??"
How can I prove you are not delusional?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Thank you...you just did...LOL!!
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
Proved you were delusional? Yep. I think I did.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid by spin?? lol!! come again.
rogueronin82 2 months ago
@rogueronin82
No, just go back and read your posts. Any rational being would say you are delusional to some degree.
RetSquid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid "The income tax law is legal,lawful and Constitutional, you just think it's not right."
Because the U.S. Co. is in a "state of emergency"/martial law (gold tassels on flag and all that - although sometimes not tasseled, at occasions, but this serves to mix it all together) since Lincoln?
Kenzofeis 2 months ago
@rogueronin82 "My claims have No basis in your reality...."
Here you touch upon something essential; La-La-Land vs. the Real World.
La-La-Land is a construct, it is built off of assumptions, a.k.a. "facts".
In that land there be dragons. Words have different meanings than in the regular world, there is the need for magical formulæ, games are played, traps everywhere.
In this world you are not of flesh and blood unless you make it clear and are able to separate person and soul.
Kenzofeis 2 months ago
@thnksmarter
Everything is in context, you keep trying to change what it plainly means, just like the convict-Pete.
"compensation for services" is what you get paid for working, i.e. "wages" and it is all gain. Not a single person has gotten out of paying income tax using these claims.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid If everything was in context, the Internal Revenue Code would be saying that ALL "income" is taxed from whatever sources derived. Being that the "income tax" is not apportioned, the Judge in the case of Brushaber v Union Pacific (1916) ruled that "the confusion arises from an unknown power of taxation...and the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it."
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
"ALL income" is NOT taxed, but most incomes ARE.
Did you even read the casse? The "erroneous assumption" is that the 16th Amendment gave Congress a new taxing power, it didn't. Congress ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are going in circles and I do not have the time nor the patience to debate and discuss these matters with you any longer. I do not surrender in defeat, but in matter of frustration because of your unwillingness and incapacity to objectively perceive rulings, your over-bearing biases on the decisions reached in favor of the nontaxpayer, and your deliberate perversion of taking terms out of context. Happy New Year's Eve!
thnksmarter 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
I know I am going in circles, you keep forcing the debate that way. Go read the cases again and check out Dan Evans Tax Protestor FAQ. It is very informative.
I have taken nothing out of context, I have put it IN context. We are talking law, not coulda/shoulda/woulda, court cases define the laws of this country.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid the courts are corrupt..therfore we have corrupt laws.
rogueronin82 2 months ago in playlist More videos from HobieOneKinobie
@thnksmarter
"Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject"
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
I'll give you time to READ it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
“[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 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
You are making the same mistakes Pete did, look where it got him.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@thnksmarter
Also that jury acquited him on State, not Federal charges.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Can you also ask for your money back if you gave your boss your social security number?
LetsCook2gether 1 year ago
@LetsCook2gether
Why would you think you COULD get anything back?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
I just asked that because if its a fraud the income tax then
the irs dont have lawfull right on your money your earned
that what I was thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, I just wondering about the whole irs
I never trust them LOL
LetsCook2gether 1 year ago
@LetsCook2gether
No, this guys ideas are all wrong, look down a few posts for his current address...
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
I didn't know that.
I just order his book "Cracking the code" about a week ago from the site
the losthorizon. I will read it and see what he have to say.
I'm looking for a good book about tax so that I can stop paying income tax LOL
I feel like a slave and I dont want that anymore. I think most people do.
LetsCook2gether 1 year ago
@LetsCook2gether
No one using his ideas have succeeded.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Peter Hendrickson inmate number #15406-039, FCI Milan, P.O. Box 1000, E. Arkona Rd, Milan, MI 48160.
33 months in prison, he was very lucky on his sentence.
RetSquid 1 year ago
It is spelled ridiculous, I better do that before Retsquid "corrects" my spelling.
asicit2b 1 year ago
And Retsquid still proves himself to be riducles, keep trying .Still no proof of any lies.
Just his comments on what HE believes to be.
asicit2b 1 year ago
Still no lies, and no lies proven. These post are here in full view of the public,
within full disclosure.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
LOL!! No lies? What about your pay from your neighbor? You said it was not 'wages', that is a lie. You claim not to be liable for income tax because you coose not to be, that is a lie. You lied about the Fed., then changed your mind when proved wrong and squirmed about a 'type' of audit.
RetSquid 1 year ago
No lies and you have not proven otherwise.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Look back one week in comments, you said,"They have never been audited." I have showed that was a lie. All of your other claims are just as wrong as that one.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid What ? YOU look back. Within full disclosure I clarified that statement
as what "type" of audit is needed. Keep trying, Still NOTHIN yet to prove A lie.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
How about the one where you "choose" not to be liable for income taxes? Or the one where your wages are not really 'wages"? Or the one where Section 6012 is just for foreign corporations? Should I go on or will you 'clarify' these lies also?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid #1 True I have made my choice #2 Show me the post #3 That is the intrinsic decomposed path that it leads to. I have that
posted for my evidence of full disclosure also.
Sure keep going. You are still at 0
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
#1 Your 'choice' makes no difference.
#2 On a different video about your neighbor and him giving you money to do a job.
#3 Meaningless babble.
You still lose at every turn.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid #1 It sure has #2 No wages involved #3 Over your head I guess.
Still at 0 there Retsquid. No lies Proven yet.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
#1 LOL!!! NOT!!
#2 Yes there were, just as you described them.
#3 Babble.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
asicit2b 1 year ago
What about the other comments on the Fed. Re$ERVE I left ?
You only focused on the word NEVER and made comment on that only ?
I clarified that already. No lie. People watch AUDIT THE FED. To get a better
understanding of what kind of "audit" is needed. Read the bill which Ron paul has.
Looks like he will have to settle for a watered down version.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
What about your other lies...comments...whatever you call them, it's just a waste of time for me, I already know the truth and you are just clueless about it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Why did congress question uncle Ben B on where the 3 Trillion dollars went ?
And he said, I dont have to. AUDIT THE FED.
Ron paul has to settle for a watered down bill now.
asicit2b 1 year ago
Took retsquid about 30 Min. on THIS video. For those who want to know about
the different types of "audits" that are done and not done, Do your own research and due diligence and make up your own mind. Break the cycle of Ignorance.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
So you agree and have admitted that you are a liar....AGAIN....
You said, "They have never been audited.", but they have been. You are the ignorant one here trying to sound intelligent....but it still has not worked.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Why is it that ron paul has been pushing a bill to do this very thing ?
Why a bill to AUDIT THE FED. Keep trying, just more *** Cyber dust***
from YOU. ha hA HAAA. Want the bill number ? Like I posted ,there are different "types" of audits.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
And you LIED when you said,"They have never been audited." But that is no suprise considering your history of BS on here.
RetSquid 1 year ago
THE FEDERAL RESERVE
It's a private monopoly. They make fiat currency. They “hoodwinked” Congress into letting them coin money and regulating the value of it.
They charge the government interest when the government borrows from them.
They have never been audited.
It's not federal and they have doubtful reserves.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Actually, the Federal Reserve banks are audited yearly. Google "federal reserve audits".
RetSquid 1 year ago
So can I get a refund of all taxes taken from me??
TheArcher85 1 year ago
The IRS is a corporation, not a governmental entity. It was set up to collect unconstitutional taxes on income of individuals in order to pay INTEREST to the Internationalist bankers who own the federal reserve, another private corporation, not a governmental entity, to print up their funny money. It is a strong arm of the internationalist bankers. Congress is to mint our money, to be backed by precious metals, not the illegal, unconstitutional entity known as the Federal Reserve.
escapefromobamastan 1 year ago
@escapefromobamastan
You are absolutely wrong. The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, it collects the Federal income tax which is fully Constitutional. The interest on the debt is only about 25% of the amount of tax collected.
NEXT!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
What's really funny is 100% of federal income tax collected goes to paying back the interest the U.S. owes to the privately owned Federal Reserve. We all need to reclaim our SOVEREIGN Citizenship. Research Tim Turner and the American Sovereignty Movement.
btate74 1 year ago
@btate74
Your numbers are wrong, Federal individual income tax makes up over 43% of the entire budget.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
btate74 1 year ago
@btate74
Where did you get your numbers and ideas, a magic 8-ball?
Why don't you try and prove that the Department of the Treasury really doeasn't exist.
RetSquid 1 year ago
So then doesn't it make it unpatriotic and even un-American to pay federal income tax!?
adambomb805 1 year ago
@adambomb805
No, just the opposite.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Says you...mr. stuck in a box.
So, what happens when the economy fully collapses and 50% of americans HAVE TO STOP FILING cause there is no more money to pay taxes?
Would it be legal-lawful for the IRS to jail 50% of society then?
Or should they just be "taken out"?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
It would be impossible to jail 150 million people.
If the economy 'fully collapses' there would be little income and less income tax now wouldn't there? But, yes, it would be legal. You seem to be still confused on the subject of legal/lawful/moral/right. Something can be legal/lawful and not moral or right....but that is NOT what the video is about, it's about legal/illegal.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Edward Mandell House quote to Woodrow Wilson.
YEah...I'm just totally insane...and you are just a genius...we get it.
I can only imagine the things you could accomplish if you put your mental energy into figuring out constructive ways to benefit our economic system..rather than perpetuate the fear of th IRS
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Thank you for admitting the obvious. When do you want to talk about the actual subject of this video?
RetSquid 1 year ago
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call Social Insurance.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser,
gladiator1010 1 year ago
IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.
* Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.
* The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
"no existing statute authorizes the IRS"
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses...Heads of households...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns....
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
RetSquid 1 year ago
This argument has lost in every court and the reasons it has lost usually fall into one of three different categories: (1) the OMB control number on Form 1040 is valid and complies with the PRA; (2) the instructions and regulations for Form 1040 do not require OMB control numbers; and (3) even if Form 1040 did not comply with the PRA tax penalties could still be imposed because the PRA penalty protection provision does not apply to reporting requirement imposed by statute.
RetSquid 1 year ago
If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect. Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
That post is total crap, there is no real response for this insanity.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid [Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file...if not you DO NOT HAVE TO FILE
Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number
gladiator1010 1 year ago
Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. The control number on Form 1040 appears on OMB's web site as a current, valid number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer's say-so to establish the proposition.
United States v. Denny R. Patridge
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
gladiator1010 1 year ago
if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond
to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number
gladiator1010 1 year ago
Here is just ONE of the ways that proves the IRS is operating in an illegal fashion..
44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).
In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form)
gladiator1010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gladiator1010 In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection
provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency's administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding
gladiator1010 1 year ago
And please...dont tell me it doesn't exist...what exaclty is that purpose for the SS number?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Just because you claim something exists does not make it so. There is no account set aside for you to pay your income tax, that would be a rediculous idea,
An SSN is used to track your payments to the Government.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
You just dont see to understand......WE are SECURITY behind our currency...our autographs are BONDED which allows us to add value through your autograph
This is not a theory...read Modern Money Mechanics straight from the FED themselves...WE CREATE THE DEPOSITS
What is a check?..it isn't a Federal Reserve Note...why isn't it "worth" anything until we "activate" it with our commercial-energy-autograph?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 That is the ONLY way money is currently created...there is no other way..we are accessing our exemption-bond-account everytime we sign ANY promissary note and "deposit" it into a bank
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 Google affidavit of walker todd
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
I did, it came up with the case of Bank one v. Dave. His affidavit didn't help them, they lost in court, which means his ideas were losing ideas.
Where did you get this idea of some super bank account that you claim to use?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Oh.....wow...really?
Modern Money Mechanics is a complete lie-sham huh....Walker Todd is a complete idiot and you are the biggest genius on planet earth...right along with the bum on the street that repeats the mindless phrase..."just PAY your TAX TAXPAYERS!"
Yeah..sure...so some guys got together in some room long ago and decided that we no longer have the authority to control our own economic freedom...and we have no say in the matter...sure
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Walker Todd's afidavit didn't help the case, it was lost. The rest of your post is a mindless rant about something...I guess...
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
You obvisouly dont know what an affidavit is.....so what you are saying is the the COUNSEL for the Federal Reserve of New York waived his immunity, signed under full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury that the DEPOSITOR creates the funds NOT the bank..the bank loaned NOTHING..he declared this under PENALTY OF PERJURY..he is a lawyer..but I guess he doesn't have a clue about reality...but you do of course
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
As for helping the outcome of the case...I could care less. The point remains the same whether he allowed tacit procuration or not. Winning in contracts is not easy...it takes much work, but at least this understanding of the creation of money is a start
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
However, the whole solution I believe to all these issues is to operate not-for-profit
through trusts and foundations....business whose existence would be solely for the benefit of the community. Therefore, no taxes are needed cause the whole point of taxes is to pay for services that benefit the community.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 "One of the main objectives of a trust contract is to obtain most of the advantages of corporations, but with freedom from the burdens, restrictions, and regulations generally imposed upon them". Ashworth v. Hagen Estates, 165 Va 151, 181 SE 381
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
That being said...I study the economic system every single day...and there is always something more to learn.
I have spoken with scores of other very intelligent constatnly researching commercial law experts and they have only corroborated the revelations I have stumbled upon...how much time do you spend studying commerical law?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
"how much time do you spend studying commerical law?"
None. This is about income tax law, not commercial law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Walker todd was NOT the counsel for the Federal Reserve. Whatever his ideas were does not matter, they didn't hold any water in court.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
And if one of these people actually got remedy in their case and won...do you really think the courts-banks are going to shout the results from the rooftops?
People get remedy everyday but many get a gag order against them...I even got MY OWN REMEDY 2 months ago...so say what you like...but I have my proof and you just admitted you no nothing about contracts...which leaves you with a limited perception
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 Contracting, commerical law, banking are all part of the imposition and maintenance of the income tax...I dont see how you can come to such a final conclusion after being so blatant about your lack of inclusiveness of other subjects when understanding the "legalities" of the "income tax"
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 In fact I have helped several others completely "pay" off their taxes using their "exemption"...no court case on that..they just go away.
Same with mortgage cases...people get remedy and the case disappears...the monetary system would not last if they didn't do this..they have no choice
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Many people commit fraud and get away with it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Yeah..like bankers..politicians and corporate leaders.
And until people learn how to exhaust due process..they will continue to get away with fraud.
Do you really think the average "person" understand the fraud that is being perpetrated against them in the banking system?
Do you really think 95% of the population even understands banking? Even a little?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
I know, you can hide your fraud in many ways. Why is it that all of you nutjobs claim to have tons of proof....but you just can't show any of it due to gag orders, threats, etc.etc.
I can show you TONS of things that prove you wrong, you just keep ignoring it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
One you do not study commercial law. So really how can you come to some FINAL conclusion like this?
The public system would be in JEOPARDY if they RECOGNIZED the PRIVATE.
It would be a treasonous offense for a judge to do so and he would get hanged immediately.
Yes...MY CASE HAS COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED!
How exactly am I suppposed to "prove" it?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
You are babbling again. If your case has "disappeared", maybe it never existed, except in your mind. If you can't prove your claims, then your claims are worthless.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 Plus...I could have the perfect example...but you would be way too close-minded and you would find some little excuse to believe that I am somehow still wrong...that would be way too much work...I am just letting you know..
People have much different understanding of the tax system structure than you do...and just cause you spit out a couple statutues doesn;t make you have any more "proof" on your side either...there is a much bigger equation to what you are preaching
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 You say you know the law 100 percent...you think it is illegal AND unlawful to not "pay" the "income" tax...but it is ONLY illegal NOT unlawful...because lawful money is gold and silver.
Therefore...you are advocating that people NOT PAY taxes but DISCHARGE their taxes THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 The PROOF is the fact that you are "PAYING" taxes with a PIECE OF PAPER which is only a PROMISE TO PAY!
AND THERE IS AN INCREDIBLE ABUNDANT OVERFLOWING AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO VALIDATE THIS CLAIM
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Your taxes are not paid by that piece of paper (check) you send the IRS, it's paid after the bank takes the money out of your account and transfers it to the IRS.
Why do you try so hard to mis-understand these simple things?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
The bank takes the "money"...you mean the digital bookkeeping entry....again I am not going to waste my time proving anything to you cause I already did and you don't even undertsand what I am saying to you.
Modern Money Mechanics lays it out perfectly....there is no money until you sign the check...period. The depositor adds the value.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 Walker Todd is just verifying what the FED has said
Are they lying? I realize everyone thinks that there is "money" flowing through "wires"..but this is not the case...it is all bookeeping entries
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 Title 26 Subtitle F Chapter 79 ss 7701
(30) United States person
The term United States person means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
(31)), and
(E) any trust if—
(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Sooooo there you go
UNITED STATES person means TRUST..
Oh...but that doesn't "prove" anything....yeah sure it doesn't...in your dreams.
How many times do they ask if you are a US citizen-person? ALL THE TIME!
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
Same place.... (10) State
The term State shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Wouldn't this mean we have 51 States in the US?
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010
What Are WHFITs?
WHFITs are fixed investment trusts (meaning the original holdings of the trust are not changed or rebalanced) that are held by at least one third party rather than the owner of the trust.
We are basically fungible (uniform) agricultural commodities operating in a non-mortgaged widely held-fixed investment trust system
To truly understand this would require hundreds if not thousands of hours of research
gladiator1010 1 year ago
@gladiator1010 How could you EVER possibly learn this...when you are totally clsoe-minded to the possiblity that you might not know everything?
gladiator1010 1 year ago