>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for Slavery Inc.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
@wernervoss48 LMAO, if you haven't, check out the videos of Jan Helfeld where he confronts Harry Reid on the "voluntary" tax system check it out, It'd be funny if it wasn't the real opinion of a real legislator.
@RetSquid Once again you have proven that you don't know as much as you think you do! The first computers were people, the next was mechanical based upon Charles Babbage's mathematics, the next was Colossus made at Bletchley Park in England, designed and build by an English Telecommunications Engineer to decode the Enigma code. The workings of which were then STOLEN by AMERICANS, no surprise, and recreated by IBM and claimed it as their own, LIARS, no surpise. Now, Fuck Off Retard!
You missed your history lesson, the ABC (Atanasoff–Berry Computer) was developed in the basement of the Physics building at Iowa State University in 1941, at least TWO YEARS before Colossus was functional.
And you need to work on your reading comprehension, I said "digital computer" not mechanical or human computers.
@banter2345 Get an education! The English ARE GERMAN! The Angles, Saexons(or Saxons to you), the Franks, Asi-Goths, Visi-Goths, Vandals, etc. are all Teutonic races. And the words you're using to write here on this English Invention, the Electronic Computer, are from them too.
Edu-Mac-ation, sponsored by Mac-Vomits, ehy? You go girl!
@Itsmeeman Maybe you have mistaken the United States for "USA, Inc.", a private Corporation chartered by the State of Delaware. Corporations operate under articles of incorporation and by-laws, not codes. If you look up "corporation code" on a search engine, the first matches are "the Corporation Code of the Philipines" and "California Corporations Code". Perhaps you would support your claims with sources. @RetSquid has has already cited some important Supreme Court rulings.
@Itsmeeman There's no USA corporation, constitution of 1871, financial crisis or bankruptcy in 1871. A code is a codification of public law in one book everyone can comphrehensively reference the law from. Otherwise you'd have to compare the original law to all amendments (new law saying something like "Sec. 4 of the Copyright Act of 1976 is hereby amended") to determine what the law is. I understand that the concept of codified law is totally unknown to British people.
@RetSquid NOT ONE SINGLE THING I HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS A LIE DESPITE YOUR ERRONEOUS ACCUSATIONS! YOU are the one spreading lies and dissent here little man and I'm tired of it. Go pester someone else with your crap or else I will make a formal complaint to YoutTube against you. Every single thing I have written here can be backed up whether you like it or believe it or not. Now run along while you still have a chance to keep your channel! You've been warned!
Why don't you TRY and back up anything you have said? EVERYTHING I have said is verified as fact and truth, you just call names because you know you cannot win the dabate.
You might want to keep your ideas on THAT side of the pond.
@Itsmeeman1 If it weren't for America getting involved in WW2, you'd be speaking German right now... KNOW YOUR PLACE before you get put in it, pip pip cherrio and all that good rhubish.
@RetSquid HONOUR! If you can't even spell it, then you can't have it! Remember, English are a people and a language! America, is just a continent. Bow your head to your Lords and Masters, little slave girl. We gave you a language, though you can't speak it properly, we gave you literature, though you can't read it properly, we gave you written words, though you can't write them properly, and we gave you a land, though you took it to bankruptcy three times and lost it back to us. LOSERS!
@RetSquid 1. Internal Revenue Code is a CODE, NOT A LAW. You even wrote it yourself! Are you slow? 2. You already know I'm not American as you've already looked at my page. 3. The 'States' ? What 'States'? The USA only exists within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. 4. Your 'FACTS' are based upon one lie on top of another, and are therefore, meaningless. 5. It'll be a strange day when I take grammar advice from the likes of you when you've already been bred to be illiterate!
1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (TITLE 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (TITLE 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
3) “Ward reaches this twisted conclusion [that the IRC only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C....by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words ‘state’ or ‘United States” to ‘include’ U.S. territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word ‘include’ as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit.”
polylingue has proved my point! He wrote " The Constitution for The United States of America " That is what is written on your USA constitution! The Constitution 'for' the UNITED STATES of AMERICA Corporation! The original document, that americans think is theirs reads, "The constitution 'of' the united states of America" See the difference? There are TWO constitutions! One for a country that doesn't exist and one for a corporation that does exist! RetSquid is a US Gov lying bitch!
USA is a corporation! The UNITED STATES of AMERICA CORPORATION, it's on the constitution of 1871, when the united states of America went bankrupt and became dissolved as a country, they re-wrote the constitution with a few minor changes and went from a country to a corporation so they could still do business; and the USA corporation only exist within the 10 miles square District of Columbia! Corporations have CODES not Laws, only Countries can have Laws! THAT'S why the IRS can't find the Law!
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming ***Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3***. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by ***Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085*** (10/22/1986).
@RetSquid Your problem is that you've been brought up to believe that the USA is a good place, being a US Marine and putting your life on the line, with honour and dignity is what it is to be 'American'. To be a 'stand-up' guy! Now you're finding out that all of that is BS and you've been lied to all your life and you're spitting your dummy out! Your head going to explode? I didn't lie to you, your own people did the second they got you to 'swear allegiance' to a flag! Your life is a lie!
Well, you still don't know what a "Squid" is and you probably aren't even an American or live in the States. Your posts are lies from start to finish.
@RetSquid No it's not. The IRS is a private corporation not a governmental body. The US Gov has a stake in it as it has stakes in the FBI, CIA and a whole lot of other alphabet gangs but they are not part of the government and have no special legal powers. What Dept. of Treasury? The IRS sends and receives money via the IMF not the Dept. of Treasury. Get your facts straight or shut the fuck up.
LOL!! Let me know when YOU start posting any "FACTS", so far I have not seen any.
“It is clear that the IRC gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute.”
The IRS is a collection agency for the Queen of England! Look it up if you don't believe me. Americans are paying off the interest to a debt to the Crown which is not their debt! Bizarre!
AH, heres that douchebag, RetSquid again who has yet to show anyone the LAW , statute , and in the Constitution that says paying tax on our income it is NOT Voluntary.
Don't believe this Traitor, RetSquid, he obviously is paid to post this bulls!t!!
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
@RetSquid A Code is not The Law. It merely is a statute or regulation. The Supreme Law of The Land is The Constitution for The United States of America and In The Law-there are no statutes. Giving up your "personality" is voluntary. Look up the word personality versus income in a Black's Law Dictionary, it will tell you the truth. All eyes are open!!!
Sorry, Acts passed by Congress and signed by the President become Laws, which are printed in the "Statutes at Large", and when grouped by subject matter are called 'Codes".
"Personality" (thinking, feeling, and behaving characteristic of a particular individual) has nothing to do with income tax.
10 30 2010 Dr. Mark E. Hopkins and Sharon J. Hopkins were convicted of seven counts of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy.
"Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joe Banister."
Mr. Banister's proposed testimony is comprised largely of legal conclusions, which are not a proper form of expert testimony. United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Government's Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of Joseph R. Banister [Doc 142] is
The income tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). IRS was established July 1, 1862 by an act of Congress. Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them.
voluntary compliance....remember we are not talking about all taxes
we are talking about " income taxes", the supreme court has identified labor or your labor you give to a company is yours and is a fair trade of value for money. it is not a gain in value in which a tax would be levied.
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income...The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Compliance is VOLUNTARY!! Not Mandatory! That's why its not called MANDATORY Compliance! Stopping at a Red Light is not Voluntary Compliance, its the LAW, just in case someone uses that as an example. IRS = Mafia
@RetSquid show me the LAW , statute , and in the Constitution that says it is NOT Voluntary. I am convinced that you work for the establishment cause I see your comments all over the Tax issue as for it when they take your money and don't even use it for budgeting purposes, oh thats hiden in the CAFR's . Go do your research and keep on following their rules if you want to, I ain't wit it. Nuff said
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
i think most people reluctantly pay income tax because they arent the types to question laws the government makes, but if they all realize its not even a law, but instead is just a trickery to get them to voluntarily do it, they wont stand for it...and hopefully that may go for getting gun permits, drivers licenses, and all the other absurd tricks of voluntary slavery they throw at us.. if you want to participate in being treated like a child or slave, you can..but you cant force it on the free
@RetSquid well you are one of the many ignorant and brainwashed that think so, but your wrong.. contracts cant be forced on a free man...the problem is , you all dont know what it means to be free... youve been brainwashed into thinking freedom is mob rule, total government control, and policing the world...your pathetic people
Yes, YOU have been mis-informed. There is no contract involved here, just the law. It's called 'Ordered Liberty', look it up. Gun permits, driver's license etc. are only voluntary if you don't have a gun or don't drive.
@RetSquid Wow you are everywhere. So how did you become so in love with such a corrupt system? I hate to tell you the Federal Reserve and the World Bankers are trying to end the United States and replace it with a World Federation. If you care about the U.S. Constitution you should be resisting these domestic enemies with all you have, not defending them. And what "gun permits"? I'm starting to see what you really are.
@RetSquid no, the law should protect rights of people.. if someone violates someones rights, including taking theyr life or property...kidnapping, enslavery...physical assult...etc...they should be dealt with according to law.. the problem is that people are punished when they havent commited any true crimes... growing some weed or not paying a forced tax is not a real crime...neither is driving a car without a license, or not registering for military service...these are violations of rights
No, you don't have a 'right' to not pay taxes, or drive without a licence or avoid Selective Service. Those are things that are inherent 'rights' of any State.
@longfootbuddy no, any state that enforces laws that violate the rights of the people, should be put down...you seem to favor a top to bottom government, where the government is the master and the people are the subjects and servants...but thats not what america was suppose to be...we should be putting the government in its place as the servant, and acting like the masters that we are as free men.. you are not unlike many of the people who were against the first american revolution
You seem to want the Government as a totally powerless servant. It has to have some power to carry out it's duties. Saying that it can't tax is going back to the days of the Confederation, before the Constitution. The Constitution lists what the Federal Government can do, why do you want to get rid of it?
That is why the Confederation was a failure, Congress had no way to raise money and had to beg the States for it. A voluntary tax would never work, everyone would expect someone else to 'volunteer' for it.
@RetSquid if a free people dont want to fund a government, then its obviously not a government favored by the people...the reason government forces people to participate and fund it, is because people dont want it
This Government/Constitution is favored by the vast majority of the people, there are a few like yourself who want some form of anarchy/libertarian government that won't really work.
people are broke and they don't have Money to give to anyone...so stop asking them for it...they don't have it. you can't give something you don't have. But really i think the goal here is to put as many people in prison that they can....Just say NO ..they think they Own you .
This video is in reference to "Taxpayers" voluntarily complying...Which is Correct...The real question here is, " Are you a 'taxpayer'?" Do you consider yourself to be a taxpayer? If so, then you should to voluntarily comply, or the IRS WILL force you to pay!!!
"The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a) (14) of the [IRC] of 1954.) A "non-taxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer."
Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, Gatliff Coal Company, And Premier Elkhorn Coal Company, V. United States
Hey, don't be a sore loser over the elections. I know it was painful to see Rand Paul join his father in Congress as well an overwhelming victory in the States. Admit you are a liberal and admit you HATE the Tea Party. Finally, admit you got defeated. Don't be a sore loser!
Anyone with a rational mind can see what I've done on the video's.IF YOU CAN DO BETTER, POST A VIDEO.
As for everything else, you have given me no reason to think that you are willing to be a grown up. So I'm going to have to speak at your level of maturity. Are you going to grow up or will I have to continue to speak to the maturity of a little child?
You have yet to even TRY and debate like an adult. You are the one trolling and lying about other's political philosophy. I can see what someone has done on a video, there is no way to prove that it is you.
well thats your opinion.you have that right.....bottom line ..the US..and the IRS...and ALL their tenicals..are corrupt at the core and everytime the truth is put in their face the run and hide..and answer....with only violence....look at their history
@RetSquid and all of those people should have filed a civil rights suit for "involuntary servitude" against the US. You have to rep Pro Se to truly defend yourself and most are incapable, those that are win, those that have lawyers generally lose. Lawyers must "yield to the court" whenever the "duty to the court" is called upon, Pro Se litigants have no "oath to the court"
@squillyb7718 Governor Ronald Reagan, his wife Nancy Reagan, District Attorney Stanley Trom, his wife Joan Trom, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle, his wife Mary Hinkle, Judge Benjamin Ruffner, his wife Jacqueline Ruffner, Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack, Judge Richard Heaton, his wife Anne Heaton, Officer Glen White, his wife Judy White, Officer Gary Hardman, his wife Patricia Hardman, Judge Robert Soares, his wife Kathryn Soares Defendants Case # CV 75-13 dww(k)
@squillyb7718 37. Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.
38.Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.
60. Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:
@RetSquid says who? Not the US Supreme court. And I gave you the case # to research on your own if you need more proof. And any of those claims are valid against taxes
Which means it was thrown out of court. Probably by a judge laughing like crazy! There is ZERO validity to those 'right to travel means no license" cases.
@RetSquid your not very quick are you, dismissed by prosecutor/state can be found ALL OVER MY OWN RECORD if you'd care to look. That means the could NOT prove corpus delicti so they dropped the case. As a defendant you do not get to drop your own case unless you've filed a request for sanctions in some manner. Most if not all of these are on my channel for EVERYONE to view.
@RetSquid are you drunk? the state is filling against me hence I am the defendant (in error) Pro Se and the State is the Plaintiff, as is the cop, as is possibly the rep from the local dmv.
Sorry I thought you understood basic law and had a working knowledge base of said topic.
@RetSquid and several have never been tried because of conflict of interest. See in traffic cases you rep yourself, the state prosecutor reps the cop and the state, but who does the judge represent in these matters? OOPSIE! According to all Canons there are specific rules about "disqualification" that cannot be denied. I use these quite often as the knock out punch in traffic cases. The judge is a direct party to the cause of action against you therefore disqualified.
@RetSquid You are partially blind and that's all I can come up with for an excuse for you to have missed me say there are cases on my channel. There are cases on my record if you'd like me to make you a quick video highlighting say 10 of them, CR#'s ranging from 1998 -2007
@RetSquid in correct, in the real world the prosecutor has to prove there is a victim that suffered a loss and there must be a way to resolve the loss. Do your homework before you start talking about whats real in court and whats not. Do you even know what corpus delicti means?
"the use of the highway for the purpose of travel for or transportation is not a privilege by a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals can not rightfully be deprived."
This case is about a bus company that wanted to operate on the streets of Chicago. The bus company got permission from the State of Illinois to operate as a common carrier. The city had an ordinance that required an addition variance. The bus company was challenging the city ordinance. So, in this case, it was the STATE that was granting the bus company the right to operate, not the CITY. Also, the quote mentioned above does not appear in the case.
the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and transport his property there on either by carrier or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will but a common law right which he has under the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
kent V dulles
"the right to travel is part of the liberty of which the citizen can not be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th amendment"
In this case, a driver had his driving permit revoked by the Chief of Police. The Chief was acting under a new ordinance, giving him the power to revoke driving permits within the City of Lynchburg. The driver argues that the law was applied ex post facto. Also, the driver argued that it was an unlawful delegation of legislative power to give the Chief the power to revoke permits at will. So, this case recognized the State's authority to grant and revoke driving permits.
"...driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination."
@RetSquid ahhhh the lower courts which are often not in compliance with the 9th district rulings. if you want the winning legal argument against this check my channel for Ivy's right to travel (legal argument) you can watch the whole case on video
@RetSquid I use Kent v Dulles all the time on my motions, and most of my cases are dropped on lack of standing and/or lack of corpus dilecti amongst many FRCP violations. It's pretty hard to prove corpus dilecti in many cases. ACLU V NSA is a prime example of standing issues. I use the due process loop holes (aka the constitution and bill of rights lol) to prevent the cases from ever happening. This argument is based on contract law actually as the drivers license is part of a contract.
@RetSquid incorrect if you did not "knowingly and willing" waive your rights, the contract (license, mandatory insurance, etc) becomes null and void and the US Supreme court has already ruled its a "direct violation of their rights" so the question becomes how many people are erroneously informed these things are mandatory as a child and never informed of their right to travel "unregulated"
do some more research before you comment blindly, we have cases in court currently you can follow
@RetSquid and there is a big difference between criminal and civil charges. If the charges were criminal I would intend to fight and lose the first case, appeal and win based on FRCP violations on the summons. I would also push for a trial de Novo in all cases that needed to go to appeal. And by now you should realize the person your talking to is one very trained litigant.
@RetSquid key word, "driving" try "traveling" and see what happens, you should know definitions are very important in a court of law or equity for that matter.
@RetSquid See here is your flaw, your talking about violations of MVC and I am talking laws. When charged with a traffic complaint in many states it is either a civil violation or a criminal violation depending on the nature of the offense and the state involved. A "crime" has not been committed in these cases merely an "infraction" a summons is NOT the same as a complaint in the courts eyes. They require certain things, court seal, prosecutor signature, clerk signature/notary.
I have yet to see anything other than claims from people like you. No actual legal cases that have been decided in your favor, only convictions that negate your claims.
@RetSquid State v. Szewcyk, Seneca App. No. 13-03-01, 2003-Ohio-2901 -- Trucker was stopped because his semi matched the description of one sought by another officer following a report that a truck had struck a road closed sign. Driver admitted backing into the sign while trying to turn around and was charged with driving on a closed road. By only offering the extrajudicial confession, the state failed to prove corpus delicti.
no corpus delicti no crime even with admission of guilt
@RetSquid State v. Ralston (1979), 67 Ohio App. 2d 81, 83 -- Corpus delicti must established before confession is admitted. Paragraph 1 of the syllabus to State v. Edwards (1976), 49 Ohio St. 2d 31 applied; State v. Duerr (1982), 8 Ohio App. 3d 396, 398-399.
again even with an admission, no corpus delicti = no conviction = case dismissed
@RetSquid you seem to be confused when I say I fight using corpus delicti and other things such as standing to defend. Don't be confused,Corpus delicti = objective proof, Actus Reus = Criminal Action, and Mens Rea = Intent/Thought Processes behind said activity. These are all very unique once you step into a court and very specific by definition
@bakersfieldmusicnow careful, under UCC-1 you give up certain constitutional rights. I stick with the Constitution and take them all the way to SCOTUS
It would make it harder to find and use all of the different changes to tax law. But the law itself would not change, all of the requirements would still be there.
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
a SLAVE,,,sorry...and you must challenge!!!! SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION...IN LEGAL CONSRUCTIVE NOTICE...AND AVIDAVIT OF TRUTH.....WHICH THEY WILL NEVER RESPOND TO.....because they will have to admit their FRAUD..AND once they default...YOU WIN.period...its res judicata evidence
a "person" cant...of course....a freeman can......its ALL about jurisdiction. ..the "PERSON"...IS THE CORPORATE FICTION....the salve...the us citizen......we are not a person..we HAVE a person....thats were they get ya!
you simply un volunteer....its won in many courts...hold the irs to their own code...its against your religion...etc.....and...expatriate from the corporate us govs..fed and sate..be a freeman sovereign...than sue them in common law court.
This well-worn argument has been uniformly repudiated by the federal courts. The federal income tax is not voluntary, and a person may not elect to opt out of the federal tax laws by a unilateral act of revocation and rescission.”
About Irwin Schiff. Secondly, the alleged “Delusional Disorder” at issue has absolutely nothing to do with an “insanity defense” as alluded to in the Government’s Memorandum.
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for Slavery Inc.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
I love how he uses "Voluntary" and "Requirements" in the same sentence!!! lolol
or "Voluntary" and "Must Do".... lololol
He just doesn't understand the meaning of the word, 'voluntary'..
wernervoss48 3 months ago
@wernervoss48 LMAO, if you haven't, check out the videos of Jan Helfeld where he confronts Harry Reid on the "voluntary" tax system check it out, It'd be funny if it wasn't the real opinion of a real legislator.
firestrings272 3 weeks ago
And once again, you lie. Nothing changes.
Itsmeeman1 4 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
I will let the readers look up the info, it proves that YOU are the liar here.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Once again you have proven that you don't know as much as you think you do! The first computers were people, the next was mechanical based upon Charles Babbage's mathematics, the next was Colossus made at Bletchley Park in England, designed and build by an English Telecommunications Engineer to decode the Enigma code. The workings of which were then STOLEN by AMERICANS, no surprise, and recreated by IBM and claimed it as their own, LIARS, no surpise. Now, Fuck Off Retard!
Itsmeeman1 5 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
You missed your history lesson, the ABC (Atanasoff–Berry Computer) was developed in the basement of the Physics building at Iowa State University in 1941, at least TWO YEARS before Colossus was functional.
And you need to work on your reading comprehension, I said "digital computer" not mechanical or human computers.
So, once again, you lose.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@banter2345 Get an education! The English ARE GERMAN! The Angles, Saexons(or Saxons to you), the Franks, Asi-Goths, Visi-Goths, Vandals, etc. are all Teutonic races. And the words you're using to write here on this English Invention, the Electronic Computer, are from them too.
Edu-Mac-ation, sponsored by Mac-Vomits, ehy? You go girl!
Itsmeeman1 5 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
You do know that the first digital electronic computer was invented right here in the U.S., at Iowa State University. Go look up the "ABC Computer".
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@Itsmeeman Maybe you have mistaken the United States for "USA, Inc.", a private Corporation chartered by the State of Delaware. Corporations operate under articles of incorporation and by-laws, not codes. If you look up "corporation code" on a search engine, the first matches are "the Corporation Code of the Philipines" and "California Corporations Code". Perhaps you would support your claims with sources. @RetSquid has has already cited some important Supreme Court rulings.
AmericanDomainNames 7 months ago
@Itsmeeman There's no USA corporation, constitution of 1871, financial crisis or bankruptcy in 1871. A code is a codification of public law in one book everyone can comphrehensively reference the law from. Otherwise you'd have to compare the original law to all amendments (new law saying something like "Sec. 4 of the Copyright Act of 1976 is hereby amended") to determine what the law is. I understand that the concept of codified law is totally unknown to British people.
AmericanDomainNames 7 months ago
@RetSquid NOT ONE SINGLE THING I HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS A LIE DESPITE YOUR ERRONEOUS ACCUSATIONS! YOU are the one spreading lies and dissent here little man and I'm tired of it. Go pester someone else with your crap or else I will make a formal complaint to YoutTube against you. Every single thing I have written here can be backed up whether you like it or believe it or not. Now run along while you still have a chance to keep your channel! You've been warned!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Itsmeeman1
Why don't you TRY and back up anything you have said? EVERYTHING I have said is verified as fact and truth, you just call names because you know you cannot win the dabate.
You might want to keep your ideas on THAT side of the pond.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid I think you'll find that you wouldn't exist without us. Know your history. Know your place.
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
Then it is mutual, neither would exist without the other.
But YOU are posting outright lies and need to stop, you are making all Englishmen look like idiots who can read.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1 If it weren't for America getting involved in WW2, you'd be speaking German right now... KNOW YOUR PLACE before you get put in it, pip pip cherrio and all that good rhubish.
banter2345 5 months ago
@RetSquid HONOUR! If you can't even spell it, then you can't have it! Remember, English are a people and a language! America, is just a continent. Bow your head to your Lords and Masters, little slave girl. We gave you a language, though you can't speak it properly, we gave you literature, though you can't read it properly, we gave you written words, though you can't write them properly, and we gave you a land, though you took it to bankruptcy three times and lost it back to us. LOSERS!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
LOL!! You wouldn't even EXIST without the U.S. so go whine to someone else. You lost all claims back in 1783.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid 1. Internal Revenue Code is a CODE, NOT A LAW. You even wrote it yourself! Are you slow? 2. You already know I'm not American as you've already looked at my page. 3. The 'States' ? What 'States'? The USA only exists within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. 4. Your 'FACTS' are based upon one lie on top of another, and are therefore, meaningless. 5. It'll be a strange day when I take grammar advice from the likes of you when you've already been bred to be illiterate!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (TITLE 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (TITLE 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman
3) “Ward reaches this twisted conclusion [that the IRC only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C....by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words ‘state’ or ‘United States” to ‘include’ U.S. territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word ‘include’ as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit.”
US v. Ward
RetSquid 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
4&5, you have yet to post anything besides urban legends and proven lies. If you didn't NEED grammar advice, I wouldn't give it.
RetSquid 9 months ago
polylingue has proved my point! He wrote " The Constitution for The United States of America " That is what is written on your USA constitution! The Constitution 'for' the UNITED STATES of AMERICA Corporation! The original document, that americans think is theirs reads, "The constitution 'of' the united states of America" See the difference? There are TWO constitutions! One for a country that doesn't exist and one for a corporation that does exist! RetSquid is a US Gov lying bitch!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
You never learned English grammar did you?
RetSquid 9 months ago
USA is a corporation! The UNITED STATES of AMERICA CORPORATION, it's on the constitution of 1871, when the united states of America went bankrupt and became dissolved as a country, they re-wrote the constitution with a few minor changes and went from a country to a corporation so they could still do business; and the USA corporation only exist within the 10 miles square District of Columbia! Corporations have CODES not Laws, only Countries can have Laws! THAT'S why the IRS can't find the Law!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
No laws? You mean like these:
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming ***Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3***. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by ***Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085*** (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid Your problem is that you've been brought up to believe that the USA is a good place, being a US Marine and putting your life on the line, with honour and dignity is what it is to be 'American'. To be a 'stand-up' guy! Now you're finding out that all of that is BS and you've been lied to all your life and you're spitting your dummy out! Your head going to explode? I didn't lie to you, your own people did the second they got you to 'swear allegiance' to a flag! Your life is a lie!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
Well, you still don't know what a "Squid" is and you probably aren't even an American or live in the States. Your posts are lies from start to finish.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid No it's not. The IRS is a private corporation not a governmental body. The US Gov has a stake in it as it has stakes in the FBI, CIA and a whole lot of other alphabet gangs but they are not part of the government and have no special legal powers. What Dept. of Treasury? The IRS sends and receives money via the IMF not the Dept. of Treasury. Get your facts straight or shut the fuck up.
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
LOL!! Let me know when YOU start posting any "FACTS", so far I have not seen any.
“It is clear that the IRC gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute.”
Snyder v. IRS
RetSquid 9 months ago
Voluntary Obligation?
P3tr4W45H3r3 9 months ago
The IRS is a collection agency for the Queen of England! Look it up if you don't believe me. Americans are paying off the interest to a debt to the Crown which is not their debt! Bizarre!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
Stop posting these lies. The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury of the U.S. Government.
RetSquid 9 months ago
AH, heres that douchebag, RetSquid again who has yet to show anyone the LAW , statute , and in the Constitution that says paying tax on our income it is NOT Voluntary.
Don't believe this Traitor, RetSquid, he obviously is paid to post this bulls!t!!
FoxifiedNutjob 10 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Here is part of the law:
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid A Code is not The Law. It merely is a statute or regulation. The Supreme Law of The Land is The Constitution for The United States of America and In The Law-there are no statutes. Giving up your "personality" is voluntary. Look up the word personality versus income in a Black's Law Dictionary, it will tell you the truth. All eyes are open!!!
polylingue 10 months ago
@polylingue
Sorry, Acts passed by Congress and signed by the President become Laws, which are printed in the "Statutes at Large", and when grouped by subject matter are called 'Codes".
"Personality" (thinking, feeling, and behaving characteristic of a particular individual) has nothing to do with income tax.
RetSquid 10 months ago
The IRS another reason not to have children.
MrBeautifulba1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
10 30 2010 Dr. Mark E. Hopkins and Sharon J. Hopkins were convicted of seven counts of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy.
"Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Joe Banister."
Mr. Banister's proposed testimony is comprised largely of legal conclusions, which are not a proper form of expert testimony. United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Government's Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of Joseph R. Banister [Doc 142] is
GRANTED
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
The income tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). IRS was established July 1, 1862 by an act of Congress. Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
voluntary compliance....remember we are not talking about all taxes
we are talking about " income taxes", the supreme court has identified labor or your labor you give to a company is yours and is a fair trade of value for money. it is not a gain in value in which a tax would be levied.
beerun1 1 year ago
@beerun1
Try again:
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income...The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Connor v. Commissioner,
RetSquid 1 year ago
Compliance is VOLUNTARY!! Not Mandatory! That's why its not called MANDATORY Compliance! Stopping at a Red Light is not Voluntary Compliance, its the LAW, just in case someone uses that as an example. IRS = Mafia
jewelofakate 1 year ago
@jewelofakate
Income taxes are not voluntary.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid show me the LAW , statute , and in the Constitution that says it is NOT Voluntary. I am convinced that you work for the establishment cause I see your comments all over the Tax issue as for it when they take your money and don't even use it for budgeting purposes, oh thats hiden in the CAFR's . Go do your research and keep on following their rules if you want to, I ain't wit it. Nuff said
branman055 1 year ago
@branman055
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@branman055
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
blah blah blah
generalmaximus53 1 year ago
i think most people reluctantly pay income tax because they arent the types to question laws the government makes, but if they all realize its not even a law, but instead is just a trickery to get them to voluntarily do it, they wont stand for it...and hopefully that may go for getting gun permits, drivers licenses, and all the other absurd tricks of voluntary slavery they throw at us.. if you want to participate in being treated like a child or slave, you can..but you cant force it on the free
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
Too bad all of those thing you mentioned are not voluntary.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid well you are one of the many ignorant and brainwashed that think so, but your wrong.. contracts cant be forced on a free man...the problem is , you all dont know what it means to be free... youve been brainwashed into thinking freedom is mob rule, total government control, and policing the world...your pathetic people
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
Yes, YOU have been mis-informed. There is no contract involved here, just the law. It's called 'Ordered Liberty', look it up. Gun permits, driver's license etc. are only voluntary if you don't have a gun or don't drive.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Wow you are everywhere. So how did you become so in love with such a corrupt system? I hate to tell you the Federal Reserve and the World Bankers are trying to end the United States and replace it with a World Federation. If you care about the U.S. Constitution you should be resisting these domestic enemies with all you have, not defending them. And what "gun permits"? I'm starting to see what you really are.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
"I'm starting to see what you really are. "
The guy that knows the law better than you, obviously.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The guy that already conceded that law doesn't exist.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
No, the guy that told you there was no law for you to file a form called the "1040".
Section 6012 DOES require you to file, it just does not say WHAT form to file.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid to limit the rights of men is to deny them.. use some logic and reason
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
So you have a right to do whatever you want to do no matter what?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid obviously i dont have the right to take away someone elses rights
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
But society DOES have that "right".
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid no
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
So you say society cannot put people in jail?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid no, the law should protect rights of people.. if someone violates someones rights, including taking theyr life or property...kidnapping, enslavery...physical assult...etc...they should be dealt with according to law.. the problem is that people are punished when they havent commited any true crimes... growing some weed or not paying a forced tax is not a real crime...neither is driving a car without a license, or not registering for military service...these are violations of rights
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
No, you don't have a 'right' to not pay taxes, or drive without a licence or avoid Selective Service. Those are things that are inherent 'rights' of any State.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid rights of the man overule all rights claimed by the state
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
No, they don't, otherwise the State could not put anyoe in prison.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid the only lawful reason a state should imprison someone, is if that someone violated someones rights
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
Or if you violate any of that State's laws.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy no, any state that enforces laws that violate the rights of the people, should be put down...you seem to favor a top to bottom government, where the government is the master and the people are the subjects and servants...but thats not what america was suppose to be...we should be putting the government in its place as the servant, and acting like the masters that we are as free men.. you are not unlike many of the people who were against the first american revolution
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
You seem to want the Government as a totally powerless servant. It has to have some power to carry out it's duties. Saying that it can't tax is going back to the days of the Confederation, before the Constitution. The Constitution lists what the Federal Government can do, why do you want to get rid of it?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid i never said it cant tax, i said it should be a voluntary tax
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
That is why the Confederation was a failure, Congress had no way to raise money and had to beg the States for it. A voluntary tax would never work, everyone would expect someone else to 'volunteer' for it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid if a free people dont want to fund a government, then its obviously not a government favored by the people...the reason government forces people to participate and fund it, is because people dont want it
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
This Government/Constitution is favored by the vast majority of the people, there are a few like yourself who want some form of anarchy/libertarian government that won't really work.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid you claiming that i want anarchy shows how little you comprehend what ive said
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
Maybe it's your lack of communicating it?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid i think its time to end our relationship, im going to see other people
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
Good bye.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid i certainly dont want to fund a government that treads all over my rights in exchange for being treated like a stupid child and slave
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@RetSquid and did you say confederation?
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@RetSquid the government has no more right to deny my rights, than you do as a fellow individual
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy
Yes, they do. It is an inherent right of ANY State to enforce it's laws on it's Citizens/residents.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
spread the w0rd!
civil disobedience 2011 income tax law protest = d0nt file
spread the w0rd!
civil disobedience 2011 income tax law protest = d0nt file
serrtucheserrtuche 1 year ago
Ret Squid is a braindead asshole! He has no credibility so ignore him!
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Are you back for some more punishment?
RetSquid 1 year ago
people are broke and they don't have Money to give to anyone...so stop asking them for it...they don't have it. you can't give something you don't have. But really i think the goal here is to put as many people in prison that they can....Just say NO ..they think they Own you .
tarotimes 1 year ago
volintary obligation = oxymoron
MrBullfrog9876 1 year ago
WTF is this guy tryen to say if you dont do it and stfu abought it legal or not its yo ass
budking127 1 year ago
This shit is like believing in Santa Claus or Eastr Bunny. Come on people!
sickasso72 1 year ago
This video is in reference to "Taxpayers" voluntarily complying...Which is Correct...The real question here is, " Are you a 'taxpayer'?" Do you consider yourself to be a taxpayer? If so, then you should to voluntarily comply, or the IRS WILL force you to pay!!!
jeremyseyes 1 year ago
@jeremyseyes
"The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a) (14) of the [IRC] of 1954.) A "non-taxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer."
Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, Gatliff Coal Company, And Premier Elkhorn Coal Company, V. United States
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid actually labile for taxes not wages
waterchildtera 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@waterchildtera
I don't know what you are asking.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Proves my point, you're stupid!
dude58677 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Stupid RINO!
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Moron. This has nothing to do with politics.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Hey, don't be a sore loser over the elections. I know it was painful to see Rand Paul join his father in Congress as well an overwhelming victory in the States. Admit you are a liberal and admit you HATE the Tea Party. Finally, admit you got defeated. Don't be a sore loser!
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
You really are nuts, probably lied about crunches too, huh?
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid
Are you jealous because you have no talent?
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
You're only 'talent' is for lying.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Anyone with a rational mind can see what I've done on the video's.IF YOU CAN DO BETTER, POST A VIDEO.
As for everything else, you have given me no reason to think that you are willing to be a grown up. So I'm going to have to speak at your level of maturity. Are you going to grow up or will I have to continue to speak to the maturity of a little child?
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
You have yet to even TRY and debate like an adult. You are the one trolling and lying about other's political philosophy. I can see what someone has done on a video, there is no way to prove that it is you.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
trollman20100 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Jealousy gets you nowhere.
dude58677 1 year ago
well thats your opinion.you have that right.....bottom line ..the US..and the IRS...and ALL their tenicals..are corrupt at the core and everytime the truth is put in their face the run and hide..and answer....with only violence....look at their history
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow
Look at the history of tax protestors like croft. They have never gotten out of paying income tax and only a few have gotten out of prison time.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid and all of those people should have filed a civil rights suit for "involuntary servitude" against the US. You have to rep Pro Se to truly defend yourself and most are incapable, those that are win, those that have lawyers generally lose. Lawyers must "yield to the court" whenever the "duty to the court" is called upon, Pro Se litigants have no "oath to the court"
see Charlie Sprinkle v California
squillyb7718 1 year ago
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718 37. Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.
38.Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.
60. Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:
settled out of court look it up paid in gold
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
None of those claims will get you out of paying income tax.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
Sounds like a total BS case to me. If it was settled, post proof.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
There is no claim for 'involuntary servitude' or civil rights violation in regard to income taxes.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid says who? Not the US Supreme court. And I gave you the case # to research on your own if you need more proof. And any of those claims are valid against taxes
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
The case you gave me is only his claims, not the opinion of the court.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid because the case was moved off docket permanently.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
Which means it was thrown out of court. Probably by a judge laughing like crazy! There is ZERO validity to those 'right to travel means no license" cases.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid your not very quick are you, dismissed by prosecutor/state can be found ALL OVER MY OWN RECORD if you'd care to look. That means the could NOT prove corpus delicti so they dropped the case. As a defendant you do not get to drop your own case unless you've filed a request for sanctions in some manner. Most if not all of these are on my channel for EVERYONE to view.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
When YOU file a case and it is dismissed, that means YOU LOST!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid are you drunk? the state is filling against me hence I am the defendant (in error) Pro Se and the State is the Plaintiff, as is the cop, as is possibly the rep from the local dmv.
Sorry I thought you understood basic law and had a working knowledge base of said topic.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
So we aren't talking about Charlie Sprinkle v California?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid and several have never been tried because of conflict of interest. See in traffic cases you rep yourself, the state prosecutor reps the cop and the state, but who does the judge represent in these matters? OOPSIE! According to all Canons there are specific rules about "disqualification" that cannot be denied. I use these quite often as the knock out punch in traffic cases. The judge is a direct party to the cause of action against you therefore disqualified.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
"conflict of interest"?
LOL!!! That would mean that every single criminal case would have to thrown out..
Still can't post any cases that prove any of your claims,huh?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are partially blind and that's all I can come up with for an excuse for you to have missed me say there are cases on my channel. There are cases on my record if you'd like me to make you a quick video highlighting say 10 of them, CR#'s ranging from 1998 -2007
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@RetSquid in correct, in the real world the prosecutor has to prove there is a victim that suffered a loss and there must be a way to resolve the loss. Do your homework before you start talking about whats real in court and whats not. Do you even know what corpus delicti means?
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
"corpus delicti": the body of evidence that constitute the offence; the objective proof that a crime has been committed.
No need for a victim or a loss.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid chicago motor coach V Chicago says:
"the use of the highway for the purpose of travel for or transportation is not a privilege by a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals can not rightfully be deprived."
squillyb7718 1 year ago
"chicago motor coach V Chicago"
This case is about a bus company that wanted to operate on the streets of Chicago. The bus company got permission from the State of Illinois to operate as a common carrier. The city had an ordinance that required an addition variance. The bus company was challenging the city ordinance. So, in this case, it was the STATE that was granting the bus company the right to operate, not the CITY. Also, the quote mentioned above does not appear in the case.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Thompson V Smith says:
the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and transport his property there on either by carrier or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will but a common law right which he has under the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
kent V dulles
"the right to travel is part of the liberty of which the citizen can not be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th amendment"
squillyb7718 1 year ago
Thompson V Smith
In this case, a driver had his driving permit revoked by the Chief of Police. The Chief was acting under a new ordinance, giving him the power to revoke driving permits within the City of Lynchburg. The driver argues that the law was applied ex post facto. Also, the driver argued that it was an unlawful delegation of legislative power to give the Chief the power to revoke permits at will. So, this case recognized the State's authority to grant and revoke driving permits.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
"kent V dulles" Means that with due process your right to travel CAN be deprived.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
"...driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination."
CITY OF SPOKANE v. Julie Anne PORT
No. 6927-3-III.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid ahhhh the lower courts which are often not in compliance with the 9th district rulings. if you want the winning legal argument against this check my channel for Ivy's right to travel (legal argument) you can watch the whole case on video
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
According to posts on the last video she was found guilty.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The right to travel case she won/well it was vacated. However she did get arrested for an out of state charge right out of the court room.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
She was convicted on all of the motor vehicle charges.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
-Kent v Dulles
Which means that with due process the right to travel CAN be deprived from a Citizen.
There is no case that allows you to drive a vehicle on a highway without a license.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I use Kent v Dulles all the time on my motions, and most of my cases are dropped on lack of standing and/or lack of corpus dilecti amongst many FRCP violations. It's pretty hard to prove corpus dilecti in many cases. ACLU V NSA is a prime example of standing issues. I use the due process loop holes (aka the constitution and bill of rights lol) to prevent the cases from ever happening. This argument is based on contract law actually as the drivers license is part of a contract.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
"argument is based on contract law actually"
LOL!! Totally crappy legal idea and totally worthless in court for a criminal charge.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid incorrect if you did not "knowingly and willing" waive your rights, the contract (license, mandatory insurance, etc) becomes null and void and the US Supreme court has already ruled its a "direct violation of their rights" so the question becomes how many people are erroneously informed these things are mandatory as a child and never informed of their right to travel "unregulated"
do some more research before you comment blindly, we have cases in court currently you can follow
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
SCOTUS has never called a driver's lisence or vehicle registration a violation of rights.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid and there is a big difference between criminal and civil charges. If the charges were criminal I would intend to fight and lose the first case, appeal and win based on FRCP violations on the summons. I would also push for a trial de Novo in all cases that needed to go to appeal. And by now you should realize the person your talking to is one very trained litigant.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@RetSquid key word, "driving" try "traveling" and see what happens, you should know definitions are very important in a court of law or equity for that matter.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
You can travel where ever you wish, but if you are operating a motor vehicle (by the definitionin the law, not yours) you have to have a license.
Most of the cases you post do not support your ideas, they are taken out of context.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid See here is your flaw, your talking about violations of MVC and I am talking laws. When charged with a traffic complaint in many states it is either a civil violation or a criminal violation depending on the nature of the offense and the state involved. A "crime" has not been committed in these cases merely an "infraction" a summons is NOT the same as a complaint in the courts eyes. They require certain things, court seal, prosecutor signature, clerk signature/notary.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718
I have yet to see anything other than claims from people like you. No actual legal cases that have been decided in your favor, only convictions that negate your claims.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid because your to ignorant to go to my channel or do your own research.
If you want to know more or see and hear cases, go to my channel.
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@RetSquid State v. Szewcyk, Seneca App. No. 13-03-01, 2003-Ohio-2901 -- Trucker was stopped because his semi matched the description of one sought by another officer following a report that a truck had struck a road closed sign. Driver admitted backing into the sign while trying to turn around and was charged with driving on a closed road. By only offering the extrajudicial confession, the state failed to prove corpus delicti.
no corpus delicti no crime even with admission of guilt
now what?!
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@RetSquid State v. Ralston (1979), 67 Ohio App. 2d 81, 83 -- Corpus delicti must established before confession is admitted. Paragraph 1 of the syllabus to State v. Edwards (1976), 49 Ohio St. 2d 31 applied; State v. Duerr (1982), 8 Ohio App. 3d 396, 398-399.
again even with an admission, no corpus delicti = no conviction = case dismissed
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@RetSquid you seem to be confused when I say I fight using corpus delicti and other things such as standing to defend. Don't be confused,Corpus delicti = objective proof, Actus Reus = Criminal Action, and Mens Rea = Intent/Thought Processes behind said activity. These are all very unique once you step into a court and very specific by definition
squillyb7718 1 year ago
@squillyb7718 With the thought of "income" tax and being engaged in "commerce"
Is there a defined difference between driving for travel and driving for commerce ?
I am sure there is a defined set of laws that control commerce "transportation"
as in Title Statutes. Seems these wound not "apply" when one just travels at will.
asicit2b 1 year ago
well mary croft and alot others know the facts......and why do judges RUN...when you say i am the administrator for that account..??
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow
Mary Croft is just a scam artist, maybe her crappy ideas work in Canada, but they don't un the U.S.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow careful, under UCC-1 you give up certain constitutional rights. I stick with the Constitution and take them all the way to SCOTUS
squillyb7718 1 year ago
yes,,,BUT...the gov created a fiction person..in all caps...from your birth cert.
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow Watch, Winston Shrout
asicit2b 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow
No, all cap names have no legal meaning.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Notice it says interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies
OF the United States
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Wow, yet another pointless observation.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid What is the purpose of Title 26 ? What would happen if we did not have it ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
It would make it harder to find and use all of the different changes to tax law. But the law itself would not change, all of the requirements would still be there.
RetSquid 1 year ago
huh NO in law i am a man untill i sign up to be a 'person'...the fiction....much law on this...also...different types of citizens
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
RetSquid 1 year ago
a SLAVE,,,sorry...and you must challenge!!!! SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION...IN LEGAL CONSRUCTIVE NOTICE...AND AVIDAVIT OF TRUTH.....WHICH THEY WILL NEVER RESPOND TO.....because they will have to admit their FRAUD..AND once they default...YOU WIN.period...its res judicata evidence
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
a "person" cant...of course....a freeman can......its ALL about jurisdiction. ..the "PERSON"...IS THE CORPORATE FICTION....the salve...the us citizen......we are not a person..we HAVE a person....thats were they get ya!
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow
No, you are a person by the definition in the law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
you simply un volunteer....its won in many courts...hold the irs to their own code...its against your religion...etc.....and...expatriate from the corporate us govs..fed and sate..be a freeman sovereign...than sue them in common law court.
bakersfieldmusicnow 1 year ago
@bakersfieldmusicnow
LOL!!
This well-worn argument has been uniformly repudiated by the federal courts. The federal income tax is not voluntary, and a person may not elect to opt out of the federal tax laws by a unilateral act of revocation and rescission.”
United States v. John L. Sasscer
RetSquid 1 year ago
About Irwin Schiff. Secondly, the alleged “Delusional Disorder” at issue has absolutely nothing to do with an “insanity defense” as alluded to in the Government’s Memorandum.
asicit2b 1 year ago
What is he saying by voluntarily paying taxes?You mean we dont have to voluntarily file taxes?
sksman71 1 year ago
@sksman71
No, it mandatory, not voluntary.
RetSquid 1 year ago