Those of you finding yourself in need of understanding collections division of the IRS and want to solve your own problems for free, please download our valuable free ebook.
@KnowThyself7 - Step #1 get this book - super scam by Goldsborough. It is the tax law in very easy terms. #2 know that our gov't is planning our deaths, if we fight back or not!! So, suck it up and know that you have NO CHOICE but to fight. #3 STOP PAYING THEM TO KILL YOU and the rest of the world.
This is NOT the easy path - for freedom is hard. Liberty is easy - there is something for you to understand! And TU for your Q!!! Wishing you the best - Texas
@RetSquid You clearly have NO CLUE - that or your a Fed... if the federal Gov't could ALWAYS do this then way the 16th Amendment? And if they have the RIGHT to tax your work - they have the RIGHT to make you a slave at a "tax rate" of 100% - your clueless... It would also make you a agent of the State like a corp
The 16th Amendment took away the requirement that income taxes had to be apportioned. And yes, they DO have the 'right' to tax at 100%, the Constitution does not put a limit on the tax rates. They would be extremely stupid to tax at 100%, but it would be legal.
@GlenRoSSe69 “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. ***Congress already had the power to tax all incomes***..."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
@RetSquid - The Court also said that it gave them NO new taxing power... why? Cuz the 16th was passed to tax corps. They had passed a law to do that and it was stuck down - so they passed the 16th to give the power to tax corps - they whole thing is STILL a fruad - do to the way it passed and the States never passed it ... FRAUD
READ my post, they already HAD the power to tax ALL IMCOMES, they didn't need anymore.
It had nothing to do with taxing just corporations. And until you can show me a State that says THEY didn't ratify it and the Government says they DID, that's a lame argument.
It is NOT in the best interests of the people for gov't to borrow at interest that wich it can create itself, FOR ITSELF, for free. Further, the usurer is the only beneficiary to what seems to be a global system IMF/BIS etc. Gov's only legitamate roll is for weights and measures and keeping the peace 'internally' and 'externally.' Anything above that - witness a folly. 'Money' falls under the "measures" category. Gov'ts must do what is best for all the people, not the usurer:Force them.
@Independent0bserver What is most interesting is how these people, the designers of this system function openly but there is not one bit of news about them.
if you want benefits or services from government, you should be free to enter into that contract, but you cant force it on others without acknowleging your a tyrant
im against all involuntary tax.. i think truly free people cant be forced into any contract including participating in governments they dont condone or voluntarily participate in.. the only law that should be enforced on the entire land, should be law that protects the rights of the individuals who live on it, to be free to live how they wish...unless they are violating rights of other free men, they should be left alone...enough with the tyranny..
I just found this Cryer's Memoradum from his court case. The first thing he does is include a personal resume as if it were a job interview. He makes a point of telling the court he is a 32nd degree mason and lists all this masonic stuff. Wonder if the judge was a mason? Were there any masons on the jury? I just emailed Tommy as he calls himself in the memorandum and asked if I became a mason could I pull this off? The IRS is after me thanks to yet another attorney. I said I could get an apron.
@retsquid Yes many people have been found not guilty using this technique of truth. It's just hard to find these cases cuz the federal corporation doesn't want the general public to know... Corruption!! Kk me go on vacation:) brb 1 week
LOL!! If it were true then it would be all over the Net. People were found guilty by proving it was not 'willful', meaning they were stupid to figure out the law. Next time he can't use this excuse and will lose in court.
Our judicial system has been bought by the BANKERS. The Constitution no longer appears to be in effect. Obama just went into a foreign country and attack it using military weapons without the approval of congress. Look at the constitution, only CONGRESS CAN ENACT A WAR?
@RetSquid The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. ) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. .
Thank you Mr. Cryer. Thank you to whoever was brave enough to post this video. It would be a great help to OUR cause if something could be organized so that all of us who do not pay income tax nowadays could maybe receive support from you and/or some of your colleagues if presented with a court case falsely filed by the Government.
this is why america is going to have a nuke set somewhere special cause they are greedy illuminate bitches that dont even use taxes to pay for my fuckin roads
Just because he is not criminally liable does not mean he doesn't have to pay the tax plus civil penalties. He was just aquited on willful failure to file. Now that he was made aware of his obligations, he can't pull that again. So if he continues to be a non filer, he can now be subject to criminal as well as civil penalties.
Slaves pay income tax. Slaves pay rents on their own property because they don't own it. Slaves get privileges. Slaves pay to travel. Citizens are slaves. Humans don't pay tax. Humans have rights. Humans can own property. Humans can travel freely. Millions of people don't file. Millions of people don't pay income tax. United States is a corporation. A Citizen is a person that falls into the jurisdiction of a corporation. Persons "willfully" give up their human rights by signing their rights and
The squid is nothing but a lowlife psychopath. Anyone who would defend IRS agents kicking in the doors of innocent people and molesting their children, in their pajamas, at gunpoint, is real scumbag.
This is a good man and a very rare find in the legal community, which is filled with the most despised scumbags to ever walk the face of this earth. Most lawyers don't even like other lawyers. This is nothing new in the American experience.
"In my many years I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame; two are a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
John Adams was one of the best lawyers of his day.
Spread this video so people can see IRS criminals for what they truly are. They have good people like Sherry Jackson locked up and they have criminals kicking in our doors and molesting children at gunpoint.
Hear testimony from one of 4 girls who had armed IRS criminals invade their bedroom and attempt to watch them get dressed by forcibly keeping the door open. What if this happened to your family?
People need to be outraged by this criminal behavior.
The Constitution contains about 4400 words and was meant to be understood by all.
The tax code contains about 10,000,000 words and was meant to be understood by none.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment gives the government no new powers of taxation; therefore the entire tax code is null and void. It's unconstitutional and therefore not the law.
People, what everyone needs to do is learn EXACTLY what the code says, and this is very important, HOW it says it. The code IS constitutional, yet taxing your private sector, unprivileged receipts is not. So, how can this be? You have told, and have allowed others to tell the Government your pay IS taxable so they tax you. How the hell did I do that you say? Find out the way I did. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his website and start reading. Wake-up from the Matrix people
None of you need to pay ANY kind of Tax...watch my videos for a look into how you can pay 0% Taxes for the rest of your life and the best thing is it's LEGAL!
Besides, what IS your problem??? If you wish to continue paying taxes that's your prerogative, why must you argue with everybody and make snide remarks?
Have I told you I can do something for you and failed to do it??? I believe not! Therefore, stop pointing fingers and keep your opinions to yourself.
You are also a liar, you claim to be able to get people out of their taxes by having them incorporate something in Cyprus, but any income made anywhere in the world by U.S. citizens is taxable under U.S. law.
You might want to actually READ some law before you try and advise people on it. Start with Title 26 Section 1.
Yes, you have failed to show how hiding money offshore in a fake corporation is legal or even ethical.
You have not posted a shred of evidence that suggests what you do is legal, or that those 'investors' even keep control of the money that they give your organization.
What you do may be legal in Cyprus but it is NOT legal in the U.S.
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER AND TELL THE LEGAL THIEVES WHOS IN CHARGE.
Only a moron would quote the tax code as if quoting the code proves it's the law.
Only a moron would quote lower court rulings as if they overrule the Supreme Court.
The truth:
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the Sixteenth Amendment gives the government no new powers of taxation; therefore, the entire tax code is null and void.
Hey Squid, the Title 26 you are referring to is part of the U.S. Code which is a codification of the Statures at Large ( the law passed by CONgress). If you try to trace back from the code to the Statues at Large you will NOT find any connection. The Cornell University Law School has a great site on the US Code. Over on the right side of the pages are the parallel authorities and Statues at Large. You will not find it for the "tax imposed".
There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too STUPID or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not willful, but no one has ever won against the IRS in a tax collection case using one of the TPs frivolous arguments.
CAN THERE REALLY BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
NO MORE LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
Is freedom that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
I haven't filed a 1040 since 1999. I flat out told the IRS that I'm settling in for the long haul. Just like Cryer, the IRS wrecked my credit rating... and financial future for 10 years.
But if you're willing and able to take a stand (and risk prison), it is possible to beat the IRS. You have to remember that the IRS has the best guns and will use them if necessary.
You have to be smart. And persistent. And be willing to risk it all... that's no joke.
i am in it all the way also they already had me prove i know my shit so they flat out just lie. i have lots of toys also and when the day comes i will die a martyr.
By the way, Castleman711 may really be Luis Ewing. He writes like Lewis does. Luis is mostly a loud mouth drug user (abuser? could be).
He viciously attacked Jack & Margy Flynn. When I asked Luis to verify his outrageous claims, he went into a typical lawyer mode. He also has his dissenters as well.
Now Luis does actually have some truth, however his attacks on people trying to figure it out doesn't help anything.
Just watch "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and "The Magnificent Deception" on youtube. Then you will know that you are the one that's in control.
Tom Crier is right and Joe Bannister, Sherry Jackson Peel agree. There are a bunch of others all on Youtube. Tom's case had a jury and they're on Youtube talking about why they acquitted him. 63 million no longer file the 1040 form. They won't put 63m people in jail. We are more powerful JUST in numbers; but we also have TRUTH.
He is creating fake hope for patriots so that they will go to jail. You will not win a tax case against the IRS if you demand that they "Show you the law". That is bogus information. This man is a state bar attorney. There is no way he could have won this case being under the fraud laws of the bar. This is a hoax. Look up Luis Ewing to find a real lawyer, that isn't apart of the bar, to find the real answers.
exactly. thats the scam. every time a central bank was started in the USA eventually it was thrown out by the people. today the politicians are all corrupt and paid off so the power of the Fed isn't threatened.
Andrew Jackson threw out the central bank, and so Rothschilds paid for the war in 1812, gave us a giant loan that we could never pay off, and then reinstated a central bank.
@tbenitz What if, over the Past 100 yrs we'd Printed Free, EXACTLY what we had borrowed and issued that into the economy instead, what would our national debt be then.
@royalecraig govt borrows money cause they dont have any. printing more money with nothing backing its value just devalues the money, it doesn,t give u more
@royalecraig this is why 'leaders' get killed. gov can print a bill with no usury or it can print a bond with usury. Both the bill and the bond are based on the credit of the people. One benefits the people and the other the banks. They don't care who the president is. Ususry has a design flaw which will continue to destroy regardless if R or D in power ... all parties support/enable the usurer. The usurer doesn't care who makes the laws. Heirs don't pay for their inheritance.
@RetSquid Do you have a job besides trolling these comments? I see your name on every one. Oh I almost forgot, you're the overworked Minister of Disinformation for the IRS. Jesus dude...get out and get some fresh air.
RetSquid EVERYONE including yourself are a tax protestor. Have you actually seen anyone run out and say that I am sooooooooo happy to pay my taxes, I want to pay more than my share. I love paying taxes. Or would it be more realistic to say: I have to see the dentist but i better pay my taxes, before the irs comes down on me.
What is the purpose of the INCOME TAX? The purpose of the Income tax is to take money out of the system that the bankers put into the system by monitizing debt. With fractional reserve banking and without income tax, we would soon be awash with too much money and hyperinflation.
The purpose of the income tax is to raise money for the federal budget. Since the Gov. is spending far more than that, (putting money into the economy) your reasoning does not make sense.
Income taxes was something voted into existence during the war. It has been voted into rapeing the american public year after year by the Senate? Or whoever without voice of the people. Is this democratic? Or Gestapo type shit?
"Correct, but only under some specific legal reasons, not in general."
So the fed does not have perfect supremacy over the states! They only have control where it has been given by contract with the state or persons within the state. Hence "so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government."
Then what is your national government is the point? Do we not have one? I say they are our state governments but this does not jive with concensus reality. The world being flat also was a prevailing belief. Although I don't equate the two. :^)
The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States, but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Every citizen of a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction in the State,-concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to subject-matter.
Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876); Mondou v. New York, N.H., & H.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912).
"within its jurisdiction" Precisely what is its 'jurisdiction' ? And define "its". 'Its" refers to the United States possesively, what has been ceded to it by contract? I know of 76 non identical definitions for "United States" in the US code. Which one? More court decisions and no law? This is fun.
So congress creates undefined laws and the courts have to give them definitions later? Court decisions strictly interpret laws as legally defined and often they do a bad job and get overturned. There is a lot more going on there than you account for. You accept everything at face value, you would have made a good marine. Too bad about your folks. ;^)
Thankfully No it isn't. He's the putz that made me rethink a career in the service, that and I ask too many questions and that is not a good trait in the military. That's a cop out. There are 18 different defs for 'is'. They could change the context or meaning of his answer. I didn't like it either but his question was valid. So you don't really know what those thing are? Since when did Occam's razor apply to law and politics?
Blacks law 4th ed. - National Government - "A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the "social compact", and possessing complete and perfect supremacy ower persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.
A federal government is distinguished from national government, by its being the government of a community of independant and sovereign states, united by compact".
Can't let this one slide. Bouvier's and Blacks law dictionaries or Wiki???? The supreme court uses Blacks and Bouviers so I'll stick with those. And I have read it. Later
What is your Nationality? Do you not have one? You said there weren't any nations and if I accept that defintion you used it may be true.
Of course if we accept Bouvier's definition then we would be fifty nations united. What is wrong with that ideal?
NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. Where did you get your definition?
And I was using legal definitions from law dictionaries. Are their political dictionaries? I agree with the first part and coincidentally it is a TP arguement. What we commonly use words to mean are typically not the same as they are meant in law. Just look at the trouble you and I had over the few words we debated. Google 'Thinkfree Bursting bubbles' for more on this. Very funny and sadly true.
And you didn't answer my question. What is your nationality? Later..
There is no such thing as an American national. What US Code defines the term "American National"?
"I don't think I fit into a defined 'nation' as we have discussed." So you make one up? American National? Fine, I am a California National. Why do the states have National Guards? Did they not know they weren't a nation?
(4) Army National Guard means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive...
Why called national when they are separate and in the control of their respective states? That was the question.
That definition just says California has its own militia and it is called Army National Guard. California pays them. Why is California's militia refered to as National when it is typically confined to its state?
According to your profile you served 20 yrs honorably and good for you, thank you for your service.
You signed several enlistment contracts during your career and because you did it is said, in law, that you fulfilled those contracts honorably. Honor and dishonor are legal terms relating to contract law. Likewise if any of you have Social Security contracts you are deemed to be employees of the federal gov and owe a tax. The feds have always taxed their employees labor. Cheers
There are general uses of the words honor and dishonor like courage in a soldier, dignity, reputation or lack thereof.
However in regards to your enlistment contracts "honorable" means that you satisfactorily fulfilled the terms of the contract. It is contract law.
Yes that is what Social Security is. Social Security is not mandatory but when one applies it creates a contract for which one must bear the burden i.e. taxes. These are privileges and any offered by the feds can be taxed.SSN=EIN
"creates a contract for which one must bear the burden i.e. taxes. These are privileges and any offered by the feds can be taxed.SSN=EIN"
All individuals, freeborn and non freeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
There are so many words of art in that ruling. This will enevitably spin into an undesireable TP arguement. Courts do not create law, period. You and the IRS relie on them. Any judgement made can be challenged and over turned regardless of how many times it has been upheld. Let's agree to disagree on this. You say your are born obligated? To me that is slavery and I will not suffer it. And I say we are duped into contracts that render us subject. Contracts can be nullified, remedy, not slavery.
"You are subject to the laws of the country in which you reside." You sound like a true government employee;^) You just need a loud booming voice like GOD to finish the effect.
Speak for yourself. Country means State so do you mean California? Define the term "reside", legally not politically.
Residence - As opposed to inhabitant or domicile? They are not synonomous. What makes you a resident as opposed to inhabitant? Can you be both? You create more question than you answer.
What fun would that be, you know everything! Besides I am getting more info about you from the questions you choose to ignore. What is your nationality again? National Guards? etc. You ignore a lot. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, was I too greedy? Sorry.
I agree that America is a republic. But the Unanimous Declaration of the 13 independent states says that all men are endowed by their create with certain unalienable "rights". I'm not sure I understood your comment.
The Declaration of Independence gave the colonies power to define thier lives and subsequently define legal terms in thier own laws. But of course those good folks are all gone and technically you are correct in a present tense only. Cheers
The declaration of Independence is a "claim of right".
"And they made the Constitution." Yes they did but years later, no? To limit, define and control the federal government, not themselves, they had their own constitutions for that and still do.
It is the contract between then thirteen, now fifty, states and federal government. I don't get my rights from that document, my rights are endowed by the creator not derived from the constitution.
America is a continent and nothing more. The United States, aka federal government, is a pure democracy. The states of the union, New York, California etc. are commonwealths/republic nation states. The biggest mistake in the movement is assuming all these things are the same. Not being able to distinguish between the different jurisdictions and how you become "made subject to" them is where the solutions are to acheving your freedom. Cheers
Does 50%-1 decide law? Is 75%, 65%, 55% not a majority rule? The popular vote is a pure democracy. Congress is democratic and they make the laws, statutes, for the United States.
"they have no 'real' dealings with other Nations." This is why it is called clipped sovereignty. It does not mean each state legally is not a nation. Internally we are a union of nations like the EU, externally we are one.
"We are a Representative Democracy" Took you long enough but the "we" in regards to the federal government are the states, fifty of them, and not you and I ;^) The U.S. (United States) is the Federal government, and "it" is a pure democracy.
Books? Did that definition of 'nation' come out of one of them? You probably won't but you should get the 'Red Amendment' by L.B. Bork history derived from the laws, not popular opinion or court descisions..
You are so close almartin77. What most don't consider is that an independant state is a nation. 13 nations created the federal government and in doing so clipped their own sovereignty. People, as mentioned in the Constitution, equals "state".
Bouvier's Law dictionary 1856
Black's Law 1st thru 4th Ed. 1891-1974
PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity.
So, what is your nationality? Legally the fed is foreign to each state.
Correct, but only under some specific legal reasons, not in general.
Nation: A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity.
State: A political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population.
The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide.
Where do you get your definitions? I stick to Blacks and Bouviers cuz they were written for our unique system of law.
Let's look at your definition for nation. Is your state not a group of people sharing aspects of language, culture AND/OR ethnicity? California does and our culture is different than Maine. The people north of the mexican border share aspects of language (predominately english) culture(predominately european). Are those same people a nation? No.
Well if that is a nation, where everyone is homogenized, can you show me one. The United States is not a nation then, by your own definition, so what is it?. If the diversity of California removes it from your definition of nation then the diversity of the United States would also remove it from status of nation. So what is right? How do we resolve this conflict that your definition creates? Think about it, this is interesting.
It is hard to find an example of a true Nation these days, but Japan is a good one (it would also be a 'Nation-State'). It has also become more acceptable to call a country a 'nation' when it really isn't.
The United Sates is actually a country, but not really a 'Nation'.
Bouviers - COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.
NATIONALITY. The state (condition) of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.
NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. We have 51, no?
Japan has a chinese and korean components so it falls short too, no? Back to work, talk to you later. P
Poor Japan, still not a nation? Sorry Japan, you suck too! Does anyone know, actually know what they are? We call ourselves Americans like it is our nationality but then we discover we are not a nation? Right, Retsquid? Very confusing so I choose my nationality as Californian and I'll defend her against the Chinese and Nevadans alike ;^) I am an American because i live on the American continent, and a US Citizen cuz I am contractually a member of US Society. And never the twain shall meet.
You are a Californian, who is a citizen of the United Sates and The United States is situated in the Americas.
You are a citizen of the State in which you reside, you are also a citizen of the United States of America (an American citizen), and a citizen of the Americas.
Actually, they are subsets. " What? Which book did you get that creative interpretation from?. Surely there is law that establishes these subsets and their heirarchy? If they are all subsets what are they subsets of?
The are no legal or political terms called an "American citizen" or "Citizen of the Americas". Are you making this up as you go? A citizen is a person considered according to their political rights. What political rights do you have concerning the whole Americas?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
"American citizen"
That is the short form of 'citizen of the United States of America'.
"Citizen of the Americas"
This would be used in the same sense as a 'citizen of the world'. Not legal just descriptive.
"PERSON. This word is APPLIED to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not..
A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society.."
So if I am not a consenting member of US society I am not subject to "its" jurisdiction? Prove you are a person. So what was everybody before the 14th amendment?
Bouviers 1849, 1870, and Blacks law 1-4th, 1969. I use the definitions from law dictionary written around the time the law was passed. I don't get them from websites written 150 years later. What were the non slaves? Were they persons in regards to the Fed or were they just persons in regard to thier state? And the states being the 'persons' in regards to the fed. Why couldn't they just deem that everyone is as free as whitey? Why create another amendment, wasn't the thirteenth enough? Cheers.
The 13th did deem all men free. Of course some of them didn't like that, why couldn't those people be prosecuted. Why create the 14th? And many continue to think that to this day unfortunately.
They were wrong to believe that blacks were not fully human. It is commonly believed today (21st century) that neanderthals are human beings, too. And, notwithstanding, they even have the right to run for US President, so long as they are managed by an upper elite, superior in thought, advanced, evolved to bring the rest of humanity into a New World Order whereby they will continue to rule. This is fast becoming common knowledge. To hell with the old belief system of blacks being sub human!
Agreed and no intelligent man today will call blacks sub human. The question is will we all live as free men, equal in all respects? Or will we all live as subhuman animals being property of the state having absolute control over our lives? Federal government, via 14th amendment, and the NWO represents the latter. It is a choice every one of will have to make real soon.
We have all been told that the income tax is too complex to understand. H&R Block would like you all to continue to believe this fallacy, after all they have a financial interest in your ignorance. So does the US government.
RetSquid talks like an IRS employee. So expect him to slander and insult those who express a genuine concern for liberty. Don't take him seriously but pay attention to his M.O.
Those of you finding yourself in need of understanding collections division of the IRS and want to solve your own problems for free, please download our valuable free ebook.
Google killer IRS
MrCPATexasTax 1 month ago
Comment removed
Immer4Rammstein 5 months ago
If you speak the TRUTH you will be killed. That's why people do not speak up.
KnowThyself7 7 months ago
@KnowThyself7 have fun being a SLAVE - what a sad way to live - have fun at it.. :O(
GlenRoSSe69 7 months ago
@GlenRoSSe69 I don't want to be a slave. What can I do?
KnowThyself7 7 months ago
@KnowThyself7 - Step #1 get this book - super scam by Goldsborough. It is the tax law in very easy terms. #2 know that our gov't is planning our deaths, if we fight back or not!! So, suck it up and know that you have NO CHOICE but to fight. #3 STOP PAYING THEM TO KILL YOU and the rest of the world.
This is NOT the easy path - for freedom is hard. Liberty is easy - there is something for you to understand! And TU for your Q!!! Wishing you the best - Texas
GlenRoSSe69 7 months ago
the 16th Ament - was ONLY passed for the Gov't to tax CORPORATIONS!!!
GlenRoSSe69 7 months ago
@GlenRoSSe69
Why do you think that? The government could ALWAYS tax income from individuals and corporations.
RetSquid 7 months ago in playlist Income Tax
@RetSquid You clearly have NO CLUE - that or your a Fed... if the federal Gov't could ALWAYS do this then way the 16th Amendment? And if they have the RIGHT to tax your work - they have the RIGHT to make you a slave at a "tax rate" of 100% - your clueless... It would also make you a agent of the State like a corp
WAKE UP!!!!!
GlenRoSSe69 7 months ago
@GlenRoSSe69
The 16th Amendment took away the requirement that income taxes had to be apportioned. And yes, they DO have the 'right' to tax at 100%, the Constitution does not put a limit on the tax rates. They would be extremely stupid to tax at 100%, but it would be legal.
RetSquid 7 months ago
@GlenRoSSe69 “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. ***Congress already had the power to tax all incomes***..."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
RetSquid 7 months ago
@RetSquid - The Court also said that it gave them NO new taxing power... why? Cuz the 16th was passed to tax corps. They had passed a law to do that and it was stuck down - so they passed the 16th to give the power to tax corps - they whole thing is STILL a fruad - do to the way it passed and the States never passed it ... FRAUD
GlenRoSSe69 7 months ago
@GlenRoSSe69
"no new taxing power"?
READ my post, they already HAD the power to tax ALL IMCOMES, they didn't need anymore.
It had nothing to do with taxing just corporations. And until you can show me a State that says THEY didn't ratify it and the Government says they DID, that's a lame argument.
RetSquid 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid h tt p://w w w.youtube - com/watc h?v=NCU9oj T1gmk&fe ature =relat ed
GlenRoSSe69 7 months ago
It is NOT in the best interests of the people for gov't to borrow at interest that wich it can create itself, FOR ITSELF, for free. Further, the usurer is the only beneficiary to what seems to be a global system IMF/BIS etc. Gov's only legitamate roll is for weights and measures and keeping the peace 'internally' and 'externally.' Anything above that - witness a folly. 'Money' falls under the "measures" category. Gov'ts must do what is best for all the people, not the usurer:Force them.
Independent0bserver 10 months ago
@Independent0bserver What is most interesting is how these people, the designers of this system function openly but there is not one bit of news about them.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this free to look at go to Google video Douglas County, OR - Special Tax Liens Meeting 09-07-2007
stanleymims 1 year ago
if you want benefits or services from government, you should be free to enter into that contract, but you cant force it on others without acknowleging your a tyrant
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
im against all involuntary tax.. i think truly free people cant be forced into any contract including participating in governments they dont condone or voluntarily participate in.. the only law that should be enforced on the entire land, should be law that protects the rights of the individuals who live on it, to be free to live how they wish...unless they are violating rights of other free men, they should be left alone...enough with the tyranny..
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy "Word"
GuyWhoWearsShirt 1 year ago
I just found this Cryer's Memoradum from his court case. The first thing he does is include a personal resume as if it were a job interview. He makes a point of telling the court he is a 32nd degree mason and lists all this masonic stuff. Wonder if the judge was a mason? Were there any masons on the jury? I just emailed Tommy as he calls himself in the memorandum and asked if I became a mason could I pull this off? The IRS is after me thanks to yet another attorney. I said I could get an apron.
angstotheclown 1 year ago
@retsquid Yes many people have been found not guilty using this technique of truth. It's just hard to find these cases cuz the federal corporation doesn't want the general public to know... Corruption!! Kk me go on vacation:) brb 1 week
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
LOL!! If it were true then it would be all over the Net. People were found guilty by proving it was not 'willful', meaning they were stupid to figure out the law. Next time he can't use this excuse and will lose in court.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Not a single court in the U.S. agrees with his views.
Congress could ALWAYS tax income, just after the16th Amedment it did not have to be apportioned.
He will lose in civil court, not a single person has gotten out of paying income tax using his idea.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Our judicial system has been bought by the BANKERS. The Constitution no longer appears to be in effect. Obama just went into a foreign country and attack it using military weapons without the approval of congress. Look at the constitution, only CONGRESS CAN ENACT A WAR?
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
You have never heard of the War Powers Act, have you?
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. ) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. .
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
Thank you Mr. Cryer. Thank you to whoever was brave enough to post this video. It would be a great help to OUR cause if something could be organized so that all of us who do not pay income tax nowadays could maybe receive support from you and/or some of your colleagues if presented with a court case falsely filed by the Government.
thelgp50211 1 year ago
this is why america is going to have a nuke set somewhere special cause they are greedy illuminate bitches that dont even use taxes to pay for my fuckin roads
JJGMUSIC 1 year ago
Just because he is not criminally liable does not mean he doesn't have to pay the tax plus civil penalties. He was just aquited on willful failure to file. Now that he was made aware of his obligations, he can't pull that again. So if he continues to be a non filer, he can now be subject to criminal as well as civil penalties.
zentner18 1 year ago
Slaves pay income tax. Slaves pay rents on their own property because they don't own it. Slaves get privileges. Slaves pay to travel. Citizens are slaves. Humans don't pay tax. Humans have rights. Humans can own property. Humans can travel freely. Millions of people don't file. Millions of people don't pay income tax. United States is a corporation. A Citizen is a person that falls into the jurisdiction of a corporation. Persons "willfully" give up their human rights by signing their rights and
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrishufstetler
WHAT AN IDIOT!!
Slaves can't pay income tax because slaves don't have any income, you moron!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The IRS could not prove that his evasion of income tax was 'willfull', he still owes the money, over $1 million"
Yes, including over a half-million in penalties & interest.
No one has ever gotten their ass out of taxes this way, but some nutjobs always try.
They are collecting civilliy, though he has gotten some delays.
Now they are going after his 02-07 taxes. He'd better hope he can live on his SS checks, since they're going to get everything else.
pilot101st 1 year ago
The squid is nothing but a lowlife psychopath. Anyone who would defend IRS agents kicking in the doors of innocent people and molesting their children, in their pajamas, at gunpoint, is real scumbag.
This is what this anonymous freak defends.
watch?v=nEdb72W_8fQ
KevinMerck 1 year ago
This is a good man and a very rare find in the legal community, which is filled with the most despised scumbags to ever walk the face of this earth. Most lawyers don't even like other lawyers. This is nothing new in the American experience.
"In my many years I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame; two are a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
John Adams was one of the best lawyers of his day.
Tom Cryer is a good man.
KevinMerck 1 year ago
Gotta love him. They destroyed his law practice. He still stands for what is real.
beckweth 2 years ago
Spread this video so people can see IRS criminals for what they truly are. They have good people like Sherry Jackson locked up and they have criminals kicking in our doors and molesting children at gunpoint.
Hear testimony from one of 4 girls who had armed IRS criminals invade their bedroom and attempt to watch them get dressed by forcibly keeping the door open. What if this happened to your family?
People need to be outraged by this criminal behavior.
watch?v=LOHJjq5uZb8
KevinMerck 2 years ago
The Constitution contains about 4400 words and was meant to be understood by all.
The tax code contains about 10,000,000 words and was meant to be understood by none.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment gives the government no new powers of taxation; therefore the entire tax code is null and void. It's unconstitutional and therefore not the law.
The income tax is illegal and should not be paid.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
People, what everyone needs to do is learn EXACTLY what the code says, and this is very important, HOW it says it. The code IS constitutional, yet taxing your private sector, unprivileged receipts is not. So, how can this be? You have told, and have allowed others to tell the Government your pay IS taxable so they tax you. How the hell did I do that you say? Find out the way I did. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his website and start reading. Wake-up from the Matrix people
FredandShell 2 years ago
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX ON THE USE OF A FORIEGN PRODUCT, THE FEDERAL
RESERVE NOTE- THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION- TAX COLLECTED PAYS
TO START WARS AND REAK HAVICK ALL OVER THE WORD_Not one cent goes to
the US Government - BUT to a Group of International Bankers - READ THE BOOK-THEY OWN IT ALL INCLUDING YOU BY MEANS OF TOXIC CURRENCY
Tealy855 2 years ago
tealy855---- this comment makes so much sense!
that is exactly what the income tax is thanks for posting this.
Britt Moore
ceo of little giant kennel
littlegiantkennel 2 years ago
None of you need to pay ANY kind of Tax...watch my videos for a look into how you can pay 0% Taxes for the rest of your life and the best thing is it's LEGAL!
thetaxwizards 2 years ago
@thetaxwizards
THIS MAN IS AN OUTRIGHT LIAR.
RetSquid 1 year ago
And you, RetSquid, are totally stupid!
Besides, what IS your problem??? If you wish to continue paying taxes that's your prerogative, why must you argue with everybody and make snide remarks?
Have I told you I can do something for you and failed to do it??? I believe not! Therefore, stop pointing fingers and keep your opinions to yourself.
thetaxwizards 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetaxwizards
You are also a liar, you claim to be able to get people out of their taxes by having them incorporate something in Cyprus, but any income made anywhere in the world by U.S. citizens is taxable under U.S. law.
You might want to actually READ some law before you try and advise people on it. Start with Title 26 Section 1.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Like I said in my previous message
"Have I told you I can do something for
you and failed to do it?"
You cannot answer yes to that question,
therefore stop saying I'm a liar.
Idiot!
thetaxwizards 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetaxwizards
Yes, you have failed to show how hiding money offshore in a fake corporation is legal or even ethical.
You have not posted a shred of evidence that suggests what you do is legal, or that those 'investors' even keep control of the money that they give your organization.
What you do may be legal in Cyprus but it is NOT legal in the U.S.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetaxwizards
I can prove all my claims, you can't.
RetSquid 1 year ago
yet he defeated the irs so that make me wonder ?
RIEKSONE 1 year ago
@RIEKSONE
The IRS could not prove that his evasion of income tax was 'willfull', he still owes the money, over $1 million.
RetSquid 1 year ago
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER AND TELL THE LEGAL THIEVES WHOS IN CHARGE.
CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM
RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM
TRUTHATTACK*ORG
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Stop paying income tax and in doing so send me $25 hahahaha
BeantownJim 2 years ago
A tax revolt is on hahaha
BeantownJim 2 years ago
The IRS claims since last year revenues are down 34% and the year is only half over hahaha
BeantownJim 2 years ago
Thats because people dont have jobs and if they dont have jobs they are not paying taxes. it has nothing to do with people not filing.
andrewrosso 2 years ago
I stopped paying income tax!
BeantownJim 2 years ago 7
Only a moron would quote the tax code as if quoting the code proves it's the law.
Only a moron would quote lower court rulings as if they overrule the Supreme Court.
The truth:
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the Sixteenth Amendment gives the government no new powers of taxation; therefore, the entire tax code is null and void.
Bottom line:
The income tax is illegal and should not be paid.
KevinMerck 2 years ago 2
no codes overide the constitution
cleanmrbroadway 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1.
Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...
RetSquid 2 years ago
What is the parallel authority in the Code of Federal Regulations? It doesn't exist. It is not law.
JonVonTruthSeeker 2 years ago
Title 26 IS part of the CFR.
The most recent law to modify the code is Public Law 111-5 2000(a) 123 STAT. 436
RetSquid 2 years ago
Hey Squid, the Title 26 you are referring to is part of the U.S. Code which is a codification of the Statures at Large ( the law passed by CONgress). If you try to trace back from the code to the Statues at Large you will NOT find any connection. The Cornell University Law School has a great site on the US Code. Over on the right side of the pages are the parallel authorities and Statues at Large. You will not find it for the "tax imposed".
JonVonTruthSeeker 2 years ago
Can we at least agree that the Federal gov't is operating outside it's Constitutional authority?
JonVonTruthSeeker 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No.
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are working the wrong way...
"CFR parts for which 26 USC 1 provides authority"
You can also check "How Current is This?" for more information.
RetSquid 2 years ago
so why did he get and not guilty?
sniped101 2 years ago
There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too STUPID or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not willful, but no one has ever won against the IRS in a tax collection case using one of the TPs frivolous arguments.
RetSquid 2 years ago
CAN THERE REALLY BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
NO MORE LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
Is freedom that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM
RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM
TRUTHATTACK*ORG
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Castleman... you're full of cr@p.
I haven't filed a 1040 since 1999. I flat out told the IRS that I'm settling in for the long haul. Just like Cryer, the IRS wrecked my credit rating... and financial future for 10 years.
But if you're willing and able to take a stand (and risk prison), it is possible to beat the IRS. You have to remember that the IRS has the best guns and will use them if necessary.
You have to be smart. And persistent. And be willing to risk it all... that's no joke.
littlemisspissy 2 years ago 3
i am in it all the way also they already had me prove i know my shit so they flat out just lie. i have lots of toys also and when the day comes i will die a martyr.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
I admire your spunk. I do think though you can be more effective if you can be heard & not remove your voice from the fight.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
By the way, Castleman711 may really be Luis Ewing. He writes like Lewis does. Luis is mostly a loud mouth drug user (abuser? could be).
He viciously attacked Jack & Margy Flynn. When I asked Luis to verify his outrageous claims, he went into a typical lawyer mode. He also has his dissenters as well.
Now Luis does actually have some truth, however his attacks on people trying to figure it out doesn't help anything.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Just watch "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and "The Magnificent Deception" on youtube. Then you will know that you are the one that's in control.
30minutez 2 years ago 5
Thank you for that
Zeta0Hall 1 year ago
Tom Crier is right and Joe Bannister, Sherry Jackson Peel agree. There are a bunch of others all on Youtube. Tom's case had a jury and they're on Youtube talking about why they acquitted him. 63 million no longer file the 1040 form. They won't put 63m people in jail. We are more powerful JUST in numbers; but we also have TRUTH.
briddle2 2 years ago
Is there help for those of us who are seeking the truth? I've stoped paying Taxes 4yrs ago. Now there trying to put a levy on me.What can I do?
wisrg23 2 years ago
THIS MAN IS A GOVERNMENT AGENT!
He is creating fake hope for patriots so that they will go to jail. You will not win a tax case against the IRS if you demand that they "Show you the law". That is bogus information. This man is a state bar attorney. There is no way he could have won this case being under the fraud laws of the bar. This is a hoax. Look up Luis Ewing to find a real lawyer, that isn't apart of the bar, to find the real answers.
Castleman711 2 years ago
WHY,
Because we are stupid and our Government and the people that run them are crooks.
CosmosPrivateer 3 years ago 2
Why does Govt Borrow money, why not simply Print it free of charge, no loan to pay back, no Govt debt, no need for income tax.
royalecraig 3 years ago 5
exactly. thats the scam. every time a central bank was started in the USA eventually it was thrown out by the people. today the politicians are all corrupt and paid off so the power of the Fed isn't threatened.
rogueweapon 3 years ago 2
Andrew Jackson threw out the central bank, and so Rothschilds paid for the war in 1812, gave us a giant loan that we could never pay off, and then reinstated a central bank.
Bredac 3 years ago 3
@rogueweapon Sadly, its almost impossible to get most people to understand, I tried explaining it to my sis for over an hour.
royalecraig 1 year ago
@royalecraig heard of inflation?
tbenitz 1 year ago
@tbenitz What if, over the Past 100 yrs we'd Printed Free, EXACTLY what we had borrowed and issued that into the economy instead, what would our national debt be then.
royalecraig 1 year ago
@royalecraig govt borrows money cause they dont have any. printing more money with nothing backing its value just devalues the money, it doesn,t give u more
erondax 1 year ago
@royalecraig this is why 'leaders' get killed. gov can print a bill with no usury or it can print a bond with usury. Both the bill and the bond are based on the credit of the people. One benefits the people and the other the banks. They don't care who the president is. Ususry has a design flaw which will continue to destroy regardless if R or D in power ... all parties support/enable the usurer. The usurer doesn't care who makes the laws. Heirs don't pay for their inheritance.
Independent0bserver 10 months ago
@Independent0bserver WELL WELL SAID.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
TOM CRYER IS A NATIONAL HERO, FAR MORE THAN ANY HERO WHO GOT THE CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR. HIS WORK IS FAR REACHING!
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
He's a confused man who will soon lose his civil case and have to pay his taxes, like everyone else who has tried his scam.
Why are all most all tax protestors mentally...challenged/deranged?
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid They dont come more dishonest than you, I might add!
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
LOL!! Not a SINGLE thing I have posted is 'dishonest".
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid Do you have a job besides trolling these comments? I see your name on every one. Oh I almost forgot, you're the overworked Minister of Disinformation for the IRS. Jesus dude...get out and get some fresh air.
UdderPunch6 7 months ago
@UdderPunch6
Sorry, I just have this thing about people lying about things that get other people in trouble and in jail when they believe those lies.
Can you point out a single thing that i have posted about income taq that is wrong?
RetSquid 7 months ago
RetSquid EVERYONE including yourself are a tax protestor. Have you actually seen anyone run out and say that I am sooooooooo happy to pay my taxes, I want to pay more than my share. I love paying taxes. Or would it be more realistic to say: I have to see the dentist but i better pay my taxes, before the irs comes down on me.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
So, everyone who doesn't swim is protesting the ocean?
RetSquid 10 months ago
What is the purpose of the INCOME TAX? The purpose of the Income tax is to take money out of the system that the bankers put into the system by monitizing debt. With fractional reserve banking and without income tax, we would soon be awash with too much money and hyperinflation.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
The purpose of the income tax is to raise money for the federal budget. Since the Gov. is spending far more than that, (putting money into the economy) your reasoning does not make sense.
RetSquid 10 months ago
Income taxes was something voted into existence during the war. It has been voted into rapeing the american public year after year by the Senate? Or whoever without voice of the people. Is this democratic? Or Gestapo type shit?
JordanGoLadyDevils 3 years ago
"into existence during the war"
Which one?
"Or whoever without voice of the people."
Congress is the 'voice of the People'.
"Is this democratic?"
Yes.
RetSquid 3 years ago
"Legally the fed is foreign to each state."
"Correct, but only under some specific legal reasons, not in general."
So the fed does not have perfect supremacy over the states! They only have control where it has been given by contract with the state or persons within the state. Hence "so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government."
More below...
owensaruba 3 years ago
"So the fed does not have perfect supremacy over the states!"
I never said they did.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Then what is your national government is the point? Do we not have one? I say they are our state governments but this does not jive with concensus reality. The world being flat also was a prevailing belief. Although I don't equate the two. :^)
owensaruba 3 years ago
The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States, but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Every citizen of a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction in the State,-concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to subject-matter.
Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876); Mondou v. New York, N.H., & H.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912).
RetSquid 3 years ago
"within its jurisdiction" Precisely what is its 'jurisdiction' ? And define "its". 'Its" refers to the United States possesively, what has been ceded to it by contract? I know of 76 non identical definitions for "United States" in the US code. Which one? More court decisions and no law? This is fun.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"More court decisions and no law?"
Court decisions define the law.
Reductio ad absurdum
RetSquid 3 years ago
So congress creates undefined laws and the courts have to give them definitions later? Court decisions strictly interpret laws as legally defined and often they do a bad job and get overturned. There is a lot more going on there than you account for. You accept everything at face value, you would have made a good marine. Too bad about your folks. ;^)
owensaruba 3 years ago
"And define "its". "
LOL Is your name bill clinton?
Look up 'Occam's razor'.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Thankfully No it isn't. He's the putz that made me rethink a career in the service, that and I ask too many questions and that is not a good trait in the military. That's a cop out. There are 18 different defs for 'is'. They could change the context or meaning of his answer. I didn't like it either but his question was valid. So you don't really know what those thing are? Since when did Occam's razor apply to law and politics?
owensaruba 3 years ago
Blacks law 4th ed. - National Government - "A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the "social compact", and possessing complete and perfect supremacy ower persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.
A federal government is distinguished from national government, by its being the government of a community of independant and sovereign states, united by compact".
owensaruba 3 years ago
There is a good article on Federalism on Wiki, not enough room here.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Can't let this one slide. Bouvier's and Blacks law dictionaries or Wiki???? The supreme court uses Blacks and Bouviers so I'll stick with those. And I have read it. Later
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Bouvier's and Blacks law dictionaries or Wiki???? "
Just good article that brings a lot of this stuff together, plus you CAN find the actual sources of the info.
RetSquid 3 years ago
What is your Nationality? Do you not have one? You said there weren't any nations and if I accept that defintion you used it may be true.
Of course if we accept Bouvier's definition then we would be fifty nations united. What is wrong with that ideal?
NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. Where did you get your definition?
owensaruba 3 years ago
There are real definitions for 'nation' and the everyday ones that people use, I was using the political definitions.
RetSquid 3 years ago
And I was using legal definitions from law dictionaries. Are their political dictionaries? I agree with the first part and coincidentally it is a TP arguement. What we commonly use words to mean are typically not the same as they are meant in law. Just look at the trouble you and I had over the few words we debated. Google 'Thinkfree Bursting bubbles' for more on this. Very funny and sadly true.
And you didn't answer my question. What is your nationality? Later..
owensaruba 3 years ago
"What is your nationality?"
I am an American national. I don't think I fit into a defined 'nation' as we have discussed.
RetSquid 3 years ago
There is no such thing as an American national. What US Code defines the term "American National"?
"I don't think I fit into a defined 'nation' as we have discussed." So you make one up? American National? Fine, I am a California National. Why do the states have National Guards? Did they not know they weren't a nation?
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Why do the states have National Guards"
TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 1 > §101. Definitions
(4) Army National Guard means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive...
RetSquid 3 years ago
Why called national when they are separate and in the control of their respective states? That was the question.
That definition just says California has its own militia and it is called Army National Guard. California pays them. Why is California's militia refered to as National when it is typically confined to its state?
owensaruba 3 years ago
you are going to be a force to be reconed with when you learn international law.
PhillipOrion 2 years ago
Retsquid,
According to your profile you served 20 yrs honorably and good for you, thank you for your service.
You signed several enlistment contracts during your career and because you did it is said, in law, that you fulfilled those contracts honorably. Honor and dishonor are legal terms relating to contract law. Likewise if any of you have Social Security contracts you are deemed to be employees of the federal gov and owe a tax. The feds have always taxed their employees labor. Cheers
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Honor and dishonor are legal terms relating to contract law"
And many other things also. Neither have direct ties only to contract law.
"have Social Security contracts you are deemed to be employees of the federal gov and owe a tax."
Incorrect.
Social Security in the United States currently refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.
RetSquid 3 years ago
There are general uses of the words honor and dishonor like courage in a soldier, dignity, reputation or lack thereof.
However in regards to your enlistment contracts "honorable" means that you satisfactorily fulfilled the terms of the contract. It is contract law.
Yes that is what Social Security is. Social Security is not mandatory but when one applies it creates a contract for which one must bear the burden i.e. taxes. These are privileges and any offered by the feds can be taxed.SSN=EIN
owensaruba 3 years ago
"creates a contract for which one must bear the burden i.e. taxes. These are privileges and any offered by the feds can be taxed.SSN=EIN"
All individuals, freeborn and non freeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
RetSquid 3 years ago
There are so many words of art in that ruling. This will enevitably spin into an undesireable TP arguement. Courts do not create law, period. You and the IRS relie on them. Any judgement made can be challenged and over turned regardless of how many times it has been upheld. Let's agree to disagree on this. You say your are born obligated? To me that is slavery and I will not suffer it. And I say we are duped into contracts that render us subject. Contracts can be nullified, remedy, not slavery.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"And I say we are duped into contracts that render us subject."
You are subject to the laws of the country in which you reside.
RetSquid 3 years ago
"You are subject to the laws of the country in which you reside." You sound like a true government employee;^) You just need a loud booming voice like GOD to finish the effect.
Speak for yourself. Country means State so do you mean California? Define the term "reside", legally not politically.
owensaruba 3 years ago
RESIDENCE - The place of general abode; principal, actual dwelling place in fact
'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
RetSquid 3 years ago
Residence - As opposed to inhabitant or domicile? They are not synonomous. What makes you a resident as opposed to inhabitant? Can you be both? You create more question than you answer.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"As opposed to inhabitant or domicile? "
Your primary place of abode is your 'domicile', you may have multiple 'residences', or you could 'inhabit' a motel.
You could just look it up and save time asking me :)
Does that clarify it some?
RetSquid 3 years ago
What fun would that be, you know everything! Besides I am getting more info about you from the questions you choose to ignore. What is your nationality again? National Guards? etc. You ignore a lot. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, was I too greedy? Sorry.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"National Guards?"
I have to look up the history of the NG for that one.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Let me know. I haven't found a plausibe reason for it if we accept that a state is not a nation and never was. Later..
owensaruba 3 years ago
the feds have got to go!
FREE DIXIE, NOT IRAQ!
803honda 3 years ago 3
Brave man! A good man. The IRS is an agency of the IMF. See this fab 3-part vid series here on YT:
/watch?v=Da4LrZqSoxs
nameofthepen 3 years ago
Correct, no need to define truths that are declared self evident.
almartin77 3 years ago 2
I agree that America is a republic. But the Unanimous Declaration of the 13 independent states says that all men are endowed by their create with certain unalienable "rights". I'm not sure I understood your comment.
almartin77 3 years ago
The Declaration of Independence does not give any power to anyone to define anything.
RetSquid 3 years ago 2
RetSquid,
The Declaration of Independence gave the colonies power to define thier lives and subsequently define legal terms in thier own laws. But of course those good folks are all gone and technically you are correct in a present tense only. Cheers
owensaruba 3 years ago
"The Declaration of Independence gave the colonies power to define thier lives and subsequently define legal terms in thier own laws"
And they made the Constitution.
RetSquid 3 years ago
The declaration of Independence is a "claim of right".
"And they made the Constitution." Yes they did but years later, no? To limit, define and control the federal government, not themselves, they had their own constitutions for that and still do.
It is the contract between then thirteen, now fifty, states and federal government. I don't get my rights from that document, my rights are endowed by the creator not derived from the constitution.
owensaruba 3 years ago
America is a continent and nothing more. The United States, aka federal government, is a pure democracy. The states of the union, New York, California etc. are commonwealths/republic nation states. The biggest mistake in the movement is assuming all these things are the same. Not being able to distinguish between the different jurisdictions and how you become "made subject to" them is where the solutions are to acheving your freedom. Cheers
owensaruba 3 years ago
"The United States, aka federal government, is a pure democracy."
Incorrect, the majority (50%+1) does not make the laws.
The States are not 'nation-states' and can't be, as per the Constitution, they have no 'real' dealings with other Nations.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Does 50%-1 decide law? Is 75%, 65%, 55% not a majority rule? The popular vote is a pure democracy. Congress is democratic and they make the laws, statutes, for the United States.
"they have no 'real' dealings with other Nations." This is why it is called clipped sovereignty. It does not mean each state legally is not a nation. Internally we are a union of nations like the EU, externally we are one.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"The popular vote is a pure democracy"
Only if the public voted -directly- to pass a bill before it becomes law.
You might want to get a book on Civics and read up on this stuff.
RetSquid 3 years ago
I wasn't claiming the public passed law. Congress does. Doesn't it take a mojority? Is that not democracy and if not what is it?
If you and I can't figure this out with definitions in hand what is another opinion going to accomplish? Which book did you read? ;^)
owensaruba 3 years ago
You claimed that the U.S. is a 'pure democracy', that is when the public votes on everything.
We are a Representative Democracy.
"Which book did you read"
Too many to count.
RetSquid 3 years ago
"We are a Representative Democracy" Took you long enough but the "we" in regards to the federal government are the states, fifty of them, and not you and I ;^) The U.S. (United States) is the Federal government, and "it" is a pure democracy.
Books? Did that definition of 'nation' come out of one of them? You probably won't but you should get the 'Red Amendment' by L.B. Bork history derived from the laws, not popular opinion or court descisions..
owensaruba 3 years ago
You are so close almartin77. What most don't consider is that an independant state is a nation. 13 nations created the federal government and in doing so clipped their own sovereignty. People, as mentioned in the Constitution, equals "state".
Bouvier's Law dictionary 1856
Black's Law 1st thru 4th Ed. 1891-1974
PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity.
So, what is your nationality? Legally the fed is foreign to each state.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Legally the fed is foreign to each state."
Correct, but only under some specific legal reasons, not in general.
Nation: A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity.
State: A political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population.
The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Where do you get your definitions? I stick to Blacks and Bouviers cuz they were written for our unique system of law.
Let's look at your definition for nation. Is your state not a group of people sharing aspects of language, culture AND/OR ethnicity? California does and our culture is different than Maine. The people north of the mexican border share aspects of language (predominately english) culture(predominately european). Are those same people a nation? No.
Yes, a state is a body politic.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Is your state not a group of people sharing aspects of language, culture AND/OR ethnicity?"
No, that would be a nation.
"California does".
No, there are many cultures and languages and ethnicities represented in CA. (otherwise there would be no 'China town' or 'little Italy'....)
Think of the American Indians, they are 'nations' but not 'states'.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Well if that is a nation, where everyone is homogenized, can you show me one. The United States is not a nation then, by your own definition, so what is it?. If the diversity of California removes it from your definition of nation then the diversity of the United States would also remove it from status of nation. So what is right? How do we resolve this conflict that your definition creates? Think about it, this is interesting.
owensaruba 3 years ago
It is hard to find an example of a true Nation these days, but Japan is a good one (it would also be a 'Nation-State'). It has also become more acceptable to call a country a 'nation' when it really isn't.
The United Sates is actually a country, but not really a 'Nation'.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Bouviers - COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.
NATIONALITY. The state (condition) of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.
NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. We have 51, no?
Japan has a chinese and korean components so it falls short too, no? Back to work, talk to you later. P
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Japan has a chinese and korean components so it falls short too, no?"
I said it's had to find a good example, but Japan comes pretty close.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Poor Japan, still not a nation? Sorry Japan, you suck too! Does anyone know, actually know what they are? We call ourselves Americans like it is our nationality but then we discover we are not a nation? Right, Retsquid? Very confusing so I choose my nationality as Californian and I'll defend her against the Chinese and Nevadans alike ;^) I am an American because i live on the American continent, and a US Citizen cuz I am contractually a member of US Society. And never the twain shall meet.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"And never the twain shall meet."
Actually, they are subsets.
You are a Californian, who is a citizen of the United Sates and The United States is situated in the Americas.
You are a citizen of the State in which you reside, you are also a citizen of the United States of America (an American citizen), and a citizen of the Americas.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Actually, they are subsets. " What? Which book did you get that creative interpretation from?. Surely there is law that establishes these subsets and their heirarchy? If they are all subsets what are they subsets of?
The are no legal or political terms called an "American citizen" or "Citizen of the Americas". Are you making this up as you go? A citizen is a person considered according to their political rights. What political rights do you have concerning the whole Americas?
owensaruba 3 years ago
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
"American citizen"
That is the short form of 'citizen of the United States of America'.
"Citizen of the Americas"
This would be used in the same sense as a 'citizen of the world'. Not legal just descriptive.
RetSquid 3 years ago
"PERSON. This word is APPLIED to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not..
A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society.."
So if I am not a consenting member of US society I am not subject to "its" jurisdiction? Prove you are a person. So what was everybody before the 14th amendment?
owensaruba 3 years ago
"So what was everybody before the 14th amendment? "
Before the 14th some were (ex)slaves and not considered 'persons'.
"So if I am not a consenting member of US society I am not subject to "its" jurisdiction?"
No, you are subject due to where you live (reside)
A corporation may also be a 'person' for legal purposes.
"A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society"
How old is that definition?
RetSquid 3 years ago
Bouviers 1849, 1870, and Blacks law 1-4th, 1969. I use the definitions from law dictionary written around the time the law was passed. I don't get them from websites written 150 years later. What were the non slaves? Were they persons in regards to the Fed or were they just persons in regard to thier state? And the states being the 'persons' in regards to the fed. Why couldn't they just deem that everyone is as free as whitey? Why create another amendment, wasn't the thirteenth enough? Cheers.
owensaruba 3 years ago
"Why couldn't they just deem that everyone is as free as whitey?"
Put yourself back in that time, some people didn't even think blacks were fully human.
RetSquid 3 years ago
The 13th did deem all men free. Of course some of them didn't like that, why couldn't those people be prosecuted. Why create the 14th? And many continue to think that to this day unfortunately.
owensaruba 3 years ago
They were wrong to believe that blacks were not fully human. It is commonly believed today (21st century) that neanderthals are human beings, too. And, notwithstanding, they even have the right to run for US President, so long as they are managed by an upper elite, superior in thought, advanced, evolved to bring the rest of humanity into a New World Order whereby they will continue to rule. This is fast becoming common knowledge. To hell with the old belief system of blacks being sub human!
NDNWatch 3 years ago
Agreed and no intelligent man today will call blacks sub human. The question is will we all live as free men, equal in all respects? Or will we all live as subhuman animals being property of the state having absolute control over our lives? Federal government, via 14th amendment, and the NWO represents the latter. It is a choice every one of will have to make real soon.
owensaruba 3 years ago
If by TP you mean tax protester, is that meant as an insult? Or are you just being nice.
almartin77 3 years ago
TP is short hand for Tax Protestor.
RetSquid 3 years ago
We have all been told that the income tax is too complex to understand. H&R Block would like you all to continue to believe this fallacy, after all they have a financial interest in your ignorance. So does the US government.
almartin77 3 years ago 3
RetSquid talks like an IRS employee. So expect him to slander and insult those who express a genuine concern for liberty. Don't take him seriously but pay attention to his M.O.