Here's a question to all you income tax protestors that's been bugging me: if you hate the income tax so much and don't want to pay it, why do you need to use the law as a reason not to? You're fighting the system using its own rules whenever you do that and you're always going to lose.
Why not say something simple like "I am a free individual and my property is mine" or "I refuse to give my consent"? That's all you need to say, yet you always use the law as an excuse each time.
A politician is a job where you get paid to tell people what they want to hear then fuck them over later. I'm mostly talking about Bush but Obama applies here too.
paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, r they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com.
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with "RetSquid." He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He only trolls videos of this type as well. Strange, don't you think?
They placed the statute for taxation in the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. You can read the IRM cover to cover and you're not going to anything but exhaust your eyes. Having a SS# makes you a tax payer.
@PeacefulWeapon Absolute nonsense. We had an income tax over 70 years before Social Security came along. Liability for taxation has nothing to do with whether one has a SSN.
SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal- revenue collections. If the tax is not paid when due, there shall be added as part of the tax interest at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month from the date the tax became due until paid.
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
I'm exposing the strategy to manipulate your mind! For it's far more important to expose the game than it is to simply expose those responsible, the players or puppets. Welcome to the REAL world.
Join me on Facebook
When millions lock in that pyramid will flip upside down.
My Religion is the Religion of Reality, Religion of Critical Thinking, Religion of Humanity, Religion of Liberty, Religion of Truth. "
@RetSquid Obviously you didn't follow the money trail long enough. Who owns your currency?
You borrow money from commercial banks (fractional reserve banking system), banks & Governments borrow money from The Federal Reserve Bank (not owned by USA) which the Fed prints & loans it to them on interest. The Fed also controls inflation & regulates interest rates. Your Governments pay back the interest owed to the Fed through the IRS (not owned by USA) taxing of working CITIZENS.
Being an American Citizen means your an employee of 'America' in which the President (Obama) is the CEO. So who is the franchise owner of America, follow the money trail.
All you guys are missing the point. You need to understand the difference between being an American and a U.S. citizen. If you are employed with the Federal government, you are a U.S. citizen and subject to the Federal Income Tax. You are under contract with the government and must play by corporate rules, and comply with United States Code. You are a public Servant with priviledges and benefits, NOT RIGHTS! WE THE PEOPLE (Americans) are the true sovereigns, subject only to Natural Law!
Wrong, anyone born in the U.S. (any State or territory) is a Citizen. An "American" is anyone from North or South American continents. Everyone living in the States, Citizen or not, must pay taxes on their income.
What's your agenda? You work for the IRS? My intention was to point out that there is a difference between being an American Citizen and a U.S. citizen. One is sovereign, the other subject. We have always called ourselves Americans. If you think the Federal government can create and write law for the American people, then you have a serious lack of understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, sovereignty, and the role of the Federeal government. Try again.
There is no difference between an "American Citizen" and a "U.S. Citizen", they would be a Citizen of the United States of America either way. If you think that the Federal Government can't write laws for the American People, you have never read the Constitution.
If you like you can try and post something to prove your point, that would be fun to see,
bunnynpanda your misled just as CPA's are when they are shown their trade in the schools they go to dig a little deeper and think for your self if you all did then MAY BE we all would not be in this shit hole predicament ! stop taking everything someone hands you at face value America has gone down the tubes and its all the shoulders of those who dont study ! You think there is a tax law that makes us liable for income wage taxes ? got a 6 figure award if you find it !
The law requiring payment for income tax on your wages has been posted mulitple times. The 'reward' for showing the law is bogus, they will never pay up, they are not legally required to do so because they are the only ones who decide what the 'right' answer is.
Tax Laws do not exist. True. However you have one problem, that is the Supreme Court. The supreme court is by far the most evil part of our country. (even more evil than private bankers)
The Supreme Court ACTUALLY enforces a non-existent compliance of citizens paying taxes.
Here is how it works. The Federal Reserve is an illegal institution, but you USE what they've printed (and all businesses pay you in fed notes) so you are forced to agree to terms of service and pay the lean on fed notes
@bunnyandpanda USC Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, § 1. Clearly states exactly what income is taxable, and whom is responsible to pay it. It's law, passed by Congress, available for all to read on the web.
Take a stand on what you beleive in ! if you do not then who will ? look at all of those that suffored like dogs during the civil war and the start of this Country only to have allowed to virtually slip away out of our hands ! I can you that your all about to feel the bite of the NWO and what its all really about the money masters are about to disarm you and ensalve you there thoughts are "they can do Communisum the right way" not much can help you at this point you went along.
What Makes me laugh ,is no one brings to light that "they" can have the money printed if thats what we "owe" them! So its really not about the money at all. Its about them jerking off from the control they exercise and the fear they keep us in. And remember you can't send them cash. It has to be something initiated with your signature ie. check, money order, credit card, debt card. you GET IT!
"Don't give it up without a fight." which means, there will be blood, and most of you will die. Are you prepared to sacrifice the comfort state your in now?
Americans will follow their leaders off the cliff. No one will object, and this whole agenda will be served by spoon to the american people and they WILL SWALLOW IT. So long as you dont take their phones, IPODs, Laptops, Flat Screens,porn, MTV, or their fast food away...I hate to say this, but I honestly think its far too late for Americans to change this. Americans are far too stupid to see that they are being lead down the road to nowhere..Those who object will be chastized by the majority..
Arguing over wether laws are right or wrong is pointless anyway. Nothing gets changed when greed is what motivates those who pay and those who collect. If you want a good greed example, how about this: I just moved from Wyoming to Oregon and found out that Oregon taxes me for the money I made in Wyoming too!!! Money they should have no hold over. So I ended up owing money. Shouldn't there be some kind of jurisdiction law there?
@sapphiresnakes They make tax laws complicated on purpose so they can pick and choose which to enforce. Makes me sick. They could easily make more money from a simpler system, but they care more about who they take from more than what they take in.
The Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama's budget is requesting an additional 5,100 IRS agents next year, to wring further tax revenue from Americans. His proposed budget gives the IRS a 9.4% raise in fiscal year 2012, to $13.28 billion, or a 5% increase in agency manpower to 100,537 agents, spending $460 million more for tax enforcement than in 2010. It is a joke.
@se7ensnakes this guy(tubeusercomm) is a shill i never say that about anyone but he literally goes to any anti govt pro freedom posting and spouts the federal line every time- whether its bill cooper the iraq war- iran contra drug costs- by his postings im sure he is being paid ! Literally - hes on every conspiracy posting - and he always talks out of his ass reading lines direct from the karl rove playbook!
@Tubeusercomm bs- ive followed your comments- you spend your time riducling bill cooper- or anyone who doesnt buy the official line- go collect your check and make sure you turn in all us youtubers to homeland security
@se7ensnakes says: "Listen to tubeusercomm and we will never grow as a nation because we will be so ignorant as to how this constitutional republic is suppose to work."
ROTFL
@se7ensnakes is a Trailer Trash Supreme Court Judge in his own mind.
Listen to se7ensnakes and you will end up with your prison wages being attached to pay your taxes. -
Sherry Peel Jackson is a former Internal Revenue Service Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant. On February 14th, 2008 she was sentenced to four years in federal prison for failure to file her tax returns. -
That right stay ignorant, dont learn anything because it is lost. Sherry Peel Jackson was convicted because her corporation did not pay taxes, which is different than if you are an individual. Dont look to learn from people that have lost, learn from people that have won...Like tom cryer. Download his memorandum, study it against what the supreme court said. All you need is a respectable amount of informed individuals to bring down the corruption.
@se7ensnakes Cryer's memorandum is a sorry excuses for a legal argument. He fails to cite any of the countless cases that hold the opposite of what he is claiming, which is a violation of legal ethics. The trial court rejected all of his baseless arguments, and he was acquitted only because the jury found that there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted "willfully". He's currently facing a deficiency of $1.7 million in taxes, penalties and interest. He's toast.
@se7ensnakes says: "That right stay ignorant, dont learn anything because it is lost. Sherry Peel Jackson was convicted because her corporation did not pay taxes, which is different than if you are an individual."
Try coming up with some new original material, not some old crap that the courts won't even give the dignity of explaining why an idiot that acted upon your legal fallacies is wrong.
In the end, however, the jurors may agree that "He cannot get away with not paying". We do so he must too!!!! The only thing you have is what the supreme court have stated.
Arguing against the Income tax and raising the issue of the validity of the16th Amendment, that direct taxes must be apportioned, claiming that income taxes are voluntary are sucker punches. You are looking at the right hand while the left hand is hooking you right in your jaw.
According to the supreme court, the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to stop congress from defining the income tax as a direct tax. But if you go to the IRS website, they will tell you that the income tax is a direct tax...LMFAO
I doubt that there is anyone in this forum that actually understand what a direct and indirect tax is. They may be able to repeat some definition from some dictionary. But to truly have a working definition, it is indeed rare. Without this knowledge you woull not understand the purpose of the 16th Amendment per two unanimous landmark supreme court decisions. To claim that the a direct or indirect tax is not an issue is to claim that the government does not need to tell us what they are taxin
The most important legal issue regarding the income tax is....having a working definition of what a direct and indirect tax is. Can the supreme court obliterate the distinction between a direct and indirect tax? No they cannot. A direct and indirect tax are natural events. The founding fathers merely define them for the purpose of collecting them in an equitable manner. The total lack of education has caused judges to declare tha the income tax is direct and indirect.
The 16th Amendment did not create the income tax. Raising the issue of the 16th Amendment as the creator of the income tax is faulty. Why? Because the supreme court stated that the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax, specifically they stated that the 16th amendment did not give congress any new taxing power.
So while you argue about the 16th Amendment not being ratified, the judge is going to be laughing at you because the problem is not within the 16th Amendment.
I'll tell you that the law and tax professors know this shit . They can not teach it , by government dictate. Lawyers are only taught what the establishment wants taught. The legal profession has so much moral turpitude oozing from their pores That compared to a chicken house, that has not been for month's, on a 100 degree day, makes it smell like a bed of roses..:)
As Shakespeare said very eloquently, "The first thing we do is hang all the lawyers.....;)))"
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” [Title 26] as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 authorizes Congress to levy taxes. Clause 18 authorizes Congress to pass laws to enforce those powers. Congress passed income tax laws, those are collected in Title 26, Section 6151 of that Title say that you have to pay the income tax.
If you have a quote from the Founding Fathers that says they were against all taxes, post it, but that still won't change the fact that everyone NOW is liable for income tax.
@RetSquid My father worked for the IRS, Sir. And he even said so himself " It is unconstitutional, and it is a fraud." He is ashamed of himself helping this fraud...
A criminal case, William J Benson himself raised the Sixteenth Amendment argument, which was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Benson was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation.
THE IRS IS A CRIME RING !! THEY NEED TO BE DRAGGED OUT INTO THE STREET AND SET ON FIRE THEN PISSED ON THEN SHIT ON AND THEY WIPE A BABYS PISSY SHITTY DIAPER IN THE FACE OF THE CORPSE BASTARDS , THEY THROW THEIR BODYS INTO A SHARK TANK AND WATCH THEM GET EATEN AND SHIT OUT HAHAHAHAHAHAH FUCKING CUNTS
Abolishing the IRS will take some time but it will happen within the next 10 years you will see. People spread the word to your immediate family and friends. Also do your homework. Between the former agents and we the people we will put a stop to the IRS. This is a promise!!
The Complaint alleges that Schulz pays taxes to the United States and New York State.
Schulz alleges as his injury that he is a “payer of federal taxes” and has a legal interest “not to have his money taken from him” for purposes he deems illicit.
Schulz admits that he pays his income taxes while leading his sheep to prison.
I want to see a "Robert Schulz" failure to file case.
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.
A later influence on the language of the law was Scandinavian in origin. During the eighth century, Vikings began raiding the English coast and eventually settled down. The English borrowed from these Scandinavians the most important legal word in the English language: the word law itself. Law derives from the Norse word for "lay" and thus means "that which is laid down."
"Lay" means to put or place and always requires an object to finish its meaning.
@asicit2b "The English borrowed from these Scandinavians the most important legal word in the English language: the word law itself. Law derives from the Norse word for "lay" and thus means "that which is laid down."
There was a Norwegian king they called Magnus Lagabøte (the "a" sounding like in "aah", the "ø" is like the french "eu") the word "Lag" means law in old norse, now it is called "Lov" the "o" said like the french "au".
He got this name because he "repaired and fixed" laws.
Law: O.E. lagu (pl. laga, comb. form lah-), from O.N. *lagu "law," collective pl. of lag "layer, measure, stroke," lit. "something laid down or fixed," from P.Gmc. *lagan "put, lay" (see lay (v.)).
Fiat: "authoritative sanction," 1630s, from L. fiat "let it be done" (also used in the opening of M.L. proclamations and commands), third person singular present subjunctive of fieri, used as passive of facere "to make, do" (see factitious).
tax law does exist, but there is no tax law for the common laborer. There is a legal problem with the tax law and that is that the courts have not been conclusive as to the subject of the tax. What is being taxed, is it your income, activity or ?
Title 26 Section 61 tells you exactly what is gross income, from that you figure taxable income. It says "compensation for services" which means whatever you get paid for a job, i.e. wages, salary, etc.
Please people, for all of our kids sakes, take a few minutes to review the "Income Taxes Are Illegal! The IRS & FED Are Criminal Organizations!" Videos, call your congressman and ONCE AND FOR ALL, lets do something about this ! Please !
"The 16th Amendment was fully ratified, all of the Courts and all of the States (the ones who are responsible for ratification of Amendments) agree on that point."
I said no such thing. Go back and read it again.
"The 9th Amendment does not apply because the income tax is authorized by Article I, Section 8."
Taxes are enacted to pay for something and that is the enumerated powers.
"Your arguments are meaningless to me"
It isn't my problem that you can't prove your case.
Why are you quoting me and saying that YOU didn't say it?
"My case" has been proven, you are the one trying to prove that income taxes should not be here. It is up to YOU to provide evidence for your claims, not me.
If you can grasp this fact, you can be free, then demand that your Congressman vote to abolish this corporation, then the IRS and all the other corrupt Agencies will go with it. This is how you can free this nation with one vote. The US Code has no Authority outside of the District of Columbia and its' territories, yes you are FREE!. propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
@retsquid Yes!! I have no more info I am willing to share with you! You failed to answer my questions! You failed to show me the legal factual LAW!! You failed! You only showed federal corporate nonsense! You waste my time! Your ignorant, brainwashed and worst of all, you are a federal corporate kangaroo!
Everyone! Please forgive RetSquid!!! He knows not what he does or says!! He has been brainwashed by the federal corporation his whole life!!! He is a slave to them. When the truth is told to the slave he gets taken out of his comfort zoned of slavery and gets mad, confused, defensive, irritated, irrational, frivolous, irrelevant, etc. It's not his fault!!! It's his mommy and daddies fault for being ignorant and signing him into slavery when he was a baby to the federal corporation!
@1sovereignbeing Whether it was properly ratified or not is inmaterial for two reasons...1. The courts have consistently ruled that it was ratified and 2. It has no bearing on the current internal revenue laws as enacted. It is a non issue.
@iwtfunow Actually, it is only immaterial in maritime admiralty which does not take natural rights into account. I find it disturbing you call internal revenue laws "enacted" when there is no such record in the federal register which thus defines title 26 as prima fascia, not a positive law.
You stated that the "courts" have consistently ruled the 16th ammendment to be ratified. Please provide a list of precendents as I know of no such rulings.
Since none of this has anything to do with Maritime or Admiralty law that's not a problem. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). Congress’ failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. ‘Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law’. Plaintiff’s positive law argument is without merit.”
@1sovereignbeing Title 26 is not positive law BUT....the underlying statutes of Title 26 is LAW.......If you think a section in Title 26 is in error, then look at the underlying staute to see what was actually enacted. I did not refer to Title 26 , I referenced "current internal revenue laws"...meaning revenue statutes and not necessarily Title 26 code sections. Scotus said the 16th gave no new taxing powers, what part of NO don't you understand? Soveriegn - maritime same as 16th.
@RetSquid IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 Section 3001 (new I.R.C. § 7491). Burden of Proof. (1) GENERAL RULE- If, in any court proceeding, a taxpayer
introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual
issue relevant to ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer
for any tax imposed by subtitle A or B, the Secretary shall
have the burden of proof with respect to such issue.
Why don't you stop babbling and post something...ANYTHING..that I have posted that is wrong? If you can't, I'm going to just mark all of your spam as such.
Why don't you stop babbling and post something...ANYTHING..that I have posted that is wrong? If you can't, I'm going to just mark all of your spam as such.
Whenj you have no willingness to admit that you are wrong given your long history debating on youtube. Why should I think that you want a serious debate?
Well, if YOU can't handle being wrong, don't debate me. If you had anything that WOULD prove me wrong you would have posted it last year when you were here.
A year after you were on here last time and you think I somehow just left a debate so you won? I don't even remember what you were saying..it probably doesn't matter anyways. Why is your year old point that you are SOOO desparate to make?
The issue of orginalism vs "the living document" Should we rely on the original intent of the founders or should we rely on court cases. I think the debate is far too complex for anyone to have all the answers. That is why I can't understand some people who have an arrogant attitude when it comes to legal issues as though there is no way they can be wrong. If it wasn't too complex, we would not be having these debates.
We WANT to rely on the Founding Father's ideas, but there are many things today that they would never had thought of. We have to rely on the court because that is what THEY intended. But, no it is not a 'living document' to be changed at will by a court.
It is a very complicated issue. You have the pre-American era such as the days of the Magna Carta and the values it has taught. The Dec. of Independence, the Federalist AND Anti-Federalist Papers. Let's not forget that the Consitution was not written at the same time as the Bill of Rights. The amendments passed after the Bill of Rights and the intent of each amendment. You have the issues of morality which then becomes a philosophical issue.
No, I don't know and you don't know either for the reasons I said. You have to prove that the tax is legal and then you have to also assume that there is no moral reason to disobey it as stated in the Dec. of Independence. To say otherwise is extreme arrogance.
The burden of proof is not on me because the government is the one making the claim that we owe the tax and this is how it would be in a court of law.
The basics of income tax law is EASY: Do you get paid for working? Do you have income from any of the sources listed in Title 26 Section 61? Is that amount ,after deductions, more than the exemption amount? If so, you owe income tax. We're tallking legality, not morality. Someone's morals may allow them to "murder" someone and to them it would not be murder.
The rules of logic state that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist but you can prove a positive. The tax honesty movement is based on the idea that there is a lack of belief that teh tax laws apply to most Americans.
I can't that rule of logic, but I can prove a negative. "There are no dinosaurs in Central Park." The tax 'honesty' a/k/a 'tax deniers' do have a lack of belief in the facts, that does not make the facts, non-facts. The tax laws apply to every American anywhere in the World. that is what the law and case law says.
My argument disproves your logic claim. There may be a loophole to get out of paying income tax, it is up to YOU to find such an animal. Tax courts can be overrulled, I never said they couldn't be, but until they ARE then that is the law, again it is up to YOU to prove that claim.
How do you know the authors of the 16th amendment meant for a universal wage tax?
Why should I as a potential juror vote guilty for soemone indicted for tax evasion when it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that universal income tax evasion laws exist and are constitutional?
State nullification does not apply, most of them agreed to the income tax.
The 16th is very simple, how can you read what YOU think into that?
A jury's job is to decide on the facts of the case, not the law behind every case. It has already been proven beyond a doubt that the tax laws exist and are Constitutional. That is why the only way to get out of a tax evasion case is to prove that you were too confused or stupid to understand it.
What the States agreed to in 1913 is NOT what the States are agreeing to now. President Taft proposed the 16th amendment and that it was meant to be a 2 percent corporate business tax. The term "direct" was proposed but it was rejected. The States ratified the amendment in early 1913. However for the first time in 18 years the Democrats took over Congress and a Democrat President named Woodrow Wilson proposed that there be a wage tax on 1 percent of Americans. Hence, the IRC code.
What the States agreed to then is exactly what they agree to now. The16th didn't change over that time. The States all have representation that has passed the tax laws over the years. A "direct tax" is a tax on property, mostly land.
Finally, the burden of proof on you to prove liability. You can't prosecute someone until it is proven that the law applies to them. The laws are the facts in this case, even if not, you have to prove that the law is moral. Which is why we have juries starting back to the Magna Carta.
You have yet to convince me as a potential juror. I won't fall for a Judge who tries to tamper with a jury.
Here's a question to all you income tax protestors that's been bugging me: if you hate the income tax so much and don't want to pay it, why do you need to use the law as a reason not to? You're fighting the system using its own rules whenever you do that and you're always going to lose.
Why not say something simple like "I am a free individual and my property is mine" or "I refuse to give my consent"? That's all you need to say, yet you always use the law as an excuse each time.
Why is that?
MrEniena 1 week ago
It's extremely clear if you actually read the constitution. Article 1 Section 8 - "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes..."
TaraMarie976 3 weeks ago
A politician is a job where you get paid to tell people what they want to hear then fuck them over later. I'm mostly talking about Bush but Obama applies here too.
flavorysoup 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, r they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com.
Harv7340 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with "RetSquid." He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He only trolls videos of this type as well. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
They placed the statute for taxation in the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. You can read the IRM cover to cover and you're not going to anything but exhaust your eyes. Having a SS# makes you a tax payer.
PeacefulWeapon 2 months ago
@PeacefulWeapon
No, it doesn't. Go read Title 26, Section 1, it says 'Every individual' is liable for tax on their income.
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@PeacefulWeapon Absolute nonsense. We had an income tax over 70 years before Social Security came along. Liability for taxation has nothing to do with whether one has a SSN.
prof5string 1 month ago
@PeacefulWeapon Okay, let me make something extremely clear. Taxation is not recent. Taxation is literally as old as civilization itself.
flavorysoup 3 weeks ago
COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF TAXES
SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal- revenue collections. If the tax is not paid when due, there shall be added as part of the tax interest at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month from the date the tax became due until paid.
PeacefulWeapon 2 months ago
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
PeacefulWeapon 2 months ago
"come here:
truthknowledge. com
I'm exposing the strategy to manipulate your mind! For it's far more important to expose the game than it is to simply expose those responsible, the players or puppets. Welcome to the REAL world.
Join me on Facebook
When millions lock in that pyramid will flip upside down.
My Religion is the Religion of Reality, Religion of Critical Thinking, Religion of Humanity, Religion of Liberty, Religion of Truth. "
TruthKnowledgeDOTcom 3 months ago
Know more about the IRS conspiracy to destroy the richest family in America.
ESTATE OF BASILIO LOPEZ MARTIN
Search Google!!!
alberto700 4 months ago
@RetSquid Obviously you didn't follow the money trail long enough. Who owns your currency?
You borrow money from commercial banks (fractional reserve banking system), banks & Governments borrow money from The Federal Reserve Bank (not owned by USA) which the Fed prints & loans it to them on interest. The Fed also controls inflation & regulates interest rates. Your Governments pay back the interest owed to the Fed through the IRS (not owned by USA) taxing of working CITIZENS.
Connect the dots.
RaykwonDaKilluminati 4 months ago
@RaykwonDaKilluminati
Your 'dots' don't match reality. The Fed is solely owned by the U.S. banks in the Federal Reserve System. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Being an American Citizen means your an employee of 'America' in which the President (Obama) is the CEO. So who is the franchise owner of America, follow the money trail.
USA is a corporation.
The product is YOU.
RaykwonDaKilluminati 4 months ago
@RaykwonDaKilluminati
Wrong, try again. If you follow the money trail then I would be an OWNER of the U.S., and citizens are not employed by the U.S.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
All you guys are missing the point. You need to understand the difference between being an American and a U.S. citizen. If you are employed with the Federal government, you are a U.S. citizen and subject to the Federal Income Tax. You are under contract with the government and must play by corporate rules, and comply with United States Code. You are a public Servant with priviledges and benefits, NOT RIGHTS! WE THE PEOPLE (Americans) are the true sovereigns, subject only to Natural Law!
mckx5 5 months ago
@mckx5
Wrong, anyone born in the U.S. (any State or territory) is a Citizen. An "American" is anyone from North or South American continents. Everyone living in the States, Citizen or not, must pay taxes on their income.
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid
What's your agenda? You work for the IRS? My intention was to point out that there is a difference between being an American Citizen and a U.S. citizen. One is sovereign, the other subject. We have always called ourselves Americans. If you think the Federal government can create and write law for the American people, then you have a serious lack of understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, sovereignty, and the role of the Federeal government. Try again.
mckx5 5 months ago
@mckx5
There is no difference between an "American Citizen" and a "U.S. Citizen", they would be a Citizen of the United States of America either way. If you think that the Federal Government can't write laws for the American People, you have never read the Constitution.
If you like you can try and post something to prove your point, that would be fun to see,
RetSquid 5 months ago
bunnynpanda your misled just as CPA's are when they are shown their trade in the schools they go to dig a little deeper and think for your self if you all did then MAY BE we all would not be in this shit hole predicament ! stop taking everything someone hands you at face value America has gone down the tubes and its all the shoulders of those who dont study ! You think there is a tax law that makes us liable for income wage taxes ? got a 6 figure award if you find it !
WELLGURU 5 months ago
@WELLGURU
The law requiring payment for income tax on your wages has been posted mulitple times. The 'reward' for showing the law is bogus, they will never pay up, they are not legally required to do so because they are the only ones who decide what the 'right' answer is.
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Tax Laws do not exist. True. However you have one problem, that is the Supreme Court. The supreme court is by far the most evil part of our country. (even more evil than private bankers)
The Supreme Court ACTUALLY enforces a non-existent compliance of citizens paying taxes.
Here is how it works. The Federal Reserve is an illegal institution, but you USE what they've printed (and all businesses pay you in fed notes) so you are forced to agree to terms of service and pay the lean on fed notes
bunnyandpanda 5 months ago
@bunnyandpanda
"Tax Laws do not exist. "
I suggest you read Title 26....that is the income tax law.
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@bunnyandpanda USC Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, § 1. Clearly states exactly what income is taxable, and whom is responsible to pay it. It's law, passed by Congress, available for all to read on the web.
silvermediastudio 5 months ago
Take a stand on what you beleive in ! if you do not then who will ? look at all of those that suffored like dogs during the civil war and the start of this Country only to have allowed to virtually slip away out of our hands ! I can you that your all about to feel the bite of the NWO and what its all really about the money masters are about to disarm you and ensalve you there thoughts are "they can do Communisum the right way" not much can help you at this point you went along.
WELLGURU 6 months ago
What Makes me laugh ,is no one brings to light that "they" can have the money printed if thats what we "owe" them! So its really not about the money at all. Its about them jerking off from the control they exercise and the fear they keep us in. And remember you can't send them cash. It has to be something initiated with your signature ie. check, money order, credit card, debt card. you GET IT!
sickasso72 7 months ago 5
@SurvivingSTL LOL, I'm already dead, man. Bring on the fire!
KnowThyself7 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Don't give it up without a fight." which means, there will be blood, and most of you will die. Are you prepared to sacrifice the comfort state your in now?
KnowThyself7 7 months ago
Americans will follow their leaders off the cliff. No one will object, and this whole agenda will be served by spoon to the american people and they WILL SWALLOW IT. So long as you dont take their phones, IPODs, Laptops, Flat Screens,porn, MTV, or their fast food away...I hate to say this, but I honestly think its far too late for Americans to change this. Americans are far too stupid to see that they are being lead down the road to nowhere..Those who object will be chastized by the majority..
MotorCityPlayer 8 months ago
Comment removed
ZetHikari 6 months ago
@AngelCorbin316
Idiot spammer, no ads here!
RetSquid 9 months ago
check my favorites to see what youtube deleted.
whitadow 10 months ago
Arguing over wether laws are right or wrong is pointless anyway. Nothing gets changed when greed is what motivates those who pay and those who collect. If you want a good greed example, how about this: I just moved from Wyoming to Oregon and found out that Oregon taxes me for the money I made in Wyoming too!!! Money they should have no hold over. So I ended up owing money. Shouldn't there be some kind of jurisdiction law there?
sapphiresnakes 10 months ago
Comment removed
RetSquid 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sapphiresnakes
If you recieved it before you became a resident of Oregon, they should not be able to tax it...
RetSquid 10 months ago
@sapphiresnakes They make tax laws complicated on purpose so they can pick and choose which to enforce. Makes me sick. They could easily make more money from a simpler system, but they care more about who they take from more than what they take in.
theboombody 10 months ago 7
People will do or say nothing until enough people have their ass in a bind!! And i hope its not too late!!
goldsmithstudent 11 months ago
Replace it with the fair tax
captinseperoth 11 months ago
The Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama's budget is requesting an additional 5,100 IRS agents next year, to wring further tax revenue from Americans. His proposed budget gives the IRS a 9.4% raise in fiscal year 2012, to $13.28 billion, or a 5% increase in agency manpower to 100,537 agents, spending $460 million more for tax enforcement than in 2010. It is a joke.
Jakepod34 11 months ago
For a second opinion or free IRS advice under the "free advice" tab on our site, contact the Killer IRS CPA at 713-774-4467 or Google "Killer IRS"
joemas2005 11 months ago
Listen to tubeusercomm and we will never grow as a nation because we will be so ignorant as to how this constitutional republic is suppose to work
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes this guy(tubeusercomm) is a shill i never say that about anyone but he literally goes to any anti govt pro freedom posting and spouts the federal line every time- whether its bill cooper the iraq war- iran contra drug costs- by his postings im sure he is being paid ! Literally - hes on every conspiracy posting - and he always talks out of his ass reading lines direct from the karl rove playbook!
salvadory 11 months ago
@salvadory then click on his username and nothing comes up- no channel- nothing!
salvadory 11 months ago
@salvadory
You spout the Federal under cover agent government line.
Sending dissidents of the US gov to prison is your motive.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Tubeusercomm bs- ive followed your comments- you spend your time riducling bill cooper- or anyone who doesnt buy the official line- go collect your check and make sure you turn in all us youtubers to homeland security
salvadory 10 months ago
@salvadory
More likely I will nominate you for the Darwin Award.
ROTFL
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@se7ensnakes says: "Listen to tubeusercomm and we will never grow as a nation because we will be so ignorant as to how this constitutional republic is suppose to work."
ROTFL
@se7ensnakes is a Trailer Trash Supreme Court Judge in his own mind.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
If you want to hear about some real gov corruption banker-wall street fraud which is not a conspiracy theory check out: ---
Janet Tavakoli + William K Black
tavakolistructuredfinance dotcom videos
benzinga dot com users william-k-black
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
Listen to se7ensnakes and you will end up with your prison wages being attached to pay your taxes. -
Sherry Peel Jackson is a former Internal Revenue Service Agent and a former Certified Public Accountant. On February 14th, 2008 she was sentenced to four years in federal prison for failure to file her tax returns. -
Her prison wages were attached.
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
@Tubeusercomm
That right stay ignorant, dont learn anything because it is lost. Sherry Peel Jackson was convicted because her corporation did not pay taxes, which is different than if you are an individual. Dont look to learn from people that have lost, learn from people that have won...Like tom cryer. Download his memorandum, study it against what the supreme court said. All you need is a respectable amount of informed individuals to bring down the corruption.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes Cryer's memorandum is a sorry excuses for a legal argument. He fails to cite any of the countless cases that hold the opposite of what he is claiming, which is a violation of legal ethics. The trial court rejected all of his baseless arguments, and he was acquitted only because the jury found that there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted "willfully". He's currently facing a deficiency of $1.7 million in taxes, penalties and interest. He's toast.
prof5string 11 months ago
@prof5string Mr. Cryer was to have a trial on 1/11/11. Anyone know how that went ?
asicit2b 11 months ago
@asicit2b At Cryer's request, the case has been postponed. No new trial date has been set.
prof5string 11 months ago
@prof5string Thank you
asicit2b 11 months ago
@asicit2b why he got a trail?
davidlee110 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes says: "That right stay ignorant, dont learn anything because it is lost. Sherry Peel Jackson was convicted because her corporation did not pay taxes, which is different than if you are an individual."
Try coming up with some new original material, not some old crap that the courts won't even give the dignity of explaining why an idiot that acted upon your legal fallacies is wrong.
Geez dude quit playing with your pecker.
Tubeusercomm 10 months ago
@Ingle92protege We do have the law,but people still ain't doing shit. When people who know this start doing shit,everything will change.
Anon7771 11 months ago
@Ingle92protegeI guess so. But I guess there's nothing we can do.
Anon7771 11 months ago
se7ensnakes
Cite your your failure to file wins.
You can't.
You pay your income taxes just like Banister, Kidd, Shultz and Conklin.
You peddle bullshit.
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
@Tubeusercomm
you peddle ignorance. Your intent is to keep people ignorant of what the supreme court have said and how that is relevant to you.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes -
We have read your rants. But what do we do? (wink)
Give us some step by step legal advice on how to evade the United States federal income tax.
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
In the end, however, the jurors may agree that "He cannot get away with not paying". We do so he must too!!!! The only thing you have is what the supreme court have stated.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
Arguing against the Income tax and raising the issue of the validity of the16th Amendment, that direct taxes must be apportioned, claiming that income taxes are voluntary are sucker punches. You are looking at the right hand while the left hand is hooking you right in your jaw.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes says: "Arguing against the Income tax _ " -
A jury will never hear your arguments. The jury decides the facts not the law.
All the law pertaining to any case will be contained in the jury instructions.
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
According to the supreme court, the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to stop congress from defining the income tax as a direct tax. But if you go to the IRS website, they will tell you that the income tax is a direct tax...LMFAO
Are we Americans that stupid?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@se7ensnakes asked: Are we Americans that stupid?
No just you.
Your ploy to make people feel stupid for paying income taxes is very old.
Tubeusercomm 11 months ago
I doubt that there is anyone in this forum that actually understand what a direct and indirect tax is. They may be able to repeat some definition from some dictionary. But to truly have a working definition, it is indeed rare. Without this knowledge you woull not understand the purpose of the 16th Amendment per two unanimous landmark supreme court decisions. To claim that the a direct or indirect tax is not an issue is to claim that the government does not need to tell us what they are taxin
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
The most important legal issue regarding the income tax is....having a working definition of what a direct and indirect tax is. Can the supreme court obliterate the distinction between a direct and indirect tax? No they cannot. A direct and indirect tax are natural events. The founding fathers merely define them for the purpose of collecting them in an equitable manner. The total lack of education has caused judges to declare tha the income tax is direct and indirect.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
The 16th Amendment did not create the income tax. Raising the issue of the 16th Amendment as the creator of the income tax is faulty. Why? Because the supreme court stated that the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax, specifically they stated that the 16th amendment did not give congress any new taxing power.
So while you argue about the 16th Amendment not being ratified, the judge is going to be laughing at you because the problem is not within the 16th Amendment.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@Ingle92protege Well,we do need taxes to actually keep things free.
Anon7771 11 months ago
I'll tell you that the law and tax professors know this shit . They can not teach it , by government dictate. Lawyers are only taught what the establishment wants taught. The legal profession has so much moral turpitude oozing from their pores That compared to a chicken house, that has not been for month's, on a 100 degree day, makes it smell like a bed of roses..:)
As Shakespeare said very eloquently, "The first thing we do is hang all the lawyers.....;)))"
ClaasStoertebeker 11 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 11 months ago
@Ingle92protege
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” [Title 26] as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).
RetSquid 11 months ago
@Ingle92protege
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 authorizes Congress to levy taxes. Clause 18 authorizes Congress to pass laws to enforce those powers. Congress passed income tax laws, those are collected in Title 26, Section 6151 of that Title say that you have to pay the income tax.
If you have a quote from the Founding Fathers that says they were against all taxes, post it, but that still won't change the fact that everyone NOW is liable for income tax.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid My father worked for the IRS, Sir. And he even said so himself " It is unconstitutional, and it is a fraud." He is ashamed of himself helping this fraud...
AoifeStair 11 months ago
@AoifeStair
Then he is confused or ignorant also.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@Ingle92protege
Too bad income taxes are NOT voluntary are you ARE required to pay them and it IS in the Constitution.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@Ingle92protege Seens to sound like obama care ? unconstitutional.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@Ingle92protege says - "Paying tax is illegal" Please explain ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
In United States v. Benson:
A criminal case, William J Benson himself raised the Sixteenth Amendment argument, which was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Benson was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation.
lol
MrSupernova111 1 year ago
THE IRS IS A CRIME RING !! THEY NEED TO BE DRAGGED OUT INTO THE STREET AND SET ON FIRE THEN PISSED ON THEN SHIT ON AND THEY WIPE A BABYS PISSY SHITTY DIAPER IN THE FACE OF THE CORPSE BASTARDS , THEY THROW THEIR BODYS INTO A SHARK TANK AND WATCH THEM GET EATEN AND SHIT OUT HAHAHAHAHAHAH FUCKING CUNTS
jrjr143 1 year ago
Abolishing the IRS will take some time but it will happen within the next 10 years you will see. People spread the word to your immediate family and friends. Also do your homework. Between the former agents and we the people we will put a stop to the IRS. This is a promise!!
Journeyride 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We the People Congress and Foundation
Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve
System et al., 08-CV-991.
The Complaint alleges that Schulz pays taxes to the United States and New York State.
Schulz alleges as his injury that he is a “payer of federal taxes” and has a legal interest “not to have his money taken from him” for purposes he deems illicit.
Schulz admits that he pays his income taxes while leading his sheep to prison.
I want to see a "Robert Schulz" failure to file case.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
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
@Tubeusercomm
The law is clear? So what is the government taxing?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Joe Banister pays his income taxes while his followers go to prison.
Charles Thomas Clayton - 5 years.
SHERRY PEEL JACKSON - 4 years.
Richard Michael Simkanin - 7 years.
Matthew J. Allen - guilty 3 felony counts.
Wesley Snipes - 3 years.
Walter Allen Thompson - six years.
Joe provides job security for IRS agents
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
What are you talking about ????
asicit2b 1 year ago
Comment removed
asicit2b 1 year ago
A later influence on the language of the law was Scandinavian in origin. During the eighth century, Vikings began raiding the English coast and eventually settled down. The English borrowed from these Scandinavians the most important legal word in the English language: the word law itself. Law derives from the Norse word for "lay" and thus means "that which is laid down."
"Lay" means to put or place and always requires an object to finish its meaning.
Levy as in lever.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Well, I guess you'll have to print your own dictionary and get everyone to use it, then you will be right, huh?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@asicit2b "The English borrowed from these Scandinavians the most important legal word in the English language: the word law itself. Law derives from the Norse word for "lay" and thus means "that which is laid down."
There was a Norwegian king they called Magnus Lagabøte (the "a" sounding like in "aah", the "ø" is like the french "eu") the word "Lag" means law in old norse, now it is called "Lov" the "o" said like the french "au".
He got this name because he "repaired and fixed" laws.
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis Today the words "å lage" means "to make", "lag" means "make"..
The roman word "fiat" means "make it happen", in short it means the same..
Altho the old word for "Law" (Lag) changed into "make" and the new word resembles the one used in english.
Aren't words and languages and all the ancient connections interesting? ^^
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
Close but not quite right.
Law: O.E. lagu (pl. laga, comb. form lah-), from O.N. *lagu "law," collective pl. of lag "layer, measure, stroke," lit. "something laid down or fixed," from P.Gmc. *lagan "put, lay" (see lay (v.)).
Fiat: "authoritative sanction," 1630s, from L. fiat "let it be done" (also used in the opening of M.L. proclamations and commands), third person singular present subjunctive of fieri, used as passive of facere "to make, do" (see factitious).
RetSquid 9 months ago
It is not levy and collect. It is LAY and collect. Two different mechansims
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Go tell SCOTUS they were wrong. Did you notice that they were not quoting the 16th at that point?
Levy: to impose (a tax)
Lay: to impose as a burden, duty, penalty, or the like
RetSquid 1 year ago
tax law does exist, but there is no tax law for the common laborer. There is a legal problem with the tax law and that is that the courts have not been conclusive as to the subject of the tax. What is being taxed, is it your income, activity or ?
se7ensnakes 1 year ago
@se7ensnakes
Title 26 Section 61 tells you exactly what is gross income, from that you figure taxable income. It says "compensation for services" which means whatever you get paid for a job, i.e. wages, salary, etc.
"there is no tax law for the common laborer"
Correct, it's for "EVERY individual".
RetSquid 1 year ago
to set an example, i say hangem and letem swing. its not like this corrupt government is working for us.
newmilitia 1 year ago
Please people, for all of our kids sakes, take a few minutes to review the "Income Taxes Are Illegal! The IRS & FED Are Criminal Organizations!" Videos, call your congressman and ONCE AND FOR ALL, lets do something about this ! Please !
vid009 1 year ago
@vid009
Please do, you will come to the conclusion that the videos lie. Income taxes are legal and Constitutional.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Those who can, work. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, tax.
bugsz1 1 year ago
I never said not to pay taxes. Taxes as far I can see are used to keep the unwashed
masses in their place. The rich can avoid taxes.
frankster47 1 year ago
If the Fed can print money with nothing backing it then why do we pay taxes?
The fed can simply print what ever money the government needs. There is
no reason for the income tax.
frankster47 1 year ago
@frankster47 You sumed it up perfect!
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
may 2008?? didnt happen!! NO paranoia facts please!!
eric777100763 1 year ago
2011 income tax protest
7777dmith7777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
spread the w0rd!
through time the country has been taken over under a cloud of lies and deception a time will come for THE mass civil dis0bedience
and it starts with the
2011 inc0me-tax pr0test
DONT FILE
2011 inc0me-tax pr0test
DONT FILE
spread the w0rd!!
t0gether we can send THE message
serrtucheserrtuche 1 year ago
"The 16th Amendment was fully ratified, all of the Courts and all of the States (the ones who are responsible for ratification of Amendments) agree on that point."
I said no such thing. Go back and read it again.
"The 9th Amendment does not apply because the income tax is authorized by Article I, Section 8."
Taxes are enacted to pay for something and that is the enumerated powers.
"Your arguments are meaningless to me"
It isn't my problem that you can't prove your case.
dude58677 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dude58677
Why are you quoting me and saying that YOU didn't say it?
"My case" has been proven, you are the one trying to prove that income taxes should not be here. It is up to YOU to provide evidence for your claims, not me.
RetSquid 1 year ago
U.S. Code
TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
§ 3002. Definitions
15) ‘‘United States’’ means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
If you can grasp this fact, you can be free, then demand that your Congressman vote to abolish this corporation, then the IRS and all the other corrupt Agencies will go with it. This is how you can free this nation with one vote. The US Code has no Authority outside of the District of Columbia and its' territories, yes you are FREE!. propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago 2
@propertyrightsnow
Why don't you post the rest of that definition?
RetSquid 1 year ago
I pay my taxes because if I don't, they will come after me!
VIKING33NY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i recommend everyone to see this movie: from freedom to fascism. everything you just saw was from this movie. Must see!!!
omgiku 1 year ago
@retsquid Yes!! I have no more info I am willing to share with you! You failed to answer my questions! You failed to show me the legal factual LAW!! You failed! You only showed federal corporate nonsense! You waste my time! Your ignorant, brainwashed and worst of all, you are a federal corporate kangaroo!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrishufstetler
You are clueless.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Like I said! Why would I want to share my info with a loser like yourself?
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
So you have no info. OK, Troll.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I have plenty of evidence on my claims. Why would I want to share it with you, a federal corporate kangaroo?
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
So you claim you have proof but can't post any.....
LOL!!!!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
Everyone! Please forgive RetSquid!!! He knows not what he does or says!! He has been brainwashed by the federal corporation his whole life!!! He is a slave to them. When the truth is told to the slave he gets taken out of his comfort zoned of slavery and gets mad, confused, defensive, irritated, irrational, frivolous, irrelevant, etc. It's not his fault!!! It's his mommy and daddies fault for being ignorant and signing him into slavery when he was a baby to the federal corporation!
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
@chrishufstetler
Ad hominem attacks prove you have no thought behind your claims.
RetSquid 1 year ago
The 16th amendment fucked every American over. Betrayed by our own constitution.
Roundtheworld360 1 year ago
@Roundtheworld360 The 16th ammendment was NEVER RATIFIED.
1sovereignbeing 1 year ago
@1sovereignbeing Yeaup! end of story!
sickasso72 1 year ago
@1sovereignbeing Whether it was properly ratified or not is inmaterial for two reasons...1. The courts have consistently ruled that it was ratified and 2. It has no bearing on the current internal revenue laws as enacted. It is a non issue.
iwtfunow 1 year ago
@iwtfunow Actually, it is only immaterial in maritime admiralty which does not take natural rights into account. I find it disturbing you call internal revenue laws "enacted" when there is no such record in the federal register which thus defines title 26 as prima fascia, not a positive law.
You stated that the "courts" have consistently ruled the 16th ammendment to be ratified. Please provide a list of precendents as I know of no such rulings.
1sovereignbeing 1 year ago
@1sovereignbeing
Since none of this has anything to do with Maritime or Admiralty law that's not a problem. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). Congress’ failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. ‘Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law’. Plaintiff’s positive law argument is without merit.”
Bilger v. United States
RetSquid 1 year ago
@1sovereignbeing Title 26 is not positive law BUT....the underlying statutes of Title 26 is LAW.......If you think a section in Title 26 is in error, then look at the underlying staute to see what was actually enacted. I did not refer to Title 26 , I referenced "current internal revenue laws"...meaning revenue statutes and not necessarily Title 26 code sections. Scotus said the 16th gave no new taxing powers, what part of NO don't you understand? Soveriegn - maritime same as 16th.
iwtfunow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1sovereignbeing
Any proof for your claim?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Yes. private message me.
1sovereignbeing 1 year ago
@1sovereignbeing
Why? You are the one who has this 'info'.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 Section 3001 (new I.R.C. § 7491). Burden of Proof. (1) GENERAL RULE- If, in any court proceeding, a taxpayer
introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual
issue relevant to ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer
for any tax imposed by subtitle A or B, the Secretary shall
have the burden of proof with respect to such issue.
yankdini99 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Tea Party kicked your ass on November 2.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
How did tyhe Tea Party kick it's own ass?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
YOUR TEA PARTY AND YOU HATE THE PAUL'S? LOLOOOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! YOU ARE SO PATHETIC!!!!!!!!
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Still can't post without lying, can you?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Still can't post without lying, can you?
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Why don't you stop babbling and post something...ANYTHING..that I have posted that is wrong? If you can't, I'm going to just mark all of your spam as such.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid
Why don't you stop babbling and post something...ANYTHING..that I have posted that is wrong? If you can't, I'm going to just mark all of your spam as such.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Wow, that was 'spam' even before i got to it...good job, goof.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid
Wow, that was 'spam' even before i got to it...good job, goof.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
LOL!! AGAIN!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Whenj you have no willingness to admit that you are wrong given your long history debating on youtube. Why should I think that you want a serious debate?
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Well, if YOU can't handle being wrong, don't debate me. If you had anything that WOULD prove me wrong you would have posted it last year when you were here.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
A year after you were on here last time and you think I somehow just left a debate so you won? I don't even remember what you were saying..it probably doesn't matter anyways. Why is your year old point that you are SOOO desparate to make?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
The issue of orginalism vs "the living document" Should we rely on the original intent of the founders or should we rely on court cases. I think the debate is far too complex for anyone to have all the answers. That is why I can't understand some people who have an arrogant attitude when it comes to legal issues as though there is no way they can be wrong. If it wasn't too complex, we would not be having these debates.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
We WANT to rely on the Founding Father's ideas, but there are many things today that they would never had thought of. We have to rely on the court because that is what THEY intended. But, no it is not a 'living document' to be changed at will by a court.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
It is a very complicated issue. You have the pre-American era such as the days of the Magna Carta and the values it has taught. The Dec. of Independence, the Federalist AND Anti-Federalist Papers. Let's not forget that the Consitution was not written at the same time as the Bill of Rights. The amendments passed after the Bill of Rights and the intent of each amendment. You have the issues of morality which then becomes a philosophical issue.
Continue..
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
The issue at hand is the income tax, is it legal?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
With all the issues I raised, no one could know anything like that. It's too complicated.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
See, that is where you are wrong, I DO know that it is legal, unless you have PROOF to the contrary. The basics of the tax system are very simple.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
No, I don't know and you don't know either for the reasons I said. You have to prove that the tax is legal and then you have to also assume that there is no moral reason to disobey it as stated in the Dec. of Independence. To say otherwise is extreme arrogance.
The burden of proof is not on me because the government is the one making the claim that we owe the tax and this is how it would be in a court of law.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
The basics of income tax law is EASY: Do you get paid for working? Do you have income from any of the sources listed in Title 26 Section 61? Is that amount ,after deductions, more than the exemption amount? If so, you owe income tax. We're tallking legality, not morality. Someone's morals may allow them to "murder" someone and to them it would not be murder.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
The rules of logic state that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist but you can prove a positive. The tax honesty movement is based on the idea that there is a lack of belief that teh tax laws apply to most Americans.
No one ever argues that murder is legal.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
I can't that rule of logic, but I can prove a negative. "There are no dinosaurs in Central Park." The tax 'honesty' a/k/a 'tax deniers' do have a lack of belief in the facts, that does not make the facts, non-facts. The tax laws apply to every American anywhere in the World. that is what the law and case law says.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Your dinosaur argument is a misapplication of science. Some species that are long thought to be extinct are sometimes discovered to be found.
With a 16,000 page tax code and with Congressman not reading the bills, how do you know there isn't some loophole that gets peole out of taxes?
What makes you think that a tax court ruling can't be overturned, esp when they have happened throughout history such as the Plessy case?
To be Continued...
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
My argument disproves your logic claim. There may be a loophole to get out of paying income tax, it is up to YOU to find such an animal. Tax courts can be overrulled, I never said they couldn't be, but until they ARE then that is the law, again it is up to YOU to prove that claim.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
What about State Nullification?
How do you know the authors of the 16th amendment meant for a universal wage tax?
Why should I as a potential juror vote guilty for soemone indicted for tax evasion when it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that universal income tax evasion laws exist and are constitutional?
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
State nullification does not apply, most of them agreed to the income tax.
The 16th is very simple, how can you read what YOU think into that?
A jury's job is to decide on the facts of the case, not the law behind every case. It has already been proven beyond a doubt that the tax laws exist and are Constitutional. That is why the only way to get out of a tax evasion case is to prove that you were too confused or stupid to understand it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
What the States agreed to in 1913 is NOT what the States are agreeing to now. President Taft proposed the 16th amendment and that it was meant to be a 2 percent corporate business tax. The term "direct" was proposed but it was rejected. The States ratified the amendment in early 1913. However for the first time in 18 years the Democrats took over Congress and a Democrat President named Woodrow Wilson proposed that there be a wage tax on 1 percent of Americans. Hence, the IRC code.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
What the States agreed to then is exactly what they agree to now. The16th didn't change over that time. The States all have representation that has passed the tax laws over the years. A "direct tax" is a tax on property, mostly land.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
You must have not read my comment. Read it again.
Finally, the burden of proof on you to prove liability. You can't prosecute someone until it is proven that the law applies to them. The laws are the facts in this case, even if not, you have to prove that the law is moral. Which is why we have juries starting back to the Magna Carta.
You have yet to convince me as a potential juror. I won't fall for a Judge who tries to tamper with a jury.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677
Why do you think the income tax law that say 'every individual' doesn't mean EVERY individual?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
The biggest problem with your arguments is that it is based on the idea that "might makes right and the ends justify the means."
dude58677 1 year ago 2
@dude58677
No, my argument is that the law is the law, not 'good' not 'bad' just 'law'.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
So you argue that might makes right.
dude58677 1 year ago
@dude58677 RetSquid uses these forums for entertainment not education. This person has no interest in learning anything.
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago
@propertyrightsnow
Yes, I am here to play 'Whack-AMole' with idiots. Why does YOUR head keep popping up?
RetSquid 1 year ago