 |
Ex IRS agent tells it like it is part2 Posted by: nalldavid
Video duration: 373 seconds Truth of taxation part 2 Related: spj, sherry, peel, jackson, irs, income, tax Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Ex IRS agent tells it like it is Posted by: nalldavid
Video duration: 599 seconds Truth of taxation part 1 Related: spj, sherry, peel, jackson, irs, income, tax Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latest comments made on this video:
By: lucasnolta. on 31 Aug 10, 04:19:12
U.S. Code title 26 §1, 61, and 63 impose the income tax, §6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and §6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return. THERE IS IN FACT A LAW REQUIRING YOU TO PAY INCOME TAXES, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. I agree though that we should end the fed.
By: RetSquid. on 24 Aug 10, 04:17:36
@m1aws I just don't like all of the liars on here saying that there is no law or other such crap.
By: m1aws. on 22 Aug 10, 23:44:48
I see retsquid is still defending the fact he think s the IRS actually owns you as a slave. After how long???? He has posted continuously on this subject. Obviously must be paid for it. Can't think why. :-D Oh, there must be a fire under the smoke.
By: RetSquid. on 17 Aug 10, 17:19:56
@yankdini99 Read: UNITED STATES v. RUTHERFORD 07 2312 07 2313 U.S. v.? Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 confirms that the IRS did NOT violate his rights. Where is the entire case "Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932"? What was the IRS supposed to repond to?
By: yankdini99. on 17 Aug 10, 16:06:23
@RetSquid "?Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. ......... the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.? U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. To date, the IRS has not responded.
By: RetSquid. on 16 Aug 10, 20:39:53
@yankdini99 I assume you have a point with your continual posting of this?
By: RetSquid. on 16 Aug 10, 20:39:07
@yankdini99 He was not criminally liable because the jury didn't believe it was 'wilfull'.
By: yankdini99. on 16 Aug 10, 20:26:39
@RetSquid Internal Revenue Code 34.1.1.5 (08-11-2004) Suits by Taxpayer Alleging Improper Acts by the IRS (2) Unauthorized Collection Actions. Taxpayers may bring suit for damages if an officer or employee of the Service recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of the Code or any regulation thereunder in connection with any collection of tax. Section 7433.
By: yankdini99. on 16 Aug 10, 19:15:59
@RetSquid United States v. Lloyd R. Long, No. CR-1-93-91 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Tenn. 10/15/1993)
By: yankdini99. on 16 Aug 10, 19:15:13
@RetSquid RetSquid 28 USC 1346 - Sec. 1346. United States as? defendant : (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.....
By: yankdini99. on 16 Aug 10, 19:14:47
@RetSquid I didn't 'understand' instead I 'overstood' everything you wrote, that's why I'm laughing at you.
By: yankdini99. on 16 Aug 10, 18:23:40
@RetSquid here's a case you've missed: United States v. Lloyd R. Long, No. CR-1-93-91 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Tenn. 10/15/1993)
By: RetSquid. on 16 Aug 10, 17:56:42
@yankdini99 Which word did you not understand?
By: yankdini99. on 16 Aug 10, 10:52:39
@RetSquid lol...
By: RetSquid. on 16 Aug 10, 06:21:50
@yankdini99 How is it giving the IRS the color of authority? They ALREADY HAVE authority to collect income tax and levy property if it is not paid.
By: yankdini99. on 15 Aug 10, 19:34:40
@RetSquid 28 USC 1346 - Sec. 1346. United States as defendant :? (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.....
By: yankdini99. on 15 Aug 10, 19:33:49
@RetSquid. the 'bookkeeping mistake' is erroneous that gives the IRS color of authority which eventually leads to coercion. C'mon you're smarter than this
By: RetSquid. on 15 Aug 10, 15:54:52
@yankdini99 You still have to prove an actual injury, not a bookkeeping mistake on your IMF that has caused no injury.
By: RetSquid. on 15 Aug 10, 15:52:58
@yankdini99 You still don't/can't understand the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the income tax, aside from ensuring all persons equal protection. This video is still a lie.
By: yankdini99. on 15 Aug 10, 11:32:16
@RetSquid This all relates to the 14th amendment, that I earlier referred to. In which you mistakenly believed that federal agents have sovereign immunity in all cases. But guess what, they don't... lol Congress waived immunity in civil right tort claims. Now do me a favor and go read IRS publication 1660.
By: yankdini99. on 15 Aug 10, 11:27:31
@RetSquid 28 USC 1346 - Sec. 1346. United States as defendant : (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.....
By: yankdini99. on 15 Aug 10, 11:26:25
@RetSquid The United States government is immune from suit unless Congress has waived the government?s immunity The FTCA includes an important waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 USCS § 1346(b). It permits people and corporations injured by the actions of federal employees to bring suit in federal court.
By: dollarsandsense7. on 15 Aug 10, 10:58:22
This video is the bullet that kills the so called "illuminati" if everyone heard this about 10 years before 911 around when bush's dad made the N.W.O. speach we may have run most of these bitches out of power! Divide and conquer is exactly what it is! This reminds me of the speak an ex KKK member was suppose to assassinate malcom X in jail instead they ended up getting along! because Malcom had the same plan as the Klan!!! BLACK NATIONALISM
By: RetSquid. on 14 Aug 10, 21:51:39
@yankdini99 Did I say it? No, the Supreme Court did.
By: yankdini99. on 14 Aug 10, 20:36:31
@RetSquid IRS Publication 1660, Collection Appeals Rights... Did you say something about due process?