Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
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 Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
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: KevinMerck. on 10 Mar 10, 15:28:02
"I am not anti IRS. I am anti IRS abuse of power." The very existence of the IRS as the enforcement arm of the Federal Reserve, (which is nothing more than a consortium of private bankers) is in and of itself an abuse of power. There is no place in America for the Federal Reserve and the IRS. They were brought into existence illegally and they need to be rooted out or we will more than likely not survive as a nation.
By: LBB2156. on 10 Mar 10, 05:29:49
I am not anti IRS. I am anti IRS abuse of power. Is anyone having problem with the IRS agents. Drop me a line, please.
By: KevinMerck. on 10 Mar 10, 04:26:30
Join the nearly 70,000,000 people who wised up and stopped paying this extortion. Make people like the infamous squid get real jobs instead of sitting on the computer all day harassing people about taxes. "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." -Thomas Jefferson There have been parasites like the squid throughout history. Make this freeloader get a job.
By: eklypse0. on 09 Mar 10, 03:25:45
@RetSquid So why was the Secretary of the Treasury talking about Non-Resident Aliens throughout the entire Treasury Decision when the case was about a New York Citizen? Is it because it is a citizen of the state and not a citizen of the United States and it's territories?
By: eklypse0. on 09 Mar 10, 03:25:15
@RetSquid So why was the Secretary of the Treasury talking about Non-Resident Aliens throughout the entire Treasury Decision when the case was about a New York Citizen? Is it because it is a citizen of the state and not a citizen of the United States and it's territories?
By: eklypse0. on 09 Mar 10, 03:22:31
@RetSquid Treasury Decision First Paragraph- "Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway [sic] Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913."
By: eklypse0. on 09 Mar 10, 03:22:21
@RetSquid Treasury Decision First Paragraph- "Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway [sic] Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913."
By: eklypse0. on 09 Mar 10, 03:19:17
@RetSquid The entirety of Treasury Decision was based off of the court case "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway". Non-Resident Alien specific information. What sort of disconnect must you have to say that it had nothing to do with Brushaber? Why would the US Treasury be talking about nothing but Non-Resident aliens when the case that the decision was about was a New York citizen? Doesn't the Secretary know about connecting the decision to the court case that it reference?
By: RetSquid. on 09 Mar 10, 03:12:54
@eklypse0 No, it was based on the case, not anything about him, read it and see. I posted the part that TD2313 is refering to, there is ZERO mention of resident, non-resident or alien in that case.
By: eklypse0. on 09 Mar 10, 03:09:46
@RetSquid Treasury Decision 2313 was decided based on Brushaber. How can you say it wasn't about him? First Paragraph- "Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway [sic] Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913."
By: KevinMerck. on 08 Mar 10, 22:59:14
It's simple. There is no law that requires people to pay so don't pay it. None of the money goes to run the country, it all goes to pay interest to Federal Reserve Bankers. Read the "Grace Commission Report" and watch "Freedom to Fascicm". Then do the right thing by joining the nearly 70,000,000 law abiding Americans who already refuse to pay.
By: RetSquid. on 08 Mar 10, 15:58:53
@eklypse0 "Brushaber was the one who was declared a non-resident alien, by the US Treasury" Was that a total lie or just that you can't/didn't read the case? TD 2313 was in response to: "As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized..." Do I have to do all of your research too?
By: RetSquid. on 08 Mar 10, 15:55:11
@eklypse0 No, the diferentiated where Citizens derive different rights from. They are talking about the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen, not the citizen himself.
By: RetSquid. on 08 Mar 10, 15:53:03
@eklypse0 Treasury Decision 2313 had ZERO effect on Brushaber. He was not a resident alien. Treasury Decision 2313 actually supports my assertion that nearly everthing can be taxed as income. Why did you put two and two together and end up with seven?
By: KevinMerck. on 08 Mar 10, 15:45:13
"A man may be 35 yrs. old and there happens to be some great truth stands at the door of his life ... some great opportunity to stand up for that which is just and that which is right and that which is true. And yet he refuses to do it because he's afraid that somebody may shoot at him ... or he may lose his job ... and he wants to live a long life. He may go on and live until he's 80, but he's just as dead at 35 ..." -Martin Luther King Jr. MLK would be proud of Sherry Jackson.
By: eklypse0. on 08 Mar 10, 11:59:16
@RetSquid As to the 14th Amendment, it is clearly defined in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 that: "... The second clause protects from the hostile legislation of the States the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as distinguished from the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States." See Different defining of "Citizens of the States" and "Citizens of the United States" by United States Supreme Court.
By: eklypse0. on 08 Mar 10, 11:17:53
@RetSquid "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway" is the Court Case, in which Brushaber is a citizen of New York City. "Treasury Decision 2313" is What the secretary of the treasury has determined based on the decision on the court case. It is all about "Non-Resident Aliens".
By: RetSquid. on 08 Mar 10, 06:39:29
@eklypse0 Tax law is specific, everything is taxed EXCEPT what is explicitly excluded.
By: RetSquid. on 08 Mar 10, 06:38:20
@eklypse0 You might want to check again, I can find no reference to any of that in the case.
By: eklypse0. on 07 Mar 10, 22:10:39
@RetSquid Tax law doesn't work on first the assumption of liability then expressly reducing it. Tax law is specific, to the point of, if the tax can be read multiple ways, then the way most beneficial to the person the tax is being applied to takes precedence.
By: eklypse0. on 07 Mar 10, 21:25:22
@RetSquid Nope. You are confusing the cases. The one I'm referring to was initiated by Lincoln, not the Brushaber case. Brushaber was the one who was declared a non-resident alien, by the US Treasury, despite him being a Citizen of New York.
By: RetSquid. on 07 Mar 10, 21:13:35
The unconsitutional part of it was the apportionment, which was fixed by the 16th Amendment. The "labor" had nothing to do with it.
By: RetSquid. on 07 Mar 10, 21:12:27
"applied as 'written'." Correct, on EVERY individual for any money you recieved except what is exsplictly exempted.
By: eklypse0. on 07 Mar 10, 20:02:04
@RetSquid You keep saying that the Government had the power to collect an Income Tax both before and after the 16th Amendment. Why was it that it was Unconstitutional when Lincoln wanted to tax the labor of American citizens, even as SCOTUS said that the power of taxation is broad and nearly unlimited?
By: eklypse0. on 07 Mar 10, 19:59:49
@RetSquid The Income tax, as written and supported by US Treasury Decisions is completely fine and Constitutional. Again, it is Constitutional as long as it is applied as 'written'. Once judges and IRS agents start daydreaming and inventing words to put into the actual code, then we have the problem. When IRS agents are no longer held accountable for their blatant lies, it is a tyranny.