I'm allowed to rob you

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by x_x, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. Yours is the false claim. My service is on record and you are spreading false information just to troll someone that you cannot argue against. That is truly pathetic.
  2. Clearly he didn't? How is it clear he didn't? To me it seems like he did.
  3. Our constitution started going to **** when they started changing it to take down the mafia. After that they altered it to take down gangs. Now they changing it to take down civilians trying to just live a normal life
  4. Defending our freedom on foreign land isn't necessary

    We need to defend our freedom right here at home


    In 1950, the 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus, any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.

    Everyone hates them but they keep voting for them

    The original 13th amendment was destroyed so these esquires can hold office

    Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state.

    That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).

    The 11th Amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.”

    There are foreigners right here at home subverting and attacking our freedom and everyone is going along with it

    Trading with the enemies act labels everyone as enemy of the state

    They don't know who is supporting the republic one day and picking up arms the next day
  5. Didn't watch the video but I bet it's something about Government and taxes. Taxation is not theft it is written out in the social contract that it is a citizen's duty to pay the government for the government to pay to protect citizen such as soldiers. Without taxes how do the soldiers get paid? If the government prints money and gives it to the soldiers that causes inflation you have to pay them with taxes or your economy will be destroyed. Taxation is not theft it's spelled out in the social contract as a necessity for government to function, if you don't what if you believe in the Social Contract and still think it's theft then you can go start your own nation in between Egypt and the Middle East. There is a little stretch of unincorporated land that no Nation owns and you can start your own non-taxing nation
  6. That's already been debunked by the irs agents themselves


    Irs don't provide any service but violence and theft

    And I already posted their Delaware corporate filings proving they're for profit corporation
  7. Your Federal taxes go to the United States military for payment of the soldiers and equipment that's the Social Contract. Like I said if you don't like it you can found your own Nation. It will be hard but most things are
  8. I'm sure that's how you would like it to work

    You don't make the rules and you've not shown any evidence to support your claims

    On the contrary I have shown numerous evidence and testimony

    So maybe you're the one who should leave the thread and go back to fantasy land of make believe
  9. Give me proof that the American Soldiers/Military Budget does not get paid with American taxpayer dollars
  10. Also I do have a source to back up my claims your taxes go to the American military

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2010 ... s-military
  11. The Income Tax and the IRS

    Some believe that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been around since the beginning of our country. The fact is the IRS was created along with the passage of the Federal Reserve Banking Act in 1913. The purpose of the IRS and the new income tax was to collect the interest on the so called loans by the FEDERAL RESERVE to the UNITED STATES government.

    In 1983, J. Peter Grace was commissioned by President Ronald Reagan to investigate waste and inefficiency in the US government. When the Grace commission completed their report, they had this to say about the income tax:

    100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

    In other words, the income tax does not pay for ANY of the services provided by government and the money is then paid into the hands of private bankers.

    Condensed version of the grace report
  12. Please note that I have not gone to basic yet, so please don't thank me for service I have yet to complete after basic and AIT and all that. Otherwise I'd be accused of stolen valour and I would really hate to be one of those guys. Need I reference countless links to military forums where service members tell their stories of being frauded or videos on Youtube where people confront obviously fake or disreputable people wearing military uniforms.
  13. Our taxes pay to cover the interest on our debt, allowing us to borrow more money. The money theoretically allows us to produce more money/economic growth/income through trade and what ever we do to make "money". However, since our debt has interest, the money we owe will only ever increase, as we cannot magically generate nearly enough money to wipe out our debt completely (18T+).
    You will notice budget cuts and lay offs generally occur when more money is spent or is needed to be spent towards paying off our debt/interest from debt.

    I can try to describe/portray through example if needed. Just Qoute me or pm.
  14. LOL you are a moron. If you knew how to do math and everything they generate income from. 
  15. Bionicbaby
  16. This isn't even a complete thought.
    You seem to have another -first- language, english being your second, so i will let this slide.

    In the future, strive to make a point with each sentence or fufill each claim(through statement or fact). Otherwise it's just words.
  17. This leftist cuck has never been in the army. False valour.
  18. Nj bumping a dead thread with a baseless accusation.
  19. damn ancaps.
  20. "We the people" **

    Acker v commissioner 1959

    The first and primary question that we must decide is whether there is any expressed or necessarily implied provision or language in § 294 (d) (2) which authorizes the treatment of a taxpayer's failure to file a declaration of estimated tax as, or the equivalent of, a declaration estimating his tax to be zero.

    We are here concerned with a taxing Act which imposes a penalty.[4]
    The law is settled that "penal statutes are to be construed strictly," Federal Communications Comm'n v. American Broadcasting Co., 347 U.S. 284, 296, and that one "is not to be subjected to a penalty unless the words of the statute plainly impose it," Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank, 197 U.S. 356, 362. See, e. g., Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri, 18 Wall. 409, 410; Elliott v. Railroad Co., 99 U.S. 573, 576.


    See what happened there, they can't create a penalty by a regulation, the statute must be strictly construed

    Congress may create obligations not internal revenue agents

    26 U.S.C. §1313: Definitions

    (b) Taxpayer

    Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

    26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)

    "The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

    "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.
    They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

    [Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

    “Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers
    [officers, employees, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.”

    [Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]

    "A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax
    without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..."

    [Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]


    Title 26 U.S.C §6331 (a) authority of secretary

    Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

    When or IF you receive[d] a "notice of levy" flip it on the back

    Part (a) shown above is competently omitted and it starts with (b) which defines "levy"

    They conveniently leave out part (a) which is evidence who is eligible for the levy

    I'm seeing a pattern here, why am I the only one showing *case law and *United States Codes?

    While you guys are the experts in the laws of the united states of America, enough to ridicule me, while not one person has referenced any law whatsoever but me...