Tweet
Your modus operandi seems to be posting copy/pasted non sequiturs. If you have any self-generated content relevant to the topic, I'd love to see it. I'm starting to think you haven't any, however.
-
-
Originally posted by Randomeyes View PostFormer IRS Agent Joe Banister and Ron Paul On CNBC - YouTubeOriginally posted by Randomeyes View Post
Is the IRS lying and defrauding the American people? Hear from the man who beat - YouTube
Income Tax Truth Tom Cryer 1/3 - YouTube
AlComment
-
Three bad examples from you...nice job.
Another copypasta from you...this time with three videos of three people who have lost against the IRS.
First, there's Joe Banister. Used to be a licensed accountant, but lost his CPA license because he gave "absolutely wrong" advice to his clients concerning their requirement to file. He's already lost to the IRS once, and is in the process of getting pwned by them again:
Joseph R. Banister - Tax Protester DossiersUnited States v. Lawrence, No. 06-3205, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit .
Finally, you bring up good ole Tom Cryer. I am not here to speak ill of the dead, but the IRS beat him as well. He escaped paying because he died first, but his estate did have to pay the back taxes.
So, the lesson is clear. These bull**** arguments don't work. They don't get you out of having to pay taxes. At best, they delay the inevitable and you'll end up paying tons of penalties and interest on top of the original amount owed...Unless you're willing to die, of course.
Again, people who believe these nonsense theories suffer real harm when they try to use them in court.
Comment
-
AlComment
-
The Property
Abraham Lincoln (president of United States) : Supplemental Information -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Labor is Property
Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AlComment
-
United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1990).
I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but all of this is theoretical nonsense that never actually works in court.Comment
-
(df-nshn)n.Originally posted by Randomeyes View Post
1.
a. A statement conveying fundamental character.
b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
definition - definition of definition by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Marina and the Diamonds - Power & Control - The Tabernacle - Live in London - June 25 2012 - YouTube
AlComment
-
"Russglish"
are = являются
from = от
income = кончить
"Perhaps you know Russian epic of Cinderella, if shoe fits wear it."
Pavel Andreievich Chekov's Movie Quotes
AlComment
-
דעפֿיניציע הכנסה
Dictionary Yiddish English Online, GlosbeBilly Preston - Nothing From Nothing - YouTube
Income definition @ Mark 3:18
Federal Income Tax - YouTube
AlComment
-
Lol...Aaron Russo got owned in that videoComment
-
Ok, you say that using "without prejudice" UCC 1-308 is use less...Please explain Ferry V Taylor 33 Mo. "It is however, considered settled that letters and admissions containing in substance, they are to be "without prejudice" will not be admitted into evidence...Sounds to me like it can be used to throw out anything signed that way. What say ye sirComment
-
I didn't say it was useless. I said that it wasn't a way to exempt yourself from laws. I clearly explained the purpose of 1-308, and it's application. It is about CONTRACTS and CONTRACTS ONLY.
The case you "cited" is a contract case...from 1863, no less...LONG before the UCC was written. It doesn't contain the quoted phrase you posted, either. I don't know where you get your information, but you should really fact-check anything you read on those sovereignty sites.
The case is about a contract that the defendant claims he never signed. He later agreed to pay $1000 "without prejudice" to the plaintiff to settle the matter, but the plaintiff didn't accept the offer. Instead, the plaintiff sued the defendant and sought to introduce the settlement offer as evidence that defendant admitted to being responsible for the contract. The Court said:
"When an offer is made without prejudice, and with a view to an amicable adjustment of pending difficulties and under the faith of a pending treaty, and such offer is refused, the law will not permit any advantage to be taken of it." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323.
The truth is that this case is pretty insignificant. That's why you don't find the text of it all over the internet. It's easy to cherry-pick a sentence from a case and pretend it has some broad application, but that's not how law works. No court would buy that nonsense. The only part of a case that is precedential is the holding, and then only if the holding has not been subsequently overruled by a higher court, statute, or constitutional provision...and then only in the subordinate jurisdictions. (In this case, the State of Missouri)Comment
-
Common Law and UCC
Randomeyes:
Our understanding is that using UCC 1-308 is not to get us out from under the law, but rather to signify one's intention to not be bound under any contract or commercial agreement into which they did not enter intentionally. The laws today that deny people of their rights and compel performance are not true law pursuant to the Constitution and Common Law, instead they are commercial agreements regulated by the UCC.
The founding fathers announced to the world in the Declaration of Independence that in the United States the people were going the be free and that governments' job was to protect those freedoms, and they codified it into the Constitution; so if the government comes along and says that we are not free, then something is wrong. Any so-called law that is contrary to the Constitution and Common Law cannot be true law, and must be from some other jurisdiction, which seems genuine but really is not; and, if so, how can we as free people, claiming the promises of the Declaration of Independence, be subject to them.
There is no mistake that something is wrong where government disregards the rights of the people, and if the solution does not lie with us understanding our status as being free at Common Law, please give us your opinion as to what the cause and solution may be.Comment
-
REMEDY AND RECOURSE
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse.
Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss.
The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code
all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them.
If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code,
they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code.
When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing.
It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC.
They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.
THE UCC CONNECTION
AlComment
Comment