Another $80 billion to help us with our “voluntary” “gift” to the Fed Reserve to apply towards “our” interest owed on “our” debt generously caused by our elected selfish, serf serving politicians and the Fed Reserve printing press. Thanks, Biden for your thoughtful ness. Always there when needed, and can spare a little time from sending hundreds of billions (the printing press again running up “our” debt) for Ukraine.
Taxes on Federally-Connected income are -not direct taxes.-
This is a Red Herring and specious argument.
They are excises on a particular voluntary behavior. I.e. performing the functions of a Federally-connected office. It's right there in black and white: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
If you are not:
1. A Federal Civil Service employee or that of any of the "State of State," "County of County," or "City of City" Federal franchise corporations or a dependent of someone who is
2. A member of the foreign services ("US Armed Forces) or a dependent of someone who is
3. A welfare recipient
4. A corporation
or
5. A refugee or asylum seeker
Then you don't have Federal income, and you can't pay taxes on it! And in fact, to do so is a crime!
The issue remains, however, that most people claim to be in one of these statuses, even if they aren't. That's where the trouble arises, since they are guilty under 18 USC 911 and 912 ("falsely claiming to be a US Citizen or US officer" respectively).
In fact, anyone reading 26 USC 7701 should immediately notice a bunch of massive red flags. For instance, getting "legally married" creates a "Domestic Partnership" (an Incorporated Joint Venture domiciled in the District of Columbia, since "domestic" means "within the District of Columbia").
A "Person" is explicitly defined as only variations of corporations ("individual" is a type of corporation, not a living man or woman).
A "withholding agent" is a government employee. So the big hook is, if you are acting as a withholding agent by filling out the "1040 Bond" Form for Federal Individuals (1040 Federal Individual Tax Form), you -are- claiming to be a "US Officer!" Automatic violation of 18 USC 912!
#20 is hilarious, they assidiously avoid providing the definition (it is a bunch of equivocation about -what insurance and employee is eligible for, but doesn't answer the damn question!), but we can find it elsewhere: the definition of "employee" in the "US Code" is -A Government Worker!-
The big one, though, is #26, "Definition of a Trade or Business" (which is associated with "income," only those engaged in a "Trade or Business" within "United States" are assumed to have "taxable income.")
The definition is: "The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office."
Oh, and the "special definition" of "includes" is provided as well, lest you think it is the same as the "English dictionary definition:"
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Translation from legalese: includes means "only things that are virtually the same, excluding everything else."
Ok, so Trade or Business means "functions of a public office, and all things similar to a public office."
A car mechanic isn't a public office. A plumber is not a public office.
So, if you can prove that you aren't holding a public office, are not a "US Citizen" or a "citizen of the United States," then you can politely tell the IRS to pound sand.
Direct is only specious if you consider the Framers and Constitution specious.
And yes, the way the Framers envisioned the collection of States was that each on is its own sovereign nation, with the freedom to move between said nations.
Again, a direct tax is something that hits everyone. It must be apportioned.
Calling an excise on a particular, voluntary, and very limited behavior a direct tax ***is specious.***
That is simple logic, and the Framers knew the difference between an apportioned direct tax on everyone living within a physically-defined state, and an excise on the performance of a public office (which is voluntary, and only applies to perhaps 3-5% of the population).
If there was such a thing as a "tax on private earnings" in this country that was enforced as a direct tax, you would simply get a bill in the mail at the beginning of the year. This would be -massively- illegal, and would be immediately struck down.
We don't have that.
No such thing exists, although the moronic "flat tax" idiots are trying their best to get it pushed through. Ahhh what irony that would be, bringing about that which they were complaining about in the first place.
The current "tax on federal income" is perfectly lawful, and was originally put into place to ensure those that had cushy government jobs paid a portion of their wages back to their employer to help pay for their administration.
The "16th bylaw" of the corporate charter known as "the Constitution of the United States of America, Inc." is also perfectly legal and lawful. It keeps the weasels in office from hiding wealth from taxation. It was a clarification of the 1863 Revenue Act, and created no new powers of taxation. It certainly did not extend the authority of the IRS to include taxing of those that were not eligible to be taxpayers.
The issue is, as I have tried to make clear, is that the vast majority of Americans allowed their erstwhile employees to "redefine" them into a second or third class status known as "U.S. Citizen" or "citizen of the United States." These are "foreign" statuses with respect to our birthright. It is the same thing as if you were born a Frenchman, and a pencil-pusher got your mother to sign a document declaring you a Turk.
That's the part that is not only illegal and unlawful, but involves capital-level crimes. Human traficking, personation, kidnapping.
Again, this matter requires focusing on the -actual- problem, which is out of control employees that have been unchecked in the rapacious fraud for 160 years. Not being distracted.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The crucial problem under Clause 4 is to distinguish direct from other taxes. In its opinion in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., the Court declared: It is apparent . . . that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. Against this confident dictum may be set the following brief excerpt from Madison’s Notes on the Convention: Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered. The first case to come before the Court on this issue was Hylton v. United States, which was decided early in 1796. Congress has levied, according to the rule of uniformity, a specific tax upon all carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which were to be kept by, or for any person, for his own use, or to be let out for hire, or for the conveying of passengers. In a fictitious statement of facts, it was stipulated that the carriages involved in the case were kept exclusively for the personal use of the owner and not for hire. The principal argument for the constitutionality of the measure was made by Hamilton, who treated it as an excise tax, whereas Madison, both on the floor of Congress and in correspondence, attacked it as direct and therefore void, because it was levied without apportionment. The Court, taking the position that the direct tax clause constituted in practical operation an exception to the general taxing powers of Congress, held that no tax ought to be classified as direct that could not be conveniently apportioned, and on this basis sustained the tax on carriages as one on their use and therefore an excise. Moreover, each of the judges advanced the opinion that the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that, at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the states, especially if an assessment should intervene, while Justice Paterson, who had been a member of the Federal Convention, testified to his recollection that the principal purpose of the provision had been to allay the fear of the Southern states that their slaves and land should be subjected to a specific tax.
Of course, Founders wanted We the People to have ALLODIAL TITLE to our property.
Yes, I am familiar with all three Constitutions. Intimately.
What I think you may not be grasping is that the IRS does not levy direct or un-apportioned taxes. They can't. They have to operate according to their own rules. And they do, assidiously.
They administer the -Internal- Revenue of the DC City State. It is extra-territorial to The United States and The United States of America.
Their authority does not extend outside DC, as per 26 USC 7701. Unless they are collecting excise from their employees functioning as "residents" in our Country (The United States of America and the 50 states, which they have nothing to say about).
The Tax on Federal Income is an excise. It is voluntary. Several IRS Commissioners have, on record, attested to that fact. It is voluntary because people are voluntarily accepting foreign statuses "gifted" to them.
It's why you fill out the 1040 form yourself. It is your choice, and you are assumed to know if you need to do it.
"We" (Americans) are supposed to have Fee-Simple grants to our soil, not alloidal "Title" (which is a grant from the Queen). It probably should be re-iterated that U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States -cannot- own property in this country, they can only rent it (and pay ground rent in the form of "use tax/property tax" in so doing).
Americans are Americans, United Statesians are United Statesians. Until and unless you correct the presumption that you are the latter, you cannot claim to be the former.
I am not arguing that they are not using sleight of hand.
That is the root of all of this. They are stealing people from the Land of their birth, telling them that they are "Employees" ("Citizens") before they can even speak yay or nay, and then taxing what they make as if it is "Federally Connected."
Fee simple has worked just fine in the several cases I have assisted with. The key, as I have been saying, is ensuring you have correct status and standing. And I never "argue" anything in court. That is for fools, and inevitably leads to a bad outcome.
Courts of limited jurisdiction usually involve a Status Hearing, and immediate dismissal. This ain't my first rodeo, and the last line made me smile.
U.S. Citizens absolutely owe property taxes, since -they are here as temporary residents only.- Alloidal -Title- is a grant of nobility (all "Titles" are). Americans cannot accept foreign Titles, as it compromises their status. We hold our land rent-free because it belongs to us.
I realize you don't know me, but I am not bringing this up in a "theoretical" mode, but from direct experience. As always, given freely, yours to do with as you choose. If what you are advocating/doing works, then more's the better.
Not sure if you are directing this at me. If so, then no, they won't "take my shit."
I am not a taxpayer, and never have been. I have never lived nor worked in "United States" or a U.S. flagged ship or aircraft. I do not hold a "public office" within DC.
If the "Zimbabwean Revenue Service" knocked on your door, and insisted you owed back taxes to Zimbabwe, would you cower and cringe? Or laugh and tell them to get lost? For the same reason, unless you were born in DC, or hold a Federally-connected job as a US Citizen, why would you care if a utterly foreign, non-governmental collection agency came to your door making wild demands and threats?
You have it backwards. The "IRS" has no enforcement authority outside of its extremely limited and explicitly defined sandbox, which is DC. The "Internal Revenue Service," which is the Territorial simulacrum, has similar limitations, and has no authority outside of Puerto Rico and the other "Insular States" of the British United States of America.
As I demonstrated clearly above, the -only- entities required to pay tax on their Federal Income are:
1. Those performing the functions of a public office
and
2. Living in DC
That's it. If you are being shaken down and threatened by an Internal department of a foreign government, I would suggest working backwards from the end result: what have you done (or not done) to allow them to presume you are engaged in either of the points above? Once you do that, it should be simple to work backwards and unravel the thread.
Instead of haring off in the wrong direction (insisting that an excise is a direct tax, or that some corporate bylaw was "not ratified by the states,") or other such demonstrably specious nonsense, face the fact that it likely was deliberate fraud and obfuscation, coupled with honest ignorance, that lead to being in a less than pleasant situation.
"Enforcement" is already taking place, but again, only American People can enforce the service contracts. Employees (U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States both) are employees, and are therefore not able to unilaterally alter the terms of their service. And trying to do so will amount to so much farting in the wind.
I'm beginning to realize that "2nd Smartest Guy in the World" was probably a self-appointed title.
"State of Nevada: is not the same as "Nevada."
Words mean things.
Listen to the words you are speaking. "Grant." As in "bestow." If you are not the naked owner, and rely on something that can be "granted" by someone else, then you -still don't actually possess the land.-
Nevada, one of the several union states, does not "grant" alloidal title. I know and speak to their Government on a regular basis, so I would know.
I suppose I shall leave you to hashing over old, deprecated arguments, and I will go back to restoring the Lawful government and actually helping people.
Oh, by the way, ask Wesley Snipes how "arguing the 16th Amendment" actually worked out for him.
Or Irwin Schiff, who died chained to his bed in prison.
I think the disconnect is that you are hellbent on remaining a Queensman, and that is fine. But good luck fighting an uphill battle.
I and your employers, actual Americans, will continue moving forward. Hopefully someday you can pull the scales from your eyes. But certainly won't try to force you to leave a sinking ship.
Well, then they get asked to produce their Public Official Bond, and their $5 mil Indemnity bond, and their evidence that I am a citizen of the United States (hint: they can't). And I get to watch them roostertail out of the driveway as fast as their little legs can carry them. 100 IQ they may be, but those questions always seem to put them into a cold sweat.
But let's turn it around. What would -you- do, "big guy?"
Agreed. I was just suggesting this 80 billion (already being printed) be reallocated. However, you are right - better just not to print, and not to spend.
They must plan on hiring the illegals coming in from our southern border to be the enforcers as nobody can find enough human help these days. The IRS will arm all these young men and have them knock on our doors.
That 80 billion will be all spent on pork . The IRS doesn’t pay shite unless your upper level management. Clerks were quitting left and right at the IRS to work at McDonald’s and Walmart instead because they were only getting 12 to 14 bucks an hour! What a joke huh!
And taxes without representation - which we do not have - or accountability via audits are unconstitutional.
We do get to pretend like we have elections, though.
That is for sure Kathleen. We instead have active harm by "representatives" as they
try to outdo each other with virtue signaling to higher powers. These peeps want a
seat at the power table/arena.
Yup. Time to throw the bums out. Don't fund em, don't vote for them, go around them.
In the meanwhile, "debts" to the Fed are secured; the collateral, according to such contracts, is "all citizens' work, limbs, and assets."
By the way, all Americans with a business can use offshore accounts, too, that simply deduct a minor fixed amount for the IRS from the proceedings.
Don’t forget these IRS people can be heavily armed.
https://marketrealist.com/p/is-the-irs-buying-ammunition/
I’m thinking we’re going to find out the hard way at some point why the state put all that money into arming tax collectors.
The IRS is not reachable. Customer service is pathetic. I have never seen anything like it. My congressman is impotent in getting me help from them
600.00 purchases cause an audit for underground economy
Another $80 billion to help us with our “voluntary” “gift” to the Fed Reserve to apply towards “our” interest owed on “our” debt generously caused by our elected selfish, serf serving politicians and the Fed Reserve printing press. Thanks, Biden for your thoughtful ness. Always there when needed, and can spare a little time from sending hundreds of billions (the printing press again running up “our” debt) for Ukraine.
Taxes on Federally-Connected income are -not direct taxes.-
This is a Red Herring and specious argument.
They are excises on a particular voluntary behavior. I.e. performing the functions of a Federally-connected office. It's right there in black and white: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
If you are not:
1. A Federal Civil Service employee or that of any of the "State of State," "County of County," or "City of City" Federal franchise corporations or a dependent of someone who is
2. A member of the foreign services ("US Armed Forces) or a dependent of someone who is
3. A welfare recipient
4. A corporation
or
5. A refugee or asylum seeker
Then you don't have Federal income, and you can't pay taxes on it! And in fact, to do so is a crime!
The issue remains, however, that most people claim to be in one of these statuses, even if they aren't. That's where the trouble arises, since they are guilty under 18 USC 911 and 912 ("falsely claiming to be a US Citizen or US officer" respectively).
In fact, anyone reading 26 USC 7701 should immediately notice a bunch of massive red flags. For instance, getting "legally married" creates a "Domestic Partnership" (an Incorporated Joint Venture domiciled in the District of Columbia, since "domestic" means "within the District of Columbia").
A "Person" is explicitly defined as only variations of corporations ("individual" is a type of corporation, not a living man or woman).
A "withholding agent" is a government employee. So the big hook is, if you are acting as a withholding agent by filling out the "1040 Bond" Form for Federal Individuals (1040 Federal Individual Tax Form), you -are- claiming to be a "US Officer!" Automatic violation of 18 USC 912!
#20 is hilarious, they assidiously avoid providing the definition (it is a bunch of equivocation about -what insurance and employee is eligible for, but doesn't answer the damn question!), but we can find it elsewhere: the definition of "employee" in the "US Code" is -A Government Worker!-
See for yourselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2105
The big one, though, is #26, "Definition of a Trade or Business" (which is associated with "income," only those engaged in a "Trade or Business" within "United States" are assumed to have "taxable income.")
The definition is: "The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office."
Oh, and the "special definition" of "includes" is provided as well, lest you think it is the same as the "English dictionary definition:"
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Translation from legalese: includes means "only things that are virtually the same, excluding everything else."
Ok, so Trade or Business means "functions of a public office, and all things similar to a public office."
A car mechanic isn't a public office. A plumber is not a public office.
So, if you can prove that you aren't holding a public office, are not a "US Citizen" or a "citizen of the United States," then you can politely tell the IRS to pound sand.
Direct is only specious if you consider the Framers and Constitution specious.
And yes, the way the Framers envisioned the collection of States was that each on is its own sovereign nation, with the freedom to move between said nations.
Again, a direct tax is something that hits everyone. It must be apportioned.
Calling an excise on a particular, voluntary, and very limited behavior a direct tax ***is specious.***
That is simple logic, and the Framers knew the difference between an apportioned direct tax on everyone living within a physically-defined state, and an excise on the performance of a public office (which is voluntary, and only applies to perhaps 3-5% of the population).
If there was such a thing as a "tax on private earnings" in this country that was enforced as a direct tax, you would simply get a bill in the mail at the beginning of the year. This would be -massively- illegal, and would be immediately struck down.
We don't have that.
No such thing exists, although the moronic "flat tax" idiots are trying their best to get it pushed through. Ahhh what irony that would be, bringing about that which they were complaining about in the first place.
The current "tax on federal income" is perfectly lawful, and was originally put into place to ensure those that had cushy government jobs paid a portion of their wages back to their employer to help pay for their administration.
The "16th bylaw" of the corporate charter known as "the Constitution of the United States of America, Inc." is also perfectly legal and lawful. It keeps the weasels in office from hiding wealth from taxation. It was a clarification of the 1863 Revenue Act, and created no new powers of taxation. It certainly did not extend the authority of the IRS to include taxing of those that were not eligible to be taxpayers.
The issue is, as I have tried to make clear, is that the vast majority of Americans allowed their erstwhile employees to "redefine" them into a second or third class status known as "U.S. Citizen" or "citizen of the United States." These are "foreign" statuses with respect to our birthright. It is the same thing as if you were born a Frenchman, and a pencil-pusher got your mother to sign a document declaring you a Turk.
That's the part that is not only illegal and unlawful, but involves capital-level crimes. Human traficking, personation, kidnapping.
Again, this matter requires focusing on the -actual- problem, which is out of control employees that have been unchecked in the rapacious fraud for 160 years. Not being distracted.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The crucial problem under Clause 4 is to distinguish direct from other taxes. In its opinion in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., the Court declared: It is apparent . . . that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. Against this confident dictum may be set the following brief excerpt from Madison’s Notes on the Convention: Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered. The first case to come before the Court on this issue was Hylton v. United States, which was decided early in 1796. Congress has levied, according to the rule of uniformity, a specific tax upon all carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which were to be kept by, or for any person, for his own use, or to be let out for hire, or for the conveying of passengers. In a fictitious statement of facts, it was stipulated that the carriages involved in the case were kept exclusively for the personal use of the owner and not for hire. The principal argument for the constitutionality of the measure was made by Hamilton, who treated it as an excise tax, whereas Madison, both on the floor of Congress and in correspondence, attacked it as direct and therefore void, because it was levied without apportionment. The Court, taking the position that the direct tax clause constituted in practical operation an exception to the general taxing powers of Congress, held that no tax ought to be classified as direct that could not be conveniently apportioned, and on this basis sustained the tax on carriages as one on their use and therefore an excise. Moreover, each of the judges advanced the opinion that the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that, at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the states, especially if an assessment should intervene, while Justice Paterson, who had been a member of the Federal Convention, testified to his recollection that the principal purpose of the provision had been to allay the fear of the Southern states that their slaves and land should be subjected to a specific tax.
Of course, Founders wanted We the People to have ALLODIAL TITLE to our property.
Oh well.
There is a reason why direct and un-apportioned are grouped together.
Yes, I am familiar with all three Constitutions. Intimately.
What I think you may not be grasping is that the IRS does not levy direct or un-apportioned taxes. They can't. They have to operate according to their own rules. And they do, assidiously.
They administer the -Internal- Revenue of the DC City State. It is extra-territorial to The United States and The United States of America.
Their authority does not extend outside DC, as per 26 USC 7701. Unless they are collecting excise from their employees functioning as "residents" in our Country (The United States of America and the 50 states, which they have nothing to say about).
The Tax on Federal Income is an excise. It is voluntary. Several IRS Commissioners have, on record, attested to that fact. It is voluntary because people are voluntarily accepting foreign statuses "gifted" to them.
It's why you fill out the 1040 form yourself. It is your choice, and you are assumed to know if you need to do it.
"We" (Americans) are supposed to have Fee-Simple grants to our soil, not alloidal "Title" (which is a grant from the Queen). It probably should be re-iterated that U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States -cannot- own property in this country, they can only rent it (and pay ground rent in the form of "use tax/property tax" in so doing).
Americans are Americans, United Statesians are United Statesians. Until and unless you correct the presumption that you are the latter, you cannot claim to be the former.
Re what IRS levies not being direct and un-apportioned is implicit as per my article re: color of law voluntary gifting sleight of hand.
You are wrong on allodial as Framers defined it since clearly they were anti-queen etc.
fee simple absolute does not protect us against property taxes which are illegal.
anyhow, good luck arguing any of this in court.
I am not arguing that they are not using sleight of hand.
That is the root of all of this. They are stealing people from the Land of their birth, telling them that they are "Employees" ("Citizens") before they can even speak yay or nay, and then taxing what they make as if it is "Federally Connected."
Fee simple has worked just fine in the several cases I have assisted with. The key, as I have been saying, is ensuring you have correct status and standing. And I never "argue" anything in court. That is for fools, and inevitably leads to a bad outcome.
Courts of limited jurisdiction usually involve a Status Hearing, and immediate dismissal. This ain't my first rodeo, and the last line made me smile.
U.S. Citizens absolutely owe property taxes, since -they are here as temporary residents only.- Alloidal -Title- is a grant of nobility (all "Titles" are). Americans cannot accept foreign Titles, as it compromises their status. We hold our land rent-free because it belongs to us.
I realize you don't know me, but I am not bringing this up in a "theoretical" mode, but from direct experience. As always, given freely, yours to do with as you choose. If what you are advocating/doing works, then more's the better.
Not sure if you are directing this at me. If so, then no, they won't "take my shit."
I am not a taxpayer, and never have been. I have never lived nor worked in "United States" or a U.S. flagged ship or aircraft. I do not hold a "public office" within DC.
If the "Zimbabwean Revenue Service" knocked on your door, and insisted you owed back taxes to Zimbabwe, would you cower and cringe? Or laugh and tell them to get lost? For the same reason, unless you were born in DC, or hold a Federally-connected job as a US Citizen, why would you care if a utterly foreign, non-governmental collection agency came to your door making wild demands and threats?
You have it backwards. The "IRS" has no enforcement authority outside of its extremely limited and explicitly defined sandbox, which is DC. The "Internal Revenue Service," which is the Territorial simulacrum, has similar limitations, and has no authority outside of Puerto Rico and the other "Insular States" of the British United States of America.
As I demonstrated clearly above, the -only- entities required to pay tax on their Federal Income are:
1. Those performing the functions of a public office
and
2. Living in DC
That's it. If you are being shaken down and threatened by an Internal department of a foreign government, I would suggest working backwards from the end result: what have you done (or not done) to allow them to presume you are engaged in either of the points above? Once you do that, it should be simple to work backwards and unravel the thread.
Instead of haring off in the wrong direction (insisting that an excise is a direct tax, or that some corporate bylaw was "not ratified by the states,") or other such demonstrably specious nonsense, face the fact that it likely was deliberate fraud and obfuscation, coupled with honest ignorance, that lead to being in a less than pleasant situation.
"Enforcement" is already taking place, but again, only American People can enforce the service contracts. Employees (U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States both) are employees, and are therefore not able to unilaterally alter the terms of their service. And trying to do so will amount to so much farting in the wind.
The Big Guy didn't even know that Nevada grants Allodial Title to property owners.
Maybe the Queen secretly lives in that state after all.....
I'm beginning to realize that "2nd Smartest Guy in the World" was probably a self-appointed title.
"State of Nevada: is not the same as "Nevada."
Words mean things.
Listen to the words you are speaking. "Grant." As in "bestow." If you are not the naked owner, and rely on something that can be "granted" by someone else, then you -still don't actually possess the land.-
Nevada, one of the several union states, does not "grant" alloidal title. I know and speak to their Government on a regular basis, so I would know.
I suppose I shall leave you to hashing over old, deprecated arguments, and I will go back to restoring the Lawful government and actually helping people.
Oh, by the way, ask Wesley Snipes how "arguing the 16th Amendment" actually worked out for him.
Or Irwin Schiff, who died chained to his bed in prison.
I think the disconnect is that you are hellbent on remaining a Queensman, and that is fine. But good luck fighting an uphill battle.
I and your employers, actual Americans, will continue moving forward. Hopefully someday you can pull the scales from your eyes. But certainly won't try to force you to leave a sinking ship.
Well, then they get asked to produce their Public Official Bond, and their $5 mil Indemnity bond, and their evidence that I am a citizen of the United States (hint: they can't). And I get to watch them roostertail out of the driveway as fast as their little legs can carry them. 100 IQ they may be, but those questions always seem to put them into a cold sweat.
But let's turn it around. What would -you- do, "big guy?"
Please reference and cite these court cases of yours.
You will 100% have some excuse and be unable to.
If you can't cite a single case that you claimed to have been involved with, please refrain from commenting any further.
Thank you in advance.
Well, go ask your State Assembly coordinator if you are an American.
If not, I don't have any obligation to share such information with a foreign service employee.
But I realize your request is the typical gamma midwit demand. As Vox Day would say "go find it yourself."
Hey, thanks bud!
Glad to know I made such an impression on ya. But tone down the worship, it's a little embarrassing...
Wow!! 80 billion. Could be used for inflation relief!!! But that isn't of interest to the government which is behind the current mess.
Agreed. I was just suggesting this 80 billion (already being printed) be reallocated. However, you are right - better just not to print, and not to spend.
Hello,
The 80 billion is a bribe to power brokers to hustle votes/voting schemes
for Nov. 22. IMHO, maybe it is to feed starving babies in Africa?
They must plan on hiring the illegals coming in from our southern border to be the enforcers as nobody can find enough human help these days. The IRS will arm all these young men and have them knock on our doors.
That 80 billion will be all spent on pork . The IRS doesn’t pay shite unless your upper level management. Clerks were quitting left and right at the IRS to work at McDonald’s and Walmart instead because they were only getting 12 to 14 bucks an hour! What a joke huh!
I mean… somebody’s gotta work what with all the “this isn’t a recession, it’s job shrinkage” going on.
Anecdotal claims abound. Verified legal cases are exceedingly rare.
No one to date has been smart enough to figure that out.
Updated this post.
Nonsense, you are documented on the net, curriculum vitae, pictures and all.
I looked to check if you were a good guy. Deemed you so, and decided to
participate. The details? I didn't even file it in my brain. There is too much in
there as it is, and my memory is limited with age. I am all about Mark Twain and
his theory. I cannot fathom how prolific you are, do you have a staff?
Absolutely.
The IRS is a politicized corporation that goes after "enemies".
Remember when Lois Learner committed felonies going after the Tea Party? Those crimes just got worse and worse.