Are you a Citizen of one of the states united as America with unalienable rights granted by the creator or you a 14th amendment corporate UNITED STATES citizen with only government granted privileges deceptively called civil rights ? Big "C" -- Little "c" When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital "C"). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small "c"), the 14th Amendment citizen. In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true. There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, agrees with the distinction between these different classes of (C)itizenship: There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV it states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words "citizens, privileges, immunities" are not the same as in Article IV. The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in 1849; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever. The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States. The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term "Citizen of the United States" in Article I, Section 2, (capital "C"), and numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV. Congress utilized the same term "citizen of the United States" qualifying it with a small "c" to distinguish "federal citizen" in the so-called 14th Amendment. These "citizens" have only statutory rights granted by Congress. Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal "citizens" who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State. The statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Stanford, 19 How. 393, 422, in defining the term "persons" the Judge stated: ...persons who are not recognized as Citizens." See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, which also distinguishes "persons" and "Citizens." These were the persons that were the object of the 14th Amendment, to give to this class of native born "persons" who were "resident" in the union of the United States citizenship, and authority to place other than the white race within the special category of "citizen of the United States." To overcome the statement in Dred Scott, supra, that only white people were Citizens, and all other persons were only "residents" without citizenship of the United States, Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat 27. The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. At Large, pg. , which was the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress: All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color... shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,... (Again, note the lack of capitalization) This was the intent of Congress; not to infringe upon the Constitution or the state of the de jure Citizens of the several states. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to subvert the States' authority or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status of the de jure State Citizens. People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869) over ruled on other grounds; French v. Barber, 181 US 324; MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L Ed 297 At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into shock as they grab for the Constitution to check out the phrase and "question" of the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair. It would seen then, from the foregoing, that there are two "classes" of citizens in this country: 1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit. 2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of "limited" citizenship.
@@weytogoman Oh boy, what a wall of text. Well, this might take a bit, but I'll tackle every one of your delusions. The spelling of the word "citizen" is completely irrelevant. Jordan v. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123 (1928) is a court case concerning the legal rights of Japanese immigrants in the US to own land. The ruling affirmed the immigrants' right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, regardless of their country of origin. It had nothing to do with "Big C, little c citizenship." The fact that the 14th amendment didn't use capitalised letters for "citizen" is of no consequence as they are the same word. You use capital letters at the start of sentences, and for pronouns. They can also be used in titles. The Constitution of the United States was created in 1787. The 14th amendment was created in 1868, 81 years later. They drafting process had simply changed to no longer use unnecessary capital letters. The constitution never should have capitalised it, one, because it's wrong, and two, to avoid nutcases like you thinking it somehow gives you the power to reject the law. I will not be entertaining the idea that capitalisation changes the word. I mean, what if they were referring to little c, but it was at the start of a sentence, then it would have to be big C, oh wait, the capital letter doesn't change it, it's simply a grammatical convention. It's like saying punctuation marks literally change the word. They simple make it easier to read. As for Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), this was a U.S Supreme Court case that held that those of African American descent were not citizens and therefore not granted the same PROTECTIONS as citizens. It did NOT hold that they are immune to the law for that reason. That would make the ruling a moot point wouldn't it? As for The American Insurance Company et al. v. Canter 26 U.S. 511 (1828), that case had nothing to do with "persons" v "citizens." Instead, it has to do with citizens of territories claimed by the U.S becoming citizens, and the jurisdiction of the courts of Florida. As for People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869), that case simply found that the Civil Rights Bill did not confer political rights on citizens, it only established their status as citizens. As for French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 324 (1901), that was a case on tax lol, not citizenship. And finally, for MacKenzie v. Hare, 165 Cal. 776 (Cal. 1913), that was a case on whether a woman marrying an alien, a British man, causes her to lose U.S citizenship, and therefore the right to vote. It has nothing to do with some super secret class of citizen that does not have to follow laws. Yeah, good thing you cautioned people to hold onto their seats, because the sheer stupidity of your claims nearly caused me, and other, to fall off their chair. You are a sad, sad little man. I feel sorry for you, you clearly have some sort of mental problem, or you are totally alone in the world and turn to these sovcits as a place to feel at home. You can better yourself man, you don't need to be an idiot.
Are you sure you want to enter that rabbit hole ? Start by forgetting everything you think you know .... Then watch these, Joe Banister th-cam.com/video/GKePl2gW_3M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=LVjP7zbfTLheLM4v th-cam.com/video/2pBKHi4kxqQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=SjqCCKJw1SyN3lX4 Income taxes are illegal part 2 th-cam.com/video/dzYOYYBHD2c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zrm_yPQkDCnvYQfM th-cam.com/video/1UCcW0RoNdc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WME_dpHrGRxf9MNn
By propaganda, misleading information and seditious syntax, government has gotten nearly everyone in the 50 States of the Union to use ZIP modes of address, and that creates a PRESUMPTION or a PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION that one is in such a Federal venue, or that one is such a government agent. In general, it is well settled in law that Income Tax Statutes apply only to corporations and to their officers, agents, and employees acting in their official capacities, e.g. from Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L.Ed.2d 1, 95 S.Ct. 1538 (1975): "... However, all 'income tax statutes' apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal." Since corporations act only through their officers, employees, etc., the income tax statutes reach out to them when acting in their official capacities, but not as individuals. This is the real purpose for Identifying Numbers -- cf. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) & (g) and 26 USC 6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4. Use of a ZIP Code address is tantamount to the admission of being a "citizen of the United States" who does not necessarily have the protections of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) when proceeded against by Federal or State authority -- Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S.Ct. 448 It used to be very difficult to find laws enacted by Congress; but now, with the advent of the internet, all of us can find the copy of any law to read for ourselves at our fingertips on our personal computers or smart phones. As a result, I have done my due diligence and have read tax laws for myself, especially tax laws at the website of the US House of Representatives. I looked up several sections of Tile 26 of the United States Code (otherwise known as the IRS Code). IRS Code Section 7701, defines many terms that to a common person, like me, needs no defining: Terms like “Person”, “Domestic”, “Stock”, “United States”, “State” as well as some uncommon words or definitions like “International organization”, “Domestic building and loan association”, “United States person” or “cooperative bank”. I also found in IRS Code Section 7701(a)(16), the definition of Withholding Agent - The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.” I found these 4 Code sections here: (Sorry, I had to remove links or YT would delete the comment but Google the IRS code) Naturally I looked up and read code sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461 as well to see if I, as an American citizen am subject to the Federal Income Tax withholding. To my amazement, I found that these four sections are about “nonresident alien individual”, “foreign partnership”, “foreign corporations”, “foreign tax exempt organizations”, NOT American citizens, such as myself. I also looked up IRS Code Section 61, from which taxable income is derived from in IRS Code Section 63. I found these two sections at: Section 61: US CODE (yep censored again) I was shocked again. In Section 61 it lists eighteen different items as “Gross Income,” such as minor things, such as fees, dividends, royalties and fringe benefits, but glaringly absent is wages or salaries.
And when you get called : THE IRS: TITLE 15 IS THEIR ACHILLES HEEL (Proof of Validation of Debt) Title 15 relates to “verified assessment”, in other words the collector must provide proof to validate the debt and any case involving debt must be held in the judicial district court. The concept is that the evil ones have circumvented the Constitution and use their law, Title 26, as a way to confuse their victims. Tax law does not apply since the IRS is strictly a debt collection agency, thusly they are required to follow Title 15. The IRS has no way to verify the debt even if they can verify taxes. W-2’s and 1099’s are only evidence that some one has paid something, not that someone owes something. After reading all of Title 15 Chapter 41 Sub V section 1692 I can see his point is valid. Knowing that IRS is by corporate charter and their own admission a debt collection agency this all seems to make sense. I have started using this information in my own situation and will keep the group informed on the situation. This man told me he sent one letter, received a very uninformative denial response and sent a response to that response. This was done during his trial. He has not heard anything since, which was over a year ago. His case was terminated with no decision. I looked it up and the court just says CLOSED AND SEALED. I have not seen a case terminated this way. Conclusion: Once again it seems the evil one’s primary strategy is to get us to fight the wrong battle. Although Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is just a collection agency and thereby is required to follow Title 15. If we don’t force them to verify the debt then we are agreeing the “bill” is valid. This, to me, is no different than the court tricking us into fighting an accusation when we should be fighting a charge. Never enter into controversy by arguing the issues presented by the IRS . . . no controversy created or offered on your part, no cause to move forward. As long as you are seeking discovery, as the above provides specifically, there is no controversy . . . and if they can’t honorably answer your inquiry, the matter is closed.
May you never have a crackhead try to rob you and tell you that you are about to die. I'll bet he hasn't tried it again. And what you watched was me proving I can defend myself in court and win ... Can you ?
@@weytogomanIf that's what really happened (crackhead trying to rob you), then I hope the judge and DA weren't pushing too hard to punish you, and that it was an easy case to win. But you never know, with courts.
@@GizzyDillespee threatened 40 - life, deal was 5 years intensive probation, 10 years regular probation, a healthy fine, couple months of community service (they had my attention until I heard), restitution of his hospital bills. Nope, I said he told me he was going to kill me so he can pay his own damn bills ... Put me in front of a jury. 2 weeks later I got a letter of dismissal.
@@weytogomanDid they send the letter of dismissal sua sponte or did you need to force their hand? They have just gone silent on me and will not provide paperwork since I reported them for mail fraud.
@@Christophereal337 they flat out dropped it ! Took'em 2 years to call me up and by then I had gotten several affidavits from friends stating he had planned on jumping on me.
Why didn't you just tell the court that you're an American state citizen and therefore immune to all laws? Oh wait, because that's not a thing🤣🤣🤣
Are you a Citizen of one of the states united as America with unalienable rights granted by the creator or you a 14th amendment corporate UNITED STATES citizen with only government granted privileges deceptively called civil rights ?
Big "C" -- Little "c"
When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital "C"). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small "c"), the 14th Amendment citizen.
In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true.
There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S.
citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the
Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, agrees with the distinction between these different classes of (C)itizenship:
There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV
it states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words "citizens, privileges, immunities" are not the same as in Article IV.
The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in
1849; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the
original States in all respects whatsoever.
The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States.
The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term "Citizen of the United States" in Article I, Section 2, (capital "C"), and
numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV.
Congress utilized the same term "citizen of the United States" qualifying it with a small "c" to distinguish "federal citizen" in the so-called 14th Amendment. These "citizens" have only statutory rights granted by Congress.
Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal "citizens" who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State.
The statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Stanford, 19 How. 393, 422, in defining the term "persons" the Judge stated:
...persons who are not recognized as Citizens." See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, which also distinguishes "persons" and "Citizens." These were the persons that were the object of the 14th Amendment, to give to this class of native born "persons" who were "resident" in the union of the United States citizenship, and authority to place other than the white race within the special category of "citizen of the United States."
To overcome the statement in Dred Scott, supra, that only white people were Citizens, and all other persons were only "residents" without citizenship of the United States, Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat
27.
The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. At Large, pg.
, which was the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of
Congress:
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States, and such citizens of every race and color... shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,...
(Again, note the lack of capitalization)
This was the intent of Congress; not to infringe upon the Constitution or the state of the de jure Citizens of the several states. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to subvert the States' authority or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status of the de jure State Citizens. People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869) over ruled on other grounds; French v. Barber, 181 US 324; MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L Ed 297
At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into
shock as they grab for the Constitution to check out the phrase and "question" of the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4
of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.
It would seen then, from the foregoing, that there are two "classes" of citizens in this country:
1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the
Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United
States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.
2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born
or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of "limited" citizenship.
@@weytogoman Oh boy, what a wall of text. Well, this might take a bit, but I'll tackle every one of your delusions.
The spelling of the word "citizen" is completely irrelevant.
Jordan v. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123 (1928) is a court case concerning the legal rights of Japanese immigrants in the US to own land. The ruling affirmed the immigrants' right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, regardless of their country of origin. It had nothing to do with "Big C, little c citizenship."
The fact that the 14th amendment didn't use capitalised letters for "citizen" is of no consequence as they are the same word. You use capital letters at the start of sentences, and for pronouns. They can also be used in titles. The Constitution of the United States was created in 1787. The 14th amendment was created in 1868, 81 years later. They drafting process had simply changed to no longer use unnecessary capital letters. The constitution never should have capitalised it, one, because it's wrong, and two, to avoid nutcases like you thinking it somehow gives you the power to reject the law. I will not be entertaining the idea that capitalisation changes the word. I mean, what if they were referring to little c, but it was at the start of a sentence, then it would have to be big C, oh wait, the capital letter doesn't change it, it's simply a grammatical convention. It's like saying punctuation marks literally change the word. They simple make it easier to read.
As for Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), this was a U.S Supreme Court case that held that those of African American descent were not citizens and therefore not granted the same PROTECTIONS as citizens. It did NOT hold that they are immune to the law for that reason. That would make the ruling a moot point wouldn't it?
As for The American Insurance Company et al. v. Canter 26 U.S. 511 (1828), that case had nothing to do with "persons" v "citizens." Instead, it has to do with citizens of territories claimed by the U.S becoming citizens, and the jurisdiction of the courts of Florida.
As for People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869), that case simply found that the Civil Rights Bill did not confer political rights on citizens, it only established their status as citizens.
As for French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 324 (1901), that was a case on tax lol, not citizenship.
And finally, for MacKenzie v. Hare, 165 Cal. 776 (Cal. 1913), that was a case on whether a woman marrying an alien, a British man, causes her to lose U.S citizenship, and therefore the right to vote. It has nothing to do with some super secret class of citizen that does not have to follow laws.
Yeah, good thing you cautioned people to hold onto their seats, because the sheer stupidity of your claims nearly caused me, and other, to fall off their chair. You are a sad, sad little man. I feel sorry for you, you clearly have some sort of mental problem, or you are totally alone in the world and turn to these sovcits as a place to feel at home. You can better yourself man, you don't need to be an idiot.
@@Jonesy1701 They call themselves “Sovereign Citizens “ and they are all a few french fries short of a Happy Meal!
@@sandyaw3057just scream how clueless you are.
Hey man, saw your comment about federal taxes on a video. How do I stop paying and opt out of federal taxes? I’m sick of Sam taking what is mine.
Are you sure you want to enter that rabbit hole ?
Start by forgetting everything you think you know ....
Then watch these,
Joe Banister
th-cam.com/video/GKePl2gW_3M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=LVjP7zbfTLheLM4v
th-cam.com/video/2pBKHi4kxqQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=SjqCCKJw1SyN3lX4
Income taxes are illegal part 2
th-cam.com/video/dzYOYYBHD2c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zrm_yPQkDCnvYQfM
th-cam.com/video/1UCcW0RoNdc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WME_dpHrGRxf9MNn
By propaganda, misleading information and seditious
syntax, government has gotten nearly everyone in the 50 States of
the Union to use ZIP modes of address, and that creates a
PRESUMPTION or a PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION that one is in such a Federal venue, or that one is such a government agent.
In general, it is well settled in law that Income Tax
Statutes apply only to corporations and to their officers, agents, and employees acting in their official capacities, e.g.
from Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L.Ed.2d
1, 95 S.Ct. 1538 (1975): "... However, all 'income tax statutes'
apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal." Since corporations act
only through their officers, employees, etc., the income tax
statutes reach out to them when acting in their official
capacities, but not as individuals. This is the real purpose for
Identifying Numbers -- cf. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) & (g) and 26 USC
6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4.
Use of a ZIP Code address is tantamount to the admission of
being a "citizen of the United States" who does not necessarily
have the protections of the first eight Amendments to the
Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) when proceeded against by
Federal or State authority -- Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20
S.Ct. 448
It used to be very difficult to find laws enacted by Congress; but now, with the advent of the internet, all of us can find the copy of any law to read for ourselves at our fingertips on our personal computers or smart phones. As a result, I have done my due diligence and have read tax laws for myself, especially tax laws at the website of the US House of Representatives.
I looked up several sections of Tile 26 of the United States Code (otherwise known as the IRS Code).
IRS Code Section 7701, defines many terms that to a common person, like me, needs no defining: Terms like “Person”, “Domestic”, “Stock”, “United States”, “State” as well as some uncommon words or definitions like “International organization”, “Domestic building and loan association”, “United States person” or “cooperative bank”.
I also found in IRS Code Section 7701(a)(16), the definition of Withholding Agent - The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.”
I found these 4 Code sections here:
(Sorry, I had to remove links or YT would delete the comment but Google the IRS code)
Naturally I looked up and read code sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461 as well to see if I, as an American citizen am subject to the Federal Income Tax withholding. To my amazement, I found that these four sections are about “nonresident alien individual”, “foreign partnership”, “foreign corporations”, “foreign tax exempt organizations”, NOT American citizens, such as myself.
I also looked up IRS Code Section 61, from which taxable income is derived from in IRS Code Section 63. I found these two sections at:
Section 61: US CODE (yep censored again)
I was shocked again. In Section 61 it lists eighteen different items as “Gross Income,” such as minor things, such as fees, dividends, royalties and fringe benefits, but glaringly absent is wages or salaries.
And when you get called :
THE IRS: TITLE 15 IS THEIR ACHILLES HEEL
(Proof of Validation of Debt)
Title 15 relates to “verified assessment”, in other words the collector must provide proof to validate the debt and any case involving debt must be held in the judicial district court. The concept is that the evil ones have circumvented the Constitution and use their law, Title 26, as a way to confuse their victims. Tax law does not apply since the IRS is strictly a debt collection agency, thusly they are required to follow Title 15. The IRS has no way to verify the debt even if they can verify taxes. W-2’s and 1099’s are only evidence that some one has paid something, not that someone owes something.
After reading all of Title 15 Chapter 41 Sub V section 1692 I can see his point is valid. Knowing that IRS is by corporate charter and their own admission a debt collection agency this all seems to make sense. I have started using this information in my own situation and will keep the group informed on the situation. This man told me he sent one letter, received a very uninformative denial response and sent a response to that response. This was done during his trial. He has not heard anything since, which was over a year ago. His case was terminated with no decision. I looked it up and the court just says CLOSED AND SEALED. I have not seen a case terminated this way.
Conclusion: Once again it seems the evil one’s primary strategy is to get us to fight the wrong battle. Although Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is just a collection agency and thereby is required to follow Title 15. If we don’t force them to verify the debt then we are agreeing the “bill” is valid. This, to me, is no different than the court tricking us into fighting an accusation when we should be fighting a charge.
Never enter into controversy by arguing the issues presented by the IRS . . . no controversy created or offered on your part, no cause to move forward. As long as you are seeking discovery, as the above provides specifically, there is no controversy . . . and if they can’t honorably answer your inquiry, the matter is closed.
What the actual fuck did I just watch, Lol. This is obviously a different dimension, anyone know the way back to, ...anything, besides this?
May you never have a crackhead try to rob you and tell you that you are about to die.
I'll bet he hasn't tried it again.
And what you watched was me proving I can defend myself in court and win ...
Can you ?
@@weytogomanIf that's what really happened (crackhead trying to rob you), then I hope the judge and DA weren't pushing too hard to punish you, and that it was an easy case to win. But you never know, with courts.
@@GizzyDillespee threatened 40 - life, deal was 5 years intensive probation, 10 years regular probation, a healthy fine, couple months of community service (they had my attention until I heard), restitution of his hospital bills. Nope, I said he told me he was going to kill me so he can pay his own damn bills ... Put me in front of a jury.
2 weeks later I got a letter of dismissal.
@@weytogomanDid they send the letter of dismissal sua sponte or did you need to force their hand? They have just gone silent on me and will not provide paperwork since I reported them for mail fraud.
@@Christophereal337 they flat out dropped it !
Took'em 2 years to call me up and by then I had gotten several affidavits from friends stating he had planned on jumping on me.
Hope you didn't beat your husband too hard
Ease on by and give it yo best shot, you might get lucky as I'm 31 years older and my health is getting bad.