TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 outlines a stance of widespread tax resistance among Americans who deem the government corrupt and unrepresentative. He states, “there were so many people, mostly American patriots, who said, I don't care what the consequences are. I will not continue to pay taxes to a corrupt government that doesn't represent me.” He claims the IRS is already down “25% from last year.” He then criticizes those who have “never worked a day in their life but yet wanna make rules for the rest of us,” arguing they “overdo themselves and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” He describes consequences of the government’s actions as not only crashing the economy but creating a scenario where people “have a choice” between basic needs and paying taxes: “Keep a roof over your family's head or pay taxes. Feed your children or pay taxes. Live a little bit like a fucking human being or pay your fucking taxes.” He asserts that many will be unable to pay taxes this year, and those who “just up and decide fuck them and file exempt on their fucking forms” will “totally overwhelm the IRS,” including “those 80,000 gun toting Nazi motherfuckers who have been harassing us for years.” The message implies a public record of asking the IRS for the law that states a wage earner must pay taxes, and claims they cannot provide it “because it was never legal in the first place.” He elaborates that “when you work and somebody gives you money or some form of compensation, that's not profit. That's an exchange, and it was never intended to be taxes.” The consequence, he says, is that “the government's gonna self destruct. It's gonna totally overwhelm the system.” He uses imagery to argue that people should resist, saying, “let those motherfuckers try driving their car with no gas in it.” In closing, he invites audience participation: “If you like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah and a fuck you to their paperwork.”

The speaker initially believed that there was a law requiring people to file tax returns, but after researching for three and a half months, they couldn't find a clear statute that made a person liable. They realized that the government collects taxes to generate revenue, but they were unaware of the complexities involved. The speaker attended a meeting where someone argued that the IRS lacks authority, but they initially dismissed it as taking things out of context. However, after a conversation with the person, the speaker agreed to research the matter further. They delved into the Internal Revenue Code and found sections that seemed relevant but didn't provide a clear answer. The speaker's research led them to question their own authority to enforce tax laws, ultimately leading to their resignation. They discovered that the Internal Revenue Manual restricts enforcement due to constitutional issues. The speaker believes that if more people knew about the government's methods, they would stop filing tax returns.

The speaker interviews former IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohn about the tax code and voluntary compliance. They discuss the definition of income, Supreme Court decisions, and challenges the IRS to show a statute allowing a direct tax on wages. Cohn asserts that the law requires filing tax returns, despite objections. The speaker questions the IRS's legal authority and highlights inconsistencies in tax enforcement. Ultimately, the speaker challenges the IRS to prove the legality of income tax laws. Translation: The speaker interviews former IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohn about the tax code and voluntary compliance. They discuss the definition of income, Supreme Court decisions, and challenges the IRS to show a statute allowing a direct tax on wages. Cohn asserts that the law requires filing tax returns, despite objections. The speaker questions the IRS's legal authority and highlights inconsistencies in tax enforcement. Ultimately, the speaker challenges the IRS to prove the legality of income tax laws.

A man who can show where my money is going and prove it's not going to the right places is not my enemy; he's trying to help me. Stop making it about race; it's them against all of us. They will lock you up if you don't file your taxes. They're saying you have to give them your money so they can buy things like condoms and coffee cups for their employees. If you don't, they'll lock you up. Why isn't anybody living? I know I'm not the only one actually living.

A former IRS commissioner is interviewed about the tax code and income tax laws. He argues that the IRS code is voluntary compliance, not mandatory, and defends the IRS's actions. The interviewer challenges the legality of income tax on labor, citing Supreme Court decisions. The former commissioner dismisses the arguments and asserts the IRS's authority. The interview ends with a confrontation, revealing a lack of transparency in tax laws and enforcement. The interviewer questions the legality of income tax on wages and calls for the IRS to show the law to the public.

The speakers in the video discuss their experiences and research regarding the requirement to file a tax return and pay income tax. Speaker 0 initially couldn't find a specific law mandating tax returns, leading to their resignation. Speaker 1 left the IRS after raising concerns about the agency's violation of the law and people's rights. Speaker 2 conducted research to win a $50,000 challenge, but couldn't find the law either. They believe that if the truth is revealed, it would expose a fraudulent system. Speaker 3 was surprised to hear IRS agents say there was no law requiring tax filing or payment. Both Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 admit to not filing tax returns, and they mention that millions of others also don't file.

Speaker 0: There is no law. And to date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax. Speaker 1: But We, The People Foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in The USA Today on 07/07/2000. And within the body of that ad was a $50,000 challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let's put this baby to bed. I'm hearing all these rumors. You know, I'm gonna kill two birds with one stone. I'll answer these people's questions they're asking me, and then I win this $50,000. And, you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked congress. We've asked a lot of people in the IRS, IRS commissioners, helpers. They can't answer because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud. Speaker 2: There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law. Speaker 3: I really expected that, of course, there's a law that you can point to in the law book, the code, that requires you to file a tax return. Of course, there is. I mean, I don't know what it is right then as we as he was speaking to me, but sure. So, naively, I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him. Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and, most people I know. And I had no no choice in my mind except to to resign. Speaker 4: I had to leave the IRS because I presented, evidence that I had accumulated indicating that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. And I asked the agency for a response to my sincere concerns, and the answer I got was that they would not respond to my concerns and that they would, provide me with the paperwork necessary to tender my resignation. Speaker 5: You can look through the statutes and look for the law that requires you to pay. And when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business to pay an income tax. Speaker 2: American citizens, along with the foundation, have been asking the IRS to specifically provide them with the the underlying legal foundation upon which they administer and enforce the personal income tax laws in our country. Speaker 3: At the national level, when people would attempt to contact somebody of a much higher authority, say the cons the commissioner, same kind of thing. They wouldn't get they would get answers that were in effect non answers. Speaker 6: You have to understand that an agency which will unlawfully impose a tax that doesn't exist it's not gonna care. If we, the people, don't know what our rights are, they're not gonna tell us. Speaker 4: If Americans just learned that the IRS was actually knowingly deceiving them, that that enough that would be enough for them to rise up and put a stop to it. Speaker 7: 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. People have been told, you know, that you need this income tax system to fund government, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, my question is, well, if that's true, how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913? Speaker 8: The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and to control society. And a lot Speaker 9: of people might say, well, gee, if there wasn't an income tax, what would happen to education? They don't understand that education is paid for, for the most part, out of state and local taxes, your property tax. People might say, well, how are we going to build and maintain our highways if there's no money coming into the government? We need our highways. There is a tax on every gallon of gasoline that people buy. Proceeds from the income tax do not pay for highway construction. Speaker 10: I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes

An individual appeared in court for a special visitation, not an appearance, to ensure his truthful name wasn't misrepresented. He stated he lives in himself and his body, residing in a storage unit occasionally. He rejected a public defender, preferring "natural living man's English" over legalese. He claimed the police officers charged him with were actually staging an overthrow of the constitution and violating his right to forage for food. He cited Judge Holly Brown's ruling that he is not a taxpayer because he is not a federal citizen, referencing case number EPO nine dash 58 a. He asserted universal law and his right to live, refusing to plead and stating animals plead. He declared the American flag with gold fringe the Jolly Roger. He claimed a jury of his peers cannot be formed because registered voters cannot comprehend natural law. The judge then left the courtroom.

I couldn't find a law requiring me to file taxes, so I resigned. The IRS wouldn't address my concerns and asked me to resign. I searched for the law to win $50,000 but couldn't find it. Trained IRS agents said there's no law for Americans to file taxes. I haven't filed taxes since leaving, and many others don't file either.

A man was being tried for not filing his income tax. The defense questioned whether he could be innocent while still not filing. It was revealed that not filing taxes is not a felony at the federal level. The case was then moved to the state level. The defense questioned an IRS agent who claimed he didn't write anything down, but video evidence showed otherwise. The prosecutor attacked the defendant's character. The jury asked for a copy of the law but didn't receive it. They realized that if the defendant wasn't required to file federal taxes, then the Illinois law requiring tax filing would be nullified. The jury found the defendant not guilty, surprising the judge. Other individuals who claimed there was no law requiring income tax filing also won their cases.

The speaker asserts that you cannot legally pay your taxes. They state: “tax dollars have been spent in a global crime syndicate,” and “you now know this and it’s provable,” which means “if you willingly pay your taxes you now are a willing participant and co conspirator.” The guidance given is for when you file an exemption: “This is what you’re gonna say when you file an exemption. Owe back taxes? This is what you’re gonna tell your agent.” The agent will threaten you, and you should respond with, “I said that I will not be a willing participant in a global crime syndicate.” The speaker says you should repeat it, “and you repeat it again.” They advise to “play the congress game” and claim that “you legally cannot pay your taxes now that you know this. It is against the law.”

"We got them. We finally got them. We caught the IRS red handed." "They're frauds, fabricated, phantom tax returns the IRS claims that you filed but can't produce because they never existed." "Here's the crime. An IRS agent falsified the records." "A supervisor covered it up." "The DOJ marched into court and used those fake records against Americans and then admitted under oath they have no signed returns to back it up." "That's not sloppy paperwork. That's a RICO fraud, a criminal enterprise operating under color of law." "And it doesn't stop there. Judges look the other way." "Multilayered fraud, IRS, DOJ, and the judicial system." "It's time to shut down this rogue agency once and for all." "Chew on this, America."

Democrats plan to expand the IRS with 87,000 new agents, according to the administration's treasury department. One speaker claims to have not paid federal income taxes for 30 years, blaming international bankers and the Federal Reserve. Another speaker criticizes Congress for implementing income tax in 1909 and questions why technological advances haven't made everyone prosperous. They propose a plan to drain the Washington DC swamp. The same speaker claims to be the number one NMD IRS and pays taxes, but also mentions voting for Barack and Hillary as an American thing to do.

In 1894, Congress attempted to implement an income tax but it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In 1913, they tried again, but the Supreme Court stated that the 16th Amendment did not grant new taxation powers. Therefore, there is no constitutional basis for taxing the wages of American citizens in the 50 states. A letter from Daniel Inouye's office confirms that there is no specific law requiring individuals to pay income tax, and no one has been able to prove otherwise.

There is a law requiring tax returns, but many struggle to find it. After extensive research, some individuals, including former IRS agents, concluded there is no clear statute making citizens liable to file or pay income tax. They resigned from the IRS after presenting evidence of legal violations and received no satisfactory responses. A challenge was issued for anyone to prove the law exists, but no one has succeeded. Despite widespread belief in the legality of income tax, many question its legitimacy. A class action lawsuit was initiated against the IRS, highlighting the agency's refusal to clarify the legal basis for income tax enforcement. Some citizens maintain that paying taxes is a civic duty to support government services, while others argue for transparency regarding tax laws.

A man was on trial for not filing his income tax. The defense questioned whether he could be innocent while still not filing. It was revealed that not filing taxes is not a felony in the federal government. To get a conviction, they had to involve the state. The defense questioned an IRS agent who claimed he didn't write anything down, but video evidence showed otherwise. The prosecutor attacked the defendant's character. The jury asked for the law requiring tax returns, but the judge denied their request. They discovered that the Illinois state law requiring tax returns is dependent on the federal law. The jury realized that if there is no federal law, the defendant isn't breaking any laws. They found the defendant not guilty, shocking the judge. Other cases also challenged the requirement to file income tax returns, resulting in acquittals.

When crimes are committed, investigations should occur. The federal government will find illegal aliens stealing American taxpayer dollars. If IRS investigators find illegal aliens stealing taxpayer money, they'll be referred to ICE and Homeland Security investigations. Illegal aliens use fake social security numbers and identities, which are felonies. They should not be immune from criminal prosecution and arrest for committing felonies like theft of taxpayer information, social security, and identity. If a crime has been committed, they'll be referred; if it justifies prosecution, they'll be prosecuted; if it justifies deportation, they will be deported, based on existing IRS protocols. No one is given immunity to break the law, and no class should be above the law, least of all illegal aliens who've trespassed on our territory.

There is no law requiring payment of taxes in the US. The IRS manual states they have no jurisdiction over US workers, only those abroad. Share this info and challenge the IRS to prove tax obligations.

These two individuals, with over a decade of experience each, are known for their expertise in international tax evasion cases. Their testimony has remained consistent throughout, and recently, an FBI agent confirmed their statements. The question arises: who should we believe? The justice department's story has changed three times in just 33 days, while these two individuals have remained steadfast. It is worth noting that the justice department has been criticized for censoring Americans and making controversial statements about moms, dads, pro-life Catholics, and extremists. Given these circumstances, it is up to you to decide who to trust.

I told the judge I wasn't practicing law and that I lived by common law, not participating in corporate schemes. I argued that Michigan had wrongly turned my right to work into a privilege requiring a license, which is unconstitutional. I referenced key legal cases to support my claim that I should not be punished for ignoring the license. The judge found my argument compelling and turned to the prosecution, suggesting they honor my motion to dismiss. The courtroom erupted in laughter, and an experienced attorney praised my argument, acknowledging the constraints imposed by the Bar Association. The case was dismissed, and I've since helped others facing similar issues.

Francisco Longoria’s case took place in San Bernardino, SoCal, where he was stopped in his car with his teenage son in the passenger seat and another man in the back seat by border patrol agents. In two separate cell phone videos, and also in a surveillance camera video across the street, it is clear that there were no federal agents or federal vehicles in front of or in any way obstructing Longoria’s vehicle when he drove away. Despite that, at the moment he drove away, a border patrol agent discharged his firearm at him multiple times. The DOJ charged Longoria with assault on an officer, but that case was dropped. Prosecutors voluntarily withdrew the case within less than a month of filing it. This is not the only instance where such withdrawals have occurred, or where cases have been thrown out by judges. Among the cases examined, only four of them have ongoing criminal prosecutions, which is a much smaller number than would be expected from all the instances in which DHS publicly accused people of assaulting federal officers. The discussion notes that assault on federal officers is a very serious and prosecutable charge. You know, the other

The speaker interviews Sheldon Cohn, a former IRS commissioner, about the belief that there is no law requiring Americans to pay income tax. Cohn argues that voluntary compliance is used as a term for traffic laws, but it does not apply to income tax. The speaker questions the definition of income and cites Supreme Court rulings that state income is not wages. They also discuss the lack of a law making individuals liable to file a tax return. Cohn dismisses the Supreme Court's relevance to the IRS and the speaker concludes that the IRS operates through intimidation and fear. They challenge the IRS to show a statute allowing a direct tax on wages.

In the United States, it's unusual that we don't have a jury, which I find unfair. However, I need to address a misconception in the press. We didn't have the option to choose a jury, contrary to what's being repeated. Personally, I believe juries often make mistakes, but I have a tool called "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" to handle those situations. I can declare that a reasonable jury would never have reached that conclusion.

Sherry Peel Jackson, a former IRS agent and CPA, discovered that there is no law and that the IRS is the biggest fraud. She researched and found that no one could identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes a typical worker liable for income tax. She also learned about the non-enforcement pocket commission she had as an administrative clerk. Sherry realized that the Federal Reserve is not federal and that income tax does not go towards running the country. She exposed these truths and educated people about the system. She emphasized the need to unite and understand what is happening with our money.

"Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?" "The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need." "Pick up the New York Times today. There's a city not far across the river from my state that imposed a similar sanctions." "And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps in in the dumpster. Stores started closing." "Everything started to happen, and they changed the policy."