It always makes me cringe when someone calls people ignorant but they use the wrong form of to. Sorry but it just does. If you’re not calling someone ignorant, I can ignore it.
JimManlove OOPSE. I just saw, after I wrote this, that you were talking about in the "UK", sorry about the following. I thought you were talking about the US Codes.. So I apologize..You are incorrect. I do not know where you did your research. I assure you, everything Bill has on his site and is talking about is in black and white! Here is a good resource. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31 You can see from this title. Plain as day " The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. " - if you scroll a little bit futher into the definitions, you will find what commercial purposes means " (10) Used for commercial purposes.- The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. " - They are literally, Shanghaiing the people into commerce, because of their ignorance and fear. They Do hold all the guns!I even got into their law library and looked at blacks 4th and 5th and did verify the definitions did get changed!
Eldonthian McAllister NP. It happens. The reason I mention it is because I have come across people in the UK that watch this type of (US) video and incorrectly assume that legal definitions are universal and not locally defined. This particular use of "motor vehicle" gets especially misunderstood because of law dictionaries using the word "employ" within the definition of "driving" without defining the meaning of employ. The word can be associated with commerce, but not in this scenario, where employ simply means "to use". There are plenty of videos where people are arrested for claiming they are not driving, when of course, they are. In one famous one, Dave Murphy loses his rather nice car because of it. He probably could have won his argument, if he had done his homework. Local definitions are defined in the statutes, but they are not always very well constructed and can be misleading.
Eldonthian McAllister that title you posted was title 18 chapter 2, correct? What does "crimes of distristruction of motor vehicles" have to do with driving?
@@Reaction1s Exactly. This chapter deals with the crime of destruction of aircraft and vehicles. It has nothing to deal with needing a license to drive a regular motor vehicle. Another example of how sovruns don't know how to correctly interpret the law.
I don't think it's about paying taxes it's about do we really truly have to and if we really truly don't have to do something then why are we doing it. You can say whatever you want about do your part it's the right thing to do while you can say that about anything it's real simple if it's not truly the law then you don't have to do it
Do us all a favor and demonetize these videos. I own them on DVD but have not placed them on my phone. I use these while at work all the time to learn, learn, learn. The adds are unbelievably annoying.
Todd Williamson obviously. You pay for it.haha youtube was amazing until the two creators sold to Google for 2.5 Billion. I can’t blame them, I’d sell to for that kind of money. But literally the next day youtube started having adds, which in my opinion was the death of youtube.
the language barriers are enormous. research that country form of government.. if it is a republic, like ours these countries, all republics as required to be part of .... , then i would say yes.
Read the Constitution as it clearly defines in the Preamble that the *"We the People[...]"* are the ones who created the *Constitution, United States, and the United States of America* which make them corporations, therefore the *People are sovereign* while the *States are subjects.* The fourteenth amendment has two conditions to become a *citizen* of the United States and the State wherein they reside: *1) Must be born or naturalized in the United States* *2) Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.* Therefore one cannot be born or naturalized in the United States _and_ subject to the jurisdiction thereof but, one can be born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. For this reason we may clearly see that both requirements must be fulfilled in order to be considered a *citizen* of the United States. But one cannot be a *citizen* of the United States if they do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction thereof.
I do have to admit, I like Bill. He's a crazy old cook, doesn't know the first thing about the law or court procedure, and everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong. But he seems like a nice enough guy.
It is obvious then, that you subscribe to local practice as law, democracy as liberty and a republic as, not the instrument for the true spirit of freedom. Curious how such distorted understandings become so real for so many, eating away at that, the spirit of liberty and freedom, our Republic, if we can keep it.
@@leeburstroghm The fact that court after court after court has described the theories espoused by Thorton as "frivolous" helps. Again, though. he seems like a nice enough guy. Most sovereign nuts are assholes.
@@deathtotruthers1 every nisi prius court will, cuz to them, the persons whom staff the office, it is.. Lol like a fish has no conception of air. Its frivolous to a fish. Everything bill says comes from true case law, supreme court rulings, original doctrine and current codes. Just look it up, and not the abridged versions.
@@leeburstroghm I love the thought process here. I go to court, lose over and over again, but no, its not me that's wrong, the Court just doesn't understand. What you're suffering from, Eldonthian, is something called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
@@deathtotruthers1 for those who don't know what that is, i had too look it up myself... The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. Basically, that fish in the afore mentioned state of competence of the persons staffing the nisi prius court. See blacks law 2nd edition, then look up the citations. www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/nisiprius.htm funny how you spew that any who might harmonize in the flow of the spirit of this republic, is too ignorant to even know how incapable they are to even grasp whats really going on. We are all sufferage with our own inabilities to realize what we are not capable of comprehending. It is an inescapable attribute of progression and truth seeking. Whatever/however/whenever you are able to behold any way of that allways truth. You make me laugh.
Even if there was a tax law what would it matter? what evidence is there that any 'law' is applicable to somebody else? There are billions of 'laws.' Nobody has a clue how many there are. What makes any of them applicable to anyone? thats the real question none of you can answer. go ahead and try.
Patrick Reeners I dont think 'contract' is the word you want to use. Contracts are voluntary agreements between people. 'courts' do not deal with anybody on a voluntary basis, it is all compulsory.
![Understanding the Common Law [No. 86 LECTURE]](/img/1.gif)
Folks, this isn't about not paying taxes, this is about WHICH taxes you pay, are they justified and where does the money ACTUALLY go...
Taxation is theft.
Theft is never justified.
I don't care where the thief spends the loot.
@@masteralconexactly
Most people are to ignorant to believe this. This people know what he is talking about. Thanks for the video sir.
It always makes me cringe when someone calls people ignorant but they use the wrong form of to. Sorry but it just does. If you’re not calling someone ignorant, I can ignore it.
Thank you for sharing and caring 💕
the beginning song kept me from clicking off of this right away.
Bill Thornton, learned all he has from John Charney.
Can you provide a link to share John Charney's work? Would like to learn from many.
love to see this guy appear b4 the irs :) note the title of this video-
In the UK, "motor vehicle” means ... a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads. No mention of commerce.
JimManlove OOPSE. I just saw, after I wrote this, that you were talking about in the "UK", sorry about the following. I thought you were talking about the US Codes.. So I apologize..You are incorrect. I do not know where you did your research. I assure you, everything Bill has on his site and is talking about is in black and white! Here is a good resource. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31 You can see from this title. Plain as day " The term “motor vehicle” means every description of
carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power
and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation
of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
" - if you scroll a little bit futher into the definitions, you will find what commercial purposes means " (10)
Used for commercial purposes.-
The term “used for commercial purposes”
means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate,
charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
" - They are literally, Shanghaiing the people into commerce, because of their ignorance and fear. They Do hold all the guns!I even got into their law library and looked at blacks 4th and 5th and did verify the definitions did get changed!
Eldonthian McAllister NP. It happens. The reason I mention it is because I have come across people in the UK that watch this type of (US) video and incorrectly assume that legal definitions are universal and not locally defined. This particular use of "motor vehicle" gets especially misunderstood because of law dictionaries using the word "employ" within the definition of "driving" without defining the meaning of employ. The word can be associated with commerce, but not in this scenario, where employ simply means "to use". There are plenty of videos where people are arrested for claiming they are not driving, when of course, they are. In one famous one, Dave Murphy loses his rather nice car because of it. He probably could have won his argument, if he had done his homework. Local definitions are defined in the statutes, but they are not always very well constructed and can be misleading.
Eldonthian McAllister that title you posted was title 18 chapter 2, correct? What does "crimes of distristruction of motor vehicles" have to do with driving?
@@Reaction1s Exactly. This chapter deals with the crime of destruction of aircraft and vehicles. It has nothing to deal with needing a license to drive a regular motor vehicle. Another example of how sovruns don't know how to correctly interpret the law.
@@Van_Der_Lay_Industries 😂😂 Did you mean SOVEREIGNS ?? 😂😂
I red some negative comments, to be a sovereign you probably have to be resurrected on the land. OR NOT FLOATING ON THE SEA...
You may have red something incorrectly. 😂
I don't think it's about paying taxes it's about do we really truly have to and if we really truly don't have to do something then why are we doing it. You can say whatever you want about do your part it's the right thing to do while you can say that about anything it's real simple if it's not truly the law then you don't have to do it
Are you still interested in learning about the US tax requirements?
is there any evidence that someone has tried this and it worked?
Gandalf has gone fuckin' insane.
Do us all a favor and demonetize these videos. I own them on DVD but have not placed them on my phone. I use these while at work all the time to learn, learn, learn. The adds are unbelievably annoying.
I'm on RUclips premium and don't see any adds. Give that a go.
Todd Williamson obviously. You pay for it.haha youtube was amazing until the two creators sold to Google for 2.5 Billion. I can’t blame them, I’d sell to for that kind of money. But literally the next day youtube started having adds, which in my opinion was the death of youtube.
Why allow questions during the presentation? Take away the microphone. You’re welcome.
Starts talking at 6:20
Are people who were naturalized here but were born elsewhere still sovereign "People"?
the language barriers are enormous. research that country form of government.. if it is a republic, like ours these countries, all republics as required to be part of .... , then i would say yes.
Read the Constitution as it clearly defines in the Preamble that the *"We the People[...]"* are the ones who created the *Constitution, United States, and the United States of America* which make them corporations, therefore the *People are sovereign* while the *States are subjects.* The fourteenth amendment has two conditions to become a *citizen* of the United States and the State wherein they reside:
*1) Must be born or naturalized in the United States*
*2) Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.*
Therefore one cannot be born or naturalized in the United States _and_ subject to the jurisdiction thereof but, one can be born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
For this reason we may clearly see that both requirements must be fulfilled in order to be considered a *citizen* of the United States. But one cannot be a *citizen* of the United States if they do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction thereof.
TO MANY TROLLS HERE...
we can call them out, and them I will bann them.. unlesss they are being in honor and bringing scholarly info.. Help point them out!!
Is that lady a detractor or what great video nonetheless
I do have to admit, I like Bill. He's a crazy old cook, doesn't know the first thing about the law or court procedure, and everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong. But he seems like a nice enough guy.
It is obvious then, that you subscribe to local practice as law, democracy as liberty and a republic as, not the instrument for the true spirit of freedom. Curious how such distorted understandings become so real for so many, eating away at that, the spirit of liberty and freedom, our Republic, if we can keep it.
@@leeburstroghm The fact that court after court after court has described the theories espoused by Thorton as "frivolous" helps. Again, though. he seems like a nice enough guy. Most sovereign nuts are assholes.
@@deathtotruthers1 every nisi prius court will, cuz to them, the persons whom staff the office, it is.. Lol like a fish has no conception of air. Its frivolous to a fish. Everything bill says comes from true case law, supreme court rulings, original doctrine and current codes. Just look it up, and not the abridged versions.
@@leeburstroghm I love the thought process here. I go to court, lose over and over again, but no, its not me that's wrong, the Court just doesn't understand. What you're suffering from, Eldonthian, is something called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
@@deathtotruthers1 for those who don't know what that is, i had too look it up myself... The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. Basically, that fish in the afore mentioned state of competence of the persons staffing the nisi prius court. See blacks law 2nd edition, then look up the citations. www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/nisiprius.htm funny how you spew that any who might harmonize in the flow of the spirit of this republic, is too ignorant to even know how incapable they are to even grasp whats really going on. We are all sufferage with our own inabilities to realize what we are not capable of comprehending. It is an inescapable attribute of progression and truth seeking. Whatever/however/whenever you are able to behold any way of that allways truth. You make me laugh.
Do you really think the Federal Reserve with its Collection Agency the IRS needs to prove anything?
Power in numbers
Wow. What a load of cherry picked nonsense
For example?
@@lapimano2 bro. Its been over 5 years since i made that comment. Im not rewatching the entire hour long video to remember.
Even if there was a tax law what would it matter? what evidence is there that any 'law' is applicable to somebody else? There are billions of 'laws.' Nobody has a clue how many there are. What makes any of them applicable to anyone?
thats the real question none of you can answer. go ahead and try.
Mustaffa, what the hell have you been smoking
what do you got
Forensource
you don't think applicability is an element of every crime?
Forensource
so you are appealing to consequences as proof of applicability. doesn't something have to be applicable before there can be consequences?
Patrick Reeners
I dont think 'contract' is the word you want to use. Contracts are voluntary agreements between people. 'courts' do not deal with anybody on a voluntary basis, it is all compulsory.
I wish aurora would leave.