Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:07.320] Welcome to the show. America has a serious problem that must be stopped. [00:07.320 --> 00:12.960] American businesses are acting as if they are government enforcement agents. [00:12.960 --> 00:16.960] Today we're going to take a look at how these businesses are assuming the role [00:16.960 --> 00:22.640] of federal cops and explore why they're doing it. The question of why private [00:22.640 --> 00:25.920] companies are acting as federal enforcement agents needs to be our [00:25.920 --> 00:31.960] primary focus. You're going to find this presentation fascinating and disturbing. [00:31.960 --> 00:35.320] So let's get into it. [00:37.520 --> 00:43.160] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:48.840 --> 00:53.680] Let's start with this. I have studied law for more than three decades with an eye [00:53.680 --> 00:58.240] to the government exceeding its constitutional authority or being [00:58.240 --> 01:01.960] perceived to have done so even if that perception is based on Americans not [01:01.960 --> 01:07.040] reading law or understanding how the law operates. You'll see examples of that as [01:07.040 --> 01:11.560] we proceed. Let me give you the broad strokes of today's presentation so you [01:11.560 --> 01:17.080] can decide whether you want to continue watching. Government is government and [01:17.080 --> 01:22.400] private sector is the private sector. Under our constitutional system of [01:22.480 --> 01:27.520] government, private sector firms cannot be conscripted into assuming the role of [01:27.520 --> 01:33.000] government enforcement agents. Yet that is exactly what's happening all across [01:33.000 --> 01:38.480] this land of the free to the significant detriment of the rights of the American [01:38.480 --> 01:45.080] people. But it's worse than that because this egregious anti-American conduct [01:45.080 --> 01:49.480] against the American people is being perpetrated by just about every [01:49.480 --> 01:56.120] business in America. Furthermore, the phenomenon has expanded over time so if [01:56.120 --> 02:00.640] it's not stopped there is no telling how many more ways private sector companies [02:00.640 --> 02:05.320] will be will wrongfully act as federal enforcement agents against American [02:05.320 --> 02:10.520] citizens in the future. If you've watched my videos you know my method is to give [02:10.520 --> 02:15.880] you all the facts and law anyone needs to substantiate whatever unrecognized [02:15.880 --> 02:19.400] truth I'm sharing with you. This presentation is going to be a bit [02:19.400 --> 02:23.120] different because the problem we're discussing today involves a number of [02:23.120 --> 02:27.800] different subjects. Accordingly, today I'm going to articulate the unconstitutional [02:27.800 --> 02:34.080] nationwide problem and then give you brief but crystal clear examples of each [02:34.080 --> 02:38.800] issue that constitutes part of the larger problem. I'll provide the links to [02:38.800 --> 02:43.120] videos I've done in the past on the individual issues. By doing it this way [02:43.120 --> 02:46.440] we'll stay focused on the macro theme but you can drill down into the [02:46.440 --> 02:50.920] underlying facts of each issue when you have the time. Before we jump in I want [02:50.920 --> 02:57.960] to let you know I'm running a special on my website drreality.news, any order [02:57.960 --> 03:01.840] containing income tax shattering the mess gets free shipping by using the [03:01.840 --> 03:07.880] code tariffs at checkout. More on that later. Now let's get into the first [03:07.880 --> 03:12.640] unconstitutional action. Several months ago I released a video on the [03:12.640 --> 03:17.360] Corporate Transparency Act. The reason I did the video on that subject is that I [03:17.360 --> 03:20.880] was getting bombarded with queries about whether people needed to file a BOI [03:20.880 --> 03:25.920] report without even looking at the law. My first thought was this. Nowhere in the [03:25.920 --> 03:29.880] Constitution did the states of the Union grant the federal government the [03:29.880 --> 03:33.320] authority to force the citizens of the states of the Union to divulge their [03:33.320 --> 03:37.880] business arrangements to the federal government. With that simple clear [03:37.880 --> 03:41.160] reality in mind I pulled up the law about which everyone was in a tizzy and [03:41.160 --> 03:45.400] I found exactly what I expected which was that Congress passed the Corporate [03:45.400 --> 03:51.440] Transparency Act under its territorial jurisdiction not its subject matter [03:51.440 --> 03:55.880] jurisdiction. Congress has two forms of jurisdiction, subject matter and [03:55.880 --> 04:00.760] territorial. Congress can only legislate for the states of the Union if it is [04:00.760 --> 04:04.400] legislating from the specific authorities granted to the federal [04:04.400 --> 04:09.200] government in the Constitution. That's called subject matter jurisdiction. [04:09.240 --> 04:12.920] Examples of authorities granted to the federal government by the states are the [04:12.920 --> 04:18.800] power to coin money, impose import duties and prosecute treason. Legislation [04:18.800 --> 04:23.240] enacted based on Congress's subject matter jurisdiction has authority [04:23.240 --> 04:27.640] within the states of the Union. The other form of jurisdiction Congress has is [04:27.640 --> 04:32.200] referred to as territorial jurisdiction and laws passed under territorial [04:32.200 --> 04:37.780] jurisdiction do not have authority within the states of the Union. If such [04:37.780 --> 04:41.740] laws do not have authority in the states of the Union, where do they have [04:41.740 --> 04:46.420] authority? They have authority exclusively in Washington DC and federal [04:46.420 --> 04:51.460] possessions and territories, hence the name territorial jurisdiction. Another [04:51.460 --> 04:54.860] legal phrase that characterizes the locations to which territorial [04:54.860 --> 04:59.060] jurisdiction is limited and the entities to which it applies is places and [04:59.060 --> 05:04.780] entities subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. In [05:04.820 --> 05:09.100] other words, the phrase subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of [05:09.100 --> 05:14.820] Congress is synonymous with Congress's territorial jurisdiction. Because [05:14.820 --> 05:19.860] Congress does not have any enumerated authority, any subject matter [05:19.860 --> 05:23.220] jurisdiction that would permit it to compel citizens of the states of the [05:23.220 --> 05:26.900] Union to divulge their business arrangements to the federal government, [05:26.900 --> 05:30.820] Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act under its territorial [05:30.820 --> 05:35.020] jurisdiction, limiting the Act's authority to Washington DC and federal [05:35.020 --> 05:39.380] possessions and territories. In my presentation, I took my audience through [05:39.380 --> 05:44.260] the Corporate Transparency Act and showed them that state, as used in the [05:44.260 --> 05:49.140] Act, is not defined to mean the states of the Union, but is limited to federal [05:49.140 --> 05:52.820] states, which means DC, the possessions and territories. From my perspective, [05:52.820 --> 05:59.140] that's Constitution 101. Nevertheless, despite the Act being merely territorial [05:59.140 --> 06:04.180] in scope, law firms, accounting firms, corporate agents, and advisors of every [06:04.180 --> 06:09.780] stripe were telling businesses they must file a BOI report or face thousands of [06:09.780 --> 06:13.780] dollars a day in fines. They were essentially acting as government [06:13.780 --> 06:19.420] propagandists. I'm guessing millions of Americans filed BOI reports they were [06:19.420 --> 06:24.620] not required to file, surrendering their privacy by giving the feds information [06:24.620 --> 06:28.700] to which it is not legally entitled simply because they felt intimidated [06:28.700 --> 06:36.420] into doing so by suit-wearing ignoramuses and immoral assholes. Here's [06:36.420 --> 06:41.100] a simple test you can perform whenever you run into a lawyer. Ask him or her [06:41.100 --> 06:46.580] what the two forms of jurisdiction are that Congress can exercise when enacting [06:46.580 --> 06:54.140] legislation. It will be a cold day in hell when any of them know the answer. [06:54.940 --> 07:01.500] Why? Because they are suit-wearing ignoramuses and immoral assholes. I'll [07:01.500 --> 07:05.740] put the link to the Corporate Transparency video in the notes. Let's move on to [07:05.740 --> 07:10.380] another example of American companies illegally assuming the role of federal [07:10.380 --> 07:18.620] enforcement agents. The form I-9. The I-9 is the form that, if you don't fill it [07:18.620 --> 07:24.580] out, companies refuse to hire you. The I-9 is entitled Employment Eligibility [07:24.580 --> 07:31.340] Verification. American citizens have to provide approved government documents to [07:31.340 --> 07:37.580] prove they have the right to work in our own country. Think about that. You can't [07:37.580 --> 07:42.820] work, pay your rent or mortgage, feed yourself or shelter yourself unless you [07:42.820 --> 07:47.540] provide approved government documents. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Is [07:47.860 --> 07:54.300] it mandatory to have a birth certificate? No, it's not. Is it mandatory to have a [07:54.300 --> 08:00.580] driver's license? Nope. Is it mandatory to have a social security number? No, it is [08:00.580 --> 08:06.340] not. Is it mandatory to have a passport? No, it's not. But if you don't possess [08:06.340 --> 08:11.700] these things, things you are not legally required to have in the first place, you [08:11.740 --> 08:21.460] can't work in your own country in a land of liberty. That's not just insane. It's [08:21.460 --> 08:26.140] about as un-American as anything I've ever seen. And this un-American crap is [08:26.140 --> 08:30.740] being enforced on the American people by virtually every company in our nation. [08:30.740 --> 08:35.500] But here's the kicker. There is no law requiring a private sector company to [08:35.500 --> 08:40.620] get an I-9 from you. In my video on the I-9, I show you the wordsmithing used in [08:40.620 --> 08:44.940] the I-9 law that gives the false impression an I-9 must be signed by [08:44.940 --> 08:49.620] everyone when the legal reality of it is that the requirement to have a worker [08:49.620 --> 08:55.100] sign an I-9 applies only to government agencies and instrumentalities that are [08:55.100 --> 09:00.220] within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. And what does [09:00.220 --> 09:05.420] the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress mean? Right, territorial [09:05.420 --> 09:09.820] jurisdiction. So why are businesses across the country acting like federal [09:09.820 --> 09:15.100] agencies and illegally demanding I-9s from everyone? Because company [09:15.100 --> 09:21.660] executives and business owners believe whatever suit-wearing ignoramuses and [09:21.660 --> 09:25.940] immoral assholes tell them. I'll put the link in the notes to the video that [09:25.940 --> 09:29.620] shows you there is no law requiring a private sector company to get an I-9 [09:29.620 --> 09:34.180] from people it hires. On to another example of American companies illegally [09:34.860 --> 09:41.100] the role of federal enforcement agents. Payroll withholding of income tax. I've [09:41.100 --> 09:44.380] talked about this many times over the years so today I'm going to tell you two [09:44.380 --> 09:48.620] quick things and then you can watch my videos on the subject. I'll put links in [09:48.620 --> 09:53.340] the notes. First point, in the 32 years I've been in this space and having spoken [09:53.340 --> 09:58.260] to hundreds of HR staff, payroll clerks, company accountants, company lawyers, and [09:58.260 --> 10:04.500] tax attorneys concerning payroll withholding. Not one of them. Not one in [10:04.500 --> 10:11.180] three decades has ever had a clue about what the payroll withholding law says. [10:11.180 --> 10:15.940] Later in this presentation I'm going to share some of those stories with you. The [10:15.940 --> 10:20.500] second point is that I'm going to share with you the definition of employee for [10:20.500 --> 10:24.300] the purpose of payroll withholding. You can tell me whether you find yourself [10:24.300 --> 10:29.740] described in the definition. The command for wage withholding is found at 26 USC [10:29.740 --> 10:34.900] 3402 and reads as follows. Acceptance otherwise provided in this section every [10:34.900 --> 10:39.140] employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a [10:39.140 --> 10:46.100] tax. Pretty clear, right? Now let's go back one section to 3401 which is the [10:46.100 --> 10:51.100] definition section for 3402. If we scroll down to subsection C we find the [10:51.100 --> 10:55.300] definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding. As I read it I [10:55.300 --> 11:00.580] want you to pay careful attention to the enumerated items. I say that because [11:00.580 --> 11:06.820] you'll notice the enumerated items come after the word includes. In tax law when [11:06.820 --> 11:12.180] enumerated items follow the word includes the enumerated items establish a [11:12.180 --> 11:18.780] class or category and things not enumerated but within the class [11:18.780 --> 11:23.820] established by the enumerated items are considered part of the definition. With [11:23.820 --> 11:26.860] that in mind the definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding [11:26.860 --> 11:33.260] reads as follows. For the purpose of this chapter the term employee includes an [11:33.260 --> 11:37.900] officer employee or elected official of the United States, a state, or any [11:37.900 --> 11:41.900] political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or [11:41.900 --> 11:45.780] instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term employee also [11:45.820 --> 11:50.980] includes an officer of a corporation. Ignoring officer of a corporation for a [11:50.980 --> 11:56.340] moment did you hear anything in the definition that described you? Let's hear [11:56.340 --> 12:00.180] those enumerated items again. An officer employee or elected official of the [12:00.180 --> 12:04.940] United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof or the District of [12:04.940 --> 12:09.380] Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the [12:09.380 --> 12:14.100] foregoing. By the way I should remark that state in that definition means [12:14.100 --> 12:20.020] federal states such as Puerto Rico and Guam not the states of the Union. So did [12:20.020 --> 12:25.540] you hear yourself described in the definition? If not why is the company [12:25.540 --> 12:29.380] for which you work illegally taking income tax out of your paycheck? Two [12:29.380 --> 12:33.260] quick things you need to know on this subject before we move on. First just an [12:33.260 --> 12:38.800] officer of a corporation does not mean your corporation. It means officers of [12:38.800 --> 12:43.100] corporations created by the government to perform a government function such as [12:43.260 --> 12:48.900] the FDIC which stands for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It does [12:48.900 --> 12:52.340] not mean officers of normal everyday corporations with which you're familiar [12:52.340 --> 12:56.860] or the one you may have created. The second thing is that those upon whom [12:56.860 --> 13:01.900] wage withholding is to be conducted is even more narrow than what we've just [13:01.900 --> 13:07.020] read because numerous Treasury decisions. The Secretary of the Treasury has said [13:07.020 --> 13:11.260] that wage withholding is to be conducted upon non-resident aliens [13:11.260 --> 13:18.220] receiving US source income in the form of wages. Never in the 112 year history [13:18.220 --> 13:22.140] of the income tax has the Secretary said wage withholding is to be conducted on [13:22.140 --> 13:28.980] American citizens. Not once. Ever. You can learn the truth and see the law for [13:28.980 --> 13:33.660] yourself in income tax shattering the myths. In light of what the law says [13:33.660 --> 13:38.860] which you just saw with your own eyes why do companies illegally withhold from [13:38.860 --> 13:43.820] your paycheck? Because company executives and business owners believe [13:43.820 --> 13:51.060] whatever suit wearing ignoramuses and immoral assholes tell them. A quick note [13:51.060 --> 13:54.700] before I continue if you enjoy this kind of knowledge that you'll never get from [13:54.700 --> 13:58.420] any source other than this channel please take a moment to subscribe and [13:58.420 --> 14:01.740] hit the like button so the algorithms will show this content to more people. [14:01.740 --> 14:08.300] Also for a limited time you can get free shipping on any of my writings as long as [14:08.300 --> 14:11.820] income tax shattering this is included in your order. Simply use the code [14:11.820 --> 14:16.420] tariffs at checkout. I'll share that again later. Moving on to the next matter [14:16.420 --> 14:22.500] backup withholding. Backup withholding is when a business provides a product or [14:22.500 --> 14:27.460] service to another business and the business making the payment demands the [14:27.460 --> 14:32.260] business that provided the product or service sign a form W-9 and that [14:32.260 --> 14:37.580] business refuses to sign a W-9 because they know the law does not require it [14:37.740 --> 14:42.660] or even permit it so then the company who is obligated to make the payment [14:42.660 --> 14:47.940] threatens to withhold income tax from the payment. That is backup withholding. [14:47.940 --> 14:54.140] You can find that in a lot 26 USC 3406. The law on backup withholding is crystal [14:54.140 --> 14:58.740] clear but it would eat up a lot of time to detail it out today so I'll simply [14:58.740 --> 15:02.500] mention that you can find everything you need to know about that in income tax [15:03.260 --> 15:08.340] I will however give you the legal overview concerning backup withholding [15:08.340 --> 15:13.580] which is that backup withholding is limited to government entities under the [15:13.580 --> 15:19.420] exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress and only when the party being [15:19.420 --> 15:25.460] paid is a non-resident alien or foreign corporation. So then why do companies [15:25.460 --> 15:31.300] threaten to illegally backup withhold? Because company executives and business [15:31.300 --> 15:36.940] owners believe whatever suit-wearing ignoramuses and immoral assholes tell [15:36.940 --> 15:41.220] them. The next illegal activity in which companies engage to act as if they are [15:41.220 --> 15:46.900] government enforcement agents is deducting FICA from your paycheck. FICA [15:46.900 --> 15:51.060] is what people think of as Social Security withholding. Most Americans are [15:51.060 --> 15:55.740] completely unaware that anything having to do with Social Security is [15:55.740 --> 16:00.500] unconstitutional in the states of the Union. I mean some of you are now [16:00.500 --> 16:06.300] thinking I'm out of my mind. Okay fair enough. Then do this for me. Go [16:06.300 --> 16:11.660] online, pull up the United States Constitution, read through it, and find [16:11.660 --> 16:17.380] the authority the Union states gave the federal government to establish a [16:17.380 --> 16:22.700] retirement system for the American people. Since Social Security has been [16:22.700 --> 16:26.500] amended to include Medicare and Medicaid while you're reading through the [16:26.500 --> 16:30.420] Constitution, identify the sections in which the states authorize the federal [16:30.420 --> 16:38.060] government to pay the medical bills of the American people. I'll wait. Remember [16:38.060 --> 16:41.900] our earlier discussion about subject matter jurisdiction and territorial [16:41.900 --> 16:46.020] jurisdiction? Since you just run through the Constitution and found there is no [16:46.020 --> 16:50.700] subject matter jurisdiction for the Social Security Act and the only other [16:50.700 --> 16:55.780] jurisdiction Congress has is territorial, which jurisdiction do you think Congress [16:55.780 --> 17:00.620] use for the Social Security Act? And what is the other way of describing [17:00.620 --> 17:05.220] territorial jurisdiction? It is locations and entities subject to the [17:05.220 --> 17:09.060] exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, which means it's Washington DC [17:09.060 --> 17:15.900] and the possessions and territories. So then let me ask you a question. Are you a [17:15.900 --> 17:20.700] citizen of a state of the Union or a citizen of DC, a possession or [17:20.700 --> 17:25.540] territory? If you answered that you're a citizen of the state of the Union, then [17:25.540 --> 17:30.980] there is not a single word of the Social Security Act that applies to you, and [17:30.980 --> 17:36.660] that includes its tax known as FICA. In light of the fact that the Social [17:36.660 --> 17:41.020] Security Act has zero constitutional authority over citizens in the states of [17:41.020 --> 17:45.100] the Union, why is the company for which you work withholding FICA from your [17:45.100 --> 17:51.820] check? Because company executives and business owners believe whatever suit [17:51.860 --> 17:59.020] wearing ignoramuses and immoral assholes tell them. How about administrative wage [17:59.020 --> 18:04.500] garnishment by the IRS? This is where the IRS sends the company for which you work [18:04.500 --> 18:08.940] a form saying essentially take this amount out of the guy's paycheck every [18:08.940 --> 18:13.740] pay period and send it to us. The typical word to describe that is garnishment, but [18:13.740 --> 18:19.780] that's not what it's called in tax law. In tax law that's called a levy. So where [18:19.820 --> 18:26.540] is levy authority found in the tax code? It is found at 26 USC 6331, which I'm [18:26.540 --> 18:31.860] about to share with you. Before I do, I need to explain how many statutorily [18:31.860 --> 18:37.860] granted authorities are expressed in law. The law begins by describing a [18:37.860 --> 18:43.860] generalized authority without including any of the specifics that limit that [18:43.860 --> 18:48.020] authority. Depending on the particulars of the law, this approach takes one of [18:48.020 --> 18:52.660] two forms. One is that the generalized description of the authority appears in [18:52.660 --> 18:57.980] the initial subsection with the subsections that follow describing [18:57.980 --> 19:01.900] specifically upon whom and under what circumstances the authority may be [19:01.900 --> 19:07.220] exercised. That method is used when there are several limiting specifics [19:07.220 --> 19:11.340] involved. The other method is the generalized description and the [19:11.340 --> 19:16.940] limiting specific appears in the same subsection with this method. The [19:16.940 --> 19:20.260] generalized description of authorities in the first sentence with the limiting [19:20.260 --> 19:24.380] specific appearing in the second sentence. This method is used when there [19:24.380 --> 19:28.780] is just one specific limiting the authority of the generalized description. [19:28.780 --> 19:35.800] That is the method used in 6331. As we read 6331, you'll see the general [19:35.800 --> 19:39.900] authority language in the first sentence and the limiting language in the second [19:39.900 --> 19:44.740] sentence. Here is the first sentence. If any person liable to pay any tax, [19:44.740 --> 19:48.260] neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, [19:48.260 --> 19:52.860] it shall be lawful for the secretary to collect such tax and such further some [19:52.860 --> 19:57.060] as shall be sufficient to cover the expense of the levy by levy upon all [19:57.060 --> 20:01.060] property and rights to property belonging to such person or on which [20:01.060 --> 20:06.460] there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. The second [20:06.460 --> 20:11.220] sentence contains the specifics that limit upon whom the secretary is [20:11.220 --> 20:16.740] permitted to exercise levy authority and it reads levy may be made upon the [20:16.740 --> 20:20.820] accrued salary or wages of any officer employee or elected official of the [20:20.820 --> 20:24.740] United States the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of the [20:24.740 --> 20:28.500] United States or the District of Columbia by serving a notice of levy on [20:28.500 --> 20:34.340] the employer as defined in section 3 3 4 0 1 D of such officer employee or [20:34.340 --> 20:40.100] elected official. When the IRS sends a levy notice to a company, guess which [20:40.100 --> 20:44.940] language it includes in the notice and which language it excludes. If you're [20:44.940 --> 20:49.380] thinking the IRS notice shows the generalized language while excluding the [20:49.380 --> 20:53.500] language that limits upon whom the secretary can exercise that authority, [20:53.500 --> 20:58.460] you hit the nail on the head. In other words, the IRS sends a levy notice to a [20:58.460 --> 21:04.780] company and the company says sorry bro we got this form in the mail so we have [21:04.780 --> 21:09.620] to steal your property and turn it over to the perpetrators of the fraud. Let me [21:09.620 --> 21:13.220] ask you a question. Where in the US Constitution does it permit your [21:13.220 --> 21:18.140] property to be seized without a court order? Are we to assume that while the [21:18.140 --> 21:22.420] government needs probable cause and a warrant, a warrant being a form of court [21:22.420 --> 21:26.900] order, in order to seize your property for investigatory purposes, the [21:26.900 --> 21:31.220] government is free to seize your property for non-investigatory purposes [21:31.220 --> 21:34.500] simply because a bureaucrat signs a piece of paper and puts it in the mail [21:34.500 --> 21:41.060] to the company for which you work? That's preposterous. It should be [21:41.060 --> 21:46.820] self-evident that's not how it works and 6331's language verifies that. The [21:46.820 --> 21:50.380] secretary is indeed granted the authority to levy but may only do so [21:50.380 --> 21:54.740] administratively to those who work for the federal government or the District [21:54.740 --> 21:59.180] of Columbia government. For the rest of us, a court order is needed to seize our [21:59.180 --> 22:03.500] property. In case you're unaware, there is a legal process for the IRS to go to [22:03.500 --> 22:08.380] court and get a court order to seize property for unpaid taxes. If the court [22:08.380 --> 22:12.500] agrees with the IRS, the court issues what is called a warrant of distraint. [22:12.500 --> 22:17.740] For a notice of levy to have authority in the private sector, it must have a [22:17.740 --> 22:22.860] warrant of distraint attached. That of course is never the case when a company [22:22.860 --> 22:28.420] steals your property because it received a letter from the IRS. So then, since the [22:28.420 --> 22:33.380] law is clear that the secretary only has administrative seizure authority over to [22:33.380 --> 22:37.860] quote section 6331, the accrued salary and wages of any officer, employee, or [22:37.860 --> 22:40.980] elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency [22:40.980 --> 22:45.860] or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, and you're [22:45.860 --> 22:50.540] not any of those, why do private sector companies steal your property when they [22:50.540 --> 22:56.500] receive a notice of levy in the mail? Do I need to say it again? Because company [22:56.500 --> 23:02.100] executives and business owners believe whatever suit-wearing, ignoramuses, and [23:02.100 --> 23:07.420] immoral assholes tell them. There are plenty of other subjects where American [23:07.420 --> 23:10.980] companies illegally act as if they are federal enforcement agents, but I think [23:10.980 --> 23:17.260] I've given you enough to chew on for today. So, who are these suit-wearing [23:17.260 --> 23:23.740] ignoramuses and why do I say they are immoral assholes? There are a number of [23:23.740 --> 23:28.980] professions that can be in the mix, but they are overwhelmingly lawyers and [23:28.980 --> 23:35.620] accountants. Why do I call them ignoramuses? Whenever any profession [23:35.620 --> 23:39.820] enjoys the reputation of always knowing what they're talking about without ever [23:39.820 --> 23:43.820] being challenged to prove they know what they're talking about, they become lazy [23:43.820 --> 23:48.740] and arrogant. An example we can all relate to is the medical industry. For [23:48.740 --> 23:53.740] decades, doctors enjoyed the reputation of always knowing what they were talking [23:53.740 --> 23:58.180] about without ever being challenged to prove they know what they're talking [23:58.180 --> 24:03.300] about. Then, researchers and the citizen scientists began looking at data [24:03.300 --> 24:06.860] concerning things like COVID, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune [24:06.860 --> 24:12.180] disease, and more. And confidence in health professionals has tanked because [24:12.180 --> 24:18.580] it became apparent they didn't know what they were talking about. It turns out, [24:18.580 --> 24:24.500] MDs have been wrong about damn near everything over the last several decades. [24:24.980 --> 24:31.460] In other words, they are professionally certified ignoramuses. The same is true [24:31.460 --> 24:35.740] of attorneys, but the public hasn't yet unmasked the ignorance of attorneys. [24:35.740 --> 24:40.220] Earlier, I told you that in more than three decades, I've never met an attorney [24:40.220 --> 24:44.300] who knew the law. Let me share a few stories that reveal exactly how ignorant [24:44.300 --> 24:48.580] they are. Decades ago, I was on a conference call with a woman who was [24:48.580 --> 24:54.220] touted as the top tax attorney in New York City. I think it's fair to say that [24:54.220 --> 24:57.740] the top tax attorney in New York City would also be considered one of the top [24:57.740 --> 25:03.740] tax attorneys in the nation. Also on the call was my client, who was the CEO of a [25:03.740 --> 25:08.180] business startup, and the business manager for three of the wealthiest men [25:08.180 --> 25:14.460] in America who were the money behind the startup. The tax attorney got her ass [25:14.460 --> 25:22.380] handed to her. She knew almost nothing about tax law. I slapped down every false [25:22.420 --> 25:29.180] assertion she made by bringing forth statutes, regulations, treasury decisions, [25:29.180 --> 25:35.060] or Supreme Court cases, proving that what she was saying was not what the law says. [25:35.060 --> 25:39.500] The business manager went back to the three investors he represented and [25:39.500 --> 25:44.460] reported that, much to his surprise, I had destroyed every claim made by the [25:44.460 --> 25:49.700] tax attorney. He told his principals that it appeared the CEO's position, that he [25:49.700 --> 25:55.700] was not subject to payroll holding, was factual. The next story is about a Harvard [25:55.700 --> 25:59.980] trained lawyer in Texas. My clients, the owners of a multi-level marketing firm, [25:59.980 --> 26:04.700] were under attack by the Texas Attorney General's office for no better reason [26:04.700 --> 26:08.140] than the AG's office didn't want multi-level marketing companies operating [26:08.140 --> 26:15.980] in Texas. The whole thing was a sham based on an alleged single anonymous [26:15.980 --> 26:21.300] complaint. Based on that contrived bullshit, the state was demanding the [26:21.300 --> 26:26.820] company disclose all of its confidential internal information. The company had [26:26.820 --> 26:30.940] refused, so the matter was heading to court. I ended up on a conference call [26:30.940 --> 26:35.180] with my clients and an attorney they'd hired who had received his law degree [26:35.180 --> 26:41.940] from Harvard. As is the way of virtually all lawyers, his approach was appeasement. [26:41.940 --> 26:46.180] Give the state what it wants and deal with the consequences flowing from that [26:46.180 --> 26:51.980] down the road. My position was that the AG's goal was to garner enough [26:51.980 --> 26:56.820] information to shut the company down. And if the company capitulated to the AG's [26:56.820 --> 27:01.660] demands, there wouldn't be a business to fight for later. The attorney detailed [27:01.660 --> 27:06.020] his thoughts on how to proceed and I detailed mine. At the end of the call, the [27:06.020 --> 27:11.540] owners directed the attorney to proceed in accordance with my plan. To his [27:11.540 --> 27:16.540] credit, after being told he was to carry out the instructions provided by a non [27:16.540 --> 27:24.260] attorney, he said, okay. And he did exactly that. The clients prevailed in court, the [27:24.260 --> 27:28.580] state's action went down in flames, and the state never screwed with them again. [27:28.580 --> 27:34.240] A few weeks later, the attorney called me. He told me that, upon reflection, the [27:34.240 --> 27:38.940] advice he had given the clients had been wrong. He told me that he never knew law [27:38.940 --> 27:43.500] could be practiced the way I had approached the situation. I was impressed [27:43.500 --> 27:48.700] that a Harvard attorney had concluded that his advice to his clients was wrong [27:48.700 --> 27:54.860] and was man enough to call and admit a non lawyer had taught him something [27:54.860 --> 27:59.500] about legal tactics. But the takeaway from that story is that an attorney who [27:59.500 --> 28:03.700] in today's money was probably getting about $1,500 an hour and was considered [28:03.700 --> 28:10.700] one of the top attorneys in Dallas, was dead wrong about how to proceed. If the [28:10.700 --> 28:14.140] clients had taken his advice, it's likely the company would have been shut down [28:14.140 --> 28:20.340] and who knows where they'd be today. As it is, they both became millionaires from [28:20.340 --> 28:26.100] the business that survived the encounter with the Texas Attorney General. Here's [28:26.100 --> 28:29.980] another story. I was on the phone with a payroll company, the kind of company to [28:29.980 --> 28:34.740] which businesses outsource their payroll. I was speaking with the company's tax [28:34.740 --> 28:39.580] expert and one of its account reps. The question before us was whether a [28:39.580 --> 28:44.620] particular person was legally subject to wage withholding. The call began with [28:44.620 --> 28:51.180] everyone being cordial and professional. That lasted right up until we began [28:51.180 --> 28:55.380] looking at the law. We were all sitting in front of computers, so I suggested [28:55.380 --> 29:00.660] that we look at the law together. We first went to 26 USC 3402, which is the [29:00.660 --> 29:05.860] command to withhold income tax from wages, which you heard earlier. It reads, [29:05.860 --> 29:09.240] except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of [29:09.240 --> 29:14.020] wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax. As a courtesy, I asked, [29:14.020 --> 29:17.740] can we all agree this is the federal statute that commands payroll [29:17.740 --> 29:26.700] withholding? I was stunned when the rep said, we don't have enough information at [29:26.700 --> 29:33.580] this point to agree with you on that. In other words, the account rep who [29:33.580 --> 29:38.500] facilitates the withholding of income tax from the pay of thousands of [29:38.500 --> 29:44.180] Americans every day had never seen the statute authorizing wage withholding. [29:44.220 --> 29:49.020] After assuring her that it is the statute authorizing wage withholding, we [29:49.020 --> 29:52.980] moved on to looking at section 3401, the section that contains the definitions [29:52.980 --> 29:57.740] applicable to wage withholding. We read it a few minutes ago, but to refresh your [29:57.740 --> 30:02.260] memory, it says, for the purpose of this chapter, the term employee includes an [30:02.260 --> 30:05.740] officer employee, elected official of the United States of State, or any political [30:05.740 --> 30:10.100] subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality [30:10.100 --> 30:17.060] of any one or more of the foregoing. As soon as that was read aloud, the entire [30:17.060 --> 30:22.300] tone of the conversation changed with the company's tax expert getting irate [30:22.300 --> 30:28.860] and raising his voice. I calmly asked if he could identify anything in the [30:28.860 --> 30:34.380] definition that would apply to the person in question. In a very loud, angry [30:34.380 --> 30:40.940] voice, he replied, do you think we are stupid? Although I didn't say it, my [30:40.940 --> 30:45.180] thought was yeah. If you are the company's tax law expert and you've never [30:45.180 --> 30:47.980] read the definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding, then yes, [30:47.980 --> 30:55.580] you are stupid. During the call, the rep kept saying, we're just doing what the IRS [30:55.580 --> 31:01.620] says. After she said that several times, I mentioned to her that the IRS is not [31:02.140 --> 31:08.220] the law and that because she had seen the law with her own eyes during the call, [31:08.220 --> 31:19.220] the law is what she should be following. Her reply was, are you ready? That's really [31:19.220 --> 31:25.180] bad advice. Last story for today. A few years back, a longtime friend asked me to [31:25.180 --> 31:28.740] help him in communicating the law to a company with which he was doing [31:28.820 --> 31:34.740] business. The issue dealt with a Form W-9 and the resulting 1099. In the letter to [31:34.740 --> 31:40.060] the company, we cited, among other things, two income tax regulations showing that [31:40.060 --> 31:45.140] a Form W-9 is a withholding certificate, which is only to be given to a [31:45.140 --> 31:48.660] withholding agent, and a withholding agent is a person who has control of US [31:48.660 --> 31:53.820] source income belonging to a foreign person. The first regulation is wordy. The [31:53.820 --> 32:01.140] second one is short. The wordy version is found at 26 CFR 1.1441-1C16 and reads, [32:01.140 --> 32:06.940] the term withholding certificate means a Form W-8 described in paragraph E2I of [32:06.940 --> 32:13.060] this section relating to foreign beneficial owners, paragraphs E3I or E5I [32:13.060 --> 32:16.780] of this section relating to a foreign intermediary or qualified intermediaries, [32:16.780 --> 32:27.780] and 1.1441-5C24C33 and E5III relating to flow through entities, a Form 8233 [32:27.780 --> 32:35.020] described in section 1.1441-4B2, and a Form W-9 as described in paragraph blah [32:35.020 --> 32:44.260] blah blah. Like I said, wordy. The short version is a 26 CFR 1.147-1B148 and [32:44.340 --> 32:50.420] reads, the term withholding certificate means a Form W-8, Form W-9, or any other [32:50.420 --> 32:56.300] certificate that blah blah blah. There is no statute, no regulation, no Treasury [32:56.300 --> 33:01.100] decision saying Form W-9 is anything other than a withholding certificate, and [33:01.100 --> 33:06.260] both definitions were provided in the letter to the company. So what did the [33:06.260 --> 33:11.380] attorney for the company tell his client? The attorney told his clients, and I [33:11.380 --> 33:18.980] quote the attorney here, a W-9 is not a withholding certificate. You will note [33:18.980 --> 33:24.980] that the W-9 is defined as a withholding certificate in two regulations. This is [33:24.980 --> 33:28.260] probably a good time for me to share a holding from the United States Supreme [33:28.260 --> 33:34.780] Court that says, quote, for federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern. In [33:34.780 --> 33:40.300] other words, this suit wearing ignoramus and immoral asshole blatantly lied to [33:40.300 --> 33:46.300] his client. So why do I say they are immoral assholes? I hope it's self-evident [33:46.300 --> 33:50.740] by this point. These attorneys are not only lying their asses off, but they are [33:50.740 --> 33:55.300] actively advocating their clients break the law and in doing so violate your [33:55.300 --> 34:00.780] rights and steal your property. Phrase another way. They abuse the perception of [34:00.780 --> 34:06.000] infallibility given to them by executives and business owners by telling [34:07.000 --> 34:11.000] owners, the law requires them to do things that are completely [34:11.000 --> 34:17.560] unconstitutional and violate your rights. I have not cherry-picked the stories [34:17.560 --> 34:21.320] I've shared with you today. These stories are emblematic of every such [34:21.320 --> 34:25.680] conversation I've had with attorneys in the last three decades and accounts. In [34:25.680 --> 34:29.760] three decades, I have never spoken with an attorney who has read the law upon [34:29.760 --> 34:37.840] which or he or she is advising the client. Never once. Shakespeare's Henry [34:37.840 --> 34:43.880] the Sixth Part Two addressed 15th century England in which lawyers were [34:43.880 --> 34:49.360] instrumental in propping up the corrupt government practices of that day. So what [34:49.360 --> 34:55.440] was Shakespeare's solution to the problem? In that historical play, Dick the [34:55.440 --> 35:01.440] Butcher says to Jack Cade, the leader of the rebellion, quote the first thing we [35:01.440 --> 35:07.640] do, let's kill all the lawyers. Given what you've heard today in my three [35:07.640 --> 35:10.960] decades of watching lawyers lying through their teeth to prop up the [35:10.960 --> 35:15.160] largest financial crime in history, I don't disagree with Shakespeare's [35:15.160 --> 35:20.280] solution. But what of the culpability of company executives and business owners [35:20.280 --> 35:24.260] who never challenged their attorneys or accountants to prove that what they're [35:24.260 --> 35:30.020] saying is factual? After all, an attorney or an accountant is merely a paid [35:30.020 --> 35:35.980] resource. The executives and owners are the decision-makers. I'm not opposed to [35:35.980 --> 35:40.980] those executives and owners also being the recipient of Shakespeare's solution. [35:40.980 --> 35:45.820] Enough of this for today. Let's talk about how you can take advantage of the [35:45.820 --> 35:49.060] special offer I'm running. Anyone who wants to know what income tax law [35:49.060 --> 35:53.540] really says should read Income Tax Shattering the Mess. Readers have often [35:53.540 --> 35:58.180] called it the Bible concerning the truth of the income tax. If you order it now, [35:58.180 --> 36:03.700] I'll pay the shipping. In fact, right now I'm offering free shipping on any order [36:03.700 --> 36:08.580] from my DrReality.News website if the order contains a copy of Income Tax [36:08.580 --> 36:12.100] Shattering the Mess. I'm going to suggest you purchase the four-pack [36:12.100 --> 36:16.340] containing Income Tax Shattering the Mess, The Business Guide to Payroll with [36:16.340 --> 36:22.700] Holding, The Business Handbook for Form W-9, 1099, and U.S. Person, and Body [36:22.740 --> 36:27.460] Science. The first reason to get the four-pack is the price is already deeply [36:27.460 --> 36:31.460] discounted from purchasing the four items individually. The second reason is [36:31.460 --> 36:35.300] that in addition to it being deeply discounted, you get free shipping by [36:35.300 --> 36:40.060] using the code tariffs. Here's a quick overview of each item in the four-pack. [36:40.060 --> 36:44.220] Income Tax Shattering the Mess. You already know that's going to give you [36:44.220 --> 36:49.700] mountains of incontrovertible proof that the income tax has never been imposed on [36:49.700 --> 36:54.980] ordinary hard-working Americans like you. Did I mention I haven't filed an [36:54.980 --> 36:59.860] income tax return or paid a penny of income tax in 32 years and many readers [36:59.860 --> 37:04.820] of Income Tax Shattering the Mess have safely walked away from the scam? The Business [37:04.820 --> 37:08.060] Guide to Payroll with Holding is a 13-page item intended to help workers [37:08.060 --> 37:12.820] convey the truths we've been discussing today to the company for which they work [37:12.820 --> 37:17.060] in order to ask them to follow the law and stop withholding. Not everyone is [37:17.060 --> 37:21.500] articulate or can recall legal citations on the spur of the moment, so I wrote the [37:21.500 --> 37:24.900] Business Guide to Payroll with Holding to help with that. It's also a great [37:24.900 --> 37:29.260] primer if you want to wake someone up to the truth about the income tax. The [37:29.260 --> 37:35.740] Business Handbook for Forms W-9, 1099 in U.S. Person is also 13 pages and is [37:35.740 --> 37:39.500] intended to help self-employed people communicate to those with whom they do [37:39.500 --> 37:43.820] business why they are not required to furnish a Form W-9 and why the person [37:43.820 --> 37:47.300] or entity paying them is not legally required. In fact, it's not legally [37:47.300 --> 37:52.060] permitted to file a Form 1099. The Handbook is also a great primer if you [37:52.060 --> 37:56.060] want to wake someone up to the truth of the income tax. Body Science is my [37:56.060 --> 37:59.980] groundbreaking work on human physiology that is the key to what so many people [37:59.980 --> 38:05.260] say they want which is to turn around the health of the American people. Sadly, [38:05.260 --> 38:08.620] the vast majority of Americans prefer to get their views on nutritional [38:08.620 --> 38:13.180] physiology from a corrupt media rather than a physiologist who tears down the [38:13.180 --> 38:17.500] false establishment health narratives and gives you the science of getting and [38:17.500 --> 38:22.140] staying healthy presented in a way everyone can understand. If you're [38:22.140 --> 38:26.180] sincere about getting and staying healthy and you want that for the people [38:26.180 --> 38:31.420] you care about, you need to read Body Science. I practice what I preach. I adhere [38:31.420 --> 38:35.780] to everything you'll discover in Body Science at 65. I am as healthy as I was [38:35.780 --> 38:41.860] at 25. I am in perfect health, no chronic diseases, no big pharma products, and I [38:41.860 --> 38:47.500] haven't been sick a day in years. Among many other benefits, that's how your [38:47.500 --> 38:50.580] immune system will function if you follow what you learn in Body Science. [38:50.580 --> 38:55.540] So go to DrReality.News and pick up Income Tax Shattering the Mist or the [38:55.540 --> 38:59.580] four-pack. Remember to use the coupon code TARIF so you get free shipping on [38:59.580 --> 39:04.660] any order containing Income Tax Shattering the Mist. Also, purchasing any of my [39:04.660 --> 39:08.780] writings helps me to continue to be here for you with these revealing and [39:08.780 --> 39:12.180] thought-provoking presentations. Thank you for spending your time with me today. [39:12.180 --> 39:15.980] I hope you found it time well spent.