Internet sales will be taxed soon.
Name the Place You Can Pay NO Taxes And Receive A Refund..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
This too is about to change. Tax the net!
But, Costa Rico or Beliez with give us a refund on our norte americano loco payment, the moment we step off the plane.
Something a Belize fisherman said, after we bought lobsters from his boat. I told him, "from the USA." He say, "Ah, you pay loco." What? "You pay a lot to live there?" Yeah....
"Loco tax" he said with a giant smile as we drift apart.
But, Costa Rico or Beliez with give us a refund on our norte americano loco payment, the moment we step off the plane.
Something a Belize fisherman said, after we bought lobsters from his boat. I told him, "from the USA." He say, "Ah, you pay loco." What? "You pay a lot to live there?" Yeah....
"Loco tax" he said with a giant smile as we drift apart.
They are in some states already.
This too is about to change. Tax the net!
But, Costa Rico or Beliez with give us a refund on our norte americano loco payment, the moment we step off the plane.
Something a Belize fisherman said, after we bought lobsters from his boat. I told him, "from the USA." He say, "Ah, you pay loco." What? "You pay a lot to live there?" Yeah....
"Loco tax" he said with a giant smile as we drift apart.
Ah Belize.
Has anyone ever read the John McAfee postings over at Bluelight ?
He posted as stuffmonger.
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/541627-Hello-and-an-MDPV-Question
SirGreenThumb
Well-Known Member
Not anymore. They started taxing the states that wasn't already getting taxed. I just bought a double din dvd player and paid 18 dollars in tax.
If you don't want to discuss it, don't raise it. Then there will be no discussion.
The problem is that you're connecting clauses that are obviously disconnected. The "and shall also have" that relates to "saving to suitors" is connected to "all civil causes of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." Then there's another "and shall also have" relating to "seizures on land." As is clear in the text:
"and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."
You need not take my word for it. "The savings to suitors clause is a right under the federal law which allows a party to pursue a remedy for a maritime claim in a state court when entitled to such remedy." http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/saving-to-suitors-clause/.
The supreme court has explained this: "In a subsequent case, the Court defined the saving to suitors clause as a grant to state courts of in personam jurisdiction, concurrent with admiralty courts...“The ‘right of a common law remedy,’ so saved to suitors, does not … include attempted changes by the States in the substantive admiralty law, but it does include all means other than proceedings in admiralty which may be employed to enforce the right or to redress the injury involved...Thus, the saving to suitors clause preserves remedies and the concurrent jurisdiction of state courts over some admiralty and maritime claims." From Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, 531 US 438.
The present rendering of the jurisdictional statute at 28 US Code 1333 is further evidence: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled."
An IRS seizure could only possibly be construed to trigger the "saving to suitors" clause if the seizure related to something that falls under admiralty/maritime jurisdiction. Your original claim in this thread was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides the right to a common law remedy related to currency. Because that has nothing to do with admiralty, which is what the "saving to suitors" clause relates to, that claim is just not tenable.
I saw Belize advertised heavily on Glenn Beck one day when I was channel surfing the tv. Belize had much air time along with gun holsters, garden seeds, home security safes, gold and silver, and home security sytems.
That doesn't mean there is any thing wrong with Belize.
Does Glenn had a secret fox hole there?
That doesn't mean there is any thing wrong with Belize.
Does Glenn had a secret fox hole there?
Not anymore. They started taxing the states that wasn't already getting taxed. I just bought a double din dvd player and paid 18 dollars in tax.
I am sure it is coming but not yet where I am.
I just checked
[h=3]Order Summary[/h] [TABLE="class: small-line-height"]
[TR="class: order-summary-unidenfitied-style"]
[TD="class: a-text-left"]Items:[/TD]
[TD="class: a-align-bottom a-nowrap a-text-right"]$19.95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: order-summary-unidenfitied-style"]
[TD="class: a-text-left"]Shipping & handling:[/TD]
[TD="class: a-align-bottom a-nowrap a-text-right"]$6.49[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: order-summary-separator"]
[TD="class: a-padding-small cell-separator, colspan: 2"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: order-summary-unidenfitied-style"]
[TD="class: a-text-left"]Total before tax:[/TD]
[TD="class: a-align-bottom a-nowrap a-text-right"]$26.44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: order-summary-unidenfitied-style"]
[TD="class: a-text-left"]Estimated tax to be collected:[/TD]
[TD="class: a-align-bottom a-nowrap a-text-right"]$0.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: order-summary-grand-total"]
[TD="class: a-padding-small cell-separator, colspan: 2"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: a-size-medium a-color-price a-text-left"]Order total:[/TD]
[TD="class: a-size-medium a-color-price a-align-bottom a-nowrap grand-total-price a-text-right"]$26.44[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Amazon has made deals with various states to start collecting sales taxes, but the starting year differs by state. Collection started in 2014 in several states, and in will start in others in 2015 or 2016.
I saw Belize advertised heavily on Glenn Beck one day when I was channel surfing the tv. Belize had much air time along with gun holsters, garden seeds, home security safes, gold and silver, and home security sytems.
That doesn't mean there is any thing wrong with Belize.
Does Glenn had a secret fox hole there?
That doesn't mean there is any thing wrong with Belize.
Does Glenn had a secret fox hole there?
SirGreenThumb
Well-Known Member
I lied, it was 15.17 oops. 
Doer
Well-Known Member
What were they advertising? Timeshare?
I am pretty sure you have to be a citizen to own property. But, the main thing is the banking secrecy.It is still real, on paper, numbered accounts, double blind, etc. Can't be hacked. The bank actually does not know, who's money they have by actual identity. No employee knows. Only you know the number. The bank has no other details.
did you not see the word: QUALIFY?..i did not receive enough last year to QUALIFY for a 1098T..
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I remember when belize was all the rage....everyone wanted tourist cabana spots.
@tokeprep
"Debt begins in Admiralty whether on land or navigable waters." United States v. $5,372.85 United States Coin and Currency, 283 F.Supp. 904, 905-06 (S.D.N.Y. 196
@tokeprep
"Debt begins in Admiralty whether on land or navigable waters." United States v. $5,372.85 United States Coin and Currency, 283 F.Supp. 904, 905-06 (S.D.N.Y. 196
Doer
Well-Known Member
What being with a Q and ends with a Y and has an AL and an F and a U and that's how ya spell RIVERCITY! (what?) Rivercity. You have to qualify to work for the Big Casino.
May your realize few earnings to pay less tax.
This Account friend, straighten out the IRS for me, put them in their place....for me to beg them. And I got off. 12K in fines dismissed, only taxes owed, 4K in penalties dismissed. All because we were able to show that I was not a tax cheat or a smart ass, but, clearly stupid with the wrong idea, entirely.
Anyway, he always said that his job doesn't matter about a flat tax or a fair tax or anything. The art of accounting is to realize less earnings, and only at the best time, and take advantage of plowing back, tax breaks, returns on net capital, etc.
He says his job is to find out if you realized any earnings, at all, in a quarter. And why did you have to do that? A loophole in the Corporate Holding Entity, no doubt. Must fix that.
If you bothered to read the case you would know that quotation is fabricated. Google just informed me that it comes from tax protestor web sites/manifestos. What does the case actually say? First of all, it has absolutely nothing to do with debt. Here are the actual words from the relevant parts of the case:
The earliest seizure cases were maritime cases and for that reason the pleading to initiate such seizures came to be called "a libel of information."
Because the legal framework for seizure was developed in maritime cases, non-maritime seizures came to use admiralty procedures. The distinction between maritime and non-maritime cases was absolutely essential because, for example, there is no right to a jury trial in admiralty cases. There was a right to a jury trial in a non-maritime seizure because it wasn't actually an admiralty case; those cases merely followed admiralty pleading procedures.
When the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were created, non-maritime seizures ceased to follow admiralty procedures and instead followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 81(a)(2) in connection with the 1946 Amendments stated that Reynal was a correct application of the Civil Rules to forfeiture proceedings; this Note is quoted at 7 Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed.) 4413. [2] When the civil and admiralty procedures were unified by the amendments effective July 1, 1966, reference to forfeiture proceedings was deleted from Rule 81(a)(2) and the Supplemental Rules were made applicable to such proceedings (Rule A; statutory condemnation proceedings' was meant in include forfeiture proceedings, see 7 Moore's Federal Practice 4439, 1967 Cum.Supp. 147-14
The distinction between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and admiralty procedure was ultimately eliminated. Seizures are presently governed by the Supplemental Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and otherwise by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Conclusion: Whoever fabricated your quotation is confusing substance and procedure. To give you an unrelated example of what I mean, if I go to a federal district court to litigate a state law, I'm required to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--I can't use state rules even though Im disputing a state law. Regardless, even though I'm required to use federal procedural rules, the federal district court must apply state law. The federal rules are just the procedure for conducting the litigation; the state law is the substance for deciding the case.
The fact that non-maritime seizures once utilized admiralty procedures reflects the historical reality that the earliest seizures were in maritime cases, BUT that did not transform such non-maritime seizures into matters to be decided by substantive admiralty law. The fact that you keep seeing the word pleading and phrases involving commencing proceedings in the actual text of the case is your tipoff.
People who work at Wal -Mart are the employees of the shareholders, not the CEO. Many Wal-Mart employees are also shareholders.
Similar threads
