NO INCOME TAX LAW FORMER "IRS" AGENT JOE BANNISTER PART 3

[InIJah]

holy young alex jones batman lol

[neilengen]

great clip .. keep it up thanks

[Tubeusercomm]

The IRS Chief Counsel and DoJ attorneys compete to get cases such as this.

These slam-dunks add in nicely to the win-loss record which helps determine their annual bonus.

[Tubeusercomm]

The court ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.

The District Court issued an order holding We the People Foundation in contempt of court, imposing fines of $2,000 per day.

On May 5, 2008, Schulz filed a document with the court asserting that he had turned the material over to the United States attorney's office earlier that day.

[durango64]

WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE GIVE A COPY OF YOUR CERTIFICATE FO EXEMPTION FROM WITHOLDING IN LIEU OF FORM W-4, AND A AFFIDAVIT OF TAX-EXEMPT FOREIGN STATUS....

[socialist373737]

Sending tax evaders to gitmo is NOT unconstitutional. The 16th amendment came after the bill of rights so fair trials do not apply. A society cannot function without taxes.

[socialist373737]

Taxes should be 70 percent, it is way too low in America. I also think that anyone who doesn't pay taxes should be sent to gitmo where they should be tortured.

[robertwc82]

maybe if everyone was naked thered be no tyrants as no one would be able to take this abstract human concept of "authority" seriously.

there is no legitimate authority on this planet other than God's, and God is a product of imagination

[firefox8192]

good ole Joe Bannister is truely born again. god bless him.

[asicit2b]

Can anybody give me the correct history of the self-employment tax ?Please keep it simple to start.

[asicit2b]

Define the difference between "income" and Taxable "income".A Progressive tax = plank #2 of the communist manifesto.People are sick of it.They rebelled against king george at 14 % total taxation.What are we 50% and adding ?

[iwtfunow]

What part of voluntary don't Joe understand. He has not a clue...

[dude58677]

If teh government were staying within it's limited Constittuional functions, the 16th amendment is pointless.

[kubush]

@dude58677 What kind of nonsense argument is that? The 16th amendment is part of the Constitution. So the govt IS staying within the limits given by the Constitution.

[BeantownJim]

16th amendment was never ratified

[RetSquid]

According to the House of Representatives

Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Indiana, California, Nevada, South Dakota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Maine, Tennessee, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York, Arizona, Minnesota, Louisiana, West Virginia, New Mexico, Massachusetts, New Hampshire all

[kubush]

@BeantownJim Yes, it was. Please stop repeating nonsense you saw is some ignorant youtube video.

[BeantownJim]

@kubush Show me where it is written or keep quiet!

[kubush]

@BeantownJim Where was what written? Be specific.

[BeantownJim]

@kubush Where is it written that:We have to file?

[kubush]

@BeantownJim Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a)

Now it is your turn to keep quiet!

[BeantownJim]

@kubush Theres nothing mentioned in those reg's and laws that stipulate we have to file.Nothing!

[kubush]

@BeantownJim Did you even read it??? You're just closing your eyes and going "blah blah blah".

[kubush]

@BeantownJim 6020(a) "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount..."

Now please get your head out of your ass.

[BeantownJim]

@kubush Sorry son.No where does it say: We have to. No where.

[kubush]

@BeantownJim I already sent you the exact text where it says you have to. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

[BeantownJim]

@kubush Sorry no You sent me IRS statutes and regulations.There no law that says you specifically "Have to file".

[kubush]

@BeantownJim The Internal Revenue Code IS LAW!

[BeantownJim]

@kubush Yes the code is law.But where does it specifically say: I have to file!

[kubush]

@BeantownJim § 6012 "Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount"

Does that answer your question?

[BeantownJim]

@kubush nope!

[kubush]

@BeantownJim How does it not? Can you not read?

[BeantownJim]

@kubush You still have not proved where it says: I have to file.

[kbleuel]

@kubush The problem here is that you are confusing tax code with law. there is now law requiring an individual to file on wages paid for time. The IRS tax code is not the law nor are the agents law enforcement. Do they get away with screwing your world up if you don't file? yes. Is it legal? No. Basically we are being duped because this law was never ratified. Don't get me wrong i'm not against taxes just not on my wages. profit from property or goods is fine but not wages.

[kubush]

@kbleuel " The IRS tax code is not the law" YES IT IS! The IRS Tax Code IS LAW!

[kubush]

@kbleuel And it was ratified.

[kbleuel]

@kubush It has become quite clear that you are misinformed and like the general public are swayed not by fact, but by who can more eloquently deliver his argument.

you are interested only in a battle of intellect. in fact I don't even think that you truly believe what you are arguing about. I bet you would try to persuade me into thinking that the Federal Reserve is a Federal agency.

[dude58677]

@kubush Finally, teh 16th amendment has been WIDELY distorted throughout history. President Taft proposed the 16th amendment in 1909 and only intended it for corporate dividends. It was passed by both the Congress and the States between 1909 and 1913. The Democrats took over for the first time in 18 years along with Woodrow Wilson and enacted a wage tax which we know as the Internal Revenue Act of 1913. It still only applied to 1 percent of Americans. To be continued...

[dude58677]

Continued... Government spending was very limted at that time and could not be forseen that it would grow much more. Afterall, the United States was around for 130 years by 1913 and no one would predict it would grow much more. Taxes were not universal till 1943. Newer generations became accustomed to it and now it seems odd to alot of people that taxes were not a high priority throughout American history, esp progressives who love big government.

[kubush]

@dude58677 So people didn't foresee the growth of government? I'm sure some did. And....so what? What does this have to do with what is law and Constitutional now? Whether it was Taft's intention or not, the 16th Amendment made it completely Constitutional for the government to tax income. The IRS code clearly states who has to pay.

[dude58677]

@kubush So you can really just make up anything as you go along. The law becomes a fad. Lets take it out of context just to get what want. That is intellectually dishonest!

[kubush]

@dude58677 There is nothing being taken out of context. Don't take my word for it. Go read the 16th Amendment, the IRS code, and the Supreme Court rulings on the issue.

[dude58677]

@kubush

You are taking it out of context, the Congress is taking it out of context, and the courts are taking it out of context.

It is what the authors of the 16th amendment that counts. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't like this fact. Just like people taking "militia" out of context. It did not mean national guard but that is what people who hate guns argue the second amendment says "national guard".

[kubush]

@dude58677 Of course. Everyone is taking it out of context except some schmuck on youtube. LOL.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It cant get any more clearer than that.

[dude58677]

@kubush Typical liberal, you resort to name calling whenever. It doesn't say "direct" tax and the term direct was proposed and REJECTED by the authors of the 16th amendment. You have no argument. You can debate here for the next 100 years and call me names but it won't change the facts.

[kubush]

@dude58677 It doesn't say indirect tax either. The 16th amendment applies to both which is why it is just labeled as 'tax'. You're right. The facts wont change. Too bad for you the facts aren't on your side.

[dude58677]

@kubush " It doesn't say indirect tax either. The 16th amendment applies to both which is why it is just labeled as 'tax'. "

The Congress of 1909 proposed that the wording use the term "direct". It was rejected. We can debate this 100 years and the facts will NEVER be on your side.

[kubush]

@dude58677 I would say that 'direct' was rejected because it was unnecessary and might imply that indirect taxes would not be constitutional. Do you have actual facts to prove otherwise?

[dude58677]

@kubush

The burden of proof is on you to prove that. You and the US government are making the claim that taxes are owed by most Americans, you prove that the 16th amendment meant a tax owed by most Americans at the time it was enacted.

[socialist373737]

@kubush Do you support a 70 percent tax rate?

[kubush]

@socialist373737 70% is excessive. So no.

[dude58677]

@kubush

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 39

"“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct [emphasis mine] taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.” [44 Cong.Rec. 3377 (1909)] "

Vote on proposed amendment: Rejected

[kubush]

IRS - The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. And numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non‑apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In US v. Collins and noted that the Supreme Court has recognized that the “16th amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.”

[dude58677]

@kubush

This doesn't prove anything. All you are proving is that a progressive judge approved by a progressive Congress states that the income tax is a direct tax. It is what was meant at the time the 16th amendment was written.I'll give you an ANALOGY. OJ was found not guilty by the courts, I guess that means he is really didn't kill Nicole(rolling eyes).

The burden of proof is on you to prove that most Americans owe income tax and that was meant by teh authors of the 16th amendment.

[kubush]

@dude58677 The text is very clear in that it allows the govt to levy any tax from any source. It is in black and white. And the U.S. Supreme Court whos sole duty is to interpret and uphold the laws agrees with me. Case closed.

[dude58677]

@kubush

Case closed? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Article 1 section 5 says that Congress must keep a journal of all proceedings. It is very clear that back in 1909 that the 16th amendment was not meant to be a direct tax. Original intent does matter.

Nice try!

[kubush]

@dude58677 It is very clear that they took out "direct" because they wanted direct AND indirect taxation to be legal. Therefor specifying direct is pointless.

You have not shown any intent whatsoever. You just made a false assumption without any evidence whatsoever.

Nice try!

[dude58677]

@kubush

The burden of proof is on YOU and you haven't proven your case. You have to prove that most Americans owe taxes and that it is constitutional. That it is central to our American heritage. You have to prove that teh authors of the 16th amendment meant for their to be a widespread income taxes when it was enacted. You haven't done so.

Nice try!

[dude58677]

@kubush

Prove that most Americans owe taxes or shut up!

[kubush]

@dude58677

26 U.S.C. § 6012 : US Code - Section 6012: Persons required to make returns of income "Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount"

Ouch.

[dude58677]

@kubush

That doesn't prove it. You need to show it is constitutional and that it is within the intent of the 1909 Congress. You have not done that and cannot do it.

[kubush]

@dude58677 You are the one that is claiming that it is unconstitutional. Back up your claim or shut up.

[dude58677]

@kubush

You and the government are imposing a tax on the population, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You prove that it is legal.

[kubush]

@dude58677 The government has the legal to tax. It is in the 16th Amendment and the IRS tax code. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue several times and has repeatedly said that the govt does have the power.

You are now in denial. Please, don't pay your taxes and go to jail. Then maybe you won't go on youtube and leave ignorant comments.

[dude58677]

@kubush

This is just a baseless assertion by claiming that "might makes right". This doens't prove anything. There is no reason to be in denial. All you are doing is taking the original intention of the 16th amendment out of context and resorting to threats. You know you have no case which is why you waste so much time trying to convince people for your baseless assertions. Prove your case or shut up!

[kubush]

@dude58677 I NEVER argued that "might makes right". You say that I am taking the original intent of the 16th amendment out of context yet you haven't proved what the original intent was. All you did was say, 'look they excluded the word "direct" therefor income taxes aren't legal.' Talk about non sequitor. You haven't proved original intent therefor you have no case.

[dude58677]

@kubush

You are saying as long as the govenrment can violate the Constituton and get away with it in court, then it is perfectly fine. YOU have not proven there is original intent for a universal wage tax under the 16th amendment.

[dude58677]

@kubush

Yep, you porve my point. Name calling, arrogant debating, shifting the burden of proof on me(I went in detail about how the 16th amendment history refutes your bogus theory about wage taxes being constitutioinal BTW), and you call it all bullshit?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! BAWAWAWWAWWAWAWAAAAWAWAWA!!!!!­!!! YOU LOST THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M DONE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kubush]

@dude58677 Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

"I'M DONE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You conceded, therefor you lost the debate. It's funny how the highest point in your argument was "BAWAWAWAWAWA..." LOL. Good luck not paying your taxes.

[prof5string]

@dude58677 Wages were taxed long before the 16th Amendment under the power granted by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

[dude58677]

@kubush

I will block all your emails as spam. You just keep repeating the same lame argument over again, expecting different results. You have NOT proven that a universal wage tax is Constitutional and I gave you reasons you cannot prove it and yet you email me back with the same crap.

[kubush]

@dude58677 I don't give a shit about your idle threats. I can mark all your messages as spam just the same. You are the one that is repeating nonsense here. You are claiming that it is unconstitutional. I ask you how is it unconstitutional and your reply is that I haven't proven that it is constitutional. You are an idiot.

[dude58677]

@kubush

Here is your method of debate and you are NOT the first to do this regarding taxes:

1) Argue that it is ok for the government to bend the rules as long as they do not get caught.

2) Use character assassination on anyone who casts doubt about the arguments made by IRS advocates.

3) Resort to threats to anyone who disagrees.

4) Shove the taxes down people's throats and try to shift the burden of proof on them that they do not owe the taxes. Prove your case or shut up!

[dude58677]

@kubush

5) Argue in a very arrogant tone of voice to give people the idea that if they disagree, then they are stupid.

6) Call people names when they see through you and if you can't win the debate with someone stick around waiting for the next victim to prey on.

[dude58677]

@kubush

7) Deny all 6 things mentioned.

[kubush]

@dude58677 LOL. That last one is a hoot. Cuz you know that your whole list is full of bullshit, so you had to put number 7 in order to get something right. LOL.

[dude58677]

@kubush I know you will try to get the last word in with your total BS arguments. I have to close this debate out somehow. You haven't proven your case and yet you won't shut up.

[prof5string]

@dude58677 The most likely reason the word "direct" was rejected is that Congress wanted to repudiate the Supreme Court's Pollock decision, in which a tax on investment income was held to be a direct tax on the underlying property. Use of the word "direct" might have implied that the Court's reasoning was sound, which it wasn't.

[dude58677]

@kubush

You like to argue that because the founders were secular, that free speech means "Seperation of Church and State", WHICH IT DOES.

Somehow, this concept of original intent doesn't apply when it comes to taxes. What the authors of the 16th amendent mean, is irrelevant, although the concept of original intent is relevant "seperation of church and state"(it is as much as it is with taxes or anything else in the Constitution).

[kubush]

@dude58677 The original intent was to may a direct tax on income Constitutional. Done.

[dude58677]

@kubush

According to you the "King can do no wrong".

[kubush]

@dude58677 Wtf? And according to you, you like being gang raped. See, I can make up stuff too.

[dude58677]

@kubush "Wtf? And according to you, you like being gang raped. See, I can make up stuff too."

Yes, you are right. You can put words in anyone's mouth and take it out of context. Which is the exact thing you are doing with the authors of the Constitution. Thanks for making my point.

[kubush]

@dude58677 I am not making your point since it is YOU that is putting words into the author's of the Constitution.

[dude58677]

@kubush

Lets continue with your inconsistency. Torture is perfectly constitutional because the Congress said it was legal and the judges appointed by Bush say it is.

OF COURSE TORTURE IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE FOUNDERS WERE AGAINST IT!

[kubush]

@dude58677 The point that the founders were against it hold no weight. The fact is that it is illegal according to the Constitution. Congress has not amended the Constitution to make it legal, therefor torture is unconstitutional. There is no inconsistency on my part.

[BeantownJim]

i'm a lil slow on taxes but i know one thing codes are not amendments

[RetSquid]

Really? Who told you that?

[sniped101]

wait a second.. sherry jackson was jailed? why was she jailed?

[RetSquid]

In October 2007, a jury found Jackson of Stone Mountain, Ga., guilty on four counts of failure to file income tax returns. Jackson was sentenced, on Feb. 14, 2008, by U.S. District Judge Orinda D. Evans to four consecutive prison terms of 12 months each.

[mergupis]

The only reason she is in prison is because of the lack of the law of the jury!

[almartin77]

Yes it is all very simple. Constitution or not. Who owns you? You do. You own your labor. You own the time you have to live your life. You own your body. The Police? They do what they are told as long as someone with more rank throws them a bone.

[PhillipOrion]

You are a smart man. You just need to get some exposure to some accurate knowledge and you'd be a great asset. Statutes only have the color of law by those that volunteer to be governed by them. Hang in there.

[PhillipOrion]

I try to get my definitions from the Blacks Law dictionaries that are associated with the years of the legislation. Statutes are policies, codes, acts that have the color of law within a society. Statutes are not Laws. Their are only two Laws. Thou shalt not damage a man or his property. Thou shalt not use fraud or mischief in your contracts.

[PhillipOrion]

I've got Black's1-8 and that's where all the courts used by thecorporation UNITED STATES get their definitions.  Those are the two laws of nature that I found visiting the Hague in the Netherlands.

[kubush]

@PhillipOrion So the Civil Rights ACT has no legal power in your eyes? Because it is an "act"?

[BeantownJim]

federal reserve is not a legislature it's privately owned

[RetSquid]

Who ever said they were a legislature?

[OneVoiceMore]

@RetSquid I didn't see where anyone did, either, but they are absolutely a private bank, no more 'federal' than Federal Express. The U.S. Treasury is the bank of the US, the Fed is a private reserve institution.

[kubush]

@OneVoiceMore It is not entirely private.

[OneVoiceMore]

@kubush Which is the point. It's not entirely FEDERAL, which it should be.

[MrPolskaDuma]

Yeah it's owned by the Mafia.

[ifreemantoo]

What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?

HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?

FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.

CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM

RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM

TRUTHATTACK*ORG

[ifreemantoo]

Let's see now SpamOlabeler RetSquid banned from commenting in a YT Video for spam labeling wants to engage in discussion he has already lost & has no hope of winning ever so that in the end he can just spam label some more. I don't think so.

But what to do about a spamOlabeler?

[stoplegalthiefspam3]

If the law creates stealing or the corrupt interpretation of law permits stealing, legal thieves say that people are subject to law that steals from them?

Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power

[aviomaster]

KevinMerck -- Small Goverments around the world , SOld their soul for the dollar ,,, USA is imperialist power , 2008-2009-2010 , no more USA tyrany around the world.

[PhillipOrion]

It isn't LAW. It is CODE, an ACT, a STATUTE. It only applies to the United States citizen, resident, alien, subject slave. It is uniform commercial code enforced in admiralty courts on the high seas of commerce.

[kaysandesses]

Phillip, spit out the koolaid before it's too late. Codes ARE laws. Art. 1, Sec. 7 of the Constitution. Read it.

[PhillipOrion]

you are 100% wrong. A Code is exactly that, a code. A statute an act on the high seas of commerce in admiralty jurisdiction. It is UCC - Uniform Commercial Code. It has the color of law because slaves choose to give it the color of law. It isn't law. It's policy for the corporations and franchises. I know the law and I am free. Your drinking the kool aid you resident alien subject slave franchise of the corporation called Homeland Security in Costa Rica.

[KevinMerck]

People instinctively know that Joe Banister is a good and honest man. The fact that hes involved in law enforcement makes him *extremely special*. Most cops and public officials will, (and do) sell their souls for a dollar.

If Joe doesnt go down in history as a great American, then we should all be ashamed of what this country has become. Im sure the Founding Fathers would agree.

[iwtfunow]

Tax protesters and thier attorneys are piss poor Chess Players...the DOJ kicks thier asses because they are legally wrong.....end of story.....The system of taxation is based upon volumtary compliance....they are tunneled vision on the erroneous and frivolous arguements....think outside the box and figure the system out legally......

[almartin77]

The 1040 instruction book has an index on the last page. It only list U.S. citizens living abroad and directs the reader to page 20 which is titled "INCOME" foreign earned income. You are instructed to report all income from sources "outside the United States", including wages salaries and tips. There are NO instructions for reporting income from any other source!!

[almartin77]

Every tax imposed in the Code has three necessary elements. 1. The subject of the tax is identified. 2. The amount of tax is given. And 3. The person "LIABLE" is identified. If any one of these elements are missing from the equation, then no tax can be collected. The I.R. Code imposes just over 2 dozen taxes. All have these three elements. Subtitle "A" is the income tax. Sec.1 imposes the tax on taxable income and provides rates of tax. Sec. 1461 identifies who is "LIABLE". See for yourself.

[ifreemantoo]

If the law creates stealing or the corrupt interpretation of law permits stealing, what makes people subject to law that steals from them?

Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.

[uuce]

does anyone know the name of the guy mentioned here????JACK ????????.?

[billsarebullyesyes]

uuce- jack mclamb (police officer) here on u-tube

[BRYAN351]

kaysandesses, congratulations. Since you found the law that requires people to pay taxes on wages, then go claim your $50,000 prize. Some organization offered this reward years ago, and their full page ad in USA Today is shown in the Sherry Jackson video in my favorites.

Guess what? Nobody has ever been able to claim it. If there is a clear cut law, why doesn't the IRS come right out and state it in response to the thousands of people asking them to show it? The answer? There is no law.

[Sparkygravity]

because it is against the law to avoid income tax. You must file your income taxes or else you will be arrested and convicted. However, you are not required to report income that is illegal for the goverment to tax. The 16th amendment was never ratified. So the broad definition of what income includes was never passed into law.

The moral of the story is file your income taxes. Or risk becoming a prisoner, whether or not they imprison people illegally is a matter of perspective.

[IRSFRAUDEXPOSED]

it is not illegal to avoid the income tax. you file to either correct or concure with the the information returns like w2. if you have no information returns of any type being submited on you then they have no information and you dont need to file , whats to file?

[kaysandesses]

Why didn't they ask Banister why he still files income tax?

[bosunbilly]

What? And ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory?

[Sparkygravity]

he still files an income tax because it is against the law to avoid tax. Their is no law against tax evaded federal income tax, since the 16th admendment never got passed. So you file your income tax and you don't report the income that portion of your income that can't be taxed.

So the moral of the story is you need to file your income tax, or you will be arrested. But there is money income that can't be legally taxed.

[kaysandesses]

"he still files an income tax because it is against the law to avoid tax. Their is no law against tax evaded federal income tax,"

Well, which is it sparky: is it illegal or not?

"the 16th admendment never got passed"

Never got what?

"So you file your income tax and you don't report the income that portion of your income that can't be taxed."

Ah, well that's tax fraud, not tax evasion but it's still illegal to intentionally misreport your income.

[Sparkygravity]

except that their has never been any law passed that interprets wage as income. The courts have held that wage is part of income. But due to the way in which the 16th amendment was "ratified", no pubic vote, or bill has ever defined wage as income. That's what tax protesters mean when they say "Show me the law". There isn't one, only court interpretations.

[kbleuel]

You need to do research before you make comments. Mr. Banister does not file a return on his wages as his his service is being evenly traded for compensation by his employer. If he is filing a return it is on profits made for other ventures as law requires. You can look and look and you will find no law requiring tax on wages. The only question is are you willing to stand up for your rights?

[kaysandesses]

"You need to do research before you make comments."

You really should take your own advice. Prepare for a first rate smack-down.

"Mr. Banister does not file a return on his wages as his his service is being evenly traded for compensation by his employer."

Prove it.

"You can look and look and you will find no law requiring tax on wages. "

You simply have to look past the TP websites and videos to find the law requiring a tax on our wages.

Look no farther: 26 USC 61

[kbleuel]

I'm Sorry Sir, I am not trying to be a smart ass

or anything like that. I am just telling you that if you really look in to this not by going to the IRS website, but really looking for yourself. There is no law requiring you to pay taxes on your wages. If you can find it and and post it I will send you $ 100.00 I know it it's not much but it is all I can afford. Good Luck!

[DemonicCollusion]

That would be the "Internal Revenue Code." That's not law. Nice try though.

[kubush]

@kbleuel " You can look and look and you will find no law requiring tax on wages. "

The Internal Revenue Code - “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table...”

You didn't look very far now did you?

[keltec223]

Thanks for posting these vids stihlman37. They're helpful. Keep up the good work. :-)

[stihlman37]

Thanks

[BipolarProject]

My system shut down twice, while watching these video's. I have never seen an error while playing a video on youtube. HUM?

[BlackRabbit2264]

Thanks for putting them up. I'm embedding these on my income tax section of my pro-Truth site. So keep them up ;)

[stihlman37]

Thanks! I am just a caring Canadian Friend that has a hard time believing what is happening there, including the arrest of Ed and Elaine Brown.

[BlackRabbit2264]

Oh god... don't start me. How do the American people put up with blatant Fascism? I feel rather hopeless being all the way here in Europe.

But this is where I began to question the motives of Alex Jones. There's a lot in that man people aren't seeing.

[stihlman37]

I put this up to stress the relavance of Ed and Elaine Browns fight with the IRS and the Feds, and to help keep them fresh on everyones mind. So who is lying now?