![]() |
NO INCOME TAX LAW FORMER "IRS" AGENT JOE BANNISTER PART 1 Posted by: stihlman37
Video duration: 579 seconds Joe Bannister explains in a interveiw the 2 year investigation he did, resulted in the IRS forcing him to resign. Related: alex, and, brown, ed, elaine, fedral, illegal, income, infowars, investigation, irs, jones, reserve, tax Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
![]() |
NO INCOME TAX LAW FORMER "IRS" AGENT JOE BANNISTER PART 2 Posted by: stihlman37
Video duration: 391 seconds Joe Bannister explains in a interveiw the 2 year investigation he did, resulted in the IRS forcing him to resign. Related: alex, and, brown, ed, elaine, fedral, illegal, income, infowars, investigation, irs, jones, reserve, tax Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
NO INCOME TAX LAW FORMER "IRS" AGENT JOE BANNISTER PART 3 Posted by: stihlman37
Video duration: 354 seconds Joe Bannister explains in a interveiw the 2 year investigation he did, resulted in the IRS forcing him to resign. Related: alex, and, brown, ed, elaine, fedral, illegal, income, infowars, investigation, irs, jones, reserve, tax Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
MADNESS Posted by: stihlman37
Video duration: 376 seconds My first Sheeple try at making a clip, and editing so please forgive the poor quality. My Idea of the 911 Story Line and implications there of. Open your MIND! Related: 911, alex, bush, channey, conspiracy, coverup, goverment, infowars, jones, montage, news, prisonplanet, proffessor, steven, wtc Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
BABY BOOGIE Posted by: stihlman37
Video duration: 37 seconds CUTE CUTE CUTE Related: baby, boogie, cute, dance, funny, rap, sweet Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
||||||
![]() |
Reg's Short Visit from N.S. Posted by: stihlman37
Video duration: 12 seconds My buddy popped by for about half an hour after about 8yrs. Related: comedy, fooled, funny, pictures, reg, spoof, visit Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||










Latest comments made on this video:
By: uuce. on 20 Nov 08, 17:15:05
so what i am getting from this income tax....is............so im paying the irs to work??????hahahhahahaa/....i gotta pay to work...wat a load of crap.VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 07:38:59
Sorry for the errors in spelling. Was interrupted by a Sherrif in commission of his duties. Work is so fun. :p
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 07:20:38
I do, however dispute that Congress has the power to tax a right. I also dispute that title 26, subsection A allows for the taxation of Americans doing common labor.
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 07:17:25
Subtitle C is 'employees' which is defined, but dies not include an average American being paid to do work. Subtitle A does comment on iddividualls a lot. But it is all about 'Taxable income'. By there being a taxable income, doesn't it stand to reason that there are incomes that are not taxable? That is the crux of the descussion. I don't doubt that there is part of the Constitution that allows Congress to tax. Nore do I doubt title 26.
By: RetSquid. on 11 Nov 08, 06:46:35
"defined terms such as 'employees' " But, mostly 'individuals'.
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 06:38:23
[Read Title 26, it's there.] Title 26 revolves around 'Taxable Income' and specifically title defined terms such as 'employees' which on the surface sounds like everybody and all that comes in. When a critical thinker actually reads them, finds that title 26 is actually far more restrictive then it first appears.
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 06:24:57
Many people use what I am telling you and standing up to the IRS. Documents of direct correspondence to the IRS show that these people are getting everything back by forcing the IRS to reclassify the earnings as private sector compensation rather then the payers' incorrect claims that they are Income. Search for Lost Horizons and look at the documentation yourself. Would the IRS be giving up this money after such information was indicated if your views were correct?
By: RetSquid. on 11 Nov 08, 05:54:48
You need to do more research from the primary sources, don't depend on other's research that is inaccurate. If you are an individual making over 'X' amount after deductions you owe taxes. Read Title 26, it's there.
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 05:40:56
[What is average? As an American citizen.] A person working exclusively in the private sector. If you work for WalMart, the corner store, or even yourself, and etc for any amount of money. That is what I term an average American. People who are not 'Average' in terms of the Income: Politicians, soldiers, Officers of Corporations are examples that are under the 'Income' and 'employment' tax laws under title 26.
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 05:34:35
[Yeah, only those who have an income from capitol or labor.] Yep, Income as defined before the 16th was enacted, which I have provided you several times as defined.
By: RetSquid. on 11 Nov 08, 05:27:46
"Yes it a law, but a specialized law for specialized cases, not a general law that is enacted over everyone for everything." Yeah, only those who have an income from capitol or labor. "Title 26 can be enacted as a 'Law' without it being 'Positive Law'." Not only 'CAN' but "WAS"! "average citizen's" What is average?
By: eklypse0. on 11 Nov 08, 05:21:31
[Do you have any other "proof" that this law Title 26 does not exist?] No one ever said that 26 didn't exist, only that it is not Positive Law. Yes it a law, but a specialized law for specialized cases, not a general law that is enacted over everyone for everything. That is the difference, Title 26 can be enacted as a 'Law' without it being 'Positive Law'. This comes down to that the income tax, as originally written, is legal. However, it was not written to take average citizen's earnings.
By: RetSquid. on 10 Nov 08, 08:16:34
Do you have any other "proof" that this law Title 26 does not exist?
By: PNWScout2. on 10 Nov 08, 07:50:53
LOL, I'm not even under duress, much less extreme duress. You might not be but your country sure is.
By: ty99999returns. on 09 Nov 08, 00:30:41
woot, go alex jones!
By: RetSquid. on 08 Nov 08, 23:09:01
I did find one thing that was true on that site. "THIS IS ABOUT YOUR SOLE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR LABOR AND THE FRUITS OF THAT LABOR!!!" I think that you have an absolute right to the fruits of your labor...you only get taxed when you SELL your labor, or the fruits of your labor.
By: RetSquid. on 08 Nov 08, 22:00:47
I agree that Title 26 is not positive law, can you prove that it is not law?
By: RetSquid. on 08 Nov 08, 21:40:48
"The page cannot be displayed" Would you like to try again? Maybe from a 'real' website? One you can actually connect to?
By: RetSquid. on 08 Nov 08, 21:37:58
LOL, I'm not even under duress, much less extreme duress.
By: PNWScout2. on 08 Nov 08, 21:31:30
Ever think that maybe they are siding with the LAW? They are. They're only siding with what they've been told from the IRS, what they think is the so-called law just like you. I can post the law, but I can't make you read or understand the law. You mean the law which was never enacted by congress into positive law?
By: PNWScout2. on 08 Nov 08, 21:27:27
Sorry, pnw I can't prove your argument and you can't either. Is that why you need help with it? LOL I already have proven it, it's you who refuses to see it for what it is.
By: PNWScout2. on 08 Nov 08, 21:26:16
Hey Ret you flying your flag upside down yet?
By: PNWScout2. on 08 Nov 08, 21:25:28
Why don't you post a site for the entire court case and then we can debate it's merits. I'll do one better how about going to Tom Cryers website (truthattackDOTorg) and read for yourself all the proven court cases which the government and the IRS couldn't prove wrong. Oh his whole court transcript is there for you to read as well.
By: RetSquid. on 08 Nov 08, 21:24:47
Sorry, pnw I can't prove your argument and you can't either. Is that why you need help with it?
By: RetSquid. on 08 Nov 08, 21:22:51
I didn't say he was 'your attorney', I said he was your 'attorney', there is a difference. "the majority of judges and attornies who side with the IRS" Ever think that maybe they are siding with the LAW? They are. I can post the law, but I can't make you read or understand the law.