All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 1999 - Bill Cooper
59:14
Joe Bannister #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I am the king of the world. I am the king of the world.
I am the king of the world.
Hello, this is the Hour of Time and this is Pauline.
And I'm William Cooper.
Well folks, tonight is the night that Joe Bannister is going to call in about five minutes
past the hour and answer all the questions that we taped with you last Wednesday night.
In the meantime, Pauline has a couple of announcements to make and so I'll turn the microphone over to her.
Hello out there.
This is a notice for all of you that have not received your 1999 update tape list.
If you wish to have one, um, send it, send a big envelope with your self-address and a stamp.
I believe a 33-cent stamp is, is good enough.
Uh, two, Hour of the Times, care of 101.1 FM, P.O.
P.O. Box 940 Eagard, Arizona 85925.
Okay, one more time.
Because they might not have had a pen in their hand.
Okay, we can do that too.
Okay.
Alright, this is the address for your up-to-date 99 tape list.
Not only that, but it gives her radio microphone confidence.
You know, the more she talks in front of this microphone, the better she gets.
I tell you, it's too big.
Okay, here's the address again.
It's hour of the time, care of 101.1 FM, P.O.
Box 940 Eager, that's E-A-G-A-R, Arizona, 85925.
What happened?
I don't know.
Uh-oh, she pushed it.
Oh, she pushed it.
She pushed something that just, oh, it's gone haywire now.
I don't know.
Oh, it'll be alright.
It'll be alright.
There are buttons all over this place, folks.
More buttons than you've ever dreamed of in your entire life.
And Pauline is trying to get used to this, and one day she's going to start doing shows of her own.
That's my goal, is to get Pauline used to this, and get her educated to where she can come in here and operate this studio, and come in here and do a show all by herself, anytime she wants to.
That will make me very happy, believe me.
And I think it will make Pauline happy, too, although I think right now she might deny that.
I think she's getting sort of in tune with the idea.
Okay, tonight we're going to have Jo Bannister back, and last Wednesday night we taped questions from the listening audience.
Was it last Wednesday night?
It was, wasn't it?
I think so.
We take questions from last Tuesday night because last Wednesday night Joe Bannister was the guest.
We ran that broadcast on Thursday night simply because we knew.
People called me and told me that the propagation was really bad on Wednesday night and a lot of people never heard the broadcast.
So we ran it on Thursday night to give those people the opportunity to hear it.
I know that some of them were people who asked questions and didn't know if we had asked
those questions on Wednesday night.
So tonight we are going to do your questions.
Mr. Bannister will be calling within about a minute and a half, two minutes and we will
put him right on the air and we will go directly to your questions.
We are going to devote the entire broadcast to that.
If we run out of questions then we will do something else.
We will put Pauline on the microphone and her and Joe can get acquainted and see if
we can arrange for a divorce.
Just joking.
But anyway, I think and I want to prepare you for this, I want to prepare you for this
because I want you to understand that not too long ago Mr.
Bannister was on the other side of this hill.
His whole mental outlook was how to investigate and prosecute what he believed at that time were tax evaders and tax protesters and tax criminals.
He didn't know at that time what he knows now.
So some of the questions that you guys asked last Tuesday night, I'm not sure if he's going to be able to answer them or not.
If he can't answer them, I'm sure he's going to tell you.
I don't know the answer to that!
And so don't be disappointed because you have to understand where he's coming from and where he's at right now.
Some of you asked questions that I think maybe he will be able to answer very well and hopefully very honestly.
there are some other questions that you asked we're gonna put him in a tough
spot because uh...
he's going to be put in a position where knowing what he knows he should tell you to resist
the tyranny when they come knocking on your door
but having been there with those guys and believing that they're all honest
good upstanding guys doing what they think is their job
you may not want to tell you that whatever comes out of his mouth is is is going to be joe
banister's answer whatever happens to be
and i think that you're lucky to have the opportunity to pose these questions and hear the answer
All the questions, all the answers.
That's right folks, last Tuesday we taped all the questions and then we taped all the answers and we taped them separately so Joe didn't know what the questions were.
So we're just going to mix up the questions and answers and see how... No, I'm just joking.
Last Tuesday night we taped all these questions.
Tonight you're going to hear them posed to Joe Bannister and we're going to get his answer.
And whatever his answer is, that's what we're going to have to live with because I'm sure it's going to be an honest answer.
Whether it's, I don't know, or whether it's going to be an in-depth dissertation on whatever it's going to be.
So let's go to the phone right now.
I think Joe is standing by.
Good evening, Joe.
Is that you?
Hi there, Mr. Cooper.
Welcome back to the Hour of the Time.
You know, you're a very popular person.
Oh, yeah?
Oh, yeah.
In fact, we have rerun that broadcast four times.
Since you were on that night, and we're still getting requests to rerun it.
Well, I hope tonight is good enough to run four times.
It will be.
There are an awful lot of people who are very interested in what you have to say.
In the reruns of the broadcast, we noticed that your voice level is really low.
There's no more that we can do on this end, so if you could try to talk a lot louder, I am not going to come back and keep reminding you all
through this broadcast, but if you could just sort of keep that in the front of your mind to
yell into the phone, I think a lot more people will be able to hear you a lot better.
Okay, that would be fine.
Okay, are you ready for the first question?
Yes, sir.
Now let me warn you, all these questions were taped last Tuesday night and I have already
explained the phone arrangement with you.
So we will play the question, listen very carefully and I will listen too.
And if you didn't catch part of it, maybe I will and give it your best shot, okay?
Okay.
Here we go.
Yes, I would like to ask Joe how to handle a problem when the IRS contacts a bank for
Do you understand the question, Joe?
Yeah, I don't know how specific I can get.
I mean, I know that like many of the things that I've learned, there's a very limited
amount of circumstances which I'm afraid I can't rattle off to which a backup withholding
might apply.
And of course, you know, the IRS goes way overboard in terms of the expectation of who's
subject to backup withholding and as well as the public at large.
It's quite a bit different from what you'd find if you actually read the statutes and
the regulations.
Again, I'm afraid I can't recite chapter and verse, but it's just a very limited circumstance
to who would be subject to backup withholding.
More often than not, or many times, you may find that if the person does the research, that the person that's telling them that they're subject to backup withholding is in error.
So I would highly recommend that people check that out for themselves and not rely on the person That's a good answer.
you are subject to back up withholding because they probably haven't read the law themselves.
Okay, that's a good answer.
I promised my listening audience I would do this and elaborate when I knew something should
be asked on top of this or it should be elaborated.
I have studied the Internal Revenue Service code and regulations and I know that no one
is authorized to withhold anything from anybody's paycheck unless they have actually in their
possession an appointment at a time.
as a fiscal agent of the United States government.
How in the world are you forcing people to withhold money from other people's paychecks
when they don't work for the United States government, are not appointed by the United
States government, receive no remuneration from the United States government, and are
not acting as agents of the United States government?
I've actually had experience myself with that because as part of my research I found that
allegations or claims that withholding is also voluntary was also true, at least in terms
of when you look at the statutes, which I've always thought that the statutes are supposed
to be the guides, how we know what laws are out there that we're supposed to follow.
But the only provision I could find that would apply to other than government officials would be the voluntary withholding agreement, which is basically the W-4 form that many people file.
And if they don't file that form, then what happens?
Well, then you haven't given anyone your consent to withhold anything from the money that you earned.
See, folks, I've always told you that.
Don't fill the damn thing out.
Don't file, don't pay.
If you do, if you fill that stuff out, you make yourself liable.
Well, I should say that, again, since I did the research and after I left the IRS, I tried it out myself.
And, interestingly enough, the firm that decided to Listen to what I have to say as far as filing of the form.
They didn't read the law according to the way I read the law.
As you said, it only applies to a very limited scope of people.
I've got it right here.
It's 3401C.
Employee includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States of state or any political subdivision thereof.
Or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of anyone or more of the foregoing.
Absolutely.
It's pretty plain there that I wasn't one of those people.
And so I went and thought, well, I'm going to see if this really works.
And I said, you know, filing of this form is voluntary and I don't want to fill it out.
I don't want to volunteer.
And they said, well, that's fine, but we're going to withhold at the single zero dependence rate.
So if they do that, then they open themselves up for suit because they cannot prove in a
court of law that they have the authority to do that.
And that's right.
The thing is, and what people have to realize is, some people are better equipped or set
up to say, okay, well I'll see you in court or actually fight for what they know is true.
Actually let me say this, and I don't mean to interrupt you, but this has got to be said.
If you're not willing to die for what you believe, and if what you believe you know
is right, you shouldn't be messing around with these guys.
Because you just might.
Yeah, I mean in my case I thought, okay, it's going to take me months to prove that I'm
Meanwhile, you're going to withhold from me as if I was single living in an apartment when I've got a wife and two kids and a house payment.
Basically, what it came down to for me is, well, you're not reading the law correctly.
You're not going to wait until some future time when you find out that you were wrong to start following the law.
You're going to take all my money out of my paycheck and not do it correctly, but therefore I've got to go into court and sue for my rights.
You have to think of the refund.
Ready for the next question?
The bottom line for me was the time investment versus getting on the radio and spreading the word and trying to get the information out there to everyone.
I understand.
Are you ready for the next question?
Sure.
Okay, this is my co-host, Pauline.
We've talked once before.
That's right.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Okay, Joe.
All right, no pushing buttons here.
All right, now that you know what you are doing was unconstitutional and unlawful, what do you suggest that American people do if the IRS special agents, like you were, come to our door because we quit paying taxes?
Well, if it's just one or two agents coming to your door, it's probably to interview you as opposed to, you know, execute a search warrant or arrest you.
So what I would do is be polite, but just say, I don't want to speak with you, and close the door.
I wouldn't say anything to them other than just be polite and say that I'd rather you spoke with my attorney Or I'm not interested in saying anything to you and leave it at that.
I wouldn't, like I say, overreact because if it's just one or two agents, usually they'll be two agents.
They usually go in pairs because, you know, officer safety type reasons.
I wouldn't feel intimidated.
More than likely, if you've been studying this issue for a long time, you know a lot more than they do.
That's very true and most people don't know it.
If they've done even a cursor examination of the law, they know more about the law concerning income tax than most special agents working for the Internal Revenue Service.
If I was concerned with some of this stuff while I was still an agent and oblivious to the truth, people would be running circles around me even though I was a CPA and even though I felt like I had A pretty good background in tax and accounting, but in terms of really knowing the code and really knowing who's liable for what and how people become liable and who's required to file.
I think that people need to be sure of themselves and not be intimidated.
These guys that come to your door, they have guns, but they're not the ones I've run into.
They're not trigger-happy type people.
They're just doing their job, what they believe.
What they think is their job.
What they think is their job.
They're really not doing their job.
They're really breaking the law.
Well, they're coming up to your house and asking to talk with you.
Nothing...
They can do that.
How about these agents who come up to your house and say that there's somebody else or use a different name and use a different reason to get you to open the door and invite them into your house and maybe outside in their car they've got one of these dummies of some woman with a bun in the back of their head?
Did you ever use that dummy?
No.
I've heard from people that I very much trust now who have said that these kind of ploys have been used And I guess that was part of the reason it took me three years to start cluing into some of this stuff, because people that I worked with and trained with were very above board and, you know, direct with people and didn't do that kind of stuff, but yet I believe that it does occur.
Yeah.
Ask Agent Shupnik, Phoenix office.
I guess.
I don't know.
I'm sure it does happen.
In my case, we never did that.
We just would go to people's house.
If they were home, they were home.
If they weren't, they weren't.
I don't know.
Maybe there must be a lot more pressure for people turning cases in other areas.
Okay.
Here we go.
Next question.
Remember, these were taped last Tuesday night.
Yes.
I have a question for Mr. Van Stern.
It is this.
Has he ever heard of the independent sub-treasury system, and would he consider a taxation system in which the government was prohibited from writing bonds of any kind and going into debt?
Did you understand that, Jeff?
I heard it, I'm not sure that I understood it, and the gentleman was there to question.
Independent sub-treasury?
That's what he said.
Yeah, do you want me to play it again?
Maybe one more time.
Okay, here we go.
Have you ever heard of the independent sub-treasury system and would you consider a taxation system in which the government was prohibited from writing bonds of any kind and going into debt?
Okay, the first part about the independent sub-treasury system, I've never heard of such a thing.
Really?
In terms of the government going into debt.
Joe, don't tell me you never heard of it.
You worked for it.
What is the Treasury of the United States versus the Department of the Treasury?
Well, you're dealing in an area that I don't... And where do the income tax return monies go versus the Treasury of the United States of America?
You'd have to educate me on those issues, because I don't... I'm not aware... Well, the Department of the Treasury is not the Treasury of the United States of America, and the Treasurer of the United States of America, which is a constitutional office, is not the Secretary of the Treasury of the Department of the Treasury.
And the money that people pay in their income tax returns does not go to the Treasury of the United States of America, but an account with the Federal Reserve Banks.
Well, and I'm aware that that's kind of the progression or the flow of the funds.
I just wasn't aware that there's actually proof that you have of following the money trail.
Oh, yes.
I mean, I'd be interested in seeing that.
Oh, yes.
We have followed the money trail.
In fact, if you look at any check that you have received back that you paid to the Internal Revenue Service for the payment of the income tax, you'll see that it was not paid into the Treasury of the United States of America, but to any Federal Reserve Bank.
Does that mean that if there were some checks that were, say, written in for some kind of an excise tax, that it's deposited to a different place?
No, this is the federal income tax, and every check that's paid to the IRS goes there.
Now, let me tell you something else.
Have you ever tried, Joe, going down to the Internal Revenue Service with cash, Federal Reserve notes?
No.
And paying your income tax bill?
No, I've never tried that.
Guess what?
They won't take it.
Really?
You know why they won't take it?
Tell me.
Because they can't.
It's not money.
So they will take checks.
They'll take checks.
They'll take all of that stuff that the Federal Reserve creates, but they will not take Federal Reserve notes in payment of an income tax, so-called income tax debt.
That's interesting.
Read your constitution.
No state shall accept in payment of debt anything other than gold or silver coin.
So you're saying in that sense they're following the constitution?
In that sense they have to.
They're an illegal, unlawful organization.
What they're really doing, Joe, is raking off the excess money that's put into circulation by the creation of debt That is compounded and has to be continually replenished because of the demand to pay off an interest that's not created when this money is put into circulation in order to keep the American people from understanding that they're being ripped off.
That's their sole purpose.
On a bigger scale, I understand the economics of it, but it's interesting to me about If you actually have documentation to show the trail, the
money trail.
Sure, yes.
Not only me, but many other people.
The money trail, money is easy to follow.
It's the easiest thing in the world to follow.
You cannot hide money, especially when it's paid to what pretends to be a government office.
That's one of the things that really astounded me was the myths.
There is no trust fund.
All trust funds are listed in the law in the United States Code.
There is no social security trust fund.
for the social security too, right?
That's what they say.
There's no trust fund. All trust funds are listed in the law in the United States Code.
There is no social security trust fund. All goes into the general fund.
And if you read the social security law, it's a general tax.
It does not have to be paid out to anybody except if it's in your home state.
It is not an insurance policy and it doesn't hold anybody in when they're elevated.
All you have to do is leave the law.
Nobody does it.
All you have to do is check to find the trust fund.
There isn't any.
Plus it's voluntary to join in the first place.
Absolutely.
Which means you consent to the whole scheme.
Okay, here we go.
Next question.
I like this.
Joe, what was the name and title or highest ranking person that you reported your findings to and was their answer just silence?
Thank you very much.
Well, as I may have mentioned last week, I asked my chief how high did this report go because I wanted to see if somebody read it.
And he said that the Assistant Commissioner for Criminal Investigation was aware of the report.
I don't know if he read it.
I had addressed the report to the Commissioner himself.
The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service?
Yeah, Charles Rosati.
So whoever stopped that report, if it didn't get to Charles Rosati, actually is in breach of all kinds of things, isn't he?
Well, I mean, as I say, I addressed it and made specific requests that it go to Rosati or his designee, because I realize I don't expect Rosati to drop everything just to deal with my problem.
No, but I happen to know that there are internal memos and directions.
You see, I've researched the Internal Revenue Service for many years.
There are internal memos and directions and regulations on how internal reports addressed Well, the reason that I addressed my report to him was that I got a number of memorandums, and one of them I actually have right here, and it says, quote, I'm acutely aware that public confidence in the integrity of the service is crucial to accomplishing our mission.
Not whether it's lawful or not.
Integrity is defined as adherence to a code of moral or ethical values, or more simply, honesty.
At ethical climate where issues can be discussed openly, where we are doing the right thing,
and where allegations of misconduct and impropriety are immediately reported to inspections are
key factors in assuring the public's confidence in the tax system.
Now that memo is dated April 22, 1998.
Yeah, and he read that to Congress.
I was watching C-SPAN when he did it.
Exact words.
Well, see, things like this that I read, and I thought maybe it was wishful thinking, but
I thought, you know, maybe Mr. Rosati, I mean, he's Italian, you know, my wife's Italian.
Hey, you know.
He's a political appointee.
He was appointed to make sure that what he told Congress and what you just read doesn't
happen.
He's appointed to collect the income tax.
That's his job!
Well, I thought that with that kind of wording that he would certainly respect the fact that
I was very concerned about these issues and that I needed to have them addressed.
And I was ignored and told, hit the road.
You've never worked for a large corporation, have you?
I think it's a good thing.
Yes, Joe, I have a stock brokerage account where I do some day trading in and out of
stocks and I pay a lot of capital gains taxes.
I would like to know your opinion of the legality of capital gains taxes and how I may cut down my tax burden on stock trading.
Well, that's a hard question because in terms of the legality of the taxing of it, it's my understanding that the courts, at least the old court cases, I would imagine that in terms of gains being taxable, there may be something to that.
in the Internal Revenue Code is corporate gain.
And according to the Supreme Court, corporate gain.
So I would imagine that in terms of gains being taxable, there may be something to that.
In terms of every single American who has a capital gain, I don't know if that's...
The Internal Revenue Income Tax is only applicable constitutionally if it's an excise tax.
So if you're taxing or placing an excise on corporate gain, then it's legal.
No, it's not.
The tax is constitutional when it's applied as an indirect tax.
But it's not applied that way.
No, it's not.
It's applied as a direct tax to every person in this country who works and brings home a paycheck.
Right.
And therein lies the problem.
Big problem.
It's unconstitutional.
You see, the 16th Amendment, even if it had been ratified, does not alter, change, or ratify any of the portions of the Constitution which forbid a direct tax upon the individual citizens of the several states.
And, you know, numerous court cases have reiterated that fact, but it didn't expand the federal taxing powers.
Absolutely.
That's still the case today.
Yeah.
Okay, Joe, here we go.
Next question.
Yes, question for Joe.
To citizens who know the things that you do now, have you found anyone who's been successful at keeping the IRS out of their lives and keeping them out of jail and just basically keeping them from tampering with their private lives?
And thank you for what you're doing, both of you, tonight.
Um, I've met a lot of people, and I don't want to Just gotta be careful how I say this.
I've been surprised at how many people I've met, you know, after I've talked with them a while, I mean, I haven't done a background investigation or checked out every single thing they've said, but I've run into a lot of people who, you know, they've had to change their lifestyle or change things around a little bit, but they've just realized that the IRS still comes out and takes people's homes and puts people in jail.
But they changed their lifestyle or their practices a little bit.
And they've been really quite successful at not paying income tax.
But most of those that I've met are, you know, they're worried.
I mean, they will ask me questions about CID and, well, what should I be worried about?
And, you know, I think that just about everyone I've met, maybe except Bill Benson, Because Bill Benson never looks over his shoulder.
He's very confident, and should be.
But most people, I think, they look over their shoulder whether they're paying the tax or not.
Because, you know, the IRS... So they're scared.
Yeah.
And I just think it's a shame, because I think most Americans, at least I would, would be glad to pay a tax if I knew that, number one, I had appropriate representation in my government, and I knew that the tax was going towards making the government operate.
Number one, it has to be constitutional above anything else, regardless of representation or anything else.
Absolutely.
It must be constitutional.
Second, comes representation.
Third, certainly you want it to go for whatever's happening in government.
But if it's not constitutional, it doesn't matter.
Nothing beyond that matters.
Nothing whatsoever.
And you're talking to the second one beyond Bill Benson.
Warrants have been issued for my arrest over a year.
I live up here on this hill.
Everybody knows where I'm at.
I told the government I'm not running anywhere.
I'm not a fugitive.
I'm an American.
And I'll defend my rights.
I know what the law says.
I know that I'm right in this.
And if you come up here and attempt to threaten or harm me, my family, or my property, I'll kill you on sight.
Simple as that, and I mean it.
And I'm not afraid, and I don't look over my shoulder.
So, uh... Well, to tell all Americans about that issue, I don't think anything's gonna happen.
Because they know that they're doing what they're doing unlawfully.
And I'm not talking about all the lower-level people like you were.
I'm talking about the people up on top.
They know exactly what they're doing, and they're not gonna stop until somebody puts a gun up their nose and says, you either back off, you stupid jerk, And get back under the Constitution, and I'm going to pull the trigger.
Unfortunately, the people at the top who are pulling the string, they won't be the ones to go out and execute that warrant.
And that's a sad thing, because the ones that make all this sad stuff happen don't ever have to pay the consequences.
Well, that's not true, Joe, because there's going to come a day when we will go and seek them out and find them.
And we will arrest them.
And we will try them.
And if they're found guilty, we're going to hang them from the tallest tree in this country.
There's going to be a civil war in this country.
I'm telling you that.
Nobody's listening.
But it's the truth.
And somebody better start listening.
Because I'm not making this up.
This isn't my idea.
My whole thing about doing this broadcast for many years was to prevent such a thing.
By waking people up.
Educating them.
And that's not working.
Which means Something else is going to happen.
Here we go.
Next question.
Okay.
Hello, Joe.
Tell me, should a person fill in a zero tax return and or if one does fill out a 1040 form, does it make any sense, in your opinion, to write out that little statement that's just above the signature on that form?
Thank you.
Well, I try to refrain from advocating a particular way of doing things.
I don't really like filing things.
If you're not required by law, why file?
Why fill out a 1040?
That's what I tell people.
If you're going to file and you're going to fill out a 1040, when you know that there's no law requiring you to do it, why are you playing all these silly games?
I do know a person that does zero returns, but I think he does it a little differently than Mr. Schiff, because what he'll do is he'll have numerous court cases that have not been overturned, Supreme Court cases and appellate court decisions that talk about income and what it actually is.
And the fact that wages are not income according to all these court cases.
That's true.
Is it Lewis v. United States or Lucas v. Earle?
Lucas v. Earle, that's correct.
And what they'll do is they'll attach these court cases to their return showing why they've put zero.
And I'm not advocating that people do that, but it seems to me that If a U.S.
Supreme Court case clearly says that, and we are, as far as I know, I can't remember the court case site, but that we're able to rely on court case decisions like that, it seems to me to be pretty academic.
But again, filing things with the IRS, you're playing with fire in the sense that they can misconstrue and get a jury to believe all kinds of other things and you're never going to have the chance Sure.
And when you file, what you're doing is saying that you're subject to file.
If you weren't, you would not file.
And when you sign the tax return under penalty of perjury in the taxpayer signature blank, you're saying that you're subject to and liable to file and pay the income tax.
Under penalty of perjury.
And you have waived your Fifth Amendment rights.
You've given them whatever they need to prosecute you.
You see, when I first started out on this, I challenged the Internal Revenue Service to prove to me that I was subject to file and pay the income tax.
And I asked them to furnish me with whatever document they might have had that would put me in a contract with them that would require me to do that.
And you know what they did?
They sent me a copy of an old income tax return that I had signed.
Really?
That's what they did.
And that was their proof.
That's interesting because that would make me think that somebody like a district counsel or an attorney answered your letter rather than just some agent.
I don't know who it was, but that's what they sent me.
And that was their proof.
Interesting.
Oh, I've kept every bit of correspondence.
See, I've filed them.
I've been trying to discover the truth about this for years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years.
I have boxes and boxes and boxes of correspondence and results of Freedom of Information Act requests and everything else.
Well, I hope I'm not disappointing people, but I'm fairly new at this, so I don't know the answers to everything.
Oh, I warned them about that, so don't worry about it.
Here's the next question.
Yes, good evening, Mr. Bannister.
What is a social security number versus a taxpayer ID number?
Is they the same?
Are they different?
What's the story here?
Thank you.
Hmm.
Well, a social security number can be a taxpayer ID, but I don't think you can have it necessarily the other way around.
You can have a taxpayer identification number, That isn't necessarily a social security number.
According to the social security law, the social security number is not to be used for anything other than social security and is never to be used for identification.
I don't even have my Social Security card.
Your Social Security card said that right on it.
It said it right on the face of it.
Yes.
Yes.
So Social Security, remember, it's against the law to use it as an identifying number or as a taxpayer ID.
But it's also against the law under the Privacy Act to ask for the Social Security number
under any circumstances unless it has to do with Social Security.
And like you said earlier, you volunteer for Social Security.
You don't have to enter into that contract.
You don't have to ever get a Social Security number.
I'm not sure why anybody would want to have 15% taken out for 40 years and then get $400
or $500 a month.
It doesn't seem like a very good investment.
Yeah, and then after inflation, have to buy dog dirt to eat or something like that.
Who knows?
Okay, here's the next question.
Thank you, Joe.
You're doing really good on this.
I wasn't sure because of where you've been and where you are now exactly how far you'd
be able to go on these, but you're doing really well, and I thank you for that.
Bye!
Good evening.
My question is for Joe.
And Joe, I would like to know, is the reason that the IRS can attack people is because on their individual master file, they have them down as a citizen of Puerto Rico or some other country or territory of the United States.
If that's so, by attacking their master file, will people be able to get out of the system?
I'd like to hear what you have to say about that.
Well, again, since I left the IRS I've spoken to numerous people and I've had this recurring issue where people come to me and they say, you know, I ordered my IMF And I found out that they categorized me as a drug dealer, or a firearms dealer, or something other than what they really are.
Or an importer of alcohol products.
Right.
And they didn't actually show me the IMS, but I mean, I've heard this over and over again from different people.
It's true, yes.
And so it wouldn't surprise me at all that because, and once again, this is why I know there's got to be some group of people or bureaucrats up there at the top that know exactly what's going on.
When they know that they have to code you as something you're not to make it appear that you are, you know, required to file a tax return.
Well, that's how they have to fool the computer.
Right.
To accept the fact that you're liable.
Because you can't fool a computer.
You're either liable or you're not.
And the computer is programmed to accept certain parameters under the law.
And the way they fool the computer is by coding you to be something that you're not.
And to be subject to a jurisdiction, which you're not.
It usually comes up as Guam, U.S.
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the occupation is usually drugs, alcohol, or firearms.
I would certainly think that if somebody has the time to get their IMS, they should get it.
And if they find that on there, that would be a pretty good indication that somebody's messing around with your tax status.
I would think it would be a really good thing to have in your possession.
If somebody has the time, I would recommend getting hold of your IMF and see for yourself
how they have you classified.
It may not be true.
Absolutely.
It does not apply now to people who live and work in territories or jurisdictions of the
United States such as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, those things.
They are subject to whatever Congress wants them to do or the government wants them to do anyway.
They don't have the same protections as the citizens of the states.
Right, and that's why it wouldn't be correct to say that the income tax is voluntary, period.
Yes, there are.
But it does not apply to most of the citizens of the several states.
It doesn't apply to me.
It doesn't apply to you.
People would sure be surprised to hear that, wouldn't they?
Yes, they would.
but it does not apply to most of the citizens of the several states. It doesn't apply to me.
It doesn't apply to you.
People would sure be surprised to hear that, wouldn't they?
Yeah, they would.
Okay, let's go to the next one.
Good evening, Bill.
My question for Mr. Bannister is, what would legally be a better form?
Would it be better for the population of this nation?
That kind of, I think, asks for, I don't know, what I could perceive.
He's asking a personal opinion.
What do you think, you know, if we got the government to admit that this was all unlawful, And they decided to dismantle it overnight.
What would replace it, in your estimation, that's what he's asking, and would it be better for the American people?
I think any tax that wasn't as intrusive as this tax clearly is, and if you read, which I'm sure you've read more than me, the words of the founding fathers and all the other writings that they did, they did everything they could possibly do to avoid having such an intrusive tax and that's the reason that
they required that any direct tax be apportioned.
And I guess that if they were to apportion the income tax as it's administered today, I guess you could say, wouldn't
that be constitutional?
If it were apportioned, the tax would be actually leveled on the states and it would be up to the state to collect
on the states and it would be up to the state
to to collect a tax from its citizens but each state would only owe that
that tax from its citizens, but each state would only owe that proportion of the tax
proportion of the tax which pertained to the percentage
which pertained to the percentage of the overall population if it were a portion of the tax would be actually leveled
of the overall population of of the nation
and that's what they mean by a portion in other words
you can't levy a direct tax on each individual it has to be levied on the state according to the
population of the state and it's up to the state to collect the tax and pay it to
the federal government not the federal government
because they don't have any jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries
of any state none whatsoever
let's try to answer the gentleman's question I mean, I think that, again, as you said earlier, just go through the laundry list.
First of all, is it constitutional?
That's the first question that has to be satisfied.
And then, more than likely, if the first question is answered in the affirmative, that it is constitutional, it probably won't be.
Uh, so intrusive and invasive because it was designed, you know, the Constitution designed it that the taxation would not be so.
Absolutely.
But if, uh, once the Constitutional question is answered, I would just want a tax where the government didn't snoop around in my life and I was free.
Yeah.
That's, uh, that's what I think my birthright is and every other American has been born in.
Unfortunately, Hitler doesn't do it all the same way.
Here's the next question.
Hi, my name is Martha and I just wanted to know, my question for Joe Bannister is what percentage of the IRS VATS employees, in your opinion, are aware of the criminal fraud that is currently occurring?
And what, in your opinion, can be done to educate all of them?
Good question, Joe.
Well, based on my experience, I think it's a pretty small percentage that actually know and stay around I could be wrong.
I don't want to lead people astray.
That's just based on my own experience with the agents that I know.
I never sat around the lunchroom and laughed at all the stupid people that weren't on to the secret.
I really wanted to answer the second part of her question, but I can't remember what it was.
First you want to know how many other agents knew about this and what the percentage was and what you or anybody else could do to educate the others.
That's what I wanted to answer.
Every IRS criminal investigation division office has what they call a duty agent.
And that duty agent, it goes from agent to agent.
But everybody has to hold the ball at least one day during the month depending on the size of the office.
And what I would recommend is people can come in and they have what they call an info item, short for information item.
And normally people will come in and report their ex-husband or their ex-wife or their former business partner.
But it would be interesting if people would go into their IRS CID office, the local one, And report to the IRS.
Or bring my report, or bring a copy of what I provide on the internet, on my website, and just say, you know, what do you think about this?
Because I think that the IRS, the way they're dealing with me is to completely ignore me and pretend that I never existed.
And so most agents in CID, but the IRS as a whole, have no idea that I ever was an agent or that I learned what I learned.
And if people across the country would visit their local IRS office and be very friendly and polite, but go to the CID office and just ask to speak to the duty agent, and, you know, there's a picture of me on the internet, and just bring it in there and give them my website, and, you know, these are people that have the time.
I just think that would do enormous amounts of good, because I think there's a lot of agents out there that are good people, and they're honest, but they don't know But this is all a scam.
And so if people have the time to do that, or know people who have the time, suggest it to them.
Get some information off my website.
You know, I don't buy that, that they're all owners.
I just can't buy it, Joe.
And I'll tell you why.
It's like the police officer who takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he's never read it in his life.
No, that's not honest.
It's bullshit is what it is.
Well, I guess I'm thinking about myself and that when I, my first three years on the job,
um, I thought I was doing the right thing and if somebody had come through that door...
But thinking you're doing the right thing and taking an oath to protect and defend a document that you've never
read in your life, is two different things.
And most people who take that oath have never read it, couldn't tell you anything about it in a hundred years except some vague notion of freedom of speech and something like that.
Well, the agents in my office said I knew the Constitution better than anyone, but that was anyone in the office, so I guess that wasn't saying much.
I would venture to say it's probably better than anyone in the entire service.
I would venture to say that most of them There may have been some others besides you that read it,
but I would venture to say most of them that haven't even read it much less knew what it was they
were taking an oath to protect and defend.
Now that's not honest and I can't let you slide by making a statement like that.
Well, but I still say if people, if there are people that don't know about this and I think that they...
But Joe, when you take an oath to protect and defend something, it's a solemn oath.
You know you may have to give your life in support of it, and you've never read it, and you don't even take the time to read it, or understand it, or apply it to your job.
Is that honest?
Well, if they find, if somebody came through the door and had a picture of me, and said, look at this book that he read and wrote, or look at this report, I think even if it's five percent... Joe, you ducked my question.
Okay, say it again.
If they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and they've never read it in their life, and after they take the oath, they don't even make an attempt to read it, or understand it, or apply it to their job.
Is that honest?
That's the agency as a whole.
I wouldn't put that onus on the person themselves.
The person takes the oath!
When I took the oath, In the military service, to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I went and got it and read it!
Well, that's, I mean, that's commendable.
But I, uh, I did too, but I was more concerned about the Second Amendment.
I didn't read the entire thing.
Um, but I think I'm still honest.
But Joe, you took an oath to protect and defend the entire thing.
If you didn't read the entire thing and didn't know the entire thing, then the oath was a sham.
Well, I guess I don't really agree.
You don't agree?
I agree that people should be as aware as they can of the Constitution, but without reading the entire... How can you take an oath to protect and defend something you never read and don't understand?
I don't know.
How can a citizen be a citizen of the United... of the country and not...
No, what it is to be free.
I mean, there are people that just are... That's exactly my point.
And how can any citizen in this country talk about their rights if they don't even know what they are?
If they've never read the Constitution.
How can they talk about their understanding of the government if they don't understand the Constitution, which outlines the government and limits it and delineates exactly what it can do and what it can't do?
And that's why we're both here is to educate people on it, but I just think there's a difference between somebody being honest and somebody being uninformed.
Joe, being uninformed is getting a job and the guy says, you know, you might have to protect the Constitution somewhere down the line, but you know, we're not going to worry about that right now.
Versus taking an oath.
Raising your hand to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and you've never read it in your life, don't understand it, don't know what it says, and you don't make any attempt after taking that oath to go and see what it's all about?
That's not honest!
The problem is, I think it goes back to the average American who's really apathetic and doesn't fight for their rights.
And then they allow Joe, Joe, you're losing credibility by the second here.
You don't understand what I'm talking about here?
That if you take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and you've never read it and don't even make any attempt to read it and don't understand what it's all about, you're actually telling me on the air here in my listening audience that that's honest?
I mean, if you really believe that, then I know where the heart of the problem is!
I guess I don't know how to answer it.
I mean, I was honest three years ago, and I'm just as honest now.
What is your definition of honest?
In addition to being honest, I took the time, when I had the time, to read up on the Constitution.
Unfortunately, I didn't learn it in school like I should have.
I didn't learn it in training like I should have.
But Joe, you took an oath.
It wasn't because I was sleeping through class.
Joe, you took an oath.
Did the oath mean anything?
I think you can tell that it meant something.
I thought so until we got into this particular subject and now I'm not sure because you're telling me that it's okay to take the oath and to protect and defend the Constitution if you never read it, you're not ever going to read it, and you don't understand what it says.
You're telling me that that's okay and that's honest.
I never said that.
What I said was that I am just as honest today as I was three years ago.
But today I'm an honest person that's educated more about what my duties were.
Unfortunately, I got educated about what my duties were and what the extent of them was, and I'm not working there anymore.
But don't you think that if an agent takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and he's never read it or understood it in his life, that he needs to get it, read it, and understand it, or else his oath is just nothing but total bullshit?
Absolutely.
I agree with that.
Thank you.
My God, that was like pulling teeth!
Joe, we're out of time.
I want to thank you for being our guest.
You had me worried there for a couple of minutes.
I mean really worried, but thank you.
You came through with flying colors.
I don't know what took so long.
Listen, you answered the questions of our listening audience valiantly and really well in every instance.
When you didn't know the answer, you said, You really had me worried there on that constitutional oath thing, but thank you for finally coming through, because you needed to do that.
It had to be done.
Anybody who takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and has never read it, will never read it, and doesn't understand it, has not lived any importance to that oath.
And if that's true, then that's the heart of the problem.
The oath, the ideal, the principle, the ethics, the morals mean nothing.
to these people.
I almost thought that you were included in on that, but you're not.
Thank you very much.
Joe, any time that you need a forum and that you need a platform to talk about what it
is you're doing, you're always welcome back here on the Hour of the Time.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
Thank you.
Good night.
Well, folks, you heard it.
Boy, I'm telling you, he was skirting that issue.
I think he finally understood what it was that I was trying to get across.
I don't know why it took so long, but he finally admitted, yeah.
Absolutely.
So, good night, and God bless you.
Good night, Annie, Pooh, and Allison.
I love you with all my heart and soul.
All of a sudden, in the middle of the night, there's a lot of dark on your door.
Say hi.
Hurry!
I'm from the IRS, with a power to tax!
If you've got a complaint, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha We are the light.
We are the thunder.
▲
Export Selection