Forum Replies Created

Page 12 of 21
  • Author #2

    Member
    August 16, 2005 at 12:49 am in reply to: IRS Form 2848 & Due Process

    Ed,

    See:

    http://sedm.org/ProductInfo/RespLtrs/Getti…gDueProcess.htm

    They are supposed to honor the 2848, but that's the WRONG form to use. This puts the CPA under the authority of Circular 230. It's better to use a REAL POA on legal letter head without using their rigged forms.

    Author #2

  • Author #2

    Member
    July 19, 2005 at 1:07 am in reply to: Status of Family Guardian & John Kotmair w/ IRS?

    dmzuniga,

    Thank you for your interest in the well being of this website.

    The IRS wants to get political mileage out of their illegal persecution of this website and corresponding suppression of the truth of their misdeeds. They still don't know that they went after the wrong parties. We are NOT going to waste our energy helping their goal by plastering every minute detail of the case against one of our members or on any other website. To do so would be to cast pearls before swine.

    The member who is providing materials to post on the following page may provide highlights as time permits, but don't hold your breath. When our members send them things, they ignore it. The persecuted member is using the same tactic in reverse, by keeping my private affairs private as possible. If you want to know the few details our persecuted member (who isn't us) is willing to share, please consult:

    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Case…sen/CHansen.htm

    You are welcome to follow the case online by getting a Pacer Account, if you like. The Case Number is 09cv00921, Southern District of California:

    http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/

    You are welcome and encouraged to share constructive suggestions on how to improve the position of our persecuted member, who reads these forms, but please don't pester me personally about the details of the case, since I am not the persecuted party. The element of surprise will help the cause of our member described in the link above.

    We don't know about recent John Kotmair developments, but he told one of our members that he has been through this kind of thing twice before and the last time DOJ tried it, they lost and their appeal was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. He said this time around, the burden of proof is Dept. of INjustice to prove that their approach has changed and that will be very difficult.

  • Author #2

    Member
    July 15, 2005 at 5:49 am in reply to: Corporate officer

    The definition of “person” found in 26 USC 6671(b ) and 26 USC 7343 makes officers of corporations subject to the penalty and liability provisions of the I.R.C. HOWEVER, there are several things the code doesn't say outright that are also true:

    1. These “officers of a corporation” are those within federal corporations registered only in the District of Columbia and excluding state corporations. Corporations do not have a legal existence outside the jurisdiction within which they were established. To wit:

    Quote:
    “It is very true that a corporation can have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created.? It exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of the law; and where the law ceases to operate, and is no longer obligatory, the corporation can have no existence. It must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.” [Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519; 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)]

    2. If the revenue “scheme” (notice we didn't say “tax”) in question is Subtitle A, then they must be engaged in a “trade or business” to have taxable income. All corporations are “citizens” of the jurisdiction in which they were established and who maintain a domicile in that jurisdiction and therefore are subject to the laws in that jurisdiction. See Great IRS Hoax, sections 5.6.13 through 5.6.13.11.

    3. The I.R.C. is not positive law and therefore obligates no one to do anything without proof that the code section being enforced is enacted into positive law. See Great IRS Hoax, sections 5.4 through 5.4.4. It is a violation of due process to “assume” or “presume” that a section of code within a title that is not positive law is postive law without proof of same.

    These and many other subjects are covered in Chapter 5 of the Great IRS Hoax. Don't take our word for it, read the law and the free Hoax book for yourself. Only the vigilant and educated and disciplined can be free. Freedom must be EARNED anew for everyone who wants it, and it cannot be given as a gift.

  • Author #2

    Member
    July 2, 2005 at 3:35 am in reply to: Federal Lien

    JWR,

    You may want to look at the following excellent and very informative article on the subject of CDPH's.

    http://sedm.org/ProductInfo/RespLtrs/Getti…gDueProcess.htm

    WARNING: They are going to try to pull several fast ones and you will be tricked if you don't read this article.

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 29, 2005 at 12:52 pm in reply to: UCC Redemption?

    Sonik,

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, saying nothing about it will lead people into trouble, I think. Informed choice is what this website is about. The ministry added the forum more as a way to show why to avoid UCC redemption. There is, however, one legitimate use that works and which is not illegal: Gifting one's identity to a third party for safekeeping so that your name can't be liened by the District of Criminals and the thieves from your state dept of revenue.

    For more details on the stance of this website towards UCC redemption issues, see:

    Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002

    FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

    DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/UCC.pdf

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 25, 2005 at 3:09 pm in reply to: Joe Banister Trial

    Below is a report on the last day of Joe Banister's Trial prepared by one of the observers and supporters who was at the trial:

    _________________________________________________

    Joseph Banister Trial Day 8 ? Thursday, June 23, 2005

    Victory Victory Victory!!!

    Today we went into the courthouse hoping and praying that there would be a verdict. We could not understand why they could not see that Joe was innocent. Well at 1:48pm the judge called everyone in stating that there was a note. We thought they just had a question but the judge said that at 1:35 the jury said they had a unanimous decision. We all became balls of nerves and sat down. The jury came in and when we heard the first NOT GUILTY Vivian clapped one good clap! The judge said ? no more outburst and sent Vivian out. After the second NOT GUILTY Luanne started to sob and the judge ordered her out! He said, ?You don?t have a vested interest here!? After the other three NOT GUILTY readings we all went out jumping and crying into the hall. The jury was escorted out by 4 marshals and put in an elevator. A reporter congratulated Joe and said she would get the information to David K. Johnston of the New York Times and the story should be on the front page of that paper tomorrow. We will see.

    Anyway, after we went downstairs two of the jurors were talking to Joe. This is what they said went on in the jury room:

    ? On the second day they did a preliminary vote and 7 were for Joe and the others were unsure. No one was really staunchly against Joe.

    ? The second viewing of the Cencal videotape and the fact that the government has not answered our questions was the thing that brought the two undecided jurors over.

    ? When they watched the video they wondered why the prosecution even had that video in evidence.

    ? They were never really locked in combat against each other, they just wanted to review all of the evidence and compare it to the judge?s instructions concerning the counts.

    ? They had all heard of the ?tax protest? movement before

    ? They were never afraid that if they acquitted Joe the IRS would come after them.

    ? They said they knew that Joe believed what he was saying and that a man has the right to speak his beliefs without being prosecuted.

    ? They were surprised that the government did not have real evidence.

    We have now all become freedom trial groupies and we will see you at the Larken Rose trial in Philadelphia starting July 11th.

    Anonymous

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 24, 2005 at 10:49 pm in reply to: Joe Banister Trial

    June 24, 2005

    Protesters Win a Case Over I.R.S.

    By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON and CAROLYN MARSHALL

    The federal government's campaign against income tax protesters suffered a major setback yesterday when a federal jury in Sacramento acquitted a former Internal Revenue Service investigator on charges of helping to prepare false tax returns.

    The former investigator, Joseph R. Banister, 42, of San Jose, Calif., has become a hero to the tax protest movement, even though two of his clients are serving long prison sentences after following his advice.

    Mr. Banister was acquitted on charges of conspiracy and helping to prepare three false tax returns for a small California manufacturer.

    “Everything I have done in my entire career at the I.R.S. and after, I've done with integrity and honesty,” Mr. Banister said after the verdict. “My clients wanted some answers to questions about what was required.”

    He added: “As a C.P.A., my duties are to my clients, to make sure they get the best results.”

    Mr. Banister resigned from the I.R.S. criminal investigation division in 1999 after he wrote a lengthy report asserting that no law requires the payment of taxes and that Americans were being tricked into paying them. The theories he has put forth have been uniformly rejected by the courts.

    The I.R.S. declined to comment on the verdict. The prosecutor, Robert Twiss, said the verdict showed only that the jury did not believe the government had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The jury verdict appeared to reflect the different way criminal tax laws apply to taxpayers and to professional advisers who promote tax cheating, said Jay Adkisson, a tax lawyer in Laguna Nigel, Calif., who tracks tax protesters at the Web site quatloos.com.

    “It is hard to convict promoters,” Mr. Adkisson said. “Promoters make a lot of money off their marks, watch their marks go to jail for not paying taxes and then take advantage of a loophole that lets them prepare bogus returns that they characterize as protest returns” prepared at the direction of the client.

    Mr. Banister was not charged with any failure to pay taxes.

    Defense lawyers said that as a certified public accountant, his only duty was to prepare a return that accurately reflected the tax positions of his clients and to disclose them to the I.R.S.

    The defense relied heavily on the testimony of the government's main witness, Dennis Brown, a longtime I.R.S. agent, who said it was proper for people to file protest returns as way to get their tax questions answered. The defense said that was what Mr. Banister and his client, Walter Thompson, had done.

    Mr. Thompson, who was convicted in January, is serving six years for failure to withhold and turn over taxes from paychecks of workers at his Cencal Aviation Products in Lake Shasta, Calif.

    Both men were charged with conspiracy, but acquitted of that charge in separate trials.

    Mr. Banister was charged with helping to prepare three false tax returns, which said that no withheld taxes were due, and seeking reimbursement of taxes already paid.

    Mr. Banister was greeted by cheers from more than a dozen fellow tax protesters and family members as he emerged from the courtroom of Judge William B. Shubb of United States District Court in Sacramento after the four-day trial ended, according to accounts by people who were there.

    Judge Shubb had bailiffs remove two women from the courtroom for outbursts as the four verdicts of not guilty were read.

    The verdict stirred concerns that it would encourage more Americans to refuse to pay taxes, which the Treasury, I.R.S. and the Justice Department have all acknowledged is a growing problem. The problem has prompted a renewed effort to seek civil injunctions against promoters like Mr. Banister and in some cases prosecutions of both tax protesters and their professional advisers.

    “This is going to encourage thousands more people who were on the fence, who were paying taxes only because they were afraid they would be criminally prosecuted,” said J. J. MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst. She is writing a book about people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws and attended the trial, which began June 14.

    “If too many people do this, the tax system will collapse because it is based on people voluntarily complying” with the law, Ms. MacNab said.

    Mr. Banister's lawyer, Robert Bernhoft, said the verdict was a sign that other taxpayers need not be afraid of confronting the government.

    He said the case did not set a precedent.

    “It just means that Joe Banister is not guilty of misconduct,” Mr. Bernhoft said. “But I hope it sends a message to policy makers in Washington that they need to re-evaluate their policies in these cases.”

    Mr. Bernhoft said that “American citizens have the right to ask the government questions and the government has a duty to answer in good faith.”

    He added that “to proceed against Joe Banister with an indictment rather than simply answering his questions is un-American.”

    ********************************************************************************

    **************************************

    Larken Rose to me

    More options 2:42 am (1 hour ago)

    Dear Subscriber,

    It's almost funny how glaringly obvious the slant of David Cay Johnston at

    the New York Times has become. (Of course, the New York Times in general

    has an overall bias that's pretty darn hard to miss.) His “story” about

    Joe Banister's acquittal starts by saying: “The federal government's

    campaign against income tax protesters suffered a major setback

    yesterday…” Aside from his usual dishonest “tax protestor” label, look

    at the viewpoint of the sentence. The theme was not “man found not

    guilty.” No, that's too pro-Joe. The theme is a “setback” for the United

    States government. And what does using the term “setback” imply? It

    implies that Joe was guilty of a crime, but “got away with it.” Having an

    innocent person acquitted would never be characterized as a “setback”;

    it's called JUSTICE.

    Like a good psy-ops fear monger, Johnston wastes no time in mentioning two

    convictions of OTHER people (referring to Al Thompson and Dick Simkanin).

    And of course, he had to include the usual vague bashing routine of “The

    theories [Banister] has put forth have been uniformly rejected by the

    courts.”

    Um, why is this story about someone BEATING the federal leviathan mostly

    about the leviathan insulting and hurting people? Because that's the

    message Mr. Johnston wants to hammer into the brains of everyone in the

    country: resistance to Mr. Johnston's god (the federal government) is

    futile. Of course, what the story SHOULD be about goes directly against

    that, but let's not let facts and reality get in the way of a good

    propaganda piece.

    And then, just in case Mr. Johnston had any credibility left, he cites

    that ridiculous “Quatloos” web site as if it's some authority. Hmmm…

    he's mentioned me by name SEVEN TIMES in his articles, but NEVER mentioned

    any of my web sites. Nice “balance.” The article also included this:

    “The verdict stirred concerns that it would encourage more Americans to

    refuse to pay taxes…” Note the passive tense, and the vague reference.

    Stirred concerns among whom? The article is written from the perspective

    of the government. (censored) will freeze over before the New York Times will

    ever speak of the federal government's terror campaign against anyone with

    an honest disagreement “stirring concerns” among the people. Why?

    Because Mr. Johnston has no connection to the real American people, only

    to those in government.

    But at least he quoted Mr. Bernhoft, one of Joe's attorneys, saying that

    “American citizens have the right to ask the government questions and the

    government has a duty to answer in good faith.” While that is both true,

    and well said, it's pretty darn sad that we live in a country where anyone

    needs to state such a thing.

    Congratulations, Joe. Mr. Johnston can continue with his self-imposed

    delusions, but a whole lot of REAL Americans know who the good guys are,

    and are very thankful for what you have done for all of us. Bless you,

    and your family.

    Sincerely,

    Larken Rose

    larken@taxableincome.net

    http://www.861.info

    http://www.theft-by-deception.com

    Past messages to this list can be found here:

    http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimate…?ubb=forum;f=16

    (P.S. I've been mentioned by name seven times in the New York Times, all

    in articles by Mr. Johnston, I believe. So why has he said NOTHING about

    my indictment, and my upcoming trial? He even ran an article about

    tax-time indictments, but still did NOT mention mine. Why do you suppose

    he would NOT want attention on our case? Or, to put it another way, why

    do you suppose the government, which has also been amazingly quietly about

    our case, wants it to be kept quiet? Well, if YOU knew you were about to

    lose a “big game,” would you invite all your friends to watch, or would

    you hope no one is there to see it?)

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 24, 2005 at 12:15 pm in reply to: Joe Banister Trial

    Joe Banister, Former IRS Criminal Investigator, acquitted of all four criminal tax counts

    By John Turner, American Independent Party (affiliated nationally with Constitituion Party) , former IRS revenue officer, June 24, 2005

    At approximately 2 p.m. on the 14th floor of the Federal Court Building in Sacramento, California, Joe Banister (www.freedomabovefortune.com) supporters got word that the judge had received a note from the jury and quickly moved from the hallway into the courtroom. He announced that the jury had reached a unanimous decision. The verdicts were read by the clerk of the court with Judge William Shubb presiding: “Not Guilty”, “Not Guilty”, “Not Guilty”, “Not Guilty”. Carol Delaney, assistant prosecutor in the case, was not in attendance at the verdict. Very telling at that moment was the absence of the many IRS employees that had been in attendance during the trial. In victory, Joe Banister, honorable and unpretentious man that he is, walked over to the government's side and shook the hands of the two IRS CID special agents who had investigated him, as well as the government's lead attorney, Mr. Twiss. Also very telling, Sean Breslin, the special agent in charge, stood looking at Joe with a big smile and tears in his eyes.

    Trial began on Tuesday, June 14. What were the charges? 1) Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and 2) Aiding and Abetting in the Preparation of False and Fraudulent Returns. The government alleged that Banister had impeded and impaired the ascertainment, assessment, and collection of tax, and that he had criminally conspired with Al Thompson in so doing.

    The charges were related to Joe's association with Redding businessman, Walter “Al” Thompson, where Joe, as a CPA, prepared amended Form 1040X tax returns for three tax years. The returns were a calculated protest and every effort was made by Al and Joe to adhere to written and verbal guidance they sought and received from the IRS.

    Key evidence in the trial were two video tapes. The first tape was about 2 hours in length had been filmed at Cencal Aviation, the business of Walter “Al” Thompson, in July of 2000. Mr. Thompson had researched the law and concluded that he was not an “employer” as defined within Title 26, the income tax code, nor was he required to withhold money from the paychecks of those who worked for him. He called this meeting so as to inform his 25 employees of this decision to stop withholding from their paychecks, and invited Joe Banister, former IRS CID special agent, to assist him in communicating to the employees. Also in attendance was Mr. David Cay Johnson, 30 year veteran of covering tax issues and writing articles for the New York Times, whom he had invited only the day before. Of interest, was the fact that this tape was introduced into evidence by the government, not Mr. Banister. Viewing the content of the tape, which greatly favored Mr. Banister, one would question the judgment of the government. What had happened in pre-trial wrangling was that the government had lost their bid to keep that piece of evidence out. In a strategy that is common for such circumstances, the government probably thought that they could do 2 things to try and minimize the evidence: be the one that introduced the evidence instead of the defense and do it early in the trial so that the jury might forget about it as the trial concluded. Whatever it was, their strategy failed. The so-called “Cencal Aviation” tape was replayed for the jury during their deliberation after all evidence was in, and in post-verdict interviews, jurors who would consent to talk with us admitted that this evidence was extremely important in persuading the jury's decision for Mr. Banister. The second viewing was key in swinging the remaining 4-5 jurors who still were not voting to acquit. The tape covered a lot of ground but a partial summary is as follows: Joe Banister explained how he came to be employed by the IRS and what caused him to have to resign nearly 6 years later. He emphasized that he was not there to tell people what to think or what to do but merely to tell them what he learned and what he was doing about his discovery. “What he was doing” included asking the government to demonstrate the error of his analysis which started with the 95-page report he submitted to his supervisor, Robert Gorini, with the request that it go to the “top” for a response. The response was administrative leave and inevitable resignation and the reply that the government would not address his questions.

    The other tape was a deposition of Banister's former manager, Robert Gorini, in Washington, D.C., who retired from the IRS in early 2000, less than a year after Mr. Banister resigned from the IRS by Banister's attorney, Jeffrey Dickstein. Mr. Gorini had nothing but good things to say about Joe's character, his work as a criminal IRS investigator and many other areas. The very last question by Dickstein was to ask Gorini if he could name the law that required Mr. Banister to file income tax returns and pay income tax, to which Mr. Gorini replied that he could not. This tape was a huge credibility boost for Joe with the jury.

    A key element in the charges was “willfulness” and the jury unanimously concurred that Joe, right or wrong in his beliefs about aspects of tax law administration, truly believed the things which caused him to resign.

    A highly interesting item of a technical nature was concerning the discussion on the subject of Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. At the conclusion of the government's presentation of their case, the defense moved for dismissal of all charges and effectively and persuasively convinced the judge that the government had failed to make it's case, that is, it had failed to provide evidence to prove it's case that matched the charges against Banister. It appeared that the judge was very tempted to dismiss and might very well do so, however, he ultimately displayed his unwillingness to allow the government to be in a position of losing with no chance of appeal. The judge knew this was a very high-profile case with potentially serious adverse effects for the government should it lose. The government's case was astoundingly weak and it was apparent that the proper thing to do was to dismiss charges. But that did not happen.

    The defense began arguing early Friday morning and played the “Gorini” deposition to start. The judge gave a 15 minute recess and upon everyone's return, directed Mr. Dickstein proceed. Mr. Dickstein shocked everyone by quietly announcing, “Your Honor, the defense rests”. The judge stared at him for several seconds as if speechless. Finally, he inquired as to why Dickstein, knowing the calendar of events, had not given the court a “heads up” about this short defense and premature resting. The judge knew that the defense was potentially going to present witnesses and expected Mr. Banister would probably testify on his own behalf. Now, with the defense suddenly and unexpected completed, there was a hole in the day's schedule. No problem. There were more “Rule 29” issues to discuss outside the presence of the jury and the all-important need to come to agreement on the subject of jury instructions. The jury had been dismissed until Tuesay morning so as to allow plenty of time to complete business before bringing the jury back.

    Friday afternoon, June 17, had to be excruciatingly painful for the government attorney's. The jury instructions they presented to Judge Shubb were so poor that he gave them a severe tongue-lashing and pleaded with them, “help me out”. While not in the presence of the jury, he said he would be embarrassed if he had to give those instructions to the jury. He also said, “I hope you have been humbled enough by my earlier comments to become motivated to do better.”

    Judge Shubb said many interesting, perhaps curious things during the week. Once, he uttered, “the law is uncertain”. Another time he declared that no one reads the Internal Revenue Code from cover to cover and that anyone who claims to have done that should be in the “nuthouse”. When attorney Dickstein softly suggested to the judge that he should not be so quick to believe that (implying that he has read the entire Code), the judge retorted that anyone claiming to have read the Code from cover to cover should be placed in an insane asylum. The judge, prone to temper tantrums and shouting when someone displeased him, all in all, was fair in the conduct of the trial, occasionally displaying a sense of humor. He saw two very skilled, well-prepared defense lawyers and his disappointment in the performance of the government attorneys was apparent at certain times.

    Brilliant legal work by the law office of Robert Bernhoft was also key in Mr. Banister's acquittal. The trial lawyers, Robert Bernhoft, a Constitution Party member from Wisconsin, and Mr. Jeffrey Dickstein, a seasoned lawyer well-versed in criminal tax defense, recognized the complete lack of evidence to support the government's case and wisely decided that it would add nothing to have witnesses and Banister testify. In any event, they felt they were well positioned should the need to appeal later come into play. I am certain that the government was counting on the opportunity to bolster their weak case by being able to fish around with Mr. Banister on the stand. It didn't happen and the two video tapes entered into evidence overwhelmingly portrayed Banister as credible, honest, intelligent, sincere, honorable, and believable.

    Mr. Banister's courtroom supporters were numerous. He enjoyed the comfort of many family members, as well as supporters who travelled from as far away as Georgia and Florida, and have come to see him as a patriot and hero for his courageous stand. Mr. Banister and his family have felt the stress of Joe having to prepare for his defense and found great joy and relief at the news of his aquittal.

    Joseph Banister's efforts to get the government to answer his concerns and questions about the income tax include several trips to the nation's capital, where he has often been accompanied by many others who hold simiar views, including former IRS revenue agent Sherry Jackson and former IRS revenue officer John Turner. He is a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit, which has been organized by Robert Schulz, founder of “We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.”, of Queensbury, New York (www.givemeliberty.org).

    “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and and only legitimate object of good government.”– Thomas Jefferson

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 24, 2005 at 5:07 am in reply to: Joe Banister Trial

    [We The People] Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy Happy Day! A real VICTORY for the people, that's you and me! Thank you Joe for your bravery and honor and one of many victories to come! God's blessings upon you and yours! Please folks send this email to everyone you know! Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing

    June 23, 2005

    Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy

    Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing

    Video & More Details Tomorrow…

    Sacramento California — On Thursday June 23, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over

    several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers.

    During the trial the Department of Justice was unable to put forth any evidence that Banister had either engaged in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he shared legal research with business owner Al Thompson concluding that he had no legal obligation to withhold taxes from his workers or when he (Banister) prepared

    corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming his taxable income was, under U.S. law, zero.

    During the trial, Banister's former supervisor at IRS's San Jose CID office, Robert Gorini (who testified via video recording) when pointedly asked, was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.

    Banister, who was forced to resign in 1999, gave Thompson's worker's a presentation in 2000 which reviewed his detailed investigative research of U.S. tax law which concluded that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on the workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the worker's paychecks.

    Banister is part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the U.S. Government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. Last summer, the We The People Foundation initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions.

    The Right-To-Petition lawsuit, of which Banister is a plaintiff, is the first time in history that U.S. courts have been asked to define the meaning of the final ten words of the First Amendment.

    Court documents for the RTP lawsuit and scholarly research regarding the Right to Petition can be downloaded from the Lawsuit Information Center on http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org.

    Following the verdict, Banister was greeted by a throng of WTP supporters and many members of his family.

    Tomorrow, WTP will publish additional details of this important news and stream video of post-verdict interviews of Banister & several of the jurors.

    Support Joe Banister:

    Read the May 27th WTP update, “Get Pinned” Order a WTP Freedom Pin

    Provide further support in helping fund the legal costs of the Right-To-Petition lawsuit and the criminal defense of former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister. Our Home Page is http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 23, 2005 at 4:14 am in reply to: Joe Banister Trial

    Update on Joe's Trial, 6/21/05 by Larry Becraft.

    ____________________________________________________

    Dave Champion

    Executive Director

    Original Intent

    *****************************************

    Paul asked about the Banister case presently being tried in Sacramento, with Jeff Dickstein as his lawyer. Being familiar with the case and working with Joe's lawyers, I can reply to Paul.

    Back in December of last year, Joe and Al Thompson were indicted and charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 USC 371); that indictment also charged several counts of submitting false returns. Thompson has always been a follower of whatever legal argument is “popular” at the moment, regardless of merits. Thompson had been arrested during a high speed chase and was denied bond pending trial. Joe's lawyers moved for a severance from the Thompson trial when Thompson wanted a “speedy trial.” The judge granted that severance and Thompson went to trial back in January. The jury acquitted him of the conspiracy, but convicted him of the substantive offenses. Jeff attended the Thompson trial to observe and take notes regarding the prosecution's case. At sentencing, Thompson, following conventional wisdom of the tax gurus, raised (censored) and the judge responded with a heavy sentence. So much for the “conventional wisdom” which has many followers in the freedom movement. But it seems that the promoters of flaky arguments like the UCC, redemption process, etc., are now observing the folly and stupidity of their ways.

    As with any trial, one must prepare extensively and Joe's defense team did just that before trial. To prepare, one must analyze the discovery which the govt provides to the defense to assess its case and detect weak spots. One must also gather together all potential defense exhibits and then assess all the relevant paperwork for what essentially is a paperwork case. One must interview witnesses and prep the client. While conventional wisdom passing as legal advice offered by gurus holds that a defendant need not prepare much for trial, should demand a quick trial and simply raise (censored) in court, that bad advice is wrong, deadly wrong. The defense must work hard to prepare for trial. Joe's defense team did the hard work and was prepared for trial.

    Regarding Joe's trial, the prosecution shifted its strategy at the last minute, decreasing the number of witnesses and shortening its estimate of trial length. Such a strategy clearly indicates that the prosecution desires to buttress its case with extensive cross exam of the defendant. This strategy of building strength of the govt's case by cross of the defendant requires a shift of strategy by the defense.

    The prosecution's case against Joe was incredibly weak. When the prosecution is presenting its case, the defense always uses govt witnesses to begin building the defense. Jeff crossed the govt witnesses, forcing them to admit that Joe had not “impeded or impaired” performance of the functions of the IRS, which is the “heart” of a defraud clause 371 case. In reference to the false return counts, several amazing facts were shown, but I am not going to steal the thunder of some writers who will report soon about the Banister case. I have talked with many who have attended the trial (Sherry Jackson, Devvy Kidd, etc). Devvy plans to write articles for WND and News With Views about this trial and she can give the “blow by blow” account. Suffice it for present purposes to state that the elements of proof for the prosecution to make its case were either non-existent or weak.

    When the govt rests in a criminal prosecution, the defense can test its strength by making a motion to dismiss via Rule 29, F. R. Cr. P. which asks the court to determine whether there is a case sufficient to go to the jury.

    What typically happens with this type of motion is that the court denies the motion to let the jury dispose of a weak case if it is really weak. If such motion is denied, the defense is presented and if the case is really weak, the jury will acquit. However, even if the jury convicts, the motion can again be decided by the court after all the evidence has been presented.

    The defense tested the case against Joe with a motion for judgment of acquittal, but the court's reaction was atypical. In reply, the court in Joe's case berated the prosecution for a lousy case, and Devvy can provide the juicy details with her articles. Suffice it to say that from what the judge said regarding the Rule 29 motion, he thinks that the govt presented no case.

    Under these circumstances, the defense must weigh the benefit of the defendant testifying. In Joe's case, it was obvious that the prosecution had an incredibly weak case. Does the defense in such a case put the defendant on the stand and allow the govt to strengthen its case? Here, a decision was made not to do so, and based on my experience in such cases, I concur.

    This morning, there will be closing arguments in Joe's case in Sacramento. I hope that by this afternoon, we get word that Joe has been acquitted on all counts. The tragedy of this case is that if the govt's case was so weak, why did Al get convicted? I suggest that Al has had his life ruined because he listened to gurus.

    Larry Becraft

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 14, 2005 at 3:12 pm in reply to: CFR 26 301.6332-1(c)

    Greeniago,

    You are looking at a very old copy of the Great IRS Hoax. We don't even have a chapter 15 anymore. Please download and use the very latest copy. If it still appears in that copy, then please point it out. Please also specify the version number of the book you are referring to in all future correspondence.

    We looked up that paragraph and it indeed is found in the section quoted at 26 CFR 301.6332-1(c )(2). Click on the link below and see for yourself:

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12…r301.6332-1.pdf

  • Author #2

    Member
    June 9, 2005 at 4:52 am in reply to: Burney Brushears is a scam artist

    Dear Scammed and In Jail,

    Attacks on the character of other individuals may not be made on this forum unless accompanied by supporting evidence proving why the person was wrong. I will give you one week to add very specific details about why Burney Brushears was wrong using his own materials and statements, and if you can't or won't do it, then I'll have to remove your post. We do not allow OPINIONS or SLANDER on this forum, but only FACTS and LAW that are defensible in court with EVIDENCE. If you are unable to post such evidence to this forum, then you can email it to us as a PDF and we will post it.

    We don't have a bias either for or against Burney Brushears, but we don't like people's reputation slandered without any supporting evidence either. As a matter of fact, this is a favorite tactic of the evil enemy we are fighting, and two wrongs don't make a right.

  • Author #2

    Member
    May 26, 2005 at 2:22 pm in reply to: SAPF Shut Down?

    Folks,

    Talked to SAPF the other day. They have things well in hand relating to the Dept. of INjustice complaint recently filed asking for an injunction. They are not worried about being shut down and they have been through this kind of persecution once before in 1996. Back then, the judge ruled in their favor and when the DOJ appealed, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. The SAPF approach hasn't changed since then, so the DOJ shoulders a heavy burden to show that the approach has changed. Their approach has always been to show people what the law says and let them make their own decisions, which is the same thing we do here. The same SAPF attorney who handled defending them against the attempted injunction in 1996 is handling this case again.

    We wish them luck and we are comparing notes with them.

    Bill Benson is also going through the same thing right now as us, SAPF, and Free Enterprise Society. They are hitting the leaders hard to shut down distribution of the truth.

  • Author #2

    Member
    May 26, 2005 at 1:18 pm in reply to: DOJ files fraudulent lawsuit against Member

    Toto75,

    Thanks!

  • Author #2

    Member
    May 26, 2005 at 2:54 am in reply to: Odd timing…

    Ratter 14,

    More likely that the DOJ fraudulent indictment stirred up interest, and it's dying down now that the government and the public have seen the response we posted to their lies, along with the answer to their complaint posted today at:

    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/News…tack-050502.htm

    Rather than respond rationally to our rebuttal above, they are just steering people away. The Quatloosers are now going back to kissing Asskisser's ass instead of harassing or spying on us more honest folk:

    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals…sonQuatloos.htm

    🙂

Page 12 of 21