This could very well be in retaliation by the Justice Department for Banister exposing the truth about the income tax. Even if he did advise his clients (and others as well), not to file income tax, they got commonsense, and if they don't, that's their problem.
Someone always has to be a scapegoat for others screwing up.
Posts: 6723 | Location: Land of Lincoln, USA | Registered: 07-04-02
But I believe that, in modern civilised society, income tax is fair, appropriate and necessary.
I don't know, but I suspect that these car-chase-loving tax protestors are inadequate losers with bees in their bonnets (or con-artists preying on the same). If they weren't all agitated about tax, it would be the One World Government Conspiracy, learning Klingon, precious bodily fluids or some such.
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: ...income tax is fair, appropriate and necessary.
Except, of course, where no income tax is required! Here is one list - how many of these taxes do you pay?
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax Capital Gains Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Court Fines (indirect taxes) Dog License Tax Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Charges (tax on top of tax) IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Local Income Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Septic Permit Tax Service Charge Taxes Social Security Tax Road Usage Taxes (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax Road Toll Booth Taxes School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Toll Bridge Taxes Toll Tunnel Taxes Traffic Fines (indirect taxation) Trailer registration tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
Posts: 8103 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
I pay seven - their Canadian equivalents, I mean. I don't particularly like paying them, but I see the need for them. I don't particularly like paying off a mortgage, or for groceries, either.
I wonder what defence Bannister (this 'highly trained CPA and valued IRS criminal investigator') is going to use in court? It seems that he might chicken out and point to the disclaimers on his books - 'Banister maintains that he has never advised anyone not to file a return ...'.
He certainly couldn't use the two 'income tax is invalid' ideas that Paul has told us about - answerpool.com; that wouldn't even be laughed out of court, it would just rate a weary sigh.
Bannister seems to support the idea that the fifth amendment provides protection against filing income-tax forms, but this argument is a dud, too:
"How is it that so many people have been led to believe that the Fifth Amendment provides a "taxpayer" with an excuse for not filing a "required" return?... .... Let's start with some of the quotes used by various authors of books as well as various authors of opinion letters. Sometimes the authors will cite Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1975), as follows:
"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness."
Other times, they will provide more of the citation from Garner v. United States as follows:
"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a 'witness' as that term is used herein."
What is it that various promoters, authors of books and authors of opinion letters fail to tell you? They fail to tell you just how "that term is used herein". In other words, how the term "witness" is used within the case of Garner v. United States...
...By failing to explain just how the term "witness" is used in the Garner case, various promoters and authors have led people to believe that the Garner case stands for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment provides a "taxpayer" with an excuse for not filing a "required" return. As you can see, the Garner case does not stand for such a proposition."www.buildfreedom.com See also Bill Conklin
And so on. Once again, it's a word pulled out of context and misinterpreted. You need to read and understand the broader context of the law - arm yourself with knowledge, in fact - to realise how lame tax-protestors' legal claims are.
Quick update; this fearless tax-protestor's first move has been to give eighteen boxes of documents to his defence team, who have successfully asked for a delay until June in order to find out if there's anything relevant in this pile of paper. This move has also, it seems, been successful in ditching his co-defendant Al Thompson. joebanister.blogspot.com
Al apparently fired his lawyer and was intending to defend himself on the grounds that tax laws were repealed in 1939. Does anyone know how that turned out? www.montereyherald.com
There’s a running commentary on Thompson’s trial at www.quatloos.com:
January 20 ”One of the questions asked was if the prospective jurors had ever heard of any arguments which held that the 16th Amendment was unconstitutional or that you don't have to pay taxes. The first alternate juror answered yes, a couple of years ago he'd "heard about a group advocating not paying taxes based on the 16th Amendment." The judge asked, "What did you think about that?" and the juror-to-be replied, "I tried not to laugh." Thompson excused that juror but the tone was set.”
January 25 ”Al is running a "kitchen sink" defense...
a) he is a sovereign citizen of the state of California
b) no law makes him liable
c) the law is "void for vagueness"
d) he's a 14th amendment citizen
e) the Internal Revenue Code was repealed in 1939 and nothing ever replaced it
f) he doesn't have employees because "includes" is a term of limitation
g) the IRS CI agent has no authority because the seal on his business card 1) doesn't match the approved seals in the Code of Federal Regulations, and 2) there's a rope around the seal which signifies admiralty law
h) the Federal court has no jurisdiction over Al
i) 861 ad nauseum (although he doesn't understand it well enough to explain it)
j) IRS criminal statutes are void because they are backed only by Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regs
k) Court cases other than Supreme Court cases are irrelevant because they are nothing but kangaroo courts
l) Supreme Court cases are irrelevant because, "Heck, look how many 5 to 4 decisions are out there"
m) there's a 90 year conspiracy to conceal the truth
n) the OMB numbers don't match
o) the 1040 Instructions show only foreign source income is taxable
p) According to the CFR 1-274, IRS agents are law enforcement
q) According to the US Attorney's Manual, the IRS CI division can't investigate any cases for DOJ prosecution
r) Al is not a withholding agent sunder Section 7701 (little problem is that no one has ever said he was...)
s) he refused to take an oath on religious grounds prior to take the stand, instead opting for a non-perjury equivalent that went "My yes is yes, and my no is no."”
The consensus seems to be that Al would have done better to shut up and hope for leniency.
"A nationally known tax protester who believed income taxes are illegal was found guilty Friday of multiple counts of filing false tax returns and failing to withhold taxes from employees after representing himself at trial in federal court.
Walter A. "Al" Thompson, whose anti-tax philosophies landed him a spot on "60 Minutes II" and in numerous stories in the New York Times, faces 63 years in prison and $3.25 million in fines when he is to be sentenced April 13 in U.S. District Court in Sacramento."www.sacbee.com
'On June 23, 2005, a jury acquitted Joe Banister of multiple counts of assisting Al Thompson file a fraudulent tax return. Banister's position was that as a then-member of the federal tax bar (he has since been disbarred) he was privileged to assist Al Thompson in preparing what is known as a "protest return".
Al Thompson, one of the USA Today posterboys for Bob Schulz's We The People organization, was convicted of failing to withhold paychecks from the employees of his Cencal Aviation, and is currently serving a six-year sentence. The Banister acquittal will not help Thompson's appeal.
Interestingly, Banister's attorney admitted that Banister had been paying his federal income taxes (which was apparently why he was not charged with tax evasion), and repeatedly referred to Al Thompson as a "liar" and "convicted felon".'www.quatlosers.com
Well, so much for the fearless tax-protestor. He dropped his buddy right in it, and was paying his own taxes all along. "Stand up for what you believe"? Ha!
You refer to Squatloos frequently as if it's creator is an authority (just because he's a lawyer) on the income tax laws of the U.S. Well, he's not. He's either part of the brainwashed system or he's spreading fabrications to people who can't think for themselves for his own benefit.
You mean that Bannister wasn't aquitted on a plea of privilege, because he (at the time in question) belonged to the federal tax bar? Or that Bannister hadn't been paying his own taxes all along? Or that Bannister didn't refer to Thompson, his former client and former potential co-defendant, as a 'liar'? Or are you saying that Thompson didn't base his defence at his trial on points 'a' through 's' above and lose?
On what aspect of these trials is Jay Adkisson wrong? What did he fabricate?
(That webpage you link to says - somewhere beneath the rant containing the hilarious play on Adkisson's name:
"First he says all his revenues come from coffee mugs, and then he turns around and says that he instead is sponsored by a nonprofit group. You can't have it both ways. Either coffee mugs or an external organization sponsor the costs, but he only mentioned one of the two so AssKisser must be a liar. Right after we posted this article, Mr. AssKisser trumped himself again in response to it. We found the above quote by searching his online forums using the "Search" button. Well, apparently when Mr. Askisser read this article, he responded by removing the "Search" button from his Tax Protester Forum to make it more difficult to find postings made by him that would further expose his fraudulent dealings! Click here and visit his tax protester forums and try to locate a "search" button for yourself if you don't believe us!"
I wasn't sure whether to believe them or not, so I clicked, and sure enough - there's a big, fat search function, right there on the home page. There's also, at the top of the page, this little legend:
'Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc. A Non-Profit Corporation'
It seems famguardian.org has some inaccuracies of its own to look to.)
Oops. That 'click here' link is not to the home page of 'Quatloos!' It's to the Tax Protestor Forum home page.
On the actual home page, there's an 'About Quatloos!' link:
'The Quatloos! site has now run well past its original intent of simply poking fun at scams and their perpetrators. Now, people worldwide send information to Quatloos! and in many ways it has become a clearinghouse for information on the latest scams. Additionally, many law enforcement agencies have requested the use of Quatloos! materials for law enforcement and training materials, and Quatloos! materials are now being included in many books and articles written about scams.'
So maybe it is an authority, of a kind.
All of these pages have a search function, and the name of the non-profit organisation that maintains the site.
Paul that webpage says, "They [Quatloos] are currently the subject of a federal investigation into fraud and misrepresentation, as well as possible electronic terrorism for spreading anti-American propaganda."
I can't find any reference to such an investigation anywhere else on the Net. Do you know anything more about it?
AnswerPool.com 
) is going to use in court? It seems that he might chicken out and point to the disclaimers on his books - 'Banister maintains that he has never advised anyone not to file a return ...'.
