--- Truth Steward wrote:
Fwd: [legality-of-income-tax] Joe Banisters Complete
Statment On Not Filing
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000
It is a fact, your "tax dollars" are not needed to
fill the coffers and support this bloated "budget",
they are finding it increasingly more and more
difficult to hide the "overage" they steal from us now
(that is if you have decided to feed the parasitic
taxsuckers this year), and show no more consideration
for the sheeple, than the poor misguided bleatings
will
command from a government, no longer for nor by the
people. I won`t advocate violence on this issue, but
for the sake of your children, and future generations,
at least stand and be the needed instrument of change.
-----Original Message------
From: ICE
Sent: April 16, 2000
Subject: Fwd: [legality-of-income-tax] Joe
Banisters Complete Statment On Not Filing
Here is an interview with Joe Banister by Devvy Kidd
in which he gives a detailed account of what he will
be doing instead of filing a tax return for the year
1999.
Dave Toney
Can be seen at:
http://www.devvy.com/april_20000412.html
FORMER IRS AGENT NOT FILING A TAX RETURN
Devvy Kidd
April 12, 2000
As regular readers to this site know, Joseph Banister
is a former IRS Criminal Investigator. After
thoroughly researching the tax code, Joe came to the
indisputable conclusion that most Americans are not
required to file tax returns. Joe resigned his
high-paying position with the IRS in 1999 because he
could not reconcile his oath of office with the fraud
being perpetrated against
the American people by the very organization he worked
for. I ask Joe if he would share with the people what
his plans were for this tax year as relates to whether
or not he would be filing an income tax return or the
paying of "income" taxes. Below are my questions to
Joe and his responses:
Q: April 15, 2000 is just around the corner.
People are wondering whether or not, you, as a former
IRS, CID agent will file an income tax return on what
is traditionally known in the tax movement as "April
Fools Day"?
A: I know it would be easier to answer your question
with a simple yes or no. Unfortunately, due to the
complexity of the issues involved, the implications of
my answer for all of those who will read it, and my
desire to be very truthful and honest in conducting my
affairs, I must include a detailed explanation with
my answer. I will also try to be as specific as
possible so that my intentions will be very clear.
First, please allow me to introduce myself for the
benefit of those who don't know about me. After
graduating from college, earning my certified public
accountant certificate, and spending approximately 7
years in the private sector, I accepted an appointment
as a Special Agent for the Internal Revenue Service
Criminal Investigation Division and was sworn in as
such on November 15,1993. In December of 1996, I heard
you speaking on the radio and making what, at the
time, seemed to be incredible and outrageous
claims.You claimed, among other things, that filing of
federal income tax returns and the payment of federal
income taxes was voluntary for most Americans. You
claimed that the 16th Amendment (income tax amendment)
to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified. You
claimed that federal income tax money is not even used
to pay the government's operating expenses. I set out
to disprove your claims, because I believed at the
time that you could not possibly be correct. I
wondered how you could possibly be correct in claiming
that the federal income
tax was not compulsory for most Americans when the IRS
had issued me a badge, gun, handcuffs, and their
enforcement equipment to ensure that all Americans did
comply. After spending many evenings and weekends over
a 2 year period carefully researching your claims, I
concluded that you were telling the truth. The
information you provided, and my subsequent research,
led me to conclude that in order for the federal
income tax to be administered within the confines of
our federal Constitution, the federal income tax laws
and regulations were written in such a way that
comparatively few Americans are legally and
constitutionally required to pay it. I also verified
your claim that the 16th Amendment was never ratified
and that the U.S. Government largely finances its
operations with debt currency/funds rather than
federal income tax revenues. These were obviously not
the conclusions I expected to reach. Nonetheless, when
I reached these conclusions, I knew I had a duty to
discuss them with my supervisors in the Internal
Revenue Service. I gathered some of the more
compelling facts and evidence supporting my
conclusions about your
claims and submitted them to IRS officials in the form
of a report. In keeping with my oath of office, I
informed IRS officials of my sincere. concern that the
rights of Americans were very likely being violated
and
I asked them to show me the error of my analysis, if
any. They rebuffed my concerns and encouraged my
resignation. I resigned on February 25, 1999.
With that history in mind, I can now address your
question. The last time I recall being asked to
provide a public answer to the question about my own
filing was on July 2, 1999 at a tax symposium held in
Washington, D.C. at the National Press Club. I gave a
necessarily
long-winded answer on that day. I think this would be
an appropriate venue to repeat my answer plus offer
some additional explanations.
As you know, the IRS, the Clinton Administration,
the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Justice
Department, and other federal agencies were formally
invited to the July 2nd symposium, televised
nationally on C-SPAN2, to
debate the conclusions of the report I submitted to
the IRS as well as the conclusions of other learned
researchers such as Larry Becraft, Bill Benson, Bill
Conklin, and yourself.
(www.givemeliberty.org ).
As you also know, not a single government official
came to discuss, debate, or argue against our
conclusions. To date, the IRS has refused to meet with
me or with any of the afore-mentioned researchers or
to
debate the mountains of evidence pointing to the
voluntary nature of the federal income tax.
Having held a C.P.A. certificate since 1991 and
having worked for the IRS Criminal Investigation
Division for over five years, I know the agency's
expectation is that everyone should file an income tax
return. Having done over three years of research into
the requirements for filing federal income tax returns
and paying the federal income tax, I have concluded
that the statutes and regulations do not require most
Americans to file federal income tax returns or pay
federal income tax.
I have spent many sleepless nights wondering whether
fulfilling the agency's expectation is the proper
course or whether obeying the statutes and regulations
is the proper course (since my findings indicate that
the agency's expectation appears to me to be in
conflict with the statutes and regulations). Since I
have found a conflict between the agency's expectation
and my good faith reading of the statutes and
regulations, I must choose between them. I must choose
to obey the statutes and regulations.
The statutes and regulations indicate to me that I
have no federal income tax return filing requirement
and no requirement to pay the federal income tax.
Until I can resolve the conflict between the
agency's expectation and the plain language of the
statutes and regulations, I can not in good conscience
file a
federal income tax return. I believe that for me to
file such a return without resolving this conflict, I
would be committing perjury upon signing the document.
My position will continue to be that I may file a
federal income tax return in the future, but only if
my research shows me that I am required by law to file
such a return and/or the IRS helps me to understand
what law requires me to file or how I can file a
return without waiving any of my rights.
It is important to note that the statutory and
regulatory reasons I have researched do not even take
into consideration the 5th Amendment implications to
the filing of federal income tax returns developed by
Bill Conklin and others, the evidence of the lack of
ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution investigated by Bill Benson and Red
Beckman, and the opinions of all of the professionals
I have consulted with who have confirmed my
conclusions.
Q: The biggest fear (a mind set brutally beat into the
America people by the IRS) an individual has in making
the decision as to whether or not they will file, is:
Will I be prosecuted and thrown in jail? Second to
losing their freedom, Americans' greatly fear, as they
should, the IRS simply coming in and stealing their
money and other assets.
Since you have decided not to volunteer this April
15, 2000, could you please tell us what your first
step was to protect your assets and deal with the IRS'
first goal: getting your money? (The check you sent
in- getting the money issue off the table.)
A: In order to answer your question more completely,
I'd like to provide some background information.
First, Americans need to understand that there is a
difference between filing a federal income tax return
and paying federal income tax. The two are related but
they are not necessarily dependent on each other.
Paying the federal income tax is done primarily
through withholding out of your paycheck throughout
the year or through estimated payments made every
three
months. Filing a federal income tax return is
something that is done only once per year, and the
return is used to report taxable income and to compute
an income tax on that taxable income and compare the
computed income tax to the amount of withholding or
estimated payments. The result of the comparison is
either an "amount you owe" or a "refund."
Once a person learns this information, they will
likely find themselves torn between what they know to
be the truth (that they are not required to file a
federal income tax return or pay the federal income
tax) and the fact that the truth has not prevented
people from ending up in prison or losing all of
their property. In my experience, the truth may not be
an absolute shield against the IRS for a number of
reasons. The primary reason for this is that the IRS
frames the payment of income taxes in terms of paying
one's "fair share" rather whether or not one has a
legal duty to pay it. In a criminal prosecution for
not
paying taxes, the government often uses jealousy and
envy to convince a jury that the accused should be
convicted. The prosecutor will generally try to
convince the jury that the defendant did not pay his
"fair share" rather than try to convince the jury that
the defendant "broke the law." The prosecutor wouldn't
dream of discussing what law required the defendant to
file a federal income tax return or pay the federal
income tax.
Why discuss such things when the raw emotions of
> 12 jurors who have been
> >stuck
> > >paying their "fair share" will obtain a guilty
> verdict quite nicely. In
> >my
> > >opinion, this is the reality of income tax
> enforcement and for this
> >reason,
> > >people should educate themselves and exercise
> extreme caution if they
> > >decide to
> > >take any action on any of this information.
> > >
> > >As to the IRS "getting your money," I am
> personally less concerned with
> > >the IRS
> > >getting my money than I am concerned with the
> deceitful way they
> > >administer the
> > >income tax and the suspicious silence on their
> part when asked to clarify
> > >these
> > >issues. Based on my knowledge of the government's
> administrative and
> > >enforcement
> > >tactics, I realized I had to formulate a way to
> inform the American
> >people
> > >about
> > >the fraudulent way the income tax is administered
> without having my
> >message
> > >diluted by a government accusing me of not
> wanting to pay my "fair
> >share."
> > >
> > >I wanted to ensure that everyone understood that
> my opposition to the IRS
> > >isn't
> > >about opposition to taxation as much as it is
> about opposition to
> >collecting
> > >taxes through fear, intimidation, deceit, and
> color of law. In order to
> > >accomplish this, I have written, in good faith, a
> check to the U.S.
> > >Treasury as
> > >a bond to cover more than the "fair share" I
> would have paid had I been
> > >required
> > >to file a federal income tax return, even though
> my research of the
> > >statutes and
> > >regulations has shown me that no payment is
> required. I will subsequently
> > >demand
> > >that the IRS adhere to every administrative
> procedure (including, but not
> > >limited to, an examination hearing and collection
> hearing) to determine
> > >whether
> > >or not the money I have paid to the IRS is
> legally theirs to keep.
> > >
> > >After exhausting my rights to administrative due
> process of law and civil
> > >suit,
> > >if necessary, I will hopefully have determined
> once and for all whether
> >or
> > >not I
> > >am required to file a federal income tax return
> and/or am liable to pay
> >the
> > >federal income tax. If I am required to pay the
> federal income tax, then
> > >the IRS
> > >already has my money. If I learn during this
> process that I am required
> >by
> >law
> > >to file a federal income tax return, I will file
> one immediately in order
> >to
> > >comply with the law.
> > >
> > >Q: Last November 13, 1999, you were one of the
> panel members at the
> >National
> > >Press Club in Washington, DC for Symposium II. A
> man named David Bosset
> >was
> > >there and he covered his long battle with the IRS
> to force them to adhere
> > >to the
> > >law as it's written. The thrust of Mr. Bosset's
> argument is the Section
> >861
> > >"source income" argument. I understand that this
> is the foundation for
> >the
> > >process you have undertaken in not filing a 1040
> "income" tax return.
> > >Could you
> > >please give the readers an explanation, something
> readable in this
> >century!
> >-
> > >about this 861 argument? I say something readable
> in this century,
> >because
> >as
> > >you know, Title 26 alone can take years to read.
> > >
> > >A: One of the most concise explanations about the
> "861 Argument" (outside
> >of
> > >www.taxgate.com and www.nite.org ) that I have
> seen was authored by F.
> >Tupper
> > >Saussy in the January 2000 issue of Media Bypass
> magazine. Mr. Saussy
> >said,
> >in
> > >pertinent part:
> > >
> > >"No income tax is imposed upon incomes derived by
> United States citizens
> >from
> > >sources within the United States. The only
> persons liable for a tax on
> >income
> > >derived from sources within the United States are
> nonresident aliens and
> > >foreign
> > >corporations"
> > >
> > >"There is no provision in the [Internal Revenue]
> Code for a tax upon the
> > >income
> > >of United States citizens living and domiciled in
> the United States if
> >the
> > >income is derived from sources within the United
> States"
> > >
> > >I have interviewed Mr. Bosset at length and I
> find him to be a very
> > >credible and
> > >honest man. He has proven to my satisfaction that
> he presented aspects of
> >the
> > >"861 Argument" to the Internal Revenue Service as
> a basis for amending
> >forms
> > >previously filed with the agency. He requested
> and received a refund for
> >taxes
> > >previously paid in. It is my understanding that
> others have received
> >refunds
> > >based on the "861 Argument" also. People can
> learn more about the subject
> >at
> > >www.taxgate.com and www.nite.org .
> > >
> > >Q: To get this straight: You will not file a
> 1040. You have already sent
> > >the IRS
> > >a check, which they have cashed. You will be
> preparing a document to
> >submit
> >to
> > >them prior to April 15, 2000 requesting
> a......hearing and working your
> >way
> > >through the administrative process, demonstrating
> good will and an honest
> > >attempt to follow the law as it's written. Is
> this correct?
> > >
> > >A: Yes, I can not repeat enough times that I am
> an honest American who
> >has,
> >in
> > >good faith, simply tried to determine what the
> mandatory tax paying
> > >obligations
> > >of the average American are. I have concluded
> that many of the federal
> >income
> > >tax obligations that I previously believed to be
> mandatory are actually
> > >voluntary, if one can navigate the incredible
> maze of the Internal
> >Revenue
> > >Code
> > >and Code of Federal Regulations. The IRS has been
> suspiciously silent on
> >the
> > >matter and has refused to meet with me to discuss
> my obligations. In
> >light
> >of
> > >the Internal Revenue Service's refusal to assist
> me, I am left to make my
> > >decisions based on my own training, experience,
> and research. What else
> >can
> >I
> > >do? I also intend to utilize all of my rights to
> due process of law to
> >get
> >an
> > >answer to my questions, even if I have to pay for
> the privilege (with a
> > >check to
> > >the U.S. Treasury).
> > >
> > >Q: I personally know the great burden and
> challenge your resignation from
> >a
> > >secure government career has had on your family.
> However, I must say that
> >not
> > >once have I ever regretted the fact that you
> heard me on Geoff Metcalf's
> >radio
> > >show and as a result of listening to what I had
> to say about the 16th
> > >Amendment
> > >and the voluntary nature of the income tax, you
> made a horrendous life
> > >changing
> > >decision. I believe with all my heart that this
> was your destiny, this is
> >what
> > >our Lord wanted you to do and while it has been
> hell for you at times
> >over
> >the
> > >past few years, millions of Americans are truly
> thankful for your
> >sacrifices.
> > >
> > >Each day more and more Americans become aware of
> your courage and
> > >commitment to
> > >the truth. Many would like to know what you've
> been doing since your
> > >resignation
> > >15 months ago and what you'd like to do in the
> future - perhaps open your
> >own
> > >consulting firm, re-enter law enforcement in some
> capacity?
> > >
> > >A: The remainder of 1999 was very difficult for
> my family and I but
> >because
> >of
> > >the thoughts, prayers, and support of so many
> people and our faith in
> >God's
> > >grace and goodness, we have much to be thankful
> for. I am confident that
> >the
> > >truth will prevail and other honest government
> officials will learn about
> >the
> > >deceitful administration of the federal income
> tax and speak out as I
> >have
> > >done.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
