Bannister Rocks It

[weishaupt1776]

http://www.joebanister.blogspot.com/

[charlesa6]

Wow!! Bravo.

[suijuris]

Why wasn't this posted in the success forums? Moving it now...

I wonder if this story will be on the evening news? Ha, only if it had gone the other way!

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by suijuris

Why wasn't this posted in the success forums? Moving it now...

I wonder if this story will be on the evening news? Ha, only if it had gone the other way!

It would only be on the news if he lost.

BTW, Imfree posted about this before me in the court section

[iamfreeru2]

Good Post!! How can you protest something that is unlawful and a scam? I hope millions more people catch on to it. Put the death nail in the coffin of the IRS and burry them is what I say, never to rip off the American people again.

[iamfreeru2]

Below is what I believe to be an excellent post over on Quatloos by one of the members that has some smarts. Enjoy!

This is Ron Banister again up from his graveyard bed at 7 am!
You make a very good point Joey! Most of the TP's you are talking about are window cleaners etc etc and they probably have a lot of time on their hands so they can read the Internet...The wealthy income bracket even if they get taxed 50% on income , they are still making incredible amounts of money that these so called window cleaners will not make in a lifetime!
The rich can care less what they pay in taxes! The low income however, are not making any money whatsoever, and they still are taxed for earning virtually no money! The rich get tax breaks and loop holes and what have you while the poor can't scrape enough together to pay rent, which can not be written off!
Why can't they write off their rent off their taxes? Why is it that the wealthy people of this country can get away with buy buy buy and write something off, while everyone else has to struggle?
Either way, this is what Joe wanted to find out! This case was about trying to get answers , and about how the government refused to give answers and how they tried to ruin Joe's life by using intimidating & false Conspiracy charges! Dan Evans said it best 24 people on the jury could not come up with a Conspiracy! A conspiracy are two people scheming behind closed doors! In a secret damaging way! Twiss' only evidence was a tape of Al & Joe speaking to CenCal employees! In that tape if anyone in the courtroom saw it Joe said "I'm not here to advise you not to pay I'm only here to say of what my findings were while I worked at the IRS".
There was a reporter from the NY TIMES there they were open about what they said! SO the big bad grommet thinks they can pin a conspiracy charge against them ! Didn't they do the same against Michael Jackson? I Here are just some definitions of what a Conspiracy means:

S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act)
S: (n) conspiracy, cabal (a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot))
S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose)

The DOJ could not prove any of this!
Joe didn't even present Any OF his witnesses because the prosecutions case was so weak at best!
They used their own witnesses and all of the agents who testified actually did so testify on the governments behalf told the truth about Joe! They all spoke on the stand under OATH that JOE DID NOTHING WRONG IN THE RETURNS OR THAT HE ADVISED AL WRONGLY OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT!
Agents, DiLeonardo, Brown, and Breslin could not say which law was broken he broke or they could not recite the law nor did they know the law!
Shubb actually reprimanded Twiss for not having the tax code book and asked him where he went to Law School? Twiss just mumbled and stuttered!
Demo or had said the Judge has a temper when the jury leaves the room , but more importantly, he was pissed off at the prosecution for not knowing anything about the conspiracy or how to defend it or whatever! BTW,Joe wants to thank Demo for coming up and shaking his hand when Joe was was found NOT GUILTY ON ALL 4 counts! HE thanks you from the bottom of his heart! His wife thanks you also Demo, she wanted to send you some nice roses so you can in turn give them to DiLeonardo, because you said you like him so much!
Their legal tactics were elementary at best!
They just thought they could get him! They thought he was another TP blowing smoke and was full of hot air! They didn't realize that as an IRS CID , Joe was trained to be very meticulous at best! He followed up on everything. He kept a journal! He was told by this agency that if you ever have questions come to us go to the top ask for help! He did that and they told him to get out of town!
As far as the legal matters you are talking about in a civil trial if there will be any, the fine for tax preparers is only $500! I'm sure Joe can afford that.
BTW, yes this site wanted to see Joe put away! "He is Toast" you are all quoted as saying! "He is going to do jail time for 14 years"! You are all guilty of saying these things! " Joe was the real conspirator in this case"! To tell you the truth this was not a story about Al this was mostly about how the IRS thought they could get JOE silence him and put him away!
The irony of it all was the IRS prepared and trained Joe to be prepared! They told him to how uphold and defend an oath that he took! They did the exact opposite by doing everything they preached! How come Joe was so prepared but the government was not? The governments witnesses ended up being hostile and were all turned around to helping Joe out! Shubb was furious w/ the prosecution!
You are so afraid of someone like Joe talking about breaking the law that you wasted valuable "tax payers money"wasted the courts time in a case you were not prepared for to begin with because you had no case! Who will pay for this case? Are you going to reimburse Joe for all his time off from work not to mention the heartache you caused his family ? Who is going to pay this trial?
Are you going to use OUR TAX dollars to pay for this? I think so!
Mark Everson said "Joe Banister knew exactly what he was doing" This is from a guilty who doesn't even know the law himself! The head of the IRS doesn't and can't recite the law he enforces!
Twist it turn it spin it around anyway you can but the guy was caught on tape not even knowing how to answer!
Judge Shubb read Al's sentence on April 13th ,Twiss was quoted as saying that Al had a stoic look on his face or rather with NO EMOTION AT ALL!
Yesterday, Twiss & Delaney both had an actual 'scared look' on their faces! I'm sure they are not going to hear the END that they just lost the governemnts supposedly 1st case, and thus their 100% record of wins in these cases will be shattered!
This case was not about Joe paying or not paying taxes! He wants to pay he will pay he ONLY wants to PAY! He JUST WANTS TO KNOW WHY? THE MONEY IS IN A TRUST IT HAS THE IRS'NAME ON THAT TRUST!
IF JOE is shown the law and shown WHY he has to pay and then he WILL pay!
No one has told him why he has to pay! Clinton, Bush and Feinstein and Tom Campbell all herd his case and they all told him to get out and shut up!
Anyway, this is Ron Banister going back to the graveyard! Come by and see me!
I probably won't be signing on anymore, because after following Quatloos for 8 months, I know that somehow suddenly people get weeded out or automatically signed off or their computer never works anymore after this or we can't get on you web site, so I say to you all Joe Banister my son is a free man!
Al , I have a feeling will get his counts reversed (and his jail time which was supposed to be 63 years when he only got 6) will be out of jail soon , I'm sure of it! If the results of today are any indication of things to come, you will be seeing less jail time and more WRITTEN CLEAR CUT LAWS INSTEAD OF SCARE TACTICS FEAR AND childish games by lawyers and the IRS!
BYE BYE!
RON

[weishaupt1776]

So if I am understanding this correctly, Joe set a trust up in which he pays the alleged tax amounts w/the IRS as a beneficiary, but will only allow access if they prove up.

Is that right?

More from Quatloos:

the whole Code, no one should have to show him the law. Just telling him to recall what Sections 1, 61, 63, 151, 6012 and 6151 say ought to be enough. Of course, if he really wants someone to actually show him, I'd be happy to do it if he'd pay my travel expenses and an appropriate fee.


Hey DEMO or who ever you want to be today, Joe has been traveling all over the counrty using his own travel expenses! I will even give him my angel wings from now on as he being my son he will fly away and/or all over the country and he won't have to pay for a plane ticket anymore! No one in the court room could show him these codes! Why didn't your seweetheart DiLeonardo know them?
Why didn't they enforce or talk about them?
Why didn't Twiss even have the TAX CODE Book?
They were trying to put Joe in jail for KNOWING THESE SO CALLED CODES! Give me a break!
Who's job was it to know these codes, anyway? Joe's or the government's? Who is trying to put whom in Jail?
Was the government trying to put Joe in jail for knowing or not knowing the code?
Who said that Joe broke the law?
What law? there was no law broken no nada!
If you knew the codes so well, why didn't you get up on the stand and testify for the government yourself?
If you are so against Joe BTW, why did you come up to him & shake his hand and congradulate him?
Why don't you use your hand shake accept the verdict and go back to your little insurance company's cubilcle or better yet say something nice about the fact that you GUYS JUST LOST A CASE AND LOST BIG!
Why don't you say that the government used all 3 witnesses & Joe used none?
Why don't you talk about how there was never any conspiracy?
Why don't you talk about Joe being an innocent man?
Why don't you say that there was no law proving he was guilty? If you really want to start talking about something, then talk about how the USA is can no longer try & mislead their citizen's by these elementary NEEEENER NEEEENER NEEENER.....tactics anymore?
Just thought I'd get a dig in b4 someone suddenly closes me out of this web site!
Ron Banister back to Santa Clara!
PS Joe is walking free!
& Al will get out also soon! I just spoke to Johnny Cochrane up here in heaven and he really wants to represent Al again in the appeal!

[iamfreeru2]

This is the way I understand it to be.

[weishaupt1776]

This Sacramento Bee version of events may win the prize for the most biased.

*
Verdict cheered by tax evaders
Accountant acquitted of preparing false returns still faces the loss of his license.
By Andrew McIntosh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, June 25, 2005
*
Tax evaders are crowing over a courtroom victory for accountant Joseph R. Banister, acquitted of helping a client prepare false returns, but the trouble is not over for the former IRS investigator.
*
The California Board of Accountancy has charged Banister with two counts of professional misconduct under the state's Business and Professions Code because he failed to file his own personal tax returns between 1999-2002.
*
*Banister, a 42-year-old San Jose resident, is facing a second charge after federal Administrative Law Judge William B. Moran disbarred him from practicing before the Internal Revenue Service, saying he was giving taxpayers erroneous advice.
*
Board of Accountancy executive officer Carol Sigman signed the five-page complaint on Feb. 25, requesting a hearing to determine whether Banister's certified public accountant's license should be suspended or revoked.
*
Banister, a former gun-toting IRS special agent whose Web site carries links that read "The Income Tax is a Hoax," could not be reached for comment but has always denied any wrongdoing.
*
The misconduct complaint said that when state officials quizzed Banister about his tax returns at a 2004 hearing in Los Angeles, he declined to answer.
*
A licensed accountant since 1991, Banister was forced out of the IRS in 1999 after writing a report in which he questioned the agency's legal authority to impose income taxes on workers.
*
Not only did he question the federal tax system's legitimacy, but he also advised business owners that there was no legal requirement for them to withhold taxes from their workers' paychecks.
*
In her complaint, the Accountancy Board's Sigman said: "This issue has long been decided to the contrary by federal courts."
*
Nevertheless, tax protesters who consider Banister a folk hero celebrated in Sacramento and on the Internet this week after a jury acquitted him of federal charges that accused him of conspiring with a small business client to file three false tax returns.
*
Two women in a group of tax protesters who were in the courtroom as the jury read its not-guilty verdicts cheered, and the judge had bailiffs remove them.
*
Prosecutors had accused Banister and Redding businessman Walter Thompson of conspiring to defraud the government of about $259,669 in income and employment taxes.
*
Thompson was convicted in January. He is now serving a six-year sentence after his company, Cencal Aviation Products in Shasta Lake, failed to withhold and remit taxes from the paychecks of his workers.
*
The verdicts in the Banister and Thompson cases raise questions about the administration of justice: How can Banister be acquitted while the business owner he advised and helped goes to jail?
*
Bob Petersen, an accountant with Petronovich, Pugh & Co. in San Jose and past president of the California Society of Certified Professional Accountants, said the Banister acquittal does not mean there's a loophole being exploited by tax advisers who collect fees as their clients go to jail.
*
"I think this was just a case of the prosecutor failing to make his case to the jury," Petersen said.
*
IRS spokesman Bill Steiner and Patricia Pontello, a spokeswoman for federal prosecutor Robert Twiss, both declined comment on the verdict.
*
Congressional and California legislators have strengthened laws in recent years to increase penalties for financial professionals who give clients erroneous tax advice, Petersen said.
*
He said Banister is not part of his 28,000-member society and isn't welcome.
*
"Our group does not condone this type of behavior. We think all people need to pay their fair share of taxes," Petersen added.
*
*
About the writer:
The Bee's Andrew McIntosh can be reached at (916) 321-1215 or amcintosh@sacbee.com

[weishaupt1776]

From Media Bypass
Larry Becraft's 6-21-05 comments on the Joe Banister criminal tax trial and why the defense rested without Joe taking the stand.


Posted June 23, 2005
Larry's Comments:
Back in December of last year, Former IRS Agent Joe Banister 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 hell 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 hell 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.
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.
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 government to strengthen its case? Here, a decision was made not to do so, and based on my experience in such cases, I concur.
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