posted March 03, 2011 06:53 PM            

Ban IRS = enact fair tax.

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 03, 2011 09:28 PM            

It would still be administered as a tax on income by the IRS.

Points in favor of a sales tax/consumption tax.

All existing federal taxes of every species would go away.

It would reduce the power of the IRS and reduce the number is IRS agents.

posted March 04, 2011 09:12 AM            

Bet we would get the old washing machine fixed instead of replaced. That fancy keep up with the neighbors new Escalade, not

I realize there are pit falls in a Fair Tax but there is in ALL tax systems. This one seems fairest (no pun intended) and would reduce our materialistic society to a "pay as you consume" thought process.

As noted, food and medicine exempted. Housing sounds ideal, but isn`t it the consumption of bigger mortgages than one could afford that fueled the housing crisis.
Perhaps housing exempted up to a certain $$ level to protect the working poor?

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 04, 2011 07:00 PM            

by JOHN TURNER

The trial began on Tuesday, June 14. The charges were

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 withholdingfrom 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 uncattorney Dickstein softly suggested to the judge that he should not be certain". 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 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 similar 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).

posted March 04, 2011 07:04 PM            

by WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION

The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.

According to defense attorneyJoel Hansen, who represented co-defendant Alex Loglia, the primary "willfulness" defense was that the defendants believed they had no legal obligation to withhold, pay income taxes or report anything to the government because, in part, the nominal (i.e., face value) of the gold and silver coins is so small as to fall beneath the reporting thresholds set by the Internal Revenue Code.

The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on the fruits of their labor.

The Government argued that the payments in solid gold and silver U.S. coins must be considered at their bullion (i.e., intrinsic full-market) value when considering the worth of the wages for purposes of the internal revenue code.

Attorney Hansen cited two Supreme Court cases bolstering Defendant's monetary argument at the heart of the defendants "willfulness" defense.

The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins' market value, arising as valuable personal "property," is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.

In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable "income" (if any) can only be the face value indicated upon the coin money paid -- i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50 for a circulating gold U.S. coin. Not surprisingly, the IRS has never issued any public guidance regarding this significant issue.

The first case, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of the sovereign:

"These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

The second case, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:

"A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in paymentof an ordinary debtthan a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."

Defense attorney Hansen confirmed that members of the jury were able to actually hold and inspect the gold and silver U.S. coins paid to the workers.

After almost four months of testimony and three and a half days of deliberation, the jury did not convict any of the defendants of any of the 161 crimes alleged. Although some defendants were acquitted of multiple counts, and several were acquitted completely, others may have to stand for a retrial if the Government brings charges a second time.

The Review Journal reported the jury foreman claimed DOJ prosecutors admitted they were "shocked" by the outcome.

In March 2007, the primary defendant, Bob Kahre, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and IRS agents who had conducted what he alleges to be an unlawful search and seizure raid. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn a previous District Court ruling holding that the federal prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for the unlawful raid. Read more.

Click here to execute a Google News search to attempt to locate recent news stories about the Kahre tax trial.

The media suppression of this story is similar to the widespread mainstream media suppression of the July 11, 2007 acquittal of Louisiana attorney Tommy Cryer who was also charged with multiple federal income tax crimes and relied upon numerous Supreme Court precedents and U.S. tax lawsto establish his "willfulness" defense. Click here for a previous WTP update containing a link to Cryer's 100-page Motion to Dismiss which details his legal arguments.

posted March 23, 2011 12:45 PM            

We've had stories of Tom Daschle...defeated Senate Majority Leader not paying his income taxes. Stories about the current Treasury Sec Timothy Geithner not paying his income taxes. Stories about Charlie Rangel not paying his income taxes...though he was the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee which writes the tax laws for everyone else.

Those 3 amount to Income Tax Evasion...a federal felony...as opposed to the misdemeanor offense of "failure to file" an income tax return.

Then, there is Senator John "Traitor" Kerry who docked his new yacht in another state to avoid paying his taxes in his home state.

So, when you hear some demoscat bloviating about everyone paying "their fair share" of taxes, understand, they're not talking about themselves.

March 23, 2011
For Democrats, taxes are for other people
Ethel C. Fenig

Does Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have the same presidential aspirations as her colleague, Senator John Kerry (D-MA)? Well, she sure is acting like him. Last week she admitted that she had used taxpayer dollars from her Senate office account to pay for nearly 90 flights on a private charter plane co-owned by McCaskill, her husband and other investors.

The purpose of one of the trips billed to taxpayers - a roundtrip flight between St. Louis and Hannibal in 2007 - was purely political in nature, a violation of Senate ethics rules.

And so she sat right down and wrote a check for nearly $90,000 to reimburse the government. She was so embarrassed.

This week, she was embarrassed again, admitting: that after her own review of the plane's records, she had not paid personal property taxes on the aircraft over the past four years.

"I have discovered that the personal property taxes on the plane have not been paid. There should have been a reporting to the county of the existence of this plane. There are people I could blame for this, but I know better. I take full responsibility," McCaskill said to reporters, after revealing she had conducted her own audit of all 89 flights she had taken.

"This was a mistake, It should have been reported in Missouri. It will be paid in Missouri today," she said.

And so she sat right down again and breezily wrote a check for $287,273 to St. Louis County Monday for the back taxes she owed between 2007 and 2010.

Well, ok, these things do happen, do get overlooked even from a politician

citing her advocacy for transparency and accountability in Congress.

Pouncing

The National Republican Senatorial Committee just revealed a new video capitalizing on McCaskill's past statement where she said, "If my walk doesn't match my talk, shame on me and don't ever vote for me again."

Last summer, the very wealthy Kerry--and yes, many Democrats are very wealthy--reluctantly paid $500,000 in state taxes after it was revealed he docked his extremely luxurious foreign built yacht in neighboring, lower taxed Rhode Island thus evading the higher home state Massachusetts taxes.