Re: The reason why Joe Banister went down?
- Following my name below is an excerpt from a recent news article
concerning action against Joe Banister.
San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Joseph Banister was a gun-toting Internal Revenue Service special
agent who investigated tax cheats for six years. Now, the San Jose
certified public accountant is in hot water for telling clients that
they don't have to pay taxes.
An administrative law judge has ordered Banister not to represent
clients appealing their tax bills before the IRS, where he was a
criminal investigator from 1993 until he resigned in 1999 because he
felt that he was breaking the law by investigating alleged scofflaw
Banister admits that he has failed to pay his taxes since then. He
operates a Web site that proclaims "The Income Tax is a Hoax" and
features a picture of him holding a gun next to the
headline, "Feeling Outgunned?"
Banister has advised clients they don't have to file income-tax
returns on the grounds that the 16th Amendment, which gives the
federal government the power to collect income taxes, was not
properly ratified and that only foreign- sourced income is taxable.
The IRS disagrees. "This frivolous argument -- and others -- have
consistently been rejected by the federal courts," IRS spokesman
Jesse Weller in Oakland said Monday.
"Baloney is still baloney, no matter how you slice it," Weller said.
In a ruling Dec. 24, administrative law Judge William Moran agreed
and ordered Banister not to represent tax clients before the IRS.
"The very significant problem with Banister's advice to his clients
is that it is absolutely wrong," Moran wrote. "Banister was not
presenting some new theory in support of the dream entertained by
some United States citizens that somehow they don't have to pay
federal income taxes."
The judge's ruling stems from an administrative complaint filed by
the IRS's office of professional responsibility.
As to whether Banister could face criminal prosecution, Weller
said, "The door is neither open nor closed. I cannot confirm or deny
the fact that he is under any kind of investigation."
- I found this when going through the archives to make sure I'm up on
PAM will be going down soon. Very, very soon.
A couple of weeks ago he filed a "Verified Criminal Complaint"
against 8 of the 9 sitting US Supreme Court Justices, making
accusations ranging from RICO violations to fraud against the United
States. He then foolishly followed up with a widely-distributed
message, essentially stating that his intent in doing so was to
disqualify all but one judge from hearing the appeal of his cases.
Of course, PAM considers the mere mail delivery of these documents
to be a great victory. He seems blissfully unaware that anyone
could send anything to the Supreme Court, and they'd sign for it.
They have a mail room, and that's what they do.
On another front .... PAM has for some time been threatening
numerous people with fraudulent "defaults" in his case against AOL
and 2500 other defendants (in that case not only had no judgment of
default ever been entered, but the case was dismissed up to and
including the US Supreme Court). He has been noting that he copied
these and many other documents to federal appellate judge Alex
Kozinski, who he refers to as his "supervising judge". However,
Judge Kozinksi NEVER agreed to supervise PAM, and in fact there is
no relationship between them. According to PAM, Judge
Kozinski "supervises" him by "tacit consent" - in other words, in
PAM's mind, since the Judge has never said that he wouldn't
supervise PAM, he must therefore be supervising him.
In an appellate document filed with the Ninth Circuit, where Judge
Kozinksi sits, PAM demanded that Judge Kozinksi be appointed to hear
his case both on the District and Appellate court levels. His
explanation for this is that Judge Kozinski was already very
familiar with his case.
Bad idea. By making that statement, he raised a red flag regarding
his unauthorized usage of Judge Kozinski's name.
I'll keep this list notified as I turn up PAM info.
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:
> More importantly, one has to wonder when it is that PAM is going
> The Court announced in recent days that Joe Banister, one of the
> darlings of the PAMites, is banned from practicing before the
> Revenue Service.
> It had something to do with him being vexatious and frivolous in
> efforts to argue cases, and the fact that he hasn't been filing tax
> returns himself in recent years.
> I don't have the Court ruling or news article before me on this
> computer; maybe later.
> Robert Baty