Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The reason why Joe Banister went down?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Following my name below is an excerpt from a recent news article concerning action against Joe Banister. Sincerely, Robert Baty
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Following my name below is an excerpt from a recent news article
      concerning action against Joe Banister.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ########################################

      San Francisco Chronicle
      (excerpt)

      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
      taxpayers.

      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."
    • legal_author
      I found this when going through the archives to make sure I m up on list conversation. PAM will be going down soon. Very, very soon. A couple of weeks ago he
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 17, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I found this when going through the archives to make sure I'm up on
        list conversation.

        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.

        Duh.

        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.

        Huh?

        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.

        Best,
        Tamara



        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:
        >
        > More importantly, one has to wonder when it is that PAM is going
        to "go
        > down"!
        >
        > The Court announced in recent days that Joe Banister, one of the
        > darlings of the PAMites, is banned from practicing before the
        Internal
        > Revenue Service.
        >
        > It had something to do with him being vexatious and frivolous in
        his
        > 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.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.