Criminal Investigation vs.
Criminal Investigation Division

----------------------------- 

16th Amendment

 -------

5th Amendment

 ----------------------------

The Federal Reserve & Fiat Money

 ------

Federal Income Tax Filing Deadline is
Thursday, April 15 – Postmarked

 

ONTARIO, CA – Driven by their common support of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, inspired by a shared belief in Natural Law - unalienable Rights are endowed by our Creator, not by government – and imbued with a love of Liberty, a gathering of modern-day American Rebels from across the nation Peaceably Assembled in Ontario, California, to attend a four-day Health and Freedom Conference.

 

   Sponsored by Freedom Law School, the event featured former Internal Revenue Service Special Agent Joseph Banister who presented his case questioning the legitimacy of the federal income tax.

 

   The mild-mannered and soft-spoken Banister told an attentive audience how a two-year off-duty investigation, incurred at his expense, led him to conclude that both the filing of a federal income tax return and payment of a federal income tax was voluntary for most Americans.

 

   Banister presented his allegations to his superiors in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a written report titled, “Investigating the Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report, 1st Edition.” His report was intentionally titled “Preliminary,” Banister explained, because he wanted his direct IRS supervisors, and their supervisors above them, to “show the error of my analysis and conclusions.” 

 

   “I fully expected that these allegations would prove to be false,” said Bannister.

 

   In return, Banister was forced to surrender his firearm and sent home for seven days to contemplate whether or not he believed he had a future as an IRS criminal investigator.

 

   On the seventh day Banister concluded that his oath to God to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, an adherence to the 9th Commandment against bearing false witness, combined with his personal moral and ethical standards required he tender his resignation.

 

   Since his resignation in 1999 Banister has worked hard to expose what he believes is IRS administration of the federal income tax system under “color of law” instead of proper legal authority, and beyond what federal statutes and regulations authorized, resulting in the “wholesale violation” of The People’s Rights and “fraudulent confiscation of their money and property.”

 

   Bannister gave his presentation on Friday, the first day of the four day March 12-15 event, and unlike most other speakers whose presentations were limited to one hour, Banister was allotted the majority of the first day to make his case.

 

 

Prologue

 

   A California native, Bannister earned his Bachelors Degree in Accounting in 1986 from San Jose State University and immediately went to work in the private sector where he obtained a California CPA certificate in 1991. In that same year, desirous of a more exciting occupation, Banister began to seriously consider a career in law enforcement.

 

   Banister said his decision was influenced by his family’s lawman background – his uncle was once a deputy sheriff in Santa Clara County, and a cousin was at the time a Sacramento police officer - and by a family friend named Bob Gorini who was also at the time a 20-year-plus IRS veteran and special agent. It was Gorini who ultimately convinced Banister to go federal, and, as fate would have it, Gorini would eventually become Banister’s boss at IRS, and years later, testify at Bannister’s trial.

 

   In 1991 Gorini introduced Banister to an FBI agent and after a lunch with the agent Banister decided to apply with both FBI and IRS. After passing a battery of tests and background checks Banister was prepared to ship-out soon to Quantico, Virginia, to begin training as an FBI special agent, but due to a hiring freeze was informed instead that would not be the case.

 

   This put Banister in a pickle with his current employer who had cooperated with his need to prepare for a career in FBI, and with whom Banister agreed to terminate his employment at a mutually agreed upon date. After honoring his end of the bargain to terminate his employment Banister found himself without permanent work and spent the next two years scrapping together contract accounting jobs to make ends meet to support his family.

 

   In 1993 he received a call from the San Jose IRS office inquiring if he still had an interest in becoming an IRS special agent in the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) – a law enforcement arm within IRS that investigated money laundering, high-level tax investigations, and the like.

 

   The prospect of becoming an IRS CID special agent appealed to Banister because he had learned through personal research that IRS special agents were outfitted with, in Banister’s words, “high speed, running-and-gunning kind of tools.”

 

   Bannister explained to his captive audience that being a CID special agent meant, “bullet proof vests, shotgun training, and carrying your firearm 24/7 as opposed to the old days where when you do some kind of enforcement activity everybody would go to the safe, grab their gun, go do the enforcement activity, and after, go put the gun back and lock up the safe and go back to their desks.”

 

 

Welcome to IRS?

 

   On his first day as an IRS special agent working at the San Francisco federal building Bannister said he had nothing to do because he had yet to be assigned a case. Instead of remaining idle and accomplishing nothing, something Banister explained in his opinion was tantamount to theft when getting paid to work, he instead began to review the Internal Revenue Code to read the statutes and actual laws he would soon be investigating.

 

   It was not long, said Banister, before his boss approached and questioned what he was doing. Banister said after he explained himself his boss instructed him to stop. “He said, ‘Shut that book. You’re not a CPA anymore, you’re a special agent, and there’s no need for you to go looking in that book,’” said Banister, who added, “It was a bit of a culture shock.”

 

   Banister explained the hiring process was not complete by virtue of being assigned a desk within a federal building and eventually was sent to the federal law enforcement training academy to complete the next requirement – the final requirement in Banister’s mind.

 

   Upon graduation, Banister learned there was yet one more step, the final step, before he passed the complete background check, and that was the IRS employee audit.

 

 

The IRS Employee Audit

 

   Banister said his tax returns from the three previous years were audited - a process that took three months to complete - and was told before the audit began that during the process he would be treated just like any other taxpayer.

 

   In the review of one particular year’s tax filing the auditor disallowed deductions Banister had claimed on property. This concerned Banister because the audit was part of the background investigation process and any deficiencies in the audit process could result in failing the background requirement and losing his position with IRS.

 

   In contrast to many IRS employees who join the agency direct after high school or college Banister knew he had a distinct advantage by virtue of his experience in the private sector. “I have a lot of experience in how to research” said Banister. “As a CPA I would help my clients…to fight the IRS and show the client was correct and the IRS was wrong.”

              

   Banister fought back, and won, after proving the auditor had no justification for his objection to certain deductions. In fact, it turned out Banister had been too conservative and was due a $900 refund check.

 

   On the demeanor and attitude of his auditors Banister said, “These people are kind of nasty. They’ll say any type of allegation just to get the tax numbers up and get a big tax bill.”

 

 

Welcome to IRS!

 

   The first three years of Banister’s career as an IRS special agent were rewarding and he found the excitement and purpose in a career he longed-for only a few years earlier. Joseph Banister believed he was making a difference and doing so by serving his country.

 

   “I didn’t get the job to get on some power trip. I really believed the government needs money, so it taxes people, and I still believe that today,” explained Banister. “It needs people that protect the Treasury.”

 

   Banister rose through the ranks quickly achieving the highest non-management grade by his five-year anniversary and in the process earned numerous awards. In December 1996, one month into his fourth year at IRS, he was reassigned to San Jose - his hometown - and thought to himself things were going so well it seemed as if a successful 20-year career in IRS was in the making.

 

   Upon arrival at the San Jose office Banister said he was open with colleagues on his belief in the U.S. Constitution and cited his strong support for the 2nd Amendment in particular. And he also shared his feelings on how seriously he took his oath before God to protect and defend it.

 

   “I don’t say [my colleagues] were anti-Constitution, but they were not as fervent as I was,” said Banister. “And I had bumper stickers in my cubicle that said, ‘Fear The Government That Fears Your Guns,’ and, ‘The Experts Agree Gun Control Works,’ and it’s a picture of Stalin, Mao, Kadafi. So I wasn’t afraid to let people know how I felt.”

 

   In addition to being poked fun at around the office, Banister said whenever his unit would conduct a training exercise with their service pistols - modified to shoot paint pellets - he would always be made to perform the role of the tax protester, which became tiring. “I would give up and they would still shoot me,” Banister said with a chuckle.

 

   In high-risk, real world investigations, where agents entered with guns drawn, locked and loaded for bear, Banister said he was usually assigned to be the first special agent to make entry. Another frequent assignment Banister found himself tasked with was to assist with investigations involving a tedious and boring review of boxes and boxes of paper records.

   “I really had a good reputation, but they would rip me quite often about my ‘out there’ beliefs about the Constitution,” said Banister.

 

 

Blame Talk Radio

 

   Banister explained while driving to an assignment or investigation, in a government car, or “G-car,” as Banister wryly referred to it, he would often tune-in to talk radio. One day in December 1996, while driving along Highway 101, he was listening to Geoff Metcalf on KSFO 560, a San Francisco-based AM station. Metcalf had as a guest that day Devvy Kidd, who was leveling accusations against the federal income tax Banister said astonished him.

 

   Banister said he considered Kidd to be a “kook,” as he listened to her speak-out against the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax, and a New World Order. “Such claims would seem to be preposterous and unbelievable and I initially thought so too. My expectation was that the falsity of such claims would be manifested quickly because false claims rarely withstand close scrutiny,” explained Banister.

 

   Kidd’s three main allegations were: 1. Due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, filing of federal income returns and payment of federal income tax is voluntary; 2. The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified; and, 3. The U.S. government finances its operations from the un-Constitutional creation of fiat money, not with revenue from income taxes.

 

   At the end of the program, Kidd provided an address where listeners could send for more information. Banister believed, at a minimum, the ethics of his profession and his duty as a citizen and law enforcement officer required he investigate the allegations further, which Banister did over the course of the next several years, on his own time, and on his own dime.

 

   After sending away for information in December 1996, Banister received a package in January containing two books. One was titled Blind Loyalty, and the other Why A Bankrupt America?

Both books were filled with what Banister described as “shocking claims” about the United Nations and the U.S. monetary system, among other such related topics.

 

   The information was so shocking and contrary to all he had been taught that Banister spent months thinking and meditating over what he had read. Later that same year Banister read The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, which prompted him to revisit Kidd’s information.

 

   It was from his second go-round of Kidd’s books that Banister noted “an unusual aspect” he paid little attention to prior, namely, Kidd included telephone numbers and addresses of those responsible for the evidence she presented.

 

   In December 1997 Banister took advantage of opportunity, cut-out the middle-man, and began to contact Kidd’s sources direct in an attempt to determine the truth.

 

   IRS training and input had taught Banister that Devvy Kidd, and those like her, were, “knuckle-dragging, mountain-dwellers who put this stuff together in some copy machine, and it was all baloney,” said Banister.

 

   “That was my mindset,” said Banister. “I was skeptical, and I don’t think you can find anybody as skeptical as an IRS special agent.”

 

   Banister said his investigation was modeled on the same pattern as one conducted by a professional criminal investigator: to gather evidence, interview witnesses, put everything together, and then present the evidence to the appropriate personnel.

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report is on Banister’s Health and Freedom Conference presentation on March 19, 2010, and is not a report on his investigation and subsequent findings and conclusions as presented to his superiors at IRS. That report, “Investigating the Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report, 1st Edition,” contains detailed information on Banister’s contact with the people mentioned below, along with documentation of their claims. Since leaving IRS, Banister has developed an information packet, for politicians and the general public, which includes his report to his superiors at IRS, his letter of resignation, newspaper articles on his subsequent court victory over the IRS on an unrelated matter, along with other gathered evidence and supporting documentation. To obtain a copy of his complete report, visit Banister’s website at: www.freedomabovefortune.com.

 

 

Allegation I

Filing a Tex Return is Voluntary

 

   The first to receive a call from Banister was Bill Conklin, a man whose story Banister said he found compelling. Conklin made the claim that to file a tax return was equivalent to waiving our 5th Amendment Right, and further claimed he had cases litigated in federal court against the IRS and had won six times.

 

   Banister contacted Conklin and left a message on his answering machine explaining he was an IRS CID special agent, but was not phoning in that capacity, rather, as a citizen who found his information in a book by Devvy Kidd, and wanted only to follow-up on his claims.

 

   When Conklin returned his call later within the hour, Banister said he did not encounter a “knuckle-dragger” but an educated and reasoned man who was completely open and gave him everything he asked for, and more.

 

 

Allegation II

16th Amendment

 

   The second person Banister said he contacted was Bill Benson, the man mentioned in Kidd’s book who made the claim the 16th Amendment was never ratified. Benson, along with M.J. “Red” Beckman, co-authored the book The Law That Never Was, Volume I.

 

   Benson had traveled to each capital of the 48 States in existence at the time of the so-called ratification of the 16th Amendment to review government archives and determine which State legislatures ratified, and which States legislatures did not ratify, the Income Tax Amendment.

 

   “He went and got hard evidence right from the horse’s mouth,” said Banister, of Benson’s sources. “Right from the State archives; their own State records of what happened.”

   Banister said he found Benson, like Conklin, to be reasoned, rational, polite and open, and not a kook.

 

 

Allegation III

Fiat Money & The Federal Reserve

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: Banister did not cover this allegation in his presentation; however, his research on The Fed and fiat money is included in his report, “Investigating the Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report, 1st Edition.” This report is available through www.freedomabovefortune.com.

 

 

Internal Revenue Code

 

   Further along into his investigation Banister said he realized he needed to learn more about what he been taught by IRS, more about the Constitution, and more about the laws as they were actually written as opposed to what was printed in IRS pamphlets and training manuals. “Things I should have already known,” explained Banister.

 

   “I came to learn there’s a difference. When you look at an IRS pamphlet for example and you try to trace that back to the law, you find a lot of deceitful roundabouts and mechanisms,” said Banister. “In my opinion, quite a bit of deceit. Of course I had always been trained that the deceit was happening out there with the public.”

 

   One example of IRS deceit, or “hiding of the ball,” as explained by Banister, can be found in IRS Publication 17, (www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf) or, the IRS instruction manual for preparing an income tax return.

 

   Banister brought attention to information on the lower right corner of page 3 that read, “This publication covers some subjects on which a court may have made a decision more favorable to taxpayers than the interpretation by the IRS. Until these differing interpretations are resolved by higher court decisions or in some other way, this publication will continue to present the interpretations by the IRS. All taxpayers have important rights when working with the IRS. These rights are described in Your Rights as a Taxpayer in the back of this publication.”

 

   After reading the disclaimer Banister asked his audience, “So are you getting that message? If all you’re doing is reading IRS publications and pamphlets, you’re getting the IRS version.”

 

   Banister cautioned that this did not mean there was no truth in what the IRS put out, but it did mean on some things their version was not truth, it was merely the IRS interpretation of the law.

 

   Banister said he began to research things that were available to him as an IRS special agent. “I didn’t go in cloak and dagger and start lifting documents like you might see in a suspenseful movie,” said Banister, who added one particular valuable source of information was the IRS’ law library.

 

   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) itself is complex only when viewed as one big book, explained Banister, but not when you break it down, and any person with the motivation to spend the time to review it and become accustomed to it will eventually come to understand it.

 

   “That Internal Revenue Code obviously is intimidating and just doesn’t intimidate the public, it intimidates all of the IRS employees too,” said Banister.

 

    Banister explained IRS investigations take a long-time and usually two to four years pass from the time an investigation is commenced to indictment due to the limited number of criminal investigators, pegged by Banister at about 3,000.

 

   Each investigator juggles two or three cases at one time, at most, said Banister, who added, “It should give you an idea about how many people they reach out and touch as far criminal matter versus the 300 million people we have in the country.”

 

 

Criminal Investigations v. Criminal Investigation Division

 

   During his investigation Banister came across one person inside the tax movement that suggested he take a look into how the IRS hierarchy was set up because if he did, he was promised, he would discover the division he worked for – Criminal Investigation Division – had a much more limited scope and authority than Banister himself had been led to believe by IRS.

 

   Banister said he was advised he need look no further than IRS’s internal manuals to uncover the evidence he needed to prove the claim. Before Banister showed the audience the evidence he uncovered, he cautioned although valid at the time of his investigation - 1997 - the evidence was no longer valid today due to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (IRSRR).

 

   According to Banister, IRSRR was sold to the public under the guise of reigning-in IRS abuse, but he believed it was to “cover their tracks.”  “The way the IRS is set up today is different then what I am explaining,” said Banister. “I’m talking about the mid-90s.”

 

   The former special agent explained he worked for Criminal Investigation Division (CID) within IRS and said the CID nomenclature appeared on his paycheck and personnel file. To further prove he worked CID Banister presented a copy of a document called “Notification of Personnel Action,” which accompanied each promotion. On it, Banister was identified as working within the Criminal Investigation Division.

 

   Also within IRS was an entity called Criminal Investigation (CI). “I want you to separate in your mind that there’s this animal called the Criminal Investigation Division and there’s another animal called Criminal Investigation,” explained Banister.

 

   He then presented two more documents. One was an IRS internal memorandum addressed to “District Director, Anchorage and Boise Chiefs’, Criminal Investigation Division” and sent from “Assistant Regional Commissioner, Criminal Investigation.” These documents further established that these two distinct entities existed within IRS, separate from one another.

 

   Banister then presented an IRS organizational flow chart with the agency commissioner at the top, leading to the deputy commissioners, and then into chief operation officers down through the various segments of the agency. Toward the middle of the IRS organizational flow chart was a box that read “Assistant Commissioner, Criminal Investigation.”

 

   The organizational flow chart also showed a box that read, “Assistant Commissioner International.” The flow chart for “Assistant Commissioner International,” led to “Examination Division,” then to “Collection Division,” and then, “Criminal Investigation Division” – Banister’s department.

 

   Using the organizational staffing section of the Internal Revenue Manual, Banister showed the listed numerical designations for sections within IRS and identified “Assistant Commissioner International,” as “Section 1132.”

 

   Banister read aloud the mission statement for Section 1132, which included the statement, “Administers the internal revenue laws and relating statutes as they relate to U.S. citizens residing abroad; corporations and businesses whose books and records are maintained outside the U.S.; and non-resident aliens deriving income from sources within the United States.”

 

   “There’s obviously some limit there,” commented Banister, on the scope of CID authority as identified by the IRS’s own manual. “We’re talking about Americans residing abroad. We’re talking about non-resident aliens deriving income sources within the United States.”

 

   Banister said an example of a non-resident alien who would fall under this category would be a foreign rock band or entertainer touring the United States earning money from performing in concerts. This meant, according to the IRS’s own internal manual, Banister had no legal authority to investigate Americans working and living in the United States.

 

   Banister said in reality his authority was very limited, then added, “This person that told me, ‘You should look into these things,’ I know that I looked, and in the bowels of the IRS, their own documents - and there’s no photo copying going on, no shenanigans with some tax protester guy - this is the IRS’s own documentation showing that the authority that I had was much more limited than what I thought I had.”

 

   Banister continued, “I thought I could just go down to any San Jose resident, any person in Atlanta or New York, or whatever, and investigate them. Ask them why they’re not paying their tax. Or not filing their tax returns. But according to the IRS’s own Bible, I’d be doing things outside my authority if I went to those Americans in those cities, and was questioning them about something other than working abroad.”

 

   On the Criminal Investigation (CI) entity within IRS Banister discovered its numerical designation was Section 1134, different from CID’s 1132. Criminal Investigation’s (CI) official mission is, “To foster voluntary compliance and ensure public confidence through the effective enforcement of criminal statutes relative to tax administration and financial crimes.”

 

   Banister said, “This proves that the Criminal Investigation Division that I worked for, according to their rule book, is limited to investigating Americans who are working abroad or non-resident aliens who are coming here. Can you see how that would be a little bit disheartening? Disconcerting?”

 

 

Core Ethical Principles

 

   Along with colleagues, Banister underwent mandatory employee training in 1998 - about one year before resigning - to learn the ten core ethical principles IRS wanted their employees to abide by. They were, “Honesty, Integrity, Promise Keeping, Loyalty, Fairness, Caring and Concern for Others, Respect for Others, Civic Duty, Pursuit of Excellence, Personal Responsibility and Accountability.”

 

   “Isn’t that just the kind of agency you’d like administering you tax laws?” asked Banister. “That’s what they were telling us we should keep in mind, those kinds of principles.”

 

   Banister said the more evidence he gathered the more it made the IRS, in his eyes, appear to be “evil,” “deceitful,” and “illegal,” forcing to him think about what he should do about the facts he had uncovered.

 

   “My parents raised me to not be a liar, they raised me to not steal, and they certainly raised me to not help somebody else lie or cheat or steal. And I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And I also want to make sure that the job that I’m doing on a daily basis, I actually have the authority to do,” said Banister.

 

   His beliefs compelled Banister to prepare a report for his supervisors - Investigating the Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report, 1st Edition - one of whom was family friend Bob Gorini, the man who first suggested Banister pursue a career at IRS.

 

   Presented with the report was a letter to IRS supervisors explaining why he underwent the investigation, why he cared about it, and why he believed it was necessary.  In the letter, Banister wrote, “If IRS declines to conduct its own analysis or dismisses the evidence in this report without proper review, then I must tender my resignation. My oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States was made to God and I cannot serve two masters.”

 

   A few days later Banister received a memorandum explaining IRS would not be responding to his request for review and he would soon be provided with the necessary paperwork to tender his resignation. The memorandum informed him he was immediately being placed on administrative leave for seven days.

 

   “They didn’t fire me,” explained Banister. “They immediately took my firearm and sent me home.” Breaking the news to his wife was not easy. Banister said he explained to her that the income tax was a fraud and he had been sent home for one week and invited to resign.

 

   Even though Banister trusted the people he worked with, he did not trust IRS as an agency. “With the kind of dirty tricks that the IRS has up their sleeve, I just didn’t trust the agency, that if I remained there, they wouldn’t try and do everything they could to destroy my reputation,” said Banister.

 

   Banister prepared a letter of resignation - effective February 25, 1999; also Banister’s birthday - addressed to IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti. In his resignation letter Banister expressed disappointment that IRS would not investigate his claims.

 

   Also in his letter, Banister explained it would be futile to continue working “for an agency that has standards and practices so different from what it professes and standards and practices so contrary to my own.”

 

   In a twist of fate, February 25 was more than just Banister’s day of birth and day of resignation; February 25 was the day in 1913 that U.S. Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a public proclamation announcing ratification of the 16th Amendment - the income tax.

 

   “I was born 50 years after that proclamation…and then I resigned from the IRS February 25th, 1999,” said Banister.

 

 

Life After IRS

 

   It isn’t everyday an IRS special agent resigns under Banister’s circumstances and rather quickly he received numerous invitations to be a guest on talk radio programs across America and to be interviewed by numerous magazines and periodicals. Banister also began to get requests for help with the IRS from private citizens.

 

   He also appeared beside two other former IRS agents with a conscience - Sherry Jackson and John Turner - on a back page, full page ad, in U.S.A. Today newspaper. The ad argued the case for the three allegations in Banister’s report.

 

   A Congressional hearing on “Truth and Taxation” was scheduled for mid-September 2001. In a hand-written note on his official letterhead, Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland secured an agreement with Daniel Bryant of the U.S. Justice Department to have officials from the Justice Department appear as witnesses.

 

   The hearing was postponed following the attacks on 9/11 and was rescheduled for February 2002, but Banister said around Thanksgiving he was notified that the Justice Department would be sending no representatives. “We had the hearing anyway,” said Banister, “but we had it at a hotel and the government didn’t show up, even though they had pledged to do so.”

 

   In October 2003 the IRS filed a complaint against Banister claiming he had failed to file an income tax return in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and claiming further that Banister was harming the public by acting disreputably through his speeches. The government scheduled Banister’s hearing to take place on Coast Guard Island in San Francisco Bay.

 

   “They didn’t want the public to show up,” said Banister. “I don’t know if anybody’s been to Coast Guard Island or any military installation, but you don’t get on or off unless MPs say you do. So here’s this little CPA they say is acting disreputably and their going to take me and Shang-Hai me on this island.”

 

   Support among The People, Banister believed, made a difference. Americans faxed their congressional representative and phoned IRS asking why Banister’s trail was being held on Coast Guard Island in San Francisco Bay. As a result of citizen action, the hearing location was changed from offshore to a federal building on mainland California.

 

   The judge in Banister’s case wasn’t a justice in the judicial branch but an administrative law judge in the Environmental Protection Agency. He granted the government’s Motion for a Summary Judgment and ruled against Banister.

 

   “No hearing, no Due Process,” explained Banister.

 

   Banister said the judge ordered that he be disbarred from practice before the IRS. Banister commented, “One little problem is the IRS doesn’t have a bar, so I was disbarred from a non-existent bar. But that didn’t stop the IRS.”

 

   Banister said he appealed the decision to the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, as was the appropriate appeal process in his case, but the answer upholding the previous ruling came from the IRS chief counsels’ office, not Treasury.

 

   “Can you imagine appealing someone’s complaint against you and then the person that complained against you is the person that hears your appeal?” asked Banister.

 

   Banister characterized the public information arm within IRS as a “well-oiled, propaganda machine” and explained the press release announcing the denial of his appeal stated the Treasury Department had denied his appeal, when it was, in truth, the IRS that had written the answer to his appeal.

 

   Banister said his disbarment stands and he is currently prohibited from formally accompanying anyone when they meet with IRS. “I gave them some black eyes along the way, but they came back for more,” said Banister.

 

   In November 2004 Banister was indicted for preparing three false federal income tax returns and for conspiring to fraud the United States of America. He stood trail in Sacramento.

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: Does the charge against Banister to conspire to commit fraud make those in the government that secured the indictment and prosecuted the case conspiracy theorists?

 

   The government argued Banister had conspired with a client to make it appear that he, Banister, was leading the client like the pied-piper, to do things a certain way. “The problem for the government was I had not done anything like that,” said Banister. “They didn’t uncover any evidence that I was actually engaging in that.”

 

   In preparation for trial one of Banister’s two defense attorneys, Jeff Dickstein, a seasoned lawyer with a track record of successfully defending clients and proving their innocence in IRS matters, asked him to send whatever research he had gathered. Banister’s research filled 18 boxes.

 

   Dickstein attached a picture of the boxes inside a FedEx parcel van as a supporting document in his successful request to ask the judge to delay the start of the trial because he needed more time to properly prepare.

 

   On the Friday before the start of his trial scheduled for the following Monday, the government attempted to have Banister’s other defense attorney, Robert Bernhoff, disqualified. The government’s motion was rejected.

 

   During trial, one witness presented by the government was a 28-year IRS veteran. Banister’s attorneys observed and found it odd that during the government’s examination of their witness they never asked about the allegedly false tax returns filed by Banister.

 

   When Banister’s attorney Jeffery Dickstein got the opportunity to question the government’s witness he did ask about the tax returns. The IRS agent was not only unable to depict anything on the returns that were false, he testified that many things about the returns were instead true, explained Banister.

 

   The only witness called to the stand by Banister’s defense team was his old friend and former IRS supervisor Bob Gorini, whose testimony was videotaped because he was in Iraq. Gorini received orders for Iraq two days after he was subpoenaed to appear to testify by Banister’s attorneys.

 

   “It was probably just a coincidence,” commented Banister on the timing of Gorini’s assignment.

 

   Banister was acquitted on all four charges – one charge of conspiracy to fraud the U.S. government, and preparing three false tax returns, one count each - and explained that not a single juror voted for conviction.

 

   He was told by some jurors after the trial that although a few were unsure on what they believed when they began deliberations, none were ever at any time outright in favor of conviction. Of the government’s two prosecuting attorneys, one failed to attend the reading of the verdict.

 

   “This is a pretty big case. This was do-or-die,” said Banister. “If they can get me into prison it would be a huge black eye for a movement of people that are trying to bring this truth to the American people. So a lot was riding on it and one of the prosecutors didn’t even show up for the verdict.”

 

   Banister reminded his audience not to be intimidated by the Internal Revenue Code and not be afraid to do the research. He also asked that they not believe anything he said to them either.

 

   “I don’t expect you to believe me and I don’t want you to believe me. I want you to be as skeptical as an IRS special agent,” said Banister. “And if you can’t prove it to yourself, then you shouldn’t change the way you think. But don’t short-change it and not even look into it. If you don’t look into these issues at all, I think you’d be cheating yourself.”

 

On Trial by Jury

 

   Highlighting the 6th Amendment guaranteed Right to Trial by Jury, Banister said, “Every one of us, except for me probably, could possibly serve on a Jury. Each person that you tell - and even though you might have to endure being looked at like you’ve got two heads, just like Deevy Kidd taking the time to get out there and put the word out, and not be worried about what people think about her - you’re going to infect the Jury pool.”

 

   Banister continued, “The word is going to get out to people who might end up sitting on a Jury for someone that is going to be wrongfully prosecuted just like I was.”

 

   Banister said in his opinion the IRS is dirty and had to cheat to try to win, and like the bully on the schoolyard, “is not worthy of your respect.”

 

   To learn more about Joe Banister, visit: www.freedomabovefortune.com.

 

   To learn more about Freedom Law School, visit: www.livefreenow.org. Available at livefreenow.org is video of a similar presentation by Banister from September 2008, along with video of previous Freedom Conferences.

 

   To learn more about the 16th Amendment, visit: www.jeffdickstein.com

 

 

 

Ledford Satisfied with Level
of Cooperation Between
Palmdale & Lancaster
-------- 

No Desire to Merge Cities

--------

Acknowledges Chilled
Working Relationship
with Lancaster Mayor
-----

 

            WHAT? ME WORRY?
    Ten-term Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said he is not concerned about being the victim of a John Adams-type council conspiracy working behind the scenes with Lancaster pols to merge the two Cities and plot his political demise.

PALMDALE – What’s really going on between the Mayor of Lancaster, Mr. Parris, and the Mayor of Palmdale, Mr. Ledford? Both men have been trading barbs, harsh remarks, and to an extent, taunting one another over the past few months; their quips and goading having been sufficiently reported in local media.

    Ten-term Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said he is not concerned about being the victim of a John Adams-type council conspiracy working behind the scenes with Lancaster pols to merge the two Cities and plot his political demise. What’s really going on between the Mayor of Lancaster, Mr. Parris, and the Mayor of Palmdale, Mr. Ledford? Both men have been trading barbs, harsh remarks, and to an extent, taunting one another over the past few months; their quips and goading having been sufficiently reported in local media.

    Ten-term Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said he is not concerned about being the victim of a John Adams-type council conspiracy working behind the scenes with Lancaster pols to merge the two Cities and plot his political demise. What’s really going on between the Mayor of Lancaster, Mr. Parris, and the Mayor of Palmdale, Mr. Ledford? Both men have been trading barbs, harsh remarks, and to an extent, taunting one another over the past few months; their quips and goading having been sufficiently reported in local media.

 

    Ten-term Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said he is not concerned about being the victim of a John Adams-type council conspiracy working behind the scenes with Lancaster pols to merge the two Cities and plot his political demise. What’s really going on between the Mayor of Lancaster, Mr. Parris, and the Mayor of Palmdale, Mr. Ledford? Both men have been trading barbs, harsh remarks, and to an extent, taunting one another over the past few months; their quips and goading having been sufficiently reported in local media.

 

    Ten-term Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said he is not concerned about being the victim of a John Adams-type council conspiracy working behind the scenes with Lancaster pols to merge the two Cities and plot his political demise. What’s really going on between the Mayor of Lancaster, Mr. Parris, and the Mayor of Palmdale, Mr. Ledford? Both men have been trading barbs, harsh remarks, and to an extent, taunting one another over the past few months; their quips and goading having been sufficiently reported in local media.

 

    Ten-term Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said he is not concerned about being the victim of a John Adams-type council conspiracy working behind the scenes with Lancaster pols to merge the two Cities and plot his political demise. What’s really going on between the Mayor of Lancaster, Mr. Parris, and the Mayor of Palmdale, Mr. Ledford? Both men have been trading barbs, harsh remarks, and to an extent, taunting one another over the past few months; their quips and goading having been sufficiently reported in local media.

 

 

    The Political Observer spoke with Palmdale’s ten-term mayor to get his side of the story. We asked Ledford to respond directly to a quote by Parris highlighted as one of three ‘Quotes of the Week’ in an April 19 column published in the local daily newspaper.

 

    “I had lunches for two years with Ledford, and nothing comes of it,” Lancaster’s mayor is quoted as saying.

 

    It is not unreasonable to suggest the reader may infer from Parris’ statement that the two men have been lunching together quite often over the previous two-year period, and all to no avail. But, according to Ledford, this isn’t the case at all. Ledford said he and Parris have lunched together exactly two times over the previous two years and that both lunches occurred shortly after Parris was elected mayor in 2008.

 

    “The initial emphasis was we need to be seen as working together,” said Ledford, when asked to characterize the impetus for their discussions. The Palmdale mayor said he had no problem with meeting because talking and lunching was “certainly better than squabbling” but, Ledford added, “It’s more important that you develop a result from meetings, not just the appearance of working together.”

 

    Ledford said there was never any chance to achieve results from his two meetings with Lancaster’s mayor because nothing was offered up by Parris other than a proposal for sales tax sharing and moving toward merging Palmdale and Lancaster into one City. In response to Parris’ overture to merge, Ledford said he told Parris nobody in Palmdale has brought that idea forward, so, as mayor, he wasn’t interested in the proposal. Ledford said he told Parris the only two people expressing an interest in one City was Parris himself, and Frank Visco.

 

    We asked Ledford if Parris ever made the claim that some Palmdale council members were in favor of merging and Ledford said although Parris never explicitly claimed he had secured support among a few Palmdale pols, he would have to assume that just may be the case.

 

    Ledford cited a report in local media where Parris was reported as stating his desire to work with other members of the Palmdale city council, then Ledford commented, “He indicated he was going to work around me with my council, but I’m waiting for that council person to step out.”

 

    On the possibility of Ledford being embroiled in a John Adams-type Cabinet Conspiracy scenario; that one or two Palmdale council members, working in collusion with Lancaster politicos behind closed doors, were secretly plotting his political demise, Ledford said, “I’m not even worried. I don’t pay that much attention to Mr. Parris. He’s got his hands full up there and he ought to focus on getting his City in order.”

 

    When asked if he had ever spoken directly with any Palmdale city council member on the prospect of a merger, Ledford replied, “Not really directly. I have a relationship with my council. This kind of talk makes them very nervous because it makes them a target.”

 

    If a Palmdale city council member were to go public in favor of a merger, Ledford said he is convinced the Palmdale electorate would question that pol’s loyalty. “People are going to say, ‘Who are you representing?’ It’s not a very good place to be,” predicted Ledford, who then reaffirmed his faith and belief that his entire council were working for the benefit of Palmdale.

 

    We asked Ledford to concisely state his opposition to merging with Lancaster and he said, “We have two different communities, two different cultures, two different approaches, two different ways to govern, and the benefactor of that competition are our residents. Complacency is not a good place to be in government.”

 

    Ledford said, in his opinion, two groups primarily would benefit most from a merger: the politicians, because they would then govern a City of over 300,000 residents, and secondly, businesses that are awarded public contracts.

 

    Merging the two cities would be no small feat, said Ledford, and to do so would require the voters of each City electing to de-incorporate and then vote to incorporate as one City; something Ledford said he wasn’t aware ever happening before, anywhere.

 

    We asked Ledford if he would favor or oppose placing the question of a potential merger on the ballot as an advisory vote only, to gauge the mood of Palmdale residents, and maybe settle the question one way or the other, at least for now.

 

    “No,” answered Ledford. “I wouldn’t agree with it so I wouldn’t support it. I think it’s foolery to be wasting our energy on this.”

 

    According to Ledford, first elected mayor in 1992, Palmdale and Lancaster have been and continue to work together closely on various activities and projects of mutual benefit, such as public works, traffic, public transportation and fighting crime. He provided the Political Observer a five page document he said his City compiled for just such an occasion as ours.

 

    “We were waiting for this ‘We don’t cooperate discussion.’ I’ve been doing this for 20 years so what I’m hearing from Mr. Parris is not new; you hear it out of every newly elected [Lancaster] mayor. Everybody wants to cooperate, everybody wants to get along. And we do. But only in areas that’s beneficial for both organizations,” said Ledford, who is serving his 18th consecutive year as mayor.

 

    The areas of cooperation in Ledford’s material were listed under headings such as Building & Safety, Communications, Economic Development, Public Safety, and Public Works. One specific example of cooperation under “Traffic Signal Maintenance” explained when Traffic personnel in one City conduct training in a particular area, personnel from the other City are often invited to participate.

 

    Other examples included coordination between Palmdale Public Safety and Lancaster’s Finance Department to “keep our bail schedules similar,” cooperation on Section 8 concerns, and, the development of a valley-wide Community Youth Court.

 

     “I told Mr. Parris when he first got elected that meetings will be productive when we focus on areas of agreement,” said Ledford, who added “the system” does not work when efforts of government agencies are in conflict against one another.

 

    Ledford said he read a story in local media where Parris forwarded the idea of an Antelope Valley water agency, and added, “That’s not his idea. That’s being promoted by AVEK,” then characterized the prospect of a single, valley-wide water agency as “not reality.”

 

    Ledford said “if” L.A. County Waterworks did relinquish control the most logical progression would be the formation of a new agency, and AVEK may not go along with that, insisting instead that they expand and become the main water purveyor.

 

    Faced with the choice of dissolving and joining a new valley-wide water agency or remaining an unique entity, Ledford said left in the mix would be the Palmdale Water District, who Ledford predicted, “isn’t going anywhere” and by his measurement, would not be willing to join a larger, valley-wide water agency if one were to be created.

 

    The mayor said personal relations between he and Parris have been chilled recently and pegged the incident responsible for the freeze as Parris’ “Christian City” comments. “Rex got mad,” said Ledford, “because I responded to his inflammatory comments, his religious comments. It wasn’t about a ‘Christian City.’ That’s not the issue. The issue is I have residents in my community who are not Christian that call my office and want to know Palmdale’s position. Are we thinking the same thing? Do we agree with Sherry Marquez’s position? What’s our council’s position? What Mr. Parris doesn’t understand is his comments do create a response.”

 

    Ledford said he has been working for years with the Interfaith Council to minimize such conflicts and Parris’ religious comments gave him no choice but to respond. Ledford then noted his City offered no invocation during a council meeting, but instead observed a moment of silence for those in attendance to do as they wish, to include pray, or do nothing at all.

 

    If a pastor, minister or any other religious leader were to attend a council meeting to offer an invocation, Ledford said he would ask that person to offer a non-sectarian prayer.

 

    The anti-Parris, Robert Davenport-produced television political campaign ad attacking Parris for his economic outreach to China was cited by Ledford as another point of contention between the two men. Ledford said Parris is convinced he had something to do with the ad, an allegation Ledford flatly denies.

 

    The situation worsened, according to Ledford, when, on the night of Lancaster’s election, with victory for Parris in the bag, Parris stated he would be working around Ledford in retaliation for Ledford’s involvement in Lancaster elections. “He was convinced I was behind this Chinese communist TV ad,” said Ledford.

 

    “Do I know Robert Davenport?” Ledford asked himself aloud. “Sure I do. Is he a Muslim? Yeah, he is. So is my friend Kamal. They think that association now makes you guilty. That’s a strange world.”

 

     We asked Ledford considering the current climate of finger-pointing and verbal jousting between he and Parris, would he accept an invitation to meet if one were extended by Parris. Ledford answered it would not be likely because he saw no benefit in doing so. 

 

    “Once it gets bizarre and weird, I’m going to back away,” said Ledford. “I’ve got plenty to do in Palmdale and I don’t need any extra-curricular work. I’m not looking to build a political Empire in the valley.”

 

    Before departing, Ledford, the seasoned and wise pol that he is, took on the role of the elder statesmen and offered Parris words of political wisdom. Ledford said, “My advice to Mr. Parris is you’re a re-elected mayor. You need to mature-up and take your position seriously.”

 

    EDITOR’S NOTE: The Political Observer will be extending an invitation to Lancaster Mayor Parris offering an equal opportunity to weigh-in, if he so desires, on the feud currently raging between Palmdale and Lancaster political leadership, and to respond to comments by Mr. Ledford, as published in the article. If Parris agrees, the interview will be published in the June Political Observer.