From the December 2004 Idaho Observer:

No such thing as "enough"

As we have seen, those pieces of paper that give corporations their mandate have no compassion. These lifeless, two-dimensional, black and white constructs somehow suck the warmth out of those hired to fulfill the duties of its offices. In all competitive cases, the corporate design requires ever increasing profits from similarly increasing revenues or its ink-on-paper design begins to fail in the world of practical application.

This point is perhaps best illustrated by the U.S. government. While Americans were drunk on their post-WWII reverie, they began paying an unconstitutional tax to a government that was itself drunk on its new-found global military and economic dominance. Since that time, millions of Americans have become aware that the income tax is an unapportioned direct tax on their wages and, therefore, not authorized by the Constitution. People such as the men on this page, have repeatedly petitioned their government for redress of their well-founded and respectfully submitted grievances.

The corporate government knows that the arguments of Irwin Schiff, Anthony Hargis and Joe Banister are legitimate but refuse to debate these men on the merits of their case. Instead the agents of corporate government ignore everything it means to be thoughtful, fair, honest and just plain respectful of those who are. They have to because compassion and dignity diminish the potential for profit.

U.S. levies absurd tax, invokes tax law to harass dissenter

United States v. Anthony Hargis

SACV-04-00273 DOC (David O. Carter, judge); Santa Ana, Cal., federal District Court.

TUSTIN, Calif.— "A constitutional republic for Iraq; Soviet tactics for America."

That’s what a California man claims is happening to him in a lawsuit prosecuted against him by the federal government.

It all began when the government began an investigation to determine whether or not Anthony Hargis was subject to penalties for helping customers organize "illegal tax shelters."

Hargis claims, and his customers concur, that he simply provided money banking services that respected the clients’ privacy for perfectly lawful purposes.

In March, 2004, the government arrested Hargis and kept him in jail for five and a half months (for refusing to turn-over records). During that time, the government destroyed Hargis’ company and confiscated all of its property. But found no evidence of illegal activity and finally let him go.

The record shows that Hargis’ arrest and long-term detainment was carried out devoid of any properly filed allegation of wrong-doing and without a trial. In the absence of any charges or an indictment, one must conclude that the federal government held Hargis—not because of any illegal activity, but—as an attempt to silence his investigations into and criticism of governmental wrong-doing.

Should the government restore Hargis and his customers to their original condition—and confess gross violations on the part of the government agents and court? Or should the government continue with the prosecution—and ruthlessly attempt to conceal its wrong-doing?

It chose the latter. For example, Hargis was merely operating a private bank designed to allow people to redress certain grievances regarding the cannibalistic nature of the Federal Reserve money system.

The government, in fact, has been arguing for more than two years that Hargis’ company was a bank and that its property belonged to customers. It made this argument without mentioning the redress-of-grievances aspect of it; that would have made the lawsuit a clear attack on Hargis and his customers’ First-Amendment rights.

This customer property came into the company by way of deposits. The government added all these deposits over six years and attributed the totals to Hargis as "income." Thus, the government used customer property to fabricate a $32 million tax liability against Hargis and intends to seize this customer property and apply it to his alleged tax liability.

According to Hargis, by an act of Congress, if the government alleges a tax, the taxpayer must pay the tax before he has the privilege to challenge its validity.

It would appear that the government chose to manufacture a tax liability against Hargis to invoke the congressional act to justify committing numerous statutory and due process violations against Hargis just to punish him for being critical of the government and its activities. Though evidence of wrong-doing was never found, the government is still pursuing Hargis for the obviously absurd $32 million tax liability.

The one-sided nature of this process is revealed in a purely vindictive tactic often employed by government agents because they can: It has seized all property belonging to the company. Since Hargis had all his property tied-up in the company, the plaintiff government holds all of the resources defendant Hargis would have available for his own defense and challenge the government as to the legitimacy of the income tax.

The record of Hargis’ case, on top of hundreds of other cases, proves it is effectively unlawful to challenge the tax on legal and logical grounds; unlawful to criticize government by pointing out provable error; unlawful to seek redress for legitimate grievances and; unlawful to assert natural and constitutional rights.

The court is doing its part to conceal the government’s wrong-doing. Hargis’ lawyers have paid, out of their own pockets, more than $2,700 for eight transcripts of various hearings in this case.

These requests were made beginning in February of this year. It is now December and only one transcript has been delivered. Hargis’ lawyers have been told in fairly certain terms, that they will never get these transcripts, apparently by instruction of the judge.

These transcripts are needed to properly defend the case, and to appeal it. Ironically, a judge who would verbally order that a defendant shall be denied access to transcripts of presumably public legal proceedings proves the points that made government angry with Hargis in the first place.

"Here is a bandit’s paradise," Hargis said. "The government has the power to commit robberies and then destroy all evidence, witnesses and victims surrounding their crimes. And it’s all legal.

"Well," Hargis concluded, "at least we should be grateful the government is establishing a constitutional republic in Iraq."

[For more information, send five (5) U. S. first-class stamps to Anthony Hargis; c/o Joe DeClue, esq.; 2427 N. Tustin, Ste B; Santa Ana, Cal. 92705.]

Former IRS agent-turned-tax-honesty-advocate arrested for tax crimes; trial date already set

from NewsWithViews.com

Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent Joseph Banister was arrested November 18, 2004, per a federal indictment accusing him of tax crimes. Banister pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court, posted bond and was released.

After years of researching the income tax code, Banister came to the conclusion that the government was misapplying the tax code to the majority of Americans. This highly-trained CPA and valued IRS criminal investigator presented his findings to his superiors and asked them to dispute his findings.

With unusual speed, the government refused and Banister resigned his $80,000- a-year job on principle and because he felt he couldn’t participate in the illegal activities being conducted by his former employer.

The indictment ties Banister to co-defendant Walter A. Thompson of Redding, California, who has also been indicted regarding his stand on withholding taxes.

Thompson refused to surrender to federal authorities, but instead fled and ended up in a high-speed chase on Interstate 5 in northern California. Thompson is considered a flight risk and was denied bail.

Both Banister and Thompson appeared in U.S. District Court Dec. 1, 2004 in Sacramento, California for a status conference. Thompson was in an orange jump suit and shackled in chains with his hands chained to his waist. Judge William B. Shubb granted Thompson’s request to represent himself, but also appointed a federal public defender for Thompson to assist in his defense.

Banister is being represented by Don Kilmer of San Jose, California, well known as a champion of the Second Amendment and Jeff Dickstein, one of the premier criminal defense lawyers in the country regarding income tax matters.

Dickstein brought a motion before the court to bar the Department of Justice from issuing any more press releases that Dickstein feels are clearly prejudicial against his client and could contaminate the jury pool. Judge Shubb declined saying he didn’t see anything in the government’s press releases that was inappropriate or unethical and he would not gag either side at this point.

Banister, along with thousands of other Americans, have repeatedly requested hearings with the IRS and Department of Justice to answer what they consider to be valid and important legal questions regarding the application of the income tax.

Representatives of those agencies finally agreed to hold public hearings on February 27 and 28, 2002, but reneged and continue to refuse to respond to any challenge or, as Banister remarks, "reasonable questions."

It is unclear why the government continues to refuse to attend open, public hearings to show the American people the law regarding the income tax, instead relying on the courts, who themselves can’t make up their mind.

While other media reports and the IRS have stated that Banister has been advising clients and the general population not to file income tax returns, Banister maintains that he has never advised anyone not to file a return and insists that all videos of his personal and radio show appearances will bear this out to be the truth.

The indictment ties Banister to Thompson for conspiracy to defraud the government regarding Thompson’s long legal battle over stopping withholding regarding his employees and the IRS. Supporters of Banister charge that this indictment is retaliation by the Department of Justice for Banister exposing the truth about the income tax.

A trial date has been set for January 19, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in Judge Shubb’s courtroom. A legal defense fund has been set up: Joseph Banister Legal Defense Fund, P.O. Box 90239, San Jose, California 95109-4239. Thompson is pro-se with a federal public defender as advisor.

Illegal tax icon files master-piece of income tax-law(gic)

Schiff runs institutionalized risk of filing citizen pearls that will be considered by judicial swine

UNITED STATES V. IRWIN SCHIFF, CYNTHIA NEUN, And LAWRENCE N. COHEN, a/k/a/ LARRY COHEN CR-S-04-0119-KJD-LRL

LAS VEGAS— "You got to read my latest filing in the court. Now anyone can understand the ridiculousness of the government’s case," said Irwin Schiff.

Schiff, 86, has been battling the IRS since the 70s and has written several books on the subject, owns and operates Freedom Books on Sahara Avenue here and has the website www.paynoincometax.com. By spring, 2003, Schiff was suing Bank of America for allowing the IRS to take money from his bank account and advertising the illegality of the income tax on nationally-syndicated talk radio programs. In October, 2003, the feds raided Freedom Books, seized records and (temporarily) banned the sale of his book "The Federal Mafia."

Since that time Schiff has been concentrating all of his wit and acquired wisdom of 40 years of investigation and activism regarding the income tax in an effort to, if not win on the merits of his claims in defense of IRS charges, shame the feds into dropping the case against him. Also defending themselves in this action are Cindy Neun and Larry Cohen.

The filing to which Schiff referred is his 31-page reply to the government’s reply to Schiff’s motions that all charges involving income taxes be dismissed. In his reply, Schiff shows where the government submitted out right lies to the Court in its response to Schiff’s motions, failed to answer certain enumerated points, (thereby tacitly admitting their validity), answered others with unfounded interpretations of case law and completely contradicted itself in attempts to justify its position on the rest of them. "By now I have proven beyond a doubt that there is no law requiring me or anyone else to pay income taxes," Schiff said.

Schiff opens his reply by claiming the government pretended to the court that the "imposition" of income tax "liability" is found in IRS publications and sections 6001 and 6011 of the IRS Code. But liability must be established in statute. "Such a claim by the government [that liability is established in administrative code] is so patently fraudulent on so many grounds....as to require this court to throw out the Government’s entire Response of October 7, 2004, because falsus in uno falsus in omnobus."

An example of a point ignored by the government, Schiff claims, "...the Government made no attempt in its response to refute or even challenge Defendant’s claim that sections 6001 and 6011 clearly establish that without a statute specifically making Defendant "liable" for income taxes, these statutes establish Defendant is not subject to that tax. Therefore, applying Rule 8(d) of the Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. the government must be deemed to have admitted that fact."

The full text of Schiff’s reply can be found at www.paynoincometax.com. It renders into the plainest possible terms (that even a judge should be able to understand) the absolutely indefensible nature of arguments the government uses to justify imprisoning Americans who refuse to allow their wages to be taxed directly without apportionment.