test
test
Joseph R. "Joe" Banister

Saturday, November 29, 2003

|

MORE BANISTER LOCKOUT DOCUMENTS

From: "Automailer - freedomabovefortune.com" automailer@freedomabovefortune.com
Date: 2003/11/29 Sat PM 12:25:17 EST
To: Doug Kenline
Subject: MORE BANISTER LOCKOUT DOCUMENTS

Dear Friends and Supporters:

More documents in the IRS LOCKOUT case have been posted to my website at www.freedomabovefortune.com (Click on IRS LOCKOUT UPDATE), such as letters from my attorneys to Judge Moran regarding the closure of the hearing to the public, letters from my attorneys to IRS attorney Jay Kessler regarding the public's interest in the case, our objection to convening the hearing on a military installation, offers of proof submitted by my attorneys, and Judge Moran's order changing the location from the Coast Guard military installation to the San Francisco federal building/courthouse, U.S. Tax Court Court Room 2-135 (450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco 94102)

Many thanks to all who have contacted the media and government officials to help expose what is going on with this case. Don't underestimate the power of each and every one of you spreading the word. Part of the problem is that most Americans belief that their government officials are being truthful, just, and open with them. We need to bring these matters to the attention of our fellow Americans and help them understand why we are so concerned. Directing our fellow Americans to the facts is an important step.

Thank you for your continuing support.

Kind Regards,

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.
Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent
www.freedomabovefortune.com


Friday, November 28, 2003

|

The IRS Claims New Patriot Act Type Powers to Punish Political Dissenters

From: "Automailer - freedomabovefortune.com" automailer@freedomabovefortune.com
Date: 2003/11/28 Fri PM 06:38:07 EST
To: Doug Kenline dkenline@bellsouth.net
Subject: The IRS Claims New Patriot Act Type Powers to Punish Political Dissenters

Dear Friends and Supporters:

Please forward this article by Robert R. Raymond to everyone on your lists...

The IRS Claims New Patriot Act Type Powers to Punish Political Dissenters

by Robert R. Raymond
November 28, 2003

In a precendent-setting case, the IRS wielded new power to punish the political speech of those who "espouse views" the government considers "inconsistent" with government-held beliefs. In a hearing originally closed to the public in a secret tribunal on a military island, but moved to a public location after protests from the press and the public, the IRS wants to wield this power against a former IRS whistleblower, who was forced to resign upon his discovery of fraud in the agency. After monitoring and taping the whisteblower's appearances on Sixty Minutes, talk radio shows, and political
publications where he rebroadcast his findings of IRS fraud, the IRS initiated this inquisition against their former whistelblower. This new power may find new political targets soon enough.

The IRS, through the small office of "Director of Practice," claims the authority to wield carte blanche authority over all the other powers of government -- the authority to monitor, surveil, and eavesdrop on political dissenters, the authority to pry into the private financial records of banks, businesses, and taxpayers, the authority to conduct secret investigations under a criminal grand jury, and the authority to censure political dissenters by branding on them a badge of infamy and stripping them of governmentally protected licenses. In short, under the guise of a "practice" investigation, the IRS claims the right to wield all intrusive and invasive powers of government available.

A "license" to practice before the IRS -- even for people who have never requested such a license or actually practiced before the IRS, but are given one as a matter of law if they are accountants -- "licenses" the IRS to conduct private audits without notice to the taxpayer, confer with criminal prosecutors without disclosure, and bring special "disbarment" proceedings against disfavored dissenters, even if the alleged "disreputable" conduct has nothing to do with any "practice" before the IRS.

The IRS now claims it can use these so-called "practice" investigations of anyone who Congress licenses to practice before the IRS -- regardless of whether they actually practice before the IRS -- to surveil the public appearances of dissenters, eavesdrop on the political conversations of dissenters, benefit from secret grand jury investigations, hold secret conferences with the criminal investigators, surreptiously tap the private database of taxpayer information, including taxpayers who merely have some financial "connection" to the accused, audit the political dissenter's personal financial records, and use all this information against the dissenter in the "practice" proceeding.

Under the guise of a "practice" investigation, the IRS can ignore all the normal procedural protections against an illicit audit while it conducts such an audit. Simultaneously, the IRS can ignore all the legal protections afforded a person accused of a crime while conferencing with the people conducting a criminal investigation. Indeed, the IRS can even ignore the sunshine laws, as the records of such "practice investigation" are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as are grand jury proceedings.

The IRS claims it can exercise this authority in a secret proceeding without allowing a person the opportunity to cure any alleged mistakes, the opportunity to prepare a defense by knowing the exact facts they are accused of, without any opportunity for discovery, without any opportunity to call witnesses necessary for their defense, without any opportunity to cross examine their accusers, without any opportunity to testify at their own hearing about the merits of their position, without being forced to testify against themselves without such an assertion being held against them, and without even an opportunity for a hearing on the evidence.

This power of this little office with a Napoleonic vision goes even beyond the Patriot Act type authority and stories of FBI monitoring of war protestors.

Too Hoover-ish to be true in modern America? Just read the case of the IRS against Joe Banister scheduled for a "hearing" -- a hearing where the IRS prohibited Banister from introducing any witnesses or presenting any evidence as to his defenses, and even discussing the sincerity, the truth or the "reasonableness" of his positions -- on December 1 in the city by the bay, in the Tax Court chambers of the federal courthouse in San Francisco. History is being made.

Please forward to any interested parties.

Joe Banister's web page.
http://www.freedomabovefortune.com


Regards

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.
Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent
www.freedomabovefortune.com


Wednesday, November 26, 2003

|

BANISTER "SHANGHAI ON CGI" CHANGED TO GOLDEN GATE (AVENUE)

From: automailer@freedomabovefortune.com
Date: 2003/11/26 Wed PM 05:58:23 EST
To: Doug Kenline dkenline@bellsouth.net
Subject: BANISTER "SHANGHAI ON CGI" CHANGED TO GOLDEN GATE (AVENUE)

Dear Friends and Supporters:

As announced yesterday, the Administrative Law Judge granted the IRS's motion for summary judgment. Thus, I will not be receiving the full and fair hearing due me, although some limited proceedings will still take place on Monday, December 1st and those proceedings will be accessible to the public.

It appears that the growing public outcry regarding the administrative law judge's unprecedented attempt to prohibit press and public from attending my hearing has had an effect. Judge Moran today issued an order that the location of the hearing has been changed. It will no longer be held at Coast Guard Island (CGI), the military installation that he had previously designated. Instead, the hearing will be convened at 10:00 AM PST on Monday, December 1st, 2003, at the United States Courthouse Federal Building, U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 2-1350, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

Given that the hearing will take place on a Monday, I realize it would be a hardship for people to attend. Nonetheless, anyone that can attend is urged to do so. I would be honored to have you stand with me on Monday. Clearly, the courtroom will accommodate a limited number of observers so anyone desiring to observe the proceedings should come early. Remember that the San Francisco federal building still requires passage through a metal detector and you must present Government-issued picture identification.

I want to make it absolutely clear that any supporter who attends the hearing or who might demonstrate outside the Federal Building must be calm, reserved, reasonable, and professional. It was calm, reserved, reasonable, and professional people who awakened me to the truth about the federal income tax system and who have continued to show me evidence of IRS abuse and I want the hearing participants to reflect that same standard. Rest assured that the record of the way the government is handling this case is available for all to see and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are witnessing each step. This hearing is really just an early chapter in an open book that will shine the light of truth on a myriad of issues for all to see. It would be counterproductive and against all that I have worked for to have these proceedings disrupted or politeness and professionalism abandoned. I do encourage you to focus on the eyes and the faces of my accusers. Make sure that everywhere they look they see the face of an American who desires to learn the truth.

As I stated above, this hearing is only the beginning of a once in a lifetime opportunity to expose the ugly truth about the way government officials from a variety of agencies work in concert to protect the status quo. Your donations are enabling me to continue this fight and allowing me to survive the crushing legal and procedural assaults that unlimited government resources and personnel can inflict. My sincere thanks to the entire Bernhoft Firm staff who have worked tirelessly on my behalf, as evidenced by the documents posted to the IRS LOCKOUT UPDATE section of my website. They have assured me that this issue is far from over and extraordinary developments are on the horizon. I urge you to stay tuned to this battle and to continue to support it with prayers and financial support because I am confident it will help to expose the contempt our government officials have for our rights, our liberty, and the rule of law. Updates will continue to appear at www.freedomabovefortune.com.

As always, I respectfully request that you forward this message to all of your lists.

Kind Regards,

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.
Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent
www.freedomabovefortune.com

|

BANISTER'S SHANGHAI ON CGI PART II

Dear Friends and Supporters:

Judge Moran has granted the IRS?s Motion for Summary Judgment (MFSJ) that all but eliminates my opportunity for a full and fair hearing. The MFSJ has been posted to my website. The impact that the granting of this motion has on the hearing will not be fully known until tomorrow afternoon.

Click on IRS LOCKOUT UPDATE at www.freedomabovefortune.com

Judge Moran has expressed unhappiness with the number of citizens who are apparently calling his office. He has also warned me (by relaying a message through my attorneys) that I should be careful about what I say on my website and my email messages. He did not specify what specific speech I should be careful about. If and when he does specify what speech I should be careful about, I will let everyone know, assuming, of course, that letting everyone know what speech I am supposed to be careful about is not the kind of speech the Judge says I need to be careful about. Stay tuned.

The Bernhoft Firm has filed another round of documents with the court dealing with our objection to the choice of a military installation for the hearing (Coast Guard Island or "CGI"), Judge Moran?s prohibition of public and press at
the hearing in a November 24th teleconference, the myriad of due process denials urged by the IRS and approved by Judge Moran (no public, no press, no requirement for government to provide specific facts of the charges alleged, no
discovery, no defense witnesses, no defense evidence, no cross-examination of government witnesses, and no ability to dispute government evidence). At least you can all rest assured that the government officials in this case have repeatedly stated that this proceeding is about protecting the public. These documents will hopefully be on my website sometime on Wednesday.

(Click on ?IRS LOCKOUT UPDATE at www.freedomabovefortune.com )

These latest documents provide an excellent summary of the manner in which the IRS performs its protective duties. Judge for yourself who or what the IRS is most concerned about protecting.

Stay tuned for announcements concerning whether any proceeding will take place at all next week, location, directions, public participation, etc. If you are inclined to do so, informing appropriate government officials and media about this case, as well as friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives is always appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.
Former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent
www.freedomabovefortune.com


Tuesday, November 25, 2003

|

SHOULD GOVT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BE PUBLIC?

by Joe Banister

For those who would like some guidance on whether or not administrative hearings should be public, a good start would be the following decision: Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681 (Sixth Circuit 2002), in which the court
held that the public has a fundamental First Amendment right of access to administrative hearings that are "quasi judicial" in character.

Such hearings must be public. In addition, no statute and no regulation requires that these hearings be private or closed to the public. Those who say that my hearing can not be public are simply wrong. If there is a statute, regulation or case that holds that a hearing such as mine is closed to the public, please forward it to me and I will post it.

These hearings are always assumed to be public, unless some law closes them to the public. Furthermore, members of the press and public have already asked to attend, and all have been denied. The public cannot be bound by the parties' decisions regarding the hearing, since the public has an independent right to an open hearing, a right the parties cannot, on their own volition, abridge.

Finally, the choice of a military facility is particularly odd, a choice that requires everyone attending to disclose their license plate numbers and other such private information. Has the federal government ever resorted to taking down license numbers in the past, such as with civil rights protests? We all know the answer to that chilling question. Is anyone aware of any other administrative hearings regarding civilians that have been conducted at secure military facilities inaccessible to the public?

Thank you for your continued interest in my case.

Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, C.P.A.

www.freedomabovefortune.com











Home