- America: From Freedom to Fascism. For years I've been encouraging people to read "The Creature from Jekyll Island." It tells the story of how our Federal Reserve System and "Income tax" came into existence. It's a story of fraud and deception that will leave most readers speechless; a story of how (and why) America is intentionally being destroyed by men who care nothing for our country. Unfortunately, the book is nearly 600 pages long. Its length undoubtedly discourages many from reading it.
This new documentary by Aaron Russo (America: From Freedom to Fascism) does an excellent job of summarizing many of the important points covered in "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Aaron's film is every bit as important (and perhaps more so in some ways) because it makes this information accessible to the masses. Every American who cares about the future of this country needs to understand the underlying mechanics of how it is being destroyed. You need to know who is pulling the strings and what their ultimate aim is. You need to WATCH this documentary. (And then you need to read The Creature from Jekyll Island for the full story!)
Click Here to Play (Google Video)
- Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing
Sacramento California -- On Thursday June 23, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers.
During the trial the Department of Justice was unable to put forth any evidence that Banister had either engaged in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he shared legal research with business owner Al Thompson concluding that he had no legal obligation to withhold taxes from his workers or when he (Banister) prepared corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming his taxable income was, under U.S. law, zero.
During the trial, Banister's former supervisor at IRS's San Jose CID office, Robert Gorini (who testified via video recording) when pointedly asked, was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.
Banister, who was forced to resign in 1999 after questioning IRS officials about their legal authority, gave Thompson's worker's a presentation in 2000 which reviewed his detailed investigative research of U.S. tax law which concluded that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on the workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the worker's paychecks.
Banister is part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the U.S. Government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. Last summer, the We The People Foundation initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions.
The Right-To-Petition lawsuit, of which Banister is a plaintiff, is the first time in history that U.S. courts have been asked to define the meaning of the final ten words of the First Amendment.
Court documents for the RTP lawsuit and scholarly research regarding the Right to Petition can be downloaded from the Lawsuit Information Center on www.GiveMeLiberty.org.
Following the verdict, Banister was greeted by a throng of WTP supporters and members of his family.
Tomorrow, WTP will publish additional details of this important news and stream video of post-verdict interviews of Banister & several of the jurors. http://GiveMeLiberty.org
- New York Times (Sore Loser)
-by Larkin Rose
It's almost funny how glaringly obvious the slant of David Cay Johnston at the New York Times has become. (Of course, the New York Times in general has an overall bias that's pretty darn hard to miss.) His "story" about Joe Banister's acquittal starts by saying: "The federal government's campaign against income tax protesters suffered a major setback yesterday..."
Aside from his usual dishonest "tax protestor" label, look at the viewpoint of the sentence. The theme was not "man found not
guilty." No, that's too pro-Joe. The theme is a "setback" for the United States government. And what does using the term "setback" imply? It implies that Joe was guilty of a crime, but "got away with it." Having an innocent person acquitted would never be characterized as a "setback"; it's called JUSTICE.
Like a good psy-ops fear monger, Johnston wastes no time in mentioning two convictions of OTHER people (referring to Al Thompson and Dick Simkanin). And of course, he had to include the usual vague bashing routine of "The
theories [Banister] has put forth have been uniformly rejected by the courts." Um, why is this story about someone BEATING the federal leviathan mostly about the leviathan insulting and hurting people? Because that's the message Mr. Johnston wants to hammer into the brains of everyone in the country: resistance to Mr. Johnston's god (the federal government) is
futile. Of course, what the story SHOULD be about goes directly against that, but let's not let facts and reality get in the way of a good propaganda piece.
And then, just in case Mr. Johnston had any credibility left, he cites that ridiculous "Quatloos" web site as if it's some authority. Hmmm... he's mentioned me by name SEVEN TIMES in his articles, but NEVER mentioned any of my web sites. Nice "balance." The article also included this: "The verdict stirred concerns that it would encourage more Americans to
refuse to pay taxes..." Note the passive tense, and the vague reference. Stirred concerns among whom? The article is written from the perspective of the government.
Hell will freeze over before the New York Times will ever speak of the federal government's terror campaign against anyone with an honest disagreement "stirring concerns" among the people. Why? Because Mr. Johnston has no connection to the real American people, only to those in government. But at least he quoted Mr. Bernhoft, one of Joe's attorneys, saying that "American citizens have the right to ask the government questions and the government has a duty to answer in good faith." While that is both true, and well said, it's pretty darn sad that we live in a country where anyone needs to state such a thing.
Congratulations, Joe. Mr. Johnston can continue with his self-imposed delusions, but a whole lot of REAL Americans know who the good guys are, and are very thankful for what you have done for all of us. Bless you, and your family.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
Why are Certified Public Accountants, Businessmen, Doctors, Lawyers, and even former IRS AGENTS openly calling the "income tax" in America a TOTAL FRAUD?
Why, after studying the intentionally confusing tax code, have these individuals concluded Americans are being fleeced out of trillions of dollars they do not legally owe?
And, if these tax professionals, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and IRS AGENTS are wrong about what the tax code says, why won't the government answer 6 simple questions that would prove they are wrong?
Thousands of intelligent well meaning people have written the IRS seeking clarification regarding (what appears to be) a major problem with what the tax code actually says, and how it is being enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.
One of the primary functions of the IRS is to help American Citizens understand their tax liability. And yet when they get questions they don't like, they REFUSE to answer them. They shift focus away from the questions and imply the person who is asking them is making a "false statement" regarding the tax code.
Taxpayer: "Should I use section 861 to determine my taxable income?"
IRS: "You're wrong and your position is FRIVOLOUS, FRIVOLOUS, FRIVOLOUS!!! We won't answer this question and you could get in a LOT OF TROUBLE!!!"
HUH???
I'm sorry, but a QUESTION that is based on what is written in the actual code is far less frivolous than a response that is based on absolutely nothing! Dare I say, the response the IRS has been giving for years is FRIVOLOUS?
Another tactic of the IRS is to try and label those who are asking these questions as "Tax Protestors." Again, this is another "frivolous" response. Nobody is protesting the law. Most in the Tax Honesty movement are simply asking when the law should be obeyed and when it should not. If it should be obeyed at all times, then clearly the law supports the contention that MOST Americans do NOT owe the amount of "income tax" that is being extracted from their paychecks.
Is the IRS avoiding these questions because they can't take a position on them without exposing the agency to harm? Is it because to answer the questions would be to admit 90 YEARS of "mistaken" taxation? And are those who are leaving the IRS and coming out against the agency on this issue...are they just "numbskull conspiracy theorists" who don't know what they are talking about?
Take an hour out of your day...break it up into 15 minute sections if you like and watch the presentation below. You will hear the questions, you will hear the evidence. You will hear from the IRS agents who have left the agency and are now being harassed by the government. Take it all in and decide for yourself.
Click Here to Play
Additional Info on Taxation
PLEASE - SPREAD THE WORD
