Trial of IRS Special Agent Joe Bannister

From: Robert R. Raymond - rraymond@bizwi.rr.com
Subject: Trial of Former IRS Special Agent
Date: June 5, 2005

Friends, I would like you to consider the appeal below. The criminal trial
of former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister is one of the most important trials
in recent memory for all freedom loving Americans. IRS Special Agent Joe
Banister, while employed by the government, spent two years of his own time
and expense to see what the Internal Revenue Code really said and who it
applied to. When he discovered that there were more questions than answers,
he did what we expect all of our public servants to do when applying the
law, he asked his supervisors questions to clarify the doubts he had.
Instead of answering those very fundamental questions and resolving the many
questions we all have about the authority of the government to regulate and
tax every aspect of our lives, they told him to resign. For the last five
years Joe Banister has aggressively pursued the truth in getting the
government to answer basic questions about the tax code. In response, the
government has done everything it can to shut Joe Banister up and punish
him. The latest insult to truth is his indictment and upcoming trial for
supposed tax crimes. An acquittal would be a huge setback to the
government's attempt to shut down all dissent. Please give this your most
thoughtful consideration.

Robert R. Raymond
People for Truth in Taxation
http://www.rraymond.org
http://taxtyranny.blogspot.com/

Roman General Sulla: Stop quoting the law, we have swords.

Freedom Above Fortune News

Dear Friends:

It has been about 5 weeks since I last updated you about events surrounding
my June 14th, 2005 trial, where I will defend against allegations that I
willfully aided or assisted in the preparation and presentation of amended
tax returns that were false as to a material matter and that I conspired to
defraud the United States in connection with assistance rendered to my
client, Walter ³Al² Thompson.

It has been a busy five weeks to be sure. My legal team and I have been
pleased with our progress to date but there is still much to be done. I
apologize for the length of this email. There have been a lot of
developments and I want to share those developments with all who have helped
me in this battle. If you don¹t have time for all of the details, please
check the end of the email for information on how you can help during these
last few weeks.

Most of my time has been spent helping to synthesize the evidence contained
in (now well over 20) boxes of evidence that I have accumulated since I
began investigating the federal income tax system in 1997. It is a
gargantuan process to synthesize 20 boxes of evidence into a format that can
be reviewed by my legal team both chronologically and by subject matter, and
my training as a Certified Public Accountant and former IRS criminal
investigator has served me well during this preparation phase.

Most of my legal team¹s time has been spent dealing with some significant
legal and logistical issues that needed to be addressed over the last five
weeks. The first significant issue began late on Monday, April 25th, when I
received information that Robert ³Bob² Gorini, my former supervisor at the
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID) to whom I
had issued my investigative report on the federal income tax, was leaving
the United States for Iraq in order to serve on a temporary assignment as a
criminal investigator for the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction. I immediately sent an email to my legal team informing them
that Mr. Gorini, whom I expected to call as a witness to testify about my
character and integrity, was preparing to leave the country for an
indeterminate period of time.

By Tuesday morning the 26th, I received a call from lead trial counsel Jeff
Dickstein of The Law Office of Robert G. Bernhoft, S.C. (
www.bernhoftlaw.com ). Jeff urged me to travel to the federal courthouse in
Sacramento, California and get a trial subpoena for Mr. Gorini and see that
he was served with that subpoena before his departure to Iraq. I dropped
everything and jumped in my car for a two hour drive to the courthouse. I
encountered significant red tape at the court house, more than I expected,
but I was able to leave there with an official trial subpoena bearing Mr.
Gorini¹s name ordering him to appear at my trial. As I drove back to San
Jose, I made arrangements to have the subpoena served by a professional
process server and found that the only way I could get the subpoena served
that Tuesday evening was to get the subpoena to the process server in San
Jose by 4:30 PM. I arrived back in San Jose with only 5 minutes to spare
but gave the subpoena to the process server. I learned on Wednesday morning
that the subpoena had, indeed, been served on Mr. Gorini the previous night.
We waited all day Wednesday and all day Thursday for Mr. Gorini to call
attorney Jeff Dickstein, whose name and phone number were listed on the
bottom of the subpoena. Mr. Gorini never called.

We learned Thursday night, April 28th that the reason Mr. Gorini had failed
to call Mr. Dickstein was because he had signed an agreement with the IRS
pledging not to discuss IRS matters with anyone issuing him a subpoena after
his retirement. Mr. Gorini, who retired from the IRS a couple of years
after my resignation, perhaps realized that he may not have been able to
rely on the IRS to keep his best interests in mind and decided to contact
Jeff Dickstein after all.

Fortunately, we learned that Mr. Gorini¹s departure for Iraq was not to take
place until after he finished a multi-week training course in the
Washington, D.C. Arrangements were made to have Mr. Gorini submit to a
videotaped deposition on Friday, May 20th, only 24 hours before his
scheduled departure to Iraq for an extended period.

Although I have not seen Mr. Gorini¹s videotaped deposition yet, Mr.
Dickstein has informed me that it went well and that Mr. Gorini was very
complimentary of my skills and character. At one point, he apparently said
that if there were 12 IRS special agents like Joe Banister in a working
group of IRS special agents, there would be no need for a supervisor. There
was other provocative testimony given by Mr. Gorini, for which I will try to
provide more details after I have viewed the videotaped testimony.

The second event, actually a series of similar events, also occurred in late
April and has continued right up to the present. I received a call from the
guardian of my legal defense fund (LDF) account that someone had apparently
created a phony check with the legal defense fund¹s account number on it and
attempted to cash the check. The bank where the LDF account is kept
contacted the LDF guardian and asked the guardian to confirm that the payee
on the check was an authorized payee. The guardian did not recognize the
name. The guardian contacted me and asked me if I had ever heard of the
payee and I hadn¹t either. (By the way, there are relatively few recipients
of legal defense fund checks because the funds are disbursed principally for
legal fees, shipping fees, photocopying fees, supplies, and travel). The
phony check, written for $3,000, was not honored by the LDF bank and the
funds were taken out of the LDF account for only a brief period and returned
to the LDF account. Once we learned that the funds were only temporarily
depleted and subsequently returned, we breathed a sigh of relief.

Unfortunately, we later discovered that the $3,000 check was not an isolated
incident. We recently learned that there were two more phony checks one
for $1,800 and one for $4,500 that someone attempted to draw from the LDF
account in the same manner as the $3,000 check. Apparently the bank did
cash these checks, which has caused a significant disruption to the LDF¹s
cash flow. As with the $3,000 check, the bank has assured the LDF guardian
that the $6,300 in funds will be replaced by the bank since, once again, it
was the bank¹s fault for honoring illegitimate checks.

Even though it is a relief to know that the bank bears the risk of loss for
these thefts rather than the LDF, and that all funds will be returned by the
bank to the LDF and it will be up to the bank to recover the funds from the
thief, it is disappointing to think that someone somewhere has lifted the
bank account information from my previous requests for financial assistance
and used such information to create phony checks to facilitate the theft of
money from LDF account. According to the information received from the
bank, each check had a different payee and endorsement, each check had ink
stamped language in the signature block, and the checks were passed in Ohio,
New York, and Washington. Given the diverse geographic locations, this is
clearly the work of a sophisticated ring of thieves. The bank will of
course be investigating these thefts since it is the bank who ultimately
bears the risk of loss for phony checks like these. The harm for the LDF is
the temporary, yet severe, cash flow disruption.

Another significant event is that over the last few weeks, my legal team has
been busy preparing motions for submission to U.S. District Court Judge
Shubb. It is my understanding my legal team devoted nearly 100 hours to the
preparation of the motions, with Jeff Dickstein¹s contribution exceeding 80
hours. Attorney Robert Barnes and Attorney Robert Bernhoft also provided
invaluable input. One of the motions is a ³Motion for Bill of Particulars²,
which is a routine motion filed in cases like these. The other motions
elucidate why the indictment (the document signed by the grand jury foreman
that alleged I had committed crimes) is fatally flawed.

One of the other motions is called a ³Motion to Strike Portions of Count I
of the Indictment² and it is supported by a document called ³Points and
Authorities In Support of [Banister¹s] Motion to Strike Portions of Count I
of the Indictment². This motion requests an order from Judge Shubb
³striking [removing] paragraphs 4,5,7,8,10-16,19-27, 30, the last sentence
of paragraph 6, the words ³to wit: income, social security and Medicare
taxes² from paragraph 9, the words ³the income, social security and
Medicare² from paragraphs 9a and 9b, and the word ³huge² in paragraph 20 as
surplusage and duplicitous of other charges.² The motion focuses like a
laser beam on the actual language used in the indictment and articulates why
the indictment¹s language would mislead and prejudice the jury, and how such
language interferes with my right to a clear and concise statement of the
charges against me.

Another one of these motions is called a ³Motion to Dismiss the Indictment
For Lack of Sufficiency² and it is supported by a document called ³Points
and Authorities In Support of [Banister¹s] Motion to Dismiss The Indictment
for Lack of Sufficiency². As stated in the motion, the sufficiency of an
indictment (the document signed by the grand jury foreman that alleged I had
committed crimes) is measured by whether the indictment (1) contains the
necessary elements of the crime alleged (2) informs the defendants of the
crime charged with sufficient clarity to allow them to adequately defend
against the charges and (3) is stated with sufficient clarity to bar
subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The motion provides ample
evidence of the insufficiency of my indictment and I strongly encourage you
to read it.

All of these motions can be read by visiting www.freedomabovefortune.com ,
clicking on ³IRS LOCKOUT UPDATE², and scrolling down to the bottom of the
list. You will need Acrobat Reader or Adobe Acrobat to access the motions
on my website.

These few weeks before the trial and, of course, the trial itself, are
extremely time intensive and expensive. It cost approximately $3,000 just
to obtain a copy of the Al Thompson trial transcript. There have been and
will continue to be significant photocopying expenses. A paralegal will be
needed for these last few weeks before trial and at the trial itself. The
Gorini deposition, absolutely critical to providing proof of my good faith
conduct, cost many thousands of dollars. As stated previously, more and
more of Jeff Dickstein and Bob Bernhoft¹s time will be utilized during these
last few weeks of trial preparation and, of course, at the trial itself.

The Bernhoft firm has extended extraordinary billing courtesy to this effort
so far and has even had to advance it¹s own funds to cover some of the
costs. As the trial gets closer, my legal team will be working exclusively
on my case and I will need to concentrate all of my time to trial
preparation as well. I wince at the thought of asking people who have
already been so generous to help a little bit more. However, I see no other
alternative. If critical bills and expenses don¹t get paid on time, the
effort will stall. I have committed myself to winning this battle not just
for me and my family, but for all those who recognize the negative influence
an unaccountable tax enforcement apparatus has on our American liberty.

Your continuing financial support is critically needed. I continue to
receive support from people all over the country. Many, many of you have
donated more than once and there are a number of people who send small
donations weekly or monthly. I wish that I didn¹t have to ask for
assistance in this manner but my persecutors have endless financial
resources. We can beat them with a lot less than they have at their
disposal, but funding still forms the critical foundation for our success.
I know you will help as much as you are able. I pour out my heartfelt
thanks to each and every person who has taken the time to pray for this
effort and/or send me cards, notes, and donations in the past.

In the next 7 days, PLEASE set aside whatever you can afford, and please
also speak with friends, neighbors, relatives, and coworkers and ask them to
help my defense effort financially AND SPIRITUALLY. As always, any
efforts you can make towards being a mini-fundraiser for me will not only be
very much appreciated but it will be CRUCIAL to the success of this defense
effort. Don¹t forget to use this effort as a way to educate other Americans
that may someday sit on a jury in a federal income tax case.

For mailed donations, send to Joseph Banister Legal Defense Fund, P.O. Box
90239, San Jose, California 95109-4239.

I have decided to publish on the internet a variation of a letter that I
have distributed locally to my network of friends and acquaintances in my
home town area. It can be found at http://www.ninehundred.net/banister .
Please share this letter with as many people as you can. Please also
forward this message to as many people as you can.
The We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education has published an
article about my circumstances. You can see it by visiting
www.givemeliberty.org and scrolling to the 05-27-05 article.

For those who are able to attend one or more days of the trial, I would
certainly welcome your presence. I request that anyone coming to watch the
trial be calm, reserved, professional, and dressed appropriately, both
inside and outside the courtroom. If I am lucky enough to have a ³crowd² of
people outside the courthouse, I request that the ³crowd² also be calm,
reserved, professional, and dressed appropriately. My preference would be
to have a very large but quiet and reserved group of people supporting me
with no signs, no yelling, no dirty looks given to government officials and
no disrespectful behavior. I believe a calm, reserved PRESENCE will send
the appropriate message. I will undoubtedly be preoccupied with trial
matters during the trial but I¹m sure there will be many people to interact
with during each day of the trial and in the evening. The address for the
federal courthouse is 501 I Street, 14th Floor, Judge Shubb¹s Courtro