voluntary, as defined by Webster's Dictionary:
1. done, made, brought about, or undertaken of one's own accord or free choice: a
voluntary contribution.
2. of, pertaining to, or acting in accord with the will.
3. of, pertaining to, or depending on voluntary action; voluntary hospitals.
4. done by or composed of volunteers.
5. Law-
a. acting or done without compulsion or obligation.
b. done by intention, and not by accident: voluntary manslaughter.
c. made without valuable consideration: a voluntary settlement.
6. subject to or controlled by the will.
7. having the power of willing or choosing: a voluntary agent.
8. proceeding from a natural impulse: spontaneous.
9. someone or something voluntary.
Brothers and Sisters,
This pretty well explains why it is such a beautiful act
and opportunity to exercise one's free will.
Regards,
Bard
Bard, I know there is a God and I know he hates injustice.
I see the storm coming and I know His hand is in it.
But if there is a place and a part for me,
I believe that I am ready.
-- Patrick J. Buchanan
BUCHANAN-Reform
http://gopatgo2000.com/default.htm
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights
could get through Congress today?
It wouldn't even get out of committee."
-- F. Lee Bailey
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
-- Speech of January 7, 1790 reported in the Boston
Independent Chronicle,
January 14, 1790.
George Washington (1732-1799)
UncleWill 2000 wrote:
>
> It is a fact, your "tax dollars" are not needed to fill the coffers and
> support this bloated "budget", they are finding it increasingly more and
> more difficult to hide the "overage" they steal from us now (that is if you
> have decided to feed the parasitic taxsuckers this year), and show no more
> consideration for the sheeple, than the poor misguided bleatings will
> command from a government, no longer for nor by the people. I won`t advocate
> violence on this issue, but for the sake of your children, and future
> generations, at least stand and be the needed instrument of change.
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: ICE
> Sent: April 16, 2000
> Subject: Fwd: [legality-of-income-tax] Joe Banisters Complete Statment On
> Not Filing
>
> >From: "William D. Toney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Joe Banisters Complete Statment On Not
> >Filing
> >
> >Here is an interview with Joe Banister by Devvy Kidd in which he gives a
> >detailed account of what he will be doing instead of filing a tax return
> >for the
> >year 1999.
> >
> >Dave Toney
> >
> >Can be seen at http://www.devvy.com/april_20000412.html
> >
> >FORMER IRS AGENT NOT FILING A TAX RETURN
> >Devvy Kidd
> >April 12, 2000
> >
> >As regular readers to this site know, Joseph Banister is a former IRS
> Criminal
> >Investigator. After thoroughly researching the tax code, Joe came to the
> >indisputable conclusion that most Americans are not required to file tax
> >returns. Joe resigned his high-paying position with the IRS in 1999 because
> he
> >could not reconcile his oath of office with the fraud being perpetrated
> >against
> >the American people by the very organization he worked for. I ask Joe if he
> >would share with the people what his plans were for this tax year as
> >relates to
> >whether or not he would be filing an income tax return or the paying of
> >"income"
> >taxes. Below are my questions to Joe and his responses:
> >
> >Q: April 15, 2000 is just around the corner. People are wondering whether
> or
> >not, you, as a former IRS, CID agent will file an income tax return on what
> is
> >traditionally known in the tax movement as "April Fools Day"?
> >
> >A: I know it would be easier to answer your question with a simple yes or
> no.
> >Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the issues involved, the
> >implications of
> >my answer for all of those who will read it, and my desire to be very
> truthful
> >and honest in conducting my affairs, I must include a detailed explanation
> >with
> >my answer. I will also try to be as specific as possible so that my
> intentions
> >will be very clear.
> >
> >First, please allow me to introduce myself for the benefit of those who
> don't
> >know about me. After graduating from college, earning my certified public
> >accountant certificate, and spending approximately 7 years in the private
> >sector, I accepted an appointment as a Special Agent for the Internal
> Revenue
> >Service Criminal Investigation Division and was sworn in as such on
> >November 15,
> >1993. In December of 1996, I heard you speaking on the radio and making
> >what, at
> >the time, seemed to be incredible and outrageous claims.
> >
> >You claimed, among other things, that filing of federal income tax returns
> and
> >the payment of federal income taxes was voluntary for most Americans. You
> >claimed that the 16th Amendment (income tax amendment) to the U.S.
> >Constitution
> >was never ratified. You claimed that federal income tax money is not even
> used
> >to pay the government's operating expenses. I set out to disprove your
> claims,
> >because I believed at the time that you could not possibly be correct. I
> >wondered how you could possibly be correct in claiming that the federal
> income
> >tax was not compulsory for most Americans when the IRS had issued me a
> badge,
> >gun, handcuffs, and other enforcement equipment to ensure that all
> >Americans did
> >comply.
> >
> >After spending many evenings and weekends over a 2 year period carefully
> >researching your claims, I concluded that you were telling the truth. The
> >information you provided, and my subsequent research, led me to conclude
> >that in
> >order for the federal income tax to be administered within the confines of
> our
> >federal Constitution, the federal income tax laws and regulations were
> written
> >in such a way that comparatively few Americans are legally and
> >constitutionally
> >required to pay it. I also verified your claim that the 16th Amendment was
> >never
> >ratified and that the U.S. Government largely finances its operations with
> >debt
> >currency/funds rather than federal income tax revenues. These were
> >obviously not
> >the conclusions I expected to reach.
> >
> >Nonetheless, when I reached these conclusions, I knew I had a duty to
> discuss
> >them with my supervisors in the Internal Revenue Service. I gathered some
> >of the
> >more compelling facts and evidence supporting my conclusions about your
> claims
> >and submitted them to IRS officials in the form of a report. In keeping
> >with my
> >oath of office, I informed IRS officials of my sincere. concern that the
> >rights
> >of Americans were very likely being violated and I asked them to show me
> the
> >error of my analysis, if any. They rebuffed my concerns and encouraged my
> >resignation. I resigned on February 25, 1999.
> >
> >With that history in mind, I can now address your question. The last time I
> >recall being asked to provide a public answer to the question about my own
> >filing was on July 2, 1999 at a tax symposium held in Washington, D.C. at
> the
> >National Press Club. I gave a necessarily long-winded answer on that day. I
> >think this would be an appropriate venue to repeat my answer plus offer
> some
> >additional explanations.
> >
> >As you know, the IRS, the Clinton Administration, the U.S. House of
> >Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S.
> >Justice
> >Department, and other federal agencies were formally invited to the July
> 2nd
> >symposium, televised nationally on C-SPAN2, to debate the conclusions of
> the
> >report I submitted to the IRS as well as the conclusions of other learned
> >researchers such as Larry Becraft, Bill Benson, Bill Conklin, and yourself.
> >(www.givemeliberty.org ).
> >
> >As you also know, not a single government official came to discuss, debate,
> or
> >argue against our conclusions. To date, the IRS has refused to meet with me
> or
> >with any of the afore-mentioned researchers or to debate the mountains of
> >evidence pointing to the voluntary nature of the federal income tax.
> >
> >Having held a C.P.A. certificate since 1991 and having worked for the IRS
> >Criminal Investigation Division for over five years, I know the agency's
> >expectation is that everyone should file an income tax return. Having done
> >over
> >three years of research into the requirements for filing federal income tax
> >returns and paying the federal income tax, I have concluded that the
> statutes
> >and regulations do not require most Americans to file federal income tax
> >returns
> >or pay federal income tax.
> >
> >I have spent many sleepless nights wondering whether fulfilling the
> agency's
> >expectation is the proper course or whether obeying the statutes and
> >regulations
> >is the proper course (since my findings indicate that the agency's
> expectation
> >appears to me to be in conflict with the statutes and regulations). Since
> >I have
> >found a conflict between the agency's expectation and my good faith reading
> of
> >the statutes and regulations, I must choose between them. I must choose to
> >obey
> >the statutes and regulations.
> >
> >The statutes and regulations indicate to me that I have no federal income
> tax
> >return filing requirement and no requirement to pay the federal income tax.
> >Until I can resolve the conflict between the agency's expectation and the
> >plain
> >language of the statutes and regulations, I can not in good conscience file
> a
> >federal income tax return. I believe that for me to file such a return
> without
> >resolving this conflict, I would be committing perjury upon signing the
> >document. My position will continue to be that I may file a federal income
> tax
> >return in the future, but only if my research shows me that I am required
> >by law
> >to file such a return and/or the IRS helps me to understand what law
> >requires me
> >to file or how I can file a return without waiving any of my rights.
> >
> >It is important to note that the statutory and regulatory reasons I have
> >researched do not even take into consideration the 5th Amendment
> >implications to
> >the filing of federal income tax returns developed by Bill Conklin and
> others,
> >the evidence of the lack of ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S.
> >Constitution investigated by Bill Benson and Red Beckman, and the opinions
> of
> >all of the professionals I have consulted with who have confirmed my
> >conclusions.
> >
> >Q: The biggest fear (a mind set brutally beat into the America people by
> the
> >IRS) an individual has in making the decision as to whether or not they
> will
> >file, is: Will I be prosecuted and thrown in jail? Second to losing their
> >freedom, Americans' greatly fear, as they should, the IRS simply coming in
> and
> >stealing their money and other assets.
> >
> >Since you have decided not to volunteer this April 15, 2000, could you
> please
> >tell us what your first step was to protect your assets and deal with the
> IRS'
> >first goal: getting your money? (The check you sent in- getting the money
> >issue
> >off the table.)
> >
> >A: In order to answer your question more completely, I'd like to provide
> some
> >background information. First, Americans need to understand that there is a
> >difference between filing a federal income tax return and paying federal
> >income
> >tax. The two are related but they are not necessarily dependent on each
> other.
> >Paying the federal income tax is done primarily through withholding out of
> >your
> >paycheck throughout the year or through estimated payments made every three
> >months. Filing a federal income tax return is something that is done only
> once
> >per year, and the return is used to report taxable income and to compute an
> >income tax on that taxable income and compare the computed income tax to
> the
> >amount of withholding or estimated payments. The result of the comparison
> is
> >either an "amount you owe" or a "refund."
> >
> >Once a person learns this information, they will likely find themselves
> torn
> >between what they know to be the truth (that they are not required to file
> a
> >federal income tax return or pay the federal income tax) and the fact that
> the
> >truth has not prevented people from ending up in prison or losing all of
> their
> >property. In my experience, the truth may not be an absolute shield
> >against the
> >IRS for a number of reasons. The primary reason for this is that the IRS
> >frames
> >the payment of income taxes in terms of paying one's "fair share" rather
> >whether
> >or not one has a legal duty to pay it. In a criminal prosecution for not
> >paying
> >taxes, the government often uses jealousy and envy to convince a jury that
> the
> >accused should be convicted. The prosecutor will generally try to convince
> the
> >jury that the defendant did not pay his "fair share" rather than try to
> >convince
> >the jury that the defendant "broke the law." The prosecutor wouldn't dream
> of
> >discussing what law required the defendant to file a federal income tax
> return
> >or pay the federal income tax.
> >
> >Why discuss such things when the raw emotions of 12 jurors who have been
> stuck
> >paying their "fair share" will obtain a guilty verdict quite nicely. In my
> >opinion, this is the reality of income tax enforcement and for this reason,
> >people should educate themselves and exercise extreme caution if they
> >decide to
> >take any action on any of this information.
> >
> >As to the IRS "getting your money," I am personally less concerned with
> >the IRS
> >getting my money than I am concerned with the deceitful way they
> >administer the
> >income tax and the suspicious silence on their part when asked to clarify
> >these
> >issues. Based on my knowledge of the government's administrative and
> >enforcement
> >tactics, I realized I had to formulate a way to inform the American people
> >about
> >the fraudulent way the income tax is administered without having my message
> >diluted by a government accusing me of not wanting to pay my "fair share."
> >
> >I wanted to ensure that everyone understood that my opposition to the IRS
> >isn't
> >about opposition to taxation as much as it is about opposition to
> collecting
> >taxes through fear, intimidation, deceit, and color of law. In order to
> >accomplish this, I have written, in good faith, a check to the U.S.
> >Treasury as
> >a bond to cover more than the "fair share" I would have paid had I been
> >required
> >to file a federal income tax return, even though my research of the
> >statutes and
> >regulations has shown me that no payment is required. I will subsequently
> >demand
> >that the IRS adhere to every administrative procedure (including, but not
> >limited to, an examination hearing and collection hearing) to determine
> >whether
> >or not the money I have paid to the IRS is legally theirs to keep.
> >
> >After exhausting my rights to administrative due process of law and civil
> >suit,
> >if necessary, I will hopefully have determined once and for all whether or
> >not I
> >am required to file a federal income tax return and/or am liable to pay the
> >federal income tax. If I am required to pay the federal income tax, then
> >the IRS
> >already has my money. If I learn during this process that I am required by
> law
> >to file a federal income tax return, I will file one immediately in order
> to
> >comply with the law.
> >
> >Q: Last November 13, 1999, you were one of the panel members at the
> National
> >Press Club in Washington, DC for Symposium II. A man named David Bosset was
> >there and he covered his long battle with the IRS to force them to adhere
> >to the
> >law as it's written. The thrust of Mr. Bosset's argument is the Section 861
> >"source income" argument. I understand that this is the foundation for the
> >process you have undertaken in not filing a 1040 "income" tax return.
> >Could you
> >please give the readers an explanation, something readable in this century!
> -
> >about this 861 argument? I say something readable in this century, because
> as
> >you know, Title 26 alone can take years to read.
> >
> >A: One of the most concise explanations about the "861 Argument" (outside
> of
> >www.taxgate.com and www.nite.org ) that I have seen was authored by F.
> Tupper
> >Saussy in the January 2000 issue of Media Bypass magazine. Mr. Saussy said,
> in
> >pertinent part:
> >
> >"No income tax is imposed upon incomes derived by United States citizens
> from
> >sources within the United States. The only persons liable for a tax on
> income
> >derived from sources within the United States are nonresident aliens and
> >foreign
> >corporations"
> >
> >"There is no provision in the [Internal Revenue] Code for a tax upon the
> >income
> >of United States citizens living and domiciled in the United States if the
> >income is derived from sources within the United States"
> >
> >I have interviewed Mr. Bosset at length and I find him to be a very
> >credible and
> >honest man. He has proven to my satisfaction that he presented aspects of
> the
> >"861 Argument" to the Internal Revenue Service as a basis for amending
> forms
> >previously filed with the agency. He requested and received a refund for
> taxes
> >previously paid in. It is my understanding that others have received
> refunds
> >based on the "861 Argument" also. People can learn more about the subject
> at
> >www.taxgate.com and www.nite.org .
> >
> >Q: To get this straight: You will not file a 1040. You have already sent
> >the IRS
> >a check, which they have cashed. You will be preparing a document to submit
> to
> >them prior to April 15, 2000 requesting a......hearing and working your way
> >through the administrative process, demonstrating good will and an honest
> >attempt to follow the law as it's written. Is this correct?
> >
> >A: Yes, I can not repeat enough times that I am an honest American who has,
> in
> >good faith, simply tried to determine what the mandatory tax paying
> >obligations
> >of the average American are. I have concluded that many of the federal
> income
> >tax obligations that I previously believed to be mandatory are actually
> >voluntary, if one can navigate the incredible maze of the Internal Revenue
> >Code
> >and Code of Federal Regulations. The IRS has been suspiciously silent on
> the
> >matter and has refused to meet with me to discuss my obligations. In light
> of
> >the Internal Revenue Service's refusal to assist me, I am left to make my
> >decisions based on my own training, experience, and research. What else can
> I
> >do? I also intend to utilize all of my rights to due process of law to get
> an
> >answer to my questions, even if I have to pay for the privilege (with a
> >check to
> >the U.S. Treasury).
> >
> >Q: I personally know the great burden and challenge your resignation from a
> >secure government career has had on your family. However, I must say that
> not
> >once have I ever regretted the fact that you heard me on Geoff Metcalf's
> radio
> >show and as a result of listening to what I had to say about the 16th
> >Amendment
> >and the voluntary nature of the income tax, you made a horrendous life
> >changing
> >decision. I believe with all my heart that this was your destiny, this is
> what
> >our Lord wanted you to do and while it has been hell for you at times over
> the
> >past few years, millions of Americans are truly thankful for your
> sacrifices.
> >
> >Each day more and more Americans become aware of your courage and
> >commitment to
> >the truth. Many would like to know what you've been doing since your
> >resignation
> >15 months ago and what you'd like to do in the future - perhaps open your
> own
> >consulting firm, re-enter law enforcement in some capacity?
> >
> >A: The remainder of 1999 was very difficult for my family and I but because
> of
> >the thoughts, prayers, and support of so many people and our faith in God's
> >grace and goodness, we have much to be thankful for. I am confident that
> the
> >truth will prevail and other honest government officials will learn about
> the
> >deceitful administration of the federal income tax and speak out as I have
> >done.
>
> *********************************************
> iWon.com www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
> *********************************************
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Earn money for every click!
> 10% off any purchase, any time through
> the pointclick network.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3419/4/_/8160/_/955975468/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Visit the EagleNet Website at
>
> http://www.eagle-net.org/eagle-net/
>
> Basic Rules. No soliciting, no harassment, and no illegal activity. No more than 5
>posts a day. Please keep one liners to a extreme minimum.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
