-
- For a while, I've been meaning to address Otto Skinner's
criticism of Joseph Banister. However, I've been quite busy this week,
and haven't had a chance. Skinner thinks that Banister is a fool because
he is using old arguments that have not been successful in court to prove
fraud in the IRS. On these points, I will agree in part and disagree in
part.
-
- Banister is using old, failed arguments--but, he is not
a fool.
-
- I won't belabor the point to detail out the differences
in Skinner's and Banister's approaches to battling the IRS. Skinner has
some very sound arguments concerning the fraud. Intellectually, they are
state of the art. However, they falter in the fire, as do everyone else's
arguments against the IRS; are arguments are losers.
-
- Banister can't crack the IRS nut, and neither can Skinner.
The IRS fraud isn't upheld by reason or logic, nor by law or authority.
It is held up by an evil essence. The essence is in total opposition to
truth. Many recognize it as an anti-Christ essence, some claim it is the
anti-Christ.
-
- As long as that evil essence dominates this planet and
keeps things running, the IRS will remain afloat. Evil keeps the people
ignorant and uninformed. It haunts the judges and lawyers with bribes,
threats and other persuasive tactics. It controls the minds of the masses.
It is the current ruler of this world.
-
- Not Skinner's, not Banister's, not Becraft's, not Kidd's,
not Kotmire's, not Schiff's, not Bertsch's, not anyone's arguments will
defeat against the IRS until the evil essence is destroyed. That is the
vision that soldiers of truth should keep ever emblazoned upon their minds--the
destruction of the evil essence--which will in turn destroy all of the
IRS fraud, and all other fraud for that matter, and you won't need anyone's
arguments . . . because evil will simply no longer be, and the IRS can't
survive without the evil essence supporting it.
-
- As to Banister's sincerity in this war of the essences,
I will say that I have worked with Joe for many months, have assisted him
in writing his book, and, a couple of weeks ago at the preparedness conference
in Puyallup, Washington, met him for the first time in person. I attended
the conference with two friends, one of them being well known for his expertise
in tax fraud, who goes by the moniker of "ICE."
-
- As ICE and I listened to Banister give a talk, we sat
quietly listening to Joe. About a quarter of the way through the presentation,
I turned to ICE and said, "This guy is totally pure!" Oddly,
ICE said that he was just about to turn to me because he was thinking the
exact same thing.
-
- How can I explain my feelings there at that time? It's
very difficult to put it into words. I just knew then, as I know now, that
Joe Banister has a pure heart. It's known in my deepest core. I would trust
him with anything.
-
- Yes, I've been fooled before--and probably will be fooled
again--many times. But, rarely, if ever, when my inner essence speaks,
and when I truly listen to it, have I been wrong. It's only when I allow
my ego to override my intuition and inner knowledge that I get fooled.
-
- From deep within, I know Joe Banister to be a Friend
of Liberty. That is the highest tribute I pay anyone on this earth! So,
for what it's worth, Joseph Banister, you have my unqualified support and
approval.
-
- May God be with you.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
-
- From Marc Spess <MrBumpy676@aol.com>
- 8-15-99
-
-
- Funny,
-
- That you should post about Otto Skinner. I asked him
some questions, and
- got some answers from him that are very interesting.
I thought at first that
- Otto was pro-IRS, but after asking questions, and reading
his page, I
- realised that he seems to be actually more educated,
and has done more
- research then Bill Conklin and Joe Banister combined.
He is also anti-IRS
- Here is what he wrote me, below his message is what I
originally asked him:
-
-
- Hi Marc,
-
- You ask a couple of pretty good questions. Yes, I actually
have a copy of
- Conklin's book. I also have several copies of his $50,000
offer. One is
- from an old copy of AntiShyster News Magazine. The one
I am looking at now
- is out of Banister's book at page 6. There are two things
one must prove to
- get the $50,000. 1) A statute that make him liable to
pay an income tax,
- and 2) How can he file a 1040 tax return without waiving
his Fifth Amendment
- rights.
-
- The first item has absolutely no connection to the second
item. Just
- because one item cannot be proved does not mean that
the second item cannot
- be proved. This is the clever little method used so
that these "fantastic"
- offers can be made with no fear of actually having anyone
ever be able to
- prove all the items. The offers seem very fantastic,
they seem very
- impressive, and few people ever see through the clever
method used to
- impress people, and cause them to ask the very questions
you have asked me.
-
- Regarding the first item, there is no statute that makes
one liable for a
- so-called "income" tax. There is no statute
that requires one to pay a tax.
- If their was such a statute that required one to pay
a tax, it would
- actually create debtors prisons, especially for the individual
who simply
- had no ability to pay. Debtors prisons are not allowed
in this country.
- But there is a statute (26 U.S.C. 7203) that makes it
a crime to willfully
- fail to pay a tax that is owed. In other words, if one
has the ability to
- pay a tax that he owes, and willfully fails to pay the
tax, he has violated
- 26 U.S.C. 7203, which is a misdemeanor.
-
- Regarding the second item, if one has not committed a
crime, there is
- nothing he could say that would tend to incriminate him.
This is also
- explained in my Banister article which is on my web site
at
- www.ottoskinner.com
-
- So with the clever offer made, Conklin then tries to
make it look like his
- Fifth Amendment argument is valid. Even to the point
of claiming he won
- cases that he did not win. Get copies of these cases
and see for yourself.
-
- In United States v. Neff, the court explains in great
detail what I have
- tried to explain in an e-mail message. The number of
the Neff case is in
- the article on the web site. Check it out. Get a copy
of this case and
- study it for yourself.
-
- Regarding your "voluntary" question, the statutes
do not use the word
- "voluntary". The IRS talks about voluntary
compliance.
-
- You can print out and study several of my special articles
from my web site.
-
- Happy reading,
-
- Otto Skinner
-
-
- -----Original Message-----
-
- From: MrBumpy676@aol.com [mailto:MrBumpy676@aol.com]
- Sent: Saturday, August 14, 1999 7:42 AM
- To: otto@ottoskinner.com
- Subject: Re: Ex-CID Agent Joe Banister. Friend or foe???
(Rev. 7
-
-
- First off,
-
- After reading some articles on your page, I find that
it is obvious you
- have done more research into the Income Tax then Joe
or Bill combined. It
- is
- very impressive. I am definitely changing my web page
to post what you have
- told me. Would it be okay if I actually used the text
you wrote to me in
- the
- last e-mail about Bill Conklins reward? I think it would
be great to put up
- for everyone to see.
-
- I am not sure exactly if you read WorldNetDaily.com
often, but the editors
- are in a major IRS battle. They have been targeted by
the IRS for being
- tough on Bill Clinton in some of there stories. They
are a non profit
- organization! They made a link between Clinton, audits,
and organizations
- in
- opposition to Clinton being audited. Its very interesting
to read. They
- also pointed out how the IRS can hand your tax information
over to other
- authorities. You might want to contact the editor "Joe
Farah" I think is
- his
- name. If they handed your info over to the police chief
for instance, maybe
- it is possible that your 1040 links you to criminal activity
that can be
- used
- in a criminal court? Im not exactly sure if my assumption
even makes sense.
- But you might like to look into that. World Net Daily
knows quite a lot
- about certain aspects of the IRS's goings on through
their investigations.
- I
- would read there page for any up-to-date stuff that they
post. They have in
- the past highlighted Joe Banister's work, and have ever
since been trying to
- figure out legally what the facts are.
-
- I would also like to order the Conklin law documents
for 20.00. I will be
- sending my check today. When I got some more freelance
work, and have
- enough
- money, I will also buy some of your books.
-
- Thanks a million
- Marc Spess
|
