If you tell any court appointment worker about sexual abuse and you lose custody to your abuser, then you know that your CPS worker or Lawyer or Law Guardian and the judge is involved in child trafficking Rings. They will bribe the courts to give custody to the batterer and then use the children for their child trafficking rings. They protect the abuser, swaying all decisions towards him – especially if abuser allows others to abuse the children. Payout to an abuser/parent allowing their child to be used for trafficking provides a substantial payout.
See entire article: Warning Signs for Bribery of the Family Court Judge in a Custody Case
AFCC – HHS Pedophile Ring
In Banken v. Banken case – investigative reports of sexual abuse of 6 year old Banken girl in Carver County MN show:
•Carver County CPS allowed the alleged abuser (father) to set up the appointment for the young girl at the facility investigating the abuse.
•Mother and friends begged CPS to not tell the father - both kids have reported for months that they are punished by father when they tell their mom or friends anything their father says and does to them. They state dad finds out what they tell us while he is at work, and it is very scary when he gets home. (he finds out by way of affidavits prior to hearings, and CPS workers with no morals or decency) Come to find out, CPS also punishes the children for talking. They threaten the children to not tell others, using the love of their mother against them. `You can not see your mom if you tell her things`
•CPS Nicole Mercil, Carole Cole and Patrick Murphy picked up 6 year old girl at father`s home. Girl was taken alone with the three workers – mother was not notified at all.
•In the report Carole Cole and Patrick Murphy were in the front seat, they drove young girl an hour away-Nicole Mercil was reported to be in the backseat with the girl `whispering` with the girl. Patrick Murphy states in the report he could not hear what was said.
•Report repeatedly mentions that the young girl was quiet, would whisper…
•Girl ended up in a room alone with an RN in St. Paul MN. The report states the CPS workers watched from a video camera monitor in another room.
•RN asked young girl questions: `RN asked MB about touches` – `RN asked MB about who she could tell if something like that ever happened. MB said she could tell `my mom` {quote}- `RN asked MB if she ever had to tell her mom about any other touches. MS answered `yes`. {quote}
•After this disclosure it states the RN repeatedly asked MB what she told her mother. In the Carver County Investigative report #`s 12-16 count eleven times the RN asked MB what she told her mother. Each time MB stated she did not know, or she would whisper and become quiet. (as she did in the car ride) Throughout the report the RN asked the question of what MB told her mother – far more than eleven times – it is difficult to count it is referenced so often. This is pure badgering of any child.
•#13 states a quite alarming lie about what was reported about the sexual abuse. The abuse was reported by mother December 15th, 2010 to CPS and GAL by way of email. So the information about what was disclosed to mother by daughter is able to be proven by way of email content. Why this false claim about the report is cause for alarm since the whole physical examination and report seems based on this false claim. The mentions about mother in the report are out of the blue with no evidence or reason, such as, `This is yet another sexual abuse claim from mother about daughter`… sexual abuse of daughter has never been reported to mother by daughter, or by mother to CPS. Banken son at the age of three, November 2009 reported detailed sexual abuse by father to mother. But that was the only report, never on the girl until December 15th, 2011. It took mother 5 days to report it due to the very shady way in which CPS of Carver handles these reports and treats the children which such disregard.
•`RN again asked MB who she could tell if something happened. MB said `my mom and my mom`s friend, Tony`. {quote}
•MB did not indicate her father as someone she could talk to. MB said `I dont know` {quote} when asked by RN why girl could not talk to her father. (This is a very stupid question by the way, when the girl states father is fondling her. Why would she talk to him about it?)
•RN completed a physical examination. It was told to mother and Tony that MB was checked for `trauma to the area`. One of the many outlandish things about this investigation is the date of the interview: 1-10-2011: a Monday, late afternoon after school. MB was at Mother and Tony`s cottage home since Friday afternoon 1-07-2011 … until Monday morning when MB was dropped off at school, she then went home and left for physical examination with three CPS workers… Father and CPS set up the appointment for girl to be physically examined after a 4 day 3 night time away from him- and they looked for `trauma to the area`. Daughter has reported this abuse happens `almost every night. But not when grandma stays over.` Of course they will not find trauma to the area when child has not been with dad in four days. By the date daughter reported this casual mention – and chilling detail `almost every night`, father had custody of newborn baby girl, daughter and son for almost a year by this time, daughter mentioned the abuse like it is part of every day life for her.
•Father has refused polygraph. Mother was never asked to take a polygraph. She would have been more than willing. Suspected that the CPS workers did not want mother too… it has not ever been an intention of the workers to even listen to mother, only shut her up-PER SIGNS OF SAFTEY TRAINING. Tony, mother`s fiance, stated when he went in for the interview that the workers had their mind made up before he was even called into the room, and they were quite awful during the entire interview. He walked out, as when mother did the time she went in thinking, `They will never do a thing to help the kids, they act like witnesses, not investigators` (Per Signs of Safety Training they receive from Andrew Turnell – Netherlands)
This is against ALL laws, statutes and requirements of the workers. Although, if the child does disclose anything – the workers will cover it up, change the wording, make excuses for it… and are sure to return the child to the abuser after. Child Trafficking is a very large and profitable venture. When the workers go overboard like Carver County has in defending and protecting the pedophile… it is said that Banken father is most likely allowing the kids to be used in `other` things – allowing others to abuse the kids as well.
This will tell you a bit about the type of man/father we are referring to:
When Banken mother and father were still married during june 2009 the news printed the article about busting open the `Nice Guys` sex ring in Minneapolis. June 7: Minneapolis cops bust ‘nice guys’ sex ring | StarTribune.com Banken father brought the paper home from work, studied the article, boasted to mother about the article, mother recalls him grinning from ear to ear while reading it over an over. His constant travel lacked luggage, he never brought any luggage home, or left with any. Additionally, his phone was never in the house for about the last 3 months prior to his departure from the marriage.
His accountant for his companies was sentenced to 2 years in the St. Cloud State Penn October 2nd, 2009-for embezzlement from his company accounts. When the accountant was arrested around the same time the `nice guys` ring was busted – the accountant stated that Mr. Banken/owner had him (the accountant) remove the alleged stolen cash from the companies continually over three years because Mr. Banken/owner was sleeping around with prostitutes on company money and dealing cocaine while keeping it from his wife (Banken mother). Accountant stated Mr. Banken told him to do it so he could keep his behavior from his wife. The Courts believed Mr. Banken`s story over the accountant- although quite unbelievable that an owner of two companies, a man like Mr. Banken being so fixated on money and control would let a grand total of 6 figures slip out of his companies without his knowledge in 3 short years. Link to news clip on the embezzlement: Minnesota Local News – minnlocal.com > News > The year of …
During Banken v. Banken trial Mr. Banken was asked by mothers lawyer why $35,000 in cash was taken out of accounts during each year going back. Mother was never allowed a cash card, credit card, or allowed to get cash out of any accounts – nor her name allowed on any accounts. Mother had to ask if she ever wanted money for anything. Mr. Banken stated on the stand that he used the enormous amounts of cash each year for, `I used it for coffee, gum and iced tea`. When asked if Mr. Banken has every been caught by his wife with prostitutes in the home his reply was, `I do not recall`. (yeah, that can be hard to remember)
Mr. Banken received thousands in refunds from federal and state taxed in the year 2009 due to the alleged embezzlement from his companies by the accountant. In October 2009, a few weeks after father abandoned his home, pregnant wife and two young kids – Banken mother lived destitute with no way to buy groceries, milk, gas, school pictures (oldest started kindergarten that year) Father received $30,000 in tax refunds from the alleged `embezzlement` scam to `defraud` his companies. Mother knew his accountant, he worked at the companies for 9 years. Unlikely he was in a scam to defraud Mr. Banken`s companies. The accountant was a very humble and dutiful employee. Did everything Mr. Banken said, literally everything… from detailing his truck to buying him things… even an engraved bible with Mr. Banken`s name on it one year for Mr. Banken`s birthday. Mr. Banken had to testify for one other employee in the office during trail against the accountant. The other worker became emotional and could not testify… Mr. Banken read his testimony for him, he had no issues putting the employee away. And no problems reaping the tax return money for it afterwards – claiming a loss in the companies. While his pregnant kids and wife sat poverty stricken after Mr. Banken left, he was busy shopping for $8000 in new furniture at Slumberland and HOM Furniture for the home he moved into less than a mile away.
Mother received the divorce decree with the contempt order to remove the CCC blog in the mail on August 10th 2011. The two documents were placed in the same envelope. The contents of the envelope was so shocking they it can hardly be taken seriously… it brought some laughter though. Pure disgust in others, and surprise in most. It shows the crooked and deviant ways of even the judge in this case. There are so many honorable judges in this nation. Those that exude honesty, fairness, integrity, honor, decency… judge Perkins is not one of them.
The divorce decree leaves everything to Banken father, literally. This case rigging – set from the beginning of this case – explains all the times mother had to hold kids while they cried or comfort their fear because they said father told them they will soon never see their mom again. This puzzled mother why father told them this… his mental state is not normal, he is a very abusive man, yes… but telling kids they will never see their mom again was a bit out of touch with reality… and simply causing the children serious terror. But, not so out of touch in this criminal courtroom of Perkins reign mother was forced to sit in for two years. Since the day Perkins blocked himself to the case, the children have suffered enormous amounts of abuse, severe trauma, and now true terror as they are severed from their mother and their innocent minds and bodies abused.
In the divorce decree: $13,500 was charged for the wedding ring mother had to pawn to eat and feed the kids after father left. $6500 was charged for the Tiffany Band mother pawned to eat and feed the kids after father left. The $40,000 gift mother received from her employer in Real Estate – her builder who gave her $40,000 off the price of couple`s second home… judge Perkins claimed in the decree that mother gave pure evidence of gift – but it was left to father regardless. Banken father built companies during the marriage while mother made six figures, and was a stay at home mom for the last two years of their marriage raising the kids and taking care of the home while he traveled, and traveled, and traveled… Banken father`s companies (and other avenues of `profession`- whatever you call it) awards Mr. Banken well over $500,000 a year. Perkins figured somehow mother has been overpaid $20,000. The calculations are quite humorous. Mother has been ordered to pay enormous amounts of legal fees for father – for all the months of torturous litigation as father filed motion after motion after motion – Mother has not been able to afford to file motions, or much of anything.. never needed to, Mr. Banken field one about every month. Custody litigation: 2 GAL`s (one appointed twice), Custody Evaluator (remember $20,000 for her), Parenting Coach, Parenting Consultant. Mother has also been ordered to pay half for all the worthless appointees – who allow abuse of her children, the children she has not seen or heard from in 2 months.
Oh, and spousal support this month – that father shockingly paid (blew both Tony and mother away when he did) it was ordered returned to Banken father by Perkins.
Custody on the decree states `temporary` full sole and legal to father. Mother`s remaining 1/2 legal custody was taken away at the contempt hearing – for purposes of asking for judge to choose a therapist qualified to see children who are acting out sexually, cutting up large animals, falling flat in school, withdrawing, wetting themselves during the day and night since father gained custody… the list goes on… Perkins wished for the young suffering children to continue to see Mitchell/employee of Carver County – the woman posing as a child therapist.
Now the children are seeing Mitchell once a week – and Nicole Mercil CPS once a week. Threat therapy is what is used on children of rigged cases at this point. They are threatened into not telling anyone about the abuse – threatened with the love of their mother. They literally use the love they have for their mom against the child…. and vice versa.
Mother receives emails and letters in the mail from these women – stating how terribly sad the kids are to not be seeing their mother. `MB states she did not want to cry. She is holding back a huge well of sadness for not seeing her mother`. (this is literally a letter that mother received in the mail – from the fake therapist who took the kids away in trial) She received more from Nicole Mercil this week.
Banken mother has not seen or heard her baby or kids` voices in 2 months now. Next month is custody hearing, where the crooks plan to remove mother`s parental rights… that is the goal in rigged cases.
Could you imagine doing this to young kids and a mother? An infant too? The Banken baby is now 18 months old. It is doubtful she would recognize her mother at this point.
This all sound surreal? It is real, true and happening here in Carver County MN. Banken v. Banken and Rice v. Rice are not the only cases like this in the County. Past or present time.
ncpp
Banken v. State Board of Equalization [79 Cal. App. 2d 572]
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/79/572.html
[Civ. No. 7327. Third Dist. May 8, 1947.]
J. BANKEN et al., Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Respondent.
COUNSEL
Loeb & Loeb, Frank M. Keesling and Adrian A. Kragen for Appellants.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, James E. Sabine and F. S. Wahrhaftig, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.
OPINION
ADAMS, P. J.
This appeal is taken from a judgment of the trial court that adjudged that appellants are not entitled to a refund of sales taxes paid by them to respondent, for which taxes proper claim was filed and suit for refund instituted.
The stipulation of facts upon which the case was tried shows that appellants operate an establishment under the firm name and style of Western Dye House, which specializes in the dyeing of fabrics. In the operation of the business they have for many years dyed fabrics for the various motion picture studios in southern California. Some of the fabric dyed had previously been used by the studios, while some of it was new.
[1] Respondent assessed the tax in controversy against appellants on the theory that the charges made by them for the dyeing of new fabrics was a part of their gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property at retail within the meaning of section 6006(c) (formerly 6006(a)) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which provides: " 'Sale' means and includes: ... (c) The producing, fabricating, processing, printing, or imprinting of tangible personal property for a consideration for consumers who furnish either directly or indirectly the materials used in the producing, fabricating, processing, printing, or imprinting."
The material involved in this proceeding which the studios sent to appellants for dyeing had been acquired by such studios as a portion of purchases of large quantities of material made from time to time, some of which was in its natural state at the time of purchase, and some of it already dyed. It is agreed that the purchases by the motion picture companies were not made with the intent to use the material in any particular production or to have it dyed any particular color, that the method of purchasing by them was based upon economic expediency at the time the purchases were made and in anticipation of subsequent production needs, and that this method of doing business was in operation before the effective date of the California Retail Sales Tax Act.
It is not contended that the act is unconstitutional and [79 Cal. App. 2d 574] it is conceded by appellants in their brief that their treatment of the materials dyed--which is described in some detail in the stipulation of facts--clearly constitutes the "processing" of tangible personal property within the usual, ordinary meaning of the term processing. Consequently, if section 6006(c) of the code be literally construed and applied to all activities which involve the processing for a consideration of tangible personal property furnished by consumers, the service of dyeing materials, such as that engaged in by the appellant, constitutes a sale within its meaning, and charges therefor are subject to the retail sales tax. They argue, however, that the section should not be literally construed, but should be given an interpretation restricting its application. They concede that where the acquisition of materials by the consumer and the subsequent processing of same are parts of what is essentially one transaction, the tax is properly assessed; but contend that in this case the acquisition of the materials by the consumers and their subsequent arrangements to have them dyed were to separate transactions, that there is no room for the suggestion that this method of conducting their business was engaged in for the purpose of avoiding the sales tax on the relatively small charge for dyeing, and therefore no tax should be imposed. Appellants also state that no tax is imposed by the board where the materials processed are used materials (not new), therefore none should be imposed where the materials are new.
We think appellants' arguments are more properly addressable to the Legislature than to the courts. Certainly the language of the act is broad enough to authorize the imposition of the tax under the circumstances of this case, for it is admitted that there was a processing of the goods for a consideration, which goods were furnished by the consumer. No such exceptions as we are asked to recognize appear in the act itself, nor do we believe that they can be read into it, with reason. Nor does the fact that the board has not seen fit to apply the act to used materials furnish adequate ground for holding that the plain language of the statute is not to be applied in this case, as there is always the possibility that the board erred in making the exception rather than that it erred in applying the law to the processing of new materials.
While the record before us does not contain any historical material bearing upon the reasons for the enactment of the statute in its present form, various amendments of same indicate [79 Cal. App. 2d 575] that the Legislature did intend that it should apply in such a case as is here presented. The amendment of section two of the original act, made in 1935 (Stats. 1935, p. 1256), defined a sale as including "the fabrication of tangible personal property for consumers who furnish either directly or indirectly the materials used in the fabrication work." In 1939, this provision was enlarged to provide that a sale should include "the producing, fabricating, processing, printing or imprinting of tangible personal property for consumers who furnish either directly or indirectly the materials used in such producing, fabricating, processing, printing or imprinting." (Stats 1939, p. 2170.) Subsequently, and in 1941, section two of the former acts was codified as section 6006 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and subdivision (a) of said section defined a sale as including the "producing, fabricating, processing, printing, or imprinting of tangible personal property for a consideration for consumers who furnish either directly or indirectly the materials used in the producing, fabricating, processing, printing, or imprinting," the words italicized having been added. The section was again amended in 1945, the former subdivision (a) now being subdivision (c).
No such exceptions as appellants urge have been written into the measure, though the statute as construed by the board apparently had been applied by it to similar transactions prior to the amendments. Before the amendment of 1939, a decision had been rendered by the Superior Court of Sacramento County in Bosqui v. Johnson, involving the application of the sales tax to the charges of a printer for adding to printed matter furnished by the consumer the names and addresses of certain of its agents or sub-agents. That court held that the charge for imprinting the additional matter did not constitute a sale within the act as it then read. In the amendment of 1939, the words printing or imprinting were added, indicating that the Legislature intended either to clarify the act or to amend it so as to cover just such a transaction.
Also, prior to the codification of the act in 1941, the Supreme Court had rendered a decision in the case of Bigsby v. Johnson (Cal.), 99 P.2d 268, 270-272 (Feb., 1940), in which it had held, contrary to the contentions of appellant, that where the owner of paper material furnished such material to a printer and the latter for a consideration furnished the materials [79 Cal. App. 2d 576] for and impressed certain printing upon the paper furnished to him, there was a sale within the meaning of the statute, and that there was a transfer by the printer of title and possession of the fabricated article within the meaning of section 2(b), now section 6006(g). While a rehearing was granted in that case and the final opinion rendered in October, 1941 (18 Cal. 2d 860 [118 P.2d 289]) does not cover the matters aforesaid, it appears that the appeal in behalf of the plaintiff had been dismissed, and the final opinion therefore deals only with matters involved in the appeal of defendant on one issue that had been decided in favor of plaintiff. We cite the Bigsby case, not as a final decision of the Supreme Court, but because it presents the opinion of that court in a comparable case, and because since its rendition the Legislature has twice considered the section without changing the applicable provisions thereof. And assuming that the Legislature was aware of that decision and the decision in the Bosqui case when it amended the act, its apparent broadening of the statute and its failure to make exceptions such as were contended for in those cases, signify that its intention was that it should be applied to a case such as this one.
Furthermore, the exceptions which appellants would read into the act, that is, that it should not be applied in cases where, as they say, "the circumstances are such as to permit the conclusion that in the normal course of events there would have been two separate transactions, irrespective of the sales tax," and where there was no intention to avoid the tax, would render its effective application practically impossible from an administrative standpoint. The tax is exacted from the consumer originally by the seller--in this case the dyer--and if the exceptions urged by appellants were to be made, in order to know whether to include the tax in his charges to his customer the dyer would have to inquire into the circumstances under which the materials had been acquired and determine whether there had in fact been two transactions so separated by time and circumstances as to justify a conclusion on his part that he should not include the tax as a part of his charge, and whether his customer was or was not attempting to avoid the tax; and if he failed to include it and the board differed from his conclusion as to what the circumstances and the intent of his customer were, he would be liable for the tax personally. One need go no further with this line of reasoning to see that such an exception would render the section practically unworkable. [79 Cal. App. 2d 577]
We think that the legislative intent was that the tax should be applied to all transactions which involve the "producing, fabricating, processing, printing or imprinting of tangible personal property for a consideration for consumers who furnish directly or indirectly the materials used in such producing, fabricating, processing, printing or imprinting," and that the circumstances under which such consumers may have acquired the property or whether or not tax avoidance motivated them, must be disregarded.
The judgment is affirmed.
Thompson, J., and Schottky, J. pro tem., concurred.
No comments:
Post a Comment