January 17, 2024 • 21 mins
"I did nothing wrong! We took corrective action. It's all a bunch of B.S.," John Anthony Castro, said via phone with Renaldo McKenzie, responding to his indictment and subsequent arrest on federal tax charges. John A. Castro responded to his arrest and indictment on Federal tax Charges by the Internal Revenue Service. Castro spoke with Renaldo McKenzie of The NeoLiberal Round Podcast and The NeoLiberal Journals at #TheNeoLiberalCorporation, clarifying the issues surrounding the indictment and asserting that he may have been the target of those who want to discredit him given his Presidential bid and lawsuit against Donald Trump (Castro V Trump). Mr. Castro is a GOP 2024 Presidential candidate who is also the main plaintiff in the #CastroVTrump lawsuit, where he is sung Trump for violation of section 3 of the 14th Amendment citing personal injury. The cases are still before the Federal courts in several jurisdictions pending a ruling which, according to Mr. Castro, the courts have been delaying through various tactics. Nevertheless, the indictment claims that Mr. Castro's company, AI Tax, has violated the tax laws by preparing false returns for clients. However, Mr. Castro stated that he knew the issue and worked to resolve it with the affected clients. He noted that the 33 felonies involved 13 of his over 1500 clients and that his company had claimed deductions for but who never qualified for the benefits. Mr. Castro stated that his company tried to fix the issue, which was between $ 3,000 and $ 6,000 in each case, but a few of the clients decided to work with the IRS and take it to federal court. Mr. Castro stated emphatically that his company AI Tax "did nothing wrong and took corrective action. It's all a bunch of B.S.," Mr. Castro said on the phone with Renaldo McKenzie earlier. John Castro was briefly detained on Wednesday, provided a copy of the indictment, which was usual for these arrests, and then returned home. He indicated that he plans on getting an attorney and has already started to assemble a team. However, Mr. Castro is an attorney who runs a successful law practice.
Mr. Castro will appear in court to make a guilty or no guilty plea on January 17th, 2024. We will continue to follow up with Mr. Castro. Mr. Castro recently contributed to the latest installment of The Castro V Trump series Part 6, released on January 9th, 2024, on The NeoLiberal round Podcast. Subscribe for free, and do send us feedback.
Poll Question: Do you believe Castro is being indicted on Federal Tax charges because of his political intentions?
Options:
A. Yes
B. No
C. Undecided
Participate on our Spotify community page.
Note: The episode was partially done via phone with static and background feedback. We tried to suppress the noise as far as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience. The NeoLiberal Round is a news commentary Podcast by The NeoLiberal Corporation, a #thinktank, #digital and #socialnews #media, #publishing and #informationtechnology firm and academic/research company aimed at serving the world today to solve tomorrow's challenges by making popular what was the monopoly! Visit us at https://theneoliberal.com and https://renaldocmckenzie.com. Please donate to us by visiting our audio podcast website: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theneoliberal/support. Follow on social media: Twitter: renaldomckenzie or theneoliberalco Facebook: renaldo.mckenzie LinkedIn: Revrenaldocmckenzie Email us at info@theneoliberal.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Welcome to another episode of I'm Ronaldo McKenzie.
I just got off the phone with Mr. John Anthony Castro because
just now, recently, about two hours ago, an hour and a half
ago, I got it. I was included in a tweet.
Someone sent the tweet and forwarded a story.
It's a New York Times story entitled Prolific challenger of
(00:27):
Trump's ballot eligibility FacesFederal tax, tax, tax charges.
I got news report that Mister John Anthony Castro whom we just
interviewed the day before yesterday on six of the Castro V
Trump series and and we published a show yesterday night
and then suddenly I I opened up my phone.
(00:51):
I got the news. I got news of a win of Mr.
Castro's arrest. But.
And it's a story that was sent to me by someone, but it's a
story in the New York Times entitled prolific challenger of
Trump's ballot eligibility facesfederal tax charges.
So it was breaking news that were just coming in and that we
(01:12):
were just becoming aware of at the New liberal Corporation and
the new liberal Around podcast. And I promised that I would have
followed up with Mr. Castro, butwe did.
But I said that this is what we knew this would.
This is what we expect to happenwhen local citizens seek to take
on the most powerful in society and do both things in a society
(01:32):
set up against, set up against going upstream.
That's what we said, and they arrested him.
The news is that we just they arrested him right after the
interview that we did. And just so you know so we did
reach out to Mr. Castro and I just literally got off the phone
with him and I record and he allowed me to record the
(01:54):
conversation that we're going topay it back for you for this in
stock for this episode of the new Lobo on podcast.
So. So this episode of the Nail
Above on the Nail The Nail Aboveon podcast.
John Castro respond to the federal tax charges and for
those of us who don't know the story, it's in the New York
(02:15):
Times. But I just got off the phone
with Mr. Castro who provided an update and explanation regarding
the news regarding the news article in the New York Times
concerning his indictment on federal tax charges.
Now Mr. Castro is doing well andcommented, did nothing wrong and
(02:37):
took steps to fix the issues with his clients but instead
they took it to federal court. Now we have his comments for you
today on the podcast and that isin audio and so but just so you
know if you the article in the New York Times and if I could
find it for you and share it according to and this is the
(02:59):
story in the New York Times. If and I read it rather quickly
it says prolific challenger of Trump's ballot eligibility faces
federal tax charges And this is how the and the story was quite
sensational but it was quite disrespectful.
Listen to what? How Listen to the article.
(03:20):
It says a long shot Republican presidential candidate.
Well maybe he's a long shot we don't know.
And Obama was a long shot as well.
But a long shot Republican presidential candidate who has
repeatedly and so far unsuccessfully, tried to have
Donald J Trump thrown off the primary ballot was arrested this
(03:42):
week on federal charges of preparing for tax return to
appliances. Now the candidate, John Anthony
Castro. The presidential candidate, John
Anthony Castro faces 33 felony count of aiding and assisting in
the preparation and presentationof a forced and fraudulent
return. Now each count carries a
(04:03):
sentence of up to three years inprison if he is convicted.
Now we will talk about that. Court records show that the
prosecutors filed an indictment on Mr. Trump of Mr. Trump on the
seal on January 3rd, but it's not available to the public.
And I had I have a lot of it's. According to Mr. Castro, it's
1333 counts and 17 clients. So it's it's 33 counts but 17
(04:28):
clients. Each amount is about 3 to $6000
and and it has it has to do witha tax deduction issue where
people try to where you try where his clients try to claim a
deduction which they weren't they didn't they didn't qualify
to get they they didn't benefit from the for the for the
deduction But according to Mr. Castro he found out about the
(04:50):
the error and tried to take steps to fix it.
But instead they went another. They went around the the around
that they and went straight to the federal court to the to the
federal government to file this allegation.
But we'll talk more about that. He talks more about that.
He goes in there. This is the nailable around
podcast. It's going to be pretty swift.
(05:12):
The good thing is that once, once we once I get acquitted,
and once I prove that all this is bogus, it exposes the
government now to a lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
And then it allows us to investigate the IRS and try to
discover who ordered this. When did they order it?
And here's the thing, I filed A lawsuit about this six months
(05:34):
ago accusing the Trump White House of coordinating with the
IRS. This is, this is.
And three months ago, Donald Trump lawyers filed a motion to
dismiss claiming presidential immunity.
And literally just the night before last, I filed a notice
with the court when the DC Circuit ruled against Trump and
held that he could be held civilly liable for acts that
fall out Skype, outside the snowbusiness official duties.
(05:57):
Or when, you know, those acts are specifically criminalized by
another statute, which 26 USC 7217 specifically says it is a
felony for anybody in the White House, including the President
of the United States, to coordinate with anyone in the
Internal Revenue Service to target a particular taxpayer.
And so, you know, it's very clear here that the night before
(06:19):
last, I filed a document making it clear that the court had to
allow this case to proceed to trial, which would allow me to
then subpoena Trump White House documents regarding
communications with the IRS. And then the very next morning
my home is completely stormed and surrounded by armed federal
agents banging on my door, you know, making my daughter cry and
(06:40):
and for preparing a false returnlike you really need assault
weapons for somebody that is accused of preparing a return
that had false information. It's ridiculous.
But it was clearly intimidation tactic.
And unfortunately what they don't know about me is when they
do things like this, it doesn't hold it to me even more.
I'm not going to back down. So yeah, yeah, we'll have to.
(07:02):
I mean, I know that I'm going tobeat the charge and I'm actually
looking forward to assembling a legal team and and absolutely
crushing them on this and then going after them for malicious
prosecution. OK I was right when I I, you
know actually I saw the news that I said there must be more
to it. So it must be more it's it's
it's kind of way that they they sent federal agents over this
(07:24):
particular issue and because somebody had said they had sent,
they think someone had tweeted, sent.
The tweeted name is Alex Dolan. I mean actually the period, it
was the combination of a three-year undercover
investigation into Castro. He apparently has been suing the
IRS. Over it.
And they had to wait for the civil case to resolve, which it
(07:46):
just did last month before they could take him into custody.
Is that true? Well, yes.
So we had sued the agent for violating Section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code. And then the lower court judge
ruled in his favor. And then after that, I appealed
it to the US Court Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
And and then they upheld it because they said, well, the
(08:09):
law's established in the 5th Circuit.
But there's a split because the 8th Circuit has held that when a
hire's agent does that, he's noteligible for the good faith
exception. And so I petitioned the 5th
Circuit to state the mandate while I prepared the rid of
certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
And we're literally still working on that right now.
And I don't know what their excuse is and or where that
(08:30):
person would have gotten that information but but it's it's it
makes a little sense but but again I don't know was.
That a reporter or you know, it was someone on Twitter called
Alex Zolin who actually tweeted the newer time before that
included you and me. He had included it in in a
(08:50):
report and I responded to it. Let me see if I'm going to find
it for you right now and quote what he had said because he
included us into the e-mail. He said, oh, it appears it was
Oh, no, he said that he was being, he said it, it looked
remark. He looked remarkably composed
(09:10):
for having just been indicted on33 federal felony charges.
And then he posted a link to theNew York Times article.
OK. Yeah, yeah, there.
Was. One person that had reached out
and and she reached out to us in2018.
Apparently she was working with the IRS even though she worked
(09:33):
for some Capital Management company.
So I don't know if they had her on tax fraud and and told her to
contact us, you know, to get a lighter sentence.
We'll have to figure out you know what she was promised.
But but yeah, she she completelylied because like she gave us
information regarding, you know,her her vehicle, which some
(09:54):
other information and I mean shedidn't provide it to me.
The IRS claims there's a recorded call.
So you know, we're hoping to to get a, well, I'm not hoping we
know we're going to get a copy of that recording.
But she never spoke with me. She spoke with an an employee
who gathered the information. You know, and then we would
have, you know, claimed those expenses as deductions.
(10:15):
And so you know we stopped to figure out all the details.
But for her to have claimed thatshe never reviewed the return
before it was processed with theIRS, that's that's completely
false. Because I mean the the facts
just contradict that. Like we have evidence that she
got AID verify letter. She, the our office manager
(10:36):
reached out to her as he always does in in these types of cases
and said, oh you know here's a copy of the return.
You have to contact the IRS and and verify the contents and the
return, she verified it. She didn't.
She never objected to the deductions that were there that
were clearly listed. And then and that's it never
contacted us again and and it was, it was clearly that it
(10:56):
wasn't some sort of like an undercover sting operation.
The goal was to give us information.
We prepared the return based on that information and then she
lied to the IRS and said we never provided that information,
but you know, we're going to be able to clearly prove.
And then she also said that she never saw the return before the
IRS processed it. And again, that's verifiably
(11:17):
false. So yeah, I mean it's it's we're
going to easily beat this in court but obviously my, my
enemies are going to take advantage of this to say like oh
see you know he's a he's a dishonest person you know and
and nobody should believe him oror any of his cases.
So they're trying to discredit me and then it's.
(11:38):
Obviously, obviously you are onto something major with the
fact that they are not trying everything to discredit you and
to diminish you. Yeah, I mean, I mean just it's
it's kind of weird, but literally, it's almost to the
point where if you're not politically important, I mean,
if you're not indicted, you're not politically important,
right? Like they're going after the
president of the United States, his son.
(12:00):
He's indicted. Trump's indicted.
I'm indicted. It's just like, it looks like
indictment is a prerequisite. So right now.
You they said you were taken into custody, but you are not in
custody. Correct.
Yeah. It's it's standard process, you
know. So they just had to detain me.
I went down, they, they processed the paperwork, gave me
(12:22):
a copy of the indictment, and then I went home.
So I woke up in my house. I went to sleep in my house that
same day. I was home by by 3:00 PM, three
or four PMI was home. So yeah, you know.
Other than the midday, you know I still talk to my kids at
night. But New York time is crazy.
(12:44):
These two were written by Mitch Smith and Jenna Russell, dated
January 10th, says a long shot. A long shot Republican
presidential candidate who has it repeatedly and so far
unsuccessfully, tried to have Donald J Trump thrown off the
primary ballot was arrested thisweek on federal charges of
preparing false tax returns for clients.
(13:06):
The candidate, Jon Castro, faces33 felony counts of aiding and
assisting in the preparation andpresentation of a forge and
fraudulent return. Each count carries a sentence of
up to three years in prison if he is convicted, says court
records show that Prosecuted fact Prosecuted file an
indictment of Mr. Castro on the seal on January 3rd.
(13:28):
That seemed that Mister Castro represented himself in the New
Hampshire courtroom pyramid of the lawyer to contest Mr.
Trump's eligibility. And then he said the records in
the criminal case against Mr. Castro, which are no public,
show that he was arrested by a federal agent on Tuesday and
between, least after making an initial appearance in federal in
Fourth Ward. Yeah, yeah, I read the.
(13:49):
Article Oh, OK, OK, so, but. But, but Jenna Russell reached
out to me. She called me first thing this
morning at like 7:30 AM as as I was walking to the office.
And so, yeah, she wanted to knowmy side of the story.
So, you know, I told her I was just like, I mean, you know,
it's obvious it's a retaliation.But I told her I was like, this
is nothing new. I I had been in discussions with
(14:11):
the IRS on this since since 2020.
So you know, the fact that they waited, you know, four years or
three years to to bring this is is odd because we had already
gone over it very thoroughly. And again, the people that are
named there, you know that it's,it's 33 counts, but it's 17
(14:31):
clients, 17 clients out of like 1500 clients that you have are
basically saying he didn't explain this correctly, this
deduction correctly to us. And so we claimed it and it was
wrong. But then he reached out to us,
informed us of the mistake. But then tone Ma intervened and
was just like, no, don't contacthim, let's indict him.
(14:52):
And so basically I reached out to them trying to fix the issue
and letting them know, hey guys,I think you claimed this
induction weren't eligible for it.
I mean we're talking ministerialamounts like 3006 thousand.
You know, it's it's not, you know, like $1,000,000 deduction
or something like that. You know, these are average
working class individuals, you know, making fifty $60,000 a
(15:12):
year and they basically just misunderstood A deduction.
And then you let them know aboutwe sought to.
Correct it and and. Then that's when the IRS
intervened and and tried to exploit the situation to to try
to make it seem like we just. And it's just like no, we
didn't. There's there's evidence that we
emailed them. We have actual evidence that
they opened up emails because the e-mail that we sent out had
(15:35):
a tracker. And that's I think something the
IRS doesn't realize is that those emails had trackers.
So we know who opened the e-mailand when.
And about 3/4 of of the people they listed of the 17, I would
say it was about 1212 of them got got the e-mail and opened
it. One of them actually opened up
the e-mail and read it 44 separate times and never
(15:58):
contacted us. So that's something that they
don't realize that we have that.And so when that person has to
take the stand, you know, we getto cross examine them and say we
have evidence. You opened up the sequel 44
times. Why did you never call us?
But we were repeatedly telling you we think there's an error on
your return. You misunderstood this
deduction. So.
And and what the answer is, right.
(16:19):
You know Juan, mom and and all these Trump cronies were
basically telling them don't contact him because we want to
try to charge him on this. And and yeah, it's completely
focus. OK.
You know and I you know I, I I I've been working in business
since 2016 and I have made and not a trial and error I've made
some errors so I understand so but they're making it sound
(16:42):
really major but I'm by the way according to the the report it
says that that court record so that you plan to hire a lawyer
to defend defend yourself or something to be to defend
yourself and that yeah I'm actually interviewing.
Lawyers starting tomorrow and it's not just going to be one
we're putting together a whole legal team.
(17:03):
You know so you usually have like 1 attorney that's local
that knows the judge very well knows how he operates.
And so that way he can function very he can advise on
functioning in in that person, that judge's courtroom.
And then you you can have a pre trial expert that focuses on
evidence. And then we're going to have the
the lead trial attorney, the onethat is actually going to make
(17:25):
the case before the jury, because I've already told
everybody, I don't care what they offer.
They could offer me one day probation and then they'll
expunge my record afterwards andit'll never show up on my record
again. It doesn't matter I'm.
I'm taking this to trial becausewe know we did nothing wrong.
We know all the corrective actions that we took.
And yeah, everything. Everything they're claiming is
(17:47):
total, total BS. Yes.
OK. Thank you.
And I understand you have a casenext week.
Oh no, Next Wednesday is is the arraignment, that's where you
have to show up and you formallyplead not guilty and then
attorneys formally enter their appearance, you know as as your
attorneys of record. And then that's when they the
judge issues the schedule order says, OK there's going to be X
(18:08):
number of days or you know, evidentiary pre trial you know
disclosure stuff like that. And then they also set the
official like you know, trial date whether it's going to be a
trial by judge or trial by jury or obviously going to elect a
trial by jury and and all that stuff.
So it's kind of like the an administrative hearing, you
know, just to to get the case kind of moving along.
(18:29):
OK. Oh, thank you.
Well, thank you so much for clarifying that.
I completely understand what's going on.
I when I saw the news, I was concerned.
So I said let me give you a call, find out what's going on.
But I but I hope that it works out and that it will be resolved
and it does not serve to derail what you're the work that you're
(18:49):
doing to focus and what you're trying to do in terms of holding
Mr. Donald Trump accountable based on section three of the
14th Amendment and so on. Because it seemed a bit as if
that probably it's going to create a problem for that.
Yeah. Yeah no, I'm not letting it
interfere. I I spoke with the the court
today and and they let me know that that they're not seeking in
(19:12):
any way to inhibit because at first they had said that I
wasn't allowed to pick the northof district Texas which sounded
like they were trying to interfere with the you know my
my election efforts. But, but no, they made it clear
today that they're going to permit me to travel to Kansas
and West Virginia so that I can,you know, process all the
documentation to appear on the ballot in those states.
(19:35):
OK. Well, thank you so much and
please keep in touch. Let's know what if if there's
any new story as it relates to the development, let us know
how. Let me know how you're doing and
how this case turns out. Yeah.
Absolutely. And then I was and I did record
this conversation that you were having so that I could probably
have a carry a little bit of footage for it to and to also do
(19:55):
a little story on it to to correct some of the they are the
misunderstanding or the the the things that people have might
might not be positive. So I will I produce a story and
and and release it shortly. OK.
OK. All right.
Awesome. Thank you SO.
Much. Yeah.
Thank you so much. And keep in touch.
God bless you, God. Bless.
You. Yeah, man.
All right. Bye.
Bye. Bye.
(20:23):
I just got off the phone with John Anthony Castro in relation
to the news story that was actually sent to me via Twitter.
I was included in a story. What that?
And in in the story it had the attached the New York Times
article regarding Mr. John Anthony Castro.
But of course Mr. John Anthony Castro is saying it seemed it's
(20:46):
33 counties but 17 clients who are claiming that they were
given false information and theyfiled incorrectly based on the
information provided by Mr. Castro who according to Mr.
Castro he he said that is a misunderstanding.
(21:06):
They tried to. There is a deduction issue that
they tried to fix because apparently some clients had made
some claims, some deduction thatthey didn't that weren't they
weren't qualified to receive. However, they tried to fix it,
but instead of resolving it theytook the they took the chance to
to to take it to to the to to toto court.
(21:29):
But he he is, he is working on resolving this issue.
He's getting an attorney and will continue to follow the
story. This is the new liberal podcast.
Welcome to another episode of I'm Ronaldo McKenzie.
I just got off the phone with Mr. John Anthony Castro because
just now, recently, about two hours ago, an hour and a half
ago, I got it. I was included in a tweet.
Someone sent the tweet and forwarded a story.
It's a New York Times story entitled Prolific challenger of
(00:27):
Trump's ballot eligibility FacesFederal tax, tax, tax charges.
I got news report that Mister John Anthony Castro whom we just
interviewed the day before yesterday on six of the Castro V
Trump series and and we published a show yesterday night
and then suddenly I I opened up my phone.
(00:51):
I got the news. I got news of a win of Mr.
Castro's arrest. But.
And it's a story that was sent to me by someone, but it's a
story in the New York Times entitled prolific challenger of
Trump's ballot eligibility facesfederal tax charges.
So it was breaking news that were just coming in and that we
(01:12):
were just becoming aware of at the New liberal Corporation and
the new liberal Around podcast. And I promised that I would have
followed up with Mr. Castro, butwe did.
But I said that this is what we knew this would.
This is what we expect to happenwhen local citizens seek to take
on the most powerful in society and do both things in a society
(01:32):
set up against, set up against going upstream.
That's what we said, and they arrested him.
The news is that we just they arrested him right after the
interview that we did. And just so you know so we did
reach out to Mr. Castro and I just literally got off the phone
with him and I record and he allowed me to record the
(01:54):
conversation that we're going topay it back for you for this in
stock for this episode of the new Lobo on podcast.
So. So this episode of the Nail
Above on the Nail The Nail Aboveon podcast.
John Castro respond to the federal tax charges and for
those of us who don't know the story, it's in the New York
(02:15):
Times. But I just got off the phone
with Mr. Castro who provided an update and explanation regarding
the news regarding the news article in the New York Times
concerning his indictment on federal tax charges.
Now Mr. Castro is doing well andcommented, did nothing wrong and
(02:37):
took steps to fix the issues with his clients but instead
they took it to federal court. Now we have his comments for you
today on the podcast and that isin audio and so but just so you
know if you the article in the New York Times and if I could
find it for you and share it according to and this is the
(02:59):
story in the New York Times. If and I read it rather quickly
it says prolific challenger of Trump's ballot eligibility faces
federal tax charges And this is how the and the story was quite
sensational but it was quite disrespectful.
Listen to what? How Listen to the article.
(03:20):
It says a long shot Republican presidential candidate.
Well maybe he's a long shot we don't know.
And Obama was a long shot as well.
But a long shot Republican presidential candidate who has
repeatedly and so far unsuccessfully, tried to have
Donald J Trump thrown off the primary ballot was arrested this
(03:42):
week on federal charges of preparing for tax return to
appliances. Now the candidate, John Anthony
Castro. The presidential candidate, John
Anthony Castro faces 33 felony count of aiding and assisting in
the preparation and presentationof a forced and fraudulent
return. Now each count carries a
(04:03):
sentence of up to three years inprison if he is convicted.
Now we will talk about that. Court records show that the
prosecutors filed an indictment on Mr. Trump of Mr. Trump on the
seal on January 3rd, but it's not available to the public.
And I had I have a lot of it's. According to Mr. Castro, it's
1333 counts and 17 clients. So it's it's 33 counts but 17
(04:28):
clients. Each amount is about 3 to $6000
and and it has it has to do witha tax deduction issue where
people try to where you try where his clients try to claim a
deduction which they weren't they didn't they didn't qualify
to get they they didn't benefit from the for the for the
deduction But according to Mr. Castro he found out about the
(04:50):
the error and tried to take steps to fix it.
But instead they went another. They went around the the around
that they and went straight to the federal court to the to the
federal government to file this allegation.
But we'll talk more about that. He talks more about that.
He goes in there. This is the nailable around
podcast. It's going to be pretty swift.
(05:12):
The good thing is that once, once we once I get acquitted,
and once I prove that all this is bogus, it exposes the
government now to a lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
And then it allows us to investigate the IRS and try to
discover who ordered this. When did they order it?
And here's the thing, I filed A lawsuit about this six months
(05:34):
ago accusing the Trump White House of coordinating with the
IRS. This is, this is.
And three months ago, Donald Trump lawyers filed a motion to
dismiss claiming presidential immunity.
And literally just the night before last, I filed a notice
with the court when the DC Circuit ruled against Trump and
held that he could be held civilly liable for acts that
fall out Skype, outside the snowbusiness official duties.
(05:57):
Or when, you know, those acts are specifically criminalized by
another statute, which 26 USC 7217 specifically says it is a
felony for anybody in the White House, including the President
of the United States, to coordinate with anyone in the
Internal Revenue Service to target a particular taxpayer.
And so, you know, it's very clear here that the night before
(06:19):
last, I filed a document making it clear that the court had to
allow this case to proceed to trial, which would allow me to
then subpoena Trump White House documents regarding
communications with the IRS. And then the very next morning
my home is completely stormed and surrounded by armed federal
agents banging on my door, you know, making my daughter cry and
(06:40):
and for preparing a false returnlike you really need assault
weapons for somebody that is accused of preparing a return
that had false information. It's ridiculous.
But it was clearly intimidation tactic.
And unfortunately what they don't know about me is when they
do things like this, it doesn't hold it to me even more.
I'm not going to back down. So yeah, yeah, we'll have to.
(07:02):
I mean, I know that I'm going tobeat the charge and I'm actually
looking forward to assembling a legal team and and absolutely
crushing them on this and then going after them for malicious
prosecution. OK I was right when I I, you
know actually I saw the news that I said there must be more
to it. So it must be more it's it's
it's kind of way that they they sent federal agents over this
(07:24):
particular issue and because somebody had said they had sent,
they think someone had tweeted, sent.
The tweeted name is Alex Dolan. I mean actually the period, it
was the combination of a three-year undercover
investigation into Castro. He apparently has been suing the
IRS. Over it.
And they had to wait for the civil case to resolve, which it
(07:46):
just did last month before they could take him into custody.
Is that true? Well, yes.
So we had sued the agent for violating Section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code. And then the lower court judge
ruled in his favor. And then after that, I appealed
it to the US Court Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
And and then they upheld it because they said, well, the
(08:09):
law's established in the 5th Circuit.
But there's a split because the 8th Circuit has held that when a
hire's agent does that, he's noteligible for the good faith
exception. And so I petitioned the 5th
Circuit to state the mandate while I prepared the rid of
certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
And we're literally still working on that right now.
And I don't know what their excuse is and or where that
(08:30):
person would have gotten that information but but it's it's it
makes a little sense but but again I don't know was.
That a reporter or you know, it was someone on Twitter called
Alex Zolin who actually tweeted the newer time before that
included you and me. He had included it in in a
(08:50):
report and I responded to it. Let me see if I'm going to find
it for you right now and quote what he had said because he
included us into the e-mail. He said, oh, it appears it was
Oh, no, he said that he was being, he said it, it looked
remark. He looked remarkably composed
(09:10):
for having just been indicted on33 federal felony charges.
And then he posted a link to theNew York Times article.
OK. Yeah, yeah, there.
Was. One person that had reached out
and and she reached out to us in2018.
Apparently she was working with the IRS even though she worked
(09:33):
for some Capital Management company.
So I don't know if they had her on tax fraud and and told her to
contact us, you know, to get a lighter sentence.
We'll have to figure out you know what she was promised.
But but yeah, she she completelylied because like she gave us
information regarding, you know,her her vehicle, which some
(09:54):
other information and I mean shedidn't provide it to me.
The IRS claims there's a recorded call.
So you know, we're hoping to to get a, well, I'm not hoping we
know we're going to get a copy of that recording.
But she never spoke with me. She spoke with an an employee
who gathered the information. You know, and then we would
have, you know, claimed those expenses as deductions.
(10:15):
And so you know we stopped to figure out all the details.
But for her to have claimed thatshe never reviewed the return
before it was processed with theIRS, that's that's completely
false. Because I mean the the facts
just contradict that. Like we have evidence that she
got AID verify letter. She, the our office manager
(10:36):
reached out to her as he always does in in these types of cases
and said, oh you know here's a copy of the return.
You have to contact the IRS and and verify the contents and the
return, she verified it. She didn't.
She never objected to the deductions that were there that
were clearly listed. And then and that's it never
contacted us again and and it was, it was clearly that it
(10:56):
wasn't some sort of like an undercover sting operation.
The goal was to give us information.
We prepared the return based on that information and then she
lied to the IRS and said we never provided that information,
but you know, we're going to be able to clearly prove.
And then she also said that she never saw the return before the
IRS processed it. And again, that's verifiably
(11:17):
false. So yeah, I mean it's it's we're
going to easily beat this in court but obviously my, my
enemies are going to take advantage of this to say like oh
see you know he's a he's a dishonest person you know and
and nobody should believe him oror any of his cases.
So they're trying to discredit me and then it's.
(11:38):
Obviously, obviously you are onto something major with the
fact that they are not trying everything to discredit you and
to diminish you. Yeah, I mean, I mean just it's
it's kind of weird, but literally, it's almost to the
point where if you're not politically important, I mean,
if you're not indicted, you're not politically important,
right? Like they're going after the
president of the United States, his son.
(12:00):
He's indicted. Trump's indicted.
I'm indicted. It's just like, it looks like
indictment is a prerequisite. So right now.
You they said you were taken into custody, but you are not in
custody. Correct.
Yeah. It's it's standard process, you
know. So they just had to detain me.
I went down, they, they processed the paperwork, gave me
(12:22):
a copy of the indictment, and then I went home.
So I woke up in my house. I went to sleep in my house that
same day. I was home by by 3:00 PM, three
or four PMI was home. So yeah, you know.
Other than the midday, you know I still talk to my kids at
night. But New York time is crazy.
(12:44):
These two were written by Mitch Smith and Jenna Russell, dated
January 10th, says a long shot. A long shot Republican
presidential candidate who has it repeatedly and so far
unsuccessfully, tried to have Donald J Trump thrown off the
primary ballot was arrested thisweek on federal charges of
preparing false tax returns for clients.
(13:06):
The candidate, Jon Castro, faces33 felony counts of aiding and
assisting in the preparation andpresentation of a forge and
fraudulent return. Each count carries a sentence of
up to three years in prison if he is convicted, says court
records show that Prosecuted fact Prosecuted file an
indictment of Mr. Castro on the seal on January 3rd.
(13:28):
That seemed that Mister Castro represented himself in the New
Hampshire courtroom pyramid of the lawyer to contest Mr.
Trump's eligibility. And then he said the records in
the criminal case against Mr. Castro, which are no public,
show that he was arrested by a federal agent on Tuesday and
between, least after making an initial appearance in federal in
Fourth Ward. Yeah, yeah, I read the.
(13:49):
Article Oh, OK, OK, so, but. But, but Jenna Russell reached
out to me. She called me first thing this
morning at like 7:30 AM as as I was walking to the office.
And so, yeah, she wanted to knowmy side of the story.
So, you know, I told her I was just like, I mean, you know,
it's obvious it's a retaliation.But I told her I was like, this
is nothing new. I I had been in discussions with
(14:11):
the IRS on this since since 2020.
So you know, the fact that they waited, you know, four years or
three years to to bring this is is odd because we had already
gone over it very thoroughly. And again, the people that are
named there, you know that it's,it's 33 counts, but it's 17
(14:31):
clients, 17 clients out of like 1500 clients that you have are
basically saying he didn't explain this correctly, this
deduction correctly to us. And so we claimed it and it was
wrong. But then he reached out to us,
informed us of the mistake. But then tone Ma intervened and
was just like, no, don't contacthim, let's indict him.
(14:52):
And so basically I reached out to them trying to fix the issue
and letting them know, hey guys,I think you claimed this
induction weren't eligible for it.
I mean we're talking ministerialamounts like 3006 thousand.
You know, it's it's not, you know, like $1,000,000 deduction
or something like that. You know, these are average
working class individuals, you know, making fifty $60,000 a
(15:12):
year and they basically just misunderstood A deduction.
And then you let them know aboutwe sought to.
Correct it and and. Then that's when the IRS
intervened and and tried to exploit the situation to to try
to make it seem like we just. And it's just like no, we
didn't. There's there's evidence that we
emailed them. We have actual evidence that
they opened up emails because the e-mail that we sent out had
(15:35):
a tracker. And that's I think something the
IRS doesn't realize is that those emails had trackers.
So we know who opened the e-mailand when.
And about 3/4 of of the people they listed of the 17, I would
say it was about 1212 of them got got the e-mail and opened
it. One of them actually opened up
the e-mail and read it 44 separate times and never
(15:58):
contacted us. So that's something that they
don't realize that we have that.And so when that person has to
take the stand, you know, we getto cross examine them and say we
have evidence. You opened up the sequel 44
times. Why did you never call us?
But we were repeatedly telling you we think there's an error on
your return. You misunderstood this
deduction. So.
And and what the answer is, right.
(16:19):
You know Juan, mom and and all these Trump cronies were
basically telling them don't contact him because we want to
try to charge him on this. And and yeah, it's completely
focus. OK.
You know and I you know I, I I I've been working in business
since 2016 and I have made and not a trial and error I've made
some errors so I understand so but they're making it sound
(16:42):
really major but I'm by the way according to the the report it
says that that court record so that you plan to hire a lawyer
to defend defend yourself or something to be to defend
yourself and that yeah I'm actually interviewing.
Lawyers starting tomorrow and it's not just going to be one
we're putting together a whole legal team.
(17:03):
You know so you usually have like 1 attorney that's local
that knows the judge very well knows how he operates.
And so that way he can function very he can advise on
functioning in in that person, that judge's courtroom.
And then you you can have a pre trial expert that focuses on
evidence. And then we're going to have the
the lead trial attorney, the onethat is actually going to make
(17:25):
the case before the jury, because I've already told
everybody, I don't care what they offer.
They could offer me one day probation and then they'll
expunge my record afterwards andit'll never show up on my record
again. It doesn't matter I'm.
I'm taking this to trial becausewe know we did nothing wrong.
We know all the corrective actions that we took.
And yeah, everything. Everything they're claiming is
(17:47):
total, total BS. Yes.
OK. Thank you.
And I understand you have a casenext week.
Oh no, Next Wednesday is is the arraignment, that's where you
have to show up and you formallyplead not guilty and then
attorneys formally enter their appearance, you know as as your
attorneys of record. And then that's when they the
judge issues the schedule order says, OK there's going to be X
(18:08):
number of days or you know, evidentiary pre trial you know
disclosure stuff like that. And then they also set the
official like you know, trial date whether it's going to be a
trial by judge or trial by jury or obviously going to elect a
trial by jury and and all that stuff.
So it's kind of like the an administrative hearing, you
know, just to to get the case kind of moving along.
(18:29):
OK. Oh, thank you.
Well, thank you so much for clarifying that.
I completely understand what's going on.
I when I saw the news, I was concerned.
So I said let me give you a call, find out what's going on.
But I but I hope that it works out and that it will be resolved
and it does not serve to derail what you're the work that you're
(18:49):
doing to focus and what you're trying to do in terms of holding
Mr. Donald Trump accountable based on section three of the
14th Amendment and so on. Because it seemed a bit as if
that probably it's going to create a problem for that.
Yeah. Yeah no, I'm not letting it
interfere. I I spoke with the the court
today and and they let me know that that they're not seeking in
(19:12):
any way to inhibit because at first they had said that I
wasn't allowed to pick the northof district Texas which sounded
like they were trying to interfere with the you know my
my election efforts. But, but no, they made it clear
today that they're going to permit me to travel to Kansas
and West Virginia so that I can,you know, process all the
documentation to appear on the ballot in those states.
(19:35):
OK. Well, thank you so much and
please keep in touch. Let's know what if if there's
any new story as it relates to the development, let us know
how. Let me know how you're doing and
how this case turns out. Yeah.
Absolutely. And then I was and I did record
this conversation that you were having so that I could probably
have a carry a little bit of footage for it to and to also do
(19:55):
a little story on it to to correct some of the they are the
misunderstanding or the the the things that people have might
might not be positive. So I will I produce a story and
and and release it shortly. OK.
OK. All right.
Awesome. Thank you SO.
Much. Yeah.
Thank you so much. And keep in touch.
God bless you, God. Bless.
You. Yeah, man.
All right. Bye.
Bye. Bye.
(20:23):
I just got off the phone with John Anthony Castro in relation
to the news story that was actually sent to me via Twitter.
I was included in a story. What that?
And in in the story it had the attached the New York Times
article regarding Mr. John Anthony Castro.
But of course Mr. John Anthony Castro is saying it seemed it's
(20:46):
33 counties but 17 clients who are claiming that they were
given false information and theyfiled incorrectly based on the
information provided by Mr. Castro who according to Mr.
Castro he he said that is a misunderstanding.
(21:06):
They tried to. There is a deduction issue that
they tried to fix because apparently some clients had made
some claims, some deduction thatthey didn't that weren't they
weren't qualified to receive. However, they tried to fix it,
but instead of resolving it theytook the they took the chance to
to to take it to to the to to toto court.
(21:29):
But he he is, he is working on resolving this issue.
He's getting an attorney and will continue to follow the
story. This is the new liberal podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.