Robert Schulz's turn

[Demosthenes]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TAX
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ROBERT L. SCHULZ AND “WE THE PEOPLE” TO STOP ALLEGED TAX SCAM

Queensbury, N.Y., Man’s Scheme Allegedly Cost U.S. Treasury $21 Million

WASHINGTON – The United States announced that it has sued to block Robert L. Schulz, of Queensbury, N.Y., from selling an alleged tax fraud scheme said to have cost the U.S. Treasury more than $21 million, the Justice Department announced today. Also named in the suit are two corporations, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress Inc.

The government’s complaint, filed in Syracuse with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleges that Schulz has used the two We the People entities to market a nationwide tax fraud scheme, called the Tax Termination Package, to employers and employees. According to the complaint, the Tax Termination Package includes We the People forms, which the defendants falsely tell customers can be used to replace forms the IRS requires employers and employees must use in connection with federal tax withholding from wages.

The suit says that Schulz and the We the People entities falsely state that use of the replacement forms will allow customers to legally stop tax withholding. According to the complaint, the defendants base the scheme on frivolous arguments about federal tax laws that federal courts have repeatedly rejected. These schemes are on the IRS’s 2007 list of the Dirty Dozen tax scams. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,, ... 83,00.html

“People who sell tax scams are asking for trouble for themselves and their customers who participate in them,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “They and their customers temporarily enrich themselves at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers. The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service are determined to stamp out these scams.”

Since 2001 the Justice Department has obtained more than 230 injunctions to stop the promotion of tax fraud schemes and the preparation of fraudulent returns. More information about the Justice Department’s efforts against tax-scam promoters can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress20076.htm . Information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax .

[Demosthenes]

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/schulzciv1.pdf

[LPC]

No indictment?

Oh, poo.

[Demosthenes]

Yet.

[Nikki]

Bob's next move:

Inane motion to stay the case pending the resolution of the RTP suits because there are "outstanding constitutional issues" which, when resolved, will moot the Government's complaint.

[Duke2Earl]

Any volunteers to be the next martyr for the "tax freedom" cause? Perhaps they can hold their next convention at government expense in the grey bar hotel.

[Quixote]

If they had moved a little faster, they could have served Schulz at the WTP conference.

[webhick]

If they had moved a little faster, they could have served Schulz at the WTP conference.

Government....move...faster....

You do realize what you're saying, right?

[Nikki]

Nothing in the request for injunction about posting a copy of the ruling on the web site?
My bad. I missed the last sentence of G on page 13.

Nothing about revoking the 501(c)(3)?

Is DoJ talking to the IRS at all?

[Demosthenes]

Nothing in the request for injunction about posting a copy of the ruling on the web site?
My bad. I missed the last sentence of G on page 13.

Nothing about revoking the 501(c)(3)?

Is DoJ talking to the IRS at all?

The IRS can revoke the tax exempt status without a court's approval, no?

[Quixote]

Nothing in the request for injunction about posting a copy of the ruling on the web site?
My bad. I missed the last sentence of G on page 13.

Nothing about revoking the 501(c)(3)?

Is DoJ talking to the IRS at all?

The IRS can revoke the tax exempt status without a court's approval, no?

Si. If WTP's tax exempt status is revoked, it may, after exhausting its administrative remedies, file suit for a declaratory judgment. I don't know which court would have jurisdiction. IRS Publication 557 says that suit may be filed in the Tax Court, the DC for DC, or the Court of Claims. That can't be right, because the Court of Claims has jurisdiction only over claims for money.

[LPC]

The IRS can revoke the tax exempt status without a court's approval, no?

Si. If WTP's tax exempt status is revoked, it may, after exhausting its administrative remedies, file suit for a declaratory judgment. I don't know which court would have jurisdiction. IRS Publication 557 says that suit may be filed in the Tax Court, the DC for DC, or the Court of Claims. That can't be right, because the Court of Claims has jurisdiction only over claims for money.

I checked, and IRC section 7428 does refer to "the United States Tax Court, the United States Claims Court, or the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia."

[grammarian44]

Notwithstanding the absence of criminal charges (yet) and the failure to address tax-exempt status, this is going to be a really, really fun one to follow.

Bob, unlike some of his brethren (e.g., Hansen), can actually utter sentences that show some coherence, even though his arguments are baseless. The demise of his plan should send a pretty strong message.

[Nikki]

Sewerheads check in on the topic, without any original thought, at http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxation/ ... hultz.html

So it looks like "We The Tax Protestors" are being targeted
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=213

Anyone who attempts to challenge the Feds, in any mala prohibitum arena; without correcting their status will almost always be a loser - especially when it involves addressing a plank of the Communist Manifesto.

From LB

Greetings:

It appears that most of these "types" like their communism but do not like the most important facet of it: INCOME TAX.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: "The public debt shall not be questioned."

DOJ going after "We the People".... I was wondering when that was going to come about.
A bunch of unruly subjects neglecting to pay their income tax... It was bound to happen.

You may want to read these two articles:

http://www.pacinlaw.org/links/uscitizen.php

http://www.pacinlaw.org/links/incometax.php

The book: http://www.pacinlaw.org/index/red_amendment.php

Best regards, LB Bork

__________________
Been Deprogrammed ? Takes 1 hour.
in pdf Not for the impatient looking for a quick "fix my owie" band-aid

Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum - He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage - Common Law Maxim

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro -Hunter S. Thompson

1Cr 15:1
I declare unto you the gospel . . . By which also ye are saved. . .that Christ died for our sins . . . And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day

[webhick]

Odd how the WTP sites don't mention anything about this.

Maybe they're working up a good rant to go with it....

[Nikki]

Sewerheads suggest a strategy for Bob

The wise thing to do would be to hire a private investigator and go after some of these prosecutors, judges, etc.. Invariably, such people are total criminals..

Press charges against them FIRST, before the DoJ is able to swing into motion..

[The Observer]

Press charges against them FIRST, before the DoJ is able to swing into motion..

If only Al Capone had thought of that...

[Nikki]

And, of course, over at FamilyGuardian, Bing chimes in with his legal expertise

DOJ, where injustice is derigeur, and DOJ Tax Division attorneys, such as Shoeshine Shoemaker, lie by omission as a routine matter during the course of any given day, thus violating their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America, is suing WTP and Bob Schulz for "Operation Stop Withholding" (OSW).

And here all this time I thought that OSW was just one more unfullfilled and incomplete WTP Project which died on the vine due to overreaching by WTP and very poor follow through with the implementation stages.

In any case, this DOJ action is a bogus attempt to shut up WTP and Bob Schulz and is beyond shameless. I look at it as a sort of cross complaint to try and gain some leverage over BS and WTP vis - a vis the RTP first impression lawsuit which is under review by the DC Court of Appeals and may eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

That said, it looks to me as if WTP and Bob Schulz's careless and imprecise use of certain terms, may turn out to be very, very costly to him personally and to WTP.

Ahhh, I surmise it will be only a few short hours before WTP and Bob Schulz generate yet another, "Please Help Support WTP" emails.

Sigh. Ain't nuthin worse than donating money to fund the lifestyle of attorneys whose veracity is suspect.

I hope for all of our sake, that Bob Schulz & Company will know how to defend themselves correctly, but my confidence level is not too high in that regard, and I suspect that Bob and WTP will run right out and hire an attorney, and then the discovery games will commence and Bob S. and WTP likely will turn over all manner of documents to which the IRS and DOJ are not entitled to see, but stuff will be given up, and the privacy of those of you aligned with WTP, will fly right out the window.

I hope I am wrong, but we will have to see how this all plays out.

One thing is certain, this latest gamble by DOJ is a fishing expedition whose main strategic purpose likely is to gain valuable INTEL and leverage, probe the inner sanctum of WTP thru unlawful discovery, punish Bob Schulz for his outspoken and eloquent defense of liberty, and thereby creating cross reference lists, and also create new lists of possible targets, as the IRS and DOJ seek to continue to silence American Citizens who exercise their constitutional Rights.

Ahhh, call it a hunch, but my sense is that this latest move by the corrupt DOJ, likely is gonna back fire on the DOJ, as some earnest American Citizens with lots of energy and detailed knowledge of certain fields, who are brave and courageous, and who are ready to, uhhh, ahem, get serious, and do battle, take the initiative and step up to the plate, so to speak. Accountability will be the rule of the day and some folks with high energy levels, may seek to hold others accounatble for their actions.

Time will tell, it always does.

In other news, I figure that there probably were about 15 to 20 IRS and DOJ undercover agents attending as couples and individuals, with fake ID and all, at the latest WTP GML conference in Washington, and rest assured, young eager attendees likely were coopted and, thinking they were conversing with a genuine patriot, probably gave up all kinds of personal info about themselves and their nontaxpaying activities. Naivete always comes at a very high price. Idiots!!

Quoted verbatim, warts and all

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1003

[LPC]

DOJ, where injustice is derigeur, and DOJ Tax Division attorneys, such as Shoeshine Shoemaker, lie by omission as a routine matter during the course of any given day, thus violating their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America, is suing [...]

This wins the "Longest Rant by a Tax Protester before Reaching the Verb in the First Sentence" award.

Congratulation, Bing.

[LPC]

Schulz got a brief article by David Cay Johnston in the NY Times.

Apparently, one of Schulz's defenses was that he didn't *sell* the tax package, but I'm not sure if that's relevant. For example, section 6701(a) refers to anyone who "who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to" the preparation of certain returns or other documents, and says nothing about compensation.

Compensation might be an issue if it comes to a dispute over "commercial speech," but I'm not sure it's necessary for the government to claim that the speech is "commercial" and, even if it is, it should be enough to show that the speech was used in connection with commerce (such as a solicitation for funds) regardless of whether or not the speech was "sold." For example, advertising is "commercial speech" even though the advertising is distributed for free. Similarly, the materials on Schulz's web site should be considered "commercial" because they are used to promote his organization and solicit donations whether or not the materials are "sold."