"Dramatic development" for Bob Schulz

[Famspear]

Oops, my previous post was not supposed to be here; it was supposed to be in a different thread. Gotta wake up and take my vitamins.

[LPC]

The NY Times found the stay to be newsworthy enough to mention:

Order on Tax Evasion Site Blocked

Published: September 4, 2007

A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked an order that the Internal Revenue Service be given the names of people who acquired materials from a Web site on how to defeat the tax laws.

The Web site, givemeliberty.org, shut down last week and posted an Aug. 9 order to do so from Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior federal judge for the Northern District of New York.

Judge McAvoy ruled that evidence showed that the Web site was inciting people to violate the tax laws. The judge found that under a 1969 Supreme Court ruling, the Web site had thus lost its First Amendment protections as either commercial or political speech.

Robert L. Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., who operates the Web site, appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Thursday.

On Friday, Judge Peter W. Hall temporarily blocked the portion of the order requiring Mr. Schulz to turn over to the government the names and identifying details of people who had obtained information at the Web site on how to stop federal tax from being withheld from their paychecks. Judge Hall set Sept. 18 for oral arguments on the issue.

[ArthurRubin]

(the chain of quotes was unclear)
However, having the names and SSNs of people who purchased the snake oil lets us look more carefully at their returns for the last seven years (fraud statute) with respect to possible adjustments.

I didn't think there was a statute of limiations on fraudulent returns. It's 3 years on regular returns, 6 on "substantial understatement of income", and unlimited in case of fraud, isn't it?

[BBFlatt]

I didn't think there was a statute of limiations on fraudulent returns. It's 3 years on regular returns, 6 on "substantial understatement of income", and unlimited in case of fraud, isn't it?

You are correct that there is no SOL for (civil) assessment on fraudulent returns, but there is a SOL for criminal charges.

[Demosthenes]

Schulz has posted the audio for his oral arguments.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/67 ... -09-19.htm

[LPC]

According to Schulz, the 2nd Circuit has extended the stay of that part of the injunction requiring him to turn over names and addresses, and has expedited the appeal.

September 23, 2007

Good News On Two Fronts

Court Extends Stay Blocking U.S. Access to WTP IDs

On August 30, as previously reported here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit temporarily stayed (blocked) a lower court order that directed WTP to turn over the names and addresses of the people who received a copy of WTP’s "Blue Folder".

The Second Circuit’s order had blocked the lower court’s order at least until September 18, the day a panel of three judges was scheduled to hear two motions filed by WTP with the Court of Appeals: To stay the enforcement of the lower court’s order pending the results of WTP’s appeal from that order; and to expedite the appeal.

On September 18, the panel heard those arguments by Bob Schulz in support of the two motions, and by the DOJ appellate attorney in opposition to the motions.

On September 20, the Second Circuit issued its decision. The good news is the Court extended the stay of the most harmful part of the lower court’s decision – i.e., the identification information does not have to be turned over to the DOJ, pending the appeal, and the appeal has been expedited.

The court also issued an appeal briefing schedule, ordering the case to be ready for oral argument by December 31, 2007.

In light of the fact that in its written opposition to WTP’s motion the DOJ clarified the meaning of the District Court's injunctive order – i.e., that the order is directed only at the WTP forms in the "Blue Folder", and it is not directed at any other part of WTP’s Speech on its websites, WTP will soon restore the full content of its websites, absent links to the WTP forms in the "Blue Folder".

WTP’s brief to the Second Circuit is due on October 22, 2007.

WTP will now focus on its soon to be filed appeal to the United States Supreme Court appealing the recent decisions in the landmark Right to Petition lawsuit, We The People v United States (appeal from DC Circuit), Schulz v United States (related appeal from the 9th Circuit) and Schulz v United States (related appeal from the 8th Circuit).

We thank everyone for their continuing strong support; the rhythm of Freedom goes on.

[LPC]

The docket entries for 9/20/2007 read as follows:

9/20/07 Order filed stating, Appellants, pro se, and
through counsel, move for a stay of the
district court order granting the Appellee`s
cross-motion for summary judgment and
issuing, and to expedite the appeal. Upon
due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that,
with respect to Paragraph C of the district
court`s order, requiring Appellants to
produce to the Appellee a list "identifying
by name, address, e-mail address, telephone
number, and Social Security number, all
persons or entities who have been provided
[Appellants`] Tax Termination materials or
any other similar materials," the motion for
a stay is GRANTED. With respect to the
remaining portions of the district court
order, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion
for a stay is DENIED because Appellants have
not demonstrated that they have a
substantial possibility of success on the
merits in their appeal. See Hirschfield v.
Board of Elections, 984 F.2d 35, 37 (2d Cir.
1993). It is further ORDERED that the
motion to expedite the appeal is GRANTED.
The Clerk`s Office shall issue a scheduling
order, and this appeal will be placed on the
next available calendar after the briefs are
filed. Before: RJM, JAC, CJS, CJJ.
Endorsed for the Court by LC. [Entry date
Sep 20 2007 ] [DH]

9/20/07 Notice to counsel/pro se re: Order dated
9/20/07 [Entry date Sep 20 2007 ] [DH]

9/20/07 Scheduling order #1 filed. Appellants brief
due 10/22/2007. Appellees brief due
11/19/2007. Ready week 12/31/2007. [Entry
date Sep 20 2007 ] [DH]

9/20/07 Notice to counsel/pro se re: Scheduling
Order #1dated 9/20/07 [Entry date Sep 20
2007 ] [DH]

9/20/07 EXPEDITED case flag set. [Entry date Sep
20 2007 ] [DH]

9/20/07 Movant Thurston Bell motion to allow letter
and attachments to be accepted by the Court
as a post-argument communication, filed
with proof of service. [Entry date Sep 21
2007 ] [DH]

[LPC]

Two questions:

1. Why does the 2nd Circuit have such a crappy PACER system?

2. What the hell is Thurston Bell doing in this appeal?

[webhick]

1. Why does the 2nd Circuit have such a crappy PACER system?

Because the funds to upgrade the system were actually used to replace the court's slushie machine. The old slushie machine went haywire one day in August. Father Malarkey entered the bathroom that evening for his free taxpayer paid slushie and witnessed a horrendous sight. It was later determined that the slushie machine experienced a psychotic break from making one too many lemon-lime flavored slushies and beat a court reporter with a plastic cup. When a bailiff attempted to intervene, he was impaled on a cheap plastic straw. Judging by the bloody trail, the machine then attempted to make an escape. It ground maniacally as it hobbled down the hall, out the front door, leaping down the steps, and waddled straight into traffic where it was hit at top speed by a Greyhound bus.

Such is the way with slushie machines.

For those of you who don't work for the court, you can receive your free slushie at taxpayer's expense by slipping a flattened duck under most northeast stall in the first floor men's room.

[Imalawman]

For those of you who don't work for the court, you can receive your free slushie at taxpayer's expense by slipping a flattened duck under most northeast stall in the first floor men's room.

However, you should be warned not have a wide stance, or wave your hand under the stall or else you will be deemed to want something else entirely...

[The Observer]

2. What the hell is Thurston Bell doing in this appeal?

Because of Bell's need for attention and in the event, however remote, of a TP "win", a chance to claim that it was his efforts that actually won the case for Schulz.