Airline pilot CtCer can't find a lawyer

[The Operative]

Great idea Bob! We can teach ourselves anything a lawyer knows!
Sounds like exactly what Petes Offensive fund is supposed to be for.
Looks like the two of you should get together and talk stategy

bolding added


Methinks this little revolution just might get squashed now by the blowhard in chief, can't have someone asking for money that they may otherwise send to him.

I was much more amused by the part I underlined.

[Famspear]

Welzel is really pushing.....

First, thanks Woodwlaker and Mutter; I think this can work too.

I did the math last night, and 20,000 suits in 12 months comes out to about 76 per day (maybe I'll need more than one secretary...lol).

To start, however, I was looking for a business organization; I can set up an LLC [limited liability company] online in AK [Alaska], and get a bank account opened (if the IRS hasn't already cleaned out my bank account for payday).

For all of you out there that are serious about getting something like this going, you can email me at r_welzel@msn.com . What I would like to do is accept half the first month's contribution ($25) to remain on deposit untill launch. Once sufficient people sign up (and an attorney agrees to help), we will set a launch date. If we can't generate enough interest, I would refund the initial payment.

I would review the existing suit with the attorney (or, as Mutter points out) any other person able to put together a suit. The goal would be to develop a lawsuit template and questionaire [sic] for each member. Once that is prepared, we would set a launch date at which time the remainder of the first month (the other $25) would be due and the questionaires [sic] would be sent to each member.

I would expect each member to return their questionaire with the only "large" payment required, the $350 filing fee. We would customize each suit with the member questionaire [sic], prepare all the documents and then send them out for signatures. Once signed, we would serve the DOJ as third parties (improper service was the first thing the DOJ challenged, so we would want to do it right).

Then, we would be off to the races. We would develop standardized answered to every letter the IRS sends to members and provide them freely to members so that rights are preserved.

Now, the only way this works, however, is with sufficient numbers in order to pay competent staff. I was wrong yesterday when I said that this forum had 4 or 5 hundred members; it has over 4300 members. If we had 200 sign up that would generate about $10,000 per month of cash flow, which is sufficent to get started (if an attorney and a paralegal are willing to start at reduced rates or even gratis). To really make this work, though would require great people on staff, and that would require about 400 people to sign up and commit to $50 per month.

If you really consider this, it is a great deal. Most of us have spent much more than $50 per month fighting these IRS clowns, and a method like this would allow us to put forth a united front.

Face it, the IRS succeeds because we, like knuckleheads, try to charge the government like some sort of IRS pounding Rambo and we end up only marginally effective if at all. I am suggesting that we, as reasonably competent individuals collectively fight in the same way a military unit assembles a group of "normal" people (as opposed to "Rambos") into an effective fighting force.

We can freely share effective strategies and letters, because in the finaly analysis, we aren't seeking victory for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren. I don't care if I "make" one penny off a program like this. I would rather see tens of thousands of lawsuits generated that will cause the entire system to melt down and demand the government address our grievances.

Semper Fi for freedom,
Bob Welzel

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5894#5894

(bolding added)

[wserra]

More from Robert Welzel at losthorizons:

organizing a "legal attack fund" and try to assemble an organization to go after the IRS.
I am looking at the fastest method for destroying the enemy: get the money

the goal of getting 20,000 suits filed within 12 months of startup

I want to get thousands of suits filed

we could successfully get thousands of people to defy the IRS, stop withholding federal taxes and tie the DOJ attorneys up in as many cases as I can

jamb (sic) the system with paper.

I would rather see tens of thousands of lawsuits generated that will cause the entire system to melt down

In the highly unlikely event that this ever goes anywhere, I'd say that the Rule 11 violation (and perhaps the contempt) is already established. The only thing left would be the sanction.

[Nikki]

If he's preparing lawsuit templates, might there also be a UPL involved?

[Imalawman]

organizing a "legal attack fund" and try to assemble an organization to go after the IRS.
I am looking at the fastest method for destroying the enemy: get the money

the goal of getting 20,000 suits filed within 12 months of startup

I want to get thousands of suits filed

we could successfully get thousands of people to defy the IRS, stop withholding federal taxes and tie the DOJ attorneys up in as many cases as I can

jamb (sic) the system with paper.

I would rather see tens of thousands of lawsuits generated that will cause the entire system to melt down

In the highly unlikely event that this ever goes anywhere, I'd say that the Rule 11 violation (and perhaps the contempt) is already established. The only thing left would be the sanction.

Ditto, but also the there would be the suspension of bar licenses for any attorney that participates. Especially if he prepares everything but just let's the pro se filer go forward with everything. eesh, that could get some bar associations really ticked.

[Famspear]

Wow, you know it's getting bad when a regular drooler like "mutter" is trying to rein you in and bring you back down to Planet Earth. Mutter now responds to Welzel, as follows:

Oh I like the idea[,] but starting a business is only going to get you sued by the DOJ for an abusive tax scheme or some such.
It seems to me that within the range of negligance [sic] would be any lack of due process. the GAO said 75% of all tax liens/levies are done incorrectly[;] that sounds like a great class action for one of the big name lawyers.
On a case by case if you take any money other than contributions they can claim you are giving out legal advice without having the non existant [sic] license to practice law.
But let us start working this thru. to create a cookie cutter template[,] as teh [sic] IRS is notorious for breaching due process.
First step what are the Elements to sue under 7433?
A. you have to demonstrate how the IRS breached ????
B. and how that resulted in what damage to you.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5895#5895

(bolding added)

[webhick]

I was wrong yesterday when I said that this forum had 4 or 5 hundred members; it has over 4300 members.

And you're still wrong because I'm estimating that roughly 2400 of those 4300 are spammers*.

News flash dude: There are only 181 active members**. And I'm sorry, but 180 lemmings following a raving lunatic off a cliff is hardly entertaining. Maybe if my brain fog lifts, I'll go back and dissect your posts. I think you deserve it.

* I sorted the memberlist in descending order by website address and skipped ahead 2500 members to see where the end of the people with a www address stopped. I had to go back one or two pages from there. It was about 2430. It includes legit members with a website, so I put the number aside temporarily.

** I sorted the memberslist in descending order by post count and paged ahead until the post counts went to zero. I then paged backwards counting the number of "active" members who had a www address and subtracted that from my spammer count.

[Imalawman]

Maybe if my brain fog lifts, I'll go back and dissect your posts. I think you deserve it.

You should get that checked out, it could be something more serious, like a brain cloud. You could have only months to live.

[LPC]

I know some have had victories,

It's a good thing that he already "knows" about those victories, because if he asked about anyone to provide a citation to just one of those "victories" he'd be banned from the forum.

but I don't think they represent the norm,

Well, he got that one right, because the non-existent is never the norm.

[Red Cedar PM]

More from Robert Welzel at losthorizons:

organizing a "legal attack fund" and try to assemble an organization to go after the IRS.
I am looking at the fastest method for destroying the enemy: get the money

the goal of getting 20,000 suits filed within 12 months of startup

I want to get thousands of suits filed

we could successfully get thousands of people to defy the IRS, stop withholding federal taxes and tie the DOJ attorneys up in as many cases as I can

jamb (sic) the system with paper.

I would rather see tens of thousands of lawsuits generated that will cause the entire system to melt down

In the highly unlikely event that this ever goes anywhere, I'd say that the Rule 11 violation (and perhaps the contempt) is already established. The only thing left would be the sanction.

Hey, this sounds like a great way for the government to balance the budget. 20,000 suits * $5,000 average sanction = $100 million in additional revenue. Instead of the IRS wasting time auditing people they should just encourage as many frivolous filings as possible to boost revenue.

It might work, if the majority of these wastes of space actually had money to go after.

[Kimokeo]

PDT = Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/ch04s01.html
As opposed to CAU = "Caution upon Contact" Taxpayer
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/ch04s02.html
Seems to be a substitute for the earlier TC 140 Hold is P, which stood for "tax protester."


Not quite. PDT existed at the same time as the tax protestor indicator.

[Famspear]

More goodies from Welzel:

As part of this program, I want to develop a series of YouTube videos. They would all be essentially the same in that it would be a very honest, very pretty woman (and sorry, but sex sells), being audited by the IRS. The audit would be conducted in an interrogation room by an IRS agent dressed as a ghestapo [sic] agent complete with red arm band scwastika (sp?) that has "IRS" under it.

The IRS agent would ask a question like, why didn't you show any income?

And the pretty young lady would grab a copy of Title 26, and open it to a page...the camera would pull in close to the book and she would day something like, because YOUR code says that income is: ...."

At that point the storm trooper would slap the woman knocking her on the floor and then stomping her face with his boot and say, "Don't presume to tell ME that law; the law is whatever I say it is."

I want to do one of these (3 to 4 minutes each) for EVERY major definition that is contended in the code. Income, wage, trade, employee, employer, united states, etc etc.

We can do a lot with videos like this to transmit the message. At the end they would refer the viewer to a web site encouraging them to join the movement to demand the IRS comply with the law.

And, if we act fast, never under estimate the power of the media during an election year.

Cheers,
Bob

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5905#5905

[webhick]

As part of this program, I want to develop a series of YouTube videos. They would all be essentially the same in that it would be a very honest, very pretty woman (and sorry, but sex sells), being audited by the IRS.

He should try to get someone already familiar to the movement to play the role of the very honest, very pretty woman:

[Famspear]

Ah, and of course Bob Welzel himself will "cast" the production. That means he'll have to do the "research" to find a suitably talented young babe for the starring role.

In addition to writing the script, he'll received full credit as producer and director.

I can see him now, with his sunglasses and funny hat, sitting there in the director's chair, coaching his young starlet.... I think she's a blonde..... I can just hear Bob now.....

Ah baby, let's do another take... And this time let's show a bit more of those headlights on this one, OK beautiful? Ah you're just lovely! Biff, can you check her makeup? And let's have a little more backlight on this take, Al. Are we ready? And..... action!

Bob Welzel......tax protester-Media Mogul....

EDIT: Holy Moley Webhick! What have you done???!!!??

[Famspear]

[after rolling around on the floor for several minutes laughing at webhick's post.....]

Ahhh, scttick with meeeee baby, I'll make you a schtaarrr!!!!!

[Cpt Banjo]

Where have you gone, Conrad Veidt?

"Ze law is vat ve say it is, und you VILL declare all ze income!"

[grixit]

That be funny. But not nearly as funny as actual footage of real TPs claiming their sovereignty, filling their colons, firing the judge and prosecutor, reciting their mashed together quotes, etc.

[ASITStands]

PDT = Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/ch04s01.html
As opposed to CAU = "Caution upon Contact" Taxpayer
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/ch04s02.html
Seems to be a substitute for the earlier TC 140 Hold is P, which stood for "tax protester."

Not quite. PDT existed at the same time as the tax protestor indicator.

Ok. Didn't know that.

I didn't start seeing PDT until sometime after 1998, though I saw the other long before.

I know two cases marked "PDT" who did nothing more than become non-filers, send frivolous arguments in response to notices and owned guns. Both were former Marines.

It's my understanding that a rigorous investigation/documentation process goes on prior to getting the PDT label added to a file. Just being a former Marine wouldn't qualify at all.

I always thought so myself. However, one case was an Aegis client who cleaned up his filings, and the other was a run-of-the-mill non-filer, who also now has cleaned up his act.

Neither party had any provider, promoter or agitator history. The only real common denominator was being a former Marine and trained in weapons and combat.

We asked for records from the "PDT System" database but never received anything other than the standard denial of their existence. A Taxpayer Advocate later explained to the Aegis client that only the Treasury Inspector General made the assignments.

Maybe we sent the FOIA request to the wrong office? Don't know.

I'd be interested in understanding the classification better.

Edit: Wanted to say, "Mr. Welzel has sure been shooting off his mouth."

[Nikki]

...
And, if we act fast, never under estimate the power of the media during an election year.
...

If by "media," he means News Of The Weird, he'll get all the exposure he needs.

[The Operative]

Meh. It's been done and quite poorly too, using lots of money, with Sylvester Stallone as Judge Dredd - "I AM the law!!"

Hey! I actually liked Judge Dredd.

Rico: "The innocent only exist until they inevitably become perpetrators. Guilt or innocence is a matter of timing."