"Dramatic development" for Bob Schulz

[Famspear]

Posting without comment, from wethepeoplefoundation.org web site:

August 31, 2007

Dramatic Development

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules WTP Does
Not Have To Disclose Identities of Supporters

As previously reported, on August 9, 2007, federal District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy issued a Decision and Order that granted IRS’s motion for a Summary Judgment permanently enjoining Schulz and WTP from certain activities including “assisting in the preparation of a document related to a matter material to the internal revenue laws.”

In addition, McAvoy ordered Schulz and WTP to turn over to the DOJ, by August 30, 2007, a list identifying all persons who have been provided “materials containing false information.”

On Wednesday, August 29, 2007, Bob Schulz traveled to Albany, NY where he filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals from the Decision and Order issued on August 9th by federal District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy. Click here for a copy of the Notice of Appeal. Bob and WTP expect to reverse McAvoy’s Decision and Order.

On Thursday morning, August 30, 2007, Bob Schulz traveled to Manhattan where he filed an Emergency Motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to prevent District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy and the DOJ from enforcing the terms of Judge McAvoy’s August 9th Order, at least until the Second Circuit has reached a determination of the merits of the appeal from that Order. Click here for a copy of Bob’s Memorandum of Law in support of the motion to stay the enforcement of the District Court’s Order pending appeal.

On Thursday, at 5 pm, the Emergency Judge on duty at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Peter W. Hall, issued an Order preventing the enforcement of that part of McAvoy’s Order “requiring production of identification information for the United States.” Judge Hall then referred the motion by Bob and WTP for a stay of the entire order to a panel of three judges who will hear the motion for the Court of Appeals on September 18, 2007.

Please go to the WTP home page at http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org to access all the 6700 court pleadings and orders.


Although we are making slow but steady progress and are finally nearing the climactic judicial conclusion following several years of intense litigation that has been necessary to further our landmark constitutional issues and bring them before the nation's Highest Court, WTP is struggling financially. Please consider a one-time or recurring monthly donation. Please know that every little bit helps. It is not for want of will nor ideas that has slowed our battle -- only money. Please remember your donations are our only source of funding.

Please also note that although WTP has shut down virtually all of its website content, our supporters can still join our e-Mail list, donate, join the WTP Congress, and make Profile changes such as address, email, etc.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/67 ... -08-31.htm

[Famspear]

And here's a link to the Memorandum of Law that Schulz et al., say they've filed in support of the Motion for Stay Pending Appeal they say they have filed:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/67 ... g-2007.pdf

[Famspear]

Repeating, rom the Bob Schulz et al., web site:

Although we are making slow but steady progress . . .

Yes, they are making steady progress. Unfortunately, the progression is in a downward direction, inexorably, agonizingly downward.

[The Operative]

...WTP is struggling financially.

What a shame.

It is not for want of will nor ideas that has slowed our battle -- only money.

Of course, Bob will never blame himself for being wrong. He'll end up blaming his supporters for not donating enough money.

[Joey Smith]

What a crappy brief.

Trying to glamorize "Operation Stop Withholding" as a First Amendment issue will go over like a lead salami.

[notorial dissent]

Admitedly, I only waded through a bare portion of the 22 pages of drivel, my nonsense quota for the day having been exceeded about a week ago, but why does he think that the same nonsense that the trial court shot down is going to fly with the appeals court? I’m also curious as to why the appeals court bothered to grant a stay when the likelihood of him succeeding in appeal is like slim and none, and it’s going to take three judges to determine this? Isn’t there a reasonableness of success standard before they issue a stay in something like this? I realize it is only postponing the inevitable, but still I think this is a bit much.

[LPC]

Although we are making slow but steady progress and are finally nearing the climactic judicial conclusion ....

"Climactic" implies a peak or high point. I would have said "bathetic."

And I don't know the legal standards for a stay of an injunction pending appeal, but the stay of the disclosure order makes a certain amount of sense. If the appeal were somehow successful, everything else about the injunction could be undone (e.g., the web site can be restored, Schulz can resume peddling his nonsense, etc.), but once the names are disclosed, they can't be undisclosed. Meanwhile, a delay in the disclosure of the names probably does the government no harm.

And there is a first amendment freedom of association that might be infringed by the disclosures.

So the stay may simply represent a certain amount of caution by the judge who granted it, regardless of the merits of the appeal.

As far as Schulz's memorandum in support of the motion is concerned, well, sometimes a court rules in favor of a party *despite* their pleadings.

[Truthstalker]

Please also note that although WTP has shut down virtually all of its website content, our supporters can still join our e-Mail list, donate, join the WTP Congress, and make Profile changes such as address, email, etc.

Better Hurry! It's not too late to get your name on the future IRS/DOJ target list but this opportunity won't last long. Act now!

[Nikki]

Bob's evasiveness is astounding.

He keeps referring to "a certain blue folder containing certain printed material" in his briefs to judges who are not intimately familiar with the details of the cases.

Perhaps he's hoping that none of the judges ask to see the little "blue folder" in question. If they did, they'd read it and see that it lays out step-by-step actions for individuals to illegally terminate tax withholding from their pay and for employers to illegally cease withholding from theri employees' pay.

Perhaps the judge might ask Bob what happened to any of the people who followed his instructions, such as Mr. Simkanen.

[.]

a delay in the disclosure of the names probably does the government no harm.

Somehow I rather doubt that the Ebil Goobermint Jack-Booted Thugs will be upset by having to wait 18 days to learn the names of yet another bunch of morons who are probably a duplication of the same bunch of morons they are already aware of from numerous previous cases.

[notorial dissent]

I agree, and can see the why of postponing the inevitable surrender of the names, not that it isn’t going to happen, but the rest seems a bit of overkill in my opinion. Putting up the order and ceasing to sell his snake oil won’t -- well it really will come to think of it --materially affect the operation of the scam/foundation, but still it would have cut down on the additional work and damage, and given less time for Bob to destroy or lose records.

[Nikki]

Perhaps Bob will now have enough spare time to file those missing reports to the IRS for the two organizations.

[.]

Bob can't be bothered with such details.

[notorial dissent]

Bob can't be bothered with such details.

Particularly not when such little details can add another nail or several to his already oversized tax fraud coffin.

[Truthstalker]

Well, at least Bob didn't pull a "Rick Bryan Haraka" and ask for money so he could stop the government from getting the names.

[Judge Roy Bean]

a delay in the disclosure of the names probably does the government no harm.

Somehow I rather doubt that the Ebil Goobermint Jack-Booted Thugs will be upset by having to wait 18 days to learn the names of yet another bunch of morons who are probably a duplication of the same bunch of morons they are already aware of from numerous previous cases.

Actually, the guys in dark suits with no sense of humor they're aware of probably already have the information. They can't use it in an evidentiary setting because they have no plausible way of explaining the chain of custody.

I also agree with Dan that there are serious privacy and association concerns in such a case. It just so happens that this somewhat looney "enterprise" espouses something that is currently illegal but there's no valid argument for assuming someone will act on it just because they purchased information, and prosecutors and investigators stepping across that line is, IMHO, dangerous.

Left unchecked, the penultimate application of such fishing expeditions will probably occur in the not-so-distant future when our internet site visiting and email habits are used in criminal profile net-casting.

I can see it all now:

Dear Sir or Madam:

This advisory is to inform you that your low-level aerobatic rating has been rescinded.

Reason:

[__] As a result of an investigation into an incident.
[__] Insufficient hours in-type.
[ X ] Your reading habits include material purchased from a source or sources that propound controversial and therefore, unsafe practices and methods.
[__] Other: ______________________________________

Trust me, there is no shortgage of desire on the part of the curious and power-hungry.

[Nikki]

Actually, the guys in dark suits with no sense of humor they're aware of probably already have the information. No. We only have the names of the people who signed the RTP petition.They can't use it in an evidentiary setting because they have no plausible way of explaining the chain of custody.

I also agree with Dan that there are serious privacy and association concerns in such a case. It just so happens that this somewhat looney "enterprise" espouses something that is currently illegal but there's no valid argument for assuming someone will act on it just because they purchased information, and prosecutors and investigators stepping across that line is, IMHO, dangerous.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.

Left unchecked, the penultimate application of such fishing expeditions will probably occur in the not-so-distant future when our internet site visiting and email habits are used in criminal profile net-casting.

I can see it all now:

Dear Sir or Madam:

This advisory is to inform you that your low-level aerobatic rating has been rescinded.

Reason:

[__] As a result of an investigation into an incident.
[__] Insufficient hours in-type.
[ X ] Your reading habits include material purchased from a source or sources that propound controversial and therefore, unsafe practices and methods.
[__] Other: ______________________________________

Trust me, there is no shortgage of desire on the part of the curious and power-hungry.

The IRS is too busy and inept to follow up on all the potential leads generated by web sniffing.

[Demosthenes]

No. We only have the names of the people who signed the RTP petition.

Plus all the PayPal donation records, no?

[Famspear]

If the Feds do get around to closing down the web site losthorizons.com some day (or if it just closes because Blowhard Hendrickson is in prison and doesn't have the time to maintain it), it will be a loss -- if for no other reason than the loss of comedy relief. For example, this was posted by user “cigarlover” on 1 September 2007, in the thread entitled “From the IRS website”:

One last thing. As we all know politicians love to spend money and tax those that have to feed thier [sic] spending habits. This is nothing new to our political system, its [sic] always been this way. My question is why wasnt [sic] thier [sic] a tax on wages before 1913 or whenever it started. If the 16th didnt [sic] give any new powers to congress to tax wages then why didnt [sic] they tax wages before this amendment?

Make up your own joke. (Or post your own example.)

[Nikki]

No. We only have the names of the people who signed the RTP petition.

Plus all the PayPal donation records, no?

That's to blow the "non-profit" aspects of Bob's revenue stream out of the water.

BTW: A few letters to the Commissioner, questioning why the 501(c)(3) is still unchallenged, would be appreciated.