Bob Schulz: Gov't Is Obligated To Respond

[Lambkin]

http://poststar.com/news/opinion/editor ... e97dd.html

On July 1, I started a hunger fast, which will continue until the five local governments to which I pay property taxes properly respond to my Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the lack of proper civic education in our schools (in violation of state law), and to New York’s participation in PARCC, the multistate assessment consortium that is based on the Common Core standards, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Und so weiter, und so weiter....

[webhick]

Oh, taking a page from Toga Fart's book?

What's the over/under on him gaining weight during this fast?

[fortinbras]

Back in the summer of 2001, Bob Schulz announced he was going on a hunger strike until the IRS would condescend to debate him at one of his "events" held in a room rented from the Washington Press Club .... Schulz insisted that the debate take place on Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001 -- he didn't give a reason for insisting on that date altho presumably he had reserved the club room for that day already, but it turned out to be Rosh Hashona 2015, so I suspect that one reason would be to reduce the risk that the IRS would or could send a Jew to debate him or that Jews would be in his audience to ask awkward questions.

Anyway, Schulz announced that he would conduct the hunger strike - at least the 9-5 portion - sitting out on the Capitol Mall next to a hotdog vendor. According to him, he was eating nothing for 20 days - by which time, according to doctors, he should have been seriously debilitated, except in Schulz's case he seemed his usual energetic self and still had his spare tire (a couple of years later one of his associates similarly tried a hunger strike - but wearing a sort of toga that made it much more difficult to tell if he wasn't losing any weight). In those 20 days members of We The People were supposed to be calling their congressmen and the IRS and so forth about how the mean old IRS was killing poor Bob Schulz.

The suppositious hunger strike ended on the 20th day when Maryland congressman Bartlett arrange for a sort of a hearing to take place in one of the House of Representatives office building rooms. It was not a real congressional hearing, there was no assurance that even one member of Congress would even be present in the room. It was simply going to be a presentation in which DOJ lawyers (not IRS!) would provide a (probably superficial) presentation on the history and nature of the US income tax laws. There was no provision for any sort of debate and it wasn't even clear if the DOJ presenters would be susceptible to questioning.

But Schulz jumped at it, declared himself the winner on the hunger strike business, and started trying to turn this into a money maker. He announced to his members that they should send him money to cover the expenses of this "hearing" - even though the room and the presentation was entirely paid for the people who did pay their taxes and it wasn't clear what expenses Schulz faced apart from subway fare. He also announced that his supporters could submit their questions for him to ask the DOJ presenters (it wasn't at all clear that they were open to questions) - he phrased it in such a way that it seemed that the questions had better be accompanied with money if a person wanted them to be asked, also he did not in any way indicate what questions were already in the hopper so I would bet he received a lot of repetitions - there was at that time some SovCit-type of catechism that was supposed to be used in confrontations with the IRS which involved something like 30 or 40 questions that started with wide generalities and ended with nitpicking details and I bet a lot of Schulz's followers resorted to that list. He stood to rake in a fortune this way.

The presentation was scheduled for late September 2001, but the attacks on Sept. 11th and the consequent shutdown of the Capitol for nearly a month, caused the presentation to be rescheduled to, I think, Feb or March 2002. At this point, Schulz's hyping caused a blow-up. Schulz decided that this little lecture was more than a "hearing" -- it was putting the IRS on trial, and he started spreading the notion that somehow the IRS and the income tax system might close down altogether thanks to his razor sharp questioning at this presentation, etc. Schulz started telling his followers "Don't file before the trial". The IRS felt that, besides being dishonest hype, this was seriously interfering with early tax returns which are much encouraged. The DOJ pulled out of the plans and Bartlett cancelled the whole thing. Schulz got very bitchy about it and blamed it on everyone but himself.

Schulz himself knows that he cannot force the govt to respond to his petitions, either to grant him whatever he asks for or to work up a rejoinder, because his own case on just this point went up to the US Supreme Court and it went against him every step of the way: We The People Foundation v. US (2007) 376 US App DC 117, 485 F.3d 140 cert. denied (1/7/2008) 552 US 1102, 169 L.ed.2d 733, 128 S.Ct 939. Schulz, the flimflam man, was apparently out-flimflammed by champion flimflammer Mark Lane, the lawyer who made a career out of the JFK Assassination and then went to work for the neo-nazi Liberty Lobby; according to Schulz, Lane had insisted that there had never before been a court case about the right to petition requiring the govt to respond so that Schulz should pay Lane $75Gs to tread on unplowed ground -- except, of course, that there had been about a dozen earlier cases, including Apple v. Glenn (6th Cir 1999) 183 F.3d 477 cert. denied 528 US 1198.

[notorial dissent]

Schulz is a loon, really hard to argue otherwise. Now we know he is also a Common Core loon as well, big surprise-NOT. Any bets as to him NOT petitioning the actual gov't entity that really has anything to do with school curriculum? Like maybe the school board. Otherwise, more of same old same old.

[Gregg]

FWIW I thought he was dead.

[AndyK]

FWIW I thought he was dead.

With respect to We The People and associated entities; he is dead. His Tax Court and appelate losses left him without any issues for ranting and without a funding base.

He's now been demoted from GURU to "cranky old uncle who we hide when company comes."

Boy, I miss the good old days of domestic tax protest and evasion.

[Famspear]

.....Boy, I miss the good old days of domestic tax protest and evasion.

Yes, the tax protester "movement" seems to have tired out over the past few years.



Buncha wimps!

[NYGman]

.....Boy, I miss the good old days of domestic tax protest and evasion.

Yes, the tax protester "movement" seems to have tired out over the past few years.



Buncha wimps!

Like many othere things that we inveted in America, we have now exported it to the rest of the world, and manafacture so little of it in the US anymore. We once were a world leader in this area, now it seems to be big in Canada and the UK.

[Burnaby49]

.....Boy, I miss the good old days of domestic tax protest and evasion.

Yes, the tax protester "movement" seems to have tired out over the past few years.



Buncha wimps!

Like many othere things that we inveted in America, we have now exported it to the rest of the world, and manafacture so little of it in the US anymore. We once were a world leader in this area, now it seems to be big in Canada and the UK.

Quite true. Our sovereign tax evaders are keeping me very busy. I have half a dozen Poriskyite tax evasion trials coming up, all based on old american sovereign concepts. Our guys are still in that fiesty, see you in court stage.

[fortinbras]

If Schulz began his hunger strike, as promised, on July First, then today he is in 13th day of it and should have lost a visible amount of weight (I guess at least 5 pounds). Let's say we're all real impressed with his willpower and yell "Go Bob! Go Bob!" and urge him to keep it up for at least two months - about the amount of time it took to kill Bobby Sands of the IRA.

Anyway, back to the issue of compelling a respond to a petition. From my compilation:

Crank sued his US Senator, the Chief Justice of the US, and other top officials, on the grounds that they had violated his right to petition by not answering his letters nor taking the actions he asked for – “A citizen’s right to petition the govt does not guarantee a response to the petition or the right to compel govt officials to act on or adopt a citizen’s views.” Apple v. Glenn (6th Cir 1999) 183 F3d 477 cert.den 528 US 1198. “While the govt may not interfere with the right to petition ... it need not grant the petition, no matter how meritorious it is. ... Nor, by the way, does the right to petition for redress of grievances imply a duty of the govt to make every govt employee a petition receiver.” Hilton v. City of Wheeling (7th Cir 2000) 209 F3d 1005 cert.den 531 US 1080. “Neither in the First Amendment nor elsewhere in the Constitution is there a provision guaranteeing that all petitions for the redress of grievances will meet with success.” Canfora v. Olds (6th Cir 1977) 562 F2d 363; quoted in D. Cady v. Sheahan (ND IL 2/7/03). “The right to petition govt afforded by the First Amendment does not include the absolute right to speak in person to officials.... The right to petition govt does not create in the govt a corresponding duty to act.” Stengel v. City of Columbus (SD Ohio 1988) 737 F.Supp 1457 affd 902 F2d 35; similarly, “The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy.” Minn. State Bd for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984) 465 US 271; quoted in Liverman v. Hyde (10th Cir 7/26/00) 221 F3d 1352 (t) cert.den 531 US 929; Ridgeview Partners LLC v. Entwistle (2d Cir 2007) 2272 Fed.Appx 80 cert.den 552 US 1041; specifically to a suit brought to demand that the IRS respond to every letter with a detailed explanation of the tax laws. We the People Foundation v. US (2007) 376 US App DC 117, 485 F3d 140 cert.den 552 US 1102; while that case was pending a tax evasion defendant sought to have her trial delayed until a decision in the right to petition case, but the court held that the decision on that issue had no effect on the defendant’s tax liabilities. US v. T. Hopper (EDNY 10/29/05) 96 AFTR2d 6899. “It is beyond question that the right of the people to petition the govt for a redress of grievances is a vital aspect of our constitutional democracy. .... Nevertheless, this important right has have never been construed to include a corresponding duty on the part of the govt to act on a petition once it is received.” Tempelman v. Philbrick (D NH 3/28/94) affd 43 F3d 1456(t).

“The plaintiff has freely exercised his First Amendment right to petition various federal agencies. The plaintiff is now seeking to compel agency action on the theory that his right to petition the govt creates in the govt a corresponding duty to act. The court refuses to imply this cause of action from the First Amendment.” Gordon v. Heimann (ND Ga 1980) 514 F.Supp 659. “A person’s right to speak is not infringed when govt simply ignores that person while listening to others.” Minn. State Bd for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984) 465 US 271, 79 L.Ed.2d 299, 104 S.Ct 1058; quoted in Tempelman v. Philbrick (D NH 3/28/94) affd 43 F3d 1456(t). “The First Amendment right to associate and to advocate provides no guarantee that a speech will persuade or that advocacy will be effective. ...the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the govt to listen, to respond, or in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it.” Smith v. Ark. State Highway Employees Local (1979) 441 US 463, 60 L.Ed.2d 360, 99 S.Ct 1826; quoted in Indiana State Teachers Assn v. Bd of School Commissioners (SD Ind 1996) 918 F.Supp 266 affd 101 F3d 1179; similarly San Filippo v. Bongiovanni (3d Cir 1994) 30 F3d 424; Cecelia Packing Corp. v. US Dept of Agriculture (9th Cir 1993) 10 F3d 616; Tempelman v. Philbrick (D NH 3/28/94) affd 43 F3d 1456(t); similarly Keyter v. 230 Govt Officers (WD Wash 2005) 372 F.Supp.2d 604 affd (as Keyter v. Locke) 182 Fed.Appx 684 cert.den 549 US 995. The right to petition does not guarantee that the petitioner will be given an opportunity to speak at legislative hearings, nor even that hearings will be specifically scheduled on the topic. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. Colorado State Bd of Equalization (1915) 239 US 441, 60 L.Ed 372, 36 S.Ct 141.

The defendant in a tax case cannot claim that the US Congress must necessarily be included as a party to the case on the grounds that his activities constitute a petition to the govt for redress of the tax laws. US v. Benson (ND IL 4/19/05) 95 AFTR2d 2164, 2005 USTC 50398 affd in part 561 F3d 718 cert.den 558 US 1050. In particular, the right to petition does not include a “right” to refuse to pay taxes or file returns on the pretext of waiting for the govt to respond to the petition. Dietz v. Trustco Bank (NDNY 2008) 572 F.Supp.2d 296.

The right to petition the govt does not have any special privileges beyond the other First Amendment rights. In particular, the right to petition the govt does not embody any special or privileged access to journalists who might publicize the story. Gaines v. Lane (7th Cir 1986) 790 F2d 1299. Similarly, neither the First Amendment or any other provision in the Constitution enables an individual to compel a publisher - even one subsidized with public funds - to print something he has written. Avins v. Rutgers (3d Cir. 1968) 385 F2d 151 cert.den 390 US 920. The right to petition extends to all departments of the govt. Pragovich v. IRS (ED Mich 2009) 676 F.Supp.2d 557; the right to file a lawsuit falls under the right to petition for redress of grievances - but there is no immunity or other special privilege for filing a baseless lawsuit. Pragovich v. IRS (ED Mich 2009) 676 F.Supp.2d 557.

And I wish all of you a safe and sane Bastille Day!!

[Lambkin]

http://poststar.com/news/opinion/column ... 80569.html

The letter is over four pages long, sprawling somewhere north of 1,700 words and alternates between arguing the issues set for forth in the U.S. Constitution and a plea for Bob Schulz’s life.
That’s what really got my attention.

A copy was dropped off at the front desk of the newspaper Friday afternoon, addressed to the leaders of the Warren and Washington county boards of supervisors, the Queensbury and Fort Ann town boards and the Lake George Board of Education.

Favorite quote:

His points, while often brilliant, are far less practical.

To which I reply: stupid is as stupid does.

[LPC]

FWIW I thought he was dead.

It was an exaggeration.

[notorial dissent]

Does brain dead count? He's been that way for a long time.

[Gregg]

FWIW I thought he was dead.

It was an exaggeration.

I was confusing him with the guy someone just mentioned in another thread somewhere....sometimes all the idgits just run together.