Injunction Against Bob Schulz & WTP Affirmed

[Dr. Caligari]

Per Howard Bashman, news that the Second Circuit today affirmed the injunction against Bob Schulz and WTP, and lifted the stay of the order requiring him to turn over his customer lists to the IRS.

Link to pdf of decision here:

http://howappealing.law.com/022208.html#032326

[The Operative]

I can see it now.

Bob Schulz will say...

The appeals court did not see how wrong the district court's ruling was. We will be taking this to the Supreme Court. Send money!

The only difference will be is that Bob Schulz will use 1000 more words than what is above.

[Famspear]

Ahhh, justice!

I've modified Wikipedia to read as follows:

On April 3, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had sued Schulz and two organizations, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress Inc., in connection with an attempt to stop the sale of an alleged tax fraud scheme reported to have cost the U.S. Treasury more than 21 million dollars. The suit alleged that Schulz had "used the two We the People entities to market a nationwide tax fraud scheme, called the Tax Termination Package, to employers and employees." The government charged that "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." U.S. Department of Justice news release, April 3, 2007, at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07214.htm

On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes (see Tax protester arguments); (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings. Decision and Order, Aug. 9, 2007, docket entry 30, ''United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress'', case no. 1:07-cv-0352, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. On or about August 29, 2007, much of the material on the We the People web sites was removed pursuant to the court order, a copy of which was posted on the web sites.

The court "also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government." David Cay Johnston, "Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close," ''New York Times'', August 30, 2007, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/busin ... yt&emc=rss According to the ''New York Times'', "[t]his information would make it easy for the Internal Revenue Service to identify people who followed the illegal advice and for the Justice Department to prosecute them for tax crimes." Id. On one of its web sites, We the People Foundation states that on August 30, 2007, the Foundation obtained an Order from the United States Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit preventing the enforcement of the part of District Court order that had required production of identification information for the government. According to the Foundation, the Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear the Foundation's motion to stay the District Court order on September 18, 2007. See http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/67 ... -08-31.htm (downloaded on 31 August 2007).

On February 22, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Judgment, p. 4, Feb. 22, 2008, ''United States v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc.'', case no. 07-3729-cv, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (''per curiam''). The Court of Appeals stated:

----Defendants principally argue that the tax materials at issue constitute protected political and/or educational speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Defendants further argue that their actions in promoting the materials are otherwise protected under the First Amendment's Petition Clause, on the theory that the government has yet to respond to defendants' repeated inquiries as to whether, and on what basis, any information in the tax materials is false. . . . We have considered all of defendants' arguments and find them to be without merit. Judgment, p. 3, Feb. 22, 2008, ''United States v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc.'', case no. 07-3729-cv, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (''per curiam'').

The Court of Appeals also reinstated the District Court's requirement that the Foundation must provide the government "the names and contact information of the individuals who have received the tax materials."Id. The Court of Appeals stated:

----The district court found that defendants' illegal activities were harming individuals, who were exposing themselves to criminal liability by following the defendants' ill-conceived instructions. . . . Requiring defendants to provide the indentity and contact information of the recipients of the tax materials enables the government to monitor the defendants' obligation under the injunction to provide a copy of the district court's order to recipients of the tax materials. Moreover, the district court found that the defendants' illegal actions were harming the government . . . Requiring defendants to provide the identity and contact information . . . enables the government to monitor whether the recipients of defendants' materials are violating the tax laws. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion with respect to the district court's imposition of the reporting requirements in Paragraph C of the injunction. Judgment, p. 3 & 4, Feb. 22, 2008, ''United States v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc.'', case no. 07-3729-cv, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (''per curiam'').

(footnotes and other coding converted to body of text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Foundation

[Dezcad]

From the opinion:

Moreover, we DENY defendants’ pending motion requesting
that we take judicial notice of a petition for rehearing of the Supreme Court’s order denying a
writ of certiorari in We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir.
2007), cert. denied, --- S. Ct. ----, 2008 WL 59413 (Jan. 7, 2008), as consideration of the petition
for rehearing in that case is unnecessary to the disposition in this case.

From the WTP Site:

This Friday, Feb. 22nd:
SCOTUS To Reconsider Landmark
WTP v. US
On Friday, February 22 the Supreme Court of the United States will decide Bob Schulz�s Petition for Rehearing of its January 7th decision not to hear We the People v. United States,

So today may be an overall big *loser* for Bobby....

[Famspear]

On Feb. 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denies petition for rehearing in Schulz v. United States, no. 07-681. See Order, Mon., Feb. 25, 2008, page 10:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 508pzr.pdf

[Dezcad]

On Feb. 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denies petition for rehearing in Schulz v. United States, no. 07-681. See Order, Mon., Feb. 25, 2008, page 10:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 508pzr.pdf

Did you see the denial of rehearing order right above the WTP one on page 10?

07-624 HENDRICKSON, PETER E. V. UNITED STATES

[Imalawman]

On Feb. 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denies petition for rehearing in Schulz v. United States, no. 07-681. See Order, Mon., Feb. 25, 2008, page 10:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 508pzr.pdf

Did you see the denial of rehearing order right above the WTP one on page 10?

07-624 HENDRICKSON, PETER E. V. UNITED STATES

Speaking of which, I expect the 6th circuits opinion any day now. Its been a while.

[Famspear]

Holy Toledo! Hendrickson too! How did I miss that?!!??

Not a good day for either of these two blowhards (Hendrickson or Schulz)!

Come to think of it, in reading Schulz' pro se petition for rehearing -- the one rejected this morning -- it almost reads like Hendrickson's work. Hyperbole filled with frenetic, frustrated, impotent bombast. You kinda wonder if they might be twins, separated at birth.

[LPC]

Did you see the denial of rehearing order right above the WTP one on page 10?

07-624 HENDRICKSON, PETER E. V. UNITED STATES

That's not Hendrickson's injunction case (which is still before the 6th Circuit), but Hendrickson's appeal of one of the many decisions denying his attempts to quash IRS summonses against his banks for his financial records. The full string is: No. 2:2006x 50394 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 6/2/2006) (petition denied), affirmed, No. 06-1870 (6th Cir. 4/10/2007), rehearing denied, 8/8/2007, cert. denied, No. 07-624 (1/7/2008), rehearing den. (2/25/2008).

And yes, a decision from the 6th Circuit on the injunction seems overdue.

Another decision that's been pending for awhile is that the 3rd Circuit has not yet affirmed Larken Rose's conviction. Oral argument was held on 9/27/2007 and the court has not yet issued a ruling on the appeal.

[Disilloosianed]

Has anybody heard anything about Bob's Sunday meeting? I can't wait for the "update" on WTP's site.