Airline pilot CtCer can't find a lawyer

[Cpt Banjo]

That be funny. But not nearly as funny as actual footage of real TPs claiming their sovereignty, filling their colons...

With their heads, no doubt.

[Demosthenes]

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.

TIGTA does the investigation, not the IRS.

[Demosthenes]

25.4.1.1 (07-08-2008)
Introduction
The designation of Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer (PDT) must be based on verifiable evidence or information. There must also be a nexus to tax administration.

Taxpayers must be identified by Social Security Numbers and/or Employer Identification Numbers.

Association with a PDT or membership in a group, some of whose members advocate violent protest against our tax system, does not by itself fulfill the criteria for designation as a PDT.

The following criteria have been established for determining PDT status:

Taxpayers who physically assault IRS employees or contractors or members of their immediate family;

Taxpayers who attempt to intimidate or threaten IRS employees or contractors or members of their immediate family through specific threats of bodily harm, a show of weapons, the use of animals, or through specific threatening behavior (such as acts of stalking);

Persons who are active members of groups that advocate violence against IRS employees, or against other federal employees, where advocating such violence could reasonably be understood to threaten the safety of Service employees and impede the performance of Service duties;

Taxpayers who have committed the acts set forth in any of the preceding criteria, but whose acts have been directed against employees or contractors of other governmental agencies at federal, state, county or local levels; or

Taxpayers who are not classified as PDT's through application of the above criteria but who have demonstrated a clear propensity towards violence through acts of violent behavior within the five-year period immediately preceding the time of classification as potentially dangerous.


Note:
The preceding criteria were approved by Chief Counsel. Adherence to the criteria is essential to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act. If a particular situation represents a borderline case in the application of the above criteria, the determination should be made in favor of the PDT designation (erring on the side of caution) for the protection of Service employees.


25.4.1.2 (07-08-2008)
Reporting to TIGTA
Employees will promptly report assaults, threats, harassment or forcible interference incurred during, or related to, the performance of official duties to their local Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) office. Visit the Office of Employee Protection (OEP) website at http://sbse.web.irs.gov/oep/ for a list of TIGTA Field Division addresses and phone numbers.

Employees will report the incident to TIGTA if a threat to Service personnel is believed to exist, even if the information does not meet the established criteria.

Employees will report information to TIGTA about individuals who are dangerous, but where no specific incident has occurred involving an IRS employee, e.g., the taxpayer was recently convicted of assault, if there is a relevance to tax administration.

25.4.1.3 (06-01-2003)
TIGTA'S Role
TIGTA will:

Review the facts of the incident

Initiate a PDT case

Send an electronic PDT referral to the OEP

Conduct an investigation

Forward the results of the investigation to the OEP

25.4.1.4 (07-08-2008)
Office of Employee Protection's Role
The OEP will:

Input and remove the PDT indicator to and from IDRS/Master File and Non-Master File accounts

Maintain the PDT database

Review and analyze TIGTA's Reports of Investigation (ROI's)

Make PDT determinations

Function as liaison with General Legal Services (GLS)

Provide information and feedback to referring employees and their local Area Directors

Perform PDT five-year reviews


25.4.1.5 (07-08-2008)
PDT Determination and Appeal
The Chief, Office of Employee Protection is authorized to make all PDT determinations.

Cases determined to not meet PDT criteria can be appealed by the referring employee's local Area Director.

In order to appeal a "No PDT" determination, the employee's local Area Director must contact the Chief, Office of Employee Protection. If an agreement on the determination cannot be reached, the OEP will forward the appeal to GLS. GLS is responsible for making a final decision on the determination.

Cases initiated by TIGTA that result in a "No PDT" determination can be appealed by the referring TIGTA Special Agent-In-Charge.

In order for TIGTA to appeal a "No PDT" determination, the TIGTA Special Agent-In-Charge must contact the Chief, Office of Employee Protection. If an agreement on the determination cannot be reached, the OEP will forward the appeal to GLS. GLS will make a final decision on the determination.

25.4.1.6 (07-08-2008)
PDT Indicator
Input and removal of the PDT indicator to IDRS is restricted to the OEP.

Input of the PDT indicator will result in "PDT" appearing on the systems and documents listed in Exhibit 25.4.1-1.

25.4.1.7 (07-08-2008)
PDT Indicator versus CAU Indicator
If a PDT case meets CAU criteria rather than PDT criteria:

The Chief, Office of Employee Protection will make a "No PDT" determination on the PDT case.

The referring employee's local Area Director will be notified of the "No PDT" determination and the intent of initiating a CAU case.

Once the PDT case is closed, the OEP will initiate a CAU case.

The Chief, Office of Employee Protection will make a "Yes CAU" determination on the CAU case.

The referring employee and his/her manager will be notified of the CAU determination.


25.4.1.8 (07-08-2008)
Five-Year Review of PDT Records
A PDT indicator will remain on the IDRS/Master File and/or Non-Master File account of the Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer for five years, at which time, the status will be reevaluated by the OEP.

Any taxpayer, who has been in the PDT database for five years and meets one or more of the following criteria, will retain the PDT indicator for an additional five-year period:

An additional PDT referral was made during the five-year period under review;

The PDT offense was a physical assault on an IRS employee or contractor;

An arrest by TIGTA or other law enforcement agencies, for a threat to or an assault on an IRS employee or contractor, occurred during the five-year period under review; or

There is current IRS activity at the time of the review.


The OEP will remove the PDT indicators on those taxpayers who do not warrant retention as a PDT.

25.4.1.9 (04-11-2006)
Definitions
The following definitions are provided to clarify terminology used in the PDT criteria:

Assault: Direct physical contact, with the intent to cause physical harm, including striking or attempting to strike with objects, such as rocks or bottles, or brandishing a weapon.

Threat: Verbal or written expression of intent to cause harm to an IRS employee or contractor or to an IRS employee's or contractor's immediate family member. It also includes preventing an IRS employee or contractor from leaving a taxpayer's business or residence, even if no physical contact actually occurs.

Intimidate: Action intended to cause an IRS employee or contractor to become timid, or to force or deter an IRS employee or contractor from taking action.


Exhibit 25.4.1-1 (07-08-2008)
List of "PDT" Coded Systems and Documents
The PDT indicator will be reflected on the following:

National Computing Center (NCC) Transcripts (except Privacy Act Transcripts)

Microfilm Replacement System (MRS) Transcripts

Audit Information Management System (AIMS)

AIMS Display (AMDIS)

AIMS Weekly Updates

AIMS Charge-Out (Form 5546)


Federal Tax Deposit (FTD) Alerts (BMF only)

Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) Transcripts

Tax Modules (TXMOD)

Entity Modules (ENMOD)

Summary Modules (SUMRY)

Taxpayer Delinquent Inquiry (TDINQ)


Corporate Files On Line (CFOL) Modules

Individual Master File On Line (IMFOL)

Business Master File On Line (BMFOL)

Information National On Line Entity (INOLE)


Balance Due Accounts

Return Delinquency Accounts

Daily Transcripts Registers (DTR's)

Integrated Collection System (ICS) screens

Automated Collection System (ACS) Web

Examination Returns Control System (ERCS) screens

[Nikki]

So, when Courtney Love threatens to flash an IRS agent, she could be classified as PDT?

Anyhoo.....back on subject. I can hardly wait to here is explanations as to why no lawyer will go near him.

Courtney love? No.

Rosanne Barr? Yes.

Or if it were <insert your favorite superannuated male personage>, it would be assault with a dead weapon.

[OnceSane]

Pre RRA-98, there were few safeguards on who received the PDT designation. I knew of one case where a person said (over the phone, to an IRS employee they had never met) "Hope you get home safely." CI (at that time, they controlled the designation) felt that this was sufficiently threatening to get a PDT designation.

The second case was an individual who was in serious collection problems (had been a non-filer, with a group who advocated not filing) He sent a letter to his Congressman threatening to become violent at a collection meeting. CI was present at the meeting. The man had been blowing off steam. His representative did not know about the letter until they were in the representitive's car, on the way to the meeting. The rep almost dumped the client at that point. However, the man did become compliant thereafter.

Both of those were pre-RRA-98 cases.

At one time, I worked in an Appeal Office that was in a private building. After CI had helped seize guns from a persons residence, we posted signs about bringing weapons into a Federal facility. There was NO security, and anyone could have walked in with anything. At least, once the signs were up, if the guy had come in armed, charges could have been brought against him

[ASITStands]

The only "threats" in the cases I mentioned were threats of lawsuit.

There may have been "nasty" letters or phone calls of which I am not aware, but I do know that no violent or threatening action was ever taken. No "in your face" confrontations.

I felt the PDT designations were unjustified.

[Famspear]

Welzel has lowered his demand. Now he wants only $20,000 from the half-wits at losthorizons ($50 per contributor x 400 contributors):

[ . . . ]There are a lot of things going on in the background, but I could make this happen very quickly.

Translation: "I'm trying to give you the idea that giving me money is the equivalent of making a good investment. I'm solid. You can TRUUUUUUSSSSTTT me [insert visual of Cheshire Cat grinning, from Alice in Wonderland]."

Welzel continues:

All I am waiting for is support. Like I said earlier, I need FIRM commitments from 400 people in the form of half the first month's payment. I will hold it in the bank until launch, and refund it if we don't launch.

So tell your friends everybody; I have to hold off on getting large scale media coverage until after the 400 sign up because I simply can't manage a flood of requests myself. Once we have enough to hire someone, then I'll try to get the flood gate open.

I still haven't heard back from any attorneys yet. I am hoping that one would be able to recommend the appropriate organizational form.

Cheers,
Bob

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5958#5958

Welzel hasn't gotten webhick's message that there are only about 180 truly available suckers (oops, I mean "Patriots") at losthorizons.

Come on, you Patriots! Stop sending money to the loser, PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson -- and start sending money to Bob Welzel! PeterEricBlowhard Meister is sooo, sooooo, how shall I put it? So "yesterday." Make Welzel your new guru!

[The Operative]

[ . . . ]There are a lot of things going on in the background, but I could make this happen very quickly.

Translation: "I'm trying to give you the idea that giving me money is the equivalent of making a good investment. I'm solid. You can TRUUUUUUSSSSTTT me [insert visual of Cheshire Cat grinning, from Alice in Wonderland]."

I disagree with your translation. I believe the correct translation is...
"I am trying to see how fast I can get the IRS to ask the DOJ to start criminal proceedings against me."

[Famspear]

Uh-oh. Bob Welzel's not getting a completely overwhelmingly positive response. "Janiece" writes:

You also say, "I don't care if I "make" one penny off a program like this. "

$10,000 cash flow a month? I'd say that is quite a bit more than "one penny". Are you sure you meant to say "cash flow"? That term generally means net profit. It is the difference between what comes in and what is paid out.

Did you base that figure on $50 a month which would equal $10,000 for 200 participants, or $100 month which would equal $20,000? If it's the later amount, you very easily could have a cash flow of $10,000 mo.
which would make you a pretty profit.

On the surface, it sounds like a great idea, but I'll wait until I get more information on the financial aspects of the program before I commit.

Janiece

correction.....

400 people at $50

That still equals $20,000 mo and my question remains the same.

User "mutter" then chimes in:

Money issue aside and yes there would have to be some kind of assurance before I contribute anything. the strategy is sound.
I think you can begin by getting the idea out there then getting the major players those who already have large orgs to launch the help for others to file suite and help with the media coverage.
Why reinvent the wheel when you can piggy back off an existing org?

Welzel responds:

You know Janiece, that's fair, and I admit, I did a swag on the cost; but it is certainly fair.

First, this will NEVER happen with out competent PAID staff. For 400 cases, I figured initially one and quickly two legal secretaries at a cost of about $1000 per week each or $8000, then We will need 2 paralegals initially part time at a cost of 4 to 6,000 per month, and at least one attorney at about $4000 per month.

Remember to get the job done right will take dedicated people which means that they will have to reduce availability at their other jobs to make it available for this which means they have to be paid more than competitvely to be willing to deal with the hardship that the IRS will surely bring.

When I did my case I paid over $5000 and I had to do almost everything, print the petitions, mail them, serve the parties, and keep track of everything. I am suggesting that this organization do all that, so printing costs, mail cost and service cost (at a minimum), as well as the cost associated with managing the case load.

Next, we intend to launch a concerted media compaign which I can do fairly cheaply, but not for free. Remember, we are trying to get the media and people on our side, because part of this is to get legislation passed removing the liability shield from IRS employees and relaxing sovereign immunity. This will involve both commercials and YouTube videos. These, again can be made cheaply, but not free.

And finally, I would eventually get paid something; I am committing to devote a considerable amount of time and energy. Yes, I think it is necessary and worthwhile, but I can't afford to do it for nothing. As I said before, many people offer services for combating the IRS, most of them charge a lot more and charge for each thing they do. I think this manner will provide the opportunity for many more people to fight.

If you think $50 is unreasonable, please tell me what is reasonable. I only did a very brief cost analysis, and I could be way off, but I don't think so. My intent is not to get rich off this; my goal is to get the IRS. Having said that, what do you think it would be worth for the idea that "got" the IRS?

I'll leave with this; hundreds of people have sued under 7433; almost everyone of them failed. I have a case that is succeeding.

Semper Fi,
Bob Welzel

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5976#5976

EDIT: Bob Welzel has switched from not caring whether he makes one "penny" off this program to stating that he wants to "get paid something" -- that he is "committing to devote a considerable amount of time and energy" and that he "can't afford to do it for nothing."

What happened, Bob?

[Joey Smith]

Just another Paytriot trying to scam the sheeple over there; he'll probably succeed to one degree or another.

[Famspear]

Uh-oh. Now the normally delusional "mutter" is becoming at least partially logical. Not good for Welzel's prospects for fleecing the loserheads. Mutter is asking questions:

How about if we analyze the case first and you get a win.
there are several elements here that must be satisfied [and] then[,] in the end[,] the judge has discretion to only give back what was stolen plus costs. Speaking of which[,] why the heck did it cost 5K. Can you itemize that?

[ . . . ]

I agree that the only way to make them honest is to overload them. the DOJ and judges will sooner or later get tired of it.
Bob what your [sic] talking about is running the lawsuit for them[;] thats [sic] going to get you accused of practing law without a license. I am all for helping anyone[,] but each case is different[,] as the IRSS does different stuff to everyone.
We need to inform people of how it should work, what they should be requesting from the IRSS how to do so ie certified mail so its admissible and provable in court. there a good video for you. A this is how is [sic] should work along with how the IRSS can end the administrative process by not producing documentation you request.

Bob when is your court date? will this be a trial[,] or does the judge do it all? If this is setup correctly[,] then summary judgment should be asked for[,] along with the maxium [sic] amount based on this and that info about how they do this all the time and need to learn otherwise.
Have you done a brief in support of the damage payout?

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5980#5980

Shame on you, "mutter". You may end up spoiling Welzel's plans.

[ASITStands]

I must be dense. I haven't figured out yet why he thinks he's succeeding.

The judge appears to have let him off easy when he originally dismissed the case. Now that it's been reinstated, that only sets Welzel up for sanctions and other goodies.

I can't see why he thinks he's suddenly got the golden key to tax protesting.

Yeah. Yeah. He's another delusional idiot [excuse my language].

I think I agree with 'mutter' [shudder]. "Analyze the case first and get a win."

[Famspear]

Bob Welzel is sweating now:

mutter, excellent questions all, and if I were representing an active organization doing this[,] I would certainly have an answer. Since, however, I am almost "thinking out loud" in the forum, some [questions] have not beed [sic] considered or answered, but they will [be].

My case currently is waiting on the Judge to release his memorandum opinion, which will direct both parties to perform some actions. When that comes in[,] you in the forum will be the first to know.

As far as the cost of my case, there was an initial fee that was either $2500 or $3500 (it's $3500 now), filing fees of $350, and each supplement and amendment cost me between $500 and $1000 -- it adds up fast. Additionally, I was charged for each letter response to the IRS of $100 to $350 each. I would need to go through a couple of years of receipts to give you an exact number, but the point is that it wasn't cheap, and the initial fee will knock out 90% of the people likely to want to do this. I suggest that $50 is a good price for two reasons, first, it is affordable, but secondly, since the fee is so low, it is more like a service that "members" take advantage of[,] rather than a paid fee for legal services. Also, I think the filing fee needs to be paid by the client[,] because they are filing pro se...we are simply managing the case.

The exhaustion requirement is probably no longer legal[,] since the Supreme Court ruled that exhaustion was for the jury to determine, and since the IRS refuses to tell people what the adminstrative remedies are, there is no reasonable way of determinng when they have been exhausted. Additionally, what happens when the IRS fails to answer ANY letter? These are issue WE would love to see before a jury[,] and the IRS would hate to see there.

Damages I think will be the easiest bridge to cross. I know for example that the IRS has reported to the world that I own [sic] LOTS of money to them. What is the cost of reputation lost, or lost opportunities. I have to pay over $2000 per month in rent (AK is outrageous), for an extremely modest house because I can't get a mortgage, becasue of the IRS lien, I have been directly damaged by the lien, which arose without an assessment. What about sleepless nights, the $40 per month prescription to Prevacid, and the permanent damage that the anxiety has caused. I'm not worried about reaching that $1M threashold [sic], but, indirectly referring back to Janiece's question, when the time comes, we will hire an expert on damages to evaluate the claims generically, and then assist in determining the specific claim for a specific case.

Also, everyone needs to remember this is an action designed to precipitate change. When the first one of these goes to trial, if it goes badly for the IRS they will be hot to settle out of court. We want to discourage that, because the settlement never goes into the public record. We want the record to show THEY LOST. Secondly, if the media coverage goes the way I would like it to, the underlying system will change, which is, after all, the goal.

R/S
Bob

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =5985#5985

[Famspear]

In losthorizons, Bob Welzel wrote:

As far as the cost of my case, there was an initial fee that was either $2500 or $3500 (it's $3500 now), filing fees of $350, and each supplement and amendment cost me between $500 and $1000 -- it adds up fast. Additionally, I was charged for each letter response to the IRS of $100 to $350 each.

Other than the actual court filing fees, to whom was Bob paying fees?

[ASITStands]

In losthorizons, Bob Welzel wrote:

As far as the cost of my case, there was an initial fee that was either $2500 or $3500 (it's $3500 now), filing fees of $350, and each supplement and amendment cost me between $500 and $1000 -- it adds up fast. Additionally, I was charged for each letter response to the IRS of $100 to $350 each.

Other than the actual court filing fees, to whom was Bob paying fees?

You beat me to it. To whom was he paying fees [presumably to write the briefs]?

There's a group that's been doing 7433 suits for some time. The leader's first name is George. Can't remember the rest of the names, but it's likely he used someone like that.

If it was Richard Cornforth [and I don't think he's done any 7433 suits], it'd be a RICO. Barry Smith [LegalBear] has a website on which he advocates 7433 suits. Maybe?

You'd have to look at the writing and compare it to some other examples to decide.

[Famspear]

In losthorizons, Bob Welzel wrote:

As far as the cost of my case, there was an initial fee that was either $2500 or $3500 (it's $3500 now), filing fees of $350, and each supplement and amendment cost me between $500 and $1000 -- it adds up fast. Additionally, I was charged for each letter response to the IRS of $100 to $350 each.

Other than the actual court filing fees, to whom was Bob paying fees?

You beat me to it. To whom was he paying fees [presumably to write the briefs]?

It sounds like Bob is trying to scam the loserheads in the same way that he apparently has already been scammed by someone else. This relates back to prior comments in this post about the unauthorized practice of law.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I know barratry is a felony in Texas, but even if it's only a misdemeanor in Alaska it means he'll never find a legitimate attorney to handle the case(s).

[ASITStands]

Barry Smith and Robert Clarkson recommend an Administrative Claim under 26 CFR 301.7433-1 to exhaust administrative remedies. George P_ _ _ _ _ _ does not.

I'd guess that's the promoter.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I know barratry is a felony in Texas, but even if it's only a misdemeanor in Alaska it means he'll never find a legitimate attorney to handle the case(s).

Isn't barratry defined as causing shipwrecks for profit?

Actually, I believe it is or was in admiralty law, but in civil and criminal practice it's basically vexatious litigation by an attorney.

[Dr. Caligari]

Isn't barratry defined as causing shipwrecks for profit?

But I submit, m'lud, with all submission,
To marry two at once is Barratry!
-- Gilbert & Sullivan, "Trial by Jury" (slightly edited)