Supreme Court decides to hear Schulz case

[Demosthenes]

Or not.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines Two Tax Cases, Including Tax Scheme's First Amendment Claim
Posted Oct. 14, 2008, 2:05 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to two tax cases Oct. 14, including an appeal of a Second Circuit finding that the activities of We the People Congress Inc. and We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc.—which promote a tax avoidance scheme—were not protected speech under the First Amendment (Schulz v. United States, U.S., No. 08-317, cert. denied 10/14/08).
In Schulz v. United States, the Second Circuit upheld a permanent injunction barring Robert Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., from promoting the scheme that helped employers and employees to improperly stop tax withholding from wages. He contended the materials at issue constituted protected political and/or educational speech under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court also declined to hear an appeal of Braquet v. United States, in which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Luoto J. Braquet owed nearly $100,000 to the government in federal income taxes, penalties, and interest. It also found the government's tax lien to be foreclosed and awarded it possession of Braquet's property (Braquet v. United States, U.S., No. 08-288, cert. denied 10/14/08).

[LPC]

Okay, I've read the quote twice, and checked the docket myself.

Shouldn't that be "declines" to hear Schulz case, and not "decides"?

(And don't scare me like that. I almost had a seizure at the idea that Schulz's nonsense would merit cert.)

[Judge Roy Bean]

Okay, I've read the quote twice, and checked the docket myself.

Shouldn't that be "declines" to hear Schulz case, and not "decides"?

(And don't scare me like that. I almost had a seizure at the idea that Schulz's nonsense would merit cert.)

Missed the sly cat's "Or not," eh?

[LPC]

Missed the sly cat's "Or not," eh?

Yeah, she got me.

[grixit]

She's quick as a wink-- did she get your ham sandwich as well?

[notorial dissent]

And the wailing and lamenting in Looneyville will no doubt be great over the grave and terrible injustice of it all, and yet, the cat will laugh.

[Demosthenes]

She's quick as a wink-- did she get your ham sandwich as well?

Yum. Spicy mustard!

[Nikki]

Bob waxes philosophical on October 14, most interestingly reflecting on his Quixotic history in the courts

As I begin to write this article, I am on the train from D.C. to the BWI airport, heading home, having filed yet another set of papers in the Supreme Court of the United States in defense of the Constitution. Once again, the Government is in the process of attempting to seize power from the People.

This time, regarding the A.I.G. and $700 Billion Wall Street bailout plans, I filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restrain the Government from giving or lending taxpayer funds or credit in exchange for private assets in aid of private corporations, unless and until the government defendants could show the Court where in the Constitution it provides that the People have agreed to share with the Government their power to purchase private assets such as “toxic” mortgage-related assets and non-toxic shares of bank stocks.

In both cases, without waiting to hear from the government defendants, the District Court (Judge Sharpe) denied my emergency motion …

On September 30 I appealed Judge Sharpe’s evasive and erroneous decision … On October 10 the Court of Appeals notified me that it had denied the motion on October 6.

Because the application I filed today with SCOTUS is for a stay, and because it was filed before 2:00 pm today, it should be decided this afternoon by the individual justice assigned to my geographic area. That would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So, here I am, waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to timely respond to a judicial Petition for Redress of Grievances challenging grave violations of the Constitution by the other two branches of the federal Government.

I’m Not Hopeful…

… I have learned two important lessons during 30 years and more than 150 reported decisions in cases I have brought against local, state and federal government officials …

First, the judiciary is highly politicized and quite corrupt. Second, the Wall Street merchants of debt are omnipotent, controlling our government officials, including judges and the political parties who designate most of those candidates who appear on the ballot on election day. Although I have won many cases and set some constitutional precedents, each time a case and controversy got too close to the heart of the lines of money and power I would lose, no matter how right I was on the law and no matter how artfully drawn my papers.

There was the 1994 case, “Schulz v. State of New York,”
…
New York's highest court ruled [against me]

I took the case to SCOTUS on the ground of Due Process of law. Without comment, SCOTUS decided not to hear the case.

Another case … that SCOTUS refused to hear

The lower federal courts, in a wholly frivolous “stare decisis” ruling, [ruled against me]

In January 2008, without comment, SCOTUS refused to hear the case,

We the People was charged with promoting an “abusive tax shelter”
…
In this case, the federal courts improperly granted DOJ’s motion for a summary judgment against We The People

Yesterday, without comment, SCOTUS denied We The People’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, meaning it decided it would not hear the case.

Last year at about this time, SCOTUS decided not to hear another case of mine

Twice I challenged the illegal law in our State courts,

Twice those state Courts dismissed the case without addressing the constitutional issue.

I then petitioned each of the 19 members of the County Board of Supervisors, exercising my Right of Redress, seeking a remedy of the violation of the State Constitution. There was no response from any of the members.

I then filed a case in the federal district court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.
… the federal judge dismissed the case
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision and SCOTUS decided, without comment, not to hear the case.

Unfortunately, there are numerous other cases that I have been directly involved in or have personally witnessed that I can use to illustrate just how politicized and corrupt the judiciary has become, especially in cases that go to the heart of the lines of money, taxes and power.

The time has come to more openly question and explain why I, or anyone else, should continue to engage our corrupt judiciary in a seemingly losing effort to hold the Government accountable to the restrictions, prohibitions and limited powers set forth in our Constitution.
…
What is the Appropriate Next Step?

A free People should always ask, after each impasse, “What is the appropriate next step, given the Government’s violation of the Constitution, and its refusal to respond to legitimate Petitions for Redress?”
…
If we have evidence of violations of the Constitution, we have the unalienable Right of Redress – to Petition the Government for Redress of these violations. If the Government refuses to respond we have the inherent Right to withdraw our allegiance and support.
…
We must beg no longer; we must entreat no more. No more Petitions.

Organization for defiance ought now to be the mantra of those who understand the truth and have reached the limit of their submission to a Government that now routinely usurps power from the People.
…

The Cubbies have a better record.

[LPC]

Because the application I filed today with SCOTUS is for a stay, and because it was filed before 2:00 pm today, it should be decided this afternoon by the individual justice assigned to my geographic area. That would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Docket No. 08A347, titled "Robert L. Schulz, Applicant, v. United States Federal Reserve System, et al." Submitted to Justice Ginsburg on 10/17/2008, and as of this moment (2:50 EDT) not yet denied.

If it wasn't for Schulz's lack of standing, failure to state a cause of action, and being wrong on the constitutional merits, it would be a slam dunk.

[notorial dissent]

Oh well, when you can’t be right, you can at least waste someone else’s time with meaningless nonsense.

And let’s not forget those donations we’re going to need to keep the good fight going.

[Leftcoaster]

Perhaps he see right and wrong as positions on a wheel, and if he's just wrong enough he can do a full circle and come back to right again.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Oh well, when you can’t be right, you can at least waste someone else’s time with meaningless nonsense.

And let’s not forget those donations we’re going to need to keep the good fight going.

Thanks for the new sig line.

[notorial dissent]

The main point as I see it, is that they have 1) never actually read the document, 2) have no concept of history and what and why there is a constitutional provision, 3) have no concept of what the document says, and that is what Schulz and his ilk prey upon.

[LPC]

Docket No. 08A347, titled "Robert L. Schulz, Applicant, v. United States Federal Reserve System, et al." Submitted to Justice Ginsburg on 10/17/2008, and as of this moment (2:50 EDT) not yet denied.

It was denied today (10/21).

And that was all just for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is just his first tilt at the windmill. The lower court still gets to make a final decision on the merits of Schulz's request for an injunction, so Schulz still gets to have his request for a permanent injunction denied and still gets to appeal the denial all the way back to the Supreme Court again.

[Demosthenes]

"nationally known constitutional rights scholar"???

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/1 ... 456249.txt

Constitutional activist hopes Supreme Court will take his case
By NICK REISMAN
Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:57 PM EDT

FORT ANN -- Activist Robert Schulz won't let the $700 billion bailout of American International Group and other Wall Street giants slide by.

When he heard the news that the insurance giant would receive taxpayer money in order to stay afloat, the Fort Ann resident and nationally known constitutional rights scholar filed two lawsuits in federal court.

He contends that the bailout package goes against the laws of the land.

"This was to purchase mortgage-related assets from private parties with taxpayer money in the aid of a private undertaking," Schulz said. "There was no Constitutional authority to do this."

He's taken his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It currently sits on the desk of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Schulz hopes that Scalia, known for both his conservative views and strict reading of the Constitution, will shepherd the lawsuit before the full court.

The first lawsuit, filed in Northern District Court on Sept. 18. A second was filed on Sept. 23. Both were eventually consolidated into one case, Schulz said.

So far, he hasn't heard back from Scalia's office. He also filed an emergency restraining order to prevent the government from handing over the money.

"I think the courts were stalling to allow the Executive and Legislative branches to proceed with something that on its merits, there's no authority for this," he said.

Schulz, the founder of national organizations We the People Foundation and We the People Congress, is no stranger to stirring up controversy with the federal government.

He was held in contempt of court earlier this year for refusing to turn over the personal information, including names and addresses, of people who received his information packet that claimed to show how to legally stop federal tax withholding.

He was planning a hunger strike this past summer at the National Mall to draw attention to his grievances that include the Iraq war, immigration and tax policy.

But his plans were thwarted when the National Parks Service told him he wouldn't be allowed to sleep on federal property during the monthlong protest.

Schulz was planning another protest on Constitution Day, Sept. 17, but he decided to focus his efforts on stopping the bailout instead.

"There's nothing in the public record, other than all the propaganda of the sky is falling, there's been no hearing," he said. "It's the Iraq resolution all over again. It's the president coming to Congress, and saying 'We've got to invade Iraq, you don't want a mushroom cloud do you?' It's the same thing again."

[Nikki]

"nationally known constitutional rights scholar"???

Well, Lysenko was a nationally known biology scholar. He just happened to be wrong, too.

[Trippy]

Schulz was planning another protest on Constitution Day, Sept. 17, but he decided to focus his efforts on stopping the bailout instead.

Guess Schulz forgot to mention this to the reporter, too:

D.C. Constitution Day Event Canceled

Due to numerous factors, including a substantial lack of participation, WTP has canceled the Constitution Day event planned for Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

Oops.

[LPC]

He's taken his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It currently sits on the desk of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Schulz hopes that Scalia, known for both his conservative views and strict reading of the Constitution, will shepherd the lawsuit before the full court.

Okay, this is weird. This is the same application for a temporary restraining order that Ginsberg has already denied. The docket looks like this:

Oct 17 2008 Application (08A347) for preliminary injunction pending appeal, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Oct 21 2008 Application (08A347) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Oct 27 2008 Application (08A347) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Oct 29 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 14, 2008.
Oct 29 2008 Application (08A347) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

So Ginsberg denies this nonsense, Schulz refiles, it goes to Scalia, and Scalia refers it to the entire court???

Is this even possible?

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

So Ginsberg denies this nonsense, Schulz refiles, it goes to Scalia, and Scalia refers it to the entire court???

Is this even possible?

Who is going to tell Scalia he can't?

[cynicalflyer]

So Ginsberg denies this nonsense, Schulz refiles, it goes to Scalia, and Scalia refers it to the entire court???
Is this even possible?

Yes, it is. Supreme Court Rule 23(4) and 23(5)

4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule 30.2, the party making an application, except in the case of an application for an extension of time, may renew it to any other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29.
5. A Justice to whom an application for a stay or for bail is submitted may refer it to the Court for determination.

So Ginsberg, as Circuit Justice (2nd Circuit) says no. Schulz renews the application and names Scalia specifically to hear it under Rule 23(4). Scalia, under Rule 23(5) decides to kick it to the full Court. Why? Who knows. Maybe to give a more definitive "No. HELL no." to the application. Maybe because Scalia suspects if he rejects, Schulz will try to petition the full Court anyway and they might as well get right to rejecting it as a full Court.