Triumph of the PRA Argument

[truthseeker67]

Split from "Guess Pete's Sentence" for topicality-- Dr Pepper


1040 IRS "CHECKMATE"

On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court. The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence's defense attorney Oscar Stilley. The tactic threatened exposure of IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal with prejudice.

Stilley's tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice , meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th. On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ's discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for
the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond
to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number. In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection
provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency's administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence's criminal trial).

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number. Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.

Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect. Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DOJ and IRS decided not to let the Lawrence case proceed because it would reveal one critical and damning fact: The PRA law protects those that fail to file IRS bootleg Form 1040. The DOJ knew that it stood a significant chance of losing the case, and if that happened, the press and others would quickly spread the word, and leave only fools to ever file a 1040 again. Oscar Stilley's pleadings and documents made these points quite clear:

* IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.
* Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.
* The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
* The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.

*A public trial would have opened a "Pandora's Box" of legal evidence and government testimony under oath that would establish the IRS 1040 form as both fraudulent and counterfeit.
* Oscar Stilley's PRA defense "checkmated" the DOJ and IRS
* The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit requirements of those statutes.


READ IT AND WEEP, Commies!!!

[wserra]

READ IT AND WEEP, Commies!!!

"Read it and laugh" is a lot closer. Two points are all it takes:

(1) You might want to read what the Seventh Circuit actually said in Lawrence's own case, instead of the blather of an anonymous internet ignoramus. Had you done so, you would have seen the following:

Lawrence’s brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites to no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes, including: Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991); and United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990). Nor is the correctness of Lawrence’s position evident from the language of the PRA itself. Lawrence provides no explanation for how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it.

(2) If Stilley holds the keys to the kingdom, why is he about to go to jail?

[LPC]

This is such old news.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

Some tax protesters claim that the case of Robert Lawrence is some kind of evidence that the PRA defense will work. In that case, the government decided to dismiss an indictment and not prosecute Lawrence after he had raised the “PRA defense,” but the timing of the events was a coincidence. In response to a motion by Lawrence for legal fees from the government, the government explained that, in preparing for trial, it had discovered errors in the calculations of some of the taxes alleged to have been owed by Lawrence and that the amounts actually owed were less than what was claimed in the indictment. The judge refused to allow the government to amend the indictment, and so the government decided to dismiss the indictment rather run the risk that the jury would not convict Lawrence when it learned that the government itself could not accurately calculate his tax liabilities. In ruling for the government on the issue of legal fees, the judge stated that “In light of the cases that had addressed the PRA of 1980, as of the time that Lawrence was prosecuted, the Government had good reason to believe that the PRA defense (even based on the amended PRA of 1995) would not provide someone who failed to pay income taxes with a valid defense,” and referred to the possibility that a court might rule that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is a valid defense for failing to pay taxes as “unlikely.” The court therefore concluded that “Lawrence’s argument that the Government should have known that this [PRA defense] was the law at the time that Lawrence was prosecuted is ridiculous.” United States v. Lawrence, 2006 TNT 153-15, No. 06-10019 (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ill. 7/31/2006), aff’d 217 Fed.App’x 553, No. 06-3205 (7th Cir. 3/1/2007) (Lawrence “has no case support for his argument that the PRA so clearly foreclosed the criminal action as to render the conduct vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith, nor does the language of the PRA establish that proposition”).

See also, http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/robert-lawrence

[LPC]

1040 IRS "CHECKMATE"

On May 12, 2006 ....

Here's a tip: If you find "news" of an IRS "checkmate" or that the "IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public" have been exposed, and the "news" is more than three years old, you might want to dig a little deeper.

Next up: Big news about Tommy Cryer's victory in court over the IRS (which is "big news" that's only two years old).

[Famspear]

"truthseeker67" posted:

1040 IRS "CHECKMATE"....

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen one of these "truthers" blindly copy and paste this "PRA/OMB control number" nonsense from somewhere on the internet, not realizing that it's already been debunked here and in other places. These people just don't do their homework.

[.]

They'll never give up. Even though almost every major TP guru has been convicted and unceremoniously tossed into the federal clink, some for what amounts to a life sentence.

I hope they don't, lest we have no one left to ridicule. At this point, we're reduced to 3rd-string jokers like Kotmair.

[fortinbras]

At the time that the prosecutor dismissed the first case against Lawrence, the reason was the belated discovery that the calculations of Lawrence's tax liability were in error and the amount presented to the grand jury that issued the indictment was larger than the corrected calculations showed. The error was not terribly great, but the fact of the error would have given Lawrences years of appeal on the pretext that the grand jury might not have indicted if they had seen the correct figures. Rather that risk that prospect, the prosecutor dropped the first case and recommenced with a new indictment with the corrected figures. The prosecutor made it clear, to whomever asked, that Lawrence was still going to be prosecuted. That this was the true reason for the dismissal was made clear when Lawrence's lawyer attempted to claim his legal fees from the govt under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The TPs seemed to have missed all those tedious details, and attributed the dropping of the first indictment to the argument, submitted by Lawrence's lawyer only the day before, about the PRA. The TPs actually denied the reality of the true circumstances (as when I mentioned them on the old SuiJuris website).

With reference to the PRA argument itself, the courts have CONSISTENTLY rejected it as a defense to nonfiling of tax returns, rejecting it for a number of reasons including (1) the Form 1040 (and other relevant IRS forms) do display valid OMB numbers (there is no requirement that the OMB issue different numbers for each year's edition of the 1040), (2) (on the assumption that the tax forms do not carry the OMB numbers) the PRA was meant only to apply to questionaires issued as a result of agency decisions whereas the tax return was required by Act of Congress, (3) (closely related) the requirement to file a tax return is laid down in statute, including penalties for non-compliance, and the PRA was not intended and does not nullify that statute, and (4) (rather intriguing) the statute requires a tax return but does not require that the return be written on the IRS's own form so that the taxpayer could churn out a form of his own making. And a few other reasons. But NEVER has the PRA gotten someone off the hook for non-filing. By the way, in at least one tax fraud case, the court held that -even if the tax form lacks the OMB number - that does not excuse outrright lying on the form.
.......

[LPC]

Rather that risk that prospect, the prosecutor dropped the first case and recommenced with a new indictment with the corrected figures. The prosecutor made it clear, to whomever asked, that Lawrence was still going to be prosecuted.

Sorry, but the prosecutor moved to dismiss with prejudice. There was no intention to re-indict, and no second indictment.

[Nikki]

1040 IRS "CHECKMATE"

On May 12, 2006 ....

Here's a tip: If you find "news" of an IRS "checkmate" or that the "IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public" have been exposed, and the "news" is more than three years old, you might want to dig a little deeper.

Next up: Big news about Tommy Cryer's victory in court over the IRS (which is "big news" that's only two years old).

Docket entries re: Tommy K. Cryer USTC #8118-09

# 7 - 12/7/09 Notice of trial in New Orleans, 5/10/10 - Judge Gale
# 9 - 12/18/09 Order that parties file joint status report by 1-29-09

[notorial dissent]

1040 IRS "CHECKMATE"

On May 12, 2006 ....

Here's a tip: If you find "news" of an IRS "checkmate" or that the "IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public" have been exposed, and the "news" is more than three years old, you might want to dig a little deeper.

Next up: Big news about Tommy Cryer's victory in court over the IRS (which is "big news" that's only two years old).

Which isn't likely since they aren't presenting anything that hasn't been heard and shot down innumerable times before. If their had been some significance to it then, the great discovery wouldn't still be shot down in court on a regular basis every time some other chump with a short memory tries it. But, you know pesky little things like facts and reality get in the way of a good, well really mediocre, illusion every time. Reality really bites when your whole world view is based on really poorly contrived fantasy. Specifically the fantasy that if you chant the right words in the right order, in the case "PRA" that all your problems are going to go away, because, of course, they never do.

Tommy Cryer's BIG victory was that he was able to convince a jury that he was too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time, which for a lawyer should be seriously embarrassing, but given some of the things we've seen since about Cryer, the jury may just have gotten it exactly right. He's NOT going to jail for willful failure, he just still owes the taxes though and between them and the fines he is never going to be anything but broke, as he has been claiming recently, not that it will matter since he will in fairly short order be disbarred as well as imprisoned, and it won't matter for a very long time, and he'll still owe for the taxes when he gets out.

[fortinbras]

Sorry, but the prosecutor moved to dismiss with prejudice. There was no intention to re-indict, and no second indictment.

Shortly after the much-ballyhooed dismissal, I personally contacted the US Attorney responsible for the case and he assured me that Lawrence would be prosecuted in a future indictment. It is possible that, having seen the writing on the wall, Lawrence got right with the IRS before that happened.

[wserra]

Shortly after the much-ballyhooed dismissal, I personally contacted the US Attorney responsible for the case and he assured me that Lawrence would be prosecuted in a future indictment. It is possible that, having seen the writing on the wall, Lawrence got right with the IRS before that happened.

It is also possible that the much-ballyhooed dismissal greatly embarassed the AUSA.

[fortinbras]

The dismissal was at the US Attorney's own request and the court makes clear (when refusing to award Lawrence legal expenses) that the reason was that the IRS had somehow miscalculated the numbers that were shown to the grand jury to get the indictment. The mistake was relatively small, but the US Attorney did not want to create an opportunity for protracted appeals on the issue of whether the indictment would have been issued if the grand jury had been told the correct figures.

The PRA argument itself has been CONSISTENTLY rejected in tax cases. I have found more than 20 reported decisions rejecting the PRA defense, and there should be even more unreported. But I haven't found, or been told of, a single victory for the PRA defense -- not even one.

IF the PRA defense were successful in even one decision, you can bet the mortgage that Congress and the IRS would act quickly to close the loophole.

[wserra]

But I haven't found, or been told of, a single victory for the PRA defense -- not even one.

Yes, of course. I meant that there is a significant possibility that the AUSA was embarassed by punting the numbers. Whether the original fault was that of the AUSA or the IRS, the AUSA put them in the indictment.

[LOBO]

I misread this as Triumph ON the PRA Argument.


As in...It's a great, great argument...for me to POOP on.

[truthseeker67]

Doesn't matter, all of you are a bunch of Communists who have failed in your attempts to convince this freedom loving individual that my fight is not worth anything. I bet you don't even know HOW this country was formed......well guess what, IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!! So I hereby poop on your Commie comments and hope you all enjoy reading the Communist Manifesto that you have sitting on your night stand.

[bmielke]

Doesn't matter, all of you are a bunch of Communists

I am a conservative republican.

who have failed in your attempts to convince this freedom loving individual that my fight is not worth anything.

I too love freedom.

I bet you don't even know HOW this country was formed......

I know this one it was either by a bunch of drunken misfits who were bored (tea anyone) or a snow ball fight that turned it a gunfight

well guess what, IT WAS A TAX REVOLT,

Damn I was wrong, shows you what education does for you. But I am pretty sure that the tax thing while it was an orginal argument, could have been resolved with out revolution. It was the fact that the king was unwilling to try and work out a peace agreement and in fact sent more troops that cause the colonists to revolt. Now the whiskey rebellion that was about taxes.

douche bags!!!

I checked I'm still human.

So I hereby poop on your Commie comments and hope you all enjoy reading the Communist Manifesto that you have sitting on your night stand.

Again I am not a communist and have never read the manifesto. But it seems to me that you should have checked your three year old news story before postin it someplace where a bunch of tax professionals in lawyers and taxes hang out. The Law changes everyday.

EDIT: The only reading material on my night stand is a copy of Guns and Ammo ( I just got it yesterday) and this month's First Freedom Magazine, and three Hunting/Trapping books.

[Nikki]

Doesn't matter, all of you are a bunch of Communists who have failed in your attempts to convince this freedom loving individual that my fight is not worth anything. I bet you don't even know HOW this country was formed......well guess what, IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!! So I hereby poop on your Commie comments and hope you all enjoy reading the Communist Manifesto that you have sitting on your night stand.

I suggest an avatar for "truthseeker67": something along the line of a knight on horseback and a few windmills?

[Prof]

Doesn't matter, all of you are a bunch of Communists who have failed in your attempts to convince this freedom loving individual that my fight is not worth anything. I bet you don't even know HOW this country was formed......well guess what, IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!! So I hereby poop on your Commie comments and hope you all enjoy reading the Communist Manifesto that you have sitting on your night stand.

If you will recall, the tax issue was "taxation without representation" of the Colonials in the Parliament (Commons).

If you knew any history, you would know that the taxation complained of was on trade with England and on transactions (the Stamp Acts). Not many people had cash income in the late 18th Century.

If you knew any history, you would know that the Conferation government failed because it could not effectively raise income for the central government's use in paying for things like defense, ports, etc.

If you knew any history, you would know that the Founders, in the Constitution, provided for a power of federal taxation and that every State government taxed its citizens. Again, the income tax was late in the taxation game, for cash income was rare until industrialization and urbanization.

And no, I don't have a copy of Marx on my bedstand (although I do have a a book on training my bird dog, a copy of a great history of pre-Columbian America called 1491, and a copy of the lates Kathy Reichs paperback, [iDevil Bones][/i], all of which I recommend). Das Kapital and the Manifesto are actually pretty turgid reading. I can't really recommend either, although to understand Communism and the history of the Party, the liberal, socialist, faschist and conservative responses, etc., you really do have to plough thru the first and look at the context of the second.

[truthseeker67]

Hmmmmm......the "law changes every day" to which law do you speak of? The only law there is, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......those do not change. And if you don't want me to call you names then don't call me an ignoramus.....I have read the definitions in the INTERNAL Revenue Code.......and according to my research they ONLY apply to Federal Government employees and Instruments of the government such as defense contractors and Alphabet soup government agencies. The 16th Amendment gave congress NO NEW TAXING POWERS. Read the definitions in the code. The definitions ONLY apply to anyone who comes under the IRC, nothing else. What is the definition of "INCOME"?