Ron Paul revolution sees second wind

By W. JAMES ANTLE III | 5/15/08 5:32 AM EST

Text Size:

Can the Ron Paul movement make a difference in the Republican Party, especially in its current weakened state? Photo: AP

As an author, Ron Paul has accomplished something he failed to do as a Republican presidential candidate: finish first. His new book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” has topped The New York Times best-seller list and the Amazon sales chart. It has also helped rally his grass-roots following long after John McCain clinched the GOP presidential nomination.

Paul’s supporters began the campaign full of hope. The libertarian Texas congressman smashed online fundraising records and led the Republican field in the fourth-quarter money primary. Polls, and more than a few pundits, suggested that Paul was within striking distance of a third-place finish in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Instead, Paul finished a disappointing fifth place in both states, though he did beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. He finished second in a few caucus states, including Nevada, Montana and Louisiana, but mostly began to register single-digit showings in subsequent primaries.

Paul’s campaign organization seemed unable to make good use of the millions it raised, and many of the candidate’s enthusiastic grass-roots followers were becoming dispirited.

Now the Ron Paul revolution, as his supporters call it, is experiencing a second wind. Paul took 16 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, his best primary showing yet, and has surpassed 1 million votes in the GOP contest. Ron Paul Republicans have started roiling local party organizations, taking control of state conventions and running for public office, all without much coordination from their leader.

One of the Ron Paul Republicans who actually has the congressman’s endorsement is B.J. Lawson, a fellow Duke Medical School alumni running for the House of Representatives from North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Lawson won his May 6 congressional primary with more than 70 percent of the vote, despite his opposition to the Iraq war and criticism of the Bush administration’s free-spending ways.

In the neighboring 3rd District, Paul endorsed incumbent Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. in his primary fight against Onslow County Commissioner Joe McLaughlin. McLaughlin decided to challenge Jones after the freedom-fries crusader became one of the country’s most vocal anti-war Republicans.

Jones easily outraised McLaughlin and won the primary by nearly 20 percentage points.

Another Paul endorsee, Murray Sabrin, is running for the Republican senatorial nomination in New Jersey. Paul traveled to the Garden State on April 28 to help Sabrin raise campaign funds. In Virginia, Amit Singh is the Paul-backed Republican primary candidate running for a chance to take on Democratic Rep. Jim Moran.

In other cases, Paul isn’t involved in his supporters’ efforts at all. Four Ron Paul Republicans in Maryland won their primaries without the congressman’s endorsement. Paul backers amended the Alaska Republican Party platform to reflect their stances on civil liberties, the Patriot Act, repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Department of Education.

At GOP district meetings in Minnesota, Paul supporters captured seven Republican National Convention delegate slots; one delegate was selected by the Maine Republican convention. The Nevada GOP convention adjourned early after the initial balloting showed Ron Paul Republicans winning at least half the delegates for the national convention.

Even the revived Paul juggernaut isn’t without problems. One of them is that Paul himself is too much a believer in decentralization to provide his movement with much direction. At a recent book event in Washington, he was asked what his supporters should do in the general election if he did not run as a third-party candidate. Paul reaffirmed that he wasn’t going to run as a third-party candidate and replied that it was up to his supporters to decide what to do.

Paul had to retract his endorsement of a Ron Paul Republican who was improperly vetted and turned out to be a white supremacist. Another candidate, Jim Forsythe in New Hampshire, has already dropped out. Other than in Pennsylvania, Paul, as the last active candidate running against McCain, hasn’t done as well as Alan Keyes did in the same position against George W. Bush in 2000 — largely because his disorganized campaign has sent out mixed messages about the status of his candidacy and has not corrected inaccurate reporting on the matter.

Can the Ron Paul movement make a difference in the Republican Party, especially in its current weakened state? A similar insurrection strategy helped Barry Goldwater’s supporters take over and transform the GOP during the 1960s.

But the Ron Paul Republicans — many of them running in predominantly Democratic areas where they have little chance of success, even if they win their primaries — are nowhere near that point yet. Whether they ever get their way will determine whether Paul is remembered as a consequential figure within the party’s history or just another also-ran.

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.

NEVADA GOP SABOTAGES RON PAUL (of course!)

Topic List <> | Next Topic >

Reply | Forward

<> | Next Message >

ELECTION MANIPULATION: NEVADA GOP SABOTAGES RON PAUL DELEGATE VOTE
http://www.worldaff airsbrief. com/

The Republican Party has a real problem with Ron Paul. He just won't go away quietly. He is still a candidate for President. He hasn't conceded or dropped out--despite media wishful thinking. Best of all, he refuses to endorse front runner John McCain, the worst warmongering candidate of the entire Republican field. Frankly, Dr. Paul both scares and embarrasses the Republican leadership. They are afraid that if he gets any momentum or significant number of delegates to the convention they will have to let him make a major address on prime time TV and thus more converts. And, Dr. Paul is certainly capable of making converts. He takes all the traditional positions the Republican Party was built upon and that core Republican voters love: small and limited federal government, low regulation, non-aggressive foreign policy, honest money, anti-abortion, and pro-family values. The Republican National Committee wants him to go away so they can get on with the promotion of Sen. John McCain--a totally dishonest and corrupt insider, according to his own son---and continue the hidden globalist agenda which now rules the Party at the highest levels. This week in the Nevada GOP convention, the party leadership shut down the convention when it became obvious that Ron Paul supporters outnumbered those loyal to party leaders who wanted to elect only McCain delegates to the national convention--even though Romney won the primary (but eventually had to concede the race) and Paul came in second, above McCain. It's as if they are saying, "If we don't like the results of the vote, we'll adjourn till we can muster enough of our people to outnumber you!". For a one-time sample copy of these briefings, send an email to "editor@worldaffair sbrief.com" and request it.

VOTE RON PAUL

www.ronpaul2008.com

Tax Court: IRS Attorneys Committed Fraud on the Court

In an extraordinary 137-page opinion issued yesterday, Hartman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-124 (5/1/08), Tax Court Judge Beghe held that IRS attorneys committed fraud on the court in the Kersting tax shelter project which affected more than 1,300 cases:

Respondent, Kersting project petitioners, the opinionreading public, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit might well consider this opinion a surprising about-face from our opinion in Lewis v. Commissioner, T.C. Mem. 2005-205. We therefore indicate some of the considerations that have led to our change of position. ...

The observation of the Court of Appeals in Dixon V [316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003)] that the misconduct of respondent’s attorneys violated the rights of all petitioner participants in the Kersting project to a fair trial of the test cases brought home to us more keenly than we had previously appreciated that our Lewis opinion would result in disparate treatment of those who have agreed to entry of stipulated decisions at various times along the way, as compared with those who have awaited the final outcome. We had a visceral reaction that our Lewis opinion violated some sense of distributive justice, whether derived from notions of equality or of fairness, and that the Dixon V opinion and mandate required a contrary result. Recognizing the incompatibility of the various formulations of distributive justice by political philosophers over the years, we mention those formulations as no more than intimations that we should reconsider our Lewis position in the light of our rereading of the Dixon V opinion. Those intimations have led us to reflect on the various situations of those Kersting project petitioners who were part of the test case proceedings and who agreed to entry of stipulated decisions at different times along the way after the test case proceedings began.

“Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” ... “To say to these appellants, ‘The joke is on you. You shouldn’t have trusted us,’ is hardly worthy of our great Government.” To tell Kersting project petitioners they should not have trusted respondent to try the test cases honestly and fairly and the Tax Court to formulate an appropriate sanction when respondent failed to do so would be equally unworthy. ... “Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.” ...

Respondent’s attorneys committed a fraud on the Tax Court during the Kersting test case proceedings that was a fraud on the Court in every case bound by the results of the test cases. Extending to every petitioner whose case was bound by the results of the Kersting project test cases, by piggyback agreement or the Court’s order to show cause procedure, the benefit of the Thompson settlement strikes us as an appropriate accommodation of the competing considerations; it is a sanction for the misconduct that is consistent with Dixon V and is “no more than necessary” to maintain public trust in the judicial process that employs test case procedures. ... We are protective of the integrity of our judicial process and concerned about deterrence. We are “entitled to send a message, loud and clear.” .... We hold that sanctions should be imposed in the cases of all Kersting project petitioners in which stipulated decisions were entered on or after June 10, 1985, the date the Kersting project test case proceedings began.

Our holding is limited to the unique and narrow circumstances of these cases -- where we are imposing sanctions for a fraud committed on the Court in a test case proceeding that bound more than a thousand cases.

Update: Joe Kristan has more here.

E-Mail | Print | Request Reprints | E-Mail Newsletters | RSS

Book Excerpts
The Dirty Dozen
Robert A. Levy and William Mellor 05.02.08, 1:03 PM ET

Most Popular Stories Young Billionaires Easily Overlooked Tax Deductions The No-Tech Hacker Job Hunting In A Downturn How To Tap Lenders When Credit Is Tight

Excerpt from The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor ($26, CATO, 2008).

Too often, Americans take for granted that they are free.

But if America truly is the Land of the Free, should we have to ask for government permission to participate in an election? Or pursue an honest occupation? And should our government be empowered to take someone's home only to turn the property over to others for their private use?

Of course not.

So why are we, in many respects, less free now than we were 200 years ago? How did we get from our Founders' Constitution, which established a strictly limited government, to today's Constitution, which has expanded government and curtailed individual rights? That's the story of The Dirty Dozen.

This book is about 12 Supreme Court cases that changed the course of American history--away from constitutional government. Surprisingly, few of these cases are widely known, despite their enormous impact. Maybe McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), because of its recent vintage, is recognized as the case that gave political speech less First Amendment protection than flag-burning or Internet pornography. But how many of us recall that Wickard v. Filburn (1942) paved the way for the noxious notion that Congress, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, can criminalize the use by critically ill patients of medical marijuana, grown and distributed in a single state, free of charge, under a doctor's prescription, in accordance with state law? And how many of us have heard of United States v. Carolene Products (1938), in which an obscure footnote virtually eliminated judicial review--that is, the power of the courts to examine, modify, and even overturn acts of the executive and legislative branches--when government restricts key liberties, such as the right to earn an honest living?

Whether it's political speech, economic liberties, property rights, welfare, racial preferences, gun owners' rights, or imprisonment without charge, the U.S. Supreme Court has behaved in a manner that would have stunned, mystified and outraged our Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton labeled the judiciary as "the weakest of the three departments." If only he had been correct when he wrote in Federalist No. 78 that "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution."

Nor could James Madison have envisioned that the Court would be complicit in the exponential growth of the federal government. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government," said Madison in Federalist No. 45, "are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." Would that it were so. Over the 12-month period ended March 31, 2006, the federal government published more than 77,000 pages of new rules that had been proposed or implemented by various regulatory agencies. That is not the way America was meant to operate. From our founding, we were supposed to have a government of limited power and maximum freedom for the individual. Instead, we have been afflicted by a vast enlargement of federal power, condoned by a Supreme Court that has selectively protected some--but not all--of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The Court has imposed through the back door what the Congress and the states could not accomplish through the amendment process. By misinterpreting cases that have raised key constitutional questions, the Court has expanded government and curbed individual rights in a manner never intended by the Framers, with profound implications for all Americans. Seldom has the ratchet of the Court's decisions turned toward greater individual liberty. To the contrary, the Court has further and further restricted the freedoms that Americans should enjoy as a birthright. The Framers intended for the elected representatives of the people, not the Supreme Court, to change the Constitution if and when it needed to be changed. Instead, a Court consisting of unelected justices with lifetime appointments has rewritten the Constitution without input from, or accountability to, the people of the United States.

Some of the damage occurred long ago. For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)--probably the Court's most infamous decision--Chief Justice Roger B. Taney held, among other things, that black slaves were property, not citizens of the United States. And in Plessy v. Ferguson (1890), the Court upheld a Louisiana statute requiring railroads to provide equal but separate accommodations for the "white and colored races." As repugnant as those cases were, they are no longer the law of the land. Scott was superseded by the 14th Amendment (1868), and Plessy was overruled by a series of cases beginning with Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Much of the Court's real mischief arose later, during the New Deal, and continues today. That period--from 1934 until today--is the focus of The Dirty Dozen. In the next 12 chapters, we identify and dissect the worst of the Court's post-1933 decisions. The goal is to untangle those complex legal opinions and explain how they affect each and every one of us. We gear our discussion primarily to non-lawyers, with the hope they will gain a greater appreciation for the crucial role of the Supreme Court in securing liberty.

Friends of the Constitution who cherish personal freedom and limited government have good reason for concern about the modern Court. The Dirty Dozen is a litany of concerns--using 12 cases to demonstrate how the Court has too often abandoned the principles that were painstakingly and ingeniously shaped by our Founding Fathers.

Your Rating

Overall Rating

Reader Comments

More On This Topic

E-Mail Newsletters: Sign Up Now To Stay Informed On A Range Of Topics

Attaché: Customize Forbes.com Now To Track This Author And Industry

Article Controls

E-Mail | Print | Request Reprints | E-Mail Newsletters

del.icio.us | Digg It! | My Yahoo! | Share | RSS

Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close

• Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
• Print
• Reprints
• Share
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Published: August 30, 2007

A Web site that sells materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes has been shut on the order of a federal judge.

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

Judge McAvoy 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.

This 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.

The civil court order is one of at least 245 permanent injunctions obtained by federal prospectors that prohibit individuals and organizations that deny the legitimacy of the tax laws or who sell tax evasion schemes from marketing their wares.

Robert L. Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., the founder of both organizations behind the Web site — the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the We The People Congress — posted the court order at the Web site givemeliberty.org, and closed the rest of the site even though he said yesterday that the order did not specify that he do so. He also said he had filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

His organization rose to prominence with a series of full-page newspaper ads, starting in 2001, asserting that the government tricks people into paying taxes. The ads solicited donations, which it said were fully tax-deductible.

Judge McAvoy, quoting from a declaration that Mr. Schulz sent to the court, said that Mr. Schulz wrote that he started “operation stop withholding” as “a national campaign to instruct company officials, workers and independent contractors on how to legally stop wage withholding.”

In a 25-page decision, the judge wrote that “undisputed evidence” established that Mr. Schulz and his organizations “knew, or had reason to know, that their statements were false.”

He said that because Mr. Schulz was taking $20 payments for a package of materials that supposedly showed how to legally stop paying taxes, the Web site could be shut down as commercial speech that urged criminal conduct.

Even if the Web site was not commercial in nature, Judge McAvoy said, it could be shut because people who followed the advice at the Web site engaged in criminal conduct.

“The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent lawless action,” the judge wrote, citing a 1969 Supreme Court decision.

Because Mr. Schulz and his organization “are not merely advocating, but have gone the extra step in instructing others how to engage in illegal activity and have supplied the means to do so” the judge added, “their speech may be enjoined.”

More Articles in Business »

Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times.

Ads by Google what's this?

8 Investing Tips Access report by Forbes Columnist and money manager Ken Fisher www.fi.com Online Master of Taxation AACSB Accredited, top-10 ranked. No previous tax courses needed. www.mastersoftaxation.com 1 Trick to Lose Belly Fat Can You Spot These Mistakes That Keep You From a Flat Stomach? TruthAboutAbs.com

Tips

To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.

Past Coverage

• I.R.S. Inquiry Into Sermon Is Challenged By Church (September 22, 2006)
• Metro Briefing | New York: Syracuse: Police Brutality Suit Continues (April 1, 2005)
• ROUNDTABLE; Left Behind (March 6, 2005)
• Judges Skeptical of U.S. Efforts to Ban a Tax Book (February 11, 2004)

Related Searches

• Taxation
• Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Internal Revenue Service

[April 12, 2008]

Queensbury man continues income tax fight: Federal authorities call Schulz's latest effort a "tax-fraud scheme"

(Times Union (Albany, NY) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Apr. 12--QUEENSBURY -- Robert L. Schulz is still fighting to stop income tax from coming out of your paycheck.

An engineer by training and a gadfly from experience, Schulz heads the group We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and We the People Congress.

For years, he has been offering his "Legal Termination of Tax Withholding" package, in which he says workers have a right to ask their employers to stop withholding income tax. Schulz encourages workers to press their employers to check into the matter.

If you don’t have a telecommuting program, how much revenue is your business losing? Learn more, download free white paper.

Discover how Unified Communications can help you gain the competitive edge, with more efficient internal operations, increased productivity and improved customer service. Learn more, download free white paper.

Discover the top 10 reasons to throw out your old PBX and replace it with a new software based IP PBX.

Learn about a new end-to-end billing and network management solution for independent Internet Service Providers.

Learn about front office and back office systems which are less and less dependent on the underlying technology and more and more agile.

Learn how to maintain seamless business continuity while migrating from traditional voice mail, to unified communications.

This has not pleased the U.S. government, which has its own thoughts on the matter. Officials describe Schulz's principles as a "tax-fraud scheme" to "assist customers in evading their federal tax liabilities."

Schulz "relied on fringe opinions of known tax protesters whose theories have repeatedly been rejected by courts across the country," a court ruled in 2007.

Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.

Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.

Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.

Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.

Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.

Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO West, September 16-18, 2008. Los Angeles, California.

That was four years after Schulz began passing out his Legal Termination papers.

He appealed, but in February a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit ruled Schulz had to stop distributing the materials. The court also said he had to provide the Internal Revenue Service with the names, addresses and Social Security numbers of anyone who received a kit.

On Monday, Schulz filed a petition asking the court for a rehearing, seeking to reverse the decision or have it dismissed. The same day, an attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office charged Schulz with contempt, asking the court to fine Schulz $2,000 per day until he complies with the ruling.

The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.

To Schulz, 68, it's just another day running a nonprofit organization dedicated to teaching the public about the rules of government. For the record, Schulz does not pay income tax -- he funds his project by selling off parcels of land on his property not far from Lake George. He pays capital gains tax.

Schulz began his career as an engineer at General Electric Co. He wound up working for governors in Connecticut and New York, and spent some time as an investment banker. But it was in 1979 that his second career as a rabble rouser came into its own.

That was when he successfully sued to prevent Warren County and Queensbury from running a sewer line from Lake George to the Hudson River. Schulz said the project would benefit local politicians, who wanted to bring a casino to the area. Six years later, he says, the town tried to block him from building a road to access land on his property.

"I've learned government will hurt you simply because they don't like you," Schulz said. "They can be vindictive. I've been led to believe government is benevolent -- I was so naive."

Since then, Schulz has fought state bond acts, run for governor (after Howard Stern dropped out in 1994), and become a hero to taxpayers' rights groups. In 2001, he went on a hunger strike against the income tax.

"I just try to hold people accountable," he said. "That's what I've dedicated the rest of my life to." Wechsler can be reached at 454-5469 or by e-mail at awechsler@timesunion.com.

To see more of the Albany Times Union, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesunion.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, Albany Times Union, N.Y.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

_-_-----_--_--_--

United States v. Givemeliberty.org

Posted April 10th, 2008 by Matt C. Sanchez

Threat type: Lawsuit

Date: 04/02/2007

Subject Area(s): Free Speech

Parties

Party Issuing Threat:

United States of America

Party Receiving Threat:

Robert L. Schulz; We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.; and We The People Congress, Inc.

Type of Threatening Party:

Government

Type of Threatened Party:

Individual

Organization

Location of Party:

District of Columbia

Location of Party:

New York

Status and Description

Status:

Concluded

Disposition:

Injunction Issued

Verdict or Settlement Amount:

Description:

The United States government sought an injunction requiring Robert Schulz and his nonprofit organizations dedicated to "'institutionalizing' citizen vigilance and governmental accountability" to remove information promoting the non-payment of income taxes from the organizations' websites www.givemeliberty.org, www.wethepeoplecongress.org, and www.wethepeoplefoundation.org.

The websites provided information suggesting that the federal income tax is voluntary, that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, and that citizens should choose not to pay taxes. The websites provided, among other things, a set of materials called a "Tax Termination Package" (offered for free but with a suggested donation) that provided step-by-step instructions on how to avoid paying taxes.

The United States sued Schulz and the organizations, alleging that their behavior breached the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Specifically, the U.S. alleged that defendants made false or fraudulent statements regarding tax benefits in connection with the sale of a plan or arrangement in violation of 26 USC § 6700, and knowingly prepared a document which would result in understatement of another person's tax liability in violation of IRC § 6701. The U.S. relied on the court's power to grant an injunction under IRC § 7408 to restrain behavior that breaches the above provisions.

Defendants claimed that the publication was protected by the First Amendment. They also claimed that the government had failed to show how the publications breached the tests set out in the cited provisions of the IRC.

On August 9, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the government's motion for summary judgment, accepting that information helping people to evade income tax did not merit First Amendment protection. The court issued an injunction ordering defendants to remove "all tax-fraud scheme promotional materials, false commercial speech concerning the internal revenue laws, and speech likely to incite others imminently to violate the internal revenue laws” from their websites. The judge did not call for the websites to be taken off the Internet.

The injunction also required defendants to reveal the names, e-mail addresses, social security numbers, and other personal information of people who obtained their information packs to the Intenral Revenue Service . On the defendants' motion, the court later stayed this part of the injunction pending appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

On February 22, 2008, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision and ordered defendants to provide the requested information about the individuals who received the tax packets.

Court and Attorney Information

Court Type:

Federal

Location of Filing/Threat:

New York

Court Name:

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York

Case Number:

1:07-cv-00352

Legal Counsel for Sending/Suing Party:

Glenn T. Suddaby (Assistant U.S. Attorney); Thomas M. Newman

Legal Counsel for Receiving/Defending Party:

Mark Lane (for defendant We The People Foundation); Robert L. Schulz pro se

Details

Publication Medium:

Website

Content Type(s):

Text

Legal Claims and Defenses:

Source of Law:

United States

Legal Claims:

Fraud

Other

Web Sites Involved:

www.givemeliberty.org

www.wethepeoplecongress.org

www.wethepeoplefoundation.org

Relevant Documents:

Complaint (04-02-2007)

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (05-23-2007)

Plaintiff's Response to Motion and Counter-motion for Summary Judgment (06-18-2007)

Defendants' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (07-15-2007)

Order Granting Summary Judgment and Injunction (08-09-2007)

Defendant's Appellate Brief (10-22-2007)

Plaintiff's Appellate Brief (11-19-2007)

Second Circuit Opinion (02-22-2008)

Related Links:

NY Times: Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close

Online Liability Blog: Mess with the IRS? Online or Offline, First Amendment Protections are not Unlimited

We the People Foundation: Primary Legal Documents in IRS's 6700 Civil Lawsuit Against We The People (contains comprehensive collection of court documents from the case)

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Newsvine
• Technorati

April 18, 2008...4:50 am

Queensbury Activist Bob Schulz Plans Hunger Strike

Jump to Comments

Queensbury activist and libertarian, Bob Schulz, vowed to begin a hunger strike, to the death if necessary, beginning August 11, 2008 on the West Lawn of the Capitol should the federal government fail to respond to petitions filed by We The People within 40 days, the same amount of time provided the King under Section 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215. Schulz’s announcement was made at a meeting of We The People and other libertarians, including Ron Paul, on April 15 near the west steps of the United States Capitol.

We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education is a grassroots libertarian education and research organization, founded by Schulz to educate “Americans about their Fundamental Rights and the history, meaning and power of the Constitution, and the essential Principles of Liberty.”

In 2007 Schulz was sued by the Department of Justice in Syracuse federal court for alleged tax fraud. In August the court issued an order which included an injunction prohibiting Schulz and We The People from advising people that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes among other things. The ruling also required Schulz to post the order on his website. Schulz appealed the above decision, but a federal court of appeals upheld it.

On April 7, 2008, the government filed a motion in the United States District Court in Syracuse, asking the court to hold Robert L. Schulz and the We the People Foundation in civil contempt of court. According to court documents, Schulz has failed to turn over to the government the names and contact information of people who received materials about taxation from We The People as required by the original decision by the court.

Schulz claims that this is a First Amendment issue, and that the government is censoring him and We The People by not allowing them to distribute information about the IRS and taxation, information which they believe to be true but which the IRS claims is contributing to criminal activity.

If the federal court agrees with the government’s motion, Schulz could be fined and or imprisoned. Schulz, who has been an activist for decades, has vowed to fight on.

Read more about Bob Schulz’s problems with the IRS, DOJ and federal judiciary.

Welcome to the Official Kick Them All Out Project Web Site

In the last election 85% of the people in Congress got to keep their $14,108 a month jobs (which includes a $4,100 raise they just gave themselves!) despite the fact that it was the worst, do-nothing Congress in history and the bulk of them were responsible for authorizing the wars we're in and everything else that has massively eroded our standard of living, security and of course our liberties and freedoms since 9-11. They ALL took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. They did not take an oath to defend and protect their political party and the interests of transnational corporations and cartels. What would you do If you owned a company and none of your employees listened to you, they lied to you, didn't do the jobs you gave them to do, and in fact, were actually working for your competition and selling your company down the river as fast as they could? I don't think you'd keep them on and give them a raise! Well, that's exactly what we've been doing, only in this case, your company is our Federal Government, and your employees are the 435 members in the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate, virtually all of them working for the transnational corporations (the competition) and they are engaged in a massive hostile takeover of our government on every level. What the heck happened to that thing called "the wisdom of the American people?" You don't reward employees that betray you. YOU FIRE THEM! It's the most obvious and immediate remedy. And you don't worry that their replacement may turn out to be as bad. In fact, it's much less likely the replacements will be as bad when they know you will not tolerate such things, that you will not hesitate to fire anyone that lies and betrays your trust. Employees are far more likely to toe the line and actually do their jobs as best they can when they know they can't get away with anything less. Of course, no analogy is perfect. This one breaks down in the sense that a company couldn't actually fire everyone all at once unless the entire company shut down. Lucky for us, our Congress isn't engaged in actually producing goods or services (the bureaucracies Congress has set up handle all government services). All Congress does is enact laws and authorize spending. It's just the legislative branch of government. We could easily go without any new laws authored by "corporate/special interest" for quite some time. So in this case, firing a large number of traitorous Congressional employees is imminently doable and quite frankly is the only thing we can do to slam the brakes on the corporate driven freight train that is railroading all of us into a nation ruled by corporate colonialism. There are people we have elected to Congress who have been there 10, 20, 30, 40, even over 50 years! Our Congress has been betraying our trust and selling us out for generations. They not only suffer no consequences for what they've done; they've benefited greatly from their wheeling and dealing. They take an oath to protect our best interests and defend our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and yet they make a mockery of that oath. Republicans and Democrats take the exact same oath of office and very few of them take it seriously. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. There is a very good reason we make them all take this oath. Strict adherence to the Constitution is the ONLY thing that makes it a LOT harder for those with the most wealth to seize the powers of government and use it for their own selfish purposes. Our Congress has totally abdicated their responsibilities and handed the powers of government over to corporate interests that have absolutely no allegiance to this nation, to the Constitution, and certainly not to playing fair. Both major political parties are complicit. They have shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights and are about to blow the Constitutional Confetti into the air as they celebrate "closing the deal" with their "real employers," the transnational corporate interests that have orchestrated the whole mess. The dominant ideologies of the most destructive and powerful transnational corporations are predatory and tyrannical in nature. The notion that they are even remotely interested in such things as "free trade," or democracy flies in the face of basic common sense. The corporations wreaking the most havoc on this planet, the central banks, the military, medical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, and energy industrial complexes, have set up monopolies and cartels by using the powers of government to legislate and regulate the industries they wish to control. The people inclined to abuse their wealth and power do what they always have done throughout history. They TAKE the most, give the least, and don't give a damn about the rest of humanity. There is a mountain of evidence, a small fraction of it is posted on this web site, to prove that powerful transnational corporations, through their control of our election process, the legislative powers of government, the courts, the international treaty process, the world's currencies and of course, virtually total control of our mainstream media, have just about totally taken over our country. If we don't take control of Congress away from them, and fast, by a massive act of civil disobedience like this project is proposing (by not voting the way they want us to), we are simply not going to surviv