|
June 9, 2006
1040
Checkmate?
DOJ
Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA
Defense Raised
Evidence
OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud
DOJ & IRS Petitioned To
Explain
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.
We
The People Foundation has researched the facts, law
and circumstances surrounding this case, and has determined
that:
- 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
Accordingly, We The People
Foundation has petitioned the U.S. Attorney General, the IRS
Commissioner, and Director of the OMB, requesting an official explanation
of their conduct in Peoria.
See the petition
below. It includes links to all relevant statutes, regulations,
court decisions, Federal Register publications, law review articles,
Lawrence case pleadings, and the discovery documents sent by defense
counsel Stilley to the DOJ.
[ start letter ]
We The People Foundation
For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518)
656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
VIA CERTIFIED
RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
Hon.
Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the U.S.
Dept. of Justice Rm.
4400
950
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Mr.
Mark Everson, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111
Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC
20224
Re: Petition for
Redress of Grievance – No requirement to file fraudulent 1040 Form.
Gentlemen:
Please take notice of this Petition requesting a public explanation of
your recent conduct in Peoria, Illinois, regarding the case of
U.S. v Robert
Lawrence.
What you did seems remarkable by virtue of its inconsistency.
- On
March 17, 2006 you had the Grand Jury indict Robert Lawrence on three
counts of tax evasion and three counts of willful failure to file a
personal income tax return.
- However, on May 12, 2006, the Friday before the
Monday start of the trial, you suddenly asked federal Judge Michael Mihm
to dismiss all six counts with prejudice.
Indicting and then permanently dismissing without any court action occurs
so rarely as to require the Department of Justice to post a public
explanation in order to satisfy the public’s curiosity about this strange
working of justice. This Foundation decided to investigate the facts and
circumstances of the Lawrence case because we found no such public notice
in Peoria, on the DOJ website, or in
any other public forum. We wanted to determine the probable
cause of DOJ’s remarkable act.
Our research has led us to conclude that:
- The DOJ filed the criminal
complaint against Lawrence because it intended to
abuse Lawrence’s rights under the constitution and law pursuant
thereto.
- The appearance of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) in Lawrence’s pleading sent a shock
through the DOJ because Congress intended it to protect the public from
IRS abuse, and the DOJ had no defense against it.
- Even though the DOJ knew
about the PRA in advance, its revelation virtually forced you and the
DOJ attorney to dismiss rather than to lose the case and risk public
awareness of the power of the PRA in protecting the
public.
- The DOJ therefore has little
interest in justice in cases it prosecutes for the IRS, but wants only
to obtain wrongful convictions of innocent people whom the IRS intends
to abuse by misapplication of law.
The Internet and wires were alive with such questions and rumors following
DOJ’s sudden and remarkable dismissal motion that was filed at 2 p.m. on
May 12, 2006.
To determine cause and effect, and put the rumors to rest, we started our
investigation by obtaining
the Docket
Sheet
for U.S. v Lawrence, Case No. 06-cr-10019, U.S.
District Court, Central District of Illinois (Peoria).
From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of the Indictment
and each of the Lawrence’s pleadings
including:
#04
First Motion for Bill of Particulars.
#07
Motion for Bill of Particulars to be directed by the
Court.
#08
Motion to Continue April 13th arraignment pending
responses to #04.
#09
Brief re #07 and #08.
#19
Proposed Voir Dire questions
#25
Notice
of Expert Witnesses, and opposition to
continuance.
From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of each of the
government’s pleadings, including:
#10
Response to #4, #7 and #8
#12 Motion
for Discovery
#15 Notice
of Non-Disclosure
#17 Exhibit
List
#18 Motion
in Limine
#20 Motion
to Continue Trial
#22 Notice
of Expert Witnesses
#23 Notice
of Filing Expert Resume
#24 Motion
for Protective Order
#26 Proposed
Voir Dire
#27 Motion
to Dismiss with Prejudice Counts 1-6.
We obtained and read copies of the following documents that were not filed
with the Court but were delivered to DOJ on May 11, 2006 by Lawrence’s
attorney (Oscar Stilley) in response to DOJ’s discovery demands.
[ed.
note: Click here to access
ALL the defense documents listed
immediately below.]
Form 1040 with OMB #
1545-0074 for years 1992 through 2005
Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0085
for years 1992 through 2004
Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0074 for year
2005
Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0675 for years 1992 through
2004
Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Form 1040ES
with OMB # 1545-0087 for years 1992 through 2005
Form 1040ES with OMB
# 1545-0074 for year 2006
Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0067 for year
2004
Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Instructions for
form 1040 for years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005
SF-83 Application
for 1986
83-I Application for 1998
We obtained and read copies of the following court decisions regarding the
PRA:
Dole v. United
Steelworkers Of America Et Al., 494
U.S.
26 (1990)
United States v. Collins, 920
F.2d 619
(10th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Dawes,
951
F.2d 1189
(10th Cir. 1991)
Salberg v. United States,
969
F.2d 379
(7th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Wunder,
919
F.2d 34
(6th Cir.
1990)
United States v.
Hicks, 947
F.2d 1356
(9th Cir.
1991)
United States v.
Hatch, 919
F.2d 1394
(9th Cir.
1990)
United States v.
Smith, 866
F.2d 1092;
(9th Cir.
1989)
United States v.
Neff, 954
F.2d 698
(11th Cir.
1992)
United
States v. Holden, 963
F.2d 1114
(8th Cir. 1992)
49
ADMIN. L. REV. 111, Paperwork Redux: The
(Stronger) Paperwork Reduction Act Of 1995, by Jeffrey S.
Lubbers.
47 FR
39515. Notice of proposed rulemaking 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. September
8, 1982.
48 FR
13666.
Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive
Office of the President. March 31, 1983
52 FR
27768. Notice
of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget,
Executive Office of the President. July 23, 1987
53 FR
16618. Final
rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office
of the President. May 10, 1988
60 FR
30441. Notice
of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget,
Executive Office of the President. June 8, 1995
60 FR
44981. Final
rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office
of the President. August 29, 1995
44
USCS § 3501. Purpose
44
USCS § 3502.
Definitions
44
USCS § 3503.
Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
44
USCS § 3504.
Authority
and functions of Director
44
USCS § 3505.
Assignment
of tasks and deadlines
44
USCS § 3506.
Federal
agency responsibilities
44
USCS § 3507.
Public
information collection activities; submission to
Director; approval and delegation
44
USCS § 3508. Determination of
necessity for information; hearing
44
USCS § 3509.
Designation of central
collection agency
44
USCS § 3510.
Cooperation of agencies in
making information available
44
USCS § 3511. Establishment and
operation of Government Information
Locator Service
44
USCS § 3512. Public protection
44
USCS § 3513.
Director
review of agency activities; reporting; agency
response
44
USCS § 3514. Responsiveness to
Congress
44
USCS § 3515.
Administrative powers
44
USCS § 3516. Rules and
regulations
44
USCS § 3517.
Consultation with other
agencies and the public
44
USCS § 3518. Effect on existing
laws and regulations
44
USCS § 3519. Access to
information
44
USCS § 3520. Establishment of task force on information
collection and
dissemination
44
USCS § 3521.
Authorization of appropriations
Section
1320.1 Purpose
Section
1320.2 Effect
Section
1320.3 Definitions
Section
1320.4 Coverage
Section
1320.5 General
Requirements
Section
1320.6 Public
protection
Section
1320.7 Agency head and Senior
Official responsibilities
Section
1320.8 Agency collection of
information responsibilities
Section
1320.9 Agency certifications for
proposed collections of information
Section
1320.10 Clearance of collections of
information, other than
those contained in proposed rules or in current rules
Section
1320.11 Clearance of collections of
information in proposed rules
Section
1320.12 Clearance of
collections of information in current rules
Section
1320.13 Emergency
processing
Section
1320.14
Public
access
Section
1320.15
Independent regulatory
agency override authority.
Based on our review of these documents, we believe the
following:
- The DOJ dismissed the
indictment against Lawrence, with
prejudice,
upon DOJ’s receipt from Lawrence’s attorney (on May 11, the eve of the
trial) of the documents Lawrence intended to enter into
evidence.
- The DOJ was not going
to be able to keep the evidence from the jury because it did not have
time to manipulate the Court before the trial began.
- As
the PRA explicitly authorized him to do, Lawrence intended to argue a PRA
defense, based on the fact that the IRS form 1040 did not bear a
valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in
accordance with the PRA.
- The DOJ concluded that the
jury would acquit Lawrence based on his knowledge that
the Court could not penalize him for failing to file a form 1040 because
of the invalid control number.
- The DOJ knew the jury would
hear evidence that supported Lawrence, and that the evidence (the lack
of a valid control number on the 1040, and the absence of other
disclosure, use and approval requirements mandated by the PRA) would
destroy the DOJ’s case.
- The DOJ realized that if the
case went to trial, not only the jury, but the whole body politic would
learn that no person has been required to file a 1040 because the form has never displayed a valid
control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the
PRA.
1.
IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The
section mandates that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:
(I) the reasons
the information is being collected;
(II) the way
such information is to be used;
(III) an
estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection;
(IV) whether
responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to
obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and
(V) the fact
that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a 1040 form unless it displays a valid control number (i.e.,
issued in accordance with the requirements of PRA).
2.
IRS has continually violated of PRA Section 3507(a)(1)(C). The
section mandates that the IRS shall not conduct or sponsor the
collection of information via a 1040 unless in advance of the adoption or
revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the proposed 1040 form
along with copies of pertinent statutory authority and regulations
authorizing the IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The
clearance packages that the IRS submits to the OMB make no mention of IRC
Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203 or any of the other sections
federal judges alternately cite as “the” authority that authorizes IRS to
collect information via the 1040.
3.
The IRS and OMB
have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section
1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers
must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to
its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control
number for 24 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB control number must
expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a three
year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS
reviews the 1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and
seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification
to OMB with an explanation of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to
issue a control number with an expiration date.
4.
The IRS has
continually violated PRA Section 3512 ("Public Protection"). This
section prohibits the IRS from penalizing any person for failing to file a
“bootleg” 1040. The 1040 form falls into the “bootleg” class if it
does not display a valid OMB control number and the disclaimer that no
response is required without such a control number. The 1995 amendments
strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS victims can invoke
this protection "in the form of a complete defense, bar, or
otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial
action applicable thereto." In spite of this, the IRS
routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing to file the 1040 tax
return. Although required by law, IRS never informs people about the
bootleg nature of the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims
have no legal obligation to file such bootleg forms.
Section 3512 of the PRA, titled “Public Protection” reads as
follows:
(a)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information that is subject to this subchapter [44 USCS § §
3501 et seq.] if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number
assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS §
§ 3501 et seq.]; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the
collection of information that such person is not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The
protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a
complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency
administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Because of the PRA’s Public Protection clause, agencies have an incentive
to make sure that all forms and related regulations bear valid,
up-to-date, prominently legible OMB control numbers.
The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the IRS must use in submitting
its request for approval of the 1040 form and an OMB control number,
require each agency to submit with the form a "supporting statement" which
is to "identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate
the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute
and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information."
The supporting statement must also include information regarding the
"burden" imposed upon the public as a result of the "collection of
information."
Fortunately, Robert Lawrence knew his rights under the PRA, and DOJ
attorneys knew the defense attorney had cornered them, and that they would
not prevail on a Motion In Limine designed to keep Lawrence from
effectively arguing a PRA defense. As I have stated, we believe this
caused DOJ to dismiss the indictment against Lawrence.
As for nearly countless other individuals, they do not know their
Rights or the IRS’s and OMB’s obligations under the PRA. As a
result, the IRS and DOJ conspire at all levels, from senior executives to
the lowliest agents and legal assistants, to prosecute, penalize, and
victimize innocent Americans for failing to file a bootleg 1040, even
though their victims have no legal obligation to file
it.
The Peoria affair raises serious “abuse
of federal power” concerns. We question not only the actions of IRS and
DOJ since 1981, but also OMB’s behavior as it appears to have willingly
looked the other way rather than to require IRS to fully comply with the
Law and to report the IRS’s miscreant negligence to the U.S. Treasury
Secretary and the President.
In addition, various federal judges and their law clerks who know the
legal meaning of the phrase, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,”
have blatantly ignored the clear and unambiguous meaning of the provisions
of the PRA. Instead of heeding it and advancing its protections to
the aid of IRS victims, they have waged complicit war against the People
for willful failure to file a bootleg 1040 form under any of a variety of
vague, confusing, circuitous, and questionable provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code.
We believe, in accordance with the PRA and the circumstances of the
Lawrence case
dismissal that Americans have no obligation to file bootleg 1040 forms
that are bootleg by virtue of bearing no current, valid OMB control
number. We intend to so inform supporters of our Foundation, members
of the We The People Congress, and of the general public, unless
you respond to this Petition for Redress with some explanation other than
the one I have propounded herein.
If you agree with our analysis, we direct you in the name of the People of
the United States
of America to
order your minions to follow the law to the letter, lest they face
criminal prosecution for violating numerous laws and the Constitution of
the United States of America, not the least of which are their oaths of
office. Accordingly, we expect that you will correct the IRS forms
so they bear the proper OMB control numbers, accurately reflecting the
underlining statutory authority upon which the OMB control number relies
pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further we
demand that you order IRS employees to immediately stop persecuting those
who fail to file the fraudulent, counterfeit IRS 1040 form.
If we are mistaken in our analysis of the Lawrence case and its
implications for the People of the United States of America who need not
file bootleg IRS forms, please respond to this petition in a timely manner
with a proper and complete explanation of our errors in fact or reasoning
and a correct analysis.
Yours
truly,
___________________
Robert L.
Schulz
Chairman
Cc:
Mr. Rob Portman,
Director
VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th St.,
N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
[end
letter]
FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION & LEGAL RESEARCH
RELATED TO THE Paperwork Reduction
Act:
The Foundation would like to extend many thanks to
researcher
Lindsey
Springer for his contributions regarding the PRA
legal research and
assistance with the Lawrence case, as well as
defendant Bob Lawrence
and his attorney Oscar Stilley
for having
the courage to rely on this research in the manner they did
facing numerous felony income tax charges.
Springer's website
featuring his current personal PRA/APA litigation
and his explanatory
video can be found be found at http://www.penaltyprotester.com/
Please
also review the extensive, ground-breaking income tax
legal research
(partially PRA related) made available from
our website at no cost by
the Foundation in 2004.
The body of work entitled, "Analysis
of the Federal Income Tax Law"
consists of hundreds
of legal and historical documents in support
of the argument that the
operation and enforcement of the income tax
system is illegal. The
research report was included as Attachment #2
of a Petition
for Redress to U.S. Government officials.
The work, authored by attorney Larry Becraft, was the
subject
of both state and federal litigation that began in June, 2004
and
ended earlier this year.
Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement
agreements in those cases,
the We The People
Foundation’s unrestricted rights to copy, publish
and distribute
the research was recognized.
Copies of the 400 MB research disk are available on the
WTP Foundation on-line store
for a nominal donation.
Send this article to your friends Donate
to help fund our work
| 
