Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

IRS loses in court

Expand Messages
  • crystal1281960
    January 29, 2005 Dramatic Development: U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer Without A Court Order Tax Payers Free To Ignore
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      January 29, 2005
      Dramatic Development:

      U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS
      Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer
      Without A Court Order

      Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons


      Queensbury, NY – On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
      the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the
      IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a
      federal court order.

      Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv),

      "...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court,
      IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence
      whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise
      does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by
      a federal court order…[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt,
      arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply
      with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or
      lack of reasons for so complying."

      Without declaring those provisions of the Code unconstitutional on
      their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement
      provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much
      of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands
      for personal and private property. The court characterized IRS
      summonses issued under Section 7602 as mere "requests."

      The court went on to say that the federal courts are there to
      protect taxpayers from an "overreaching" IRS, and that the IRS must
      go through the federal courts before force can be applied on anyone
      by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS.


      Key Enforcement Provisions Of The
      Internal Revenue Code Nullified

      The paragraphs above begin a press release that will be sent to
      thousands of media outlets and influential individuals across the
      nation over the next several days.

      The evolution of this lawsuit, Schulz v. IRS, has played an integral
      role in the execution of the Right-to-Petition lawsuit strategy and
      may soon, after the conclusive and far-reaching decision of the
      Appellate Court, provide the legal basis necessary to finalize, and
      secure jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service and the
      Department of Justice to answer our claims of constitutional abuse.

      In their decision in this case brought by WTP Chairman Bob Schulz,
      the court has expressly recognized that the IRS, as has been
      asserted in the Right-to-Petition lawsuit, routinely violates
      people's Due Process rights in their day-to-day administrative
      practices. As such, the findings of the Second Circuit firmly
      establish for the (D.C.) District Court the substance of the causes
      of action put forth in our Right-to-Petition lawsuit.

      In the coming days, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz will make further
      statements about these unfolding events and detail our assertive
      plans to generate widespread public awareness of our efforts, and
      our success.


      Your Support Needed

      This legal milestone is proof-positive of the significant progress
      the Foundation is achieving in its coordinated, rational, and
      professionally executed attack on those that would infringe our
      Rights.

      Without doubt, the concerted, sustained efforts (and contributions)
      of WTP supporters over the last several years are having a
      demonstrable impact on the institutions of our government.

      At this time, your generous, and ongoing support is needed to
      finance the enormous landmark legal endeavor that we have committed
      to, and to insure that WTP – and all the Plaintiffs – and all those
      that support our cause, will prevail in our common quest to secure
      Freedom.

      Please consider making a substantial one-time donation, and further
      committing to an ongoing, monthly investment so that our
      organization has the resources needed to complete this ambitious,
      and historical undertaking.

      You have our sincerest Thanks and gratitude.


      Click Here to make a one-time or monthly donation using our secured,
      highly-encrypted on-line donation system. Instructions and
      resources can be found on that page for those that wish to complete
      their donations by postal mail or other means. All donations to the
      501(c)3 tax-exempt Foundation are tax deductible.

      Click Here to Read the Second Circuit's Decision (Adobe .pdf format)

      Click Here to Read the WTP Press Release (.html format)

      Add Yourself to Our e-Mail List!
    • John Wilde
      The IRS did not lose. Bob did. Bob still doesn t understand what is involved in first party summons cases. So I am going to explain it and then I am going
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The IRS did not lose. Bob did. Bob still doesn't understand what
        is involved in first party summons cases. So I am going to explain it
        and then I am going to suggest that if you ever receive a first party
        summons from the IRS that you DON'T do what Bob has done or suggested.
        All it will more than likely do is put you in jail for contempt of court.

        First, it was Bob who filed the Petition to Quash. It was the
        government who filed the Motion to Dismiss and it was the motion to
        dismiss that was granted by the district court and it was the dismissal
        that was upheld by the 2nd circuit. Unless you are David Miller and
        Right Way Law, to think that having your case dismissed on a Motion to
        Dismiss is a win....... well.

        Here is how the process works for first party summonses and the
        problems that will come from Bob's statements if we don't stop him now.

        The IRS issues a summons to you. You have two choices you can go or
        you can stay home.

        From there the IRS has two choices, they can ask the DOJ to petition
        to enforce or they don't ask. If the IRS doesn't ask, no harm no foul
        and everything stays as is.

        If on the other hand the IRS does request enforcement (which is more
        than likely) and the DOJ does petition to enforce, then you have two
        choices, you can defend or not. If you don't defend, the Court will
        issue an order for you to comply with the summons. If you don't comply
        with that order, then you could be held in contempt of court. I can
        guarantee that the gummint will seek a contempt order and part of the
        findings of contempt will be some jail time.

        If you choose to defend, you might or you might not prevail. If you
        prevail, the Petition is Dismissed, no harm no foul. If you don't
        prevail, then the Court will still issue the order for you to complay
        and you will face the same situation as in the paragraph before.

        Here is the danger in Bob's view of the case. The IRS is now very
        likely to start issuing first party summonses to all of the people who
        are a party to the Redress Suit. Based upon what Bob has just posted,
        the people are not going to appear in response to the summons. They're
        going to wait for the magical court order. Well it isn't going to come
        that way. It will come through a petition to enforce as I mentioned
        before and these people aren't going to have a clue how to handle that.
        There are going to be a myriad of people who are going to be held in
        contempt and jailed because Bob has completely misinterpreted what the
        court said. This man is clueless and he just became one of the most
        dangerous men to freedom than we have seen in decades.

        What should be done when you receive a first party summons. You
        should appear and learn how to take fifth amendment as each question is
        asked. 9 out of 10 times the gummint will not seek to enforce the
        summons when the fifth amendment is taken. This is the most swift and
        expedient means of taking care of a first party summons.

        So if you want to have the greatest opportunity to go to jail for
        contempt, by all means follow Bob. If you don't then learn the process
        for dealing with the first party summons.

        g'day
        John Wilde




        crystal1281960 wrote:

        >January 29, 2005
        >Dramatic Development:
        >
        >U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS
        >Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer
        >Without A Court Order
        >
        >Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons
        >
        >
        >
      • chancellor
        John you are so right. I have received several private messages and many on my ZIF group expressing glee over this worthless decision. I have attempted to
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          John you are so right. I have received several private messages and many on my ZIF group expressing glee over this worthless decision. I have attempted to explain exactly what you have said and talking to my cat would be time better spent. One thing Schiff does right is handling a IRS summons and it works 9 out of 10 times. It seems that most on these lists have not a clue how the law works. If the goons know you understand your rights they soon learn that any more action against you will produce nothing, so they give up.
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: John Wilde
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:10 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] IRS loses in court



          The IRS did not lose. Bob did. Bob still doesn't understand what
          is involved in first party summons cases. So I am going to explain it
          and then I am going to suggest that if you ever receive a first party
          summons from the IRS that you DON'T do what Bob has done or suggested.
          All it will more than likely do is put you in jail for contempt of court.
        • jm367@bellsouth.net
          Paul Mitchell has another take on this. My take is the court has merely declared what has always been the law with these summons. This decision proves that
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 31, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Paul Mitchell has another take on this.  My take is the court has merely declared what has always been the law with these summons.
             
            This decision proves that IRS must petition a federal
            court BEFORE it can expect to ENFORCE any
            disclosures of books and records.  Of course,
            once such a compelled disclosure is being
            contemplated by a federal court, the Fifth Amendment
            is implicated DIRECTLY, and Fifth Amendment
            defenses have been consistently upheld by
            the federal courts.
             
            I for one now believe that our focus on the
            PERJURY JURAT is going to pay big dividends:
            the first thing I was asked to do when I was
            ordered by a federal court to appear at an
            IRS summons hearing was to SWEAR AN OATH:
            I declined, because I HAD NOT BEEN ORDERED
            TO DO SO!!  The Revenue Agent was FURIOUS,
            but there was nothing he could do.  I eventually
            won that case, because I invoked the Fifth Amendment
            in reply to every single question from that Revenue Agent:
             
            (notice the emphasis on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments)
             
          • John Wilde
            Yes the fifth amendment is implicated. However, you re better off appearing, once you are served with the summons, and invoking the fifth on a question by
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 31, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes the fifth amendment is implicated.  However, you're better off appearing, once you are served with the summons, and invoking the fifth on a question by question basis.  If you do it then, the likelihood of the IRS requesting that the DOJ bring the enforcement action, or even if requested by the IRS having the DOJ bringing the enforcement action are significantly reduced.

                  If you are served with a summons and then don't appear, and then wait for the inevitable Petition to Enforce and the initial Order to Show Cause, then you are establishing a pattern of non-cooperation, putting yourself behind the eightball with the Court.  Just ask Leslie Grable in Michigan.  Click on the Grable to go to the case.  It is better to cooperate, but with objections, then to appear not to cooperate by not meeting with the IRS at all.  After reading the case, then ask yourself this question.

                  Do I go to the IRS after being served with the summons and properly invoke the fifth amendment and only have a 10% chance of having the IRS seeking judicial enforcement, or do I ignore the summons after being served, face a 90% chance of enforcement and a court order to comply and the likelihood of spending 7 months in jail as Grable did, before the 6th Circuit finally ruled in his favor?

                   Given the opportunity to weigh all of those factors, I'll proceed on the former and have a better chance of avoiding the court scrutiny.  Make your decision based upon Bob Schulz's interpretation of the 2nd Circuit's decision and you're likely to end up just like Grable.

              g'day
              John Wilde

              jm367@... wrote:
              Paul Mitchell has another take on this.  My take is the court has merely declared what has always been the law with these summons.

            • hobot
              I told em at my summons, in my country its illegal to testify aginst myself as I am inhabitant on the land in a county within a union state. Not a blank
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 31, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I told em at my summons, in my country its illegal
                to testify aginst myself as I am inhabitant on the
                land in a county within a union state. Not a blank
                statement but the type of response to each offending
                probe that non of their beeswax. In the case of trusts,
                they better not be yours and therefore you've no connection
                to those records to have any knowledge about. Bring
                some cheap brief case or box of old magazines to
                appear as if prepared to reveal, provided they can
                ID who they are to even have authority to ask you there.
                IRS summons comes with notice that its under a District
                CT jurishdiction that its issued or enforeced under,
                go read that Ct's jurishdiction and see if you have
                entered that in anyway. Be polite just don't get tricked.

                hobot


                > John Wilde wrote:
                >
                > Yes the fifth amendment is implicated. However, you're better
                > off appearing, once you are served with the summons, and
                > invoking the fifth on a question by question basis. If you do
                > it then, the likelihood of the IRS requesting that the DOJ bring
              • DMiner
                John -- Under normal circumstances, I totally agree with you. However, I have successfully refuted the IRS summons for dozens of clients based on several
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  John --

                  Under normal circumstances, I totally agree with you.

                  However, I have successfully refuted the IRS summons for dozens of clients
                  based on several fraudulent errors in the individual's IMF, and not one of
                  my clients has ever has the IRS pursue them in court. The IRS ONLY issues a
                  summons to those individuals whose IMF indicates they are a business and NOT
                  an individual.

                  The summons, and all other collections attempts, results from false and
                  fraudulent entries in the Individual Master File.

                  Yours in freedom,

                  Dave Miner
                  HYPERLINK "http://www.FreedomSite.net"www.FreedomSite.net


                  _____

                  From: John Wilde [mailto:jpwilde@...]
                  Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:43 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS loses in court


                  Yes the fifth amendment is implicated. However, you're better off
                  appearing, once you are served with the summons, and invoking the fifth on a
                  question by question basis. If you do it then, the likelihood of the IRS
                  requesting that the DOJ bring the enforcement action, or even if requested
                  by the IRS having the DOJ bringing the enforcement action are significantly
                  reduced.
                • krimson3@drby.us
                  Can anybody help me on a Title 42 complaint? Equality at law Thank you Off-line please Gary Darby Krimson3@drby.us
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Can anybody help me on a Title 42 complaint? "Equality at law"

                    Thank you

                    Off-line please

                    Gary Darby
                    Krimson3@...
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.