DOCSLIB.ORG

DOJ Response & Motion for Summary Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOJ Response & Motion for Summary Judgment IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 1:07-cv-352-TJM-RFT ) ROBERT L. SCHULZ; ) UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION, INC.; and ) MOTION TO DISMISS AND WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS, INC., ) CROSS-MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. ) The United States files this opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and L.R. 7.1(c). GLENN T. SUDDABY United States Attorney /s/ Thomas M. Newman THOMAS M. NEWMAN Bar Roll #514463 Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 7238 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-9926 [email protected] 2516406.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................... ii I. STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE...........................1 II. ARGUMENT........................................................1 A. Motion to Dismiss Standard.......................................1 B. Summary Judgment Standard .....................................2 III. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED UNDER IRC § 7408 FOR ENGAGING IN CONDUCT SUBJECT TO PENALTY UNDER § 6700 AND § 6701 ..............3 A. Defendants engage in conduct subject to IRC § 6700 penalty .........3 (1) Defendants organized and sold a plan or arrangement .........4 (2) Defendants made false or fraudulent statements regarding the tax benefits associated with their program ...............4 (3) Defendants knew or had reason to know that their tax statements were false or fraudulent .................................8 (4) Defendants’ false or fraudulent statements were material ......10 (5) An injunction is appropriate and necessary to prevent future violations of IRC § 6700. ...............................10 B. Defendants engage in conduct subject to IRC § 6701 penalty ........11 IV. AN INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE UNDER IRC § 7402 TO PREVENT DEFENDANTS FROM ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT INTERFERE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE IRC ........................................................12 V. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS’ ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES ...................................13 VI. DEFENDANTS’ REMAINING ARGUMENTS DO NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL ........17 VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................20 -i- 2514960.11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Abdo v. United States, 234 F. Supp. 2d 553 (M.D.N.C. 2002), aff’d without published op., 63 Fed. Appx. 163 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1120 (2004) ..............4 Alaska Computer Brokers v. Morton, 76 A.F.T.R.2d 6458 (D. Alaska 1995) ...............6 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................2 Berg v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18852 (N.D. N.Y. 2006) ........7 Betz v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 286 (Fed. Cl. 1998) ...............................5, 6 Body v. United States, 243 F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1957) ..................................12 Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986) ................................2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................7 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ..................................................14, 15 Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986) ..............................7, 8 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) ............................8 Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) ......................................8 Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d. 17 (2nd Cir. 1985) .................................8 Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 (2nd Cir. 1991) ......................2 Damron v. Yellow Freight Sys., 18 F. Supp. 2d 812 (E.D. Tenn. 1998) ...................6 GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, 130 F.3d 1381 (W.D. Okla. 1997). ...........2 Global Network Communs., Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150 (2nd Cir. 2006) .........18 In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989) ......................................5, 6, 7 Kotmair v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1253 (1986) ......................................6 Ledford v. Commissioner, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..............................8 Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2nd Cir. 1976) ....................19 Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981) ...............................11 Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) ............................5, 7 Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984) ..................................6 Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., 123 S.Ct. 1829 (2003) .............................14 Ohralik v. Ohio St. Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978) ..............................14 Penn Advertising of Baltimore, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 63 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 1995) ..............................................14 Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..................................8 Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990) .................................7, 9 -ii- 2514960.11 Table of Authorities cont. United States v. Smith, 657 F. Supp. 646 (W.D. La.), aff’d per curiam, 814 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1987) ..............................................17 Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) .........................14 Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1985) .................................8 Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2nd Cir. 2000) .......................................1 United States v. Bell, 238 F. Supp. 2d 696 (M.D. Pa. 2003), aff’d, 414 F.3d 474 (3rd Cir. 2005) ......................................6, 12, 16, 17 United States v. Buttorff, 572 F.2d 619 (8th Cir. 1978) .............................12, 20 United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1985) ..................3, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 United States v. Campbell, 897 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1990) ............................1, 10 United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) .........8 United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983) ..................................7 United States v. Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d 1296 (11th Cir. 1984) .......................12 United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 38 F. Supp. 2d 846 (E.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d, 202 F.3d 1093 ............................................4, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17 United States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828 (7th Cir. 1986) ................................6 United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 568 F.2d 853 (2nd Cir. 1977) .....................12 United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986) ..................................6 United States v. Freeman, 761 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1985) ...............................14 United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993) ...............................5, 7 United States v. Hansen, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54496 (S.D. Cal. 2006) ...............4, 10 United States v. Harkins, 355 F. Supp.2d 1175 (D. Ore. 2004) ..........................9 United States v. Hempfling, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2006) .....................18 United States v. Ingredient Technology Corp., 698 F.2d 88 (2nd Cir. 1983) .................9 United States v. Kaun, 633 F. Supp. 406 (E.D. Wis. 1986), aff’d, 827 F.2d 1144 (7th Cir. 1987) ...........................................12, 17 United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) ...........................................7 United States v. Luman, 95 A.F.T.R.2d 2414 (N.D. Ga. 2005) ..........................6 United States v. Raymond, 78 F. Supp.2d 856 (E.D. Wis. 1999), aff’d, 228 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2000) ......................................2, 4, 7, 10, 17 United States v. Miller, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988) ..................................6 United States v. Sasscer, 86 A.F.T.R.2d 6174 (D. Md. 2000) ...........................6 United States v. Savoie, 594 F. Supp. 678 (W.D. La. 1984) .............................4 United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004), aff’g 269 F. Supp.2d 1269 (D. Nev. 2003) .....................................14, 17 United States v. Schulz, 2006 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6554 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ................19 -iii- 2514960.11 Table of Authorities cont. United States v. Schulz, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,481 (D. Neb. 2006) .............19 United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2005) ................................8 United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988) ....................................6 United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) ..................................6 United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1986) .................................6 United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986) ................................6 United States v. Updegrave, 97-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,465 (E.D. Pa. 1997) ...........6 United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) .................................6 United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511 (8th Cir. 1985) ..............................3, 9, 17 We the People v. United States, 2005 WL 2473698 (D. D.C. 2005) ......................16 FEDERAL STATUTES Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) Page(s) § 61.........................................................................8 § 501....................................................................15, 19 § 3102.......................................................................7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Revenge of the Tax Protesters
    G THE B IN EN V C R H E S A N 8 D 8 B 8 A E 1 R SINC Web address: http://www.nylj.com VOLUME 234—NO. 52 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 TAX LITIGATION ISSUES BY JOHN J. TIGUE JR. AND JEREMY H. TEMKIN Revenge of the Tax Protesters ax protesters, or individuals noted that courts “have consistently who claim that they are not rejected …arguments [raised by tax legally required to pay taxes, protesters] and imposed substantial penal- have been around for a long ties on those taking these unsupportable T positions. Those potentially tempted by time. In recent years, however, the num- ber of tax protesters appears to have these schemes need to realize that they increased as numerous individuals and carry a heavy price for both the taxpayers 2 groups actively market and sell a variety of John J. Tigue Jr. Jeremy H. Temkin and the promoters.” As set forth in IRS materials supporting the claim that Notice 2005-30, civil and criminal American citizens are not obligated to pay penalties apply to taxpayers who make income taxes. As a result, the IRS has increased its frivolous arguments. Civil penalties Among the arguments raised by tax focus on prosecuting individuals who include a $500 penalty for filing a protesters are: (1) that the 16th make such arguments, which it views as frivolous income tax return and a penalty Amendment to the Constitution, which willful tax evasion. In March of this year, of up to $25,000 if a taxpayer pursues authorizes income taxes, was never IRS Commissioner Mark W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments November 30, 2007 I
    THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS NOVEMBER 30, 2007 I. FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL .............................................1 A. The Voluntary Nature of the Federal Income Tax System............................1 1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary...............................................1 2. Contention: Payment of tax is voluntary. ...........................................................3 3. Contention: Taxpayers can reduce their federal income tax liability by filing a “zero return.” .......................................................................................................6 4. Contention: The IRS must prepare federal tax returns for a person who fails to file. ......................................................................................................................8 5. Contention: Compliance with an administrative summons issued by the IRS is voluntary. ............................................................................................................9 B. The Meaning of Income: Taxable Income and Gross Income ...................11 1. Contention: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income. ...................................................................................11 2. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable. ........................................16 3. Contention: Federal Reserve Notes are not income........................................18 C. The Meaning of Certain Terms Used in the Internal Revenue
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Nazi Named Jeffrey Harbin Was End Birthright Citizenship
    SPECIAL ISSUE IntelligencePUBLISHED BY SPRING 2011 | ISSUE 141 THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTERReport THE YEAR IN HATE & EXTREMISM HATE GROUPS TOP 1000 Led by antigovernment ‘Patriot’ groups, the radical right expands dramatically for the second year in a row EDITORIAL The Arizonification of America BY MARK POTOK, EDITOR when even leading conser- As we explain in this issue, this dramatic growth of the rad- vatives worry out loud about the ical right for the second consecutive year is related to anger right-wing vitriol and demoniz- over the changing racial make-up of the country, the ailing ing propaganda so commonplace in economy and the spreading of demonizing propaganda and contemporary America, you’ve got other kinds of hate speech in the political mainstream. to be concerned about where our The white-hot political atmosphere is not limited to hard- country is headed. line nativist politicians, conspiracy-mongering cable news This January, former President hosts, or even openly radical hate groups. During the same George W. Bush, speaking in a month when most of these conservative commentaries were question-and-answer session written, the nation witnessed an extraordinary series of at Texas’ Southern Methodist events that highlighted the atmosphere of political extremism. University, warned that the nation seemed to be reliving its On Jan. 8, a Tucson man opened fire in a parking lot on worst anti-immigrant moments. “My point is, we’ve been U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, killing six through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism, people, critically wounding the congresswoman and badly nativism” before, he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Thefederal Incometax Scam
    Vol.1, No.5 POLITICS WITH AN EDGE The Federal Income Tax Scam Exposing the IRS’ Warfare on Americans The Tax Honesty Movement From IRS Special Agent to Enemy of the State, Why Taxes Are Not Needed Joseph Banister’s Story to Fund the Government US $3.95 / Can $5.95 When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Na - ture’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ᇶ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Cre - ator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Govern - ment, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
    [Show full text]
  • FOIA Case Logs for US Department of the Treasury
    Description of document: FOIA CASE LOGS for: US Department of the Treasury, Washington DC for FY 2005 – FY 2007 Requested date: 16-October-2007 Released date: 27-November-2007 Posted date: 18-December-2007 Title of Document FOIA Log Date/date range of document: 06-December-2004 - 24-October-2007 (with several older requests included) Source of document: FOIA/PA Request Disclosure Services Department of the Treasury Washington, D.C. 20220 Telephone: (202) 622-0930 Fax: (202) 622-3895 The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file DEPARTMENTOFTHETREASURY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220 November 27,2007 Re: 2007-11-033 This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated October 16, 2007. Enclosed are a total of 138 pages found to be responsive to your request. Some information has been deleted in accordance with subsection (b)(6) ofthe FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552. Exemption (b)(6) exempts "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." No other responsive records were located.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:07-Cv-00352-TJM-RFT Document 30 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 25
    Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT Document 30 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1:07-cv-0352 ROBERT L. SCHULZ; WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION, INC.; and WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS, INC., Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THOMAS J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The United States of America commenced the instant action seeking to enjoin Defendants from promoting an illegal tax shelter. Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. I. FACTS Defendant Robert L. Shulz (“Schulz”) organized Defendant We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc. in 1997. The Complaint alleges that, although Shulz purports to have founded the corporate defendants for educational purposes, he “has used the two . entities . to market a nationwide tax-fraud scheme designed to help customers evade their federal tax liabilities and to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws.” Compl. at ¶ 6. Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT Document 30 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 25 Defendants distributed a “Tax Termination Package” as part of “Operation Stop Withholding” to help individuals stop withholding, paying, and filing federal taxes. The United States alleges that Defendants furthered their scheme through the use of false and misleading forms in place of standard Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) forms, and based upon the false premises that the federal income tax system is voluntary, the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was not property ratified, and that federal income tax does not apply to most wages.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Document: Who's Who in the Freedom Community
    POLICY DOCUMENT: WHO’S WHO IN THE FREEDOM COMMUNITY Last revised: 3/5/2012 “The righteous should choose his friends [and government protectors] carefully, For the way of the wicked leads them astray.” [Prov. 12:26, Bible, NKJV] Who’s Who in the Freedom Community 1 of 49 Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org Form 08.009, Rev. 3-5-2012 EXHIBIT:________ DEDICATION Who’s Who in the Freedom Community 2 of 49 Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org Form 08.009, Rev. 3-5-2012 EXHIBIT:________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Freedom Advocates ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Adask, Alfred ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Banister, Joseph .................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Becraft, Larry ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Bell, Thurston ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Benson,
    [Show full text]
  • We the People Response to Rep. Bartlett
    The We The People Organization Home Page We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc. 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724 www.givemeliberty.org January 22, 2002 Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett Member of Congress 2412 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Bartlett: On behalf of myself and the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, I want to thank you for all that you have done to support the People’s Petition for Redress of our grievances related to the fraudulent origin of the IRS and unlawful operations of the income tax system. I thank you for your wisdom, your courage and your independence. Your steadfast and heroic efforts in defense of the American People’s guaranteed constitutional right to have our government answer this historic petition are deeply appreciated by all of us who placed our trust in your integrity and leadership. I know that you have tried your best in our behalf, and for that I am most thankful. I continue to hold you in high esteem. No matter what the future may hold, I will always remember your courageous defense of our Constitution. Neither of us has shared with the general public the details of your actions and what happened behind the scenes in the days leading up to July 20, 2001. This was the day Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant and IRS Commissioner Rossotti, as a result of your personal intervention and persuasion, contracted with the American people to have experts from their departments appear in a recorded, congressional-style, public meeting to answer the people’s questions regarding the federal income tax system.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol Iii, 1 1 in the United States District
    VOL III, 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2 FORT WORTH DIVISION 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4 . 4:03-CR-188-A VS. 5 . RICHARD MICHAEL SIMKANIN . January 6, 2004 6 . 8:39 a.m. 7 VOLUME III 8 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN H. McBRYDE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a jury. 10 APPEARANCES: 11 For the United States: Mr. David L. Jarvis 12 Assistant United States Attorney 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1700 13 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 252-5200 14 Mr. Robert A. Kemins 15 U.S. Department of Justice 717 North Harwood, Suite 400 16 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 880-9781 17 For Defendant Simkanin: Mr. Arch C. McColl, III 18 McColl & McColloch 1601 Elm Street, Suite 2000 19 Dallas, Texas 75201-4761 (214) 979-0999 20 Official Court Reporter: Eileen M. Brewer 21 424 United States Courthouse 501 West Tenth Street 22 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3637 (817) 850-6661 23 24 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by computer-aided transcription. 25 U.S. DISTRICT COURT VOL III, 2 1 I N D E X 2 GOVERNMENT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE 3 Voir Direct Cross Redirect Recross Dire Court 4 WITNESSES: Dianne Clemonds 4 12 13 14 5 Allan McGowan 14 16 6 GOVERNMENT RESTS 17 7 8 9 DEFENDANT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE 10 Voir Direct Cross Redirect Recross Dire Court 11 WITNESSES: Richard Simkanin 18 79 125 132 12 Joseph Banister 134 143 147 148 John 163 166 13 Stadtmiller Eduardo Rivera 167 169 182 14 Robert Schulz 184 193 Larken Rose 198 208 15 DEFENSE RESTS 216 16 GOVERNMENT CLOSES 216 DEFENSE CLOSES 216 17 CLOSING: MR.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereign Citizens Movement
    Regional Organized Crime Information Center SPECIAL RESEARCH REPORT By ROCIC Publications © 2010 ROCIC DISSEMINATION RESTRICTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT • This report is dedicated to the memories of Sergeant Brandon Paudert and Police Officers Bill Evans, David Curtis, Jeffrey Kocab and the 83 other law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty during the first half of 2010. If this terrible trend continues, 2010 could be the deadliest year for U.S. law enforcement in two decades, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived. • Regional Organized Crime Information Center Special Research Report • Sovereign Citizen Movement Traffic Stop Turns Deadly Two West Memphis Officers Slain by Anti-Government Extremists n Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 11:36 a.m., the door of his patrol unit, was hit in the head. The Oa drug interdiction officer from the West suspects got back into the van, while the younger Memphis, Ark. Police Department stopped an gunman continued to fire his rifle, and sped off. eastbound Plymouth Voyager minivan with Ohio plates on Interstate 40 for traffic infractions. The The alert went out, and an extensive manhunt white van came to a stop on an off-ramp near was launched. Schools were locked down, and College Boulevard in West Memphis. roadblocks were set up at interstate ramps and on bridges over the Mississippi River. West Memphis Making the stop was Officer Bill Evans, 38, a nine- Police Chief Bob Paudert responded to the “officer year law enforcement veteran and a father of two.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey-T-Maehr-V-IRS-Supreme Court
    No. 12-6169 In The Supreme Court of the United States © Jeffrey T. Maehr, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent. © On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari The United States Court of Appeals For the Tenth Circuit © PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI © Jeffrey T. Maehr 924 Stollsteimer Rd. Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 (970) 731-9724 AFFORDABLE FAST GRAPHICS, INC. / CUSTOM PRINTERS 1-469-531-1786 • 1-972-235-1229 SC booklet Quark working 2/12/13 5:01 PM Page I i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is Respondent’s so-called “income” tax a “Direct,” or “Indirect,” tax, or is there some other taxation form as yet undeclared by the courts that counters standing case law? (p. 5). 2. Does the Respondent have the lawful and consti- tutional authority to presume to define “income” as to include “all that comes in,” and to include wages, salary or compensation for services, contrary to this honorable Court’s and other Court’s precedent, and congressional testimony? (p. 8). 3. Can the Respondent violate the Paperwork Reduc- tion Act in claiming that Petitioner, or any American, is lawfully “required” to file a 1040 form that is labeled a “bootleg” form by Congress if it fails the Paperwork Re- duction Act? (p. 13). 4. Can Respondent be acting under the name “Inter- nal Revenue Service” and be lawfully sending said defi- ciencies and other documents, using U.S. mail, to Peti- tioner or any other American citizen, when the entity known as the “Internal Revenue Service” was lawfully “canceled” by the Treasury Department in 2005? (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Tea Party Nationalism: a Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of Its National Factions
    Tea Party Nationalism: A Critical Examination of the Tea Party Movement and the Size, Scope, and Focus of Its National Factions By Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights is responsible for the content and analysis of this report. Additional materials, including updates and exclusive web content can be found at teapartynationalism.com. Copyright © 2010 Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. All Rights Reserved. No Part of this report may be reproduced without the permission of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights except for sections quoted with proper attribution for purposes of reviews and public education. The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR) is a national organization with an international outlook examining racist, anti-Semitic, white nationalist, and far-right social movements, analyzing their intersection with civil society and social policy, educating the public, and assisting in the protection and extension of human rights through organization and informed mobilization. Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights P.O. Box 411552 Kansas City, MO 64141 voice: (816) 474-4748 email: [email protected] website: www.irehr.org Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]