|
June
9, 2006
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.
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:
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
|
HAVE A QUESTION?
