See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: 1040 Checkmate? DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
Source:
givemeliberty
URL Source: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm
Published: Jun 10, 2006
Author: n
Post Date: 2006-06-10 14:31:29 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 372
Comments: 16
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. ..... http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: neil mciver (#0)
fyi
'We shall no longer hang on to the tails of public opinion, or to a non-existent authority, on matters utterly unknown and strange. We shall gradually become experts ourselves in the mastery of the knowledge of the future.' ~ Wilhelm Reich
Why the heck are not more folks talking about this post?
Oh Snap! Leviathan tripped on it's own shoe laces!
"I'll use all the damned hot re-loads I want!"
The gob't had to "prove" there was a law that said we had to pay taxes AND COULDN'T
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Stilley given 30 days to appeal suspension Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The state Supreme Court on Thursday stayed imposition of a six-month suspension of anti-tax crusader Oscar Stilley's law license for 30 days so he can appeal the disciplinary action. The Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct voted last month after a hearing to suspend Stilley's law license for six months because of harsh language he used in a 2002 court filing. At the end of the hearing Stilley asked for a stay of the suspension until he could file his appeal with the state Supreme Court. Stark Ligon, executive director of the court's Office of Professional Conduct, said Thursday that Stilley has 30 days from today to file his appeal. If he does not file the appeal within the 30-day period the six-month suspension will begin. Stilley said Thursday he would appeal the action, but first he planned to file a motion asking the committee to reconsider its decision.
Obviously good news, but I'm a bit confused. This report is a bit lacking on detail because the 1040 DOES have an OMB control number, and it does trace to federal regulations in Title 26. I think the OMB control number is 1545-0067 or 1545-0074. If the DOJ was spooked by the defense, it suggests that the fed regs which the OMB number on the 1040 points to does not support the income tax as usually applied, but this write-up fails to go into that detail.
http://givemeliberty.org/ has all the info on the case
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Try to bump this article. I want to see if it works for you and not me. Thanks.
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
I have read at least one other article that went into it in more detail and the IRS faces multifold problems. It cannot be legally issued an OMB number because it is not legally a Federal Agency. The IRS is incorporated as a Private Corporation in the Territory of Puerto Rico. Thus the OMB number used is not only invalid but fraudulent. It cannot legally use the Department of the Treasury Logo because of that. Its use of that Logo constitutes misrepresentation i.e., FRAUD. There were A LOT of booby traps sitting in wait for the IRS and DOJ if they did not quickly get rid of this case.
"To the degree that the government can take from you the produce of your labor without your consent you are that much a slave." - Me
Most interesting. I posted a bump and it did not show up. The article has been spiked but not removed.
"To the degree that the government can take from you the produce of your labor without your consent you are that much a slave." - Me
If the DOJ was spooked by the defense, it suggests that the fed regs which the OMB number on the 1040 points to does not support the income tax as usually applied, but this write-up fails to go into that detail. Well, the requirement for a OMB number comes from the Privacy Act and Freedom Of Information Act of 1974, or PL 93-579, and not only does it require a valid OMB number (which the 1040 doesn't have-the number is a dummy and is not issued by OMB) but all govt forms so required must have an expiration date! And because a 1040 has no OMB # or expiration date it is according to the FOIA a "bootleg form and may be ignored". The govt used the paperwork reduction act to try and obscure the requirement that the 1040 have a privacy act statement so they included a minimal version in their paperwork reduction act statement, hence the confusion. The PRA did not remove the requirement for all govt forms that request info from citizens to A) explain the uses of the info requested, and B) reveal whether disclosure is voluntary or mandatory and C) spell out the punishment for failing to do so. You can read the Privacy Act and Freedom Of Information Act as HTML here.
What would happen if everyone stopped paying income and property taxes? The most likely outcome would be for the gov'ts to print themselves whatever money they needed and therefore cause inflation and a corresponding reduction in the value of everyone's liquid assets. This is not something new. Following the economic collapse, the gov't will have to find other ways of raising funds, such as VATs, increased excise taxes, import duties and so on.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
This is VERY interresting. Is Stilley also licensed in Illinois? Is there a copy of the Dismissal Order available on-line? Will the whole of government printing presses stop churning out the C-notes for a while and now start issuing new 1040s?
Ron Paul. President. Spread the Word.
And, thousands of tax preparers and tax lawyers will have to find some other means of supporting themselves, and thousands of tons of paperwork that no one ever reads will no longer be prepared then destroyed just to keep these non producers in jobs.
A properly worded dismissal would address the specific issues--finding of fact and conclusions of law (a good Defendant's attorney would load it up therewith)- -IF and UNLESS it was a purposefully incomplete summary dismissal.
Ron Paul. President. Spread the Word.
#2. To: gengis gandhi (#1)
WHOA!
#3. To: All (#2)
#4. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#5. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#6. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.
Friday, May 5, 2006
#7. To: gengis gandhi, lodwick, orangedog, Itisa1mosttoolate, DeaconBenjamin (#0)
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.
#8. To: Neil McIver (#7)
#9. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#8)
#10. To: Neil McIver (#7)
#11. To: Uncle Bill (#9)
Try to bump this article. I want to see if it works for you and not me. Thanks.
#12. To: Neil McIver (#7)
(Edited)
Obviously good news, but I'm a bit confused. This report is a bit lacking on detail because the 1040 DOES have an OMB control number, and it does trace to federal regulations in Title 26. I think the OMB control number is 1545-0067 or 1545-0074.
#13. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#14. To: DeaconBenjamin, lodwick, Uncle Bill (#6)
#15. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#13)
Following the economic collapse, the gov't will have to find other ways of raising funds, such as VATs, increased excise taxes, import duties and so on.
#16. To: Neil McIver (#7)
but this write-up fails to go into that detail.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest