Robert Schulz rats out his followers

[Shoonra]

from the Albany, NY, Times-Union, for Friday, May 9, 2008:

= = = = = = = = =

Tax critic meets deadline
Robert L. Schulz gives feds list of people who received his manifesto

By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Friday, May 9, 2008

QUEENSBURY -- Tax protester Robert L. Schulz, who had until 4 p.m. Monday to name everybody he knew who had copies of his anti-income-tax manifesto, met the court deadline with 10 minutes to spare.

At about 3:50 p.m., Schulz was at the U.S. Department of Justice office in Albany, handing over a list of about 225 names of people who received the manifesto, either through e-mail or regular mail.

Thousands more have copies Schulz gave out through seminars around the country, but he doesn't know who they are, he said.

The action ended a yearlong battle with the U.S. government over ideas Schulz has about the income tax that have been rejected by the courts.

The Queensbury resident and frequent government critic drew the ire of the Internal Revenue Service after he began giving out an article titled "Legal Termination of Tax Withholding." It suggests workers have a right to ask their employers to stop withholding income tax from their paychecks.

In August, a judge ruled Schulz must cease distributing the report, which he did, and tell the government who had received copies, which he declined to do. He appealed the ruling but lost, then filed a motion asking that the decision be dismissed or the case retried.

Last month, a judge found Schulz in contempt. He was given until Monday to come up with the list, or face fines and even imprisonment. Schulz said he flew to Washington, D.C., on Friday in an attempt to get a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court but failed.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said the government would look at Schulz's list for deficiencies. Then it will be turned over to the IRS for further review, he said.

On Thursday, Schulz got another surprise from the government: a bill for the cost of the contempt-of-court motion, totaling $749.38.

"I'm being punished for exhausting my judicial remedies," he said. "It's amazing."

Howard Koff, a former Department of Justice tax attorney now with the Albany law firm Nolan & Heller LLP, said he wasn't surprised. "They have to fight these things," he said. "They do it to send a message out."

And what does he think of Schulz's ideas on tax withholding?

"It's not an option," Koff said. "A lot of people take that position, and within the last few years the IRS went after them."

Schulz said there was no proof his article led anyone to stop paying taxes. "The government has yet to file any evidence that anybody used this material or obtained it for reasons other than just to read it," he said.

Alan Wechsler can be reached at 454-5469 or by e-mail at awechsler@timesunion.com.


= = = = = = = =

A fine of less than $750 for contempt is one of the lightest penalties for contempt that I have ever heard of.

[Livefire]

This demonstrates the need for anonymity in our dealings with other like minded people. Underground movements like churches in China and the like base their survivability on this principle. That way, if a brother gives in to the pressure, gov't obtains little useful info. If an individual wishes to sell info, do so in a manner that keeps the ID of the purchaser anonymous to the seller. I also recommend using appropriate encryption and privacy software on computers.

[Shoonra]

A lawsuit such as you describe was attempted by one of Irwin Schiff's followers when he got into trouble. Schiff defended on the ground that the other fellow should have known better than to follow his advice, knowing as he did that Schiff had already done hard time and was nutty to boot. Before this lawsuit was over, both of them were in the soup for multiple tax offenses.

Of course, when someone charges people money for his instructions - as Schiff and Schulz did - they certainly suggest, and sometimes say it loud and clear, that "my advice works, it's foolproof and it's safe."

[rottweiler]

If it was a crime to be on a list compiled by somebody who went to jail I would have received a life sentence by now.

As long as we are willing to go to jail or die for our rights we will win because people like Shoonra are not willing to die to keep them from us. Shoonra is just trying to scare people. Don't fear the Wizard.

Besides, no one on this forum has promoted the We the People 501(3)C foundation for a long time. As a matter of fact I have been ripping it for years.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

from the Albany, NY, Times-Union, for Friday, May 9, 2008:

= = = = = = = = =

[size="2"][font="Arial"]Tax critic meets deadline
Robert L. Schulz gives feds list of people who received his manifesto

By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Friday, May 9, 2008

QUEENSBURY -- Tax protester Robert L. Schulz, who had until 4 p.m. Monday to name everybody he knew who had copies of his anti-income-tax manifesto, met the court deadline with 10 minutes to spare.

It is the government that is behaving unjustly. This is evil brought on by the wicked federal court system. The courts don't obey law.

Erin Reid Coker File Photo -
coker@poststar.com
To order copies of staff-produced
photos from The Post-Star, please
visit http://reprints.poststar.com/.
Judge's order stifles a basic right
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:54 AM EDT
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And the government is finally running out of patience. So it's doing what government always does when it can't take care of a pesky challenger through rational discussion,
negotiation or litigation. It's taking out its giant government sledgehammer and going for the kill.

And in doing so, it's not only interfering with Mr. Schulz's exercise of his right to free speech, but it's punishing anyone else for simply listening to that free speech.
Every citizen should be mad as hell about this unwarranted invasion of our rights.
Mr. Schulz's latest tilt against the government windmill comes as he defends his right to distribute information on why he believes the federal government has no right to
withhold taxes from our paychecks prior to our taxes being due. His "tax termination package" -- which he distributed for free at a variety of events around the country and also posted on his Web site -- contains information that he believes
businesses could use to legally stop the practice. He wasn't advocating a criminal act. He wasn't telling anyone not to pay their taxes. He was just saying that he believes the government can't take your money before it's due, and he encouraged people to press their employers to find the law that says it can.

And guess what? He's allowed to say that. The distribution of any information, even false information, is protected by the Constitution. Otherwise, 90 percent of the people who post on the Internet would be in federal prison right now.

5/8/2008 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mike\Desktop\000-Current Stuff-2\00-Revolution\PR\Jud...

As American citizens, we are free to say whatever stupid, wrong, ill-informed, offensive thing we want. We're free to encourage others to join us. And the government has to let us. It's called Freedom of Speech, and it's right there in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

But when it comes to speaking out about taxes, the government's first reaction is to stuff the Constitution in your mouth and wrap your face with duct tape. And that's just what the federal government, through U.S. District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy, is trying to do. Judge McAvoy has taken the unusual step of trying to shut off Mr.
Schulz's information campaign by forcing him to provide the names, addresses, phone
numbers and Social Security numbers of anyone who might have gotten this information.
This obtrusive action is designed not only to shut up Schulz, but also to make others think twice about even reading what he has to say.

The last thing any taxpayer in this country wants is to get themselves on the Internal
Revenue Service's radar, much less on its bad side. If you thought the government could subpoena your personal information just for reading something someone else wrote, how likely would you be to even touch it? To taxpayers, the message is: "If you listen to this guy, we'll get you. We know where you live. We've got your Social Security number. And when we find out you didn't really donate $50 to save the whales as you claimed on your last tax return, you'll think a freight train ran over you."
To Mr. Schulz, the message is: "Distribute this information, and your followers will be made afraid to listen to you." Without an audience, Mr. Schulz is merely another loud mouth in a nice suit that the government can easily ignore. The government will try to justify its action by saying Mr. Schulz was selling his information, thereby making his packet "commercial speech," subject to regulation against false claims.

But that law is designed to protect consumers from being sold miracle drugs and crappy cars. Even if Mr. Schulz accepted donations for his information packet (which he says he didn't), then he's still only selling information. People are free to ignore or act on that information as they see fit -- just like anything you can look up on the Internet.
What we have here is a government that's going too far to shut down a citizen's right to
exercise his right to free speech.

If they succeed in silencing people who speak out against their government, and succeed in threatening anyone just for listening, then who do you think they'll go after next?

Local editorials represent the opinion of the Post-Star editorial board, which consists of
Publisher Rona Rahlf, Editor Ken Tingley, Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney and citizen
representative Michael Cruz.

Page 2 of 3 Judge's order stifles a basic right :: PostStar.com
5/8/2008 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mike\Desktop\000-Current Stuff-2\00-Revolution\PR\Jud...

Bob Schulz has been a big pain in the government's butt for over 30 years.

All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. –Paine

All the constitutional strength of a people in a free state, is in their facility of means for bringing great offenders to condign [deserved] punishment; and indeed, without such sure and facile means in their hands, there may be expected a ceaseless invasion of their rights and privileges. –The Tribune, Charlestown, 1798

What is a poor American to do? Why should we care about the Second Amendment?

Americans are almost alone in being armed. It gives them the advantage of resisting usurpation and oppressions. –James Madison

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Besides, no one on this forum has promoted the We the People 501(3)C foundation for a long time. As a matter of fact I have been ripping it for years.

+1000 !

We have been critical of WTP for years

[Steel]

I never heard of these WTP but if they ask for a 501c3,,,,,,,,,geeesh bassackwards

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freebeme

And I have been ripping David Merrill, Aksis, MRG, Bman, James B. Woods, and L.B. Bork also. Just a matter of time before these all go to $%T. However DM might die of old age before his fraud comes full circle.

Funny how I just do not feel that you have ripped me at all Freebeme. But thanks for trying. I think that if you cannot improve your entertainment quotient you might end up on my Ignore List.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Looking at the document appended to DiM's last message, I cringe to think that anyone would be conned into using it.

A "libel of review" is a process used ONLY in maritime cases, and if you look at a map you'll see that the Colorado courts are not likely to have built up a wealth of experience in maritime cases. It's significant that DiM will not provide, even though it would necessarily be a publicly available document, a copy that shows the real names and docket numbers of an actual case -- nor, for that matter, does he dare to show us the court's decision on his pleading. Despite his nice word processing, it's painfully obvious that he never learned the proper way to cite a court decision. And as for the details, a hodge-podge of inapposite and unhelpful quotations and assertions.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Looking at the document appended to DiM's last message, I cringe to think that anyone would be conned into using it.

be fair he had "generic" attached to it, it is dreadfully scary though.
Note to Mr David,
I have done the fake plate on a bike thing,
mine said "non commercial" and was black marker on tin,
It was a learning experience, but not one I really recommend, I combined other items that made it a real hit in court, earned myself first, middle,and last on the days court docket, those where the days