January 26, 2005
IRS Commits Fraud On The
District Court
Right-To-Petition Lawsuit Enters Critical Phase
Lawsuit Plaintiffs Being Retaliated Against,
Motion For Preliminary Injunction Against IRS Nears
WTP Website Functional Again
Editor’s Note: Finally, our website is (almost...) fully functional
again. It was nearly five months ago that our website hosting company
negligently erased one of our server disk drives containing source codes,
programs and data as they were in the process of performing managed backup &
recovery storage tasks for the Foundation's dedicated server.
Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of two expert data recovery firms,
significant data was irrevocably lost, forcing us to hobble along without
certain key Internet functions and requiring us to recreate, test and
re-deploy a significant array of lost website subsystems. Needless to say,
WTP has since taken extraordinary steps to insure that we can recover from
any such event – or worse -- in the future.
With
the exception of several limited, identified problems which should be fixed
over
the next several days, we believe we have successfully restored most of the
major GiveMeLiberty.org website secure, interactive functions. This includes
processing on-line donations through our secure, encrypted
donation
system, joining as a plaintiff in the
Right-to-Petition lawsuit and signing the
Petitions for Redress.
Please don’t hesitate to let us know if you find something that isn’t
working properly. We apologize for the inconveniences that were undoubtedly
caused and we thank you all for your patience during the recovery.
Lawsuit Enters Critical Phase
IRS Gets Caught In A Deliberate
Falsehood
Honest
parties to a lawsuit follow the court’s rules and they don’t lie. Dishonest
parties will break the rules and lie to the court -- especially if the case
is not going well for them.
The
IRS, and its lawyer, the DOJ, just got caught breaking the rules and lying
to Judge Sullivan in the Right-To-Petition lawsuit.
First
some general background, then the particulars.
In any
lawsuit, the defendants can file a Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiffs have
the opportunity to file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and the
defendant then has the option of filing a Reply, which is supposed to be
limited to a reply to the arguments raised in the Opposition.
In other words, in his Reply, the Defendant is not supposed to bring up
new arguments – arguments that were not in his motion to dismiss –
thereby denying the Plaintiffs the opportunity to oppose those issues. If he
does bring up new arguments in his Reply Brief, he is violating the rules,
but all is not necessarily lost for the Plaintiff – he can submit what is
called a “Sur-Reply,” to oppose those newly raised arguments, but he has to
first obtain the Court’s permission to file a Sur-Reply.
Generally then, under normal procedure, once a Defendant has filed his Reply
brief, the matter is usually considered “fully briefed,” and the parties
then wait for the Judge to issue his decision, either denying the
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or granting the motion.
Occasionally, if a Defendant believes his “goose is cooked” because of the
power of the Plaintiffs’ Opposition brief, the Defendant may try to pull a
“fast one” by presenting (in his Reply Brief), arguments and allegations
that were not in his original Motion to Dismiss, hoping to catch the
Plaintiff unaware, or hoping to catch a Judge that will not allow the
Plaintiff to file a Sur-Reply.
In
fact, the Defendants in our case, the IRS and the DOJ, have not only
violated the rules by bringing up new arguments in their Reply brief,
they have committed a fraud on the Court, by openly making false, and
material representations to the Court.
Here
are the particulars:
Last
September, and as expected, the DOJ filed a
Motion to Dismiss the RTP
lawsuit. They did so on three grounds:
-
They
claimed sovereign immunity. Under the sovereign immunity doctrine, the
government is sovereign and enjoys immunity from suit unless the Congress
has authorized the lawsuit;
-
They
claimed the People failed to state a valid claim because the First
Amendment’s Petition Clause does not (explicitly) state that the
government has to “listen or respond” to a Petition for Redress of
Grievances; and
-
They
claimed the Court is not allowed to hear our lawsuit because Congress
passed the “Anti-Injunction Act,” saying “no lawsuit for the purpose of
restraining the assessment and collection of any tax shall be maintained
in any court by any person.”
On
November 12, 2004, we filed our
Memorandum in
Opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss. Our legal arguments
were rock solid and apparently, very effective. We established, beyond
reasonable argument, that no act of Congress, and no “doctrine,” can trump
any provision of the Constitution, particularly a provision of the First
Amendment that guarantees an individual Right, such as the Right to Petition
the government for a Redress of Grievances. Additionally, we argued and
effectively established, that government is required to respond to Petitions
for Redress.
By the
Court’s rules, the Defendant had five days to file a Reply to our
Opposition. After missing their initial filing deadline, the DOJ requested,
and received, permission to take forty days to
file their Reply Brief. The DOJ based their request for more time on the
“extent” of the People’s arguments and on the “gravity” of the relief
we are requesting.
On
December 21, 2004, the DOJ filed its
Reply Brief.
Given the substance of the WTP Opposition, it came as no surprise that the
DOJ refused to directly confront or refute the legal content of our
Opposition pleading, and essentially dropped its frail assertion of
“sovereign immunity” as a bar against suability for committing
Constitutional torts, and its equally lacking assertion that, “there is
nothing in the Constitution that says the government must listen to, or
respond to, citizens’ Petitions for Redress of Grievances.”
What
we were surprised to read in the government's Reply brief was that the
government had raised an entirely new matter, namely it was now
arguing that the government HAS responded to our Petitions for Redress and
that there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government’s
response has to be “adequate.”
Thus,
the U.S. Government has essentially shifted its legal defense from “we don’t
have to listen or respond to Petitions for Redress,” to “we have responded
to your Petitions for Redress, and there is nothing in the Constitution that
requires our responses to be responsive or 'adequate.'”
In addition to the government's drifting defense as described above, and the
IRS fraud on the judiciary (described below), the DOJ's brief for the
Government took considerable latitude in generally disparaging and
trivializing the very concept of the Right to Petition, repeatedly
characterizing the People's thoughtful,
comprehensive and standard setting Petitions for Redress as mere
“correspondence” and claiming that the government officials ought be free of
the “banality” of Americans that demand to be answered.
In short, the DOJ has attempted to earnestly equate the Right to Petition
with garden-variety “political advocacy,” while also asserting that the
withholding of taxes (to enforce the Right of Petition) is merely a form of
non-protected, politically-oriented “civil disobedience.”
Hard Evidence:
IRS Commits Fraud Upon The Court
In
making its arguments, the IRS has committed a
significant fraud upon the U.S. District Court.
In an extensive footnote (see the
DOJ Reply Brief,
pg. 5) IRS argues that “all three branches” of government “have already
responded to the anti-tax arguments” raised by WTP. IRS further states in
the footnote that, “The Internal Revenue Service publishes guidance
discussing all or most of plaintiff's positions on the income tax.”
In support of the government's assertion to the Court that they have
answered the Petition regarding the income tax, IRS specifically cites “IRS
Pub. No. 2105 (Rev. 10-2003)” which they told
the Court is an IRS document titled, “The
Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.”
In fact, the publication cited in the DOJ brief (i.e.,
publication “2105,”) is a single page,
2-sided, “tri-fold” color brochure entitled “Why do I have to Pay TAXES?”
(sic)
In fact, the document put forth as evidence of the Executive Branch’s
response to the WTP
Petition for Redress Regarding
The Federal Income Tax is a 54-page document, with:
NO cover page,
NO identified author,
NO publication date,
NO publication number,
NO catalog number, and
NO revision date.
Furthermore, and very tellingly, there are NO markings indicating it
is from the Department of Treasury or the IRS, or that it is printed by the
U.S. Government Printing Office.
In fact, there are NO markings, logos or any language indicating it is
an official document of ANY government agency or the U.S. government at all.
Beyond this, there is NO statement, in any form,
claiming that the legal assertions
put forth in
The Truth About Frivolous Tax
Arguments constitute the official, legal position of the
United States Government.
Attorney Mark Lane Confronts The DOJ
Following an analysis of the Government's manipulations in their Reply Brief
and the discovery of outright IRS fraud regarding evidence it proffered to
the District Court toward establishing that it had answered the Petitions
for Redress, RTP lawsuit counsel Mark Lane and WTP Chairman Bob Schulz filed
motions with the Court for permission to file a “Sur-Reply” to address the
new issues raised in the DOJ brief.
In
mid-January, attorney Lane confronted the U.S. Attorney, Ivan Dale via phone
and informed him of the findings.
In that conversation with Lane, Dale strongly asserted that despite the overt language
and claims contained in the Government's brief, Dale was recanting the
position of the Government and now claimed that the Government, had in fact,
NOT responded to the Petitions for Redress. Furthermore, in spite
of this explicit contradiction, Dale did NOT state that he would withdraw
the allegations made in the pleading.
Click
here to read
Mark Lane's motion and
Schulz's
motion to file a Sur-Reply.
DOJ has not opposed these latest WTP motions.
Critical Phase Is
Upon Us
The
ongoing evasions and tactical shifts in the Government's defense against the
Right-to-Petition lawsuit, as well as the deliberate and outright fraud
committed upon the District Court, are clear indications that the Government
is having a markedly, difficult time handling our lawsuit.
Despite the seemingly glacial pace at which the lawsuit is proceeding, RTP
counsel Mark Lane has firmly established the critical legal groundwork
necessary to support our Constitutional arguments as they advance though the
judiciary.
This is good news indeed. Whether the District Court either affirms its
jurisdiction to bring the Government to trial, or it outright dismisses the
case (for any number of predictable reasons) our case will move into the
next critical phase.
If the
government's Motion to Dismiss is denied, our lawsuit will proceed
immediately to trial; beginning with depositions, interrogatories and
discovery requests for government testimony, answers and official documents
regarding the Petition issues before the Court.
If the case is dismissed, the significant documentary record and legal
claims put forth will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia, and if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is only now – after being armed with a solid legal foundation and
evidentiary record constructed by Lane and Bob Schulz, coupled with Mr.
Lane’s decades of substantive, high-profile federal appellate experience –
particularly in prosecuting civil rights actions -- that the investment in
his counsel will be fully realized.
This is all good news. And, there is more.
RTP Plaintiffs Being Retaliated
Against,
Motion For Preliminary Injunction Against IRS Nears
As we are gathering information from our supporters, it is very clear
that the IRS and Department of Justice have actively engaged in direct
retaliation against Right-to-Petition Plaintiffs.
Specifically, it now appears that this retaliation is not only for
attempting to exercise and enforce the Right of Petition against the
government, but that retaliation is occurring specifically, and as a result
of, becoming a Plaintiff in the RTP lawsuit. These actions by our government
are reprehensible and indefensible: morally, legally and constitutionally.
Although the legal strategy executed by Mark Lane to date caused us to delay
the battle for an injunction against the government until certain legal
matters were put forth in the court record, the time has come to seek the
protection of the court.
As has been the stated intent from the outset of this legal action, RTP
lawsuit counsel Mark Lane and Bob Schulz will soon request a Preliminary
Injunction against the U.S. Government.
This Injunction, if granted as envisioned, will protect each Plaintiff from
ALL tax or legal enforcement actions by IRS, DOJ or any other branch of the
Government and will protect all actions that are even remotely directed at
Plaintiffs for their rightful exercise, and attempted enforcement, of their
Constitutionally protected Rights.
Given the demonstrated merits of our lawsuit's legal claims, the immense
Constitutional questions before the Court, and the reprehensible and
documented behavior of government officials, there is little doubt that a
convincing and compelling case will be put forth arguing for the Court’s
protection.
Time To Come Together In Support
It is clear: It is time to move our landmark lawsuit forward and execute our
strategic support plan to ensure victory. The Foundation is poised. The
lawsuit is “ripe.” Our ill nation calls.
To do this, we need to join together and focus our resources toward
specific, tactical objectives that will leave our Judiciary no practical
choice but to hold the offending branches of government accountable for
their trespasses upon our unalienable Rights and restore Constitutional
Order to our land.
Although additional details of our strategic support and nationwide lawsuit
awareness plan will be shared in an upcoming series of web
articles and videos, the Foundation has made financial commitments that it
must fulfill immediately. Among those is the balance of the retainer owed to
attorney Mark Lane to represent this action.
Mr. Lane has already been paid $145,000 of the $285,000 contracted for this
segment of the lawsuit. As of today (January 26, 2005) this leaves a balance
of approximately $140,000.
Although many have given much to date and several months have transpired
since our high-profile kick-off event last July in DC, the Foundation is
committed to quickly fulfilling the balance of its current financial
obligations to Mr. Lane.
Whether you are a Plaintiff or not, we ask each of our WTP supporting
families to consider the collective good that our nation will realize when
we succeed, and the personal commitment that you can make toward our noble,
and necessary endeavor.
Your
personal contributions to WTP are the sole source of what has enabled this
organization to accomplish what is has thus far – and what it will continue
to accomplish.
Please remember: It is your Foundation that has run multiple, full-page ads
in USA TODAY, The New York Times and other nationwide publications.
It is your Foundation that has enjoyed hours worth of live, nationwide
television coverage on C-SPAN. We have been the subject of a Senate Finance
Committee hearing and we have repeatedly demonstrated en masse at the
footsteps of federal power. It is we who have has secured the direct
attention of the highest public officials of our land.
It is this Foundation that has held numerous high-profile public symposiums
and press conferences at the media's Capital home, the National Press Club.
We have secured the support of law professors and
academicians across the country in our pursuit of Constitutional Order. It
is the Foundation that has broadcast its events live over the Internet and
that has extensively applied information and media technology to educate and
inform untold numbers of Americans the truths about their government and the
ongoing battles for Freedom.
It is the We the People organization that has an emerging, nationwide
network of coordinators and volunteers to realize our goals, and it is our
organization that is now poised to lead the chorus of voices that cannot be
silenced -- or ignored -- as the Republic moves to restore
Constitutional Order.
While
we have taken great strides, we have far, far to travel.
Where many have fallen, it is We The People that still stands strong.
It's time to prevail in our Right-To-Petition lawsuit.
It's time to reclaim our Freedom.
It's time to become the force that we can, and
must become.
It's time to join and support We The People.
Although every tax-deductible contribution, however modest, brings us closer
to our goal, 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 manifest the dream that
is America.
Click Here to
Make a
DONATION
Click here to read
the government’s
Reply Brief
Click
here to
Read Mark Lane's motion to file a
Sur-Reply and
Schulz's
motion to file a Sur-Reply.
Click
Here to Go To the
Lawsuit
Information Center to read
the
Right to Petition research & become a Plaintiff
Read tax researcher Chris Hansen's
point-by-point
rebuttal to IRS's
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
|
