parados wrote: O Bill,
Yeah? and? Your arguments are based on not doing any research at all.
I simply pointed out what your links failed to show... and still fail to show. I've no dog in this fight and simply find the IRS's repeated and obvious failures to respond intriguing. I feel no obligation to de-substantiate your naked assertions nor will I take over your burden of proof for same.
parados wrote:Bob Schulz pays his income tax. He just happens to make money on telling other people how to NOT pay theirs. He was charging pay per view at $30 a crack for a symposium that never occurred as scheduled in 2001 and still hasn't occurred. He has made a rather nice living on scamming people. He was given a cease and desist order by the IRS under new laws. He fought that and got a reprieve in 2006 when the courts said the IRS needed a court order and couldn't just send him a summons.
I must have missed the link that showed Bob Schulz pays his income tax. As for the symposium; your links do show that A. The events of Sept 11th postponed the symposium and B. Both the DOJ and the IRS refused to participate and C. the Congressman who was setting it up pulled out. I remain curious why the IRS wouldn't welcome the opportunity to put the matter to rest once and for all.
parados wrote:The answers to Shulz's questions from 2001 can be found in the IRS link I provided.
Not really. The IRS makes blanket assertions that theoretically cover his complaints but utterly fail to specifically do so. Example:
The IRS wrote:Sixteenth Amendment
These arguments claim that the constitutional amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified. However, the courts have held that none of the points presented undermine the fact that the Sixteenth Amendment was indeed ratified in 1913.
The courts never heard Bob's arguments because the IRS chose to duck the questions with jurisdiction and sovereign protection loopholes and have thus far prevented his arguments from being heard.
Why not face the issues head on?
parados wrote:The courts have been pretty harsh on anyone using the arguments Shulz is proposing. They have found them to be frivolous and people that attempt to use them have been sanctioned for continuing with them even after being warned by the court. The persons that ran WeThePeople in California were tried and convicted of tax fraud.
Interesting as that may be, it is largely irrelevant as far as Bob Schulz is concerned... and obviously both the courts and the IRS concur. It has yet to be proven that his claims are reasonably covered by that decision, let alone identical.
parados wrote:The fact that Shulz has failed to pay local taxes and lost his property shows how shallow his arguments are. His argument on the local level was he can withhold taxes until the local government addresses his grievances. Losing his property shows the courts disagreed.
Show me where your link proved A. his protest and means for same illegal, B. he lost his property, and C. how his local disputes have any bearing on his Federal case (let alone "show how shallow")whatsoever.
parados wrote:The argument is similar to his present Federal tax case that is on appeal.
This assessment thus far shows neither rightness nor wrongness in either case... as well as being completely irrelevant.
parados wrote:This is the government response to Schulz's appeal of the case he lost on the Federal level. It is actually quite funny to read. Schulz is arguing that the plaintiff's don't have to pay taxes because the government has not directly answered their questions and that the attempt by the government to collect those taxes is retaliation for asking questions.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/USCOA-DOJ-Response-RTP-4-06.pdf
Agreed; that is funny. However, it also shows the government choosing to deny his petition on the basis that any relief would inhibit it's ability to function. That's kind of a circular argument if you ask me... and further demonstrates the IRS's ongoing refusal to answer his questions head on. What are they afraid of?
parados wrote:The first response in any courtroom would be to tell the person to go see a lawyer, the government doesn't have to answer all the questions if they have been answered and are in the public record.
A lawyer would certainly be advisable; but the government's excuse for not answering questions was demonstrated again by claiming it would inhibit it's ability to function... NOT a claim to have already answered the questions. Another circular argument, though legal, does nothing to prove Bob's claims frivolous.
I've neither the time nor the qualifications to get any deeper into this, but; this layman remains intrigued by the IRS's steadfast refusal to address Bob's complaints head on. Surely the additional dancing is more expensive and ultimately lends itself to others like Bob convincing more Americans to cheat. The question remains: Why not just answer his questions in an appropriate court and set an iron clad precedent against all of his allegedly frivolous claims?
Ps. Thank you for providing some interesting reading material. Know that it
is appreciated.
