Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close

[tivodan1116]

NY Times, August 30, 2007

Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: August 30, 2007 A Web site that sells materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes has been shut on the order of a federal judge. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm. Judge McAvoy also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government. This information would make it easy for the Internal Revenue Service to identify people who followed the illegal advice and for the Justice Department to prosecute them for tax crimes. The civil court order is one of at least 245 permanent injunctions obtained by federal prospectors that prohibit individuals and organizations that deny the legitimacy of the tax laws or who sell tax evasion schemes from marketing their wares. Robert L. Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., the founder of both organizations behind the Web site — the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the We The People Congress — posted the court order at the Web site givemeliberty.org, and closed the rest of the site even though he said yesterday that the order did not specify that he do so. He also said he had filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His organization rose to prominence with a series of full-page newspaper ads, starting in 2001, asserting that the government tricks people into paying taxes. The ads solicited donations, which it said were fully tax-deductible. Judge McAvoy, quoting from a declaration that Mr. Schulz sent to the court, said that Mr. Schulz wrote that he started “operation stop withholding” as “a national campaign to instruct company officials, workers and independent contractors on how to legally stop wage withholding.” In a 25-page decision, the judge wrote that “undisputed evidence” established that Mr. Schulz and his organizations “knew, or had reason to know, that their statements were false.” He said that because Mr. Schulz was taking $20 payments for a package of materials that supposedly showed how to legally stop paying taxes, the Web site could be shut down as commercial speech that urged criminal conduct. Even if the Web site was not commercial in nature, Judge McAvoy said, it could be shut because people who followed the advice at the Web site engaged in criminal conduct. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent lawless action,” the judge wrote, citing a 1969 Supreme Court decision. Because Mr. Schulz and his organization “are not merely advocating, but have gone the extra step in instructing others how to engage in illegal activity and have supplied the means to do so” the judge added, “their speech may be enjoined.”

WTP Foundation is the same group that has been suing the government (and losing at every turn) for a so-called "Petition for redress of grievances". What the courts have said in those cases is that there is a right to petition, but there is no right to receive either a response or have the petition acted upon.

In this case, the US Government actually sued WTP, seeking and getting an injunction to prevent them from selling materials that assist citizens in committing income tax evasion.

The site is currently all but shut down.

An interesting excerpt from the decision: WTP Foundation timely filed IRS Form 990's for the years 2001-3, so despite the fact that the Foundation is based upon the concept that 26 U.S.C. is a fraud, the Foundation (if not its leaders) is in substantial compliance with the Code.

[ZNFYRH]

Interesting link as well as comments.

I really like that the gov't specified that it didn't have to respond or answer petitions.

I also really like that for all its talk, the WTP files taxes.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I really like that the gov't specified that it didn't have to respond or answer petitions.

Well, their legal reasoning was sound, and the judge agreed with it - the First Amendment, upon which their claim was based, says in pertinent part, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Their right to petition the government was not harmed - they drew up a petition, had some people sign it, and sent it off to various people in government. No one stopped them from doing that. Drawing from the Court's reasoning in their case, saying the right to petition includes a right to have your questions answered and demands met amounts to anarchy - anyone could petition the government for anything. Just because the government doesn't give you an answer (or in the WTP case, doesn't give you an answer you like) doesn't mean your rights are being inhibited.

I also really like that for all its talk, the WTP files taxes.

It's humorously ironic, isn't it? For all their talk, most of the tax protest movement leaders, save for a few "true believers", pay their taxes like everyone else.

[ZNFYRH]

I think it either shows that they are nothing more than rabble-rousers... or they are trying to sucker in a certain set of American thinker.

[Technosoul]

Next thing we know they will shut down Ron Paul's election bid because he talks about getting rid of the Federal Income Tax if elected.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I think it either shows that they are nothing more than rabble-rousers... or they are trying to sucker in a certain set of American thinker.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Quote by: Technosoul Next thing we know they will shut down Ron Paul's election bid because he talks about getting rid of the Federal Income Tax if elected.

What? You misunderstand.

There is a big difference here. Ron Paul (and, incidentally, me) start from reality - the tax code is here, it is legal, and it sucks. Mr. Paul and I agree that the tax code should be abolished.

Tax protesters and scammers like WTP Foundation deny (at least to their followers) that the tax code is a reality. Then, they seek to bring others into their delusion.

As I said, I agree the tax code stinks. But, the way to deal with that is to start from REALITY, and seek to change it, not to try to deny reality.

[Suburbanite]

of course they pay taxes what an obvious target. this inst the middle east, no one wants to be a martyr.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I think you hit the nail on the head. What? You misunderstand. There is a big difference here. Ron Paul (and, incidentally, me) start from reality - the tax code is here, it is legal, and it sucks. Mr. Paul and I agree that the tax code should be abolished. Tax protesters and scammers like WTP Foundation deny (at least to their followers) that the tax code is a reality. Then, they seek to bring others into their delusion. As I said, I agree the tax code stinks. But, the way to deal with that is to start from REALITY, and seek to change it, not to try to deny reality.

I have no knowledge of that webpage or their views.

Ron Paul is not for just changing codes, he is for getting rid of the 16th Amendment which has to do with making taxes legal, relative to how they are now being collected.

Read for your self what Republican Canidate Ron Paul had to say...

End the Income Tax- Pass the Liberty Amendment

Support Ron Paul for President and avoid paying income taxes forever... legally. That seems to be the drift of his promises. Is there any difference? Start with reality you say? Do you really think he can get that idea approved by Congress and the Senate if he is President. After failing to do so back in 2003?

okay lets compare... (how come the law is not being enforced as the judge so ordered is beyond me... but webpage still exsists)

***** I removed the link I had posted here ******


Monitors note: I hope above webpage is lawful to link too for debate purposes only. I am reportig my own post for your review.

Monitors I removed the link my self because someone linking to it could get on a list to have their taxes reviewed by the IRS according to the Judges ruling. So please overlook my reporting my own post. being that the link had the headlines "we the people foundation" at the top of it. So on 2nd thought determined that a poster here should not create a link to a webpage that might be illegal per some judge. Sorry for the confusion to other posters and for alerting the monitors about that link (which I removed after posting it for a few moments).

[Sandy]

Ron Paul knows exactly how to close down the IRS. It is the same way my political group tried to do it in 1968. We wrote up an Amendment to the Constitution and gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot in the majority of the states. The people of these states voted to keep the IRS. We did it again, this time with more states and the voters rejected it. The legal way to do it is to petition the Congress to stop spending tax dollars on things not mentioned in the U.S. Consitution. The American people will refuse to have their needs removed and will continue to vote for more handouts and keep the IRS secure.

The WTP was nothing but a fraud and gathered money from ignorant seniors who bought into the fraud. I tried to warn a dozen web sites here on this fraud and was heavily criticized for my warnings.

The organization that we founded was for the "Liberty Amendment" and Harry Browne worked with a number of attorneys to get this Amendment passed. They then morphed into the Libertarian Party. However the people involved have never been on the side of law and order and figured they could stir up trouble by not paying their taxes. It is amazing how ignorant so many Americans are to have been taken in by WTP. To this day many writers will reference Bob Shultz as a hero and overlook the fact he is in federal prison. I believe this has destroyed the base of the LP that tends to jump over the Constitution in their noise making actions.

Do not put Ron Paul in this category! He will work on getting the Congress to repeal the 16th Amendment but only if the voters work to back it up. There is not a chance in hell of Americans being that smart. Even on his site, the desire to break the law rather than change it, is apparent.

[Sandy]

Technosoul, I warned this forum several years ago to stay away from We the People exactly for the reason you removed the information.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul okay lets compare... (how come the law is not being enforced as the judge so ordered is beyond me... but webpage still exsists) ***** I removed the link I had posted here ******

I'll post it, makes no difference to me:

We The People Foundation & We The People Congress

That's the WTP website. Most of their content is removed due to the injunction against them.

Quote by: Sandy The American people will refuse to have their needs removed and will continue to vote for more handouts and keep the IRS secure.

Well, yes, unfortunately, Americans are stupid, and it supports the belief that we get exactly the government we deserve.

Incidentally, removal of the 16th Amendment would not automatically make income taxes illegal. The Code we have today would most likely be legal with or without the 16th Amendment.

[Osborn F Enready]

I just want to remind everyone of something......

Prohibition was unconstitutional, before and AFTER it was made a law...... much like income tax.

We the People stood their ground against the prohibitionists, and I respect them for it. They woke many people up to the lies that are the fed.

[ZNFYRH]

It's hard to take seriously any group that adheres to the laws that it encourages others to disobey.

[Osborn F Enready]

Perhaps you should investigate why they did that?

Ever hear of Irwin Schiff?

They payed their taxes in the name of the greater good to be able to be informing citizens without harassment.

Guess what... it didn't work.

[ZNFYRH]

Harassment doesn't get content removed from a web page.

I acknowledge and appreciate what they were trying to do, but by not practicing what they were preaching, I question the other side of the coin regarding the principles they were trying to teach.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I just want to remind everyone of something...... Prohibition was unconstitutional, before and AFTER it was made a law...... much like income tax.

Huh? On what do you base that? Prohibition was Constitutional when it was amended to the Constitution.

We the People stood their ground against the prohibitionists, and I respect them for it. They woke many people up to the lies that are the fed.

Prohibitionists? They published tax evasion schemes, what does that have to do with Prohibition?

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Huh? On what do you base that?

History, of the passage of the bill into law, and the context of the situation in which it was passed.

Tivo said: Prohibition was Constitutional when it was amended to the Constitution.

I understand your point, I simply disagree. Your point, if I understand correctly, is that if the amendment is passed by the sufficient number of votes, it is legal, regardless of the context of how those votes were arrived at.

My point is that when the prohibition bill was passed into law, it was by a means that was dubious, at best.

The claims made were stupendous, and logically ridiculous (much like income tax laws, drug prohibition laws, etc) much less derived in any way shape or form from the Constitutions auspice of authority for a central government as defined in the Constitution.

Also, is it any wonder that "big government" and all of its advocates are staunch arguers for the end of jury nullification rights, when it is jury nullfication that was used to end prohibition, one of the biggest mistakes (or planned breaches of power) ever made by the United States history of "legal" representatives.

God forbid the people use common sense to remove other laws that are damaging, wasteful, and strangling individuals at every turn preventing self improvement.

Some suggested reading:

History of Alcohol Prohibition
Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure
Captain Hobson - The Father of American Prohibition
From the Congressional Record
DPFT History of Prohibition

Yes, bad laws can be "voted from bill to law" by the representatives of the people, but the people still, and always will hold the power to remove them, at least, as long as I can admit the U.S. Constitution into a U.S. court.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready History, of the passage of the bill into law, and the context of the situation in which it was passed.

It was passed.

Duly added to the Constitution = Constitutional.

I understand your point, I simply disagree. Your point, if I understand correctly, is that if the amendment is passed by the sufficient number of votes, it is legal, regardless of the context of how those votes were arrived at.

Correct. That is "Constitutional."

My point is that when the prohibition bill was passed into law, it was by a means that was dubious, at best. The claims made were stupendous, and logically ridiculous (much like income tax laws, drug prohibition laws, etc) much less derived in any way shape or form from the Constitutions auspice of authority for a central government as defined in the Constitution.

While your thoughts here certainly make Prohibition "wrong", "immoral", "outside of the Framer's intent," et cetera, (thoughts I agree with) that does not make it unconstitutional. "Constitutional" is a term of art with a very limited definition. It refers to something that is in agreement with something that is in the Constitution. Since Prohibition was duly ratified and a part of the Constitution, for that period, the Volstead Act was "Constitutional" by the only correct definition of that term.

You can call it whatever you want in terms of it being wrong or a bad idea, and I will certainly agree with you. But it was Constitutional. That is not open for debate - the words were a part of the Constitution, period.

God forbid the people use common sense to remove other laws that are damaging, wasteful, and strangling individuals at every turn preventing self improvement.

Well, while I agree with jury nullification in individual cases, it doesn't "remove" laws. The way to remove laws is to elect representatives who will remove them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: It was passed. Duly added to the Constitution = Constitutional.

As I said, I disagree. It was made part of the Constitution, but its body of text and limitations on peoples liberty was BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and BLATANTLY violated the rights of individuals, which were never amended directly.

Tivo said: Correct. That is "Constitutional."

No, it was passed, but not adopted by the people, and was revoked by the people, AGAINST the will of the court and representatives.

Tivo said: While your thoughts here certainly make Prohibition "wrong", "immoral", "outside of the Framer's intent," et cetera, (thoughts I agree with) that does not make it unconstitutional.

I am glad you agree with the sentiment, but as I said, I don't agree with your point.

Simply being adopted, does not make a law worthy of being enforced, respected, upheld or LEGAL.

Tivo said: It refers to something that is in agreement with something that is in the Constitution.

Exactly, and there was no parity between the concept of prohibition and the authority vested in the Constitution. The Constitution says clearly:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution does not give the Federal Government authority to regulate or ban consumption of any product, nor does it place our bodies under the control of anyone other than ourselves.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Lincoln said it quite clearly when he was quoted:

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

Prohibition was NEVER Constitutional, however, it was a part of the Constitution for a short time.

Tivo said: You can call it whatever you want in terms of it being wrong or a bad idea, and I will certainly agree with you. But it was Constitutional. That is not open for debate - the words were a part of the Constitution, period.

The words WERE part of the Constitution, no doubt, but they were never passed into law WITHOUT PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT with the written document as it stood. Individual rights were a direct conflict with the concept of prohibition, and it was unconstitutional on its face.

Tivo said: Well, while I agree with jury nullification in individual cases, it doesn't "remove" laws. The way to remove laws is to elect representatives who will remove them.

You assume you can get representatives who can make it into the process past the corrupt groups who have usurped our nations laws, election laws, campaign donation laws, etc?!? LOL

Jury nullification is the last peaceful step before revolt against corrupt lawmakers, for attempting to bind a populace by unjust laws.

[Osborn F Enready]

By the way Tivo, I also wanted to note:

The vote by the elected representatives to "install" prohibition, was viewed by many (such as myself) as the first signs of bi-partisan usurpation of the Constitutional Authority of the United States Government.

What Prohibition Has Done to America by Fabian Franklin Copyright 1922, Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York. CHAPTER IV HOW THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT THROUGH THERE has been a vast amount of controversy over the question whether a majority of the American people favored the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment. There is no possible way to settle that question. Even future votes, if any can be had that may be looked upon as referendum votes, cannot settle it, whichever way they may turn out. If evidence should come to hand which indicates that a majority of the American people favor the retention of the Amendment now that it is an accomplished fact, this will not prove that they favored its adoption in the first place; it may be that they wish to give it a fuller trial, or it may be that they do not wish to go through the upheaval and disturbance of a fresh agitation of the question or it may be some other reason quite different from what was in the situation four years ago. On the other hand, if the referendum should seem adverse, this might be due to disgust at the lawlessness that has developed in connection with the Prohibition Amendment, or to a realization of the vast amount of discontent it has aroused, or to something else that was not in the minds of the majority when the Amendment was put through. But really the question is of very little importance. From the standpoint of fundamental political doctrine, it makes no difference whether 40 million, or 50 million, or 60 million people out of a hundred million desired to put into the Constitution a provision which is an offense against the underlying idea of any Constitution, an injury to the American Federal system, an outrage upon the first principles both of law and of liberty. And if, instead of viewing the matter from the standpoint of fundamental political doctrine, we look upon it as a question of Constitutional procedure, it is again--though for a different reason--a matter of little consequence whether a count of noses would have favored the adoption of the Amendment or not. The Constitution provides a definite method for its own amendment, and this method was strictly carried out--the Amendment received the approval of the requisite number of Representatives, Senators and State Legislatures; from the standpoint of Constitutional procedure the question of popular majorities has nothing to do with the case. But from every standpoint the way in which the Eighteenth Amendment was actually put through Congress and the Legislatures has a great deal to do with the case. Prohibitionists constantly point to the big majority in Congress, and the promptness and almost unanimity of the approval by the Legislatures, as proof of an overwhelming preponderance of public sentiment in favor of the Amendment. It is proof of no such thing. To begin with, nothing is more notorious than the fact that a large proportion of the members of Congress and State Legislatures who voted for the Prohibition Amendment were not themselves in favor of it. Many of them openly declared that they were voting not according to their own judgment but in deference to the desire of their constituents. But there is not the slightest reason to believe that one out of twenty of those gentlemen made any effort to ascertain the desire of a majority of their constituents; nor, for that matter, that they would have followed that desire if they had known what it was. What they were really concerned about was to get the support, or avoid the enmity, of those who held, or were supposed to hold, the balance of power. For that purpose a determined and highly organized body of moderate dimensions may outweigh a body ten times as numerous and ten times as representative of the community. The Anti-Saloon League was the power of which Congressmen and Legislaturemen alike stood in fear. Never in our political history has there been such an example of consummately organized, astutely managed, and unremittingly maintained intimidation; and accordingly never in our history has a measure of such revolutionary character and of such profound importance as the Eighteenth Amendment been put through with anything like such smoothness and celerity. The intimidation exercised by the AntiSaloon League was potent in a degree far beyond the numerical strength of the League and its adherents, not only because of the effective and systematic use of its black-listing methods, but also for another reason. Weak-kneed Congressmen and Legislaturemen succumbed not only to fear of the ballots which the League controlled but also to fear of another kind. A weapon not less powerful than political intimidation was the moral intimidation which the Prohibition propaganda had constantly at command. That such intimidation should be resorted to by a body pushing what it regards as a magnificent reform is not surprising; the pity is that so few people have the moral courage to beat back an attack of this kind. Throughout the entire agitation, it was the invariable habit of Prohibition advocates to stigmatize the anti-Prohibition forces as representing nothing but the "liquor interests." The fight was presented in the light of a struggle between those who wished to coin money out of the degradation of their fellow-creatures and those who sought to save mankind from perdition. That the millions of people who enjoyed drinking, to whom it was a cherished source of refreshment, recuperation, and sociability, had any stake in the matter, the agitators never for a moment acknowledged; if a man stood out against Prohibition he was not the champion of the millions who enjoyed drink, but the servant of the interests who sold drink. This preposterous fiction was allowed to pass current with but little challenge; and many a public man who might have stood out against the Anti-Saloon League's power over the ballot-box cowered at the thought of the moral reprobation which a courageous stand against Prohibition might bring down upon him. Thus the swiftness with which the Prohibition Amendment was adopted by Congress and by State Legislatures, and the overwhelming majorities which it commanded in those bodies, is no proof either of sincere conviction on the part of the lawmakers or of their belief that they were expressing the genuine will of their constituents.

Please, follow the link here for the rest of the summation:
What Prohibition Has Done to America - How the Amendment Was Put Through