the tax man no-cometh?   Leave a comment

(this article courtesy of federalbudget.com )
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 herefore 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.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements

Posted February 19, 2010 by cchashadenough in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: