MB Civic

—– Original Message —–
From: “Gerald Gerald”
To: “G. Cooper”
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: DOJ Dismisses IRS Case (1040’s are illega;)

> 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 therefore 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
>
>  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to
> have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public
> and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by
> promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain
> language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by
> allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit
> requirements of those statutes
>  Accordingly, We The People Foundation has petitioned
> the U.S. Attorney General, the IRS Commissioner, and
> Director of the OMB, requesting an official
> explanation of their conduct in Peoria.
>
>  See the petition below. It includes links to all
> relevant statutes, regulations, court decisions,
> Federal Register publications, law review articles,
> Lawrence case pleadings, and the discovery documents
> sent by defense counsel Stilley to the DOJ.
>
>  [ start letter ]
>
>  We The People Foundation
>  For Constitutional Education, Inc.
>
>  2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
>  Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
>
>  June 9, 2006
>
>  VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
>  Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales
>  Attorney General of the U.S.
>  Dept. of Justice Rm. 4400
>  950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
>  Washington, DC 20530-0001
>
>  Mr. Mark Everson, Commissioner
>  Internal Revenue Service
>  1111 Constitution Ave. NW
>  Washington, DC 20224
>
>  Re: Petition for Redress of Grievance – No
> requirement to file fraudulent 1040 Form.
>
>  Gentlemen:
>
>  Please take notice of this Petition requesting a
> public explanation of your recent conduct in Peoria,
> Illinois, regarding the case of U.S. v Robert
> Lawrence.
>
>  What you did seems remarkable by virtue of its
> inconsistency.
>
>  On March 17, 2006 you had the Grand Jury indict
> Robert Lawrence on three counts of tax evasion and
> three counts of willful failure to file a personal
> income tax return.
>
>  However, on May 12, 2006, the Friday before the
> Monday start of the trial, you suddenly asked federal
> Judge Michael Mihm to dismiss all six counts with
> prejudice.
>
>  Indicting and then permanently dismissing without any
> court action occurs so rarely as to require the
> Department of Justice to post a public explanation in
> order to satisfy the public’s curiosity about this
> strange working of justice. This Foundation decided to
> investigate the facts and circumstances of the
> Lawrence case because we found no such public notice
> in Peoria, on the DOJ website, or in any other public
> forum. We wanted to determine the probable cause of
> DOJ’s remarkable act.
>
>  Our research has led us to conclude that:
>
>  The DOJ filed the criminal complaint against Lawrence
> because it intended to abuse Lawrence’s rights under
> the constitution and law pursuant thereto.
>
>  The appearance of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
> in Lawrence’s pleading sent a shock through the DOJ
> because Congress intended it to protect the public
> from IRS abuse, and the DOJ had no defense against it.
>
>  Even though the DOJ knew about the PRA in advance,
> its revelation virtually forced you and the DOJ
> attorney to dismiss rather than to lose the case and
> risk public awareness of the power of the PRA in
> protecting the public.
>
>  The DOJ therefore has little interest in justice in
> cases it prosecutes for the IRS, but wants only to
> obtain wrongful convictions of innocent people whom
> the IRS intends to abuse by misapplication of law.
>  Those are our conclusions. We want you to answer to
> the accuracy of those conclusions. Additionally,
> consider these questions about the power of the PRA.
>
>  1. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask Judge Mihm to
> dismiss the Grand Jury’s Lawrence indictment with
> prejudice?
>
>  2. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask the Court to
> dismiss all counts in the indictment?
>
>  3. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss a case it had
> worked for years putting together against Lawrence?
>
>  4. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case
> against Lawrence on the last business day before the
> trial was to begin?
>
>  5. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case with
> the requirement that it would never again attempt to
> prosecute Lawrence for those alleged crimes?
>
>  The Internet and wires were alive with such questions
> and rumors following DOJ’s sudden and remarkable
> dismissal motion that was filed at 2 p.m. on May 12,
> 2006.
>
>  To determine cause and effect, and put the rumors to
> rest, we started our investigation by obtaining
>  the Docket Sheet for U.S. v Lawrence, Case No.
> 06-cr-10019, U.S. District Court, Central District of
> Illinois (Peoria).
>
>  From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of
> the Indictment and each of the Lawrence’s pleadings
> including:
>
>  #04 First Motion for Bill of Particulars.
>  #07 Motion for Bill of Particulars to be directed by
> the Court.
>  #08 Motion to Continue April 13th arraignment pending
> responses to #04.
>  #09 Brief re #07 and #08.
>  #19 Proposed Voir Dire questions
>  #25 Notice of Expert Witnesses, and opposition to
> continuance.
>
>  From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of
> each of the government’s pleadings, including:
>
>  #10 Response to #4, #7 and #8
>  #12 Motion for Discovery
>  #15 Notice of Non-Disclosure
>  #17 Exhibit List
>  #18 Motion in Limine
>  #20 Motion to Continue Trial
>  #22 Notice of Expert Witnesses
>  #23 Notice of Filing Expert Resume
>  #24 Motion for Protective Order
>  #26 Proposed Voir Dire
>  #27 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Counts 1-6.
>
>  We obtained and read copies of the following
> documents that were not filed with the Court but were
> delivered to DOJ on May 11, 2006 by Lawrence’s
> attorney (Oscar Stilley) in response to DOJ’s
> discovery demands.
>
>  [ed. note: Click here to access ALL the defense
> documents listed immediately below.]
>
>  Form 1040 with OMB # 1545-0074 for years 1992 through
> 2005
>  Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0085 for years 1992
> through 2004
>  Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
>  Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0675 for years 1992
> through 2004
>  Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
>  Form 1040ES with OMB # 1545-0087 for years 1992
> through 2005
>  Form 1040ES with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2006
>  Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0067 for year 2004
>  Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
>  Instructions for form 1040 for years 1999, 2000,
> 2001, 2004, 2005
>  SF-83 Application for 1986
>  83-I Application for 1998
>
>  We obtained and read copies of the following court
> decisions regarding the PRA:
>
>  Dole v. United Steelworkers Of America Et Al., 494
> U.S. 26 (1990)
>  United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir.
> 1990)
>  United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir.
> 1991)
>  Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir.
> 1992)
>  United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990)
>  United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
>  United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990)
>  United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092; (9th Cir.
> 1989)
>  United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992)
>  United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir.
> 1992)
>
>  We obtained and read the following Law Review Article
> regarding the PRA:
>
>  49 ADMIN. L. REV. 111, Paperwork Redux: The
> (Stronger) Paperwork Reduction Act Of 1995, by Jeffrey
> S. Lubbers.
>
>  We obtained and read a copy of each Notice of
> Proposed Rule Making and each Final Rule as published
> in the Federal Register by the Office of Management
> and Budget (OMB), who was designated in the PRA as the
> overseer of all collection information:
>
>  47 FR 39515. Notice of proposed rulemaking 5 CFR Part
> 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive
> Office of the President. September 8, 1982.
>
>  48 FR 13666. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of
> Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
> President. March 31, 1983
>
>  52 FR 27768. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR
> Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive
> Office of the President. July 23, 1987
>
>  53 FR 16618. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of
> Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
> President. May 10, 1988
>
>  60 FR 30441. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR
> Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive
> Office of the President. June 8, 1995
>
>  60 FR 44981. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of
> Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
> President. August 29, 1995
>
>  We obtained and read every section of the PRA
> including:
>
>  44 USCS § 3501. Purpose
>  44 USCS § 3502. Definitions
>  44 USCS § 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory
> Affairs
>  44 USCS § 3504. Authority and functions of Director
>  44 USCS § 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines
>  44 USCS § 3506. Federal agency responsibilities
>  44 USCS § 3507. Public information collection
> activities; submission to
>  Director; approval and delegation
>  44 USCS § 3508. Determination of necessity for
> information; hearing
>  44 USCS § 3509. Designation of central collection
> agency
>  44 USCS § 3510. Cooperation of agencies in making
> information available
>  44 USCS § 3511. Establishment and operation of
> Government Information
>  Locator Service
>  44 USCS § 3512. Public protection
>  44 USCS § 3513. Director review of agency activities;
> reporting; agency
>  response
>  44 USCS § 3514. Responsiveness to Congress
>  44 USCS § 3515. Administrative powers
>  44 USCS § 3516. Rules and regulations
>  44 USCS § 3517. Consultation with other agencies and
> the public
>  44 USCS § 3518. Effect on existing laws and
> regulations
>  44 USCS § 3519. Access to information
>  44 USCS § 3520. Establishment of task force on
> information collection and
>  dissemination
>  44 USCS § 3521. Authorization of appropriations
>
>  We obtained and read every section of 5 CFR Part
> 1320, which are OMB’s regulations implementing the
> PRA:
>
>  Section 1320.1 Purpose
>  Section 1320.2 Effect
>  Section 1320.3 Definitions
>  Section 1320.4 Coverage
>  Section 1320.5 General Requirements
>  Section 1320.6 Public protection
>  Section 1320.7 Agency head and Senior Official
> responsibilities
>  Section 1320.8 Agency collection of information
> responsibilities
>  Section 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed
> collections of information
>  Section 1320.10 Clearance of collections of
> information, other than
>  those contained in proposed rules or in current rules
>  Section 1320.11 Clearance of collections of
> information in proposed rules
>  Section 1320.12 Clearance of collections of
> information in current rules
>  Section 1320.13 Emergency processing
>  Section 1320.14 Public access
>  Section 1320.15 Independent regulatory agency
> override authority.
>
>  Based on our review of these documents, we believe
> the following:
>
>  The DOJ dismissed the indictment against Lawrence,
> with prejudice, upon DOJ’s receipt from Lawrence’s
> attorney (on May 11, the eve of the trial) of the
> documents Lawrence intended to enter into evidence.
>
>  The DOJ was not going to be able to keep the evidence
> from the jury because it did not have time to
> manipulate the Court before the trial began.
>
>  As the PRA explicitly authorized him to do, Lawrence
> intended to argue a PRA defense, based on the fact
> that the IRS form 1040 did not bear a valid control
> number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with
> the PRA.
>
>  The DOJ concluded that the jury would acquit Lawrence
> based on his knowledge that the Court could not
> penalize him for failing to file a form 1040 because
> of the invalid control number.
>
>  The DOJ knew the jury would hear evidence that
> supported Lawrence, and that the evidence (the lack of
> a valid control number on the 1040, and the absence of
> other disclosure, use and approval requirements
> mandated by the PRA) would destroy the DOJ’s case.
>
>  The DOJ realized that if the case went to trial, not
> only the jury, but the whole body politic would learn
> that no person has been required to file a 1040
> because the form has never displayed a valid control
> number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with
> the PRA.
>  From our research, we have also concluded that:
>
>  1. The IRS, with some cooperation by the OMB, at
> least since 1995, has knowingly violated the
> requirements of the PRA by failing to obtain and print
> a valid OMB control number on Form 1040 and other IRS
> forms.
>
>  2. The IRS follows the policy of unlawfully
> persecuting, penalizing, and prosecuting individuals
> for failure to file a 1040, rather than admitting that
> the 1040 serves as a “bootleg” form due to its
> violation of federal law by not bearing a valid OMB
> control number.
>
>  Examples of IRS violations of the PRA and its
> implementing regulations that invalidate Form 1040
> include these:
>
>  1. IRS has continually violated PRA Section
> 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The section mandates that the 1040
> form must inform the recipient of:
>
>  (I) the reasons the information is being collected;
>
>  (II) the way such information is to be used;
>
>  (III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the
> burden of the collection;
>
>  (IV) whether responses to the collection of
> information are voluntary, required to obtain a
> benefit, or mandatory; and
>
>  (V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or
> sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
> 1040 form unless it displays a valid control number
> (i.e., issued in accordance with the requirements of
> PRA).
>
>  2. IRS has continually violated of PRA Section
> 3507(a)(1)(C). The section mandates that the IRS shall
> not conduct or sponsor the collection of information
> via a 1040 unless in advance of the adoption or
> revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the
> proposed 1040 form along with copies of pertinent
> statutory authority and regulations authorizing the
> IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The
> clearance packages that the IRS submits to the OMB
> make no mention of IRC Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012,
> 6091, 7203 or any of the other sections federal judges
> alternately cite as “the” authority that authorizes
> IRS to collect information via the 1040.
>
>  3. The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA
> Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those
> sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire
> after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to
> its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the
> same OMB control number for 24 years. Under Section
> 3507(g), every OMB control number must expire every
> three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a
> three year period so as to ensure that at least once
> every three years the IRS reviews the 1040 form,
> publishes its review in the Federal Register, and
> seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not
> submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation
> of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a
> control number with an expiration date.
>
>  4. The IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3512
> (“Public Protection”). This section prohibits the IRS
> from penalizing any person for failing to file a
> “bootleg” 1040. The 1040 form falls into the “bootleg”
> class if it does not display a valid OMB control
> number and the disclaimer that no response is required
> without such a control number. The 1995 amendments
> strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS
> victims can invoke this protection “in the form of a
> complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during
> the agency administrative process or judicial action
> applicable thereto.” In spite of this, the IRS
> routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing
> to file the 1040 tax return. Although required by law,
> IRS never informs people about the bootleg nature of
> the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims
> have no legal obligation to file such bootleg forms.
>
>  Section 3512 of the PRA, titled “Public Protection”
> reads as follows:
>
>  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
> person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
> comply with a collection of information that is
> subject to this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.]
> if–
>
>  (1) the collection of information does not display a
> valid control number assigned by the Director in
> accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et
> seq.]; or
>
>  (2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to
> respond to the collection of information that such
> person is not required to respond to the collection of
> information unless it displays a valid control number.
>
>
>  (b) The protection provided by this section may be
> raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or
> otherwise at any time during the agency administrative
> process or judicial action applicable thereto.
>
>  Because of the PRA’s Public Protection clause,
> agencies have an incentive to make sure that all forms
> and related regulations bear valid, up-to-date,
> prominently legible OMB control numbers.
>
>  The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the IRS
> must use in submitting its request for approval of the
> 1040 form and an OMB control number, require each
> agency to submit with the form a “supporting
> statement” which is to “identify any legal or
> administrative requirements that necessitate the
> collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section
> of each statute and regulation mandating or
> authorizing the collection of information.” The
> supporting statement must also include information
> regarding the “burden” imposed upon the public as a
> result of the “collection of information.”
>
>  Fortunately, Robert Lawrence knew his rights under
> the PRA, and DOJ attorneys knew the defense attorney
> had cornered them, and that they would not prevail on
> a Motion In Limine designed to keep Lawrence from
> effectively arguing a PRA defense. As I have stated,
> we believe this caused DOJ to dismiss the indictment
> against Lawrence.
>
>  As for nearly countless other individuals, they do
> not know their Rights or the IRS’s and OMB’s
> obligations under the PRA. As a result, the IRS and
> DOJ conspire at all levels, from senior executives to
> the lowliest agents and legal assistants, to
> prosecute, penalize, and victimize innocent Americans
> for failing to file a bootleg 1040, even though their
> victims have no legal obligation to file it.
>
>  The Peoria affair raises serious “abuse of federal
> power” concerns. We question not only the actions of
> IRS and DOJ since 1981, but also OMB’s behavior as it
> appears to have willingly looked the other way rather
> than to require IRS to fully comply with the Law and
> to report the IRS’s miscreant negligence to the U.S.
> Treasury Secretary and the President.
>
>  In addition, various federal judges and their law
> clerks who know the legal meaning of the phrase,
> “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” have
> blatantly ignored the clear and unambiguous meaning of
> the provisions of the PRA. Instead of heeding it and
> advancing its protections to the aid of IRS victims,
> they have waged complicit war against the People for
> willful failure to file a bootleg 1040 form under any
> of a variety of vague, confusing, circuitous, and
> questionable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
>
>  We believe, in accordance with the PRA and the
> circumstances of the Lawrence case dismissal that
> Americans have no obligation to file bootleg 1040
> forms that are bootleg by virtue of bearing no
> current, valid OMB control number. We intend to so
> inform supporters of our Foundation, members of the We
> The People Congress, and of the general public, unless
> you respond to this Petition for Redress with some
> explanation other than the one I have propounded
> herein.
>
>  If you agree with our analysis, we direct you in the
> name of the People of the United States of America to
> order your minions to follow the law to the letter,
> lest they face criminal prosecution for violating
> numerous laws and the Constitution of the United
> States of America, not the least of which are their
> oaths of office. Accordingly, we expect that you will
> correct the IRS forms so they bear the proper OMB
> control numbers, accurately reflecting the underlining
> statutory authority upon which the OMB control number
> relies pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork
> Reduction Act. Further we demand that you order IRS
> employees to immediately stop persecuting those who
> fail to file the fraudulent, counterfeit IRS 1040
> form.
>
>  If we are mistaken in our analysis of the Lawrence
> case and its implications for the People of the United
> States of America who need not file bootleg IRS forms,
> please respond to this petition in a timely manner
> with a proper and complete explanation of our errors
> in fact or reasoning and a correct analysis.
>
>  Yours truly,
>
>  ___________________
>  Robert L. Schulz
>  Chairman
>
>  Cc: Mr. Rob Portman, Director VIA CERTIFIED RETURN
> RECEIPT MAIL
>  Office of Management and Budget
>  725 17th St., N.W.
>  Washington, DC 20503
>
>  [end letter]
>
>  FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION & LEGAL RESEARCH RELATED
> TO THE Paperwork Reduction Act:
>
>  The Foundation would like to extend many thanks to
> researcher Lindsey Springer for his contributions
> regarding the PRA legal research and assistance with
> the Lawrence case, as well as defendant Bob Lawrence
> and his attorney Oscar Stilley for having the courage
> to rely on this research in the manner they did
> facing numerous felony income tax charges.
>
>  Springer’s website featuring his current personal
> PRA/APA litigation and his explanatory video can be
> found be found at www.PenaltyProtester.com
>
>  Please also review the extensive, ground-breaking
> income tax  legal research (partially PRA related)
> made available from  our website at no cost by the
> Foundation in 2004.
>
>  The body of work entitled, “Analysis of the Federal
> Income Tax Law”  consists of hundreds of legal and
> historical documents in support of the argument that
> the operation and enforcement of the income tax system
> is illegal. The research report was included as
> Attachment #2 of a Petition for Redress to U.S.
> Government officials.
>
>  The work, authored by attorney Larry Becraft, was the
> subject of both state and federal litigation that
> began in June, 2004 and ended earlier this year.
>
>  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements in
> those cases, the We The People Foundation’s
> unrestricted rights to copy, publish and distribute
> the research was recognized.
>
>  Copies of the 400 MB research disk are available on
> the WTP Foundation on-line store for a nominal
> donation.
>