Christian Oesch is not afraid to do really weird things, like attacking the USA. Yes, he sued the nation!
This is a part of the legal documents:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/federal-claims/cofce/1:2010cv00472/25299[*quote*]
WAYNE et al v. USA
Plaintiff: KENNETH WAYNE and CHRISTIAN OESCH
Defendant: USACase Number: 1:2010cv00472
Filed: July 23, 2010
Court: United States Federal Claims Court
Office: COFC Office
County: None
Presiding Judge: Christine O.C. Miller
Nature of Suit: Taking - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1491
Jury Demanded By: None
Search for this case: WAYNE et al v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: KENNETH WAYNE
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CHRISTIAN OESCH
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: USA
Represented By: Robert C. Bigler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
[*/quote*]
Here is about "ROBERT L. SCHULZ; WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION, INC.; and WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS, INC.," being sued by the USA:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tax/legacy/2007/08/09/Schulz_WTP_Injunction_0.pdf[*quote*]
Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 1 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:07-cv-0352
ROBERT L. SCHULZ;
WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION, INC.; and
WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS, INC.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THOMAS J. McAVOY
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
The United States of America commenced the instant action seeking to enjoin
Defendants from promoting an illegal tax shelter. Presently before the Court are Defendants’
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
I.
FACTS
Defendant Robert L. Shulz (“Schulz”) organized Defendant We the People
Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc. in 1997.
The Complaint alleges that, although Shulz purports to have founded the corporate
defendants for educational purposes, he “has used the two . . . entities . . . to market a
nationwide tax-fraud scheme designed to help customers evade their federal tax liabilities
and to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws.” Compl. at ¶ 6.Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 2 of 25
Defendants distributed a “Tax Termination Package” as part of “Operation Stop Withholding”
to help individuals stop withholding, paying, and filing federal taxes. The United States
alleges that Defendants furthered their scheme through the use of false and misleading
forms in place of standard Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) forms, and based upon the false
premises that the federal income tax system is voluntary, the 16 th Amendment to the United
States Constitution was not property ratified, and that federal income tax does not apply to
most wages.
The Complaint alleges that, among other things, “[a]s part of the Tax Termination
scheme, Defendants give customers (both employers and employees) step-by-step
instructions on how to fraudulently terminate withholding of federal income and employment
taxes.” Compl. at ¶ 14. The entire scheme is alleged to be premised upon false
representations and legal positions known to have been rejected by the courts, including a
criminal trial in which Schulz testified. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397 (5 th Cir.
2005).
The Complaint alleges that Defendants’ scheme causes harm to the Untied States
by assisting customers to evade taxes and obstructing the IRS’s efforts to administer the
federal tax laws. The United States seek an injunction pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §
7408 precluding Defendants from making known false or fraudulent statements in connection
with the organization or participation in the sale of a plan or arrangement regarding any tax
benefit.
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12 and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
- 2 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
II.
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 3 of 25
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures governs motions for summary
judgment. It is well settled that on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must construe
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Tenenbaum v.
Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir. 1999), and may grant summary judgment only where
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c). An issue is genuine if the relevant
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A party seeking summary judgment
bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those
portions of the record that the moving party believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact as to a dispositive issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). If the movant is able to establish a prima facie basis for summary judgment, the
burden of production shifts to the party opposing summary judgment who must produce
evidence establishing the existence of a factual dispute that a reasonable jury could resolve
in his favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). A
party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon “mere
allegations or denials” asserted in his pleadings, Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21
F.3d 522, 525-26 (2d Cir. 1994), or on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.
Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 1998).
III.
DISCUSSION
a.
Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief
- 3 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 4 of 25
“Section 7408 of the Internal Revenue Code empowers a district court to grant an
injunction when (1) the defendant has engaged in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6700, and (2) injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent recurrence of such conduct.” United
States v. Gleason, 432 F.3d 678, 682 (6 th Cir. 2005). “Because section 7408 expressly
authorized the issuance of an injunction, the traditional requirements for equitable relief need
not be satisfied.” Id.
1.
Internal Revenue Code § 6700
The Court will first address whether Defendant’s conduct implicates the
proscriptions of 26 U.S.C. § 6700. 1 Section 6700 is aimed at abusive tax shelters. To obtain
an injunction under § 6700, the government must prove five elements:
1
That section reads, in relevant part, as follow s:
(a) Im position of penalty.--Any person who--
(1)(A) organizes (or assists in the organization of)--
(i) a partnership or other entity,
(ii) any investm ent plan or arrangem ent, or
(iii) any other plan or arrangem ent, or
(B) participates (directly or indirectly) in the sale of any interest in an entity or plan or
arrangem ent referred to in subparagraph (A), and
(2) m akes or furnishes or causes another person to m ake or furnish (in connection with such
organization or sale)--
(A ) a statem ent with respect to the allow ability of any deduction or credit, the excludability
of any incom e, or the securing of any other tax benefit by reason of holding an interest in
the entity or participating in the plan or arrangem ent which the person knows or has
reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any m aterial m atter, or
(B) a gross valuation overstatem ent as to any m aterial m atter,
shall [be guilty of a crim e].
- 4 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 5 of 25
(1) the defendants organized or sold, or participated in the organization or
sale of, an entity, plan, or arrangement; (2) they made or caused to be
made, false or fraudulent statements concerning the tax benefits to be
derived from the entity, plan, or arrangement; (3) they knew or had reason
to know that the statements were false or fraudulent; (4) the false or
fraudulent statements pertained to a material matter; and (5) an injunction
is necessary to prevent recurrence of this conduct.
United States v. Estate Preservation Servs., 202 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9 th Cir. 2000); Gleason,
432 F.3d at 682. The Court will address each element seriatim.
a. Whether Defendants Organized or Sold, or Participated in
the Organization or Sale of, an Entity, Plan, or Arrangement
Under § 6700, “any ‘plan or arrangement’ having some connection to taxes can
serve as a ‘tax shelter’ and will be an ‘abusive’ tax shelter if the defendant makes the
requisite false or fraudulent statements concerning the tax benefits.” United States v.
Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 811 (7 th Cir. 2000). In Raymond, the Seventh Circuit found that
“the definition of a tax shelter in § 6700 is ‘clearly broad enough to include a tax protester
group.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Kaun, 827 F.2d 1144, 1147 (7 th Cir. 1987).
The facts in the Raymond case are quite similar to the present one.
Raymond and Bernhoft [were] active members of the U.S. Taxpayers
Party and were the chief participants in a business known as Morningstar
Consultants (“Morningstar”). Between January and June of 1996,
Morningstar ran a weekly advertisement in a local Wisconsin newspaper
under the caption “Just Say No.” The Just Say No advertisement
contained the following statements: 1) “Federal, State & Social Security
Taxes are Voluntary;” and 2) “The Internal Revenue Service has no
Statutory Authority to: Compel you to file a Tax Return, Require
withholding from your paycheck, Levy or Lien your property, Audit your
Books & Records.” This advertisement was part of an effort by
Morningstar to market the “De-Taxing America Program” (the “Program”).
The Program consists of three volumes of materials. These materials
contain information presenting the view that, among other things, the
federal income tax is unconstitutional and that persons who are not
federal employees or residents of the District of Columbia are not legally
required to pay federal income tax. In addition to providing information
- 5 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 6 of 25
regarding general tax-protest principles, the Program includes several
forms and instructions to guide the purchaser through the process of
“de-taxing.” Purchasers are informed that if they complete the materials
and directions in the Program they will be “withdrawn” from the jurisdiction
of the federal government's taxing authorities and the social security
system and will no longer be required to pay federal taxes. . . .
Program customers are instructed to file W-4 forms with their employers
asserting that they are exempt from federal taxation and requesting that
the employers stop withholding federal income tax and social security
payments from their paychecks. . . .
The Program also provides the purchaser with instructions on how to
complete future tax returns to reflect that the purchaser has not incurred
any tax liability in the previous year and consequently does not owe any
federal income or social security taxes.
Id. at 806-07. “The Program purported to provide step-by-step instructions for ‘removing’ the
purchaser from the federal income and social security tax systems. The Program materials
assured readers that the federal government is without authority to tax them and that by
following the instructions outlined in the Program individuals can legally refuse to pay federal
income and social security tax.” Id. at 811. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the program
was a tax shelter. The Raymond court further found that because the defendants in that
case had sold the product, it qualified as a plan within the meaning of § 6700.
Here, as in Raymond, Shulz has organized the two corporate Defendants. See
Def.’s Stmnt. of Mat. Facts at ¶ 1. Defendants offer materials to employees and employers
stating that, among other things, Congress is without authority to legislate an income tax on
people except in the District of Columbia and United States territories, the IRS is prohibited
from compelling people to sign and file income tax returns, and the Sixteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution was never properly ratified and, therefore, the income tax
violates the Constitution. Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. B. Among other things, Defendants’
materials instruct workers how to terminate their W-4 Agreement and demand that the
- 6 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 7 of 25
employer discontinue making withholdings from their pay. Id. at Ex. C. In fact, Defendants
provide forms for that very purpose. Id. 2 Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have
organized a “plan” or “arrangement.” Although there are some questions of fact concerning
whether Defendants sold their materials, they clearly “organized” the materials for
presentation. 3 Defendant Schulz admits that he undertook “‘Operation Stop Withholding,’ a
national campaign to instruct company officials, workers and independent contractors on how
to legally stop wage withholding.” Schulz Decl. #1 at ¶ 4. Defendants also offer to provide a
“customized legal opinion letter from an attorney or CPA to be sent to your company or their
tax and/or legal advisors.” Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. C, p. 11. Stated otherwise, Defendants are
promoting an abusive tax shelter. Accordingly, the first element is satisfied because
Defendants organized a plan or arrangement concerning the avoidance of taxes.
2
O ther exam ples of D efendants’ plan are set forth infra at pp. 9-10 and 22-23.
3
The evidence in the record is that Defendants provided the program m aterials and gave
sem inars for free. The evidence also dem onstrates that D efendants used the m aterials to solicit
donations to the organizations and to encourage people to join their organization for a fee. In a prior
case involving D efendant Shulz, it was noted that
W e The People Foundation's website invites visitors to m ake a donation to an
organization via credit card to PayPal or by m ail directly to W e the People Foundation.
The address given for the W e The People Foundation is Schulz's hom e address. The
w ebsite also contains an on-line store where products can be purchased through PayPal.
O ne of the products sold over the website is the "Tax Term ination Package," which is
offered for sale for $39.95. The product is described as "Bob Schulz, Chairm an of the W e
The People Foundation, stopped paying incom e taxes and filing returns. These are the
m aterials he sent to the IR S. M ake sure to get a copy for your personal records." [The
IR S] has also learned that the W e The People Foundation filed IR S Form 990 for the
years ending Decem ber 31, 2001, Decem ber 31, 2002, and Decem ber 31, 2003 and the
returns indicate that the organization show ed considerable revenue for each year.
Schulz v. U .S., 2006 W L 1788194, at *1 (D. Neb. 2006).
- 7 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 8 of 25
b. Whether Defendants Made or Caused to be Made, False or
Fraudulent Statements Concerning the Tax Benefits to be
Derived From the Entity, Plan, or Arrangement
“[T]o prove a violation of § 6700, the Government must also show that the
[defendants] made false or fraudulent statements concerning the tax benefits of participating
in the plan or arrangement.” Raymond, 228 F.3d at 812. “Two types of statements fall within
the statutory bar: statements directly addressing the availability of tax benefits and those
concerning factual matters that are relevant to the availability of tax benefits.” United States
v. Cambpell, 897 F.2d 1317, 1320 (5 th Cir. 1990). Once again, referral to Raymond is
instructive. In that case, the Seventh Circuit found that the defendants’ statements that
“payment of income tax is a voluntary activity and that individuals cannot be legally
compelled to file tax returns or submit to tax investigations or penalties” “are clearly false
representations concerning the government’s authority to tax its citizens.” Id. That court
concluded that “[t]hese statements made in conjunction with the sale of the Program
operated as false assurances that refusing to pay taxes in accordance with the Program's
instructions is a lawful activity for which the government has no legal authority to punish
Program subscribers.” Id.
Defendants’ conduct here is virtually identical to that in Raymond. Defendants
make claims similar to those in Raymond. Among other things, Defendants affirmatively
state that domestic income is not taxable, the filing of a tax return is voluntary, see Defs’
Mem. of Law at 10; Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. B, p. 14, and that the 16 th Amendment was not
properly ratified and, therefore, the income tax is unconstitutional. 4 Defendants also instruct
4
O ther false statem ents are discussed infra at pp. 22-23.
- 8 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 9 of 25
that, “[o]nce the government has been properly notified and termination of withholding has
been procedurally put into effect, the [employer] has no further reporting requirements under
U.S. law.” Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. C, p. 8. Defendants further claim that the IRS is prohibited
by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments from compelling people to sign and file income tax
returns. Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. C. Defendants also claim that they, and other taxpayers,
have the right to “retain[] [their] money until [their] grievances are redressed (remedied).”
Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. H, p.2. 5 These are all false statements of fact. See 26 U.S.C. § 3102
(requiring employers to make deductions from wages); Raymond, 228 F.3d at 812
(discussing various similar false statements about taxes); Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d
830 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 1988) (“[F]ederal courts
have upheld and relied on the Sixteenth Amendment for more than seventy-five years. . . .
The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in
accordance with procedures set out in Article V of the Constitution, and its ratification was
then certified after careful scrutiny by a member of the executive branch acting pursuant to
statutory duty. The validity of that process and of the resulting constitutional amendment are
no longer open questions.”) (internal citations omitted); Coleman v. Commission of Internal
Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 70-72 (7 th Cir. 1986) (statements that wages are not income and that
the income tax is unconstitutional are false and “tired arguments”); United States v. Carley,
783 F.2d 341, 344 (2d Cir. 1986) (“‘[T]here is no question but that Congress has the authority
to impose an income tax.’”) (quoting Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir.
1984)); Ficalora, 751 F.2d at 88 (wages are taxable income); Kile v. Commissioner of Internal
5
D efendants sent a long list of questions to various governm ent agencies dem anding answ ers. It
is D efendants’ position that, until the governm ent responds, it need not pay taxes.
- 9 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 10 of 25
Revenue, 739 F.2d 265, 167-68 (7 th Cir. 1984) (similar to Coleman); Denison v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 241 (8 th Cir. 1984) (similar); Wright v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 752 F.2d 1059, 1062 (5 th Cir. 1982) (claim that tax
returns violate the right against self-incrimination is frivolous); see also Allamy v. United
States, 207 Fed. Appx. 7, at *2 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A]rguments that the federal income tax is
unconstitutional and that wages are not taxable income” have been “long-rejected”);
Stearman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 2005 WL 488646
(March 3, 2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5 th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, it is evident that Defendants’ false statements concern the tax benefits to
be derived from the plan. As Defendants’ literature makes clear, their campaign includes
“instructions for companies, workers and independent contractors on how to legally stop
withholding, filing and paying the tax.” Schulz Decl. at Ex. C., p. 3 (emphasis added). The
obvious claimed benefit from participating in Defendants’ plan is that individual income taxes
need not be paid. Further, Defendants advise employers that they can “eliminate payment of
‘matching’ employment taxes (FICA, etc.),” id. at p. 7, another claimed tax benefit from
participating in the plan.
The undisputed evidence further demonstrates that Defendants knew, or had
reason to know, that their statements were false. See Estate Preservation Servs., 202 F.3d
at 1102. “The ‘knew or had reason to know’ standard . . . includes what a reasonable person
in the defendant’s subjective position would have discovered.” Estate Preservation Servs.,
202 F.3d at 1103. The following factors are relevant in determining whether a defendant had
the requisite scienter to violate § 6700: (1) the extent of the defendants’ reliance upon
- 10 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 11 of 25
knowledgeable professionals; (2) the defendants’ level of sophistication and education; and
(3) the defendants’ familiarity with tax matters. Id.
There is a paucity of evidence, if any, suggesting that Defendants relied upon
knowledgeable professionals. To the contrary, the evidence is that they relied on fringe
opinions of known tax protestors whose theories have repeatedly been rejected by courts
across the country. Several of the people on whom Defendants claim to rely have been
convicted of tax crimes. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of finding the requisite intent.
Turning to the second and third factors, a search of case law reveals that
Defendant Schulz has been litigating tax-related issues, and presenting similar arguments,
for a long time. Schulz states in his Declaration #3 that he has extensive experience
researching, writing briefs and arguing cases against “wayward government” in state and
federal courts. Schulz Decl. #3 at ¶ ¶11-13. He specifically states he has significant
experience researching and arguing tax-related issues. See generally id. Accordingly,
Defendants have sufficient sophistication and education to be held accountable for their
actions. 6
Furthermore, Defendants have long been involved with these tax-related
arguments. Defendant Schulz acknowledges that he is aware that numerous courts across
the country have rejected attacks on the Sixteenth Amendment as improperly ratified. See
Schulz Decl. #3 at ¶ 21. He also admits being aware of various Circuit Court of Appeals
decisions rejecting the types of claims he makes in his materials. Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. In
addition, the obligation to pay taxes is common knowledge. As the Second Circuit has
6
Inasm uch as Schulz operates the two corporate entities, his know ledge m ay be im puted to
them .
- 11 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 12 of 25
stated, “‘[t]he payment of income taxes is not optional . . . and the average citizen knows that
the payment of income taxes is legally required’.” Schiff, 919 F.2d at 834 (quoting United
States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272, 275 (1989)). It is thus clear that Defendants actually knew,
and certainly had reason to know, their statements were false.
Defendant claims that it has not made any false or fraudulent statements because
it provided a disclaimer in its materials. Defendants’ materials state that:
The materials presented herein contain legal content referencing and
directly citing official U.S. tax statutes, tax regulations and federal court
decisions regarding the limited authority of the U.S. Government to
impose income taxes or withholding, and the legal duties and obligations
(or lack thereof) that are allegedly imposed upon American business and
the Americans that labor for them.
These materials are presented solely for educational purposes.
Although these materials may be used in attempting to secure and
exercise one’s Constitutionally protected Rights . . . We The People
makes NO representation that there materials constitute legal advice and
furthermore specifically encourages all workers and business owners to
submit these materials to qualified legal counsel for review and advice.
Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. C, p. 1.
The fact that Defendants purport to contain disclaimers in their materials is
irrelevant. “[ I]t is well established that a general, boilerplate disclaimer of a party’s
representations cannot defeat a claim for fraud.” Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air Corp.,
352 F.3d 775, 785 (2d Cir. 2003). Significantly, the purported disclaimer is insufficient for
several reasons. First, nowhere do Defendants’ materials disclaim the basis for their claims
concerning the tax laws. Rather, Defendants merely “encourage” people to have the material
reviewed by “qualified legal counsel.” Second, although the materials are claimed to be
presented only for education purposes, the materials affirmatively state that they are based
on “legal content” “directly citing” various laws and court opinions. This gives the impression
- 12 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 13 of 25
that the statements in the documents are based upon a sound legal foundation. Third, the
purported disclaimer says that the “materials may be used in attempting to secure and
exercise one’s Constitutionally protected Rights.” This could be construed as consistent with
Defendants’ position that the federal government may not impose an income tax because,
among other arguments, the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. The
“disclaimer,” therefore, appears not to disclaim at all. Fourth, the materials provided by
Defendants represent that “[t]he information is the result of research by tax attorneys and
CPA’s, a forensic accountant, a Special Agent of the Criminal Division of the IRS, a former
Revenue Agent of the IRS, a former IRS Auditor and Fraud Examiner, a constitutional
attorney and numerous expert tax law researchers and certified paralegals. Schulz Decl. #1,
at Ex. C, p. 5. This, again, detracts from the effectiveness of any purported disclaimer. Fifth,
it appears that the “disclaimer” appears on Defendants’ website, but it is not clear whether it
appears on all the distributed materials. For example, no such disclaimer is included on the
“Statement of Facts and Beliefs.” Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. B. The Court, therefore, finds the
claimed “disclaimer” to be irrelevant. Thus, the second element has been satisfied.
c. Whether the False or Fraudulent Statements Pertained to a
Material Matter
The next issue is whether these false statements pertained to a material matter.
“Material matters are those which would have a substantial impact on the decision-making
process of a reasonably prudent investor and include matters relevant to the availability of a
tax benefit.” Campbell, 897 F.2d at 1320. Statements that one need not file tax returns, that
employers need not make withholdings, that “companies, workers and independent
contractors [can] . . . legally stop withholding, filing and paying the tax,” Gordon Aff. at Ex. 4,
- 13 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 14 of 25
etc. clearly are relevant to the availability of the tax benefit and, thus, are material. Indeed,
Defendants’ statements appear to be the cause of its clients/members in failing to file tax
returns or otherwise attempting to stop having taxes withheld from their wages. 7 The third
element has been satisfied.
d. Whether an Injunction is Necessary to Prevent Recurrence
The final element is whether an injunction is necessary to prevent recurrence.
Factors that a court may consider in determining the likelihood of future
Section 6700 violations and, thus, the need for an injunction include: (1)
the gravity of the harm caused by the offense; (2) the extent of the
defendant's participation; (3) the defendant's degree of scienter; (4) the
isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; (5) the defendant's
recognition (or non-recognition) of his own culpability; and (6) the
likelihood that defendant's occupation would place him in a position where
future violations could be anticipated.
Estate Preservation Servs., 202 F.3d at 1105.
(1) The Gravity of Harm
The gravity of harm is manifest. Defendants have embarked upon a nationwide
plan to disseminate its materials to encourage people to stop having taxes withheld from their
wages. Defendants’ materials are intended to cause employees to believe that they need
not pay an income tax and employers to believe that they need not withhold taxes from
employees’ wages or pay matching amounts. As previously noted, people are acting upon
7
In support of this, the United States has provided copies of Defendants’ “W e The People” tax
form s that have been subm itted to the IR S or their em ployers by various individuals. G ordon Aff. at Exs.
27, 28. Defendants also have subm itted affidavits from Defendants’ m em bers indicating that they have
stopped paying taxes. See D eitz D ecl. #1 at ¶ 13. M oreover, Defendants’ own subm issions reveal that
people have acted upon D efendants’ advice. See Schulz Decl. #1 at Ex. H, p. 2 (“Another case involves
as group of 12 oil w orkers in Arkansas that recently sought to term inate their withholding agreem ents (W -
4s) en masse, by subm itting W TP [W e The People] Form #1 to their com pany.”). O ther exam ples are
listed in Schulz D ecl. #1 at Ex. H (“[W ]e are hearing daily about m any individuals that have filed the
form s. . . .”).
- 14 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 15 of 25
Defendants’ materials by submitting forms supplied and created by Defendants in an effort to
get their employers to stop withholding taxes from their wages. This is causing individuals to
expose themselves to criminal liability. Defendants’ conduct also is causing insufficient
payments to the United States Treasury. Lastly, Defendants’ conduct is causing the IRS
significantly increased efforts at collecting taxes. Although the exact cost of Defendants’
conduct appears to be unknown, the IRS estimates that it spends $1,607 in processing
substitutes for returns for non-filers and, therefore, “[t]he estimated cost to the U.S. Treasury
attributable to filing substitutes for returns for the 2991 unfiled returns equals $4,806,537,” 8
excluding the time or expense IRS Revenue Officers must expend attempting to collect
unpaid taxes from these individuals. Gordon Aff. at ¶ 40. Thus, the gravity of the harm is
sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. See Raymond, 228 F.3d at 813 (evidence of the
administrative burden placed on the IRC to investigate the tax evasion activities and engage
in collection efforts establishes harm).
(2) The Extent of Defendants’ Participation
This factor clearly weighs in favor of an injunction. Defendants are the primary
figures in establishing the plan and encouraging other to participate in it. See Raymond, 228
F.3d at 814.
(3) Degree of Scienter
The degree of scienter element also weighs in favor of injunctive relief. As
previously discussed supra, Defendants were well aware (or reasonably should have been
8
As is explained below , the United States asserts that 997 of Defendants’ custom ers have not
filed federal tax returns for a period of three years, which represents m ore than 2,991 unfiled tax returns.
G ordon Aff. at ¶ 38.
- 15 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 16 of 25
aware) that their assertions have been consistently rejected by the courts. Nevertheless,
Defendants set up their plan, disseminated it, and fully expected that people would buy, or
freely download, their materials and use them. In fact, Defendants claim (which is supported
by the evidence submitted by the United States) that people have used their forms to stop
having taxes withheld from their wages. Thus, there is ample evidence that Defendants
intended that their members and others would follow the instructions provided in the
materials and submit the forms contained therein. Id.
e. Isolated or Recurrent Nature of the Infraction
The record evidence is that Defendants’ conduct is not isolated. According to
Defendants’ own documents, Schulz “has now spoken to well over two thousand people as
part of ‘Operation Stop Withholding’ and continues to be greeted by appreciative and
attentive audiences everywhere.” Schulz Decl. #1, at Ex. H, p. 1. Moreover, Defendants
admit to having handed out “3,500 copies” of the “blue folder” 9 “at 37 meetings in 2003 and
that [they] put the entire contents of the materials on the website for anyone to read,
download and copy. . . .” Defs.’ Responsive Stmnt. of Mat. Facts at ¶ 4. The United States
submits evidence that “997 of defendants’ customers . . . have not filed federal tax returns for
a period of three years or more, which represents more than 2991 unfiled tax returns.”
Gordon Aff. at ¶ 38. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of issuance of an injunction.
See Raymond, 228 F.3d at 814.
9
The “blue folder” contains the m aterials prepared by Defendants and discussed throughout this
opinion.
- 16 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 17 of 25
f. Defendants’ Recognition (or non-recognition) of Their Own
Culpability
Defendants express no recognition of their culpability. Despite the uniform
rejection of their positions, they continue to maintain them and attempt to get others to adopt
their views. As in Raymond, Defendants have “consistently held to their view that federal tax
laws are unconstitutional and that the government has no authority to compel the payment of
federal taxes.” 228 F.3d at 814. Defendants also continue to claim that they may withhold
money from the government until the government responds to its “petition for redress.”
Given Defendants’ long-time pursuit of these goals, it is easy to conclude that they are likely
to continue to engage in their conduct if not enjoined from doing so. Id. Indeed, Defendants’
materials continue to be available via their website and the mails.
g.The Likelihood that Defendants’ Occupation Would Place
Them in a Position Where Future Violations Could Be
Anticipated.
Lastly, although Defendants are not professional tax advisers, Defendants’ own
papers demonstrate that they spend a substantial amount of time, money, and effort
promoting their plan. Their main purpose is to continue to disseminate their plan and
encourage employees and employers alike to participate. It is a virtual certainty that, absent
injunctive relief, future violations can be anticipated.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that injunctive relief is warranted.
b.
First Amendment
Defendants move to dismiss and otherwise defend this action on the ground that
their speech is protected by the First Amendment. Defendants argue that their tax-related
materials are discussions of the manner in which government is operated and, therefore,
- 17 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 18 of 25
constitutionally protected. Defendants further claim that their speech constitutes the lawful
exercise of the right to petition the government.
A very similar argument was presented to the Ninth Circuit in United States v.
Freeman, 761 F.2d 549 (9 th Cir. 1985). In that case, as here, it was alleged that the
defendant “counseled violations of the tax laws at seminars he conducted.” Id. at 551. “He
urged the improper filing of returns, demonstrating how to report wages, then cross out the
deduction line for alimony and insert again the amount of the wages, showing them as
‘nontaxable receipts.’” Id. The defendant claimed “he did nothing more than advocate tax
noncompliance as an abstract idea, or at most as a remote act, and that the First
Amendment necessarily bars his prosecution.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit noted that:
Words alone may constitute a criminal offense, even if they spring from
the anterior motive to effect political or social change. Where an
indictment is for counseling, the circumstances of the case determine
whether the First Amendment is applicable, either as a matter of law or as
a defense to be considered by the jury; and there will be some instances
where speech is so close in time and substance to ultimate criminal
conduct that no free speech defense is appropriate. . . .
Where there is some evidence . . . that the purpose of the speaker or the
tendency of his words are directed to ideas or consequences remote from
the commission of the criminal act, a defense based on the First
Amendment is a legitimate matter for the jury’s consideration.
Freeman, 761 F.2d at 551. Where, on the other hand, there is evidence that the defendant
assisted in the filing of false returns, there is no First Amendment defense. Id. at 552. The
Freeman court continued to note that:
Though a statute proscribes certain speech, in this case counseling, the
defendant does not have a First Amendment defense simply for the
asking. Counseling is but a variant of the crime of solicitation, and the
First Amendment is quite irrelevant if the intent of the actor and the
- 18 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 19 of 25
objective meaning of the words used are so close in time and purpose to
a substantive evil as to become part of the ultimate crime itself. United
States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 842-43 (9th Cir. 1982); [United States v.]
Buttorff, 572 F.2d [619] at 624 [(8 th Cir. 1978)]. In those instances, where
speech becomes an integral part of the crime, a First Amendment
defense is foreclosed even if the prosecution rests on words alone.
Id.
The Second Circuit agreed with this line of reasoning in United States v. Rowlee,
899 F.2d 1275 (2d Cir. 1990). In Rowlee, the Second Circuit noted that “‘speech is not
protected by the First Amendment when it is the very vehicle of the crime itself.’” 899 F.2d at
1278 (quoting United States v. Varani, 435 F.2d 758, 762 (6 th Cir. 1970)). Similar to the Ninth
Circuit’s analysis in Freeman, the Second Circuit noted that:
[ C]onduct [ is] not protected by the First Amendment merely because, in
part, it may have involved the use of language. When speech and
nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a
sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech
element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.
Id. (internal quotations, alterations, quotations, and citations omitted). To the extent one
comments “generally on the tax laws without aiding, assisting, procuring, counseling or
advising the preparation or presentation of the alleged false or fraudulent tax documents,” he
does not violate the Internal Revenue Code. Id. at 1280. If, however, a defendant urges the
preparation and presentation of false IRS forms with the expectation that the advice will be
heeded, “the First Amendment afford[ s] no defense.” Id.; see also United States v.
Konstantakakos, 121 Fed. Appx. 902 (2d Cir. 2005) (Noting that “it has long been
established that the First Amendment does not shield knowingly false statements made as
part of a scheme to defraud” and that “[n]o different conclusion is warranted simply because
a knowing falsehood might be couched as an ‘opinion’.”).
- 19 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 20 of 25
Much of Defendants’ conduct is protected speech. For example, Defendants are
free to give speeches on whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified. The Court
further understands that any injunctive relief will be a prior restraint. Nevertheless, as
discussed, Defendants’ scheme violates § 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is
Defendants’ “speech” (primarily its written materials) that facilitates the violation of § 6700.
To the extent Defendants’ speech can be considered commercial speech, 10 it may
be enjoined because the government may prohibit false, misleading or deceptive commercial
speech, or speech that promotes unlawful conduct. United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474, 480
(3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, 626 (9 th Cir. 2004). 11 Even assuming
Defendants are not intending to profit from their services, they are offering a product that is
based on false representations. Defendants seek to have people obtain and use copies of
their tax avoidance program based upon false representations. Defendants sell numerous
other products on their websites. Although Defendant may sometimes give their materials
away for free, they do solicit a donation of $20 for each packet of materials they provide.
Thus, if the materials are properly characterized as commercial speech, they may be
enjoined and the First Amendment provides no defense.
Assuming Defendants’ speech to be political in nature, it still may be enjoined. The
First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent lawless action. Brandenburg
10
Several facts suggest that the speech m ay be considered com m ercial. This includes the
follow ing: (1) D efendants request a “donation” for each packet of m aterials they provide; (2) D efendants
invite individuals to becom e m em bers of their organization for a fee; G ordon Aff. at Ex. 20; (3)
D efendants offer num erous item s for sale, including videos, pam phlets, CD -R O M s, bum per stickers,
brochures, flags, etc., see id.; (4) D efendants offer to sell a “custom ized legal opinion letter from an
attorney or C PA” (noting “discounts are available for W TP Congress m em bers”), Schulz Decl. #1, at Ex.
C , p.11; and (5) D efendants advertise their program .
11
The Court already has concluded that m any of Defendants’ statem ents are false.
- 20 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 21 of 25
v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Because Defendants are not merely advocating, but
have gone the extra step in instructing others how to engage in illegal activity and have
supplied the means of doing so (the “We The People” forms created by Defendants
supported by a purported legal analysis of the tax laws), their speech may be enjoined. See
United States v. Schiff, 269 F. Supp.2d 1262, 1280 (D. Nev.); see also United States v. Bell,
414 F.3d 474 (3d Cir. 2005); Raymond, 228 F.3d a5 815-16; United States v. Fleschner, 98
F.3d 155, 158-59 (4 th Cir. 1996) (no first amendment protection where the defendants held
meetings and collected money from attendees whom they instructed and advised to claim
unlawful exemption and not to file income tax returns or pay tax on wages in violation of the
law.); United States v. Moss, 604 F.2d 569, 571 (8 th Cir. 1979); United States v. Kelley, 769
F.2d 215, 217 (4 th Cir. 1985) (“The cloak of the First Amendment envelops critical, but
abstract, discussions of existing laws, but lends no protection to speech which urges the
listeners to commit violations of current law.”); United States v. Burtoff, 572 F.2d 619, 624 (8 th
Cir. 1978) (“[T]he defendants did go beyond mere advocacy of tax reform. They explained
how to avoid withholding and their speeches and explanation incited several individual to
activity that violated federal law. . . .”).
As previously noted, the government has presented evidence that Defendants gave
lectures, collected money in the form of donations and membership fees, provided forms with
instructions on the preparation of the forms, and provided statements supporting their false
legal beliefs/conclusions. See e.g. Gordon Decl. at Ex. 4 (“Our national campaign will
include instructions for companies, workers and independent contractors on how to legally
stop withholding, filing and paying the tax.”); id. at Ex. 5 (“Many of you will discover the
[employer] has been negligently advised by its so-called ‘tax professionals’ (attorneys and
- 21 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 22 of 25
CPA’s) who falsely claim ‘the law requires the Entity to obtain your social security number’ or
‘the law requires the Entity to withhold’ . . . .”); id. at Ex. 6 (“The Individual Income Tax is
fraudulent in its origin and enforced without legal authority and without legal jurisdiction on
most Americans and American entities. . . . Under U.S. tax law you may legally stop
withholding taxes and employment taxes, plus legally stop issuing W-2 and 1099 forms to
your workers and payees/contractors. . . . Eliminate payment of ‘matching’ employment taxes
(FICA, etc.)”); id. at Ex. 8 (“You will utilize the [We The People] Forms to willfully and legally
cease withholding, deducting and diverting any portion of a worker’s . . . earnings to pay any
tax, fee or other charge. . . .”); id. at Ex. 9 (a form created by Defendants and intended to be
signed by employees which states “I do not derive Subtitle A wage Gross Income . . . and my
remuneration does not constitute wages for withholding purposes under IRC §
3401(a)(8)(A)(I)” and “I do not derive taxable income . . . from a taxable source. . . . I am
outside the venue and the jurisdiction of 26 USC and 26 CFR,” and “I incurred no liability for
income tax imposed under subtitle A of the Code for the preceding year.”); id. at Ex. 10 (a
form created by Defendants and intended to be signed by employers which states “[ i]t is the
Entity’s understanding that no American living in a state is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of
Congress,’ generally speaking, unless one is a nonresident alien involved in immigration
proceedings or nonresident employee. . . .”). The government also has supplied evidence of
Defendants’ clients or members using Defendants’ materials to avoid tax withholdings, failing
to file tax returns, or from otherwise refusing to pay money to the government. See Gordon
Decl. at ¶¶ 33, 36, 37, 38 and Exs. 26, 27, 28. Because Defendants have actually
persuaded others, directly or indirectly, to violate the tax laws, Defendants words and actions
were directed toward such persuasion, and the unlawful conduct was imminently likely to
- 22 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 23 of 25
occur, the First Amendment does not afford protection. That being said, any injunction must
be narrowly drawn to separate protected speech from unprotected speech and to protect
Defendants’ First Amendment rights.
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ First Amendment defense and denies
their motion to dismiss in its entirety.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED and Plaintiff’s
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 12
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
a.
Defendants and their representatives, agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them
are hereby permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly:
1. engaging in activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6700,
including the organizing, selling, participation in the organization, or
participation in the sale of any plan or arrangement and making a
statement regarding the securing of any tax benefit that they know
or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material
matter;
2. engaging in activity subject to penalty under § 6701, including
preparing or assisting in the preparation of a document related to a
matter material to the internal revenue laws that includes a position
that they know will, if used, result in an understatement of tax
liability;
3. promoting, marketing, organizing, selling, or receiving payment for
any plan or arrangement regarding the securing of any tax benefit
that they know or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to
any material matter;
12
Because D efendants subm itted num erous m aterials outside of the pleadings in support of its
m otion to dism iss, the United States cross-m oved for sum m ary judgm ent, and Defendants have had an
opportunity to reply to the cross-m otion, Defendants’ m otion is properly considered as one m ade under
R ule 56. See Fed. R . C iv. P. 12(b). Even without converting Defendants’ m otion, this m atter is fully
resolved upon Plaintiff’s cross-m otion for sum m ary judgm ent.
- 23 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Filed 08/09/2007
Page 24 of 25
4. engaging in any other activity subject to penalty under IRC §§ 6700
or 6701 or other penalty provision of the Internal Revenue Code;
5. advising or instructing persons and/or entities that they are not
required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes;
6. selling, distributing or furnishing any document, newsletter, book,
manual, videotape, audiotape, or other material purporting to
enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding, or payment
of, federal taxes;
7. instructing, advising, or assisting anyone to stop withholding or
paying of federal employment or income taxes; and
8. obstructing or advising or assisting anyone to obstruct IRS
examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings.
b. Defendants shall, at their own expense, notify all persons who have
purchased or otherwise obtained their tax plans, arrangements, and
materials of this Memorandum, Decision and Order and provide them with
a copy of this Memorandum, Decision and Order;
c. Defendants shall produce to counsel for the United States a list identifying
by name, address, e-mail address, telephone number, and Social Security
number, all persons and entities who have been provided Defendants’ tax
preparation materials, forms, and other materials containing false
information and otherwise likely to cause others to violate the tax laws of
the United States;
d. Defendants, and anyone in active concert or participation with them, shall
remove from their websites and all other websites over which they have
control, all tax-fraud scheme promotional materials, false commercial
speech concerning the internal revenue laws, and speech likely to incite
others imminently to violate the internal revenue laws;
e. Defendants shall remove from its websites all abusive tax shelter
promotional materials, false commercial speech, and materials designed
to incite others to violate the law (including tax laws), and, for a period of
one year from the date of this Memorandum, Decision & Order, display
prominently on the first page of the website an attachment of this
Memorandum, Decision and Order;
- 24 -Case 1:07-cv-00352-TJM-RFT
Document 30
Page 25 of 25
f. Defendants shall immediately implement the terms of this injunction and
provide the Court with an affidavit of compliance within twenty-one days of
the date of this Decision and Order; and
g. This Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning Defendants’ compliance
with the injunctive relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
Filed 08/09/2007
August 9, 2007
- 25 -
[*/quote*]