Robert Lawrence case

[DaveO]

Is anyone here familiar with this case? I know this isn’t a tax protestor site but I’ve had a few inquiries about this. Anyone care to comment?

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 entire story is here.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm

[OldJack]

Interesting case. It caused me to look at the 2004 & 2005 form 1040 and noted that the same OMB number is printed on both forms. Is that the issue here that the form changes so the OMB number must be approved and changed each year? The taxpayer may have won the case but I'll bet it cost him in legal fees as much or more than the tax would have been had he filed and paid.

[Armando Beaujolais]

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.

I'm afraid I'll have to wait for a more objective summary of what actually occurred and why.

[DaveO]

OMB Numbers

Is that the issue here that the form changes so the OMB number must be approved and changed each year?

That's my take on it. The number must be changed each time the form is changed and every three years if no change is made to the form. There is also a part that says no one may suffer a penalty for the failure to file a form with an invalid number.

I only post this because I like to have ready ammo when the protestors come calling. I know, I can just throw them out but some times I just want to beat them up a little first.

[Armando Beaujolais]

Keep in mind that the IRC doesn't say anything about forms. It says "If you have taxable income you owe tax," not "If you have taxable income you have to file Form 1040."

I'm betting things aren't as they might seem right now.

[Black Bart]

I second that motion.

I'm afraid I'll have to wait for a more objective summary of what actually occurred and why.

It's quite a stretch to transform a technicality such as an overlooked form number change into "ongoing efforts to defraud the public." It sounds much more like another "dodge" by the "taxes are unconstitutional" clan rather than a legitimate complaint.

[veritas]

Well that crowd just won't give up. The 16th amendment wasn't ratified, not based on the gold standard, can't tax labor. Now the wrong form number. What is it that Einstein said about sanity?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

[Black Bart]

Now I remember.

I knew I'd heard that name "Stilley" before. Don't know anything about Lawrence.

Yeah, Stilley's a lawyer who was originally from Arkansas (Fort Smith I think)--I offer my apologies. You can disregard the whole thing even if he was successful. His cases were always in the Arkansas papers a few years back and I guess he's moved on to greener pastures. He's the textbook example of a lawyer representing all the assorted kooks, tax protesters, fringe elements, nut jobs, bums, mental cases, low-life leeches, and any and all general PIA nuisance and/or annoyance cases tying up and wasting the legitimate time of the courts with all manner of frivolous nonsense.

They probably did settle with him to get rid of him and/or avoid establishing a precedent that would have freed numerous tax deadbeats using the same claim. But anyway, it's all a lot of hogwash.

As for clients asking about it, those kinds of stories get a lot of hyped-up play by the press and some dopey taxpayers always think there's something to it. In fact, I once had a client who worked construction at a nuclear power plant out West. He'd always hated IRS and a tax-protesting co-worker gave him a speech and a pamphlet on the "gold standard" yarn--he swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. I always did his taxes, but this time he filed it--sending IRS a form letter explaining the bogus argument that the courts have rejected thousands of times. He stapled it to a properly completed 1040A containing one small deviation--it listed the tax balance due (actually over $10,000) as zero and a notation to "see attached letter." I warned him not to do it, but he insisted on plunging ahead now that he'd discovered the "Holy Grail" of the "no tax due" crowd.

Six weeks after he mailed it, IRS sent him an audit notice hitting him with 100% of taxes, interest, and every possibly applicable penalty known to man plus a $500 frivolous tax return fine. He came crying back to me, but I refused to have anything to do with it. Funny thing, he and his wife blamed me for it--complained that I "didn't try hard enough" to talk him out of filing it.

People. What can you say?

[veritas]

The first tax protesters once we were a country were whiskey distillers in Pennsylvania in the 18th century. In those days our president took it personal and led troops into the state to disuade them.

Come to think of it a Virginian invaded the north, whatever happened to "state's rats"?

[Unregistered]

Nothing. They're still

Come to think of it a Virginian invaded the north, whatever happened to "state's rats"?

there. They're just a little to the south of us here in Arkansas. They pronouce it differently further on south. Down there "i" is "a" as in state's rats. Here, "i" is "ah" as in state's rahts (or state's rots). We have a little more of a western twang here, being next to Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri.

[Bees Knees]

A few years back, I had a few clients come in with books published by Irwin Schiff. I spent many hours reading, studying, trying to prove to my clients why they should not fall for this garbage. One didn't. The other did. Years later, this happens: http://www.thetaxbook.com/updates_view.asp?ID=45

But it is too late. Many people already fell for the scam.

You are not going to convince clients that tax protestors are bogus, if your clients want to believe. It is like a religion - a secret society - black helicopters - government cover ups....and on and on and on....

It will never end....

[jainen]

Irwin Schiff

Irwin Schiff is a political prisoner. The reason he was charged with contempt of court is he asked the court to look at the evidence, which the court was unwilling to do.

[Black Bart]

Say it ain't so, Snuffleupagus!

Irwin Schiff is a political prisoner. The reason he was charged with contempt of court is he asked the court to look at the evidence, which the court was unwilling to do.

Well, I have to give you credit. You've got guts. Making a statement like that on a board like this is like charging Hell with a bucket of water.

I think I'll just stop there because no doubt you could turn me ever' which way but loose with the fine points of whatever arguments you have in his defense. Good luck.

[Unregistered]

Irwin Schiff is a political prisoner. The reason he was charged with contempt of court is he asked the court to look at the evidence, which the court was unwilling to do.

I will bite! How so ?

[jainen]

a year in the slammer

Start with his request for a copy of the law under which he was prosecuted, a presumably public record which he claims does not exist. The court's position was that whether a law actually exists or not is a frivolous question worth a year in the slammer.