Robert Lawrence case

[j2kp0t]

Are you kidding?

Please provide one citation where ANY court in this country since 1913 has ruled the IRS is illegally collecting tax from citizens of this country.

You really think the IRS - faced a real possibility of having the court return such a verdict - would allow the case to get to the courts? I think that's the whole point here. The alleged reason that they didn't pursue Mr. Lawrence isn't any further than they did, is because - again allegedly - they faced that possibility.

Too, in all the time that has passed between then and now, the IRS has made no attempt to address the issue on their site, despite not only being aware of the issue, but also despite having already addressed a similar - but again different - issue.

I don't claim to be an expert; but I've read the applicable portion of the PRA, and it says, in plain English, what Robert Lawrence claims it says. Although, I'm aware that the courts have a long history of twisting language to mean other than it was originally intended, I fail to see how they could do so in this case.

I'll grant that there may be something that both I, and Mr. Lawrence, missed - which would make him totally wrong on the subject - but if so, surely the IRS knows about it? And if so, what reason could they possibly have for not confronting him with it?

[Bees Knees]

Do I really need to waste my time doing this?

I guess I do…

CITE AS: United States v. The Joy Foundation, KTC 2003-180 (C.D.Ill.
2003)


<<FULL TEXT>>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. THE JOY FOUNDATION, a purported
trust; JACK L. MALONE, individually and as trustee of THE JOY
FOUNDATION; YVONNE M. MALONE; and ROBERT LAWRENCE, Defendants.

Docket: 02-1069 Filed May 2, 2003


DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST ROBERT LAWRENCE

Upon the United States of America's motion, the Court makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law and enters this
injunction.


STANDARDS FOR INJUNCTION

To obtain an injunction under 26 U.S.C. (IRC) section 7408, the United
States must show that Robert Lawrence engaged in conduct subject to
penalty under sections 6700 or 6701, and that injunctive relief is
appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. To obtain an
injunction under IRC section 7402, the United States must show that
Lawrence engaged in conduct that interferes with the administration and
enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws, and that injunctive relief is
appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such conduct pursuant to the
Court's inherent equity powers.


FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence, the Court finds as follows:

1. Lawrence promotes and organizes abusive tax shelters, plans or
arrangements, recommending the misuse of trusts, and advising customers to
violate the Internal Revenue laws.

2. In promoting these illegal schemes, Lawrence has made false
statements about the internal revenue laws, including but not limited to
the following:

* Wages are not taxable income;

* The federal income tax is unconstitutional as a direct tax not
apportioned among the states; The Internal Revenue Service is not legally
authorized to collect taxes;

* Filing tax returns and paying taxes, including income taxes, are
voluntary; and

* The federal tax laws apply only to foreign earned income.


3. Absent this injunction, Lawrence will continue to promote these
abusive tax schemes.

4. If this injunction is not granted, the United States will suffer
irreparable harm because Lawrence's conduct is causing and will continue
to cause substantial revenue losses to the United States Treasury, much of
which may not be recoverable. The IRS will have to devote substantial time
and resources examining customers' returns, and may be unable to detect
all of the returns.

5. Lawrence's positions regarding the taxability of wages and other
income, and the use of trusts to thwart IRS collection efforts are
meritless.

6. The public is served by granting this injunction. If an injunction
is granted, it will help to stem the spread of these abusive tax schemes.


CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Lawrence engaged
in conduct subject to penalty under IRC section 6700 and that injunctive
relief under IRC section 7408 is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of
that conduct. The Court further finds that Lawrence engaged in conduct
that interferes with the administration and enforcement of the Internal
Revenue laws and that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the
recurrence of such conduct under the Court's inherent equity powers as
provided in IRC section 7402(a).


ORDER

Following the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
hereby ORDERED that defendant Lawrence is restrained and enjoined from
directly or indirectly:

(a) Organizing or selling abusive tax shelters, plans, programs or
arrangements including "The Reliance Offense," "UBTO," and similar schemes
that advise or encourage taxpayers to attempt to evade the assessment or
collection of their correct federal tax;

(b) Making false statements about the allowability of any deduction or
credit, the excludability of any income, or the securing of any other tax
benefit by reason of participating in such tax shelters, plans, programs,
or arrangements, including but not limited to the following false
statements: Wages are not taxable income; The federal income tax is
unconstitutional as a direct tax not apportioned among the states; The
Internal Revenue Service is not legally authorized to collect taxes;
Filing tax returns and paying taxes, including income taxes, are
voluntary; and The federal tax laws apply only to foreign earned income.

(c) Instructing or advising taxpayers to not file tax returns, not pay
taxes, and/or to understate their federal income tax liabilities in
connection with the marketing of trusts or other programs;

(d) Engaging in any other activity subject to penalty under I.R.C. section
6700; and

(e) Engaging in other similar conduct that substantially interferes with
the proper administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.


It is further

ORDERED, that Lawrence provide to counsel for United States, within ten
days of the date of this order, a complete list of clients, members, and
customers, (including names, addresses, phone numbers, and social security
numbers or employer identification numbers) who have purchased The
Reliance Offense, or a UBTO, or who have obtained any other products or
services from Lawrence; it is further ORDERED, that Lawrence is required
to mail a copy of the Complaint in this action and this Court's Order of
Permanent Injunction to:

a. All persons who purchased The Offense, a UBTO, or any other material
or trust packages from Lawrence or his agent or designees;

b. All persons who conducted any transactions with the Joy Foundation
since January 1, 1995; and

c. All Joy Foundation members since January 1, 1995.


Lawrence shall do this within 20 days of the date of this order and shall,
within 25 days of the date of this order, file with the Court and serve on
Government counsel a list of the names and addresses of all persons who
have been so notified and a certificate, signed under penalty of perjury,
stating that he has given notices as required by this order; it is further

ORDERED, that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this injunction
and the United states may engage in post-judgment discovery to monitor
Lawrence's compliance with this injunction.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May 2003

[Bees Knees]

CITE AS: United States v. Lawrence, KTC 2004-31 (7th Cir. 2004)


<<FULL TEXT>>

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT LAWRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant. <<*>>

Docket: 03-2380 Filed February 3, 2004


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois

Docket: 02-1069

Joe Billy McDade, Chief Judge


ORDER

Before: Hon. Kenneth F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, Hon. Michael S. KANNE,
Circuit Judge, Hon. Diane P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

The United States brought suit against Robert Lawrence in the District
Court for the Central District of Illinois, asking the court to enjoin him
from promoting abusive tax-avoidance schemes. See 26 U.S.C. section 6700.
Rather than address the merits of the government's claims, Lawrence filed
a series of motions questioning the district court's jurisdiction over
him. The basis for his concern was his declared inability to determine
whether Congress had established the district court under Article I or
Article III of the Constitution. The district court found Lawrence's
jurisdictional arguments to be frivolous, advised him that he could renew
such arguments on appeal, and instructed him until then to stop raising
them. When Lawrence continued to do so despite this warning, the court
held a show-cause hearing, found Lawrence in criminal contempt, and
sentenced him to six months in prison. (The contempt order and prison
sentence are not part of this appeal.) With no other defense offered, the
court entered default judgment in favor of the government and granted its
request for a permanent injunction.

On appeal, Lawrence challenges the imposition of an entry of default
against him (under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)
while he was in prison, arguing that he was deprived of notice and an
opportunity to be heard. But as the district court explained, to have an
entry of default set aside, a defendant must show (in addition to good
cause for the default and quick action to correct the default) a
meritorious defense to the complaint. See Robinson Engg Co. Pension Plan
and Trust v. George, 223 F.3d 445, 453 (7th Cir. 2000). At no point has
Lawrence met this requirement, persisting instead with his arguments about
the court's jurisdiction. We cannot find that the court abused its
discretion in imposing default judgment. See Davis v. Hutchins, 321 F.3d
641, 646 (7th Cir. 2003) (entry of default judgment reviewed for abuse of
discretion).

Lawrence also reprises his jurisdictional arguments, proposing that
there is "no enactment of Congress, which has ordained and established an
Article III forum for the Federal Courts in the central district of
Illinois." To refute this proposition, we point to 28 U.S.C. section 93(b)
(establishing Central District of Illinois) and 28 U.S.C. section 132(a)
(establishing district court for each judicial district). We also warn Mr.
Lawrence that continuing with this sort of frivolous tax-protest
litigation is to invite financial sanctions. See Fed. R. App. P. 38;
United States v. Ins. Consultants of Knox, Inc., 187 F.3d 755, 761 (7th
Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.


<<ENDNOTES>>

*/ After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that
oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs
and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[Bees Knees]

Does any of that look like the IRS was about to lose the case?

This went way beyond any tax protestor case. The guy was nuts.

They were about to send him away for a long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long time.

Obviously, as Armando said, there must have been some kind of settlement.

[veritas]

speaking of nuts

from Irwin's attorney

"When confronted with contradictions in his conclusions, Schiff either ignores the challenge or moves on to new exhortations of what the law is and his omniscient 'expertise' on the meaning of income, taxable income, the court's applying the wrong satndard, banking and/or money."

"Schiff's belief system appears to be completely circular: within that system Schiff is right, the government and the courts are wrong and he remains impervious to rational discussion."

"Stints of incarceration for years, IRS levies for hundres of thousands of dollars, substantial sanctions and fines imposed by (1) the Second Circuit for bringing frivolous appeals and (2) the United States Tax Court for presenting groundless and frivolous arguments demonstrate that Schiff's belief system is impervious to negative feed back. Schiff's expectation seems to be that someday the federal courts will experience an epiphany and acknowlege that he has been right all along."

"My attempts at rational discussions with Mr. Schiff have been more difficult than any I experienced with Mr. Marsh." (Mr. Cohan had represented Philip Marsh, the leader of the "Pilot Connection Society".)

"Based on all the foregoing and Occam's razor, I was forced to conclude the Mr. Schiff probably suffers from a severe delusional disorder or other mental disease or defect."

From the report of psychologist Cynthia Barry, Ph.D.: "[T]he diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is well established and warranted. ... I also believe that there is a concurrent Delusional Personality Disorder. ... In short, Mr. Schiff's behavior is not rational. It is the product of a Delusional Personality Disorder that is not amenable to treatment and is unlikely to remit."

And this is not from the government, but from the lawyers of one the leaders of the "tax honesty movement."

_________________
Posted courtesy of Dan Evans
Author of the Tax Protester FAQ