"We The People" foundation being forced by feds to place websites offline.

[Nicholas Gilman]

 
      This is the organization which featured Bob Schultz giving a presentation prior to the
screening of "America: Freedom to Fascism" in Londonderry, New Hampshire in March of 2006.
       http://edbrownextendedentries.blogspot.com/2007/08/judge-orders-web-site-selling-tax.html

   

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 30, 2007

A Web site that sells materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes has been shut on the order of a federal judge.

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York who issued the order on Aug. 9, wrote that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the Web site, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

Judge McAvoy also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government.

This information would make it easy for the Internal Revenue Service to identify people who followed the illegal advice and for the Justice Department to prosecute them for tax crimes.

The civil court order is one of at least 245 permanent injunctions obtained by federal prospectors that prohibit individuals and organizations that deny the legitimacy of the tax laws or who sell tax evasion schemes from marketing their wares.

Robert L. Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., the founder of both organizations behind the Web site — the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the We The People Congress — posted the court order at the Web site givemeliberty.org, and closed the rest of the site even though he said yesterday that the order did not specify that he do so. He also said he had filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

His organization rose to prominence with a series of full-page newspaper ads, starting in 2001, asserting that the government tricks people into paying taxes. The ads solicited donations, which it said were fully tax-deductible.

Judge McAvoy, quoting from a declaration that Mr. Schulz sent to the court, said that Mr. Schulz wrote that he started "operation stop withholding" as "a national campaign to instruct company officials, workers and independent contractors on how to legally stop wage withholding."

In a 25-page decision, the judge wrote that "undisputed evidence" established that Mr. Schulz and his organizations "knew, or had reason to know, that their statements were false."

He said that because Mr. Schulz was taking $20 payments for a package of materials that supposedly showed how to legally stop paying taxes, the Web site could be shut down as commercial speech that urged criminal conduct.

Even if the Web site was not commercial in nature, Judge McAvoy said, it could be shut because people who followed the advice at the Web site engaged in criminal conduct.

"The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent lawless action," the judge wrote, citing a 1969 Supreme Court decision.

Because Mr. Schulz and his organization "are not merely advocating, but have gone the extra step in instructing others how to engage in illegal activity and have supplied the means to do so" the judge added, "their speech may be enjoined."

-edit for date and location of screening  3:37PM

[kola]

A contact telephone number, email addy, work and home address of the judge would be beneficial.

kola

[Nicholas Gilman]

A contact telephone number, email addy, work and home address of the judge would be beneficial.

Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy
U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building
15 Henry Street
Binghamton, NY 13901
Judicial Assistant Marlene Price
(607) 773-2892

[Nicholas Gilman]

Past Employment Positions:

McAvoy & Hickey, P.C., Binghamton, 1984 - 1986

Broome County Legislature, Binghamton, Legislator, 1971 - 1986

Kramer, Wales & McAvoy, Binghamton, 1969 - 1984

Hinnman, Howard & Kattell, Binghamton, New York, 1964 - 1969

United States Marine Corps, R.O.T.C., 1958

    I wonder if he and McAuliffe are aquaintances?

    Here is some legal papers regarding the case.  I'm not quoting them here because the "law"
is enforced with selective discretion.  http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/schulz12-1.pdf
  I wish he would release the "blue folder" digitally and we could distribute it via torrent files.
Bob is now on their treadmill.

[anthonybpugh]

The judge is intentionally misinterpreting the law here. 
She is referring to Brandenburg v Ohio,  a case involving some KKK guy advocating using violence.  The court said that speech is protected unless it is likely to cause imminent lawless action.  Imminent lawless aciton is an action that is committed more quickly than a cop can be reasonably be summoned. 

It simply cannot apply in this case.  This judge is way off base

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Brandenburg_v_Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[NHRes2004]

  I wish he would release the "blue folder" digitally and we could distribute it via torrent files.

They are available in Google cache.

[David]

<It simply cannot apply in this case.  This judge is way off base>
The judge and the people that work for him have been in the system for years, maybe decades.  Most of them are likely true believers in that what they do is good and wonderful for society.  Some are likely just pragmatists and know full well where their paycheck comes from and want to see the gravy train keep rolling.  Either way they will scour the potentially thousands of other legal rulings to find a precedent that supports their view of what should be the status quo. 
  Mr. Shults is indeed on their treadmill.  By the way, I believe he is a speaker at the 08 liberty forum this comming year. 

[Spencer]

These summary judgment proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of the right to a jury trial in any civil matter where the amount in dispute is over $20.  Factual determinations are to be made by juries, not judges.  This is another step down the road to absolute tyranny.

And what part of "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" does this judge not understand?  Nothing in the Constitution says that the Internal Revenue Code trumps the First Amendment.

[Nicholas Gilman]

   At one time I had one of the blue folders, but I gave it to someone
who was interested in opting out of taxes because it was
basically a beginners guide to why the IRS is a fraud.
I'm surprised they haven't come after people who
distribute AFTF.  I didn't have any luck downloading the
actual pdf file from Google cache.

   I would like to torrent that pdf, not only to educate, but as an act of civil disobedience
because the fed really doesnt like the idea of circulating such verboten information.
As a memorial to Aaron Russo I am circulating AFTF constantly.  If anyone has
a copy of that packet or can scan and upload it, please post it here.

[Dave Ridley]

placed the number in my complaint call queue

[Russell Kanning]

Judge McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.

it don't get no better tan tis

[Russell Kanning]

Bob talks about doing civil dis .... but I guess he gave into the man again

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

has been modified to appease the beast

[J’raxis 270145]

Why do they have people's SSNs on file in the first place? And for a company selling this kind of information, why are they even storing customer records at all after they've received payment?

[lildog]

Interesting.  I can't help but thing this judge got it SOOOOO wrong.

There's a case a couple years back about a site against abortion.  The posted doctors names and all sorts of personal information and clearly defined them as the enemy in a war.  Sure enough anti abortion people started murdering the doctors.  This website kept score showing how many of the enemy has been killed.  The Supreme court correctly protected the site's freedom of speech in this case even though clearly the doctors who were being murdered were clearly harmed.

I fail to see how this site in question was any different.

[toowm]

I fail to see how this site in question was any different.

Well, no one was killed.

Wait, that means that keeping your money instead of handing it to the feds is worse that killing in this judges opinion!