Talk:Robert L. Schulz

Untitled

In its current state (March 9, 2009), this Wiki page on Bob Schulz is very lacking and biased. Lacking in that there are statements regarding "Federal tax problems", and "injunctions", without giving any information about the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances lawsuits against the Federal Government, in accordance with the law when government acts beyond its legal limitations as described by the US Constitution. Biased in that only ONE of the various Petition issues mentioned (Obama's citizenship issue) without any mention whatsoever of the lawsuit itself, just an ad which was placed. This begs a question in my mind, "Is Wikipedia still an accurate source of facts?" BEWARE of deception to anyone visiting this page. For the facts about Bob Schulz, visit www.GiveMeLiberty.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfinityBBC (talk • contribs) on 9 March 2009.

Actually, the article is not biased. Also, the article is indeed accurate. There is also a separate, related article, We the People Foundation, that provides additional information. Wikipedia is an ongoing project, so additional relevant material may be added to the article from time to time. And there is no "deception" in the article -- at least as it is currently presented.

Also, the link provided (givemeliberty) is actually the web site for Bob Schulz and "We the People Foundation." Famspear (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just as a follow-up, to user InfinityBBC: The "Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances lawsuits against the Federal Government" was decided over a year ago. Schulz lost the case. He tried to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rejected his case in early 2008. This is old news, and is already covered in the article on We the People Foundation. Perhaps you are talking about another case, though (?). Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC to Famspear:

This article certainly appears biased. It paints Bob as some kind of half cocked tax protestor who has been set straight by the Federal Government. Then there is only the mention of the issue of Obama's citizenship. What kind of bio is this supposed to be? Who are you? What business is it of yours to solely be the one who decides what is on Bob's bio?

Also FYI, there was no "case lost" as you stated. Yes, SCOTUS "rejected" the case in Feb 2008, AGAIN continuing to ignore its responsibilities in defining the last 10 words of the First Amendment. This is NOT old news, this is ONGOING news! Or is it somehow old news when the US Federal Government in all three branches largely refuse to take their oaths of office to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?

74.167.177.109 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear user at IP74.167.177.109: You state:

This article certainly appears biased. It paints Bob as some kind of half cocked tax protestor who has been set straight by the Federal Government.

Well, first of all, Bob Schulz is a tax protester as that term is used by the courts, and he certainly has lost federal court cases involving his tax protester activity.

I'm not sure what you mean by the question "who are you?" (referring to me, Famspear). I am a Wikipedia editor. Under the rules of Wikipedia, I don't "need" to be anyone other than who I am: a Wikipedia editor. The rhetorical question "what business is it" of mine to "solely be one one who decides who is on Bob's bio" is out of bounds. Obviously, I am not in the business of being "solely the one who decides" that -- or anything else in Wikipedia. Please re-read my comments, and please restrict your own comments to specific suggestions for improving the article.

Yes, there was a "case lost." Schulz and the We the People Foundation lost the case. That is documented in the article on We the People Foundation. This is not "ongoing news"; it is indeed old news. The case ended in February of 2008, over a year ago. When you lose at the trial court, and you lose at the court of appeals, and you then go all the way to the Supreme Court -- and the Supreme Court lets the lower court decision stand by refusing to hear your case (this is known as denying your petition for writ of certiorari, to use the legal terminology) -- then you have lost the case. And when you then petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing and the Supreme Court also denies your petition for rehearing -- as happened here to Mr. Schulz -- then the Court is telling you AGAIN that you lost. Period. I'm sorry, but I don't make the rules of law.

Therefore, you have not identified anything "deceptive" in the article as currently written. There is nothing unreliable or incorrect in the article, as far as I know. The article is properly sourced as well. And the article is presented with a neutral point of view. However, Wikipedia is a work in progress -- so more information may be added to the article.

The rhetorical question you posed is this:

"Or is it somehow old news when the US Federal Government in all three branches largely refuse to take their oaths of office to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?"

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to discuss whether "all three branches" of government "largely refuse to take their oaths of office", etc. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, not to discuss the merits of the underlying dispute that Bob Schulz had with the government. Further, the point that Schulz lost the case is not a proper subject of debate on a Wikipedia talk page. The loss is a matter of official court record, and the record is cited in the applicable article. The article is correct. Period.

Now, a word about Neutral Point of View. In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View does not mean the absence of points of view in the article. For example, Neutral Point of View does not mean that a reader must come away from reading the article with a sense that each side to an argument or position or issue must have roughly equal validity. Neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all sides. Indeed, straining to give equal weight to all points of view is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Bob Schulz and his Foundation lost their court case, and that's it. The mere fact that this result itself seems to reflect negatively on Bob Schulz in your eyes as a reader does not mean that Wikipedia rules are being violated.

What is also important in Wikipedia is that information be presented in a neutral way. However, the rule on Neutral Point of View does not state that properly sourced and neutrally-presented information must somehow also not reflect negatively on the subject of the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive unsourced changes to article

I reverted a massive amount of unsourced changes to the article. While the editor making the changes has indicated that sourcing may be added, I believe the better approach is to go a bit more slowly.

Also, some of the material was changed to make a blatantly false statement. Before the edits, the article stated that Schulz has been under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service.

The edited material indicated that he has not been under investigation for his own personal, unfiled tax returns. That is most certainly false. The material, before the edit, cited the specific court case. Here is an excerpt from the text of the court's decision in the case:

Robert Schulz is the self proclaimed founder and Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education (We The People Foundation). Schulz has not filed an income tax return since the year 2000. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently investigating whether Schultz has had any taxable income for the tax periods of December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004.

--from Schulz v. United States, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,481 (D. Neb. June 26, 2006).

Before we start deleting properly sourced information and replacing it with unsourced -- and blatantly false information -- let's slow down a bit. Thanks. Famspear (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Famspear This is one of the things I was responding to (it's still on the page) "Federal tax problems Schulz IS under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in connection with an alleged failure to file Federal income tax returns for years 2001 through 2004.[2]" Your source was a federal judge in Nebraska who, FIVE YEARS AGO, allegedly wrote, "Schulz has not filed an income tax return since the year 2000. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently investigating whether Schultz has had any taxable income for the tax periods of December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004."

There are alot of people who are not required to file tax returns. Right? My understanding is that he has been donating his time working full time for the Foundation since 1999. Following that holding by that Nebraska judge, it is my understanding that in 2006 and 2007, the IRS audited We The People Foundation and We The People Congress, finding no movement of any funds from the organization to Schulz (or any inproprieties in the organization's financial and accounting procedures.) It is my understanding that Nebraska judge ruled that PayPal had to turn over all records to the IRS concerning transactions involving Schulz, WTPF and WTPC. For your information, the IRS discovered no money had been moved from PayPal to Schulz.

Conclusion: It is WRONG of you to say he IS under investigation implying now (2011) while relying on a case from five years ago -- especially since there have been audits and all Paypal records were turned over immediately back then. It was Bob Schulz's own affidavit to the court that explained why he had not filed. If Schulz is under investigation NOW, please use an updated source. I cannot find anything to substantiate such a claim.

What else is of concern? All else is very straightforward and can be sourced with links to sources. there are lots of places where I see "citation needed" for information that has stood the test of wiki editors for months. I see no reason not to proceed, unless you have some other inputs. Thank you for your time Freedomstriumph (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Famspear -- I did not see anything on the "deletion log" regarding your removal of my content. Aren't you required to note this so that others can see what was posted? Thanks much! Freedomstriumph (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Freedomstriumph: All edits are documented and can be viewed by clicking on the "View history" tab.

I'm not saying that Schulz is under investigation now. The article says that. Perhaps the article is incorrect. But that's not the main problem.

Without any backing source, you changed the article to say, essentially, that Schulz had never been investigated for personally failing to file his own income tax returns -- which is not only false, but is contradicted by the very source you deleted -- the actual court record that specifically states that he has been under investigation by the IRS for not filing his personal tax returns. You replaced a correct, properly sourced statement about an actual IRS investigation of Schulz with an incorrect and unsourced statement that he had never been investigated.

That action tends to raise questions about the massive amount of other material you added without sourcing.

Yes, as I pointed out, you had indicated that sourcing was going to be added later. But based on what I've seen, I'm just suggesting that a more prudent approach in this particular case would be to line up your sources FIRST, and add the sources as you go, rather than dumping large amounts of unsourced text and saying in effect, "I'll add the sourcing soon."

Also, the material you added -- without sourcing -- does appear to be "cheerleading" for Schulz to some extent. Therefore, I or other editors may tone the material down a bit after you re-add it with proper sourcing. (And by the way, please don't take that personally. Everyone's contributions are subject to being edited.)

We have no reliable, previously published third party source that says that Schulz is no longer under IRS investigation, and we have no source that says that he IS still under investigation. So I would suggest changing the article to the past tense -- but without implying that the investigation has ended. (Indeed, these kinds of investigations go on for years.)

You say that "the IRS discovered no money had been moved from PayPal to Schulz." Why do you say that? How do you know? What's your source? That's an interesting statement on this talk page, but in the article itself we need sourcing. What is your sourcing for that?

Regarding your statement that the IRS found "no movement of any funds from the organization to Schulz (or any inproprieties in the organization's financial and accounting procedures)," Schulz himself announced a year ago that the Internal Revenue Service had revoked the tax exempt status of these organizations. I don't remember whether we know specifically why that happened, but I can tell you that this doesn't happen unless the IRS has concluded (rightly or wrongly) that the organization in question is not complying with the applicable tax law for tax exempt organizations. Again, let's stick to reliable, previously published third party sources. Famspear (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the article text so that it does not state whether Schulz is or is not still under investigation by the IRS.

Because this article is about a living person, contentious but unsourced material -- whether positive or negative about the individual -- should generally be removed immediately. Here is the rule:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Famspear

Thank you for the postings.

I TRULY appreciate your desire, our mutual desire, to get the story right and have it be balanced. Let us seek to see that we are fair to this LIVING person and his reputation and any others about whom we would contribute for the purpose of informing others.

1) Follow-up on Schulz being under Investigation for Failure to File I appreciate your adjusting the “IS” to “WAS,” yet still take issue with it and feel more should be done. Bear with me. Here is what you have now posted for the world to read:

“In 2006, Schulz was under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in connection with an alleged failure to file Federal income tax returns for years 2001 through 2004.” Your source appears to be Schulz v. U.S., Case Number 8:05CV530 – U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The “Memorandum and Order” includes the leading paragraph under “Factual Background” which contains the full quotation that you put in your justification for taking down my posting.

In reading the “Memorandum and Order” from the case, I see a different wording entirely as follows: “…The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently investigating whether Schultz has had any taxable income for the tax periods of December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004.” This is the information I see and from what I can tell it began with a Summons on Schulz for his books and records which Schulz fought and won; and then the IRS conducted an audit and all was accounted for with no monies seen to be going to Schulz.

How and why did the translation turn into Schulz being “under investigation in connection with an alleged failure to file…” Isn’t it better to stick with the actual language rather than interpretation? There was no “alleged failure to file.”

I see no evidence anywhere that Schulz was ever under investigation for failure to file Federal income tax returns. For that to be true, there would have to be evidence that he had some taxable income. Isn’t this correct?

What I said therefore was true: “While never investigated personally for failure to file Federal income tax returns, Schulz and We The People Foundation Petitioned the government for Redress concerning the constitutionality of the income tax through a series of civic education and civic action efforts, mainly between the years of 1999-2003. Schulz had asked the government to answer a series of questions that other tax professionals, constitutional attorneys, former IRS agents and other citizens had sought to have answered unsuccessfully.”

While there was a 6700 investigation underway beginning in 2003 and while the IRS sought to discover if any money was moving from the Foundation to Schulz personally and found no evidence of this, there was never any investigation for failure to file that I can find.

Isn’t there a huge difference between failure to file and efforts to see if you have any taxable income?

I feel the current statement needs to be removed and re-stated. I would even argue that it could legitimately be taken out all together as it is taken out of context in light of all the relevant Schulz v. IRS cases (Schulz v. IRS 2003, 2005, 2006).

2) Fair and Balanced? Let’s look further at the Case In addition, let’s look further at the case you cited. You picked out the first paragraph “Schulz is under investigation…” when if you wanted the public’s information to be fair and balanced you would also have noted the obvious inaccuracy of the court’s statement, “Because Schulz would not cooperate with the IRS, Cox served a third-party Summons on PayPal….”

As you know (you say you have been following Schulz for years and you also cited from the decision on the We The People Foundation Wikipedia page) Schulz sued the IRS (Cox) to quash the 2003 Summons. In 2005, the Second Circuit twice ruled (Schulz I and II) that in the interest of Schulz’s Due Process Rights, an IRS Summons is a “mere request” and the IRS is not entitled to private books and records without a court order. Assume you have seen http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-07-04.htm

The docket sheet for the Nebraska case demonstrates that the Record before the Nebraska judge included Cox’s Summons, Schulz’s Motion to Quash, and both decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

3) Source for No money moved from PayPal to Schulz Have yourself a good read – assuming you already have.

Familiar with Schulz v. IRS –U.S. District Court – Northern District of New York Case 06MC-131, a Motion to Dismiss IRS’s Summons on Schulz’s Bank

The documents in which you should be interested are the “Schulz’s Reply Memorandum” dated February 2 2007 and “Sur Reply” – March 13, 2007. The evidence you seek is contained in these documents.

There is no decision on the case because the case was left hanging from what I can tell.

See page 8 in the “Reply Memorandum” - “those Paypal records clearly demonstrate that no money has ever moved from any Paypal account to any account in the Glens Falls National Bank….or any personal account in that bank over which Schulz and his wife have signature authority.”

And in the “Sur Reply” – page 4 “The IRS did not deny the allegation of perjury by Addington or the allegation that the IRS already had the information being sought by the Summons.” In March, 2007 Schulz charged her with perjury.

The case was never resolved.

Addington was removed from her position, according to information and belief.

What I see when reading all materials submitted by BOTH sides of the lot is that the government slapped the “blue folder” case on Schulz and moved at record speed to summary judgment without a hearing and inspite of numerous facts material to the case that were in genuine dispute; and ignored the First Amendment defense.

Cheerleading for Schulz or just looking to see evidence that both sides were acting in decency, good faith and good order?

Thank you for hearing my views. Took me a while to put them together. Freedomstriumph (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was an alleged failure to file. Here is the exact text from the court document:

Robert Schulz is the self proclaimed founder and Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education (We The People Foundation). Schulz has not filed an income tax return since the year 2000. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is currently investigating whether Schultz has had any taxable income for the tax periods of December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004.

(bolding added by me).

The Court is saying, point blank, on June 26, 2006, that Schulz has not filed an income tax return since the year 2000. That would be, at a minimum, tax years 2001 through 2005. The Court, in the very next sentence, states that the IRS is investigating whether he had 'any taxable income for years 2001 through 2004. Those two facts are related.

In other words, Schulz is (or was at that time) under investigation because the IRS wants to determine (1) whether he was required to file tax returns for those years, and (2) whether he failed to report income that he should have reported for those years.

I'll address your other points soon. Famspear (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Freedomstriumph--

You stated:

.....from what I can tell it began with a Summons on Schulz for his books and records which Schulz fought and won; and then the IRS conducted an audit and all was accounted for with no monies seen to be going to Schulz.

No. Nowhere in the text of the Court decision does it say that Schulz won, or that all was accounted for with no monies going to Schulz. What is your source for that?

You stated:

How and why did the translation turn into Schulz being “under investigation in connection with an alleged failure to file…” Isn’t it better to stick with the actual language rather than interpretation?

We've already covered this. In 2006, the Court stated, point blank, that Schulz had not filed tax returns since 2000. And the Court, in the very next sentence of the text, stated that the IRS was investigating him to determine whether he had taxable income for years 2001 through 2004. There was a CONNECTION between these two points: (1) the failure to file tax returns for those years, and (2) the IRS investigation to determine whether Schulz had INCOME for those years.

The point of an IRS investigation of someone who has not filed a tax return for a given year is in part to determine whether he was REQUIRED to file for that year (and the filing requirement is based on the given level of minimum INCOME for that year) and whether HE OWES TAX FOR THAT YEAR. To argue that the investigation was not "in connection with an alleged failure to file" is nonsensical.

You stated:

There was no “alleged failure to file.”

Yes, there was an alleged failure to file. The Court stated point blank that HE DID NOT FILE TAX RETURNS for the years in question. There is no question that the Court made that statement. That statement is, at a minimum, an ALLEGATION.

You stated:

I see no evidence anywhere that Schulz was ever under investigation for failure to file Federal income tax returns.

Yes, you do see that evidence. You quoted from the Court case yourself (but you omitted the Court's statement that Schulz had not filed tax returns).

You stated:

For that to be true, there would have to be evidence that he had some taxable income. Isn’t this correct?

No.

There would have to be evidence that Schulz had sufficient income in order for the IRS to show that he had a legal duty to file a return. But there does NOT have to be evidence of income in order for the IRS to INVESTIGATE his failure to file. The IRS may or may not ALREADY have such "evidence" prior to starting an investigation, but there is no requirement that such evidence exist, or that the IRS already have such evidence in its possession, prior to beginning the investigation.

You wrote:

What I said therefore was true: “While never investigated personally for failure to file Federal income tax returns......

No. That statement is blatantly incorrect. The Court specifically stated that Schulz had not filed returns for some years, and that the IRS was investigating to determine whether he had income for those same years.

You wrote:

While there was a [section] 6700 investigation underway beginning in 2003 and while the IRS sought to discover if any money was moving from the Foundation to Schulz personally and found no evidence of this, there was never any investigation for failure to file that I can find.

Again, completely wrong. Again, read the text of the Court's statement.

You wrote:

Isn’t there a huge difference between failure to file and efforts to see if you have any taxable income?

Yes. A failure to file means a failure by the taxpayer to file a return. An "effort to see if you have any taxable income" really means an effort by the IRS to investigate to determine whether you have taxable income. I think what you may have meant to ask a different question; can you clarify?

Fair and Balanced? Let’s look further at the Case

In addition, let’s look further at the case you cited. You picked out the first paragraph “Schulz is under investigation…” when if you wanted the public’s information to be fair and balanced you would also have noted the obvious inaccuracy of the court’s statement, “Because Schulz would not cooperate with the IRS, Cox served a third-party Summons on PayPal….”

As you know (you say you have been following Schulz for years and you also cited from the decision on the We The People Foundation Wikipedia page) Schulz sued the IRS (Cox) to quash the 2003 Summons. In 2005, the Second Circuit twice ruled (Schulz I and II) that in the interest of Schulz’s Due Process Rights, an IRS Summons is a “mere request” and the IRS is not entitled to private books and records without a court order.

With all due respect, this skirts the main point: Schulz tried to obtain a court order to block the IRS summons. Schulz was unable to obtain a court order to block the IRS summons. He failed.

You stated:

Source for No money moved from PayPal to Schulz

Have yourself a good read – assuming you already have.

??? You've lost me. What exactly is the source to which you refer? Which of the documents you cited, exactly?

You wrote:

Familiar with Schulz v. IRS –U.S. District Court – Northern District of New York

Case 06MC-131, a Motion to Dismiss IRS’s Summons on Schulz’s Bank

You've lost me here. You've cited a case, and a motion in that case. Why? What is your point? Schulz's own motion to dismiss is not reliable "evidence" on the PayPal issue. And why am I supposed to be interested in Paypal? (I know what you are talking about, but this is not the purpose of this talk page.)

You stated:

The documents in which you should be interested are the “Schulz’s Reply Memorandum” dated February 2 2007 and “Sur Reply” – March 13, 2007. The evidence you seek is contained in these documents.

The evidence of what? What is it that you think I am "seeking"? Why should I be interested in these documents?

You wrote:

See page 8 in the “Reply Memorandum” - “those Paypal records clearly demonstrate that no money has ever moved from any Paypal account to any account in the Glens Falls National Bank….or any personal account in that bank over which Schulz and his wife have signature authority.”

That Reply Memorandum is a statement by Schulz himself, in effect. That's Schulz CLAIMING that some "Paypal" records demonstrate something. What exactly are you driving at? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm really unclear as to what you're trying to say.

You wrote:

“Sur Reply” – page 4

“The IRS did not deny the allegation of perjury by Addington or the allegation that the IRS already had the information being sought by the Summons.” In March, 2007 Schulz charged her with perjury.

The case was never resolved.

Addington was removed from her position, according to information and belief.

What I see when reading all materials submitted by BOTH sides of the lot is that the government slapped the “blue folder” case on Schulz and moved at record speed to summary judgment without a hearing and inspite of numerous facts material to the case that were in genuine dispute; and ignored the First Amendment defense.

Again, I'm not understanding what you're driving at. What does all this have to do with the Wikipedia article?

Cheerleading for Schulz or just looking to see evidence that both sides were acting in decency, good faith and good order?

Our purpose here should not be to "cheerlead" for Schulz.

And our purpose should not be to "look to see evidence that both 'sides' [presumably meaning Schulz and the government] were acting in decency, good faith and good order". Wikipedia is not the proper place for that, either.

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the issues or problems that are important to you or to me or to Robert L. Schulz. Wikipedia is not a forum for determining who is right or wrong. Let's try to keep focused on ways to improve the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Famspear

Agreed, the purpose is to improve the article about Robert L. Schulz. Soon, I'll take another stab at it, with sources.

In the meantime, please note the following about the framework within which the Nebraska judge hearing Schulz v. IRS issued his decision regarding Schulz's motion to quash IRS's Third Party Summons for PayPal's records on Schulz, WTPF and WTPC:

1. The PayPal summons was issued a few months after the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit hearing Schula v. IRS issued its second decision regarding Schulz's motion to quash IRS's first party summons for records on Schulz, WTPF and WTPC.You say Schulz "failed" in his effort to block that summons. Not true. Not only did the COA say the summons was a mere request that Schulz did not have to comply with, the COA went further, saying on page 10 of Schulz II that people do not have to comply with any administrative order or directive.

2. Rather than comply with the Second Circuit's suggestion to seek a Court Order for the records it wanted, the IRS summoned PayPal in California and Nebraska and initiated an audit of books of WTPF and WTPC.

3. In support of his motion to quash the paypal summons, the Nebraska court was provided with copies of the COA decisions in Schulz I and II and all the facts and legal arguments Schulz used to block the first party IRS summons in New York, including his June 2002 letter to the IRS detailing the reasoning for his decision not to file another tax return until he received a response from the government to his Petitions for Redress of grievances involving certain violations of the Constitution, including its war, money, privacy and tax clauses. Rather than honor the principle of law laid down by the Second Circuit, the Nebraska court decided not to block the PayPal summons.

4. With PayPal's records of all transactions involving Schulz, WTPF and WTPC in hand, the IRS then summoned Schulz's Bank for its records on Schulz. Schulz motioned the District Court in Albany to quash that summons. After the Judge granted Schulz's motion for a restraining order blocking the Bank Summons and after the Judge denied IRS's motion to dismiss the motion to quash the Bank Summons, IRS was forced to answer the motion to quash. In doing so, the IRS agent lied to the Court, saying IRS had evidence from PayPal that it had moved money into Schulz's Bank. In March of 2007, Schulz charged the IRS with fraud and the agent with perjury. IRS dropped the case. The Summons was blocked.

5. In April of 2007, the IRS sued Schulz, WTPF and WTPC to block any further distribution of the contents of WTPF's Petition for Redress of Grievances challenging the constitutionality of the forced withholding by companies of earnings from the paychecks of workers in advance of the date any of those workders are required to file tax returns. The IRS obtained a permanent injunction from Judge McAvoy in U.S. v Schulz, et al.

6. In December of 2008, the IRS's audit examiner completed his examination of WTPF and WTPC. Based entirely on Judge McAvoy's permanent injunction (quick summary judgment without a hearing(!), with dozens of facts material to the case in genuine dispute and no strict scrutiny given to Schulz's First Amendment arguments.) Doesn't sound like America to me! The IRS revoked the not for profit status of WTPF and WTPC, a ruling that is on appeal in Tax Court.

I have not been following Schulz as long as you have, but what I believe from what I have read and studied about him, that it is not balanced and is unfair to this living person and his life's work (which the current wikipedia postings do not show a true understanding about) to "cherry pick" and post decisions here and there, when these string of IRS cases are obviously inter-related and certainly show that Schulz is not any ordinary "tax protestor" and infact is coming from a completely different position than most.

Do you really want people to know about Robert Schulz or just certain elements? Have you looked into the previous decades before tax stuff where he was holding government accountable in New York State and had support of citizens, media and others in doing so? How can you talk about him without presenting the tax information within the larger context? I have compiled some of the more interesting precedent setting cases with sources and would like to post these on the We The People Foundation page, in addition to what you and others have there. These are Schulz specific cases, so believe these would belong here as well.

I recall you saying somewhere, that since his tax focus he has petitioned on other issues as well. Infact, his efforts to hold government accountable go back to the late 70's(!) and lead up to 1995 when he first Petitioned at the federal level on the bailout of the Mexican Peso without Congressional appropriation; and again in 99, when he Petitioned on Clinton's bombing of Kosovo without Congressional approval and numerous other efforts in New York State before he even knew there were any constitutional questions surrounding the Internal Revenue Laws.

Where to go from here? What is up there now about Robert Schulz is far from a complete picture and is unquestionably harmful to his reputation and that of the Foundation. Look forward to working with you and others to expand the view.

Freedomstriumph (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Freedomstriumph: For now I'll just respond to one point.

The statement that Schulz was able to block the execution of the IRS summons is simply incorrect.

What the Court of Appeals stated was that a CRIMINAL PENALTY cannot be imposed on a person for failure to obey an IRS summons that has not been backed up by a court order. That is a separate issue from the issue of whether the court ruled that Schulz was required to obey the summons.

Schulz was trying to obtain a ruling from the court that he did not have to obey the summons. HE FAILED. THE COURT DID NOT RULE THAT SCHULZ DID NOT HAVE TO OBEY THE SUMMONS. You are misreading what the Court ruled.

I don't have time to go into this further now. But later, I'll give more detail on what actually happened in the cases of Schulz I and Schulz II. Famspear (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Famspear

Did the court tell Schulz the IRS was entitled to what they were asking for and was Schulz ordered to turn it over?

I can't find what you are referring to. What language from the decision lead you to say what you have said above? Can you give me the exact quote from the section which leads you to say this?

If the IRS succeeded with the decision, then why did they come in with such a strenuous Motion to Modify?

Look forward to your view of Schulz I and Schulz II

Freedomstriumph (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it may take a while to get back to this -- this weekend I'm working on tax deadlines for various clients for Monday, May 16 (Texas franchise tax). Famspear (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(UTC)

Famspear - Biography on Robert Schulz has SO MUCH MORE than "tax" interest and focus

Famspear, It is clear you established these pages on Robert Schulz and We The People Foundation with specific interest and focus on IRS-related matters and your keen interest in "tax protestors." As I'm sure you are aware, people who go to wikipedia to learn about this person are limited to what your tax group has seen fit to post. I see way more that this person has contributed in his work which can be sourced which is not related to the tax specific activities. I'm in a quandry as to how to post it amidst what is obviously part of your tax-protestor series! Many readers think you are setting him up by being selective in what you post and how you post it. Robert Schulz's activities have been SO MUCH MORE than you cover here. You will keep these pages up to date on certain matters -- which seem directed at hurting his reputation and sending a red-flag for readers -- but have left out material which should be here to present an accurate and un-biased view of all his work. Because these pages were established to isolate and focus on tax protestors in America, it seems to me his contributions cannot be shown here and the person and organizations are boxed in by the view you want readers to have. What do you suggest? (Sincerely asking.) Might I create a separate page on him and the Foundation apart from the tax series? Is this possible? Do I take this matter to Wikipedia for direction? You have been the mainstay overseeing these pages for years now which is interesting of itself! I don't have the background or abilities that you have with regard to law, posting or otherwise. I'm not interested in competing with you and shouldn't have to. I continue to feel strongly you are doing an injustice to this person and his organizations. I'd like to try to bring other aspects of his work and his life to the attention of wikipedia readers just as thousands of other postings on individuals and organizations do. Where do we go from here?

Freedomstriumph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomstriumph (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 May 2013

Dear Freedomstriumph: No, I did not establish this article. (That is, I did not create it.) I was the second editor to post in the article, so I have been around almost since its inception. I have made many contributions to the article.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "tax group." Wikipedia does have a group that contributes to tax articles -- there is a project within Wikipedia for that. However, there is no special group of editors just for the tax protester-related articles.

There is a large group of tax protester articles, but I did not create any of those articles. (Actually, I have never created a Wikipedia article myself, despite having been editing here since November 2005.) Indeed, the tax protester articles were created by other editors -- because of the voluminous postings by tax protesters from about the year 2005 to about 2007. During that period, Wikipedia was being abused as a "text dump" for tons of blatantly false tax protester nonsense. The articles were created in response to that by other editors -- not by me -- as a way of organizing the tremendous amount of material (all of it nonsense) that was being posted, and for converting the text dumps to a presentation that conforms to Wikipedia's rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, etc.

I do indeed watch all tax protester related articles, but so do other editors, I believe. So, yes, I am "overseeing" the articles, but only in that sense. I have no special authority or control over any Wikipedia article at all, so I'm not "overseeing" any articles in the sense of some sort of authority or control. Wikipedia editors don't have that sort of control.

I understand from your post that you believe this article does an "injustice" to the subject of this article. However, all the material in the article is properly sourced, as far as I know.

Further, the article is presented from a Neutral Point of View. That means that Wikipedia itself is not taking a position on whatever is being presented in the article. I would encourage you to make any contributions (whether tax-oriented or not) that are constructive and that follow Wikipedias rules and guidelines.

The We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc. already has its own article, by the way. Under Wikipedia rules, you probably cannot create new, separate articles on the same subjects -- IF the purpose is merely to provide an "alternative" that puts the subjects in a better light, or even to provide balance. That kind of effort might be considered an impermissible "POV fork." What you can do is to provide more balance in the existing articles (assuming that they need more balance), if that is the purpose and effect of your contributions. Famspear (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, your claim that "these pages were established to isolate and focus on tax protestors in America" is incorrect. Here is the original text of this particular article, as created by editor Tripodics on September 13, 2007:

Robert L. Schulz, a political activist living in Queensbury, New York, is the founder of the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a non-profit education and research organization with the declared mission "to protect and defend individual Rights as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States."

An engineer by training, Schulz has filed well over one hundred court actions on a pro se basis, against government actions he believes are unconstitutional deprivations of individual liberty.

In 1998, Schulz was on the New York State ballot as the Libertarian candidate for Governor.

There is no mention of a "tax protester" matter in this material. Indeed, the word "tax" isn't even found there. If anything, the efforts of myself and other editors have made the article more balanced than it was at its creation. As you can see, the article as originally created by "Tripodics" put the subject of the article in a positive light, without mentioning the tax problems at all. Famspear (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)