1040 Checkmate? DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution -- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

:fascinating:

Too bad there is an OMB number.

[link to www.irs.gov (secure)]

Excellent find.

But... has the IRS managed to get a legitimate OMB number yet?

Or are they still using the fraudulently obtained one?

This could be Very Important to all Americans!

An oldie but goody.
Thread: 1040 Checkmate? DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution -- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised
This goes back to 2006, but I've seen nothing that would invalidate this to this day. I do not believe a valid 1040 OMB Control Number can ever be issued for this form in accordance with the PRA (Paperwork Reduction Act) as the IRS would have to state their statutory authority to demand this information... and there is none.

Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud

DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain


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 trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence’s criminal trial).

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number.

Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.

Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect.

Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DOJ and IRS decided not to let the Lawrence case proceed because it would reveal one critical and damning fact:

The PRA law protects those that fail to file IRS bootleg Form 1040

The DOJ knew that it stood a significant chance of losing the case, and if that happened, the press and others would quickly spread the word, and leave only fools to ever file a 1040 again. Oscar Stilley’s pleadings and documents made these points quite clear:

IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.

Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.

The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.

We The People Foundation has researched the facts, law and circumstances surrounding this case, and has determined that:

A public trial would have opened a “Pandora’s Box” of legal evidence and government testimony under oath that would establish the IRS 1040 form as both fraudulent and counterfeit.

Oscar Stilley’s PRA defense “checkmated” the DOJ and IRS

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit requirements of those statutes

Accordingly, We The People Foundation has petitioned the U.S. Attorney General, the IRS Commissioner, and Director of the OMB, requesting an official explanation of their conduct in Peoria.

See the petition below. It includes links to all relevant statutes, regulations, court decisions, Federal Register publications, law review articles, Lawrence case pleadings, and the discovery documents sent by defense counsel Stilley to the DOJ.

[ start letter ]


We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.

2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724

June 9, 2006

VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL

Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the U.S.
Dept. of Justice Rm. 4400
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Mr. Mark Everson, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224


Re: Petition for Redress of Grievance – No requirement to file fraudulent 1040 Form.

Gentlemen:

Please take notice of this Petition requesting a public explanation of your recent conduct in Peoria, Illinois, regarding the case of U.S. v Robert Lawrence.

What you did seems remarkable by virtue of its inconsistency.

On March 17, 2006 you had the Grand Jury indict Robert Lawrence on three counts of tax evasion and three counts of willful failure to file a personal income tax return.


However, on May 12, 2006, the Friday before the Monday start of the trial, you suddenly asked federal Judge Michael Mihm to dismiss all six counts with prejudice.

Indicting and then permanently dismissing without any court action occurs so rarely as to require the Department of Justice to post a public explanation in order to satisfy the public’s curiosity about this strange working of justice. This Foundation decided to investigate the facts and circumstances of the Lawrence case because we found no such public notice in Peoria, on the DOJ website, or in any other public forum. We wanted to determine the probable cause of DOJ’s remarkable act.

Our research has led us to conclude that:

The DOJ filed the criminal complaint against Lawrence because it intended to abuse Lawrence’s rights under the constitution and law pursuant thereto.


The appearance of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) in Lawrence’s pleading sent a shock through the DOJ because Congress intended it to protect the public from IRS abuse, and the DOJ had no defense against it.


Even though the DOJ knew about the PRA in advance, its revelation virtually forced you and the DOJ attorney to dismiss rather than to lose the case and risk public awareness of the power of the PRA in protecting the public.


The DOJ therefore has little interest in justice in cases it prosecutes for the IRS, but wants only to obtain wrongful convictions of innocent people whom the IRS intends to abuse by misapplication of law.

Those are our conclusions. We want you to answer to the accuracy of those conclusions. Additionally, consider these questions about the power of the PRA.

1. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask Judge Mihm to dismiss the Grand Jury’s Lawrence indictment with prejudice?

2. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask the Court to dismiss all counts in the indictment?

3. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss a case it had worked for years putting together against Lawrence?

4. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case against Lawrence on the last business day before the trial was to begin?

5. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case with the requirement that it would never again attempt to prosecute Lawrence for those alleged crimes?

The Internet and wires were alive with such questions and rumors following DOJ’s sudden and remarkable dismissal motion that was filed at 2 p.m. on May 12, 2006.

To determine cause and effect, and put the rumors to rest, we started our investigation by obtaining
the Docket Sheet for U.S. v Lawrence, Case No. 06-cr-10019, U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois (Peoria).

50% Rule. Read the rest: [link to www.givemeliberty.org]

How do ya find out if the Current OMB on 1040s are for real or not?

How do ya find out if the Current OMB on 1040s are for real or not?

Oscar is a nutjob who is in prison where he belongs.

[link to www.fraudsandscams.com]