You wrote: "We are responding to your letter of January 30, 2002, transmitting questions submitted to you by Robert Schultz [sic] on behalf of the We The People Foundation (WTP)."

The date of your letter is April 18, 2002. For the record, our Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the federal income tax included 538 questions that were delivered, on March 16, 2002, to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey, and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. A copy of the questions and transmittal letter are attached hereto as Exhibit G.

You also wrote: "When the Senate Finance Committee held its hearing on tax schemes, scams, and cons, the Committee appropriately declined to offer WTP a forum to advocate defiance of the tax laws."

The date of the Senate Finance Committee hearing, "Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and Fraud" was Thursday, April 5, 2001.

You had no legal or moral right to entice anyone reading your April 18, 2002 letter into believing that had I been allowed to testify at the hearing I would have advocated defiance or violations of the tax laws. Neither did you have any right to entice anyone into believing that that was the reason the Senate Finance Committee decided not to add WTP to its witness list for the hearing. You know your statement is patently false. Yet, you said it anyway, and you have done so with intentions to harm this Foundation and me.

You know that the Committee developed and then closed the witness list before I submitted my request to be a witness and before the date on which the Committee announced the hearing. You know that the reason the Committee did not add me to the witness list had nothing to do with my testimony.

Exhibit H is a copy of my April 2, 2001 request to be added to the witness list.

You know, or should have known, that I did submit a statement to the Committee and that the Committee has added my statement to the official record of the hearing under "Communications." You know that before the Senate hearing began the Committee was in receipt of the statement that I would have read at the hearing had I been allowed to do so. You know from that statement that I would NOT have advocated violations of existing tax laws. You know from that statement that I merely intended to ask questions and request explanations and (once again) would have respectfully requested that experts from the government meet with the experts from the Tax Honesty Movement in an effort to get to the truth. You know that my statement included these words: " We again respectfully request the Senate to please identify its most knowledgeable people and have them meet with the tax researchers in a public forum to discuss and debate the issues with the researchers, show where they are in error, embarrass them, and put the whole matter to rest." A copy of my written statement to the Committee is attached as Exhibit I.

My statement to the Senate Finance Committee had twenty (20) exhibits attached to it, including a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated June 26, 1989 and a copy of my letter to Commissioner Rossotti, dated February 14, 2001. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a copy of Sen. Inouye’s letter which reads in part:

You know, or should have known, that between May of 1999 (when this Foundation first became aware of the fact that there were serious questions relating to the origin and operation of the federal income tax system), and the April 5, 2001 date of the Senate hearing, our efforts were, and remain, well within our right to speak freely and our right to petition for redress of grievances and that our efforts were only directed at trying to get the government to answer constitutional questions, in a public forum, about the veracity of the federal income tax system--questions that were being raised by an increasing number of credentialed professionals.

You know, or should have known, that at that time we were not urging people not to file and not to pay income taxes. You know, or should have known, that we were reporting facts and urging people to educate themselves on the issues. The record is clear -- our intentions were honorable and we acted intelligently, rationally and professionally, and well within the scope of the guarantees of the 1^st Amendment, while the government rudely and arrogantly failed in every respect to honor its obligation to respond to our Petition for Redress.

You know, or should have known, that the day before the April 5, 2001 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the St. Petersburg Times published an article by one of its reporters who had telephoned the Chairman of the Committee, Charles Grassley, to ask why the Committee was planning to have large blowups of WTP’s USA TODAY ads on display at the hearing but was not going to allow WTP to testify at the hearing. You know, or should have known, that Senator Grassley was quoted as saying, " Because their message will detract from the message we are trying to convey."

A copy of the transcript of the Senate Finance Committee Hearing is attached as Exhibit L.

Senator Grassley has a vested interest in the status quo regarding the federal income tax – i.e., as a farmer receiving federal farm subsidies he derives a personal, material financial interest from the proceeds of the federal income tax and, therefore, would want the IRS and DOJ to continue forcing people to pay the tax, with a very heavy hand, as though payment was compulsory.

According to the Grace Commission Report the proceeds from the individual income tax are used to pay the interest on the national debt and transfer payments, including farm subsidies. In fact, the federal government transfers substantial amounts of money every year to Sen. Grassley and to other members of his family – money taken (by the income tax), from people who earn it, and transferred to Sen. Grassley, and others in his family, who do nothing to earn it. The money is transferred to them for NOT growing pigs or corn! You know, or should have known, about this conflict of interest on the part of the Committee Chairman, yet, the Department of Justice turns a blind eye to it and, instead, supports the conflicted Chairman’s call for DOJ and the IRS to intensify the police force being applied on Americans to get them to file federal income tax returns and to pay the tax.

You also wrote: "WTP is not an advocate of tax reform. Instead, it advocates violations of the existing tax laws, raises frivolous arguments to excuse illegal conduct, and has exhibited disrespect for the Judiciary, the Congress, the Executive, and the Constitution."

You had no legal or moral right to seduce anyone reading your April 18, 2002 letter into believing that we have exhibited disrespect for the Constitution. There is no merit in fact to your allegation, and you know it.

Upon what have you relied in support of your statement that WTP has shown disrespect for the government? You may be piqued because of our unprecedented, candid, direct and frank approach to petitioning our servant government (including our full-page messages in the USA TODAY, the NY Times and the Washington Times, our numerous interviews on talk-radio, our live web casts and the live broadcast on C-SPAN), but our approach, while forthright, has neither been out of the bounds of appropriate behavior for sovereign citizens towards their servant government, nor has it been unwarranted, especially when one considers the record of the government’s arrogance of power and silence.

Any reasonable person would agree that between May of 1999 (when this Foundation first became aware of the fact that there were serious questions relating to the origin and operation of the federal income tax system), and the April 18, 2002 date of your letter, our deeds were appropriate for a free people who have a substantial and credible body of evidence that their servant government was abusing its taxing power with a very heavy hand, and their servant government would not speak to them about it and would not justify its behavior. For instance:

• On May 5, 1999, we initiated a Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the income tax, but our government totally and unreasonably ignored us;
   
• We respectfully invited the government to send its experts to our (July 1999, November 13, 1999, April 13, 2000 and June 29, 2000) academic symposiums and conferences in DC, to meet and discuss the issues with our experts, but our government totally and unreasonably ignored us;
   
• We respectfully presented written evidence to the House Ways and Means Committee in support of our allegations that the income tax is fraudulent in its origin and illegal in its operation, but our government totally and unreasonably ignored us;
   
• On April 13, 2000, we had meetings in the White House and the Capitol where we hand-delivered a comprehensive Remonstrance to high-level, personal representatives of the President, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, obtaining commitments from each that they would send representatives to our June 29, 2000 conference, to meet with and answer the questions of the experts from the tax honesty movement, but they each reneged on their commitments, saying only that, " The legality of the income tax is not a high priority matter";
   
• On February 14, 2001 we respectfully invited Commissioner Rossotti to send his experts to participate in a meeting with WTP at the Crystal City Hilton Hotel to either convey IRS’s position on the issues or to tell us when his experts would be available to address the issues. No one from the IRS responded to our invitation;
   
• We published four, full-page messages in USA TODAY, at a cost of $66,000 each (July 7, 2000, February 16, 2001, March 2, 2001 and March 23, 2001), messages that presented only facts, no opinions, and most certainly did not tell people not to file tax returns or not to pay the tax, but the IRS coerced USA TODAY to stop publishing our full-page educational messages, in violation of our Right of free speech;
   
• On April 5, 2001, our experts appeared at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, but we were not allowed to testify at the hearing;
   
• On April 9, 2001, we peaceably assembled in large numbers outside the front entrance to the IRS headquarters building waiting for the Commissioner to tell us when his experts would be available to meet with our experts, but the Commissioner refused to tell us when his experts would be available to meet with ours to answer our questions;
   
• On July 1, 2001, I went on a hunger fast, promising not to eat until the government agreed to send its experts to meet with the experts of the Tax Honesty movement in a recorded, two-day, Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation hearing on Capitol Hill, but the White House, IRS and DOJ reneged on their oral promises and written agreement to meet with our experts, which promises and agreement had convinced me, on the 20^th day, to end the hunger fast;
   
• On February 27 and 28, 2002, we rented the Washington Marriott for two days and proceeded with our Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing, but the government refused to attend even after we published in the NY Times, on February 10, 2002, a full-page open invitation and challenge to DOJ and IRS;
   
• On April 4, 2002, we issued a statement, via USNEWSWIRE, to the White House, to every member of the President’s cabinet, to the Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee regarding evidence of fraud at the IRS. The statement mentioned that we would be holding a briefing on the subject at the National Press Club on April 8, 2002, at which a forensic accountant would be presenting the evidence. The statement mentioned that the briefing would be broadcast live, via the Internet. There was no response from any one in the government.
   
• On April 8, 2002, we hand delivered a copy of a certified transcript of the record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing, to every member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Chairman of the House IRS Oversight Committee, President Bush and Lawrence Lindsey. There was no response;
   
• On April 10, 2002, we hand delivered a copy of the full record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing on a set of four CD-ROMs to every member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Chairman of the House IRS Oversight Committee, President Bush and Lawrence Lindsey. There was no response;
   
• On April 15, 2002, three days before the date of your April 18 letter, we hand-delivered full copies of the record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing to all 535 members of Congress, along with a request for a full congressional hearing and a reply from each member by June 1, 2002. We received only 53 responses. None mentioned the record of the Truth-In-Taxation Hearing or the request for a Congressional investigation. None were meaningful. Each was a non-responsive response.

Our Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the federal income tax system was initiated on May 5, 1999, by a very respectfully drawn letter that we delivered to President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Lott, Speaker Hastert and IRS Commissioner Rossotti. Enclosed with each letter were copies of three research reports, including the report by Joseph Banister, who had recently resigned as a Special Agent in the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS. We wrote that we were sponsoring an academic symposium on July 1^st and 2^nd, that the authors of the research reports would be there to present the methodology and conclusions of their research and that "We respectfully request that you, as the elected heads of the Executive and Legislative branches, identify the people with the best legal minds to argue against these conclusions and have those people participate in the symposium." A copy of the May 5, 1999 letter is attached as Exhibit M.

You know, or should have known, that not one of the recipients of that letter bothered to respond – they did not even acknowledge receipt of the invitation.

Our Petition process continued with our June 4, 1999 letter to Messrs. Clinton, Lott, Hastert and Rossotti with its reminder: "We continue to await word from you as to the identity of the knowledgeable people that will represent the federal government at the symposium and who will argue against the conclusions of Messrs. Banister, Benson and Conklin." A copy of the June 4, 1999 letter is attached as Exhibit N.

You know, or should have known, that notwithstanding the fact that Messrs. Clinton, Lott, Hastert and Rossotti decided not to identify anyone to participate in the discussions to contradict the authors if their presentations were incorrect, and that we did not receive from them any acknowledgement that they had received the invitations, the symposium was held as planned with C-SPAN providing a live 3 1/2 hour broadcast of the presentations by Messrs. Banister, Benson, Conklin and by Lowell Becraft, the constitutional attorney. A copy of the C-SPAN tape is attached as Exhibit O.   (ed. note: Links to video tapes, etc.are not active.)

You know, or should have known, that as a result of the government’s failure to appear the question arose from the audience, live on C-SPAN, "What does a free people do when they have evidence that the government is abusing its power and will not justify its behavior?" You know that my answer to the question, given on national television, was that the People would meet again, in November 1999, at the National Press Club, for the purpose of deciding on the next steps that could be taken by the People to deal with the seemingly unconstitutional income and social security taxes and the seemingly unlawful operation of the IRS and that we would try again, at that time and place, to get the government to answer the questions that had been raised by the various tax law researchers.

You know, or should have known, that the process of our Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the federal income tax continued with our October 13, 1999 letter to Messrs. Clinton, Hastert, Lott and Rossotti wherein we said that in light of the preponderance of the evidence and the absence of any arguments by the government, a "Citizen’s Summit" had been scheduled for November 13, 1999 for the purpose of preparing a "Remonstrance," and that "We would welcome any written statement from any official from the political branches of the government." A copy of the October 13, 1999 letter is attached as Exhibit P

You know, or should have known, that not one of the recipients of the October 13th letter bothered to respond – they did not even acknowledge receipt of the letter.

You know, or should have known, that the "Citizens’ Summit" was held on November 13, 1999, where scores of people from sixteen states assembled to put the finishing touches to the "Remonstrance" – a strongly worded statement of grievances -- and to decide how and when to deliver it to the leaders of all three branches of the federal government. A videotape of the Nov 13, 1999 meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit Q.

The process of our Petition for Redress continued with our February 1, 2000 letter to Messrs. Clinton, Lott, Hastert and Rossotti wherein we put them on notice that, "The failure of a representative government to justify its actions left the People with no alternative but to go forward with their critical analysis and further dissemination of information to the general public …At the conclusion of the November 13, 1999 Citizens’ Summit To End The Illegal Operations of The IRS, those in attendance signed five copies of the Remonstrance and agreed…arrangements should be made for the personal delivery of the Remonstrance [to President Clinton … Senator Lott … Speaker Hastert and … to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court] …a delegation from the people of America [consisting of two or more ordinary, non-aligned citizens from each of the fifty states] will be at the White House, the Capitol and the U.S. Supreme Court building on April 13, 2000…." A copy of the February 1, 2000 letter is attached as Exhibit R.

The process of our Petition for Redress continued. On April 13, 2000, while a delegation of people representing all 50 states waited outside, Mr. Banister and I, and a videographer, met in the White House with Jason Furman, the Executive Director of the National Economic Council. He accepted the Remonstrance, for President Clinton, and he promised to have the staff of the NEC and White House lawyers and historians review the evidence. He expressed his agreement to have the government's experts participate with Mr. Banister and other tax law researchers in a June 29, 2000 conference the Foundation was arranging for that purpose.

Mr. Banister and Mr. Schulz then proceeded to a meeting in the Capitol with Dr. William Koetzle, representing Speaker Hastert's policy office, and then to a meeting with Keith Hennessey, Senator Lott's policy director. They accepted the Remonstrance for Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Lott, promised to have the experts at the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee review the evidence, and expressed their agreement to have those experts participate in the upcoming June 29th conference.

Attached as Exhibit S is a copy of a videotape of the April 13, 2000 meetings in the White House and in the Capitol. A copy of the Remonstance, together with its transmittal letter is attached hereto as Exhibit T.

On June 2, 2000, over the telephone, Mr. Furman told me, "The legality of the income tax is not a high priority item at the White House and we will not be participating in any conference on the subject." I asked, "You mean to tell me that if the income tax is illegal, that is okay?" His only response was that the Executive branch would not be participating in any conference on the subject. A similar response was received from Dr. Koetzle and Mr. Hennessey.

On June 19, 2000, WTP published an "Open invitation to President Clinton, Senator Lott and Speaker Hastert" to send their representatives to the June 29, 2000 conference at the National Press Club "to argue against the conclusions of Bill Benson, Joseph Banister, Larry Becraft and Bill Conklin, and in opposition to [WTP’s] three propositions." See Exhibit U for a copy of the message as published in the Washington Times.

You know, or should have known, there was no response from the White House or the Capitol. The government did not send anyone to address the evidence and answer our questions at the June 29, 2000 conference. Exhibit V is a VHS tape recording of the June 29, 2000 conference at the National Press Club.

In light of the government’s continued silence and evasion of our Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding the allegedly fraudulent origin and allegedly illegal operation of the federal income tax system, WTP decided that if the government wasn’t going to answer the questions and respond to the Petition for Redress, WTP would start educating the general public about what credentialed professionals, tax law researchers and businessmen were saying and doing regarding the fraudulent origin and illegal operation of the income tax – i.e., about the substantial and apparently credible body of evidence.

On July 7, 2000, February 16, 2001, March 2, 2001 and March 23, 2001, WTP published full-page messages in USA TODAY and the Washington Times. These messages were educational in nature. They contained information that we believed to be factual and issues which the government refused to address, no matter how respectful and how often we tried to get them to respond. Our messages, as published in USA TODAY presented facts, not opinions. See Exhibits:   W,  X,    Y and   Z

On February 14, 2001 we respectfully invited Commissioner Rossotti to send his experts to participate in a meeting with WTP at the Crystal City Hilton Hotel on February 17th to either convey IRS’s position on the issues or to tell us when his experts would be available to address the issues. No one from the IRS responded to our invitation. However, David Cay Johnson from the NY Times did attend. Exhibit K is a copy of my February 14, 2001 letter to Commissioner Rossotti. Exhibit K-2 is a video tape of the Project TOTO meeting.

On April 5, 2001, ten days before the deadline for filing tax returns, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing, "Taxpayers Beware: Schemes, Scams and Cons." The Senators heard from eight witnesses. The only person to speak about WTP at the hearing was J.J. MacNab, one of the witnesses on the first panel. She reminded the Senators that the WTP organization has, on numerous occasions, asked the government to answer its questions. She then suggested to the Chair that the government answer WTP’s questions. The Committee did not respond. It totally ignored Ms. MacNab’s suggestion. However, a moment later both Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus (the only two Senators present) said there are "a lot" of people in their states who have "been bothering them" about the constitutionality of the income tax. Exhibit L is a copy of the transcript of the hearing. See especially pages 25 and 26.

On April 9, 2001, hundreds of people traveled to Washington DC at their own expense to gather at the front door of the IRS headquarters building to hear Commissioner Rossotti either address the issues or tell us when the experts at the IRS will be available to meet with our experts to address the evidence and answer the questions regarding the legality of the income tax system. On March 19, 2001, we delivered a letter to Commissioner Rossotti, letting him know that we would be there on April 9. The Commissioner refused to address the group. He was inside the building, but refused to come out. Exhibit AA is a copy of the March 19^th , 2001 letter. Exhibit BB is a videotape record of the April 9 event.

On April 11, 2001, I received a telephone call from Katie Emery at USA TODAY, advising me that USA TODAY would not be publishing any more of our ads because her legal department had been contacted by the IRS who said our ads were urging people to "break the law." I pressed USA TODAY to put in writing the reason they were refusing to publish our ads. Finally, by e-mail, I received a note saying our ads, "could be misleading."

On June 11, 2001, I personally delivered a letter to President Bush (Exhibit CC) at the White House. Copies of the letter were also hand-delivered to Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Daschel at the Capitol. The letter recited the numerous requests made by We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education to the Executive and Legislative Branches since May 1999 to answer the People’s Petition For Redress of Grievances. The letter also provided a factual account of the government’s resulting behavior, which ultimately resulted in my decision to embark on a hunger fast until either I died or until the federal government agreed to meet in a public forum to answer the people’s questions regarding the fraudulent and illegal income tax system.

On July 1, 2001, I delivered a follow-up letter to President Bush (Exhibit DD), with copies to Speaker Hastert and Senator Daschel.

On July 9, 2001, I hand delivered an updated version of the peoples' Petition For Redress of Grievances (Exhibit EE) to one of President Bush’s aides at the White House. I also met with Congressman Roscoe Bartlett who made the decision to help the American People in their quest for a response to this historic Petition.

On July 17, 2001, Congressman Bartlett held a press conference on the House Triangle to announce the fact that he had placed top priority on getting the appropriate people in the government to agree to respond to the Petition. A statement by Congressman Ron Paul was also read aloud at the press conference. Exhibit FF is a copy of Rep. Paul’s remarks.

On July 18, 2001, Lawrence B. Lindsey, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and head of the National Economic Council, sent a letter to me which read, "The President has asked me to thank you for your letters of June 11 and July 1 regarding the income tax system. I understand your concerns and the arguments you make. Your letter of June 11 outlines extensively the concerns of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. with regard to the efficacy of the current income tax system. While I believe the best way to address your concerns is through the court system, I have taken the liberty of sharing your letters with the Internal Revenue Service for their review. A more substantive response will be forthcoming from this office once the IRS has had the opportunity to assess your grievances. I would be remiss if I did not suggest that you end your fast. Whether or not federal tax experts attend a meeting your organization has scheduled for September 18 will be determined based upon their substantive assessment of your arguments. While your personal commitment to the cause of tax reform is dramatic, I hope that you will not endanger yourself physically in this cause. Please be assured that your letters will receive careful attention at the IRS." See Exhibit B

Between July 9^th and July 18^th, 2001, lower level personnel at DOJ and IRS were steadfast in their refusal to have their experts meet with representatives of the American People in a recorded public forum. For instance, Floyd Williams, the IRS Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, stated the IRS would only agree to a private, unrecorded meeting between me and the IRS Chief Counsel. Karen Wilson (Mr. Williams’ counterpart at DOJ) suggested we submit our questions to DOJ and IRS in writing and wait for a response. She said she was otherwise in support of IRS’ proposal for a private, unrecorded meeting. Congressman Bartlett replied that the proposal for a private, unrecorded meeting was totally unacceptable and that the questions had to be answered in a public forum. He emphasized the importance of allowing the public to see and hear the people asking the questions and those answering them. Rep. Bartlett strongly and effectively argued that to submit the questions in writing would allow for delay, obfuscation and confusion, and would bring to ruin what he considered to be a proper, constitutional Petition For Redress of Grievances.

From July 18^th through July 20^th Rep. Bartlett negotiated on the People’s behalf, by telephone, with IRS Commissioner Rossotti and with you. Rossotti and you expressed concerns about the security of a public meeting and wanted to know who would be "on the gavel" to control the meeting and keep it professional and orderly. After speaking with me about your concerns, Rep. Bartlett contacted you and Commissioner Charles Rossotti and offered to hold the meeting on Capitol Hill and to personally gavel the meeting if Henry Hyde was not available.

On or about July 19^th, in a telephone conversation between Rep. Bartlett and Commissioner Rossotti, Rossotti agreed to have his experts participate in a recorded, public, congressional-style hearing on Capitol Hill, with appropriate controls. Bartlett telephoned me and asked to see me in his office. When I arrived, he told me of Commissioner Rossotti’s agreement.

On July 20^th, you also agreed, but you apparently did not want the record to show that the government was responding to a Petition for Redress from the People. Instead, you told Congressman Bartlett that you needed a formal request from him; you asked Bartlett to put a request for the meeting in writing. Bartlett telephoned me and asked to see me in his office. When I arrived, Bartlett prepared a hand-written letter to you at DOJ. Bartlett then telephoned you to tell you he had the formal request in hand and asked how soon you could meet with us. You said you would see us right away in your office at the Department of Justice building. We met with you that afternoon. We fully discussed our written Petition For Redress of Grievances (you had previously received a copy of the Petition that had been hand-delivered to your office) We also reviewed the terms and conditions of Bartlett’s offer to preside over the proposed congressional-style hearing on Capitol Hill. You penned a note at the bottom of Bartlett’s written request, agreeing to "do everything within my power to ensure that the Dept. of Justice will provide appropriate representatives to participate in a congressional briefing hosted by Congressman Bartlett in connection with the above referenced matter." Exhibit C is a copy.

Roland Croteau and Burr Deitz (a Director of the WTP Foundation) were also in attendance.

Later that day, Friday, July 20, 2001, my office issued a press release (Exhibit GG) and posted it on our web site, announcing the details of the agreement. Apparently, the news quickly found its way around the internet.

Between Friday, July 20^th and Monday, July 23^rd, as I would later learn from Rep. Bartlett, you apparently received a phone call or two from "higher ups," protesting your July 20^th commitment to have DOJ answer our questions in a public forum.

On July 23, 2001, I received an e-mail from Bartlett’s aide, Lisa Wright, (Exhibit HH) which read: {"Congressman Bartlett asked me to contact you to inform you must take URGENT action in order to preserve the agreement as a result of your 7/20 meeting with Dan Bryant at USDOJ. 1) Immediately pull down from the website the previous presentation of the meeting that begins with the subject – "The fast is over". 2) Replace it with a corrected version ASAP and distribute this to your list. Reference to Bryant must be limited explicitly to quoting only his handwritten comments. "I will do everything within my power. . .". Reference to Hyde -- that he will be invited -- NOT EXPECTED. Reference to a date -- to be determined, hopefully in mid to late September. 3) You must call Dan Bryant ASAP and apologize for the inaccuracies in the e-mail. This is his personal number -- 202-514-2141."}

NOTE: On or about July 25^th, I placed a call to you but you did not return the call.

On July 30^th, I issued a revised press release and posted it on our web site.

On July 30^th Lisa Wright sent an e-mail to you and IRS’ Floyd Williams . It read: "Mr. Bryant and Mr. Williams: Attached is a 7/30/01 news release from We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education which follows up a meeting Congressman Bartlett had on July 20 at DOJ w/ Asst. Atty. Gen. Dan Bryant and Bob Schulz concerning Mr. Schulz's Petition for Redress concerning the tax code and IRS enforcement of the tax code. Congressman Bartlett personally affirmed that this release is an accurate reflection of the July 20 meeting. Congressman Bartlett discussed the request for a public forum at which appropriate IRS representatives would participate in an earlier meeting with Floyd Williams of IRS and Karen Wilson of  DOJ and subsequently in a phone conversation with IRS Commissioner Rossotti. Congressman Bartlett hopes that DOJ and IRS officials will contact Mr. Schulz directly concerning coordinating and ironing out the details for the public forum on Capitol Hill. Please feel free to contact Congressman Bartlett if you have any questions and so that we may procure the necessary space for the meeting. " See Exhibit II  for a copy of Lisa Wright’s e-mail and WTP’s revised press release, Exhibit II-2.

Also, on July 30^th Lisa Wright forwarded to me a message from IRS’ Floyd Williams. (Exhibit JJ). It read: "Treasury/IRS has not agreed (either verbally or in writing) to participate in a public forum with Bob Schulz."

On August 13, 2001, Tax Notes published an article under the heading, "Backroom Deals, Fleeting Promises Put Income Tax Hearing in Jeopardy," by Warren Rojas (Exhibit KK). In the article, IRS spokesman Frank Keith is quoted as saying, "As of right now, no final agreements have been made."

On August 29, 2001, Rep. Bartlett’s office issued the following statement (Exhibit LL): "Congressman Bartlett is continuing to actively pursue and secure participation by representatives of both the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service at the September 25-26 forum organized by We the People," said Lisa Wright, a spokesman for Congressman Roscoe Bartlett.  "He expects Dan Bryant, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice, and IRS Chairman Charles Rossotti to fulfill their personal commitments to him."

In early September, I met with Congressman Bartlett and three of his aids in his office, including Sallie Taylor and Lisa Wright. Bartlett said DOJ and IRS were trying to "wiggle off the hook" and that Sallie and Lisa had an "alternative proposal." Sallie and Lisa proceeded to describe their alternative proposal, which, instead of having the agreed-upon public forum, would have me submit the People’s questions to Bartlett. He would post them on his web site and send them to DOJ and IRS for an answer. The answers would also be posted on Bartlett’s web site. I told Sallie and Lisa that that proposal was unacceptable to me and that Bartlett had already argued with DOJ and IRS (successfully) the futility of such an approach. Upon hearing my response Bartlett turned to an aide and asked him to call Dick Armey, the House Majority Leader, to request an immediate meeting with him. We were told to proceed to Mr. Armey’s office. Bartlett, I, Sallie Taylor, and another of Bartlett’s aides (I don’t remember his name) met with Dick Armey and one of his aides, who took extensive notes during the meeting. Bartlett told Mr. Armey that DOJ and IRS were trying to wiggle off the hook and break their commitment to answer the People’s questions in a public forum. Mr. Armey said it was important to have the hearing proceed as planned and that DOJ and IRS had to be "locked down." Armey said the way to do that would be to show DOJ and IRS that they were running the risk of offending many more Congressman if they broke their commitment. Armey then suggested that Bartlett prepare a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft and to Treasury Secretary O’Neil, which would thank them for the commitment to have the appropriate personnel from their departments participate in the income tax hearing and which letter would be signed by numerous members of the House of Representatives. Mr. Armey and Bartlett discussed a list of House members that they believed would sign the letter.

On September 12, 2001, I communicated my request to Bartlett that the tax hearing be postponed due to the events of September 11^th. I posted that message on our web site (Exhibit MM).

On October 12, 2001, Rep. Bartlett delivered a letter to me (Exhibit NN) in which he announced that the event had been rescheduled for February 27 and 28, 2002, and said, "A letter of support and confirmation signed by myself and other members of Congress has been drafted, circulated, and will be sent to officials at the Department of Justice, Treasury and the IRS, informing them of the dates and times and requiring their attendance. I will personally chair the event and have invited other members of Congress to attend and sit on the panel…You have my word as an elected member of the United States Congress that I will do all within my power that this event go forward, the IRS and DOJ attend as they have promised to do, and are compelled to do by the Constitution."(My emphasis).

On January 7, 2002, Tax Notes published an article under the heading, "Schulz Hopes to Bury Tax Code at February Hearing," by Warren Rojas (Exhibit OO). In the article, Mr. Rojas wrote, "While the IRS has yet to officially confirm or deny its participation in the hearing, a Bartlett press aide acknowledged receiving a letter from Justice around Thanksgiving stating plainly that the DOJ would not attend any Schulz-related events." (My emphasis). Note: I was never told about the "Thanksgiving letter." This was the first time any of the three government officials who were parties to the July 20^th contract with the American People to respond to the Petition for Redress had put in writing that they were reneging on their agreement.

On or about January 8, 2002, I telephoned Lisa Wright to tell her that I had read the Tax Notes article and was very concerned about the Thanksgiving letter from DOJ which informed Bartlett that DOJ would not attend the income tax hearing. I called to inform Ms. Wright that it was my intention to bring the February hearing to the attention of tens of millions of Americans, and ask them to wait to file their tax returns until they heard all of the questions and answers at the February hearing. I felt it was now time, as Mr. Armey had previously suggested, to do all I could to "lock the DOJ and IRS down" and demand that they keep their commitment to respond to our questions related to the fraudulent origin of the IRS and the unlawful operation of the personal income tax system. I informed Ms. Wright that many thousands of Americans were already aware of the February hearing and were waiting for the answers to the questions in order to decide how to file their tax returns. I explained that if DOJ and IRS were going to renege on their commitments, they were going to have to answer to a very large number of Americans. My call was passed through to Lisa’s voice message system where I left a message. I asked her to call me.

On January 11, 2002, Lisa returned my call. We discussed "Operation Wait to File Until the Trial." After we completed the call Lisa called back to say that if Bartlett’s name was mentioned in the "Wait to File" flyer/ad, she would like to approve the wording. I told her Bartlett’s name, together with yours and IRS Commissioner Rossotti were mentioned in the first paragraph, which I then read to her. She said my use of the phrase "public hearing" was wrong, that the word "hearing" had a technical meaning on the Hill and that I should use the phrase "public forum." She also said that Bartlett did not have the power to force DOJ and IRS to attend the meeting. I replied that I was aware of the fact that Bartlett had no more power than he had on July 20, 2001, and that he had merely requested of Charles Rossotti and you to have the appropriate personnel from your departments participate in the "public, recorded congressional-style briefing- hearing" on Capitol Hill to answer questions "concerning the legal jurisdiction and authority of the IRS". At that July 20, 2001 meeting you agreed to Congressman Bartlett’s request and formally entered into a contract with the American people to have your representatives respond to our Petition For Redress of Grievances.

On January 12, 2002, in response to Lisa’s one concern, I changed the phrase "public hearing" in the first paragraph of the Wait to File flyer/ad to "congressional-style hearing". We then launched "Operation Wait to File Until the Trial" by posting an article on our web site and by sending that article to our mailing list. The article included the flyer to be published in newspapers and a letter to be direct mailed to about 300,000 individuals. Exhibit PP is a copy of our final "Wait to File Until the Trial" flyer.

On Monday, January 14, 2002 I was in Milwaukee working with one of our attorneys on the questions for the hearing. I received word that Lisa had called my office and asked me to return the call. I tried several times on Monday and Tuesday to reach her by phone. I left voice messages on her machine, informing her that I would be back in my office that afternoon at approximately 3 p.m. While enroute from Milwaukee to Albany on Tuesday, January 15^th I tried unsuccessfully to reach Rep. Bartlett by phone. I was able to speak to Sallie Taylor. I told her to let Lisa and Bartlett know that I would be back in my office at 3 p.m. should either of them need to speak to me. I did not hear from anyone in Bartlett’s office for more than two days, i.e., until Thursday evening, January 17th.

On Monday, January 14, 2002, Kim Herb, Legislative Assistant to Congressman John Linder sent an e-mail to "District Directors" which read:

"Recently, it has been stated that there will be a Congressional hearing on the IRS.  I wanted to dispel this rumor. There will be NO hearing.  I repeat, there will be no Congressional hearing on the IRS in February.  In response to a hunger strike by Mr. Robert Schulz, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett agreed to facilitate a meeting on IRS and tax topics.  Accordingly, Mr. Bartlett arranged for 'We the People' to have a public forum on the IRS, at which time 'We the People' will debate such questions as the legality of the Sixteenth Amendment and the ratification process.  However, no officials from the IRS or Justice Department will attend. Again, for emphasis, NO officials from either the IRS or Justice Department will be in attendance.  The administration believes that these questions have been sufficiently addressed, and there is a fair amount of judicial precedence on this issue to confirm that assertion.  Congressman Bartlett will likely give an opening statement, however, I understand that his comments will be limited to acknowledging that the 'We the People' organization has a  right to free speech and to voice their opinion.  I recognize and support the Bush Administration's position.  We have no interest in pursuing the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment as a viable and legitimate argument in the fundamental tax reform movement.  As such, I do not anticipate that Congressman Linder, as the official sponsor of the Fair Tax, will have any role in the February public forum organized by 'We the People'."

At 3 p.m. Thursday, January 17, 2002, as part of Operation Wait to File Until the Trial, I delivered several thousand letters and flyers to the personal fax machines of the following individuals:

• The members of the American Judges Association
• All the Judges of The Federal Circuit
• The Mayors of Largest U.S. Cities
• All Federal Tax Court Judges
• All Supreme Court Justices
• All Radio Station General Managers
• All Radio Talk Show Hosts
• The 550 Partners of the Big Five Accounting Firms
• The Executive Cabinet Members and Cabinet Legal Advisors
• The members of the Association of Copy Editors 

At 8:20 p.m. on Thursday, January 17, 2002, I received a call from Lisa Wright. She simply said that she had just forwarded a letter from Rep. Bartlett to me via FedEx overnight delivery. She said the letter was to inform me that Bartlett was "canceling the forum," but that he "remain[s] committed to ensuring the right of Bob Schulz and other citizens to exercise their constitutional rights under the First Amendment to get answers about federal tax policy from the government." Bartlett proposed, as an alternative to the public forum, that he deliver our questions to DOJ and IRS and that he post our questions and the answers on his web site. He proposed this alternative even though he had argued so effectively in July of 2001, that this would be tantamount to our agreeing not to have our questions answered, i.e., to submit the questions in writing would allow for delay, obfuscation, confusion and to otherwise bring to ruin what we have so patiently, intelligently, professionally and rationally developed into a proper petition for a remedy of the people’s grievances.
Exhibit QQ is a copy of Bartlett’s January 17, 2002 letter.

On January 22, 2002, I delivered a letter of protest to Rep. Bartlett with copies to DOJ, Treasury and the White House. See Exhibit RR.

On February 10, 2002, we ran a full-page ad in the New York Times (at a cost of $65,375), to urge DOJ and IRS to participate in the Citizen’s Truth-In-Taxation hearing.  See Exhibit SS.

On February 27 and 28, 2002, our questions were finally answered, but not by the government. Credentialed professionals, including, tax attorneys, CPAs, a forensic accountant, and three former IRS agents, answered our questions under oath. See Exhibit TT.  This is a video and audio CD-ROM copy of the full record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation hearing, including a certified transcript.

On April 5, 2002, we issued a statement, via USNEWSWIRE, to the White House, to every member of the President’s cabinet, to the Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee regarding evidence of fraud at the IRS. The statement mentioned that we would be holding a briefing on the subject at the National Press Club on April 8, 2002, at which a forensic accountant would be presenting the evidence. The statement mentioned that the briefing would be broadcast live, via the Internet. Exhibit UU is a copy of the April 5, 2002 Press Release.  Exhibit UU-2 is a copy of the video of that press conference.
(ed. note:  click here to see the conference video archive)

On April 8, 2002, we hand delivered a copy of a certified transcript of the record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing, to every member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Chairman of the House IRS Oversight Committee, President Bush and Lawrence Lindsey. Exhibit VV is a copy of the transmittal letter.

On April 10, 2002, we hand delivered a copy of the full record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing on a set of four CD-ROMs to every member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Chairman of the House IRS Oversight Committee, President Bush and Lawrence Lindsey. Exhibit WW is a copy of the transmittal letter. Exhibit TT is a copy (on CD-ROM) of the record of the hearing.

On April 15, 2002, three days before the date of your April 18 letter, we hand-delivered full copies of the record of the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing (Exhibit TT) to all 535 members of Congress, along with a request for a full congressional hearing and a reply from each member by June 1, 2002. We received only 53 responses. None mentioned the record of the Truth-In-Taxation Hearing or the request for a Congressional investigation. None were meaningful. Each was a non-responsive response. Exhibit XX is a copy of one of the constituent letters.

On June 10, 2002, Ari Fleischer, the White House Press Secretary, was asked by a reporter during a White House press briefing if the President was going to direct DOJ and IRS to answer our questions. Fleischer responded, "…these questions are decided by the people involved."

On June 17, 2002, I wrote to the IRS, informing them that I would no longer be filing tax returns and paying the income tax. Exhibit YY is a copy of my letter to the IRS.

On October 7, 2002, Freedom Drive 2002 got underway with the posting of four Petitions for Redress on our web site. One Petition for Redress was related to the income tax issue.

On November 8, 2002, the four Petitions for Redress of Grievances and a memorandum were served on all 535 members of Congress and the President. Each Petition was signed by thousands of Americans. Each Petition asked a number of questions relating to the subject matter of the respective Petition. Each Petition respectfully requested each member of Congress and the President to send a representative to meet with the People on the National Mall at 2 P.M. on November 14, 2002, to answer the questions or to let the People know when they would answer the questions. Exhibit ZZ is a copy of each of the Petitions and the memorandum.

Also on November 8, 2002, hundreds of people from all over the continental United States of America started to drive to Washington DC to await the government’s response to the four Petitions for Redress.

On November 14, 2002, no one from the government showed up at the National Mall to respond to the Petitions for Redress. At about 2:30 P.M. I read a statement, urging all Americans to refrain from funding the federal government until the government responded to our Petitions for Redress. Exhibit F is a copy of my statement

On November 21, 2002, I came into possession of a copy of your April 18, 2002 letter to Congressman Bartlett.

You also wrote: "WTP’s supposed ‘questions’ have been answered many times."

Not so fast Mr. Bryant. This is a poor and transparent excuse for not answering our questions. Our questions, as transmitted to you by Congressman Bartlett on March 16, 2002, are presented in Exhibit G. These questions were prepared with the assistance of a team of attorneys, CPAs and former IRS CID, Revenue and Audit agents. If any of the questions had been answered (once, or many times), as you assert, we would not have asked them. We place a high value on maintaining our credibility and professionalism. We would not have set ourselves up only to be embarrassed. Had you been able to, you would have given examples of where answers to at least a few of our questions have been answered. No branch of the government, including the judiciary, has answered these questions.

The burden of proof is on YOU, the government, to show where our questions have been answered. We can’t prove the questions haven’t been answered. We can’t prove a negative, no matter how hard we might try. To make it as easy as possible for the government, each question was asked in the "admit" format, requiring a simple "admit" or "deny" answer. Surely a team of government experts could have accomplished the task in a few hours.

You also wrote: "WTP will continue to rephrase and reiterate its questions because it does not like the clear answers it receives in court. WTP’s arguments consistently are rejected in Federal courts."

Balderdash! That is another poor and transparent excuse for not answering our questions. You at DOJ of all places know that WTP has never been to court much less had its questions presented or raised in any court. Besides, WTP’s questions are just that – questions – not "arguments." Our only argument is constitutional: we have a Right to Freedom from a government that oppresses the People by ignoring proper Petitions for Redress.

In point of fact, we have petitioned the Executive and Legislative branches continually, over several years, for Redress of Grievances regarding the income tax system. The remedy we seek is an answer to our questions.

In point of fact, this Foundation is essentially done with formulating our questions based on the solid legal research of hundreds of individuals over several decades. Our compilation of questions covers a number of key areas of US tax law, federal jurisdiction and Constitutional violations by the IRS and your agency, the Department of Justice. We now demand answers.

Regardless of your specious claim, our specific legal allegations have NEVER been directly addressed by the courts and you cannot prove otherwise.

Your assertion that we will merely continue to rephrase and reiterate our questions, once you answer them, is without historical or factual foundation. You had no basis in fact to make that assertion. Your assertion is just another transparent excuse for not answering the questions.

You also wrote: "The Department of Justice is responsible for prosecuting Federal tax crimes and litigating Federal civil tax cases. The Department’s Tax Division will continue to bring appropriate legal action to uniformly enforce the tax laws Congress enacts. It would not be appropriate for the Department to lend credibility to the WTP group and their frivolous claims. For the reasons set out below, we respectfully decline to answer the individual questions posed by WTP."

I’ll ignore the saber rattling. We know the role of the DOJ and the limits of its power. What we are trying to do is clarify "the tax laws Congress enacts." Again, you deliberately skirt the issue. Ours are questions, not "claims." Regardless, you know you can’t lend credibility to WTP by answering frivolous questions -- you can only damage our credibility, not enhance it, by demonstrating our frivolity. This is another poor and transparent excuse for not answering our questions.

If our "claims" are so totally without merit and based on nothing but ramblings of tax protestors, why won’t the DOJ just answer the questions, shut us all up, and end this controversy?

Mr. Bryant, you and I both know the answer. You can’t answer the questions. If you do, the fraud is exposed. It really is that simple.

You also wrote: "Although WTP is capable of formulating countless questions, its claims fall into a few categories."

Once again, we presented you with questions, not claims. Regardless, you said they fall into a few categories, but you failed to identify or list any of those categories.

In fact, as you can plainly see from our March 16, 2002 submission to DOJ (Exhibit G) our 538 questions fall into the 15 categories we listed as follows:

1. LIABILITY
2. RIGHT TO LABOR
3. JURISDICTION
4. FIFTH AMENDMENT
5. FIRST AMENDMENT
6. SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
7. FOURTH AMENDMENT
8. IRS FRAUD: CREATION OF TIME-BARRED ASSESSMENTS
9. IRS VIOLATES CITIZENS’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
10. 26 USC 6020 (b) SUBSTITUTE RETURNS
11. THE COURTS ARE CLOSED
12. PAPERWORK REDUCTION and ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACTS
13. INDIVIDUAL MASTER FILES (IMFs)
14. WORD "INCLUDES"
15. TAXABLE SOURCES

You also wrote: "WTP advocates disobedience of the tax laws and justifies its claims by questioning the authority of all branches of government, in the following general ways:

There you go again, falsely accusing WTP of advocating disobedience of the tax laws. You had not a scintilla of evidence to support such a claim. It is a lie. You knew it was a lie, but you said it anyway as a distraction to avoid answering our questions and to harm WTP and me.

You have shown a reckless disregard for the Truth. You knew we were only asking questions, not "advocating disobedience of the tax laws." You said as much in the opening sentence of your April 18, 2002 letter to Congressman Bartlett. You said in the first sentence of your letter to Congressman Bartlett that you were responding to his letter transmitting questions submitted by me on behalf of WTP. Our letter with its questions didn’t advocate anything, much less disobedience of the tax laws.

As part of a Petition for Redress process, we have merely presented a set of serious questions to be answered by government. You and your colleagues may not like the questions or the fact that you have been put into the spot that you have been put in, but the fact remains, the People have the Right to ask these questions, and you have the obligation to respond – honestly, of course.

Mr. Bryant, you are either a born liar or you are simply protecting your position of power and the position of others.

You maliciously entice the members of Congress to summarily dismiss all the intelligent, rational and professional work we have done (not to mention the approximately one million dollars we have spent) trying to get the government to answer legitimate questions. You suggest to the Congressmen that they see us as nothing but a band of "malcontents," who are simply interested in spending our time accusing the courts, Congress and the rest of government of always having acted illegally whenever the subject matter before them had to do with taxes.

Why did you renege on what you agreed to do on July 20, 2001? In a recorded, public forum, answer the questions. Provide the members of Congress with the answer to our questions. Then let the members decide where the truth is.

Get beyond the sophomoric name-calling, mischaracterization and ad hominem attacks and get to the substance of the subject at hand. Answer our questions.

You wrote: "Federal courts. WTP’s positions on the constitutionality and interpretation of the internal revenue laws have, time and time again, been raised in Federal courts by tax protesters. There is no ambiguity in the law or in the view of the courts on these issues. In opinions sustaining criminal tax convictions, affirming the assessment of civil tax penalties, and imposing sanctions, the courts have uniformly rejected those claims as frivolous. As explained by Judge Easterbrook in Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2^nd 68, 69 (7^th Cir. 1986):

Once more with gusto, WE HAVE QUESTIONS, not beliefs, positions or interpretations of the internal revenue laws. WE HAVE VITALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT, QUESTIONS THAT ARE BASED ON MATERIAL ISSUES OF FACT, QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED BY ANY COURT, QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE ANSWERED.

For the record, we are not "anti-tax," we are "pro-constitution." It might do well for you to accept this. We intend to "go to the wall" in defense of our Rights.

If the People have reason to believe that the government is operating outside the boundaries the People have drawn around the government’s power, the People have every right to Petition for a Redress of those grievances, and government has an obligation to respond, not to flick its wrist and say "Be gone! Be obedient! Trust your government; it is always benevolent and always has the public interest uppermost in its mind."

The federal judiciary that you mention; would that be the same judiciary that once decided that blacks were "separate but equal?"

With specific rebuttal to your choice of one poor decision by Judge Easterbrook:

1. We understand government requires taxes to perform its constitutionally authorized functions. Our only "self-interest" is in maintaining our liberty and our unalienable Rights.
    
2. We are not seeking to "eliminate" our obligation to pay income taxes. We are demanding our government prove we even have one.
    
3. The Judiciary’s primary role is not to tell the People what the law "means" -- it is to insure that the laws are not repugnant to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Daring to openly question the government’s legal authority, the content of the law itself and the specific Constitutional violations posed by the operation of our income tax system cannot, EVER, be legitimately construed as "frivolous". And yes – they keep coming up time and time again because YOU are not answering the questions.

You wrote: "Congress. Congress has likewise considered and exposed as completely without merit the constitutional and statutory interpretations cited by WTP in support of its theories. The Congressional Research Service carefully studied these issues and refuted the baseless interpretations that the WTP continues to press. See CRS Report for Congress, Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax (Updated May 7, 2001)."

Once more, WTP has not asked the government to comment on any "constitutional and statutory interpretations." In good faith, we have crafted 538 legitimate questions that have not been answered by any government official, not even some attorney(s) employed by the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. Bryant, you know that our questions have NOT been answered by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Moreover, it is very interesting that, you – the Assistant Attorney General of the United States -- speaking for the Executive branch in this matter, merely refer Congressman Bartlett back to a Legislative branch research report that represents the opinion of a mere staff attorney, has NO authority in law, is not binding on the IRS and does NOT purport to be the official position of the US government. It is nothing more than one man’s opinion.

Surely the DOJ, as the primary law enforcement agency in this nation with its experience of sending thousands of Americans to jail for questioning our tax system, must have access to an untold library of detailed legal briefs, court transcripts and advisory research by the best attorneys our tax money can afford. You are the attorneys who, by law, speak for the government and defend the government’s official behavior in court, when necessary. We challenge you to settle these matters and speak officially for the government – on the record. Answer the questions.

The CRS report you cite has a list of the questions it addresses. It’s list of questions serves as the report’s table of contents. Using that list/table of contents as a guide, we show that the CRS Report does not come close to answering our questions.

Our Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the federal income tax included 538 questions that were delivered, on March 16, 2002, to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey, and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. A copy of the questions and transmittal letter are attached hereto as Exhibit G

The CRS Report for Congress, Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax (Updated May 7, 2001) completely fails to address ANY of the specific questions raised in our ongoing Petition for Redress.  See Exhibit AAA for a detailed analysis comparing the content of the CRS research report with the WTP questions. 

(Continued. . .)
 

Click Here to Read Part 3 of Schulz’s Letter to Bryant/DOJ