Redress of grievances

Document Interview.. # 08 of 37 . .Redress of grievances.
             >>>>Disclaimer: This document may be used as you will except:
If you change anything in the text, remove my name and other Ident. You may
use it without my identification also if you wish...I only ask that people
read it and think...think...think. Sources/Ref's if not in the text will be
found on the last page of Doc and 000.0.6. CLMsr.<<<<

 Geoff Metcalf interviews tax crusader Bob Schulz on pending IRS face-off.
 Recently, WorldNet Daily covered the hunger strike of tax crusader Bob
Schulz. Because of his self-imposed fast, Schulz was able to garner enough
support to cause the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department Of
Justice to agree to meet and answer questions which have troubled citizens
for decades about the legality and authority of the federal tax system..
 Less than two months from now, this historic meeting is scheduled to take
place between several well-known tax activists and various government
officials from the IRS and the DOJ. Cameras will be present to record the
 Today, WND staff writer and talk-show host Geoff Metcalf talks with Schulz
about the events which led to this remarkable agreement and subsequent
recent developments.
 Metcalf's daily streaming radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily weekdays
from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. By Geoff Metcalf.        ? 2001
 Question: I personally did not like your hunger strike approach. I wasn't
alone in fearing that you ran a very real risk of doing some irreparable
physical damage to yourself. Did you really think when you started your
hunger strike that it would be successful?   Answer: I knew I was going to
see it through and there was some risk that the worst would happen I knew
that the government kills people but we also know they have never, ever
allowed someone to waste away, virtually on their front doorstep rather than
honor its (the government's) obligation to respond to a proper
petition/redress of grievances.
 Ques: Please explain what it was you were asking of the government, and
what precipitated your hunger strike?  Ans: For a couple of years, we were
trying to get the government to address the questions the constitutional
and statutory questions that go to the legal authority of the IRS to force
people to pay this tax. We were just the latest to come along. Lots of folks
have been raising these questions.
 Qu: I've been interviewing people about this for over 10 years Bill Benson,
Devvy Kidd, Larry Becraft, Red Beckman, Joe Banister a long,  long list. An:
Of course. And before them, there have been others. People have been raising
these issues and petitioning for a redress of grievances for a long time. We
learned about it in early 1999.
 Q: So what did you do?   A: We did the logical thing. Our foundation
scheduled a symposium an academic symposium where we hoped to have the
government send its experts to argue against the conclusions of the Bill
Bensons and Joe Banisters of the world.
 Q: Basically, you were asking the government to, "Hey guys, show up and
show us where we are wrong!"  A: Precisely. And that was a logical thing to
do for us as a foundation that has as its mission helping people become
better informed about their rights under their state and federal
constitutions and how to professionally, intelligently, rationally confront
governmental wrong doing.
 Q: And frankly, Bob, a reasonable person would expect the federal
government would be chomping at the bit to have an opportunity to de-fang
and neuter the tax-honesty movement.  A: Sure. All they had to do was show
up at the first academic symposium that we scheduled in July of '99 at the
National Press Club show up and show these people the error of their ways,
embarrass them, put the whole thing to bed.
 Q: But they didn't seize the opportunity.  A: No, instead, they did not
even have the courtesy to acknowledge receipt of the invitation they just
totally evaded and ignored the invitation which was very respectfully drawn.
 Q: Honestly, a lot of people were not at all surprised by that. I mean,
they have been successful in ignoring this for a long, long time.  A: But I
knew we had to play it by the book. We had to go through all these motions.
So we gave them the opportunity they chose not to  respond. C-SPAN
 Q: Yeah, once!  A: The first time, they broadcast the event. We tried again
in November of '99 and in April of 2000 and in June of 2000 to bring the two
sides together. At our expense, we flew into these conferences the tax-law
researchers from the tax-honesty movement. And each time, we respectfully
invited the government to send their experts and they ignored us. They
evaded the issues. People are looking at this and are aware of the questions
that go to the constitutionality and the authority ...
 Q: ... And by the way, that first C-SPAN taping that got aired by mistake
was the most popular requested replay that C-SPAN ever had.  A: Sure. We
were told they couldn't keep the master on the shelf there were so many
orders for that particular two-tape record of the symposium. So the next
thing that we did, when we realized the government was evading these
meetings, was we had a delegation of people from all over the country come
to Washington. They went to Washington to support the delivery of a formal
"remonstrance." A remonstrance was a word that was used more frequently in
the early days of the country than it is today. But it means a
strongly-worded statement of grievances that the people submit to their
government. We had drawn up a two-page strongly-worded statement of
grievances to be delivered to the leaders of all three branches of
government including the judiciary because of the role the courts have
played in this now 88-year-old apparent hoax.
 So people gathered on April 13th and Joe Banister and I and our
videographer were allowed into the White House to meet with President
Clinton's economic adviser a fellow named Jason Furman while the entire
delegation waited outside the White House. He accepted  on tape the
remonstrance for the president and promised to have the government experts
their lawyers and historians review the evidence and expressed agreement to
meet in the next attempt to bring the two sides together.
 Q: So he lied!?![but then comrade klinton did not know how to tell the
truth anyway, did he!CLMsr]?   A: Well, yeah, he reneged. A couple of months
later, as we were getting ready for the June showdown between our experts
and the government experts, he said in a telephone conversation June 2nd
three weeks before the event he said, "Sorry, but we have decided here at
the White House that the legality of the income tax is not a high priority
for the White House and that we will not be participating in any conference
on the subject."
 Q: So, what did you do in the wake of that?  A: We didn't give up. We ran a
centerfold ad in the Washington Times which included an open invitation, not
only to the president to send his experts to the upcoming June 29th
conference, but also an open invitation to Speaker Hastert and to
then-Majority Leader Lott and any other congressmen to come answer the
questions which we summarized in five propositions. We wanted the government
to send their experts.
 Q: And since it worked before, they ignored it.  A: Yes, but we went on
with the June conference. But it was then that we decided: All right, we
have established a record and the government has evaded these questions.
We've reached the point where evasion equals admission they are in effect
admitting that Banister and Benson and the others are correct so let's bring
the information, the facts out to the general public, most of whom just
don't have a clue about these issues. Let's buy space/full-page ads in the
nation's only national newspaper, USA TODAY.
 Q: And you did that. More than once, right?  A: We ran four of these at a
cost of over $260,000 each and things were going pretty well until April of
this year.
 Q: Bob, when did you make the decision to go on a hunger strike?  A: After
the events of April and early May of this year. On April 5th, the Senate
Finance Committee held hearings on our ads they had blow ups of our USA
TODAY ads on easels in front of the panel and we were not allowed to testify
at the hearings on our ads. In the words of the chairman of the committee,
Senator Grassley, a reporter asked him why "We The People" folks were not
allowed to testify at the hearing on their ads? And the chairman said,
"Because their message will be tracked from the message we, the Senate
Finance Committee, is trying to convey."
 Q: Huh? What does that mean? They are going to set the agenda?  A: Yeah.
They decided on their message before their hearing. And we were not allowed
to testify. Joe Banister came in from California, Bill Benson from Chicago
and about five or six of us attended the hearing.
 Q: What did you learn from the hearing?  A: We learned that the message
that they wanted to convey was that anyone who raises these questions about
the validity of the nation's tax laws are, in their words, "tax cheats,
schemers, scammers, and con artists". And, of course, that is not true about
any of us. Nonetheless, that is the message they wanted to sell.
 Q: But again, the easiest way to demonstrate that these folks are liars,
cheats, thieves, frauds and con artists, would be to appear at one of  these
meetings you have held and just cut you off at the knees by saying, "OK,
folks, on page 227, if you take a look at sub paragraph d, it clearly states
you have to do this. That is the law period, end of text, shut up and sit
down."  A: Right. But instead, they call us names. And evade any opportunity
we have presented them with to set the record straight. So that happened on
April 5th. We were told we couldn't get on the witness list of that hearing,
but that if we wanted to submit a statement, they would "consider" adding it
to the record. We did! We submitted a comprehensive statement, which they
never added to the record. A horrible example of governance in America
 Q: What happened next?  A: On April 9th, hundreds of people from all over
the country paid their own way and appeared on the sidewalk in front of the
IRS headquarters building at 1111 Constitution Avenue on April 9th. Three
weeks earlier, we had very respectfully written to the Commissioner of the
IRS, Charles Rossotti, letting him know we were going to be there and asking
him, respectfully, to address the people. And if he couldn't let us know
what the agency's position was on these issues, at the very least, let us
know when his experts would be available to meet with the experts from the
tax-honesty movement.
 Q: That must drive them crazy that you were being so reasonable and
accommodating. A: Well, we told them we would be outside at 11:30 a.m. we
would have a podium for them and portable speaker system and 11:30 came and
went and he never came out. He was in the building. We learned because of a
New York Times article, which was published a few days later, that he had
arranged an interview with the New York Times for the precise moment we were
expecting him outside. The article read, "While a few protestors (of course,
there were a whole lot more than a "few") "While a few protestors gathered
outside on a warm April day, IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti [a comrade
klinton appointee, still in office. CLMsr]  was cool and relaxed at his
desk, reflecting on his first three and half years in office."  So, we got
our answer from the IRS Commissioner it was just a slap along side the head,
it was an insult. That happened on April 9th. Two days later, on April 11th,
we heard from USA TODAY that they were not going to run any more of our ads.
 Q: They didn't want your money?  A: And, yet, they were in financial
difficulty [and are still in financial straits. CLMsr]. But, they were not
going to run any more of our ads. So we asked, why is that? And they said,
"Because Gannett's legal department had been talking to the tax people,
obviously the IRS, "and determined that we were advocating that people break
the law."
 Q: I read the ads. They didn't say that.  A: Sure. And we said to them,
"Now that's interesting, that's the whole point. Where is the law? Where is
the authority that the government has to impose this tax, this income tax,
on the citizens of this country? Show us the law! Maybe your legal
department can do what the government has been unwilling or unable to do to
date and that is show us the law, show us the legal authority that the IRS
has to force people to pay this tax." I said to Katie Emory, who was the
advertising rep we had been dealing with, who had been taking our money,
"Why don't I come down there and talk to your legal department?" She said,
"Great idea! I'll set it up!"
 Q: Hey, she's looking at a commission on over $260,000 and praying.  A: So
I went down to Arlington, Virginia, which is where they are headquartered,
and they wouldn't see me. They did not want to talk. So, I  said, "I need
something in writing. I want to understand why you are treating us, and our
money, differently than you treat other members of the public who want to
advertise in your newspaper."
 Q: Did they provide anything in writing?  A: Finally, I was able to get
from them a single one-sentence paragraph that said, "The ads could be
misleading." Which is a lot of nonsense. That happened on April 11th. On May
2nd, Nick Jesson, his business and his home, were raided by more than two
dozen agents, with pistols drawn, firearms pointed at the heads of people.
 Q: Now these were California Franchise Tax Board Agents. They were not IRS
agents.  A: That's right. When we were at the hearing before the Senate
Finance Committee, not only were they sending a message that people who
raise these questions are tax cheats and so forth, but the senators said to
the IRS Commissioner who was on the panel before them, "Can't you send a
chilling message, can't you drive some fear into people that they have to
pay these taxes or they are going to be dealt with harshly and swiftly and
so forth.
 Q: That was on April 5th, right?  A: Right, 10 days before the traditional
tax due date of April 15th.
 Q: And, frankly, almost routinely, around that time of the year, they
usually do have someone they try to make an example of.  A: Right. And so
the "chilling message" that they sent on May 2nd was to raid the business
and the home of Nick Jesson, whose photo and name were featured in one of
our USA TODAY ads as one of five employers who had stopped withholding the
income tax from the paychecks of their employees after years of petitioning
the government for redress of grievances, going to their congressmen, going
to the IRS, asking these questions and getting no answers.
 Q: So your "We The People" group has gone through all this exercise of
trying to get answers from the government about these tax questions, the
government kept ignoring you, ignoring you, ignoring you, you eventually
went on this hunger strike that lasted three weeks. Then, eventually, the
government rolled over. What was it the government first said when they
approached you after your three weeks of the hunger strike?   A: Initially,
when folks like Julie Foster with WorldNetDaily questioned whether they
would respond, the folks at the IRS said, "Probably not." Their position
was, there is no validity to any of these questions, the kinds of things
they normally say. As time went on, we got word from Floyd Williams, the
director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs for the IRS, I received a
telephone call on the 19th of July that their chief counsel and their
lawyers would meet with me, but in a private meeting with no recording and
no public record of the meeting.
 Q: How on earth do they even try to defend that? They know all along that
what you have primarily been doing is disseminating information. Why would
they agree to meet with you only under the condition that it be "in secret"?
A: Well, what they tried to say, get away with (but I wasn't having any of
it), was it was their policy that when taxpayers came in with grievances
those meetings require privacy. I told them, "Listen, I'm not a taxpayer
with a grievance. What we have here is a petition for a redress of
grievances that is a very public matter involving great public importance
and interests. And I'm not asking for privacy. I find it totally
 Q: Sunlight is the best disinfectant!  A: Of course. So I reported back to
Roscoe Bartlett, the congressman from Maryland who took up the cause and who
was just as passionate as we were for liberty and for our right to petition
the government for a redress of grievances and government's obligation to
respond, he called Floyd Williams and told him it was totally unacceptable
and said that he, Bartlett, was going to call Rossotti, the IRS
Commissioner. Normally, congressmen deal with the office of congressional
affairs at these departments. That is their point of contact. If they don't
get results they are looking for, I guess they just go up the chain of
 Q: And did he?   A: He did. He called Rossotti twice and they spoke and,
eventually, Rossotti agreed to a public meeting, a videotaped public
meeting. But I had agreed with Floyd Williams that the Department of Justice
was probably the better party to answer the questions surrounding the first
three of our propositions, and that the IRS was the proper party to respond
to the questions surrounding the remaining two propositions.  Because of
that agreement, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett called the Department of Justice
and asked them to have their experts meet with him and us in a public
meeting in September. So we eventually, with his help, got the IRS and
Justice to agree to meet and answer our questions in a public forum with
their videographers present and our videographers present. And Justice said
they would provide a transcript, a stenographic record of the hearing,
which will last at least two days, maybe three.
 Q: That's going to be in September right?  A: Yes.
 Q: Same deal as the previous events? At the National Press Club?  A: No.
Justice said they were very concerned, they wanted appropriate controls.
They did not want it turning into a circus-type atmosphere. They did not
want hecklers and people walking in off the street and so forth.  Bartlett
said to them, the most controlled environment we have is on the Hill. Why
don't we have this citizen hearing at the Capitol? And they agreed and, of
course, we agreed as well.
 Q: So the government apparently is now ready to answer the questions of
Bill Benson, Joe Banister, et al. Just recently, there was a story about the
California Board of Equalization finalizing a formal opinion apparently
designed to shoot down a lot of the arguments you folks raise. Is that going
to have any significant impact?   A: I read Julie Foster's piece in WorldNet
Daily and I don't know, I have a lot of questions. First, I wasn't familiar
with this group but Julie describes the Board of Equalization as a popularly
elected board.
 Q: Yes, they are.  A: Who are these people? Are they attorneys? Is this an
administrative court? Is this a court of competent jurisdiction? It sounds
like it is an administrative agency.
 Q: What struck me when I read the piece is the Board can debunk everything
arbitrarily and capriciously if they want. However they are a California
agency and the questions you are addressing are national in scope. A: I
don't know much about California law. If they are like New York and other
states the law says, if you're liable for the filing of a federal income tax
return or the payment of a federal income tax, then you owe us.
 Q: Julie mentioned that it would now be a cite-able legal precedent for
future cases. But, so what? That is then subject to appeals and chucked up
the line, and if there isn't documentation to corroborate the government's
position, arguably it would be overturned on appeal. But what do you expect
to happen in September?   A: I'm very familiar with all of the questions
surrounding the five propositions.
 Q: Who gets to testify?  A: We bring in anyone we want to bring in as
questioners or as witnesses. We recently had a conference call with 26
people around the country. We will all be gathering soon and will be
planning the strategy and coming up with the questions to be asked, the
order in which we will be asking them and we will be establishing the lines
of inquiry.
 Q: Are you going to be asking the questions of the government
representatives?  A: Yeah. Both the IRS and DOJ will send their experts to
answer our questions. We're going to ask a question. We'll get an answer.
Then we will reply to their response and they will have an opportunity to
respond, as will we.
 Q: Hold on a moment, because I am always interested in "the process." Are
they trying to fast-track this? Is there a fixed time to how long you can
ask questions and how long they can respond?    A: No. It's going to be at
least two days, maybe three. And that ought to be sufficient time for us to
ask all the questions that we want to ask, get a response and reply to the
response. Now, to speed things along, to facilitate the proceeding, we are
going to provide them with the first-tier questions a week or two ahead of
time. We will provide them with the first-tier questions, but obviously not
the second- and third-tier questions because we don't know what their
responses will be. Also, we will provide them at that time with a list of
the people that we will have there.
 Q: Let me guess at the list: Bill Benson, Joe Banister, Conklin, Becraft,
who else?   A: Red Beckman, all of the prominent tax law researchers that
have done most of the work over the years. Steve Hempling, Harold Thomas,
John Feld, Devvy Kidd, Tupper Saussy, Vern Holland, Dave Bossett, Gordon
Philips, Wayne Benston,  a whole series of attorneys: Robert Bernhoff, Ed
Vieira, Larry Becraft.
 Q: A "Who's Who" list of the tax revolutionaries?   A: Yes. They will all
be there and asking the questions. We'll have teams. On the teams will be
the researchers who have done the work and are quite comfortable with the
evidence they have come up with but are probably not all that comfortable in
a courtroom setting. Where you are asking questions and trying to hold your
opponent to the point, not accepting rhetoric and that sort of stuff. So on
each team, there will be at least one attorney.
 Q: So the lawyers are there to handle the heavy lifting and gamesmanship
issues?   A: Yeah. About six or seven attorneys will be there.
 Q: I've got a $64,000 question: Is C-SPAN going to cover this?   A: What we
have agreed to is this: I did not want the place full of
cameras and reporters and shuffling around, too much of a distraction for
us. This is serious stuff. Nor did the government. So we agreed we would
have our videographers and they would have theirs and that C-SPAN would be
given the option of broadcasting it live or taping it for later broadcast.
But C-SPAN will be given the option.
 Q: What is the date in September when this hearing takes place?   A:
September 25th and 26th.
 Q: If people want to keep track of what "We The People" is doing, where can
they get additional information?   A: The best thing is to monitor our
website. Everything they will need by way of background or the details or
the history and how to contact us and how to help us is all described on our
website or they can call us at (518) 656-3578.
 Q: God bless you, Bob. I'm frankly surprised. I told Devvy Kidd (we've been
talking a lot about this situation) that I was concerned for your health.
A: Geoff, let me say this. Surely, I was prepared to go forward with the
hunger strike. But I knew that the government could not afford to allow
somebody to waste away on the steps of the Capitol or at the front door of
the White House, rather than answer a few questions,  rather than honor its
(the government's) obligation to respond to and answer a proper petition for
a redress of grievances. That would be tantamount to saying the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights are empty words. And what would that say to the
people? It would be a thunderbolt, showing the people that there is nothing
standing anymore between them and total tyranny and despotism. That there is
no longer a rule book to limit the behavior of their government. And what
would it say to the people of the world who still hold the country up as a
land of freedom, and so forth,  resting on the bedrock of their
Constitution? They could not afford to let that happen.///-30-
 Editor's Note: Late breaking up-date! Just prior to posting this interview,
Geoff Metcalf received a telephone call advising him that Congressman
Bartlett confirmed to Schulz that the final details have been agreed to and
hearings will take place September 25 and 26 in the Joseph G. Cannon House
Office Building in Washington, D.C. WorldNetDaily will continue to inform
our readers of further developments in this historic meeting as they become
 "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS," by Bill Benson, a two-volume set documenting the
 controversy surrounding the 16th Amendment, is available from
WorldNetDaily's online store.

We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that
makes us free.  Right?  Then visit:      Http://
Then take a look at these sites:

  {    Only Notes 1 & 2 are duplicates of previous messages text.  All text
preceding these notes is new.    }
NOTE # 1: This is the EIGHTH doc in a string of about 37 regarding the
Income Tax, How it was illegally forced upon us, the collusion of various
nation banks, including The Bank of England, the Banks of Europe, the Banks

of the USA that make up the Non-Government organization known as the Fed and
the bankers themselves dedicated to making this a Socialist Nation. As David
Rockefeller reportedly said in 1973 when he and others formed the Trilateral
Commission, "We will have this a Socialist Nation by the end of the year
2000."  Well, with the help of our past Communist President, he damned well
nearly did it.  If Comrade Gore had been elected, it would be now! The last
doc in this series is a plan that was presented to President Bush when he
visited Florida recently.  It was put directly into his hands.  He has not
acted upon it. We The People must initiate a campaign of letters, faxes,
e-mails, and phone calls to him and others in our otherwise corrupt
government letting them know of our displeasure.  For God and Country, Chet.

NOTE # 2:  [  Should you wish to be removed from my mailing list, please
send a message with the word remove in the subject line.  If you got this
from a mail list, such as  or something like that,
then it is up to the moderator or owner of the list to remove my access
based upon complaints of my material, abuse, or removal of your access if
you request it. ]         Should you wish a copy of a numbered message
(this is the 8th one)   that you may have missed, please e-mail me off net
for a copy of it and I will be very happy to provide it. Chet.

You may forward this to every member of Congress by using a Mail Blaster
application available on the Internet as follows:
Step 1.  Access your web browser.   Step 2.  Type in the search block:
Step 3.  Click on   Send Batch E-Mail which is on the left end of the
Step 4.  Type in your E-mail Address.   Step 5.  Click on Subject: Type in
the subject of your document.
Step 6.  Click on Message: Now here you can type in your message or you can
paste a previously copied file here.  You can also edit your message after
you finish with the message and before sending it.
Step 7.  Then click on   select a file.  Here you may click on:
 demhouse.txt (Socialist Democrat House Members) or,
 democsen.txt (Socialist Democrats Senate Members) or,
 newsorg.txt (Many of the "anchor" news folks have their email address here
for you to use) or,
 rephouse.txt (Republican House of Representatives Members) or,
 repubsen.txt (Republican Senate Members) or,
 senators.txt (All Senators).
Step 8.  After selecting the group to receive your message then click on
send batch. It will go to everyone listed in the batch.
Remember: Nothing beats a letter AND a phone call.
Forwarded by: Chester L McWhorter Sr, c/o 504 N. Brighton Rd, Lecanto,
Occupied Florida. 34461. Ph: 352-344-9073. Fax: Same. E-mail:
 08 of   37.........   End.

Quote:  We are on the verge of a global transformation.  All we [ the CFR ]
need is the right major crisis and the nation[s] will accept the New World
Order.  End Quote.  David Rockefeller: Founder and Honorary Chairman,
Council of the Americas; Chairman, Americas Society; Founder, Forum of the
Americas; Chairman, Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]; Founder
and Honorary Chairman, Trilateral Commission [TC]; Chairman, The
Bilderbergs.  [ How does the 11 Sept 2001 attack upon our country figure
into this?  CLMsr ]


Part 9

<Back The Bankruptcy of the United States

American Patriot Friends Network APFN

"...a network of net workers..."

APFN Contents Page:Click Here

Message Board

APFN Home Page

Hit Counter