The Shuster Project

Tobacco Industry Fraud & False Claims Issues

Click HERE To Read Our Letter Sent to Senator Kerry's Presidential Campaign

Below was The Shuster Project “correction” to this Schulz characters attempt to portray our “common ground” issues as somehow being “incompatible” with the same issues purported to be of concern to this GiveMeLiberty.com group.

Although we make no mistake in not pointing out that there are significant differences in leadership approaches, relative to recognized, credible and responsible address to the issue of fraudulent IRS address to corporate income tax fraud issues and clearly negligent IRS income tax collection procedures, it IS clear that our documentations, factual information and experience with the IRS on these issues was significant enough to warrant a brief yet meaningful, educational and credible presentation at this “planned” event on February 17^th.  

Dear Jeff and Bob,

     You are correct in that you are mistaken.

     Regardless of your position(s) on the methods the IRS employs in obtaining revenues from private citizens, the "income" from corporations is/are "revenues" within the purview of the IRS to legitimately collect and have been so since the inception of the federal union.

     One of the many, recognized as credible and responsible, components of The Shuster Project work has been to isolate and identify fraud in the collection methods of the IRS that have existed in excess of four decades relative to those corporate revenues.

     An "abstract" of that work has been to also isolate and identify specific areas of "negligent" and absent collection of legitimate income tax(es) by the IRS in and of the private sector as a direct result of the fraudulent and criminally negligent absence of legitimate collection of income taxes in the corporate sector.

     The Shuster Project can legitimately and credibly illustrate that the IRS significantly doesn't know just what in the hell they are doing, for lack of a more civil portrayal of the facts; thus giving strength to some of your claims, ascertions and anecdotal similarities to the recognized, factual evidence we can bring before your attendees.

     In "empowering" the IRS to collect those revenues against that income, revenues in fact that the IRS acknowledges that they were previously unaware of, lends credible strength and responsible attention to your efforts to better define exactly what income is applicable for the IRS to collect and then indisputably can only reduce the legitimate state and federal income tax(es) collected from the "incomes" of regular citizens.

     I am keenly aware of the wording and purported interpretations of the Jeffersonians relative to what they interpret as "acceptable," if any, income that can be legitimately taxed by the state and federal governments.

     The position of The Shuster Project is to what we are responsibly and credibly recognized in doing; to contribute to the definitive establishment of absolutely correct protocols under which the IRS can legitimately collect such taxes on income.

     It would be irresponsible and lead to anarchy to assume that the state and federal governments in each and all instances of legitimate, taxable income; that they be denied the ability to collect such revenues on behalf of contributing to the effective functioning of the government(s) and the legitimate services those revenues provide.

     Among the responsible and credible thing(s) to occur at your February 17th event is to allow the diversity of directly associated work that occurs within other organizations that better define the work you are doing, to be presented there that day.

     The vast corporate incomes and the requisite income tax(es) required from that income, if properly and legitimately collected, can only contribute to the significant reduction in the amount of properly and legitimately collected income tax(es) from the properly and legitimately identified individual citizens.

     In our view, it must be acceptable for you to disagree, in part, with our view(s) that there is certain legitimacy in the federal governments ability to properly and legitimately tax specific protocols of income not unlike they have been able to since the inception of our federal union.

     By agreeing to disagree in some interpretations of Jeffersonian dogma between your organization and mine, the fact that certain income IS legitimately income "taxable" lends a greater, universal realization among the audience you are attempting to reach that you rise above anarchistic sabre-rattling and seek to establish the same exact, absolute and legitimate protocols under which the IRS or any revamped revenue generating entity of the state and federal governments is allowed to do under the strictest protocols and shared oversight among political and civilian sectors.

     Your organization is not the first Jeffersonian theme'd organization to seek our participation at a function similar to yours.

     None have been successful in obtaining our participation because, when the dust settles, they as you fail to recognize the common ground between us and seem to fear our recognized credibility over their own.

     If our views are so "significantly" uncommon, if the work that The Shuster Project has been so successful with in getting the IRS to recognize their negligence in addressing vast corporate income tax fraud at the expense of regular citizens as the present laws are supposed to be equally applied yet are not, providing you with a legitimate base from which to rally, how did we ever wind up on your invitation list to begin with?

     That question is far more perplexing than, for the final time, trying to tell you quite point-blankly that at your function:

     1.)The Shuster Project can factually illustrate a "double-standard" in acquiring income taxes in a.) the case of massive corporate fraud in excess of $1.3 BILLION DOLLARS and growing as the result of ignoring legitimate taxable corporate income as the IRS allows the corporate fraud to continue and to continue to remain hidden and b.) the ferocity with which the IRS goes after the collection of income taxes against regular citizens, regardless of it's initial legitimacy for the SAKE OF IDENTIFYING THE DOUBLE-STANDARD which would be in order to then set forth "your" interpretations on exactly which "income" in the private sector actually IS legitimate.

     2.) The Shuster Project can lend credibility and legitimacy within your February function of what might otherwise be billed as a gathering of "anti-income tax "fanatics"" (not my opinion necessarily but be realistic about what media and others may try to bill it as) in the absence of those who are recognized leaders in having taken the time to present numerous examples of fraudulent and negligent and criminally negligent IRS collections activities, or the lack thereof, within what are presently recognized as "acceptable" protocols for the IRS in obtaining income taxes.

     And your closing remark about what I had said regardless of your decision to exclude us from contributing to your function was also incorrect.

     What I said in closing my first response to your initial decision to exclude us from making a brief but significant presentation and contribution to your February 17th function was "If you don't agree, I hope that we still keep in touch."

     If you have taken any of these "responses" to your continued decision to exclude us too personally, you shouldn't.

     Think in the same terms we here at The Shuster Project are relative to your unsolicited invitation for us to attend your function in the first place, even minus the whole, qualifying presentation proposal...

     If, as you last stated..."We hope you can see that our stated ends differ significantly"...why in the world would you have invited us?

     If you invited us, some or even most differences in "dogmas" aside, because you actually felt we had something to contribute other than recognized credibility and leadership in the same areas of common interest, then just let us make that significant contribution, otherwise if we had nothing, in your view(s) to contribute...?...well, refer to the previous above paragraph.

     I can remain in touch with people and remain friends or friendly with people even under these perplexing circumstances, however, don't invite people to your functions from recognized and credible organizations who correctly redefine their contribution(s) that they can make on your behalf that include lending credibility and legitimacy to your function and then exclude them and then infer they are so markedly distanced from any common ground whatsoever, suddenly, from that function and wonder why we wonder why were invited to begin with.

     As I stated in my closing in the previous correspondence, should you choose to reverse your decision to exclude us from your February 17th function I'd appreciate knowing no later than this Friday, 1/26/01, as personal schedules of three people for that day will be involved.

     Otherwise, as I also stated in previous correspondence, I thank you for inviting me/us, however I must finally decline your kind invitation to attend.

     We reject providing "body count" over contributing substance.

     We always have and we always will.

     But please feel free to keep in touch and please feel free to display our web site address within any of your web site's references and resource section(s).

     You needn't respond any further in this matter unless it is to allow a brief but significant presentation by The Shuster Project to your February 17th function.

     If I don't have an invitation "in hand" for that specific purpose by this Friday, this particular matter before us with regard to you is closed until your next consideration for our presentation(s) is required and specifically requested.

This web site is equipped with the "Get 1 on 1" guest response system.
If I am in my office, you can contact me in "real time."
If I am out of my office you will be prompted to send me an e-mail.
I will get back to you as quickly as I can.