IRS Enjoined For Violating US Court of Appeals Order

Schulz v IRS Bares Its Teeth

On November 6, 2006, a federal judge issued an order enjoining, prohibiting and restricting the IRS from enforcing a summons the IRS had served on the Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company demanding WTP Chairman Bob Schulz’s personal bank records.

On November 1^st Schulz petitioned the Court to Quash the Summons on the ground that it was issued in spite of constitutional prohibitions barring retaliation by the government against those exercising Constitutionally protected Rights, including the First Amendment Right to Petition.

Schulz also charged the Summons was a brash act of insolence by IRS for violating a 2005 ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which defined the Due Process requirements for enforcing IRS administrative actions, and that IRS had acted in bad faith. Like Schulz, the bank is question is also domiciled in the Second Circuit.

On November 3^rd Schulz asked the Court to order the IRS to Show Cause why the IRS should not be enjoined from enforcing the Summons until the case was finally determined, including any appeal thereof. Schulz also asked the Court to include a TRO in its order.

The District Court Order granted Schulz all the protections he requested, including ordering IRS to immediately notify the Bank by telephone that it was not to comply with the demands of the Summons.

Click here for a copy of the District Court’s Order of November 6th.

Click here for a copy of the papers filed on November 3: Schulz’s proposed Order to Show Cause, Schulz’s Memorandum of Law, Schulz’s Declaration #2, and Schulz’s Declaration #3.

Click here for a copy of the papers filed on November 1: Schulz’s Petition to Quash, Schulz’s Memorandum of Law, and Schulz’s Declaration #1.

Click here to read the June 2005 ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Schulz v. IRS barring IRS from enforcing any administrative enforcement action without first filing suit to enforce such administrative action in federal district court and providing the enforcement target an opportunity for a full, adversarial Article III judicial hearing.