- Early this year, following the decision by DOJ and the
IRS to renege on their agreement to appear before the People, Rep. Roscoe
Bartlett (Maryland) formally requested that DOJ respond, in writing, to
specific legal questions that had been submitted by Bob Schulz and the
We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education as part of a Petition
for Redress of Grievances.
- On the People's behalf, Rep. Bartlett sought to obtain
official government responses regarding significant matters of US income
tax law, federal jurisdiction and Constitutional violations posed by the
current law enforcement practices of DOJ and IRS relating to the federal
income tax system.
- On November 21, 2002, We The People Foundation came into
possession of a letter dated April 18th, 2002 sent from US Assistant Attorney
General Daniel Bryant to Rep. Bartlett articulating the reasons Department
of Justice was offering for refusing Bartlett's request and refusing to
answer the People's questions.
- US Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant holds the
number three position at the U.S. Department of Justice.
- It was Mr. Bryant who called Congressman Roscoe Bartlett
on July 19, 2001, at the urging of Lawrence Lindsey (Assistant to the President
for Economic Affairs, at the White House) to say that if Bob Schulz would
end his hunger fast, DOJ would send its experts to meet with representatives
of the We The People Foundation, in a public forum, to answer questions
regarding the legality of the income tax system.
- Mr. Bryant's call to Rep. Bartlett followed the call
that day by IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti to Rep. Bartlett, to say
that if Bob Schulz would end his hunger fast the IRS would send its experts
to meet with representatives of WTP, in a public forum, to answer questions
regarding the legality of the income tax system.
- It was Mr. Bryant who, on July 19, 2001, asked Rep. Bartlett
to pen and deliver a letter to him requesting DOJ to meet with Bob Schulz
and representatives of WTP to answer questions regarding the income tax
because the administration wanted the official record to show that the
government was responding -- not to a citizens' Petition for Redress of
Grievances -- but to a request by a Congressman. That is, the administration
did not want to establish the precedent that government had an obligation,
under the 1st Amendment, to respond to a Petition for Redress.
- It was Mr. Bryant who met with Bob Schulz, Roland Croteau,
Burr Deitz and Rep. Bartlett on July 20, 2001 to receive the letter from
Rep. Bartlett and to negotiate the details of the upcoming meeting.
- It was Mr. Bryant who, on July 20, 2001 agreed that the
upcoming hearing would be two days in length, would be held on September
25 and 26, would be held on Capitol Hill, would be presided over by Rep.
Bartlett (or Henry Hyde), would be open to the public, could be broadcast
by C-SPAN, would be transcribed and would be recorded on video tape by
WTP and the government.
- It was Mr. Bryant who, during the meeting, agreed with
Bartlett and Schulz that under the 1st amendment to the Constitution the
American people are entitled to answers.
- It was Mr. Bryant who agreed with Bartlett and Schulz
that the upcoming hearing was in the nation's interest because for many
years many individuals and groups have asked for answers to similar or
- It was Mr. Bryant and Rep. Bartlett who Bob Schulz was
referring to when he said after the meeting, "I have met with these
gentlemen face-to-face and have looked in their eyes. I am satisfied they
are men of honor. We have cemented our verbal and written agreements with
a handshake. The fast ends today."
- It was Mr. Bryant who received our written questions
on March 16, 2002, following the events of September 11, 2001, the rescheduling
of the hearing to February 27 and 28, 2002, the decision by DOJ to renege
on its commitment to participate in the event, and the decision by Rep.
Bartlett to cancel the hearing and, instead, to have our written questions
submitted to DOJ and IRS for answers.
- Having received the questions, the administration has
- Mr. Bryant, writing for DOJ and the IRS, has turned coat.
The principles he advocated on July 20, 2001 have been turned upside down.
- Mr. Bryant, writing to Rep. Bartlett, now says DOJ will
not answer the People's questions and he has attempted to bring Bob Schulz
and the We The People Foundation into disrepute.
- Mr. Bryant has issued an official written statement that
is not in the public interest and appears designed to expose the We The
People Foundation to public ridicule and contempt and appears intended
to deliberately injure the Foundation's reputation.
- Mr. Bryant, with a reckless disregard for the truth,
has falsely accused the Foundation of promoting "tax fraud schemes"
that have been used to "defraud honest American taxpayers" who
have then been "convicted by juries of their peers and sentenced to
serve time in prison."
- Mr. Bryant's words not only contradict his written word
and official behavior as Assistant Attorney General on July 20, 2001 (and
that of Lawrence Lindsey at the White House and IRS Commissioner Rossotti),
they disclose an enthusiastic willingness to declare what he know to be
falsehoods for the express purpose of harming WTP and deceiving others.
- We have been treated with gross insolence. We have been
provoked to anger.
- We have demanded an apology.
- Never before have the People gone to such lengths, and
acted with such intelligence and with such professionalism and respect,
to Petition the government for Redress of Grievances. Never before have
the People, in such a dramatic, high profile, attention-getting but entirely
proper and constitutional manner been called upon to exercise their 1st
Amendment Right to Petition. Never before have the People felt the need
to do so. Never before have the People felt so moved to utilize the Right
to Petition to remedy any issue of concern.
- Bob Schulz's response to Mr. Bryant is overextended in
length due to the historical significance of Mr. Bryant's letter and the
need to provide an abundance of authentic, real and factual evidence in
- To read Bryant's letter and Schulz's reply to Bryant:
- Bob Shulz