« Only in New Jersey... | Main | Completely disillusioned »

December 16, 2008

Why is Sizemore's Perjury Being Ignored?

Torridjoe over at Loaded Orygun has posted a summary of his frustrating efforts to find out whether anyone with the authority to do so intends to prosecute Bill Sizemore for apparently committing perjury on an astonishing scale in Judge Janice Wilson's court. Back on December 2, I wrote about her findings and her decision to jail Sizemore for contempt. I did not at that time include in my post the content of the appendix to her ruling, "Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore." After reading TJ's post, however, I feel it is necessary that people have ready, long-term access to her chronicling of the lies he told under oath so that appropriate pressure may be placed upon the authorities who have the power to pursue criminal perjury charges. Believe it or not, nobody is inclined at this time to do that.

I would just ask you after reading the "Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore," if the man does not face criminal perjury charges for this behavior, will you feel respect for our legal system? Will you continue to have faith in a system of law that is regulated only by the citizen's willingness to follow the rules, and not by any exertion of force if a citizen chooses not to follow them? As someone who was told quite bluntly that I must, under oath, tell all I knew to the authorities investigating the OTU racketeering case or face severe legal repercussions, including perjury, I am at this moment very angry that Mr. Sizemore is being allowed to blatantly flaunt the law.

So, without further ado, read for yourself the "Examples" of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore, keeping in mind that the following is by no means anywhere near a complete chronicling of the man's rampant disregard for the truth and the law.

Examples of Deceit by Mr. Sizemore

ATRF's 2006 annual meeting minutes purport to be from a meeting on Janauary 29, 2006, yet they discuss a proposal to contract with CBS Consulting. In fact, on January 29, 2006, Mr. Sizemore's only proposal was to be executive director of ATRF. Mr. Sizemore admitted that he did dnot prepare these minutes (or the minutes of ATRF's 2007 annual meeting) until early 2008 and acknowledges that they could not be correct on this point. He attributes this error to a "faulty recollection."

(Footnote: Ms. Alexander testified in her deposition that she saw the minutes in 2006, which could not have happened. She explained that her memory was "foggy.")

ATRF applied with the IRS for recognition of an exemption from taxation as a 501(c)(3) organization by submitting a Form 1023. The form was prepared by Mr. Sizemore, or with information supplied by him, and was signed by Ms. Alexander under penalty of perjury on February 7, 2006. It omits Mr. Sizemore's name and anticipated compensation in the section requiring the listing of officers, directors, employees or independent contractors who are expected to be paid more than $50,000. Mr. Sizemore admitted in his testimony that at the time the form was prepared and signed he expected to receive more than $50,000 from ATRF either as its executive director or as a consultant. The form also omits the required attachment showing Mr. Sizemore's qualifications, average hours worked and duties.

The Form 1023 states that no officer or director was related to the most highly compensated employee or independent contractor. This was false because Mr. Sizemore was the most highly compensated employee or independent contractor and his mother was an officer and director.

The form 1023 states that no officer, director, highest compensated employee or highest compensated independent contractor received compensation from any other organization related to ATRF through common control. This was false because IRM and ATRF were related by common control. There was common control both nominally – because Michaela Alexander was president of both (albeit using different names) – and in fact, because Mr. Sizemore was in complete charge of both. IRM had paid Mr. Sizemore $100,000 in the preceding three months and six days.

The Form 1023 states that ATARF would not compensate its highest compensated employee or highest compensated independent contractor through "non-fixed payments such as discretionary bonuses or revenue-based payments." This was false because Mr. Sizemore knew he would be paid a "signing bonus" and also would receive a "commission" on funds he raised for ATRF.

(Footnote: Mr. Sizemore testified that he didn't know of any understanding that he would be so compensated when he provided information for the Form 1023, although he did "eventually agree to that." That explanation is not credible in light of the fact that Mr. Sizemore unilaterally made all of the decisions about how he would be compensated.)

The Form 1023 stated that ATRF would not have any loan agreements with its highest compensated employee or highest compensated independent contractor. This was false because Mr. Sizemore was planning to have ATRF loan him money.

The IRS requested additional information from ATRF in connection with its request for recognition as a 501(c)(3) organization. Among the many items requested was an explanation of the qualifications of the individuals operating the organization to provide the services it purported to offer and "detailed resumes of those involved in the operation of [ATRF]." Mr. Sizemore prepared the response for Ms. Alexander's signature. That response, dated May 31, 2006, stated "We have not yet determined the identity of the research team. The two individuals we are most likely to hire … are currently tracking measures for us at no charge." This was false because, by May 31, 2006, ATRF had paid Mr. Sizemore, through CBS Consulting, $46,800 (all in one cashier's check dated February 15, 2006).

Mr. Sizemore drafted another letter to the IRS for Ms. Alexander to sign on June 1, 2006. In an attachment to that letter, Mr. Sizemore also falsely stated that Ms. Alexander's duties for ATRF were to "help determine priority of measures for fiscal impact studies" and that his mother's duties for ATRF were "phones, secretarial, organizing bookkeeping records." Mr. Sizemore knew full well that neither Ms. Alexander nor his mother was to have the duties listed.

(Footnote: Mr. Sizemore first testified that he believed he drafted this letter, then said he thought an attorney or accountant had done so – or probably Nevada Corporate Headquarters. I find that he drafted the letter. This letter and the letter of May 31, 2006, are identical in format, style and phrasing of language. In any event, Mr. Sizemore could have been the only source of the information.)

In his April 23, 2007, deposition (taken in the action he brought to challenge the constitutionality of the injunction), Mr. Sizemore testified:

"There was an opportunity for me to work for a foundation that exists currently, American Tax Research Foundation, and I have – I have been offered a job working for them as executive director. I have not – I have not been employed by them yet. And they – but they have made – they made a specific offer to me. They do fiscal impact studies of the effect of ballot measures nationwide. Their research is as according to their mission statement, is totally unbiased, factual, not opinion, not politically slanted, no agenda, and they have asked me to and I have – to take the job. I have not taken the job, and I don't recall the specifics. But a couple of cases where I was exploring working for them, I signed a letter or something that – where I put executive director after my name, though, I am not an executive director yet."

[Note from Becky: Keep in mind that ATRF was created by Bill Sizemore and was Bill Sizemore.]

In the same deposition, Mr. Sizemore was asked "Are you currently or have you at any time since the conclusion of the trial in the first case been a manager of a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization?" He answered "No."

(Footnote: Mr. Sizemore was first asked whether he had "set up" any 501(c)(3) organizations, but said he did not know how to answer the question and asked to consult with his attorney. After that consultation, his attorney objected to the phrase "set up" and Mr. Hartman began asking questions about Mr. Sizemore's being a manager of a 501(c)(3).)

Mr. Sizemore's feigned ignorance of ATRF's founding and funding when he was deposed in April 2007 is also astonishing. He testified that he did not know specifically when it was founded and ultimately said "between the last two years." He was asked "Do you know where American Tax Research gets its funding?" He answered, "Some of it but I don't know where they get all of it. I believe that's an ongoing thing." After some colloquy between counsel, Mr. Sizemore restated the pending question as "Where does American Tax Research get some of their money that I know about." And began his answer "I'm racking my brain for specifics." He went on to say, "I believe – [Hire Calling] Public Affairs and I don't know what kind of entity that is." When he was asked specifically whether Loren Parks gave money to ATRF, Mr. Sizemore answered," I believe Parks has made a donation to them, maybe more than one…"

In truth, as of April 23, 2007, when he gave that testimony under oath, Mr. Sizemore had completely controlled ATRF and its finances for over 16 months. He had engaged in hundreds of transactions totaling more than three-quarters of a million dollars on ATRF's account, the vast majority of the money going for his financial benefit or that of his family. ATRF had received over $500,000 from Loren Parks or one of his organizations (in four separate payments) and over $60,000 from Hire Calling Public Affairs – all solicited by Mr. Sizemore.

Asked in the April 2007 deposition whether he had any current intention of becoming a manager of a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization, Mr. Sizemore answered "I'd like to, yes." When he was asked for more detail about what he would like to do, he began his answer "I haven't thought that through completely." After mentioning a foundation that helps homeless people, Mr. Sizemore continued "And I would like to be involved in a foundation that does research on ballot measures, the kind of research that would be clearly in the realm of 501(c)(3) educational, nonpolitical."

[Note from Becky: I swear I heard Eric Cartman's voice while I was reading the comment about the foundation helping homeless people.]

In his October 2, 2007, declaration (also given in the action he brought to challenge the constitutionality of the injunction) Mr. Sizemore stated under penalty of perjury, "I have been offered the position of executive director of American Tax Research Foundation, ATRF. I have declined the offer …" In truth, as noted above, Mr. Sizemore testified in the contempt hearing, he "ran the operations of the organization." On October 2, 2007, Mr. Sizemore had been in sole control of ATRF's bank account and had spent approximately a million dollars of ATRF's funds by checks, cash, cashier's checks, transfers and debit card transactions. He wrote in the minutes for ATRF's 2007 annual meeting (purportedly held on January 17, 2007 – eight and a half months before he swore to his declaration) that he had been appointed "as acting executive director of ATRF so he could open an interest bearing investment account, raise money, sign an office lease and do other business on behalf of the foundation."

Mr. Sizemore attempted to explain in the contempt hearing that he thought he was not the executive director because he "wasn't being paid as a paid position as executive director." The more likely explanation, given that he had also denied managing a 501(c)(3) organization even though he now admits he ran ATRF, was that he was simply lying on the witness stand.

Any doubt on that point is put to rest by the following exchange in the April 23, 2007, deposition:

"Q: Setting aside this executive director position for the moment, have you been active in working with the American Tax Research Foundation? [Italics mine.]

A: No. I work for CBS Consulting only."

He then falsely testified that he was not the controlling person of CBS Consulting.

At his judgment debtor examination on October 19, 2007, Mr. Sizemore was asked, "Other than reimbursement, are you permitted to write checks from [the ATRF] account for payment for services rendered?" He answered "No." This was false because, as of that date, as shown by ATRF's bank records, he personally had written ATRF checks (not including cashier's checks) totaling over $100,000 to CBS Consulting alone.

Now I ask you: Is it even remotely possible that Bill Sizemore was held in jail as a political prisoner, and that insufficient evidence exists to charge him with criminal perjury? Clearly, the answer is "No."

So what the hell is going on here? Is our justice system a complete sham? Who is protecting Bill Sizemore and why?

Posted by Becky at December 16, 2008 10:16 AM