fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
SOURCE: http://www.washingto…I39W_story.html
__________________________
Skype makes chats and user data more available to police
By Craig Timberg and Ellen Nakashima, Published: July 25The Washington Post
Skype, the online phone service long favored by political dissidents, criminals and others eager to communicate beyond the reach of governments, has expanded its cooperation with law enforcement authorities to make online chats and other user information available to police, said industry and government officials familiar with the changes.
Surveillance of the audio and video feeds remains impractical — even when courts issue warrants, say industry officials with direct knowledge of the matter. But that barrier could eventually vanish as Skype becomes one of the world’s most popular forms of telecommunication.
The changes to online chats, which are written messages conveyed almost instantaneously between users, result in part from technical upgrades to Skype that were instituted to address outages and other stability issues since Microsoft bought the company last year. Officials of the United States and other countries have long pushed to expand their access to newer forms of communications to resolve an issue that the FBI calls the “going dark” problem.
Microsoft has approached the issue with “tremendous sensitivity and a canny awareness of what the issues would be,” said an industry official familiar with Microsoft’s plans, who like several people interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly. The company has “a long track record of working successfully with law enforcement here and internationally,” he added.
The changes, which give the authorities access to addresses and credit card numbers, have drawn quiet applause in law enforcement circles but hostility from many activists and analysts.
Authorities had for years complained that Skype’s encryption and other features made tracking drug lords, pedophiles and terrorists more difficult. Jihadis recommended the service on online forums. Police listening to traditional wiretaps occasionally would hear wary suspects say to one another, “Hey, let’s talk on Skype.”
Hacker groups and privacy experts have been speculating for months that Skype had changed its architecture to make it easier for governments to monitor, and many blamed Microsoft, which has an elaborate operation for complying with legal government requests in countries around the world.
“The issue is, to what extent are our communications being purpose-built to make surveillance easy?” said Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, a digital privacy group. “When you make it easy to do, law enforcement is going to want to use it more and more. If you build it, they will come.’’
Skype was slow to clarify the situation, issuing a statement recently that said, “As was true before the Microsoft acquisition, Skype cooperates with law enforcement agencies as is legally required and technically feasible.”
-
John McManus quotes the following sources:
1. An Enemy Hath Done This
Ezra Taft Benson, Parliament Publishers, 1969.
2. Philip Dru: Administrator,
by Edward Mandell House
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6711
3. Tragedy and Hope,
Dr. Carroll Quigley
http://www.amazon.co…e/dp/094500110X
-
Part 4
-
The states have emulated the feds in establishing franchise courts in THEIR executive branch instead of judicial branch. Article III is constitutional courts, Articles IV and 1 are franchise courts. Remedies in state courts are discussed in:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Section 16
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
Articles III and IV pertain ONLY to the feds and not the state courts. The section of the STATE constitution that deals with CONSTITUTIONAL courts v. Franchise courts varies with each state. The following document identifies the eqivalent of Articles III and IV within each state constitution:
SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #09.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…onsDatabase.pdf
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
Pursuing remedies EXCLUSIVELY in constitutional court and not franchise court is covered in:
Common Law Practice Guide, Litigation Tool #10.013
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Item…wPractGuide.htm
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
We are NOT responsible for any of the above other than “Why Domicile and…” , so we can't answer further questions.
-
Part 3
-
Amen, pastor stija. 🙂
What you just said is, in fact, a restatement of the point of the above referenced sections. Glad to see that you are at least paying attention.
-
More sources of info on David Miner
-
Update on david miner.
SOURCE: http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/msg/cd42c07d8780399c
_________________
Bob Hurt View profile
[background=white]More options Sep 23 2011, 1:38 pm [/background]
From: Bob Hurt <b…@bobhurt.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:38:06 -0400
Local: Fri, Sep 23 2011 1:38 pm
Subject: More on IRS OPPRESSION of Dave Miner in US v David Miner, civil and criminal cases
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
You can keep up with the USA v David L Miner (http://irx-solutions.com)
cases with the following info. I use the RECAP
<https://www.recapthelaw.org/> extension in Mozilla Firefox to view the
above Pacer.gov sites. If someone with RECAP viewed the documents
previously, I get them free from http://archive.org instead of paying 8
cents per page.
About USA v Dave Miner
Bottom line, David Miner made a business out of helping people discover
lies in their Individual Master File (“IMF”) and other IRS files, and
write to the IRS and others in an effort to pressure the IRS to remove
the lies and replace them with the truth by issuing corresponding
documents as necessary and filing them into the record. David believes
correcting the records in this way removes the IRS' “Plausibility
Deniability” that they only hound their victims for income tax (which
their victims don't owe) because of error in the record (such as that
you live in the US Virgin Islands and import pharmaceuticals for a
living, a taxable “trade or business”). In other words, if you catch
them and sue them, they'll just say, “Ooops, sorry, my bad, I'll correct
it and you're good to go.” David and others (I included) consider the
IRS a malicious Mafia-like organized crime syndicate protected
iniquitously by crooked US judges and the biggest law firm in the world,
the DOJ, and bribed by Congress with secret cash awards for successfully
harassing the citizenry over income taxes they don't owe.
The IRS HATED this effort to stop their crooked behavior, so they whined
to the DOJ. Meanwhile, David got way behind handling his customers, and
now he owes a dozen or two a bunch of money OR corrected IMFs. And the
DOJ sued him in Orlando's Florida Middle USDC, and finageled a criminal
indictment in the Tennessee Eastern USDC. This is nothing more than
oppression, not of a criminal, but of a good American who wants to help
you get the IRS off your back for income taxes you don't owe.
David Miner constitutes only the most recent victim of IRS/DOJ pogroms
against IMF decoder/correctors. They have shut down others before him,
including Richard Standring.
What Miner Should Have Done
Miner should have done what Author #2 of SEDM.org and FamGuardian.org
did – publish his site from Canada, and bind visitors to it to
confidentiality.
Miner should have published his book on his process and sold it from
India as a training course so people could do the work themselves. He
could have set up an operation in India or the Philippines to handle
support by phone for a fee. End of Problem. But he didn't . Now, BIG
problem. His naviet'e might land him in prison.
Storm Bradford to the Rescue? Unfortunately, No.
The Anti-Income-Tax patriot community needs to enlist the services of
men like Storm Bradford who specialize in destroying the prosecutor's
case. For more information see http://instantlawpartner.com. Storm has
participated in the defense strategy and tactics of over 750 criminal
cases and won over 675 of them, in spite of the guilt of 99% of the
defendants.
Access to Dave Miner case docs
* Conflict Overviews
o **http://www.irx-solutions.com/cases.htm**
* CIVIL: – injunction to prevent Miner from promoting false tax
schemes (correcting IRS lies in the IMF will keep them from
collecting tax you don't owe)
o Case Number – 6:10-cv-0187 –
o https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?252551
o http://ia600309.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/
– the Archive.org repository of RECAP docs
o **http://www.irx-solutions.com/civil.htm**
* CRIMINAL: – charged with trying to impede admin of Internal
Revenue laws to his or others' benefit
o Case Number – 3:11-cr-25 –
o https://ecf.tned.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?60159
o http://ia600607.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/
– Archive.org repository of RECAP docs
o **http://www.irx-solutions.com/criminal.htm**
o The court granted the government's motion to seal the case.
Pacer won't yield the important documents further till
unsealing.
Docket Reports
CIVIL CASE DOCKET
Case details
*Court:* flmd
*Docket #:* 6:10-cv-01873
*Case Name:* United States of America v. Miner
*PACER case #:* 252551
*Date filed:* 2010-12-14
*Date of last filing:* 2011-08-31
*Assigned to:* Judge John Antoon II
*Referred to:* Magistrate Judge David A. Baker
*Case Cause:* 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons
*Nature of Suit:* 870 Taxes
*Jury Demand:* None
*Jurisdiction:* U.S. Government Plaintiff
Parties
*Represented Party* *Attorney & Contact Info*
United States of America
Plaintiff
Michael R. Pahl
US Department of Justice – Tax Division
PO Box 7238, Ben Franklin station
555 4th St. NW
Suite 8837
Washington, DC 20044-7238
202/514-6488
Fax: 202/514-6770
Email: michael.r.p…@usdoj.gov
/LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED/
Sherra Tinyl Wong
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division, Central Trial Region
P.O. Box 7238
Washington, DC 20044
202-616-1882
Fax: 202-514-6770
Email: sherra.t.w…@usdoj.gov
/LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED/
David Lee Miner
Defendant
individually doing business asIRx Solutions doing business asBlue Ridge
Group
David Lee Miner
478 East Altamonte Dr.
Suite 108-530
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
615/301-1811
PRO SE
Documents
*Date Filed* *Document #* *Attachment #* *Short Description* *Long
Description* *Upload date*
2010-12-14 1
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Complaint COMPLAINT and Injunctive Relief against David Lee Miner
filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover
Sheet)(VEF) (Entered: 12/14/2010) 2011-01-20 19:05:21
1 1 Civil Cover Sheet
2010-12-14 2
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Summons issued Summons issued as to David Lee Miner. (VEF)
(Entered: 12/14/2010) 2011-03-04 16:21:51
2010-12-14 3
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Related case order and notice of designation of track 1 RELATED
CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 – track 1.
Response due within 14 days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge
Patricia C. Fawsett on 12/14/2010. (copies mailed/emailed)(SC) (Entered:
12/14/2010) 2011-01-17 12:46:17
2010-12-16 4
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Order ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT. Signed by Senior Judge Patricia C.
Fawsett on 12/16/2010. (MTH) (Entered: 12/16/2010) 2011-05-05 21:16:20
2010-12-16 5 0 Case Assigned/Reassigned Case reassigned to Judge
John Antoon II New case number: 6:10-cv-1873-JA-DAB. Senior Judge
Patricia C. Fawsett no longer assigned to the case. (SR) (Entered:
12/17/2010)
2010-12-29 6
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Notice of pendency of related cases NOTICE of pendency of related
cases re 3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 1 per
Local Rule 1.04(d) by United States of America. Related case(s): no
(Pahl, Michael) (Entered: 12/29/2010) 2011-01-21 11:57:42
2011-01-18 7
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion to strike MOTION to strike portions of 1 Complaint by David
Lee Miner. (MAA) (Entered: 01/18/2011) 2011-01-20 19:16:17
2011-01-18 8
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Memorandum in support MEMORANDUM in support re 7 Motion to strike
filed by David Lee Miner. (MAA) (Entered: 01/18/2011) 2011-01-20 19:17:26
2011-01-19 9
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Memorandum in opposition MEMORANDUM in opposition re 7 Motion to
strike filed by United States of America. (Pahl, Michael) (Entered:
01/19/2011) 2011-01-20 19:20:10
2011-01-28 10 0 Order on motion to strike ORDER denying 7 Motion to
strike scandalous and impertinent reference. Signed by Judge John Antoon
II on 1/28/2011. (DJD) (Entered: 01/28/2011) 2011-01-31 18:54:45
2011-02-14 11
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion to stay MOTION to stay proceedings for 30 days (for the
purpose of obtaining counsel) by David Lee Miner. (MAA) (Entered:
02/15/2011) 2011-03-10 21:21:17
2011-03-11 12
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead
MOTION for extension of time to 5/11/11 to file answer to 1 Complaint by
David Lee Miner. (MAA) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge David A.
Baker. (Entered: 03/14/2011) 2011-03-15 02:39:20
2011-03-15 13
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Order on motion to stay ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to stay;
denying 12 Motion for extension of time to answer or respond. Signed by
Magistrate Judge David A. Baker on 3/15/2011. COPIES SENT. (LAK)
(Entered: 03/15/2011) 2011-04-02 22:59:35
2011-03-31 14
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion to dismiss MOTION to dismiss the Complaint by David Lee
Miner. (JET) (Entered: 04/06/2011) 2011-04-06 20:36:34
2011-04-08 15
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Notice of Appearance NOTICE of Appearance by Sherra Tinyl Wong on
behalf of United States of America (Wong, Sherra) (Entered:
04/08/2011) 2011-04-08 17:24:33
2011-04-08 16
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion to extend time First MOTION to extend time to respond to
defendant's motion to dismiss by United States of America. (Wong,
Sherra) (Entered: 04/08/2011) 2011-04-08 17:18:40
2011-04-11 17 0 Response to motion RESPONSE to motion re 16 First
MOTION to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss filed
by David Lee Miner. (CBH) (Attachment(s): # 1 Affidavit of David L.
Miner) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
17 1 Affidavit David L. Miner
2011-04-18 18
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Order on motion to extend time ORDER granting 16 Motion to extend
time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Baker on 4/18/2011. COPIES
SENT. (LAK) (Entered: 04/18/2011) 2011-04-18 16:16:02
2011-04-26 19
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Memorandum in opposition MEMORANDUM in opposition re 14 Motion to
dismiss filed by United States of America. (Wong, Sherra) (Entered:
04/26/2011) 2011-05-05 21:11:22
2011-05-13 20
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion for leave to file MOTION for leave to file a Response to the
United States' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by David Lee
Miner. (VEF) (Entered: 05/13/2011) 2011-05-13 23:36:20
2011-05-13 21
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Notice (Other) NOTICE of the United States' Agreement by David Lee
Miner re 20 MOTION for leave to file Response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (VEF) (Entered: 05/13/2011) 2011-05-13 23:39:16
2011-05-23 22
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Order on motion for leave to file ORDER granting 20 Motion for
leave to file reply; Defendant may file a reply within seven (7) days
from the date of this Order that shall not exceed five (5) pages. Signed
by Judge John Antoon II on 5/23/2011. (BRS) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
2011-05-26 02:54:33
2011-06-02 23
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Order on motion to dismiss ORDER denying 14 Motion to dismiss.
Signed by Judge John Antoon II on 6/2/2011. (BRS) (Entered:
06/02/2011) 2011-06-04 14:10:27
2011-06-06 24
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Notice of Hearing NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for
6/16/2011 at 03:00 PM in Orlando Courtroom 6 B before Judge John Antoon
II. Copies mailed/e-mailed.(DJD) (Entered: 06/06/2011) 2011-06-06 20:10:29
2011-06-06 25
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Reply to response to motion REPLY to response to motion re 14
MOTION to dismiss the Complaint filed by David Lee Miner. (MAA)
(Entered: 06/07/2011) 2011-06-08 21:29:02
2011-06-09 26
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Motion to Appear Telephonically MOTION for leave to appear at
status conference by telephone by United States of America. (Wong,
Sherra) Modified on 6/9/2011 (SR). (Entered: 06/09/2011) 2011-06-14
22:29:07
2011-06-13 27
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Order on Motion to Appear Telephonically
2011-06-14 22:36:27
2011-06-16 28
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Answer to complaint
2011-06-18 17:42:19
2011-06-16 29 0 Status Conference
2011-06-21 30
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement
2011-07-01 08:24:19
2011-06-30 31
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Case Management Report
2011-07-07 18:53:28
2011-07-01 32
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement
2011-07-07 18:57:29
2011-08-31 33
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.252551/gov.uscourts…>
0 Case management and scheduling order
2011-09-06 10:15:32
CRIMINAL CASE DOCKET
Case details
*Court:* tned
*Docket #:* 3:11-cr-00025
*Case Name:* USA v. Miner
*PACER case #:* 60159
*Date filed:* 2011-03-15
*Date of last filing:* 2011-09-20
*Assigned to:* District Judge Thomas W Phillips
*Referred to:* Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley
Parties
*Represented Party* *Attorney & Contact Info*
David Miner
Defendant (1)
Kim A Tollison
Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc. (Knox)
800 South Gay Street
Suite 2400
Knoxville, TN 37929-9714
865-637-7979
Email: Kim_Tolli…@fd.org
/LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Public Defender or Community Defender Appointment/
Documents
*Date Filed* *Document #* *Attachment #* *Short Description* *Long
Description* *Upload date*
2011-03-15 1
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion to Seal Case MOTION to Seal by USA as to David Miner. (RLK)
(Entered: 03/16/2011) 2011-05-02 01:15:12
2011-03-15 2 0 Order on Motion to Seal Case ORDER granting 1 Motion
to Seal as to David Miner. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley
on March 15, 2011. (RLK) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
2011-03-15 3 0 Indictment (Sealed) SEALED INDICTMENT as to David
Miner charging counts 1 – 3. (Attachments: # 1 Criminal Cover Sheet)
(RLK) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
3 1 Criminal Cover Sheet
2011-03-28 4
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Rule 5(c)(3)Documents Received Rule 5(c)(3)Documents Received as to
David Miner (RLK) (Entered: 03/29/2011) 2011-05-29 13:17:59
2011-04-27 5
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Initial Appearance Minute Entry for proceedings held before
Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley: Initial Appearance as to David
Miner held on 4/27/2011, Arraignment as to David Miner (1) Count 1,2-3
held on 4/27/2011. Attorney Kim A. Tollison for David Miner present. Not
guilty plea entered., Added attorney Kim A Tollison for David Miner.,
(Plea Agreement due by 6/22/2011., Jury Trial set for 6/29/2011 09:00 AM
in Courtroom 4 – Knoxville before District Judge Thomas W Phillips.,
Pretrial Conference set for 6/22/2011 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3B –
Knoxville before Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley.) (Tape
#FTR)Defendant Released on Conditions. (DCP) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
2011-05-02 00:15:13
2011-04-27 6 0 Order to Unseal Case ORDER to Unseal Case as to David
Miner. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on 4/27/2011. (DCP,
) Modified on 4/28/2011 (DCP, ). (Entered: 04/28/2011)
2011-04-27 7 0 CJA23 – Financial Affidavit CJA 23 Financial
Affidavit by David Miner executed and approved. Signed by Magistrate
Judge C Clifford Shirley on 4/27/2011. (DCP, ) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
2011-04-27 8
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Order Appointing Public Defender ORDER APPOINTING FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER as to David Miner. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford
Shirley on 4/27/2011. (DCP, ) (Entered: 04/28/2011) 2011-05-29 13:21:22
2011-04-27 9
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Order Setting Conditions of Release ORDER Setting Conditions of
Release as to David Miner (1) Personal Recognizance Bond. Signed by
Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on 4/27/2011. (DCP, ) (Entered:
04/28/2011) 2011-06-18 18:00:19
2011-04-27 10
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Scheduling Order ORDER ON DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING as to David
Miner. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on 4/27/2011. (DCP,
) (DCP, ). (Entered: 04/28/2011) 2011-05-02 00:09:22
2011-04-28 11
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Notice of Hearing NOTICE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE as to David Miner.
A pretrial conference is hereby scheduled before C. Clifford Shirley,
Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, to commence on June 22, 2011 at
9:30 a.m., in the magistrate judge's courtroom. (DCP, ) (Entered:
04/28/2011) 2011-05-10 14:27:13
2011-05-25 12
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion to Continue MOTION to Continue by David Miner. (Tollison,
Kim) (Entered: 05/25/2011) 2011-05-27 10:42:37
2011-05-27 13
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Order on Motion to Continue ORDER granting in part (extending the
motion deadline) and denying in part(as to the trial continuance) 12
Motion to Continue as to David Miner (1). The motion-fi1ing deadline is
extended to June 20, 2011. A reciprocal extension of the response
deadline would have any responses being filed after the pretrial
conference on June 22, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. Accordingly, the Court will
set a new response deadline and take up the request to continue the
trial at the pretrial conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford
Shirley on 5/27/2011. (DCP) Modified on 5/31/2011 (DCP) more text.
(Entered: 05/27/2011) 2011-06-04 14:01:15
2011-06-20 14
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion for Extension of Time to File
2011-08-08 02:47:57
2011-06-22 15
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion Hearing
2011-07-06 20:21:16
2011-06-23 16
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Order on Motion to Continue
2011-07-07 02:36:41
2011-06-28 17 0 Transcript
2011-08-01 18
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion for Extension of Time to File
2011-08-08 02:42:58
2011-08-03 19
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
2011-08-08 02:44:22
2011-08-08 20
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion to Dismiss
2011-08-11 21:52:12
2011-08-08 21
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Memorandum in Support of Motion
2011-08-11 21:54:52
2011-08-08 22
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion to Dismiss
2011-08-11 21:57:15
2011-08-08 23
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Memorandum in Support of Motion
2011-08-11 22:00:17
2011-08-22 24
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
2011-08-24 18:15:20
2011-08-25 25
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
2011-08-29 16:06:17
2011-08-29 26 0 Response to Motion
26 1 Exhibit Government Exhibit 1
26 2 Exhibit Government Exhibit 2
26 3 Exhibit Government Exhibit 3
26 4 Exhibit Government Exhibit 4
26 5 Exhibit Government Exhibit 5
26 6 Exhibit Government Exhibit 6
26 7 Exhibit Government Exhibit 7
26 8 Exhibit Government Exhibit 8
2011-09-02 27
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Warrant Returned Executed
2011-09-06 10:07:34
2011-09-02 28
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
0 Motion Hearing
2011-09-06 10:12:13
2011-09-20 29 0 Transcript
2011-09-20 30 0 Indictment
30
<http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tned.60159/gov.uscourts….>
1 Criminal Cover Sheet
2011-09-21 04:45:25
—
Bob Hurt, Concerned *Bob Hurt* <http://bobhurt.com> *Blog 1*
<http://bobhurt.blogspot.com> *2* <http://bobhurt.wordpress.com> *3*
<http://bobhurt.posterous.com> *f* <http://facebook.com/truhbob> *t*
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email ; Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate <http://bobhurt.com/lawdonation.htm> Subscribe
<http://bobhurt.com/subscribetolawmen.htm>
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary
-
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Held:
(1) That a so-called excise tax, imposed by the Act, of 15% of the sale price or market value at the mine of all bituminous coal produced in the country, subject to a draw-back of 13 1/2% allowed to those producers who submit to the price-fixing and labor provisions of the Act, is not a tax, but a penalty to coerce submission, and cannot be upheld as an expression of the taxing power.
(2) The provisions of the Act looking to the control of the wages, hours, and working conditions of the miners engaged in the production of coal, and seeking to guarantee their right of collective bargaining in these matters, are beyond the powers of Congress, because —
(a) The Constitution grants to Congress no general power to regulate for the promotion of the general welfare.
(b ) The power expressly granted Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to control the conditions in which coal is produced before it becomes an article of commerce.
(c ) The effect on interstate commerce in the coal of labor conditions involved in its production, including disputes and strikes over wages, etc., is an indirect effect.
(3) Since a mine owner, by refusing to accept the regulatory provisions, would incur a prohibitive tax and be deprived, by other provisions of the Act, of the right to sell coal to the United States or to any of its contractors for use in performing their contracts, the regulations are, in fact, compulsory. In view of this compulsion, provisions of the Act seeking to authorize part of the producers and miners to fix hours for the entire industry, and part of the producers and miners in the districts to fix minimum wages in their districts, are legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form, and clearly violate the Fifth Amendment.
(4) The price-fixing provisions are not separable from the provisions concerning labor, and therefore cannot stand independently. They are so related to and dependent upon the labor provisions, as conditions, considerations or compensations, as to make it clearly probable that, the latter being held bad, the former would not have been passed.
(5) The constitutionality of the price-fixing provisions is not considered.
4. Whether the end sought to be attained by an Act of Congress is legitimate is wholly a matter of constitutional power, and not at all of legislative discretion. Beneficent aims, however great or well directed, can never serve in lieu of power.
5. To a constitutional end, many ways are open; but to an end not within the terms of the Constitution, all ways are closed.
6. The proposition, often advanced and as often discredited, that the power of the federal government inherently extends to all purposes affecting the Nation as a whole with which the States severally cannot deal, or deal adequately, and the related notion that Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have always been definitely rejected by this Court.
7. Those who framed and those who adopted the Constitution meant to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States only such portions as it was thought wise to confer upon the federal government, and, in order that there should be no uncertainty as to what was taken and what was left, the national powers of legislation were not aggregated, but enumerated — with the result that what was not embraced by the enumeration remained vested in the States without change or impairment.
8. The States, in respect of all powers reserved to them, are supreme. And since every addition to the national legislative power to some extent detracts from or invades the power of the States, it is of vital moment that, in order to preserve the fixed balance intended by the Constitution, the powers of the general government be not so extended as to embrace any not within the express terms of the several grants or the implications necessarily to be drawn therefrom.
9. The general government possesses no inherent power over the internal affairs of the States, and emphatically not with regard to legislation.
10. The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the national government is one of the plainest facts in the history of their deliberations. Adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the States. State powers can neither be appropriated, on the one hand, nor abdicated, on the other.
11. If the federal government once begins taking over the powers of the States, the States may be so despoiled of their powers, or — what may amount to the same thing — be so relieved of the responsibilities which the possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical divisions of the national domain.
12. The Constitution is a law — the supreme law of the land. Judicial tribunals are required to apply the law to the facts in every case properly brought before them, and, in so doing, they are bound to give effect to this supreme law as against any mere statute conflicting with it.
13. In the discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight; but their opinion, or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry.
14. As used in the commerce clause of the Constitution, the term “commerce” is the equivalent of intercourse for the purposes of trade, and includes transportation, purchase, sale and exchange of commodities between citizens of the different States. The power to regulate commerce embraces the instruments by which commerce is carried on.
15. Production and manufacture of commodities are not commerce, even when done with intent to sell or transport the commodities out of the State.
16. The possibility or even certainty of the exportation of a product or an article from a State does not put it in interstate commerce before it has begun to move from the State. To hold otherwise would be to nationalize all industries.
17. One who produces or manufactures a commodity, subsequently sold and shipped by him in interstate commerce, whether such sale and shipment were originally intended or not, has engaged in two distinct and separate activities. So far as he produces or manufactures it, his business is purely local. So far as he sells or ships it, or contracts to do so, to customers in another State, he engages in interstate commerce. In respect of the former, he is subject to regulation by the State; in respect of the latter, to regulation only by the federal government. Production is not commerce, but a step in preparation for commerce.
18. The incidents leading up to and culminating in the mining of coal — the employment of men, the fixing of their wages, hours of labor and working conditions, the bargaining in respect of these things — each and all constitute intercourse for the purposes of production, not of trade. Commerce in the coal is not brought into being by force of these purely local activities, but by negotiations, agreements and circumstances entirely apart from production. Mining brings the subject matter of commerce into existence; commerce disposes of it.
19. To say that an activity or condition has a “direct” effect upon commerce implies that it operates proximately — not mediately, remotely, or collaterally — to produce the effect, without the presence of any efficient intervening agency or condition.
20. The distinction between a direct and an indirect effect upon interstate commerce is independent of the magnitude of the effect or of its cause.
21. The evils which come to interstate commerce from struggles between employer and employees over the matter of wages, working conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc., and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of production and effect on prices, however extensive such evils may be, affect interstate commerce in a secondary and indirect way; they are local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control.
22. The want of power in the federal government is the same whether the wages, hours of service, and working conditions and the bargaining about them, are related to production before interstate commerce has begun, or to sale and distribution after it has ended. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495.
23. A declaration in a statute that invalidity of any of its provisions shall not affect the others reverses the presumption of inseparability, but it does not alter the rule that, if one of two mutually dependent parts be unconstitutional, the other cannot be upheld.
***Isn't it refreshing to hear the United States Supreme Court rule like this?
Clear, rational, and properly hostile to an activist central state apparatus eager to slip the traces and run amok.
Everything said in this decision is thoroughly grounded in a massive prior jurisprudence, as well as a fairly solid grounding in the framer's intent and a consequent reading of the Constitution in an internally-consistent fashion (none of which has anything to do with the issue of coal mining or its practices, per se, but only with who has the actual lawful authority to say what about what, and who doesn't).
Practically seems surreal, doesn't it?
Actually, the reason this five-and-a-half to three-and-a-half decision seems so extraordinary to modern sensibilities is that it was handed down in 1936, just a year before FDR threatened his “court-packing” scheme by which enough additional justices would be put on the bench to thwart sensible, Constitutionally-grounded ruling like this one and turn the court into a rubber-stamp for the ambitions of those who sought to rule and exploit the rest of us.
The threat worked (with a little help from Father Time, as a number of the justices responsible for rulings like the one above which Roosevelt and his fellow-travelers found so inhibiting retired). One would be hard-pressed to find a single Supreme Court ruling in which a federal enactment was struck down as unconstitutional from 1937 until 1995 (the Lopez case striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990), and precious few since '95, too. That's the kind of Leviathan-serving “jurisprudence” we've all come to view as “normal”, making the ruling above seem like nothing but a utopian fantasy.
But you know what? The Constitution hasn't changed during those years. The law is still the same law that it was when Justice Sutherland wrote the opinion in Carter v. Carter Coal Co.. What HAS changed is that too many Americans have lost their own personal understanding of the law, or their respect for it, and for themselves.
By the late thirties, practically a whole generation of Americans had been turned over to government schools for indoctrination. Many of their parents had been through those mis-education mills, too, and even those that hadn't were hapless consumers of Leviathan-boosting media. Plus, the dark influence of the Fed-induced Great Depression clouded the thinking of those who might otherwise have known better.
Once the High Court began surrendering to the statists' lust, an avalanche of bad jurisprudence started rolling over the judicial landscape, eventually establishing a vast constituency invested in an unrestrained central government. The war of all against all, in which everyone struggles to live at the expense of his neighbor, was launched. Everyone began vying for control of the apparatus of state power in order to be the ones doing the getting, since the only alternative was to be the ones being got.
Americans in great numbers took up dependency as a lifestyle. Others bought into socialist and historical myths undermining our understanding about property, personal rights, and the purpose of government. Many just let the increasing pace of technical innovations, an apparent material prosperity, and foreign and domestic hobgoblins danced before their wide eyes by political “engineers of consent” distract them from their roles as grown-ups responsible for keeping America the land of the free and the home of the brave.
In short, the people grew increasingly contemptible, and those in control of the apparatus of the state grew increasingly contemptuous of them, and of their law. We have reached the point now where an American president can refer to the Constitution as a “G**damned piece of paper!” and not only not be hauled from the White House by a mob of infuriated citizens, but be re-elected.
But you know what? The Constitution is STILL the law of the land, and it is still the only authority by which those who wield power as governors in this country do so. To the degree that those wielders of power violate or conflict with the Constitution, they are still outside the law, and without authority, however much Americans may have gotten out of the habit of holding them to account for their transgressions, or withdrawing our support from them. The only thing that changed is us.
Every word of the law that the Supreme Court explained to us in 1936 remains the same. Everything that court said about it and its meaning remains true right now.
“That a so-called excise tax, imposed by the Act, of 15% of the sale price or market value at the mine of all bituminous coal produced in the country, subject to a draw-back of 13 1/2% allowed to those producers who submit to the price-fixing and labor, provisions of the Act, is not a tax, but a penalty to coerce submission, and cannot be upheld as an expression of the taxing power.”
Think about Obamacare…
“The proposition, often advanced and as often discredited, that the power of the federal government inherently extends to all purposes affecting the Nation as a whole with which the States severally cannot deal, or deal adequately, and the related notion that Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have always been definitely rejected by this Court.”
Think about darn near everything else Leviathan does, or wants to do…
“The Constitution is a law — the supreme law of the land. Judicial tribunals are required to apply the law to the facts in every case properly brought before them, and, in so doing, they are bound to give effect to this supreme law as against any mere statute conflicting with it.
“In the discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight; but their opinion, or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry.”
Think about whose law the Court speaks of, and the relationship of people to government that these words recognize and honor.
It's OUR LAW, people, and it's up to us to resume our roles as stewards of our own sovereignty.
That's what this CtC community is all about (click here for a quick introduction or refresher). That's what the noble men and women honored here and here every week are all about.
That's what those honored here are all about. That's what YOU need to be all about, and what you need to urge your families, and friends and neighbors, and co-workers and acquaintances to be all about.
Americans have slept at the wheel so long that this country is now careening toward a cliff-edge. Time to get back in control, however difficult or inconvenient it may be. But it's not as hard as it may sound. After all, we've got the law on our side…
Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”-Thomas Paine -
I wouldn't want to be a statutory ANYTHING, including a “national**”. I claim a legislatively but not constitutionally foreign status which means I am not and cannot lawfully become the subject of any federal civil litigation. Saying that I am a “non-citizen national***” does not mean I have the statutory status of “national**” which he describes so long as I qualify it.
-
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer here hoping my words find you blessed.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I write today to show you how out of control the IRS by name is. We all know about the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 and its mandate issue and that the Secretary of the Treasury requires everyone who has or has not purchased health insurance to report such conduct on Form 1040 under penalty of perjury.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]If you claim the 5th Amendment you get red flagged. If you say nothing at all your willful failure to file is on affirmative act away from tax evasion. If you answer either way you voluntarily waive your rights secured by the Fifth amendment.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Besides there being no limitations upon what the “IRS” can or cannot do by any statute or regulation, the IRS, whose legal existence will always remain in dispute without internal revenue districts and district director offices until the statutes and regulations are all changed, Jonathan Alder, Professor and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University, reports on a new rule the IRS made up.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]This new rule imposes a $ 3000 tax on all employees who fail to offer required “health benefits.” USA Today, 6.25.12, pg. 7A. Alder reports the IRS “finalized a rule making credits available through Federal Exchanges, contrary to the express language of the statute.” Id.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Alder says “[T]he IRS is literally taxing employers and spending billions without Congressional authorization.” So, the IRS, which has no Congressional authorization to even exist by any statute or regulation, has been caught taking action imposing more taxes that do not derive from any statute whatsoever. His words, not mine (though they sound like mine).[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Alder concludes the “IRS doesn't have a leg to stand on here. It has not cited any express statutory authority for its decision BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.” Alder claims this “tax” is “unauthorized.” He concludes “f saving the law…requires the IRS [to] tax Americans without authorization, then it [the law] is not worth saving.” Id.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I am reminded here there is no district directors of internal revenue, see 26 U.S.C. Section 7514 (each district director proof of delegation of authority from Secretary of Treasury by “seal” designation), and 26 CFR 301.7701-10 (define “district director”), nor any Internal Revenue Districts, see 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(place to file return), 6151 (working with 6091 where you pay where you file), 7601 (summons to canvas each internal revenue district), and 7621 (President creates Internal Revenue Districts), for any collection (26 CFR Sec. 301.6301) and levy (26 CFR Sec. 301.6331), for these “unauthorized” exactions to be levied.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I am not sure at what point America decides it has had enough but imposing a $ 3000 tax on State employers with no statute or regulation implementing such statute, will never lead to confidence or protection for liberties sake.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Maybe we need to let all States become Defunct, like all Internal Revenue Districts in 1999, See Allnutt v. CIR, 523 F.3d 406, 408 (n.1)(4th Cir. 2008) cited in U.S.A. v. Springer, 10-5055, decided by 10th Cir. on October 26, 2011, and just go with “nationwide” Federal jurisdiction everywhere. I am reminded by the recent Bond decision by the Supreme Court, 131 [/background]S.Ct[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]. 2355 (2011), which held there are two Governments, “not one”, and this was done to “secure liberty of the individual.”[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Sitting in Federal Prison and reading the U.S.A. Today story quoted above by Alder convinces me we have not State Governments left to protect any liberty and the United States has become ad hoc in just about everything they do or say. I pray God stops this tyranny through the Holy Spirit.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Just ask yourself what cant the IRS say or do. There is only one way to override the IRS and that is through an election of House and Senate men and women that will take control by giving this Country back to their respective State they are elected to represent. I am reminded of 2nd Chronicles 7: 14:[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and heal their land.”[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Father, please forgive us our sins in Jesus name and heal our land. Amen![/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you for considering supporting me during this time as it is greatly needed. I will write about the recent decisions by the Supreme Court on Affordable Health Care when it comes out and also explain my view of the impact on the June 25, 2012, decision dealing with immigration law from Arizona. That decision is going to prove to be a defining moment in History between Federal and State offenses. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer 6.26.12[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]=====================================================[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]PayPal:[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]gnutella@mindspring.com[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]_________ Springer[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer, 02580-063[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]FCI Big Spring[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]1900 Simler Ave[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Big Spring, TX 79720[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thanks,[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey & Family[/background]
-
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]XVI. PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AS HIS WAIVER WAS NOT VOLUNTARY, KNOWINGLY, AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Sixth Amendment secures for People facing trial, with criminal penalties, that such represented individuals be represented by competent counsel; or the trial court is allowed to proceed to trial without such appointment so long as the record is clear Petitioner voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment Right to such Counsel. The record shows no proper waiver exists.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel's decision to affirm Petitioner's conviction obtained without such Counsel, and reviewing de novo, relied upon U.S. v. Turner, 287 F.3d 980, 983 (10th Cir. 2002) setting the Circuit test in direct conflict with Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723 (1948); U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 (1967); Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170 (1985); Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 298-99 (1988); and Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 81 (2004). Farretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Petitioner's waiver is premised upon one approximate 10 minute discussion with the Trial Judge at the beginning of a motion's hearing on April 22, 2009, some 30 days after arraignment. App. C. The Trial Judge informed defendants, App. A-14, in a joint manner, “both of you understand that you do have a right to a lawyer” and “both of you have standby counsel.” App. A-14. In the 10 minute joint exchange the Panel holds Petitioner and his co-defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, waived Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. App. A-15. The Panel set its de novo test at:[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”the trial judge ideally should conduct a 'thorough and comprehensive formal inquiry including topics such as the nature of the charges, the range of punishment, possible defenses, and a disclosure of risk involved in representing one self pro-se.”[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]App. A-14 At no time does the Panel identify any words conveyed to Petitioner “on the record” but rather used conclusory statements to summarize the Panel decision. App. A-14 & 15.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The 10 minute discussion shows the Court conveyed (1) no tag teaming, (2) standby counsel does not represent, (without an attorney Petitioner might miss something, (4) it is unwise to represent yourself, (5) there will be no special treatment, (6) no continuances, (7) DOJ wont go easy on Petitioner, (8) no claim on appeal Petitioner lacked skill. App. C-7 to C-10[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)](i) No understanding of the offenses or their nature.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Sixth Amendment is not a jointly held right. Neither Petitioner, or the Court, understood the charges ordering two separate Bills of Particulars on July 2, 2009, App. E-3, and on October 9, 2009, App. F-1. At the July 2, 2009 hearing, the Trial Court asked the Prosecution “what provision should I be looking at here.” App. E-2. Petitioner informed the Court on April 22, 2009, he did not understand the charges. App. C-16 At all times Petitioner was led to believe the tax returns at issue were Form 1040. App. JJ-3. The Trial Court even instructed the jury Form 1040 did not violate the PRA. App. L-5. the Panel held Form 1040 was not even at issue in the Trial. App. A-9[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)](ii) No risks of proceeding Pro-Se were rigorously conveyed.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The only danger in the 8 listed items above is that Petitioner might miss items. App. C-8. That is not what this Court has required. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)](iii) No consequence of conviction was rigorously conveyed.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel's “consequence of conviction” test does not fit into any test in Turner. App. A-14. Petitioner was informed if he was found guilty he faced probably between 5 and 10 years and each Count combine was 22 years. App. C-24 Petitioner received 15 years. App. R-2[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)](iv) The Sixth Amendment demands so much more.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Trial Court informed Petitioner an attorney's knowledge, ability, and experience with procedures, trials, and appeals, was an advantage. App. C-8. The Trial Court informed Petitioner he would be required to obey all “criminal law and court room procedure.” App. C-11. During the 10 minute hearing Petitioner sought understanding of the role of standby counsel, subpoenaing witnesses (especially government), and referred to an affidavit as a sticking point to qualify for counsel dealing with the nature of the case in general. App. C-14.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Petitioner ran into many dangers never addressed by the Trial Judge. Petitioner sought meaning of “required by law” and “lawful functions”. Petitioner was at a loss for how the SOTT could remain with Congressional Authority after a criminal referral was made. The Form of Return, the PRA, Springer, 580 F.3d at 1143-44, venue and jurisdiction wanting due to abolished IRDs, the meaning of services, gift, return, and other terms not defined by Congress or the SOTT. Each attempt was Petitioner seeking understanding of the charges. Petitioner sought evidence about referral witnesses and Government employees and was repeatedly denied. App. C-14. At Trial, Touhy was used to keep out Meadors, Horn, Nelson, Rice and others. App. O-11 The Sixth Amendment secures the right to call material witnesses in this very complex case. Meadors, for instance, thanked Petitioner for his cooperation. App. V The Court would not let her testify. Meadors conducted an investigation using summons while a Grand Jury was impanelled by Horn and Nelson. App. Y-1. How can Touhy regulations overrule the Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses? App. L-6 to L-9[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Trial Court never discussed defenses, the trial process, or why Petitioner sought to proceed pro-se. Petitioner should have been told the Court found Form 1040 did not violate the PRA. Petitioner was never informed by Congress, SOTT, or the Court, the meaning of gift, testifying in the narrative, or how to present evidence, before the waiver was construed. In the middle of trial, the Court declared:[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”So, I think in fairness with two pro-se defendants, it is appropriate to provide some preliminary thoughts as to the ground rules…that will govern the Defendant's presentation of their evidence.” App. I-14[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel limits the “voluntarily” prong of the waiver to simply whether the “district court alerted them to their clear alternatives to self representation.” App. A-14. anyone could say the Sixth Amendment does that. In Von Moltke, 332 U.S. at 723, this Court held the presumption is against waiver. To be voluntary, the Court must ask Petitioner why he chooses to proceed pro-se. Id. at 724[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Never did the Court make such a searching question. To be voluntary, the Court MUST conduct a thorough and comprehensive formal inquiry. Id. This Court says “must” and the Panel says “ideally should.” App. A-14. The decision MUST be penetrating and wisely made. Id. Simply making Petitioner aware of the Sixth Amendment's words does not make Petitioner's choice “voluntarily” made.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel's finding the waiver on April 22, 2009, was intelligent, is unfounded. “Whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to Counsel MUST depend (not ideally) in each case upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464. “The information a defendant MUST possess (not ideally) in order to make an intelligent election depends on a range of case specific factors, including education (12th grade), the complex or easily grasped nature of the charges (very complex), and the state of the proceedings.” Id. These warnings of the pitfalls of proceeding to trial uncounseled “MUST be rigorously conveyed.” (not ideally). Patterson, 487 U.S. at 298. The issue is “what purpose a lawyer can serve at the particular state of the proceedings in question.” Id. “Less rigorous” at pretrial and “rigorously conveyed” for trial. Id.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Sixth Amendment secures Counsel “at all critical states” of the criminal process. Tovar, 541 U.S. at 88; quoting Maine, 474 U.S. at 170. The “hazards ahead” MUST be “warned specifically.” Id. Petitioner need not possess the skill of a trial lawyers in order to voluntarily, competently, and intelligently waive counsel, but he should be warned about the specific “procedures and evidence, comprehend the subtleties of voir dire, examine and cross examine witnesses effectively…object to improper questions and much more.” Tovar, 541 U.S. at 89.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The warning must be about the “pitfalls” ahead. Id. The Court was required to match up the “stage” with the “type of warnings and procedures that should be required before waiver of that right will be recognized.” Id. at 298. The Trial Judge is to make certain the waiver is understandingly and wisely made “only from a penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances under which such plea is tendered.” Von Moltke, 332 U.S. at 723-24 In about 10 minutes the Panel held the Trial Court covered every critical stage and made every examination this Court requires. App. A-14 & 15 The Panel is wrong. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]This Court held in Johnson, if the Sixth Amendment is not properly waived “the Court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed” and the Judgment of conviction was void. 304 U.S. at 468. Certainly unusual![/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]CONCLUSION[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Respectfully Submitted[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey K. Springer[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]4.11.12[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]=====================================================[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]PayPal:[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]gnutella@mindspring.com[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]_________ Springer[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer, 02580-063[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]FCI Big Spring[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]1900 Simler Ave[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Big Spring, TX 79720[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thanks,[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey & Family[/background]
-
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer here and hoping my recent emails of my Petition to the Supreme Court opened your eyes to something new you did not know before you read them. If you have not read them that is ok also.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I am sure it is difficult to believe the Federal Government would act without legal authority, or change a Grand Jury indictment while and during the appellate review process, or after proclaiming for all to see their theory of indictment did not implicate or involve any Treasury Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, on appeal, the Tenth Circuit held all Six Counts on a single Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 1.6091-2(2005). In the case against me you could see they applied, during appeal, the 2005 version of 1.6091-2 to years 2000 through 2004 which is prohibited by 26 U.S.C. Section 7805 and the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The issues of Congressional power in the hands of the Secretary during criminal referral or institutional commitment to prosecute is front and center in my case. Though the Supreme Court said in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308-318 (1978) the Secretary could not retain administrative authority while a criminal referral designation had been made to the U.S. Attorney, I have two cases pending before the Supreme Court clearly showing the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice brought a civil case against me in 2008 and indictment in 2009 involving the same tax years.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Civil Case evicted my family out of its home on April 15, 2010, and the Criminal Case deprived me of my liberty 8 days later on April 23, 2010. Needless to say, the Tax Division ignored LaSalle's Supreme Court Rule. Although understanding the rule is as simple as understanding a power of attorney, once you give power of attorney to someone you no longer have power to act as your own attorney unless and until you revoke the power you gave (unless it is conditional or joint). Congress gave the power to enforce all Tax Laws, including Criminal or Civil, to the Secretary of the Treasury and no other office. In order for a criminal case to be then brought, in accord with the Grand Jury provision of the Fifth Amendment, the Secretary must surrender his power over the criminal laws to the U.S. Attorney who then can present for an indictment to a Grand Jury.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Due to circumstances beyond my control, both the Civil Case, 11-10134, and the Criminal Case, 11-10096, have been docketed 2 days apart and are to conference before the Supreme Court together on May 31, 2012. Even though they were decided 8 days apart in 2010, they were separated by months at one point. But due to those circumstances beyond my control they are now just where they ought to be in truth and substance. Together. Together shows the LaSalle rule violation in a clear light. I even moved to consolidate and that motion was filed as a supplemental brief by the Court last week.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]In the book of Esther, one of my favorites, it was prayer and fasting that ultimately aligned her and Mordecai with her husband the King to prevent the extermination of her people. We have longsuffered both the Congress of the United States and it inability to fix its Federally dominated Government. The Tax Law is impossible to follow and not just complex.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Because those of you have kept up with what is going on in my cases, I am requesting your sincere attention to prayer over the next few days and for those of you led to fast for your nation, as Esther did and her people, I highly recommend it. God will vindicate his imperfect children who repent instead of defy him. We must repent. [/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Please pray the holy spirit inspire the Supreme Court to get involved in the problem with our Tax System by Granting my consolidated Petitions to Review the Cases below. My request of course is for unmerited favor and the Grace of a life time from God. Thank you for standing with me as God's children are worth it to him, and if him, then you and me also.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I am reminded about the story of Mother Teresa who was watching a Sister stitch up a very stinky wound on a Soldier one time and the Sister was so far away from the fleshly tear that she could hardly stitch with any accuracy. Mother Teresa pushed her out of the way and got over the top of the leg and started stitching enduring all the smell. She looked over at the Sister and said that she must see this soldier as if it was Jesus laying there. Afterwords, the Sister regained her position and remained very close to wounds she stitched up. We must see everyone the same way. This is consistent with Matthew 25:34 to 40.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you for all your prayers. Remember, Jesus loves you very much. Lindsey[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]=====================================================[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]PayPal:[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]gnutella@mindspring.com[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]_________ Springer[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer, 02580-063[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]FCI Big Spring[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]1900 Simler Ave[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Big Spring, TX 79720[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thanks,[/background]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey & Family[/background]
-
X. PANEL REJECTED U.S. v. LASALLE'S “INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT” TO GATHER EVIDENCE FOR U.S. ATTORNEY, AS
BAD FAITH, WARRANTING SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY SUMMONS.
The Panel rejected every aspect of this Court's decision in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S 298, 308-317(1978). This Court's instruction to the Courts below is not to “countenance delay in submitting a recommendation to the Justice Department” by the SOTT. Id. at 317. Delay is unjustified “when there is an institutional commitment to make the referral and the [SOTT] merely would like to gather additional evidence.”
The Panel finds the institutional referral was made for years 2000 through 2004 on June 3, 2005. App. A-4. Documents held under seal turned over per force of the Court showed Eddy and Judith Patterson had entered into agreements with Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Horn and Melody Nelson (“Horn and Nelson”) in the “ongoing” Grand Jury investigation of Petitioner and Oscar Stilley. App. W-2. The SOTT's “cooperating” Agent was named “Donna Meadors” in the Patterson trial. App. OO-15. Pattersons were both convicted on December 16, 2003. App. W-1
On January 26, 2004, Meadors notified Petitioner by Summons she sought records of Petitioner's receipt of money for 2000 through 2003. App. V-1. While Meadors continued cooperating pre-sentence in the Patterson case with Horn and Nelson, Horn and Nelson interviewed Ms. Patterson on May 3, 2004, “concerning an ongoing investigation concerning Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer.” App. X-2. Ms. Patterson even agreed to testify “before the grand jury” and at “jury trial.” App. X-2. For this testimony, Ms. Patterson received a reduction in her sentence. App. X-2. On August 30, 2004, Mr. Patterson entered a post trial plea agreement with Horn and Nelson explaining “cooperation” as follows:
“[Patterson] agrees to cooperate fully with the United States Government and all of its various departments and agencies on the continuing investigation into the alleged criminal conduct of Oscar Stilley…and Lindsey Springer.” App. W-2
The Post Trial plea agreement is littered with evidence Horn and Nelson were presenting evidence to a Grand Jury. App. W-5. On October 6, 2004, Ms. Patterson testified before the “Grand Jury” “In the Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley.” App. Y-1. Meanwhile, Meadors, the cooperating “agent” for the SOTT in the Patterson case, continues to issue summons enforcing tax laws. By December 2, 2004, Meadors closes her “investigation” and thanks Petitioner for his cooperation. App. Z-1 The LaSalle/Power rule was clearly violated.
To avoid LaSalle's rule on institutional commitment, the Panel finds that “during most of 2004, the IRS was conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Springer's promotion of abusive tax shelters, and it did not refer him to the Justice Department for possible criminal violation under June 3, 2005.” App. A-10. The Panel then ignores Horn and Nelson's statements in Ms. Patterson's Rule 35(b) or Mr. Patterson's Post Trial Plea agreement that they were investigating Petitioner and Stilley, and fails to even mention the Grand Jury transcript dated October 6, 2004, where the “matter” was not “an expanded criminal investigation in a related case” but rather “In the Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley.” App. Y-1. What the Panel has done is reduce LaSalle's rule to some formalistic endeavor without even considering the Assistant U.S. Attorney's declarations made to the Court numerous times. As Petitioner argued below, the Patterson case was closed as of September 1, 2004, and the evidence is overwhelming the Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Agent Meadors were involved in working together in the Patterson case and simultaneously conducting a Grand Jury investigation of Petitioner and Stilley.
XI. THE PROPHYLACTIC RULE ANNOUNCED IN U.S. V. LASALLE APPLIES TO SPECIAL AGENTS ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 7608(b) AND ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AFTER JUNE 3, 2005, UNDER SECTION 7608(b) VIOLATED LASALLE'S RULE WARRANTING SUPPRESSION AND BAD FAITH
The Panel found June 3, 2005, was the day the SOTT's authority was somehow transferred to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tulsa. App. A-10. Eleven “Special Agents” claiming authority under Section 7608(b) obtained and served a “search warrant” upon Petitioner's home on September 16, 2005. App. EE-2. The Panel order identified the issue:
“Defendants…assert the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained after their case was referred to the Department of Justice for Criminal investigation.” App. A-9
However, the referral is not form “Criminal investigation” but rather for Grand Jury to be empanelled. The IRS does “Criminal Investigations”, not a Grand Jury. The “referral” letter for years “2000 through 2004” only was to the local Assistant U.S. Attorney. App. BB-1. AUSA Nelson clearly made the referral and received it at the same time. There is no recommendation from the revenue district “Special Agent” as required by LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 314, n.17. The Panel though never addressed the fact evidence had been gathered after June 3, 2005, when they look before, stating “most of 2004, the IRS was conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Springer's promotion of abusive tax shelters and did not refer him…until June 3, 2005. App. A-10. (ignoring October 6, 2004 Grand Jury Transcript). App. Y.
It was not until the eve of trial the Prosecution disclosed the October 6, 2004, Grand Jury transcript in the “Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley.” App. 0-3. The Panel never mentions this transcript or its impact on the June 3, 2005, referral theory. App. A-10.
Instead, the Panel lumps this issue in its “catch all” denial:
“to the extent defendants raise other issues that we have not explicitly discussed, we have considered them and find them to be meritless.” App. A-22
The Panel admitted “on September 16, [2005] of that year, the government executed a search warrant of Mr. Springer's residence.” App. A-4. The Grand Jury alleged in Count One:
“On September 16, 2005….Springer told Internal Revenue Service employees that all funds he received are gifts and donations, that he does not have any income, and that he does not provide any services…” App. JJ-4
The Grand Jury's allegation as to the capacity and function of the employees was found by another Panel in the Tenth Circuit in Springer v. Albin, et al., 398 F. Appx. 427, 429 (10th Cir. 2010):
“On September 16, 2005, agents executed a search warrant at Mr. Springer's home as part of an investigation into his activities.” App. S-3
The Albin Panel did not have the benefit of the June 3, 2005, letter of referral for 2000 through 2004 as that letter had been first disclosed on June 15, 2009, the day before then Solicitor General, now Justice Elena Kagan, authorized interlocutory appeal in Albin. The Declarations made part of the record in this case, submitted in Albin, stated the Special Agents served the “Search Warrant” under the SOTT's authority pursuant to Section 7608(b). App. EE-2.
Special Agent Shern declared he was assigned to “conduct the investigation.” App. EE-2 He declared he was acting on behalf of the “Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division” as of September 16, 2005. App. EE-2. His declaration further declared his authority on September 16, 2005, as to:
“perform all duties conferred upon such officers under laws and regulations administered by the Internal Revenue Service.” App. EE-1
Shern continued in his declaration his authority included to investigate, execute search warrants, and “make seizures of property subject to forfeiture and to require and receive information as to all matters relating to such laws and regulations.” App. EE-2
Shern declared the IRS was investigating Petitioner for tax evasion and failure to file tax returns. App. EE-9. In this case, Petitioner was pursued by Grand Jury and the SOTT's “Special Agents” continued to enforce Section 7608(b). There is obviously no “steps” to follow after referral. LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 318. From the U.S. Attorney, its Grand Jury, or the SOTT's “special agents”, the LaSalle rule in this case is beyond violated. LaSalle's “rule applies solely to the statutory scheme of the internal revenue code in which the IRS's civil authority ceases…upon referral of a taxpayer's case.” SEC v. Dressler, 628 F.2d 1368, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1980)(en banc)
Upon recommendation, the “Internal Revenue Code itself terminates the IRS's investigation authority on referral.” Linda Thompson, et al., v. Resolution Trust C., 5 F.3d 1508, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1993); citing LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312-31. The “referral” “inhibits” the SOTT. U.S. v. Anaya, 815 F.2d 1373, 1377(10th Cir. 1987) “Once a criminal referral has been made the Commissioner is under well known restraints.” Bedarco v. CIR, 464 U.S. 386, 399 (1983). Designation of “Special Agent” or “Revenue Agent” have little difference. U.S. v. Garden, 607 F.2d 61, 65(n.3)(3rd Cir. 1979). The SOTT's role after referral is that of “interagency cooperation.” LaSalle, at 312. The Grand Jury is a “buffer or referee.” U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992). The “rule” is to prevent broadening discovery or infringing on the role of the Grand Jury. Dressler, 628 F.2d at 1378
Both the indictment and trial relied almost exclusively upon evidence gathered using enforcement authority of the SOTT while a Grand Jury was convened. This is the “future case” this Court in LaSalle implied. Id. at 318(n.20). No authority under Section 7608(b) remained with the SOTT to enforce “in the performance of his duties” post referral. Horn and Nelson declare IRS was enforcing as of September 16, 2005. App. FF/GG
=====================================================
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
PayPal:
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):
_________ Springer
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks,
Lindsey & Family
-
VII. THE PANEL DECISION HOLDING THE PRA DOES NOT APPLY TO PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH FAILING TO FILE A TAX RETURN FORM CONFLICTS WITH DOLE v. UNITED STEELWORKERS, 494 U.S. 26, 32-33 (1990)
The Panel holds Tax Return Forms are not subject to the PRA. App. A-9 In Dole, this Court explained “typical information collection requests include tax forms.” Id. at 33. This Court explained “the public is protected under the [PRA] from paperwork reductions not issued in compliance with the Act.” Id. at 40. The PRA “allows the public by refusing to answer these information collection requests to help control 'outlaw' forms.” Id. at n.6. “Members of the public may ignore it without risk of penalty.” Id.
The Panel holds the PRA does not apply to tax return forms. App. A-9. The 1980 PRA at 44 U.S.C. Sec. 351 mandates:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to an agency…”
Each Count alleges Petitioner willfully failed to provide tax information to the SOTT on Form 1040. App. JJ. 1995's version reads:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information…”
The Panel's version of this section removes the phrase “Notwithstanding any other provision of law” and begins with “[N]o person….” App. A-8. The Panel's omission guts the public protection and intent of Congress. When Congress begins a law “with the words 'notwithstanding' any other provision of law”, such language is a “bar” and depriving.” Long Isl. R. Co. v. Aberdeen & Rock R. Co., 439 U.S. 1, 6(1978)(Congress deprived the Commission of even….limited authority…with the words 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'”)
“[n]ot withstanding any other provision of law” “evinces Congressional intent to pre-empt any law Federal or State.” U.S. v. Vasquex-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1999). The Panel held Sec 6012 and 7203 withstand the public protection. App. A-8.
Many Circuits have held tax laws withstand, or are exempt from, the public protection but have arrived at varying opinions on what laws withstand the PRA. See U.S. v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990)(Sec. 6012 and 7203); U.S. v. Gross, 626 F.3d 289, 295(6th Cir. 2010)(adding Sec. 6011). Salberg v. U.S., 969 F.2d 379, 384 (7th Cir. 1992)(Sec. 7203); U.S. v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094 (7th Cir. 2007)(excluding tax evasion and holding “return” not defined); U.S. v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359(9th Cir. 1991)(Sec. 6012 and 7203); U.S. v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699(11th Cir. 1992)(Sec. 6012 only); U.S. v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1992)(Per curiam)(no specified section).
In contrast, the Tenth Circuit in Collins held the PRA was applicable to Sec. 7201 tax evasion “including Federal Income Tax Returns within the category of information collection requests under the Act.” 920 F.2d at 630 (n.12); cited to Gross, 626 F.3d at 295(n.5). The Tenth Circuit had previously rejected the “statutory origin theory” applying the PRA to Tax Return Forms. Dawes, 951 F.2d at 1192
In U.S. v. Chisum, the Court held “Tax Forms are covered by the PRA” citing Dole, 494 U.S. at 33. 502 F.3d 1237, 1243-44(10th Cir. 2007). In Springer, the Tenth Circuit specifically directed Petitioner, 2 months before trial, that the PRA applied to Tax Return Forms like 1040. 580 F.3d at 1144. In Lewis v. CIR, the Tenth Circuit applied the PRa to both the 1980 and 1995 public protection. 523 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2008). Petitioner was even told he could only raise the PRA as a defense. Springer, 231 F.Appx. 793, 795-799 (10th Cir. 2007). Now, the Panel suggests these positions are all wrong and the PRA only applies to false returns. App. A-9. Both Collins and Chisum rejected the false return's protection from penalties. 502 F.3d at 1244 citing Collins, 920 F.2d at 630 (n.13).
The Panel's suggestion “faulty information on a non compliant IRS Form”, App. A-9, is protected from penalties, conflicts with U.S. v. Weiss, 914 F.2d 1514, 1520-22(2nd Cir. 1990), holding the PRA does not apply to a person “who files information which is false.” The Tenth Circuit in Dawes held “as long as the 1040 Form complies nothing more is required.” 951 F.2d at 1192. See also U.S. v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir. 1992).
Recently, the Eighth Circuit in U.S. v. Cavins, 543 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2008), reaffirmed its commitment to Dawes:
“If the Form 1040 displays the control number required by Sec. 3512 'nothing more is required.'”
Dole included Tax Return Forms within the category of information collection requests, not exempted them. 494 U.S. at 40(n.7); See also Mackenzie Med. v. Heavitt, 506 F.3d 341, 350(4th Cir. 2007)(explaining how request is “exempt” under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3518). Tax Return Forms are not listed in Sec. 3518. GAO found Treasury Forms were not exempt. App. TT-75
(i) The Panel decision omits the phrase “issued in accordance with the [PRA]…”
The Panel replaced the words quoted above with “…” App. A-8. The test is not just whether the Form 1040 displays any OMB control number, but that the number be “issued in accordance with” the PRA. The Panel's claim Petitioner identified no defect, App. A-8, ignores the Appeal itself and the numerous times Petitioner has sought a merits based ruling on his PRA claims. See Motion to Dismiss, App. KK, (Form 1040 violates 44 U.S.C. Secs. 3504(c), 3507, and 3512(1980) and Secs 3506(c)(1)(:cool:(i,ii,iii)(I,II, III, IV, V, VI), 3507, and 3512(a)(1) and (2). App. U-8. Besides, the public protection can be
raised at “any time.” See Sec. 3512(b). Chisum, 502 F.3d at 1243-44. Petitioner sought protection 3 times. See Springer, 447 F. Supp. 2d at 1238; Springer, 231 F. Appx. at 793-799; and Springer, 580 F.3d at 1143-44. Cert Denied.
The Tax Return Form 1040 does not contain any notice response is mandatory, it indicates nothing in regard to any clearance requirements under Sec. 3507, no burden estimate appears anywhere, no citation to any provision of law requiring the collection, and there is no “accompanying instructions.” There is no statement that a person is not subject to penalty for failing to provide or comply with the Tax Return Form unless it displays a “valid” OMB control number. App. LL.
The Courts have equally disqualified Form 1040 from any expiration date obligation. See Collins, infra, and Salberge, infra. The SOTT applies for approval. App. MM. But the certification and the Form do not match up. OMB requires Ten Standards. App. TT-21. None of them appear on Tax Return Form 1040. App. LL. See also 5 CFR Sec. 1320.8(b)(3) mandates. App. U-10.
VIII. THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE TAX RETURN FORM IS NOT “DIVORCED” FROM FORM 1040, AS THE PANEL HOLDS, BUT IS INEXORABLY LINKED.
The Panel decision the “obligation to file a return” does not arise “out of Form 1040” in denying the merits of Petitioner's PRA good faith and complete defense claims, conflicts with the direct words of the indictment, jury instructions, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011, 26 CFR Sec.1.6011-1(a), the PRA of 1980 and 1995, and numerous decisions on the meaning of “return.” App. A-9. The Panel's conclusion “an actual Form 1040 may not even be necessary to comply with the statutory oblitations”, App. A-9, is contrary to the SOTT's Treas. Reg. 26 CFR Sec. 1.6011-1(a)(2000-2011) which directs:
“Every person subject to any tax…under Subtitle A of the Code, SHALL make such returns…as are REQUIRED by the regulations in this chapter. The Return…SHALL include therein the information required by the applicable REGULATIONS AND FORMS.”
No only does the SOTT “Marry” the Form 1040 to the requirement to file a Tax Return Form, the Grand Jury alleged “Form 1040” and “United States Individual Income Tax Return” as the basis in all Six Counts of the Indictment. App. JJ (alleging “required by law”).
In its Two Bills of Particulars the Prosecution identified Secs. 6011 and 6012, App. PP-2, and Treas. Regs. Secs. 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-1. App. QQ-3. Section 6011 requires every person liable make a return according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the SOTT. Otte, 419 U.S. at 52; Lane-Wells, 321 U.S. at 223; Galletti, 541 U.S. at 122
26 CFR Sec. 601.103(a) requires taxpayers “file a prescribed form of return.” Id. Section 601.104(a) prescribes “Returns MUST be made on the Form prescribed by the [SOTT].” App. U-16. See also Sullivan, 274 U.S. at 264 (“the form of return provided”) and at 263 (“to write any word upon the government blank”). IRS certifies this to OMB. App. MM.
“The provision of information in 1040 is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes.” Collins, 920 F.2d at 630 (n.13). “Its through the Form 1040 the government obtain all the tax information it requires.” Dawes, 951 F.2d at 1192-93. 26 CFR Sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6)(1990 through 2012) labeled “Form of Return” and specifically directs “Form 1040 is prescribed.” App. U-12. Petitioner was told a year after June 3, 2005, institutional referral for years 2000 through 2004, App. CC, “the [SOTT] and IRS have clear authority to impose criminal and civil penalties related to Form 1040.” Springer v. U.S., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1238(N.D. Ok. 2006), affirmed, 231 F. Appx. 793 (10th Cir. 2007); Cert denied 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1093 (2008).
The Trial Court instructed the Jury Form 1040 did not violate the PRA. App. L-5. The Panel conflicts with the entire case, explaining:
“the obligation to file a tax return and the criminalization of willful failure to do so represent statutory mandates DIVORCED from Form 1040.” App. A-9
Form 1040 is inexorably linked, not divorced. App. K-15; L-7
IX. JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE LAWS RELATED TO INTERNAL REVENUE WAS FOR ONLY CALENDAR YEARS 2000 THROUGH 2004.
After LaSalle, Congress enacted the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, P.L. 77-248, 96 Stat. 324, amending 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7602 and 7609. Section 333(d)[7602(d)] provides “Justice Department referral in effect.” Congress directed “each taxable period…and each tax imposed by a separate chapter of this title shall be treated separately.” See 7602(d)(3), App. U-5. Other aspects of LaSalle such as “institutional commitment” and gathering evidence for some other law enforcement entity have not changed. U.S. v. Rineheart, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (W.D.Ok. 2008), citing LaSalle and Pickel v. U.S., 746 F.2d 176(3rd Cir. 1984); see also U.S. v. Krauth, 769 F.2d 473, 479(n.3)(8th Cir. 1985).
The Panel finds referral occurred on June 3, 2005. App. A-10. The letter clearly identifies calendar year or period “2000 through 2004”. App. BB-1. Count One exceeds this time period by asserting a conspiracy from 2000 through 2009. App. JJ-2. Count four alleges for “2005”. App. JJ-11. The Trial Court at sentencing expanded its jurisdiction to “assess” a restitution back to 1990 through 2007. App. Q-2 See Sec. 6201(a)(4). App. U-9. The Court's adding tax liability from Stilley to Petitioner was likewise without jurisdiction as no liability of Stilley was referred. App. DD-1
Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction due to no IRDs existing, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Count One and four as both were outside “2000 through 2004” and the same holds true in regard to the restitution imposed under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6201(a)(4)(2010). The presumption is against jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 375. No evidence contained in the June 3, 2005, letter overrides the presumption regarding years outside the institutional referral letter.
=====================================================
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
PayPal:
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):
_________ Springer
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks,
Lindsey & Family