fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Juliusbragg,
That's fantastic information. Thanks for sharing it and please come back again and share your research on the right to travel in other states.
-
Neo,
You are confused about WHERE and HOW the constitution attaches. The constitution attaches to the LAND, and not the status of the people on the land. This was confirmed by President Taft in Balzac v. Porto Rico and also in the case of Downes v. Bidwell.
Quote:“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.”
[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) ]The above is also discussed in:
Great IRS Hoax, Section 4.2.3
http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htmPhysical presence on land protected by the Constitution is how one procures the protections of the Constitution, not DOMICILE on that land. Selecting a domicile on land protected by the Constitution changes one’s civil status from a national to a “citizen” under the LOCAL laws, but does not affect the protections of the Constitution. Those protections are available with or without a domicile. Citizenship encompasses TWO elements:
1. Domicile, which determines the municipal CIVIL laws one consents to be subject to and protected by.
2. Nationality, which determines membership in a nation.People physically present in American Samoa, which is a U.S. possession, are not protected by the Constitution because only constitutional and not statutory states of the Union are protected by and party to the United States Constitution. Ditto for U.S. territories like Puerto Rico.
Naturalization or birth in a specific nation under the law of nations doesn’t change one’s physical location, and therefore doesn’t affect whether one is protected by the Constitution. Please read the above section of the Great IRS Hoax, and the entire chapter 4 for that matter, so you thoroughly understand these concepts. That is why they are a mandatory part of the Path to Freedom process.
http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf -
Lindsey Springer here with my ties to President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
On September 16th 2005. During an armed raid at the home I lived in for 9 years, $19,000 in currency was discovered and seized at the direction of an assistant U.S. Attorney named Douglas Horn and/or Melony Noble Nelson. After a U.S. magistrate suggested the $19,000 was not contraband and that it should be returned to me, the Secretary of Treasury purportedly made a request for the $19,000 to be returned to me.
Three months later, on Jan 10, 2006, a purported delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury Brian Shern, approached me with a check from Treasury in the amount of $17,000. I was being asked to just ignore $2,000 had been stolen. When asked where the other $2,000 was, Mr. Shern informed me he did not know.
I commenced a civil action, Feb. 2006 in the United States District Court against 13 people who I claimed either stole, covered up the theft of my $2,000. The remedy I sought had been the law of this land for 35 years called a “Biven's action”. After three years,2 months and after numerous motions filed by the Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, all of their motions were denied by US District Judge Gregory Frizzell. The motions denied included motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a motion for summary judgement claiming no facts were in dispute, a motion for a judgement on the pleadings(again, claiming qualified immunity, and a motion to reconsider the foregoing.
In each motion filed by the Tax division, they argued the $19,000 was really only $17,000 and that the Biven's defendants simply were not trained in how to count currency. The $19,000 was counted by three different people prior to me receiving a receipt for $19,000 at the conclusion of the unlawful search(the search warrant filed in the Clerk's office contained no SWORN statement and it was missing page 18). I give you this information only to demonstrate the lawlessness the Tax Division will endorse in disregard of the Constitution of the United States.
On May 15,2009, three months after I had been indicted, Judge Frizzell set a Discovery schedule which included taking the deposition of several people involved in the theft and cover-up. Production of numerous documents was sure to follow that would show the theft that occurred at my home during a purported search. After the May 15th order was issued, the Tax Division removed my case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver seeking the 10th Circuit to determine whether the Biven's remedy should be set aside after 38 years. The question to Biven's defendants raise asks whether they should be given immunity because they stole the money after they left my home not while they were there. This is case 09-5088 at the 10th Circuit.
The entire reason why I was being attacked in the 1st place by the Tax Division was because I had drawn public attention to the Paperwork Reduction Act and how the Government accountability office(GAO) report in May of 2005 found most all forms including tax forms unequivocally violated the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and 1995(PRA).
This law Title 44,Section 3512 denies the Treasury the subjecting of any person to penalty for failure to file any tax form including From 1040 unless the form complies in every respect with the PRA. I contended publicly the Treasury complies with none of the 10 GAO standards. Neither do any of the forms distributed to the public provide any of the specific information congress mandates each agency including IRS provide to the public on their forms. One such example is that all forms are supposed to tell you that you are not subject to any penalty for failure to file a form timelu unless the form complies in every respect with the PRA.
Once the Tax Division had removed my Biven's action interlocutory to the 10th Circuit, I quicly moved to dismiss their frivolous appeal because as Judge Frizzell had found, the qualified immunity claims were hinged upon a fact that was in dispute. That question was when was it stolen, where was it sloen and who stole the $2000. I receive a receipt for $19,000 and a check for $17,000.
This is where the Solicitor General Elena Kagan first shows up to my knowledge in this case. The Tax Division opposed my motion to dismiss, in the 10th circuit, their frivolous interlocutory appeal by first admitting to the 10th circuit The Biven's defendants had stolen the $2000 for the purposes of their appeal. Their new argument to the 10th Circuit is that the money was not stolen until AFTER the agents left my home. This argument was contrary to three years and 2 months of arguments the Tax division made in front of District Judge Frizzell. There they maintained the money never existed therefore they simply must have miscounted 3 times in hundred dollar bills. There was a reason why they counted the currency 3 times. The answer they give me in discovery should settle any lawyering the Tax division is advancing.
Once I received the Tax divisions opposition to my motion to dismiss and their opening brief I moved for sanctions against the attorney's involved and each of the Biven's defendants because their reasons given to the 10th circuit were shockingly different than those they had made before District Judge Frizzell. The tax division asserted they had received authorization to make these frivolous arguments by Elena Kagan. They said as much in their pleadings at the 10th circuit all though they denied their claims were frivolous. The Tax Division has been opposing my motion for sanctions against each of them and the Solicitor General Elena Kagan merely argued noone should be sanctioned because the Solicitor General of the US had never been made a request by anyone to be sanctioned nor had any sanctions ever been granted against the Solicitor General. What makes their interlocutory appeal so beyond frivolous and meritless is how the argument in the District Court went from they never stole any $$ to the argument now that they did steal the money but the theft did not occur until after the Biven's defendants had departed from my 4th Amendment protected home. The Tax division told the 10th circuit Elena Kagan had approved their interlocutory appeal and argument.
Elena Kagan currently is President Obama's nominee for the vacating supreme court justice Stephens. I know very little about Elena Kagan but what I do know I reject. It seems to me that when a person asks the US Court to disregard 40 years of settled law and the only reason is so she can win. Such conduct provides a glimpse of what could be if that person was tendered one of the 9 seats created by Congress in the Supreme Court.
Twice at the District Court, the Tax division sought to have Judge Frizzell overturn the Supreme Court's Biven's remedy that had been law of the United States of America since 1971, which he repeatedly told the tax division he was unwilling nor authorized to do.
I remain vigilant in my pursuit of defending my Biven's rights and Judge Frizzell's numerous orders in my favor. It is one of the most difficult tasks I have ever faced when lawyering and an unaudited budget are used to override a constitutional right. Each of us must pause to take a closer look b4 we let such conduct become the law of the land.
Thank you for supporting me and my family in my cases both at the District Court and 10th circuit. I can accept your financial support through Paypal at lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com My mailing address is 5147 S Harvard Ave #116 Tulsa,OK 74135
Thank you for your continued support and prayers, Lindsey Springer
-
We can only help people who file correctly the first time as:
1. Nonresident aliens.
2. Non-citizen nationals under 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.
3. Constitutional citizens.
We are not aware of a way to change status after having filed from that of a resident alien filing 1040 to a nonresident alien filing 1040nr. This omission, we believe, is deliberate on the part of the IRS. The only way to address it that they appear to have provided is to REFILE the correct forms, not amend older forms. There are forms on SEDM for doing this:
Federal Non-resident non-statutory claim for return of funds unlawfully paid to the government, Form #15.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aimRfd-Long.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
If you ask further quesitons on this subject, please follow the protocol found in:
Path to Freedom, Form #14.4
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DO NOT ask us questions about this subject futher, because our Prohibited Activities list includes giving advice, aiding, or abetting anyone in filing, or not filing, tax returns. See section 12:
http://famguardian.o…try/aboutus.htm
This post is not legal advice or factual information, but simply tools that you have the responsibility to evaluate whether they are appropriate in your case. We are FORBIDDEN from either aiding, advising, or assisting anyone in whether to file, what to file, or how to file anything. In fact, the Path to Freedom form says to STOP filing government forms. The above, however, is NOT a government form. All tax forms are for “taxpayers”. IRS does not make “non-taxpayer” forms.
-
Lindsey Springer here and thank you for considering supporting my family and me at this time. I realize there are many people who simply do not have time to understand the issues I am raising. I will herein provide a more simple understanding of the issues.
For most of you, only 2 issues I am raising matter. The first has to do with Form 1040 and whether that form or any other tax form are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Subsidiary to this question is whether the Form 1040 complies. If it does not, then you cannot be penalized for anything that involves a failure to file such forms.
The Tax Division has been propagandizing everything it can to convince the public that the Form 1040 and the requirement to same is not subject to the PRA. Every United States Circuit Court who has addressed the issue has repeatedly said Form 1040 MUST comply. There are a few cases in passing that said the law which requires use of the Secretary’s tax forms withstands the public protection provision at Title 44 Section 3512.
Section 3512 begins “Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty…”. Those few cases referenced above are completely in opposition to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit holdings on the subject of the PRA.
At my trial, for example, the Tax Division argued before the jury that although the Dole decision in 1990 by the Supreme Court said “tax forms” were “typical” information collection requests subject to the PRA, and that no where in the Dole decision was the Form 1040 ever specifically mentioned. That argument will not withstand scrutiny at the 10th Circuit,. The 10th Circuit has repeatedly told the Tax Division that Form 1040 is subject to the PRA. The Tax Division continues to tell the public my PRA claims are “legalistic gibberish”.
The Tax Division told judge Friot on May 6 2010 that I have been repeatedly told numerous times that my specific PRA claims are frivolous and meritless. The last time Tax Division made that argument in the 10th Circuit, they were told by the 10th Circuit for the 1st time ever, they were making a frivolous argument to that court. The frivolous argument found by the 10th Circuit, that Tax Division maintains, was that they(10th Circuit) had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims. Again, the 10th circuit told the Tax Division that their claim was false.
The reason why the Tax Divisions continues to maintain the argument they made in Springer v. the Commissioner, 08-9004 is because at the time I was indicted, the 10th Circuit had not entered it’s published decision extending from 08-9004. That decision came out 8-31-09. Recently, the 10th Circuit ordered the Tax Division to address each issue in my motion for release from jail pending appeal on or before May 19,2010.
In particular, the 3rd issue I raised in the 10th Circuit demands that they explain why they told Judge Friot the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return withstands Section 3512 and PRA. The 10th Circuit has held for over 19 years that the Form 1040 MUST comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act or no person can be subject to any penalty including criminal for any claim inexorably linked to failing to file a Form 1040 tax return. If there is any doubt at this point by anyone as to whether the requirement to pay a tax to the Secretary has any independent basis than from a Form 1040, the Tax Division in it’s Bill of Particulars left no room to question this proposition. While describing the requirement by law to file the Form 1040 tax return, they informed the Court and me that Title 26 Section 6151 was their basis and theory for my failure to pay a tax. Anyone who reads Section 6151 will no doubt recognize that you are only required to pay a tax that you show is owed UPON the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return.
I have tried to get this relief under the Paperwork Reduction Act for many years. Each time I get closer to getting it as in 2007, the 10th Circuit told me I can only raise the PRA as a defense and not on the offense. If the Form 1004 was not subject to the PRA, they would have affirmed Judge Eagan on her erroneous claim the requirement to file was not subject to the PRA. In 2009, the 10th Circuit said in a published opinion, I raise difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA. They also said the Tax division made a frivolous argument when they argued to the 10th Circuit that the 10th circuit had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims which they informed the Tax Division again, they had not EVER made any such ruling.
I know it has been a long and difficult time to get these PRA issues ruled upon on their merits by the 10th Circuit and I believe that time is now here.
The second issue is what the impact should be on the revelation by the Tax Division that since 2000, there has been no delegates of the Secretary of Treasury authorized by law to act outside of the District of Columbia in the enforcement for administration for the Internal Revenue laws.
In my case the Tax Division admits those offices or districts simply no longer exist. I really need your help for the next few months so I can maintain my appeals on these issues. There are now 4 cases in the 10th Circuit to which I am prosecuting or defending. If you have any questions about my appeal, email me and I will try to respond. I am currently asking for release pending appeal and I am waiting in jail for that ruling. Please consider supporting me and my family while we end this battle. For instance, the filing fees for each appeal are $455.00. The phone call expense alone for the last month in order to get motions filed has cost over $1000.
I recognize that some will post this email in places of enemy territory such as Quatloos, however, someday really soon all of those who make their living off of forms that violate the PRA will stand account for their own words.
I can receive support through Paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com as well as at 5147 S Harvard Ave#116 Tulsa, OK 74135
Thank you for any support you can give and please keep me in your prayers. Godspeed,
Lindsey
-
Great post.
All those electronic devices do is reinforce your role as “government livestock”, as explained in the following movie:
The REAL Matrix
http://famguardian.o…REAL_Matrix.wmv
The SSN and the national ID or driver's license will be the “electronic leash” spoken of in the above movie.
-
Franklin,
Thanks. Incidentally, we are told that the discussion in this forum has been memorialized in the following:
Policy Document: Corruption of Modern Christianity, Form #08.012, Section 3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…hristianity.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Excellent materials for Christian apologeticists
-
Houston, there is a problem!!
Three cheers for the state of Arizona: Those who are demonstrating in Phoenix most likely are either illegal themselves or have family/close friends who are illegal –
Round them all up and check their IDs -Demonstrating against a new law that says it is illegal to be illegal is probable cause for arrest… In my opinion –
The following information IS compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:
* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons f ill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually
* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens
* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes”.
* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens
* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.
* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the US to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.
* 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayer
-
It's not our job to do your work for you. Its YOUR job to tell us what information conflicts with other information on this site, to explain which is correct, to cite the evidence upon which you base your determination, and to ask us to correct it. When mentioning things that are inaccurate or inconsistent, please reference:
1. The document number, if any.
2. The web address where the document is located.
3. The name of the document.
4. The version number or date.
5. The line number.
6. The page number.
You are the moving party and the moving party is the sovereign who has the burden of proving with evidence that the position you assail is incorrect, point by point. This includes the pamphlet you cited. Please DO NOT reference documents not posted on this site, such as those on sedm.org. We DO NOT answer questions or controversies about their documents and are not responsible for them.
These forums are a mock court to argue and converge on the truth using evidence and not opinion. They are not a place to avoid work or transfer responsibility for educating yourself to someone else.
-
EDITORIAL: Another update from Lindsey Springer.
______________________________
Lindsey Springer here(my wife Jeanie typing while I'm on collect call) and hoping this finds you well. For those of you who have supported us with your prayers and those who have been able to support financially, thank you very much. I offer you this update of my current status and the issues which are being argued. The short of it is the United States argues the 1040 complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act and in the alternative, they argue it doesn't have to. They cite to the Dawes decision by the 10th Circuit in '91 which specifically didn't accept and in fact rejected the US's statutory origin theory. This theory, as the argument goes, states that because the obligation to file a tax return has it's origin in Federal law, that somehow the origin exempts the Secretary of the Treasury from complying with the mandates of Congress pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which requires the Secretary inform each of us certain information in order to be authorized to request information from us(i.e.,tax forms such as 1040).
My issue is not about taxes, income taxes or the tax laws in general. My issue is and has always been about the Secretary of the Treasury complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act. In the coming days, the United States is going to tell the 10th Circuit why the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the form 1040. Their bald assertion that the Form 1040 does comply was never even suggested by them prior to trial, during trial, prior to or at sentencing. They will need to tell the 10th Circuit that it's Dawes decision held the Form 1040 is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 10th Circuit has said on four different occasions to the Department of Justice the Form 1040 must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. They said it in the Collins 1990 decision, their Dawes decision in 1991, and reaffirmed their decison in Lewis and Chisum published in 2007 by the 10th Circuit. They also told Department of Justice on Aug. 31, 2009, the Paperwork Reduction Act defense applies to failure to file penalties and in each of the counts charged against me, without failure to file, there would be no cause of action against me. In fact each charge specifically alleges either a Form 1040 or US individual income tax return. On May 5, 2010, the United States altered their theory by telling the District Court their theory did not necessarily include Form 1040. Repeating that to the 10th Circuit will not be good for them. I know this is difficult to follow. It is something I am continually led to pursue.
Please consider me and my family in your prayers. And again thank you for your financial support. For those of you interested and able to continue to support me and my family through this battle, I can receive your support still through Paypal at either lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com or traditionally at 5147 S Harvard Ave #116 Tulsa, OK 74135 .
P.S.
Anything the government says on this issue, you will be alerted immediately. God speed, Lindsey Springer
-
EDITORIAL: Another related post on the same subject
_______________
ARIZONIA or MEXICO?!…
Strange how other countries can make laws and enforce them, but they won't accept and obey ours…
Mexicans here and in Mexico are rather upset by the recent enactment of stricter anti-illegal alien laws by Arizona's governor.
In light of the following, that position demonstrates the typical double standard used by race-hustlers and assorted something-for-nothings. Read on, and read it to the end.
________________________
New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message…
1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Too strict?……
The above laws are the current immigration laws of MEXICO !!!
These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws??
WAKE UP, AMERICA – we are about to lose our country………
-
Prollins,
Thanks for the kudos. You are absolutely correct. The reason why you are correct was admitted by former President Theodore Roosevelt:
Quote:“We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.“
[President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907]
We don't intend to be mean, but to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves. That is exactly what God expected of the Israelites when he told them to leave the “shadow of Egypt” for the land of milk and honey and freedom: Take responsibilty for themselves instead of leaning on Pharoah.
Quote:“Liberty means personal responsibility. That's why most men dred it.”[George Bernard Shaw].
-
Prollins,
Its' already posted on the opening page of this website in the upper left corner:
Thanks anyway
-
Prollins,
We just updated the SS Resignation document to address the two questions you posted to this forum about it:
1. It now tells parents how to sign for their children.
2. It adds an address for the local office to send it to.
3. It tells you to send both the national and local office so you have standing to sue in a local court.
See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/SSTrustIndenture.pdf
NOTE: The version number and date have not changed. Please don't ask us why.
Your feedback has been helpful in improving the document so far.
-
Submitting to the local office produces more evidence and allows one to have a belly button to sue in local court. Therefore, it is preferred. Bring a disinterested witness and have him or her sign an affidavit or testify in court if you have to sue them. It is a lot easier to sue in a local state court for violation of rights than it is to sue someone 3000 miles away in a federal court.
As far as recording without consent, some states require both parties to consent and others only require one party. Each state is different. For details on each state, see:
http://famguardian.o…neRecording.htm