[fg_admin]

We can't give advice, but if we had served in the U.S. military and were born in the country and were a constitutional but not statutory “citizen” and “non-citizen national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21), we would answer no. The word “Foreign” is in relation to the united states, not in relation to the domicile or citizenship of the applicant.

Whether this is truthful, accurate, or relevant to your specific situation is for you to decide. Nevertheless, our disclaimer says you can't regard it as “factual” or admissible as evidence.

[fg_admin]

Thanks for the kudos, and welcome to our ministry and our forums.

We classify them as a human rights organization because most americans do. We agree with you that they are actually AGAINST the rights God gives us in His book, but at the same time, we must be fair and balanced and not censor. Hence, we must list them in order to be balanced. The left likes to censor. We simply want people to have BOTH sides of the argument and make informed choices. Heaven forbid that we should censor like those we oppose.

[fg_admin]

John,

Thanks for your post. We are familiar with your book and we have a link to it on the following page:

Taxation Page, Section 8.2

http://famguardian.o…Taxes/taxes.htm

Perhaps that is how you found our website in the first place: Searching for who references your book. Keep up the good work.

As far as your observations about the gagging of the church, additional observations are in order:

1. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting any law establishing or disestablishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is covered in:

Government Establishment of Religion, Form #05.038

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…tabReligion.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2. The First Amendment only applies to land within states of the Union protected by the Constitution and those domiciled therein.

3. The Internal Revenue Code regulates those who apply for 501(c )(3) status.

4. The following are the only way to describe what has been done:

4.1 The I.R.C. cannot be enforced in places protected by the Constitution, and hence those who apply for said status and who are protected by the Constitution do not and canot surrender any right, even voluntarily.

4.2 The Internal Revenue Code is NOT “law” within the meaning of the Constitution, but in fact is a state sponsored voluntary religion. Hence, Congress has not and cannot make real “law”. That is the conclusion of the following, in fact:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…vilReligion.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

5. A corollary to the above is that the IRS has a Constitutional duty:

5.1 To ask applicants if they are, in fact, churches

5.2 If they ARE churches and define THEMSELVES to be churches, the IRS must tell them that they are not eligible and reject the application and reject all applications for EINs made by churches.

5.3 The IRS must maintain a database of churches and ensure that they are simply left alone, that they cannot apply for EINs or any other government “privilege”, never become the target of IRS enforcement, that any information returns filed against them are automatically rejected, and that if they file tax returns, these too are rejected and the church is told that they don't have to file.

The above is the very essence of what it means to have “separation of church and state”

[fg_admin]

Thanks for that post, Franklin. The following documents more extensively deals with the same subject and are completely consistent with what you said:

1. Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003, Section 4

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…Law/Consent.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2. Legal Requirement to File Income Tax Returns, Form #05.009

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

[fg_admin]

People in the military have a saying along these lines:

Quote:

“It's easier to as for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.”

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

Thanks for that FABULOUS analysis. Couldn't have said it better. You REALLY “GET IT”. It is a pleasure and an honor to have people like you here who can stand shoulder to shoulder and fight and pull their own “intellectual weight” with clarity and insight.

Bravo.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Received from Lindsey via email. We aren't Lindsey.

_______________

Lindsey Springer here and hope this finds you all well. In response to a statement by a well versed human being in an email today, I thought each of you would need have the understanding of my defense and my explanation I gave to him:

Mr. ?????, thank you for your words. I have not chosen to defend by perspective of the person but rather I come from the Tenth Amendment and powers enumerated. If you read Title 4, Section 72 you will see that all “offices” [of government] must be exercised in DC and no place else unless that place is “established by law.” If you begin at Title 31, Section 301 you will see Department of Treasury is created at the “seat of government.” Title 26, Section 7801 places administration and enforcement of “internal revenue laws” in the hands of the Secretary (in DC). Section 7803 creates a Commissioner of Internal Revenue (In Department of Treasury which is in DC). I can find no law creating the office of the IRS or Internal Revenue Service [or as agency][agency defined at Title 44, Section 3502(1) by executive order 12866]. I did find under section 7804 (formerly 7803) that the Commissioner can employ “persons” to administer internal revenue laws and that is where internal revenue district and district director come into mandatory play.

Section 7621 (Title 26) provides the President can create internal revenue districts by dividing up a State or including two or more States into an internal revenue district. The term “boundaries” is used to describe section 7621(b). Under 26 CFR 301.7621 the Secretary reports reliance upon an executive order to have received delegation from the President at Title 3, Section 301 (different than Title 31, Section 301). I also found the Secretary defines “district director” at 26 CFR 301.7701-10 after he defines “delegate” at 26 CFR 301.7701-9. I did a search of all the cases ever which addressed the creation of the IRS or Internal Revenue Service and I found that every time it came up the Court held the IRS was created by the Secretary under its authority at section 7803 (now 7804) and citing to 26 CFR 601.101.

Now, every time I see the words “Internal Revenue Service” or IRS in any statement or regulation or anything I automatically replace it with 26 CFR 601.101. Once I do that I then can determine the office, its location, by law or not, and who is sitting with delegation of the Secretary outside DC to perform the functions of the Secretary. Most enforcement provisions (all but I do not want to be so bold) are giving power to the “Secretary.” See 6201, 6301, 6212, 6213, 6330, 6331 (to name but a few). If the person acting is Secretary Geitner then the exercise had better come from DC and signed by him personally. If it comes outside DC and if signed by him then an “office” established by law had better be listed upon that “exercise” of that office. If the exercise comes from an office outside of DC that office needs to be established by law. If the exercise is not signed by the Secretary and signed by someelse, then that person better be a delegate of the Secretary with deletation power within such office that exercise comes out of.

With the abolishment of internal revenue districts and district directors in 2000 I find the Secretary cannot act under Title 26 outside DC and any person who does act on his behalf is not a delegate and has no office to work out of that can withstand Title 4, Section 72 challenges.

(I am adding this and information above in “[ ]”) This includes liens, levies, assessments, criminal charges, if the statute relied upon begins in Title 26, or is a theory involving “internal revenue laws” then without district directors or internal revenue districts Title 4, Section 72 is the game changer.

I hope you each have a blessed 2010 tax season. Lindsey Springer

1.16.10

[fg_admin]

Tim,

NO, the Great IRS Hoax book does not include everything having to deal with Social Security. That is covered in:

1. Social Security: Mark of the Beast

http://famguardian.o…ecurity/TOC.htm

2. Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee-how to quit SS

http://famguardian.o…stIndenture.pdf

3. About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…SSNsAndTINs.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

4. About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #07.004

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…s/AboutSSNs.htm

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

5. Property and Privacy Page, Section 5: Numerical Identification and Automated Tracking

http://famguardian.o…ertyPrivacy.htm

As far as making a donation, we prefer that you donate to our sister site and earmark the donation to Family Guardian. Simply click on their donate button on their opening page:

http://sedm.org

Then when you get to the payment processing provider, write a note that it is for Family Guardian.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and providing you an update to my current defenses. I hope all is well on the American front. In Tax Court case # 3781-09L I have motions pending regarding the consequence that having no internal revenue district or district director encompassing the State of Oklahoma has on a levy and lien notice.

My current discovery in Tax Court is to requests the following:

Pursuant to Rule 90 Petitioner requests that Respondent, within 30 days after service of this document, admit the statements and facts set forth in each of the following requests for purpose of the pending action only and subject all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at trial. If Respondent cannot admit truthfully any request herein, Respondent should state in detail why this is so.

1. Since 2000 all “internal revenue districts” no longer exist as a matter of law pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621 and 26 CFR 301.7621(2000).

2. The Internal Revenue Service is the name the Secretary of Treasury established pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7803(a), now Section 7804(a), to identify a group of “persons” employed to administer and enforce the “internal revenue laws” by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

3. The “Internal Revenue Service” is established by the Secretary by way of implementing a regulation, namely, 26 CFR 601.101.

4. The Internal Revenue Service is not an “office” established by law pursuant to Title 4, United States Code, Section 72.

5. Congress has not delegated any authority to create any office outside the District of Columbia, by law, to the Secretary of Treasury regarding administration and enforcement of any “internal revenue laws.”

6. Since at least 2000, no office of district director or position of district director has existed outside the District of Columbia or legally ascertainable.

7. Since at least 2000, no office of district director or position of district director has existed within the District of Columbia or legally ascertainable.

8. Since at least 2000, no office of regional service center over any internal revenue district has been in existence or legally ascertainable encompassing the State of Oklahoma.

9. There is no law enacted by the United States Congress, before or since that established legally bound “areas” for the administration and enforcement of “internal revenue laws” outside the District of Columbia by any proper officer.

10. The Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service is an office only established in the Department of Treasury pursuant to Title 31, United States Code, Section 301.

11. Congress established no offices by law outside the District of Columbia for the purpose of the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service to perform any duties prescribed by the Secretary of Treasury.

12. Counsel for Respondent in this case is not a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury.

13. Counsel for Respondent is not authorized by law to exercise the office of Chief Counsel outside the District of Columbia or in the State of Oklahoma.

Please take notice that pursuant to Tax Court Rule 90, a written answer to these requests must be filed with the Tax Court and a copy served on the undersigned within 30 days after service of these requests for admission.

I am also filing a request for interrogatories along with the request for admissions:

PETITIONER'S INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule 71, Petitioner request that Respondent answer under oath, the following interrogatories.

1. Identify the name of the person delegated to the office of District Director by the Secretary of Treasury or Commissioner of Internal Revenue to hold office encompassing the “internal revenue district” established by Title 26, Section 7621, for the State of Oklahoma, for the calender year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

2. Identify the named person in number 1 above's current location with the Government of the United States including address and phone number.

If Respondent does not admit each and every request contained in Petitioner's Request for Admission served simultaneously herewith, provide the following information:

A. If you denied any part of any request for admission, explain in detail your specific reasons for your denial.

B. In regard to each Request for Admission which is denied, identify all information, including the source of the information, which you intend to rely upon to support your denial.

C. In regard to each Request for Admission which is denied identify each person you spoke to in consideration of your conclusion to claim said denial.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a copy of such answers must be served upon the undersigned within 30 days after service of these interrogatories.

For any of you interested, see http://edocket.acces…6cfr601.101.pdf

Quote:

26 CFR Sec. 601.101 Introduction 2000-2009.

(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal revenue.

I have decided to break my email updates into certain specific case explanation so an email will not be too much. If any one wishes for any of the documents filed in this case just email me and I will be glad to forward to you such document.

I appreciate your support and simply request any support you are willing to give for my defense can be either paypal[ed] to lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com. or at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. I need it more than you know and I am certain blessings are coming your way.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and providing you an update to my current defenses. Well worth the read. I hope all is well on the American front.

In the Bivens theft of money case (09-5088)(10thCir)(06-156)(NDOk) I filed a Motion for Sanctions in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals because the Bivens Defendants are claiming they did steal money in their apeal to the Tenth Circuit and claim the money never existed in the District Court pleadings so they could not have stole it. They responded as follows in relevant part:

1. The Solicitor General's determination that the instant appeal is meritorious, and should therefore be prosecuted, is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that the agents' appeal is not frivolous

Quote:

“Appeals by the United States, on behalf of itself or its agencies or employees, can be prosecuted only if authorized by the Solicitor General of the United States. 28 C.F.R. § 0.20. The Solicitor General makes her decision as to whether to authorize an appeal in a particular case only after considering recommendations from attorneys in the relevant component of the Department of Justice, from attorneys in any affected agency, and from attorneys in her office. These recommendations are contained in detailed memoranda that discuss, inter alia, the appealability of the adverse ruling, the merits of the Government's position, and whether the case has sufficient importance to warrant an appeal. The Solicitor General, as was the case with her predecessors, is [Case: 09-5088 Document: 01018344944 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 6][-7-]very selective in the cases in which she authorizes appeal and, as a consequence, appeal is authorized in only a small percentage of the cases decided adversely to the Government. In this regard, and reflecting the Government's highly selective use of its right to appeal adverse trial court decisions, we are aware of no case involving an appeal authorized by the Solicitor General, and certainly Springer has cited none, in which a United States Court of Appeals has imposed sanctions against the Government (or its employees, including its attorneys) for prosecuting a frivolous appeal. The process described above was followed in the determination made by the Solicitor General that the instant appeal should be prosecuted. Thus, the Solicitor General made her determination that the adverse order of the District Court is immediately appealable, that the agents' position is meritorious, and that, considering all relevant circumstances, an appeal was appropriate and warranted, only after she considered the detailed memoranda prepared by attorneys in the Tax Division of the Department of Justice, by attorneys in the Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, and by attorneys in her own office. In light of the rigorous vetting process underlying the Solicitor [Case: 09-5088 Document: 01018344944 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 7][-8-] General's decision to authorize the prosecution of the appeal in this case, it cannot reasonably be concluded that this appeal is frivolous.”

NOTICE HOW MANY CASES THEY CITED TO FOR THEIR APPROVAL TO APPEAL THEORY? 28 CFR 0.20 reads as follows:

28CFR 0.20 reads:

Quote:

Subpart D—Office of the Solicitor General § 0.20 General functions.

“The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Solicitor General, in consultation with each agency or official concerned: (a) Conducting, or assigning and supervising, all Supreme Court cases, including appeals, petitions for and in opposition to certiorari, briefs and arguments, and, in accordance with § 0.163, settlement thereof. (b ) Determining whether, and to what extent, appeals will be taken by the Government to all appellate courts (including petitions for rehearing en banc and petitions to such courts for the issuance of extraordinary writs) and, in accordance with § 0.163, advising on the approval of settlements of cases in which he had determined that an appeal would be taken.”

Of course, the Federal Government is not a party in a Bivens case. “However, a Bivens claim can be brought only against federal officials in their individual capacities. Bivens claims cannot be asserted directly against the United States, federal officials in their official capacities, Farmer v. Perrill, 275 F.3d 958, 963 (10th Cir. 2001), or federal agencies, F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 485-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994).” Smith v. U.S., 561 F.3d 1090, 1099 (10th Cir. 2009)

They continue:

Quote:

“Springer also claims that Opponents have lied to this Court in purportedly representing that the agents conceded below that “they stole the $2,000.” (Motion. p.5.) The agents have never made any such concession, and their attorneys have never indicated that any such concession was made. On the contrary, as clearly set forth in their summary judgment motion (Doc. 157 at 19), the agents only argued below that, even assuming Springer's allegation (that they stole the money) were true, such facts failed to give rise to an actionable[Case: 09-5088 Document: 01018344944 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 9] See also York v. City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2008) (Bivens case: “Our jurisdiction also extends to situations where a defendant claims on appeal that accepting the plaintiff's version of the facts as true, he is still entitled to qualified mmunity.”)[-10-] constitutional claim as a matter of law.(See Doc. 175 at 6-14.) The agents have never conceded that they stole anything, and Springer thus is flatly wrong in contending that there is a “lie” or “sham” (Motion, p.10) in the agents' brief on appeal warranting sanctions in this regard.”

Here is there footnote 10 on December 18, 2009 that all individual Appellants' stated to the Tenth Circuit:

Quote:

“Springer argues (B-16) that the special agents in the court below did not accept as true his allegation that the money was stolen. Springer is wrong. The record shows that the special agents – in arguing below that there were no legally material issues of fact – accepted as true, for summary judgment purposes, the allegation that the amount of money counted out by the agents in front of Mrs. Springer at the time of the seizure was $19,000, and that $2,000 was stolen. (Aplt.App. 421; see also, id. at 221, 259.)

I tendered to the Tenth Circuit under a Rule 28(j) the entire trial transcript of Brian Shern where under oath he stated he nor anyone else stole $ 2,000 and that they only seized $ 17,000, not $ 19,000.

That led to the words on January 8, 2010 from the United States that the “Solicitor” suggests warrants appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Here are the words from the Court Order they appeal interlocutory [they are the defendants]:

In general, defendants' motion can be characterized as a rehash of previous arguments. They continue to assert that since they had a valid search warrant, their seizure of “approximately $19,000” cannot be challenged under the Fourth Amendment. Citing Ali v. Ramsdell, 423 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2005), and Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 1999), they argue plaintiff “had no possessory interest in the currency after it was seized,” and “the subsequent alleged theft or conversion of $2,000 of the currency did not violate his Fourth Amendment right to possess his personal property and effects.” [Doc. No. 175, p. 7].2 They also argue plaintiff may not assert a Fifth Amendment claim because he has a remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Both issues have been raised previously by defendants and addressed by the court in its orders of October 1, 2007 [Doc. No. 41], December 18, 2008 [Doc. No. 155], and April 7, 2009 [Doc. No. 172].”

The District Court continued:

Quote:

“The court disagrees. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Winters v. Board of County Commissioners, 4 F.3d 848, 853 (10th Cir. 1993), citing Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992). A “seizure” of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” Winters, 4. F.3d at 853, citing Soldal, 506 U.S. at 61. The Tenth Circuit has held that a failure timely to return seized material which is without evidentiary value and which is not subject to forfeiture may state a constitutional or statutory claim. Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d 1472, 1477 (10th Cir. 1997).”

Both of these quotes are from the Order of May 21, 2009 [doc. # 185] As you can see even when a District Court Judge agrees with a non attorney party [me] that the Constitution has been violated the United States Solicitor General will continue to spend whatever it takes to overwhelm the case until the party seeking redress quits, is imprisoned, or runs out of money. Here are the attorneys making this ridiculous turn against the rule of law:

Jonathan S. Cohen

Washington, DC 20044

John A. Dudeck, Jr., Esq.

Washington, DC 20044

Richard Farber, Esq. New Listing

Washington, DC 20044

Robert D. Metcalfe, Trial Attorney

Washington, DC 20044-0000

James C. Strong

Washington, DC 20044-0000

Francesca Ugolini Tamami New Listing

Washington, DC 20044

They have 6 Attorneys [2 new ones just jumped on board 1.8.10][if number of attorneys is meant to send a signal then the sky is falling signal has been sent] and a Solicitor General and if you read their brief they also state Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue and “acting” attorney generals [whatever that is]. I plan on showing the District Judge he did not make a mistake in ruling in my favor. I will not quit. Hopefully, I won't be imprioned to the point that I cannot pursue this case. I continue to need your help so I won't run out of money. I survice on very little. I continue to find it amazing how much money they are spending to fight me. It is like the entire tax system is at stake and they actually believe it.

I have decided to break my email updates into certain specific case explanation so an email will not be too much. If any one wishes for any of the documents filed in this case just email me and I will be glad to forward to you such document.

I appreciate your support and simply request any support you are willing to give can be either paypal[ed] to lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com. or at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. I need it more than you know and I am certain blessings are coming your way.

[fg_admin]

Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 – Key Points

http://www.youtube.c…h?v=HcBaSP31Be8

^{Folks… better watch this & see what we’ve gotten ourselves into. http://www.youtube.c…h?v=HcBaSP31Be8 Let’s not live in denial. Consider what we’re leaving for posterity. (It’s still not too late if We The People wake up & educate one another) Eze. 33:6 I don’t know what they’re using, but it certainly is NOT the Constitution (or US Code). …Sounds a lot like the Communist Manifesto though. Bio-tech industry info: http://video.google….89573281687331# THESE are the times that try men’s souls… Thomas Paine Dec. 23 1776}

[fg_admin]

Nicodemus,

Thank you for the introduction, and welcome to our forums and membership in our ministry as a forum participant. The only thing we can offer to newbees is the following:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

You used a forbidden word in your post. The word “advise” is a forbidden word, because we can't give advice. All we can provide is information that isn't advice, as indicated by section 12 of our About Us page under “Prohibited Activites”. See:

http://famguardian.org/Ministry/aboutus.htm#12.__ACTIVITIES_WE_WILL_NOT_INVOLVE_OURSELVES_IN:_

If you need information and NOT advice, the Path to Freedom should be more than sufficient as a starting point to avoid the most painful mistakes people make in their journey out of Egypt/Babylon. We don't have anything to add to the above, because it is VERY complete and as succinct as possible. We also didn't write that document, so please don't ask us questions about it or ask us to defend it. Such inquiries should be directed at the SEDM forums and not these forums.

http://sedm.org/forums/

Your moniker is curious. Nicodemus was a Pharisee mentioned in John 3:1 and a follower and helper of Jesus. Pharisees were the equivalent of modern lawyers. Were you or are you a lawyer, and if so, what kind?

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and updating you on the transcript I just received which is of a person named Brian Shern. He testified at my trial as a Special Agent under the District Director (that no longer exists since 2000) and for some reason the DOJ thought it important for the jury to believe Mr. Shern did not steal $ 2k. Anyway, on December 18, 2009, Mr. Shern told the Tenth Circuit he was not disputing that a theft did in fact occurr. These are two different and complete opposite statements. One under oath and the other under rules of Court.

_____________________

Quote:

Q. (BY MR. O’REILLY) As part of the search of

22 Mr. Springer’s home, was any cash found?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. How much cash was found at Mr. Springer’s home?

25 A. $17,000.

page 8

BRIAN SHERN – DIRECT BY MR. O’REILLY

1 Q. Where was the cash found?

2 A. In Mr. and Mrs. Springer’s bedroom in the top

3 dresser drawer.

4 Q. Were you present in the room when that cash was

5 found?

6 A. No, I was not.

7 Q. What were you doing at that time?

8 A. We were conducting an interview of Mr. Springer.

9 Myself and another special agent were conducting an

10 interview of Mr. Springer in one of the upstairs rooms.

11 Q. Were you present in the room when the cash was

12 counted at the home?

13 A. No, I wasn’t.

14 Q. Was that handled by some different special agents?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Are you aware if there was any dispute with respect

17 to how much cash was seized?

18 A. Yes, there was.

19 Q. Could you generally describe to the jury what is the

20 nature of the dispute?

21 A. Yes. When we seized the cash, we reflected on the

22 inventory that there was approximately $19,000 seized.

23 And when we took the cash to the bank to be counted,

24 there was only $17,000. We, as in the multiple special

25 agents that were present during the search, and

Page 9

BRIAN SHERN – DIRECT BY MR. O’REILLY

1 Mr. Springer disputed the amount of the cash seized.

2 Q. Was the 17,000 returned to Mr. Springer?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. How long after the search was that money returned?

5 A. About four months.

6 Q. Is there a lawsuit pending with respect to this?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Without going into the details, who initiated the

9 lawsuit?

10 A. Mr. Springer.

11 Q. Are you a defendant in that lawsuit?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Are there other defendants?

14 A. Yes.

Cross examination by me begins in part here:

It was based on the count that the bank — because I

2 was present when we brought the money to the bank and

3 that’s the count that they came up with. That’s what

4 that answer was based on.

5 Q. Okay. So it’s not — your testimony is not the

6 amount of money that was taken from my home was $17,000,

7 your testimony is more accurately described as when the

8 money got to the bank it was $17,000; isn’t that true?

9 MR. O’REILLY: Objection to the form of the

10 question, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

12 THE WITNESS: My belief is that at all times it

13 was $17,000.

14 Q. (BY MR. SPRINGER) So now you testified — strike

15 that. So when I called you and asked you after the money

16 was taken, which I believe you testified that the money

17 was taken on September 16, 2005; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then you brought it — you brought the check for

20 17,000 to me on January 10, 2006, roughly; is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you also walked into the house where you

24 delivered the check and you had a waiver in your hand,

25 didn’t you?

Page 23

BRIAN SHERN – CROSS BY MR. SPRINGER

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you wanted me to waive my right to sue the

3 United States over the return of that $17,000; isn’t that

4 true?

5 A. I can’t remember exactly what the waiver said.

6 Q. Do you know who put the waiver in your hand?

7 A. I think our asset forfeiture person told me that I

8 needed to take that and a receipt or something else to

9 your house when I gave you the check for $17,000.

10 Q. Now, you agree that I was trying to get that money

11 back from September 16, 2005, until the day you brought

12 the check for 17,000, right?

13 THE COURT: Just a minute.

14 MR. O’REILLY: Objection. Asked and answered

15 and relevance.

16 THE COURT: Overruled at this point. Go ahead.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 Q. (BY MR. SPRINGER) And you and I either exchanged

19 messages or phone calls on several occasions?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you ever tell me that when you got to the bank

22 there was only $17,000?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Can you tell me why not?

25 A. I think you had just mentioned that you wanted the

Page 24

BRIAN SHERN – CROSS BY MR. SPRINGER

1 cash back and I told you that you needed to talk to the

2 Assistant U.S. Attorney about — about that.

3 Q. Would I have known that you only had $17,000 when

4 you got to the bank?

5 A. I don’t know if you knew how much money there was

6 there.

In Mr. Shern’s Brief (Page 10) in the Tenth Circuit on December 18, 2009 he stated:

Quote:

“Mr. Springer argues (Br. 16) that the special agents in the court below did not accept as true his allegation that the money was stolen. Springer is wrong. The record shows that the special agents – in arguing below that there were no legally material issues of fact – accepted as true, for summary judgment purposes, the allegation that the amount of money counted out by the agents in front of Mrs. Springer at the time of the seizure was $19,000, and that $2,000 was stolen. (Aplt.App. 421; see also, id. at 221, 259.)

Since my email last week quoting just the words from the Tenth Circuit Brief on Page 10 I though you would like to see the words under oath Mr. Shern told a jury which I received today. I could not have provided these two different views of the facts from the same person from the “internal revenue district” that no longer exist without your support. Thank you. If any of you wish for a complete copy of this transcript let me know and I will send it to you in an email. It is a good read.

I realize their play on words but Mr. Shern and the other Bivens parties will not be allowed to argue they did not steal the money when they think it benefits them and they did steal it when it benefits them. If more people were talking about this in their emails or the fact internal revenue districts no longer exist IRS changes (in our favor) would be deliberate and immediate.

Lindsey Springer 12.29.09

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Submitted 12/30/09

_________________

SHERRY JACKSON MOVED TO A NEW PRISON AND IS NOW MISSING!

Sherry Peel Jackson has been moved again and she has not been heard from for over two weeks. She disappeared one week before Christmas and her parents nor her husband and two beautiful children have heard from her.

She is the ex-IRS agent in Aaron Russo's video America ~ Freedom to Fascism ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#) a must see film which every living man, woman and child must see. Aaron Russo gave his life to produce this documentary. Sherry, a CPA, Certified Fraud Investigator, received a 4-year sentence for telling Americans the truth, although she broke no law.

Please ask everyone to send her an encouraging note so that she knows she is not alone or forgotten. Let her know that this country is aware that she has been moved, thousands are still watching her situation closely and praying for her release. Anyone who has been in her situation cannot imagine how much good is accomplished by countless cards and letters. It does much more than just lift her spirits, which in itself is huge. It also lets the system know that she is well-known and many are watching closely to see that she is treated properly while in her federal cage, with two long years to go!

Here is her new address. Her loving husband believes she has been moved again since she has been missing for over two weeks and no one has heard a word from her. Diesel Therapy?

Sherry Peel Jackson

Booking # 2009-003275

ID # 0227712

P.O. Box 188

219 East Anderson Ave.

Bushnell, FL 33513

Please take the time to see what this beautiful lady stands for and the sacrifice she, her children and her husband are paying for your family.

Sherry Peel Jackson Ex IRS Agent on Income Tax (2of2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1r1hNjxVfU

Sherry Peel Jackson – Breaking The Invisible Shackles Of The IRS

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1658315558785013776#

Sherry Peel Jackson ~ Getting Destroyed in Prison

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/93/boards/thread/4498505

Did You Know That You Are A Slave?

http://stillaslave.blogspot.com/

Please take Action; do what is right!

WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THEIR GOVERNMENT THERE IS TYRANNY; WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE, THERE IS LIBERTY!

~THOMAS JEFFERSON

Please pass this along to as many people as you can and do it quickly!

This must spread across the nation this week! Thank you…

[fg_admin]

See:

Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/UCC.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

Several people using the AFV method, some even selling it to others, have realized their error and reformed their ways by reading the above. We didn't write it, so please don't ask us questions about it or ask us to defend it. We agree with it, though.