[fg_admin]

ygrowak,

Thanks for sharing that information. We hope that you will use the occasion of establishing these groups as a way to restore the republic by firing the de facto criminals running “U.S. Inc.” and replace them with your own local government based on the following:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…ArtOfConfed.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

Please keep us posted on how your efforts are going, and thanks for your courage and commitment to liberty.

[fg_admin]

Hall,

Don't lose hope. There is hope for you as long as you turn off the TV, follow the following document, and learn the law:

Path to Freedom

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

You're right: it's not easy. We have spent years learning this stuff. It's only hard because they don't teach this stuff in government/public school. If governments did their job in giving us a well-rounded education in public school, it would be MUCH easier. All the more reason to take this seriously: The servants don't want the boss in charge, which is you.

[fg_admin]

You are asking for advice. You ought to be able to figure this out on your own using the extensive information provided in the following document.

Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship Records and Divorce from the United States

http://sedm.org/Forms/Emancipation/NotDivorce.zip

If the above along with the following information information aren't sufficient for you to decide for yourself or if you don't have enough confidence to trust your own judgment after reading the law yourself, then you probably ought to forget being sovereign and bend over for the government beast. Why? Because you need a nanny government since you aren't able or willing to govern your own life.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#CITIZENSHIP:

You're asking for advice and our About Us page, Section 12, forbids us from giving it:

http://famguardian.org/Ministry/aboutus.ht…_OURSELVES_IN:_

[fg_admin]

Hilarious!

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

Thanks for sharing that. Additional information on this subject is available below, and is consistent with what you just said:

1. Policy Document: Corruption of Modern Christianty, Form #08.012. Section 3.8

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

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

2. Civil Disobedience in Light of Romans 13

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…an/Romans13.htm

[fg_admin]

RemedyInTheLaw

We can't give legal advice and can only tell others what we would do if faced with a similar situation ONLY for myself. If we were attempting to get a birth certificate, we would follow what is required for those using this site, which is attaching the following form whenever citizenship or domicile is either established or implied on any government form we fill out, including a birth certificate application:

Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001

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

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

We would attach a cover letter with the above, explain that the request is NULL AND VOID if:

1. They are going to issue an ssn with it or associate an ssn with it.

2. They are going to redact, remove, or separate my attachments from the application.

3. They are not going to record the attachments with the issued birth certificate in the public record.

We would also attach the following to ensure they don't attempt to issue one:

Why It is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a Social Security Number, Form #04.205

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

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

If there is a “permanent address”, “residence”, or “domicile”, we would enter “NONE” on the form. We would only fill in a mailing address, and we would write after that mailing address “(NOT A DOMICILE)” per the following article:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm

If there is a block to write a social security number, we would put “NOT ELIGIBLE. See Enclosure (1)” and we would label the “Why it is illegal…” pamphlet above as exhibit (1).

This is what we would do in my case and we are not advising you what to do or not do in your case, or suggesting that it is appropriate in your case. Your life and your choices are entirely and exclusively your responsibility.

If we had children already that we did not do the above for, we would send a certified mail with proof of service amending the Birth Certificate application to add the above information.

[fg_admin]

domonoes7

Thanks for the update and for the success story. Please keep us posted on your progress and any work-arounds you had to pursue in order to deal with ignorant and presumptuous people who obstruct your progress.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another email from Lindsey Springer, reposted here for your enlightenment.

_____________________

Lindsey Springer here and for those of you continuing to ask about my defense regarding the abolishing of “internal revenue districts” and “district directors” it was brought to my attention yesterday of something I had publicized back in 2008 where the IRS had began to see the problem with the silent abolishment of internal revenue districts. In light of recent events in explaining my defense I thought it worthy of repeating. Below is but another example.

On page 536 “In light of the IRS reorganization subsequent to RRA 1998, the district and special procedures offices referenced in the regulations no longer exist”

On page 537 2. Paragraphs (a)(4), (c ), (d)(1), and (d)(2) are amended by removing the language “director” and adding the language “IRS” in its place wherever it appears. 3. Paragraph ( 😎 (4), is amended by removing the language “Internal Revenue district” and adding the language “IRS office” in its place.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb07-36.pdf

Thank you for taking your time to read what I write. I hope it helps you better understand my defense.

December 22, 2009

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: The information below the line was sent to us by Attorney Larry Becraft. The subject is the national healthcare bill. We agree with what Larry says on this subject. If you would like to learn more about the subject he discusses, read:

1. Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

2. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions: Cites by Topic, Equal Protection

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…lProtection.htm

_______________________

Another Constitutional Problem for Nat. Health Care: Equal Protection

One of the reasons for the adoption of “National Health Care” legislation is that allegedly caused by the uninsured, the size of which I estimate is, for purposes of this legal argument, about 10% of the American population. This also means that the rest of our population, the other 90%, pose no problem in this respect. But to solve this problem caused by the 10%, Congress proposes a law to affect 100% of the people who could fall within the classification of being “lawful subjects of federal legislation” (please don’t think that my position is that everybody falls into this category).

Via the 14th Amendment, the States are prohibited from denying equal protection in their legislative enactments. Similarly, there is an “equal protection component” embodied within the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. See Bolling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693 (1954); and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). Consequently, equal protection principles apply to both the State and federal governments.

Here is an example of how the principles of equal protection operate. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764 (1973), at issue was an Air Force quartering allowance available to male officers, but not female. Finding no justifiable reasons for making this distinction between men and women, the Court found this quartering allowance violative of equal protection. See also Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 95 S.Ct. 1225 (1975)(gender based SSN benefits law was void as violative of equal protection); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 105 S. Ct. 1676 (1985)(state statute taxing out-of-state insurance companies at a higher rate than domestic insurance companies held not to have legitimate state purpose, thereby violating equal protection); and Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So.2d 808 (Ala. 1978)(exclusion of municipalities from tort damages (“muni-immunity”) violated equal protection). For many other categorized cases, go here:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/EqualProt.htm

Principles of equal protection deal with legislative reasons for creating categories where a law applies to one class, but not another. A commercial fishing law that applied to one group of fishermen but not another was found violative of equal protection in Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1976). In French v. Amalgamated Local Union 376, 203 Conn. 624, 526 A.2d 861 (1987), a ban on residential picketing except for unions was held to violate equal protection. In State v. Blackburn, 104 So.2d 19 (Fla. 1958), a law that applied only to advertising signs at gas stations but not others was held violated violate equal protection. These cases are examples of “underinclusive” classifications for equal protection analysis.

If a legislative body attempts to address via legislation a particular problem, it must focus on the class creating that problem. If in doing so, the legislative body encompasses more people than necessary to address that problem, an “overinclusive” classification is created that violates equal protection. See Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 227 (statute was overinclusive because it “imposes a burden upon a wider range of individuals than are included in the class of those tainted with the mischief at which the law aims.”). “An overinclusive classification burdens a wider than necessary range of individuals, extending beyond those persons possessing the trait contributing to the mischief or evil the legislature seeks to eradicate… An underinclusive classification exists when all persons in the class are indeed perpetrators of the mischief or evil the state wishes to eliminate, but others who possess the same undesirable trait remain outside the class.”

In reference to the phony “National Health Care” bill, the problem is caused by that part of our population that is uninsured, but not the rest of us. This law will be overinclusive in that the problem Congress seeks to address involves the uninsured, not insured, but this law will allegedly apply to all “lawful subjects of federal legislation”, including the insured. To include everybody else beyond the uninsured violates principles of equal protection by creating an overbroad classification.

Larry

[fg_admin]

RemedyInTheLaw

We aren’t surprised that you were scammed by Society of Sovereigns. They have been packaging our citizenship materials and reading our citizenship materials on their conference calls without our authorization or consent and selling it for over $3000 to new members, even though it is and always has been free here. The following document is the one they have been reading on their conference calls. This is THEFT:

Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen

http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

A member of this fellowship tried to contact them and they didn’t even answer our email. We wanted to tell them to quit stealing our materials and undermining our good name.

As far as your specific situation, we haven’t dealt with it before and we are not aware of any resources on this website for directly dealing with it. We don’t see any harm done in obtaining a birth certificate, so long as it doesn’t connect your children to the “State of___” federal corporation near the place of birth and so long as a Social Security Number is not issued in tandem with it. Many states permit parents to apply for a birth certificate long after the birth using the evidence you mentioned.

We are not among those who believe that the birth certificate is connected with any government franchise or places anyone in an inferior status and have never seen any evidence that suggests that this might be the case. If you have evidence or have seen evidence that having a birth certificate results in a surrender of any rights, please present a sanitized version of said evidence in these forums as a PDF attachment. As long as the following birth certificate meets the following criteria, is there a reason you wouldn’t want one:

1. Birth not in “State of XXX” but in “XXX”, where “XXX is the name of the Constitutional state.

2. Not issued in association with a Social Security Number.

3. Citizenship of parents is identified as non-citizen nationals pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. 11452.

Is there a reason you can’t get a birth certificate that meets the above to use as evidence? Without such evidence, life will be very difficult for your child, as you are witnessing.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another Lindsey Springer Update from him via email. We didn’t write this.

_______________

Lindsey Springer here and wishing you blessings beyond measure and hoping and praying what I am about to say will garner your undivided attention and support.

I need your help!

As most of you know, from my email about the admission on December 18, 2009, eleven agents admitted they “stole” money from me on September 16, 2005 to a Panel of Tenth Circuit Judges (09-5065)(page 10 Reply Brief). This admission shows that while the Agents, under Title 26, Section 7806( b) were in my home serving a purported search warrant, they stole money from me. At trial, Mr. Shern declared under oath that there was never any theft and the Agents did not take any money from me.

If you care about any lien or levy read on.

As you know in the past I have shown you in my defense that the United States admits and does not dispute that “internal revenue districts,” and with them “district directors,” were abolished in the year 2000. I took 11 depositions of high ranking treasury officials and each of them, under oath, testified the position of “district director” was eliminated with the abolishing of “internal revenue districts.” The U.S. DOJ in 09-cr-043 at docket # 71, pg.4 admitted this and there is no further dispute on this fact. This was admitted to be on October, 2000. Later on I will discuss notice of liens and the 668Ys in my case, 08-278, and others, which have a revised date of “10-2000” which means October 2000. This is the same time the Commissioner removed “District” from the section under the Form Numbers on Lien Notices and other Forms.

Equally I have shared with you my defense that without these district directors and internal revenue districts there is no administration or enforcement that is legally possible outside of the District of Columbia regarding “internal revenue laws.” Worth repeating, See Title 4, Section 72 (“All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.”); See also Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

The question then became to me “is the Internal Revenue Service an agency of the seat of Government.” What I learned was that the treasury department was established in the seat of Government at Title 31, Section 301(a). The Office of the Secretary of Treasury was also established at Title 31, Section 301( 😎 . I also learned that at Title 26, Section 7621(a) the President is authorized to create “internal revenue districts” by establishing certain “boundaries.” See 7621( 😎 . Title 3, Section 301 allows the President to delegate his authority to certain heads of departments. The President directed the Secretary of Treasury to establish certain internal revenue districts by executive order. See 26 CFR 301.7621-1. You can find these “districts” explained at 26 CFR 301.7514-1.

See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/apr…r301.7514-1.pdf

See also http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/apr…r301.7621-1.pdf

In 1995 there were 32 or 33 such “internal revenue districts” depending on who is counting. Every time I looked for where the IRS was found to be an “agency” I found the Court system saying that the Internal Revenue Service was created by the Secretary of Treasury at 26 CFR 601.101(2000-2009). That regulation reads in relevant part:

Quote:

§ 601.101 Introduction.

(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.

It should be apparent by this Regulatione that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the Department of Treasury and Bureau under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The last sentence underligned is what needs our attention.

Equally part of my defense is 26 CFR 601.104©(2000-2009) which says:

Quote:

Enforcement procedure—

“(1) General. Taxes shown to be due on returns, deficiencies in taxes, additional or delinquent taxes to be assessed, and penalties, interest, and additions to taxes, are recorded by the district director or the director of the appropriate service center as ”assessments….”

“(2) Levy. If a taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay any tax within the period provided for its payment, it is lawful for the district director to make collection by levy on the taxpayer’s property….”

“(3) Liens. The United States’ claim for taxes is a lien on the taxpayer’s property at the time of assessment. Such lien is not valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic’s lienor, or judgment lien creditor until notice has been filed by the district director….”

See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/apr…6cfr601.104.pdf

As you can see by these regulations the “district director” is the only one outside of the District of Columbia with any delegated or redelegated authority to issue liens, levies or assessments.

In one of my civil cases where the DOJ is suing me to convert a lien to judgment, the Notice of Tax Lien dated April 28, 1999 is on Form 668Y and that form has a place on the top left corner that says “District_________________.” The one the DOJ provided me has the term “Arkansas-Oklahoma” typed in the blank line.

When the DOJ told the IRS to revoke a “Certificate of Release” I had lawfully received, dated August 23, 2007, on August 4, 2008 (Form 12474), the IRS was also directed to issue a new lien notice by the same DOJ. The revocation was done on Form 12474 with the word “District” on it from “January, 2000.” When the IRS went to reinstate their purported “lien” they used a Form 668Y from “1999” and removed the word “District” from the top corner. They did all this in the year 2008.

Since October 2000 there have been no “districts” or “district directors.” I concluded that there is no “assessment” or “lawful levy” or “notice of lien” that is valid against me because none of these actions taken by any IRS employee could have been accomplished by a district director due to the undisputed fact no such director office, or person in such office, exists either in the District of Columbia (4, § 72) or outside the District of Columbia under 26 CFR 601.101 after at least October, 2000.

If your life (marriage), liberty or property, is on the line as mine is then what the delegation of authority is makes all the difference in the world (to me).

I have asked for the name of the “district director” and each time I have been told there is no such person or office to fill.

The DOJ wrote on May 29, 2009:

Quote:

S Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts as of October 1, 2000 (not the latter part of 1999 as asserted by Defendants). See Testimony of David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, dated May 8, 2001, Implementation of the IRS Restructuring and form Act of 1998, Joint Hearing Before Committees of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.”

I need your help to finish this for myself (and for all of us). I realize the time of year and that many of you have already given or donated to some worthy cause to which you agree. I have survived this far on crumbs compared to the budget of the DOJ. No person will ever be able to say the IRS was brought to their end because of the volume of money spent to oppose them at my direction. I am not some marketing genius and I certainly have nothing for sale. I realize many of you would never wish to be where I am and hopefully you can help me so that you never will.

Whether you wish to support me or not I can only say without people supporting my efforts in the past I could not have said or explained my defense in this or any other email. All of us are eternally indebted for those who have chosen to help me continue the battle I am so obviously in. You deserve a standing ovation for your wisdom and insight to see what I am saying and the significance, at this time, of your support needed. Thank you from me, my family, and all of us.

If you could spare to support me at this time that would be wonderfully appreciated. I have trial testimony I desparately need transcribed. I only have two ways at present to receive support. The first is through paypal at lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com. The other way is more conventional at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. Again, thanks for considering my request for support.

December 21, 2009.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Here is another blog post along the same lines as the lead post.

SOURCE: http://llstuler.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-u-s-resident/

_______________

The “U.S. Resident”

The federal government defines various words within its statutes and regulations – these words are known as “terms”. Once the legislature defines a term, the original definition of that word as found in a dictionary no longer has any relevance. There are many “terms” that are common, ordinary, and everyday words within the Social Security/personal income tax scam. Some of the “terms” that are used in the Internal Revenue Code that fall into this category of common, ordinary, everyday words are “U.S. citizen”, “taxpayer”, “employee”, and the one that includes all of these – “U.S. resident”. (All of the legal definitions of these “terms” are evidenced on the main page of this blog which includes the link to my court document filed in federal case #08-273 (WDPA)).

A quick summary of these “terms” follows:

(1) “U.S. citizen” – an American, in other words, someone born in one of the sovereign states, who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (including Puerto Rico) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship (including Puerto Rican citizenship). This definition is exemplified at 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1©, which in turn references back to 26 U.S.C. 2501(b) where it states that this is the definition of the term “citizen” throughout the title. Notice that it states here that “citizen” is a term.

(2) “Taxpayer” – a “citizen” who establishes, or seeks to establish, a construction reserve fund under the provisions of Section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (and may include a partnership). This definition is found at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) and within the same set of definitions at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) it states that the terms used there have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder for computation and collection of taxes. Notice that it states that “taxpayer” is a term.

(3) “Employee” – a federal employee. This definition is found within title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701, “Definitions”, subsection (j) (4), “Definitions”, where it states that the term “employee” has the same meaning as when used in subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5 U.S.C. Title 5 U.S.C. is “Government Organizations and Employees”. Subsection (j)(4) states that these definitions are for the purposes of the subsection, which in turn is preceded by subsection (j)(1) which states that its purpose applies to the entire title. Also, as evidenced above, the definition of the term “taxpayer” has to do with the Merchant Marine – federal employees. Notice that the definition states that “employee” is a term.

(4) “U.S. Resident” – This is the granddaddy of all of the federal legislature’s terms. It includes all of the above terms as well as the cite to 26 U.S.C. Section 911, which is the cite for importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws. ”Resident” is defined at 26 U.S.C. Section 865, “Source rules for personal property sales”, subsection (g) “United States resident; nonresident”. Here it states the following: “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection- (A) United States resident. The term “United States resident” means – (i) any individual who – (I) is a United States citizen or a resident alien and does not have a tax home (as defined in section 911(d)(3)) in a foreign country or (II) is a nonresident alien and has a tax home (as so defined) in the United States and (ii) any corporation, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701(a)(30)). Notice that the statute states that “U.S. resident” is a term. The reference to “tax home” is the coordination to the term “taxpayer” (a “taxpayer” has a “tax home”).

The use of the term “resident” by the federal government obviously includes a lot of hidden definitions by including other terms in its own definition. It is of extreme importance to note that the definition of “resident” includes a corporation, a trust, and an estate. A corporation, a trust, and an estate are all legal entities, in other words, these are entities created by the government within the filing of the relevant legal papers.

The government naturally has control over its own legal entities, such as corporations, trusts, and estates. However, the government does not have control over sovereign Americans. After all, “We the People” created the government, not the other way around, as in the case of a corporation or a trust or an estate.

The Supreme Court has held that sovereignty in America lies with the people, not the government. The following are a sample of such rulings by the Supreme Court:

(1) “Under our system the people, who are there (in England) called subjects, are here the sovereign…Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The citizen here (in America) knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him…” – United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 208.

(2) “The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” – Hale V. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 at 74.

(3) “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” – Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

(4) “Here (in America) sovereignty rests with the People.” – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed (2 Dall.) 415.

U.S. possession citizens do not have the freedom that sovereign Americans are supposed to have as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The U.S. government owns the U.S. possessions and, therefore, U.S. possession citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

The Internal Revenue Code immediately informs everyone of the jurisdiction under which it is proceeding at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1, “Income tax on individuals”, subsection ©, where it states: “Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Naturality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459).”. Title 8 U.S.C. is “Aliens and Nationality” and it concerns gaining U.S. citizenship within the U.S. possessions. Why would an American, a person born within one of the sovereign states, have any nexus with acquiring U.S. citizenship within the provisions of title 8 U.S.C., “Aliens and Nationality”?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states in section 1 the following: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”. It is obvious that the cite above from 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1© is referring to the 14th Amendment citizen, otherwise known as the “U.S. citizen”.

As evidenced on the main page of this blog, the U.S. possessions are all treated as foreign countries within the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. section 865(i)(3), section 872(b)(7), and section 2014(g) for example). Since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries, then the act of acquiring U.S. possession citizenship is, therefore, considered foreign under the internal revenue laws.

The following will reference the definition of “U.S. resident” as cited above. The use of the term “resident” to include at 26 U.S.C. section 865(g)(1)(A)(i)(I) a United States citizen along with a resident alien and at section 865(g)(1)(A)(i)(II) a nonresident alien is a giveaway to the foreign nature that must exist within the definition of the term “U.S. citizen”.

By considering a sovereign American instead as a “U.S. citizen”, the federal government has done two things in order to establish jurisdiction over them: (1) presuming that the American has acquired U.S. possession citizenship and become subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government and (2) deeming the U.S. possessions as foreign countries and, thus, considering the “U.S. citizen” as a foreigner for the purposes of the internal revenue laws. As evidenced on the main page of this blog, internal revenue is a subset of the customs, and is based upon the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution.

All IRS indictments secretly hide the actual charge against a defendant (victim) by simply designating the defendant as a “resident”, usually within the section “Parties” of the indictment. This is how the government and the courts have been able to claim jurisdiction over sovereign Americans.

I was falsely indicted and convicted in 2001 for three counts of the violation of title 26 U.S.C. section 7203, “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax”. Back in 2001 I had no understanding of the internal revenue laws – after all, no one outside of the government is supposed to understand the law. But I did eventually discover all of the information that I am publishing in this Blog.

Since I now understand that the word “resident” is the secret charge of the indictment against me, I filed to have my appeal reinstated and to have the appellate court rule on my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to include all of the elements of the charge of being a “resident”. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that have stated that an indictment must go to the specifics. If a person doesn’t understand the charge in the indictment, it is impossible to defend oneself.

The Supreme Court most clearly addresses this issue within Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, where it held the following: “Although the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offense in an indictment upon the statute, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished; where the statutory language does not apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him, it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform him of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.”

The challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time, including long after the court has closed the case. I filed my motion to reinstate my appeal and then rule on my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to include all the elements of the charge of “resident” around May 19, 2006. This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 8, 2006: Court Docket – June 8, 2006. This docket was printed on June 8, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page. As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of May 19, 2006, at 6:03 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket. Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is designated as “Appellee” and I am designated as “Appellant”. This is the correct designation.

This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 9, 2006: Court Docket – June 9, 2006. This docket was printed on June 9, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page. As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of June 8, 2006, at 6:03 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket. Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is no longer designated as “Appellee”, while I am still properly designated as “Appellant”. This is the court’s way of acknowledging that both parties have joined in the motion. This is blatant docket tampering.

This is a link to the appellate court’s order dated June 8, 2006: Court Order of June 8, 2006. This is the same day that the docket was tampered with in order to make it appear that the government had joined in my motion (the date of the court order is circled in turquoise on the lower left hand side of the page). As it states on the docket, the court denied my motion because a “Response was due 5/30/06″. Obviously, since I filed the motion I do not have a response due. However, had the government joined in the motion and then if the government failed to respond, the motion could be denied for the lack of response. This docket tampering allowed the government to literally hijack my motion.

This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 10, 2006: Court Docket – June 10, 2006. This docket was printed on June 10, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page. As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of June 9, 2006, at 6:01 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket. Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is once again designated as “Appellee” and I am designated as “Appellant”. This is now back to the correct designation.

I then filed another motion to reinstate my appeal and included the above docket sheets as evidence of docket tampering. The government tampered with the docket in the exact same manner again by removing the designation of the United States of America as “Appellee” on July 13, 2006. Here is a link to the court order dated July 13, 2006: Court Order of July 13, 2006. Once more the court denied my motion because a “Response was due 6/29/06.”. The designation of “Appellee” was again restored on the following day. Here is a link to copies of the court docket for July 12, 2006, through July 14, 2006 (printed on the following mornings of July 13 through July 15): Court Dockets as of July 12 – 14, 2006.

The United States government is nothing but a bankrupt entity for the international counterfeiters (Federal Reserve System) who are trying to collect their interest from their loans of counterfeit money to the government.

It is quite clear that the government will not allow the court to ever sit in judicial review of my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the IRS indictment to include all of the elements of the charge of “resident”.

==============================================

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another Update received from Lindsey Springer. We didn't write this.

__________________________________

For those of you wondering how the United States Department of Treasury maintains such an excellent record of victories even when the arguments are knowingly “frivolous,” See 08-9004 Springer v. IRS (10^th Cir. 8.31.09), I thought you may like to see something for yourself that I discovered while trying to determine the “delegation of authority” from the “Office of Chief Counsel, ” Title 26, Section 7803(:cool:(1998) to what has been called “Area” “counsel.”

The web page says that there are 1500 Attorneys working out of the Office of Chief Counsel. 650 in D.C. and 850 in 30-37 field offices. I am currently attempting to discover the legal authority for the “field office” as that office relates to Title 4, Section 72 which says “offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.” The web page says attorneys can be paid a “cash reward” for “superior performance or special achievements.” See below. You can read the entire plan at:

http://www.experience.com/alumnus/article?channel_id=government&source_page=additionalarticles&article_id=article_1142881625112

Salary and Fringe Benefits

Locality Pay

You will receive a pay adjustment annually based on local labor market conditions.

Flexible Work Schedules

You may be able to take advantage of flexible or compressed work schedules. You may also elect to earn credit hours. Once earned, employees can use credit hours to be absent from work for short periods of time for personal reasons. On a pre-approved basis, you may be able to work on special projects from home or an alternate worksite under our Flexiplace program.

Promotion Policy

Attorneys appointed at GS-11 through GS-14 are eligible for promotion to the next higher grade annually. GS-15 positions and above are usually reserved for supervisors, non-supervisory management officials, senior technical advisors and special litigation assistants. However, more than 100 GS-15 non-managerial positions were recently created for our attorney staff. Promotion candidates compete with other GS-14 attorneys and are currently selected by a board of senior executives.

Awards Program

The Office of Chief Counsel has a generous awards program. Employees may receive cash awards for superior performance or special achievements. Several million dollars is allocated each year to this program.

Retirement Plan

The Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) provides a basic government pension, social security coverage and a thrift savings plan, which is similar to a 401(k) plan.

Insurance Plans

Employees may choose from a variety of health insurance plans, and the government pays a substantial portion of the cost. Group term life insurance and long-term care insurance plans are also available.

Transportation Subsidy

The Office of Chief Counsel will help pay public transportation commuting costs. In 2002, those who commute via public transportation are eligible to receive up to $100 per month.

Annual and Sick Leave

You will start out earning four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave every two weeks. After three years, you will earn six hours of annual leave every two weeks. After 15 years, you will earn eight hours of annual leave.

Holiday Leave

There are 10 paid holidays annually. The President may also declare other holidays in recognition of special events.

Leave Programs

The government-wide leave program allows you to voluntarily donate your annual leave to federal employees in other agencies, and to request the use of donated leave if you face a personal medical emergency. Absences due to maternity/paternity reasons are generally approved for periods between four and six months. An employee may use a combination of sick leave, annual leave and leave without pay to cover this absence.

I just thought this FYI was worth circulation. In my defense I remain,

Lindsey Springer

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another Update from Lindsey Springer

Where has Lindsey Springer been all these years. He's in a time warp. The subject of this correspondence has been covered in the following documents on this website and our sister website for years:

1. Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf

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

2. Secretary's Authority within the Several States

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Chal…tary-4usc72.pdf

Too bad he didn't figure this all out until AFTER he was convicted. You see how important this stuff is, folks? You have to learn this stuff BEFORE you need it, not after as in the case of Springer. Hit the books.

________________

Lindsey Springer here and wishing each of you a Merry Christmas and or happy holy-day season. I am writing to report on the current status of things in my former internal revenue district of Oklahoma-Arkansas.

In 09-cr-043 the United States verified that all internal revenue districts and district directors were abolished in 2000. In 0-8-278, I took several depositions that showed those districts and directors were abolished in late 1999.

I have filed in 08-278 a restraining order and injunction request in USA v. Springer, seeking an injunction on the basis that without any internal revenue districts no internal revenue law, including the ones at issue in 08-278, are enforceable. I cite to Title 4, Section 72, and show how without any office outside of D.C. or delegation of authority from the Commissioner to someone with an office outside D.C., the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Secretary of Treasury are prohibited from acting outside the District of Columbia. Equally enforceable is that if anyone other than these two officer holders are acting as either of them then they must have a proper delegation of authority. I argue without District Directors that delegation is impossible under current internal revenue laws, regulations, and court decisions on the subject of delegation.

I have also filed in 3781-09L in Tax Court a request for restraining order against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any delegate acting outside D.C. for substantially the same reasons as in 08-278 above.

Yesterday, I spoke with the Tax Court's Judge's office deputy who attended the Tax Court trial in September, 2009 in Oklahoma City, and she instructed me that Judge Paris is issuing an order directing the Commissioner respond to my restraining order requests filed on December 7, 2009.

I argue, among others, that 26 CFR 601.101, 301.6301, 301.6331, according to Title 26, Section 7621 and 26 CFR 301.7621, without any “internal revenue districts” and “district directors” there is no “delegation of authority” and that the “revenue officer” or “revenue agent” is not the Secretary of Treasury or Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

In my defense I am filing in the Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on these five questions:

1. Does a Chief Judge of a Judicial District, specifically, Title 28, Section 116(a), have lawful Article III judicial power or other statutory authority, to assign a District Judge commissioned to another Judicial District to preside over a criminal trial held in the Chief Judge's Judicial District?

2. Are all orders entered by such person in a criminal trial held outside such person's Judicial District coram non judice and invalid?

3. Does Misc. # 23 issued by the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit, dated December 30, 2008, exceed Title 28, Section 292( 😎 's purpose and intent warranting an exercise of this Court's supervisory power pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 10(a)?

4. Can criminal internal revenue laws outside the District of Columbia be violated and/or enforced, within the exterior limits of the State of Oklahoma, without established internal revenue districts pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621?

5. When Congress obtains from GAO a report in May of 2005 that finds IRS Tax Forms do not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, doesn't such conclusion by GAO warrant dismissal of the Grand Jury Indictment dated March 10, 2009, for failure to allege an offense under the internal revenue laws?

Title 4, United States Code, Section 72 reads in relevant part: “All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.”

Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621(a) reads in relevant part: “The President shall establish convenient internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws. The President may from time to time alter such districts.

Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621( 😎 reads in relevant part: Boundaries-For the purpose mentioned in subsection (a), the President may subdivide any State, or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one district two or more States.

Title 44, United States Code, Section 3512(a) reads in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if— (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or (2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

26 CFR 601.101(2000-2009), in relevant part provides: “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.

26 CFR 301.6301(2000-2009) in relevant part provides: “taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws shall be collected by district directors of internal revenue.”

26 CFR 301.6201 (2000-2009) in relevant part provides: “district director is authorized and required to make all inquiries necessary to the determination and assessment of all taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or any prior internal revenue law.”

26 CFR 601.107(2000-2009) provides in relevant part: “Each district has a Criminal Investigation function whose mission is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the internal revenue laws.”

In my defense, I am convinced without internal revenue districts there is no way for any determination to be made as to where a certain statute or regulation is administered, enforced or allegedly violated. If you get the time check those regulations I cited to above, as there are enormous numbers of others, to see how the abolishment of internal revenue districts and the office of district director impacts the issues in my cases.

I am also intending to file Petition in the Supreme Court regarding the published decision where the Tenth Circuit held the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue made a frivolous argument regarding previous rulings involving the Paperwork Reduction Act the Tenth Circuit was said to have made. That case is 08-9004. This is the case where they said I raised difficult issued between the tax code and PRA.

If any of you would like to help support me during this time of my need I would be forever grateful and will use it wisely. It is most difficult to be locked down to my home, defend against the claims against me, maintain the actions in my favor against the United States (Bivens), all the while taking care of the most basic of necessities. For those of you hearing this call, I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or by mail at Lindsey Springer, 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135.

It is my humble opinion there is nothing more important regarding the defenses I have standing to raise, to the future of this Country and all of us in it, than issues related to internal revenue districts and district directors. Nothing!

[fg_admin]

Sound like more redemption scam material. See:

Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002

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

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

We aren't interested in redemption and the people who advocate it are scamsters. There is not doubt the issues you described are real. But lets direct efforts on this website to:

1. Producing LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE that they are true.

2. Producing weapons to fight it.

3. Sticking to the most important issues, which are:

3.1 Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf

3.2 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

3.3 The Money Scam, Form #05.041

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf

3.4 What Happened to Justice

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/WhatHappJu…HappJustice.htm

If you aren't focusing on these issues and fighting them in court, you're wasting your time.