[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Sent to one of our readers by attorney Larry Becraft. We didn't write this.

_________________________

The current debate about “national health care” is exclusively centered on the merits of various provisions in the multiple versions offered by different factions in Congress, all of whom presume that America is destined to have such a program, in one form or another. Completely removed from the debate over this matter is any mention of the absence of constitutional authority for the feds to establish such a scheme in the jurisdiction of the several States. It is reputed that when an astute critic of this legislative tragedy noted this constitutional defect to a Congressman, he received a smug reply: “show me where we cannot enact this program.” Apparently, there are lots of constitutionally challenged federal legislators besides Pelosi.

There is one very profound constitutional objection to this federal gamble to subject Americans and their health care to the control of politicians and bureaucrats. Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdictions of the States. See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925)(“Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”); Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926)(“It is important also to bear in mind that 'direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.' Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”); and Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004)(“The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.' Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 737, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has made the constitutional principle clear: 'Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.' Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819 (1925); see also Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct. 650, 98 L.Ed. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.'). The Attorney General 'may not . . . regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F.3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).”).

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935).

Please spread the word and loudly object to your Congressman.

Larry

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and in accordance with the Court's Order of November 17, 2009, I write to express my sincere gratitude to each of you who have watched with great anticipation the events leading up to and now after the trial phase has concluded in 09cr-043. I am now in the pre-sentence phase.

I am having to defend against the United States in the case where the U.S. DOJ represents 11 Agents who left my home on September 16, 2005 with $ 19,000 and on January 10, 2006, chose to only return $ 17,000. That case is 06-156 (Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma) and on appeal at the 10^th Circuit it is 09-5088 (Denver)(44 months and no discovery yet but looks like that will change soon). During the offense trial I was also required to draft a response brief to the United States in the “interlocutory appeal” in 09-5088. This is the second time the United States has appealed a Judge's decision that went against the 11 Bivens' Defendants to the 10^th Circuit.

The central issue is whether there is any case ever that the Agents would have known about that alerted them to the potential liability they would suffer personally if they decided to steal money while conducting a raid on someone's Fourth Amendment protected home. The U.S. tries to couch their argument in phrases like “post deprivation theft” or “after the money was seized” a theft occurred or some derivative thereof placing the theft after the currency was “seized.” The District Court rejected this claim by them and held that when, where, and how much was seized, are fact issues for a jury to decide. Anyway, for those of you who have pacer you can down load my brief and the United States Opening Brief at 09-5088 if you choose.

I am also having to defend against the claim that the same attorneys representing the Bivens Defendants in 06-156 (09-5088)(10th Cir.) above have made regarding whether a lien exists against me and a Judgment should be entered against me for the amounts derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics beginning in 1996 for 1990 through 1996. This case is 08-278 which has been on hold for several months (Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma). As most of you know, the lien was released by a “Certificate of Release” by R.A. Mitchell on August 23, 2007. This is the case where I took 11 depositions where District Director and Internal Revenue District were repeatedly testified to as terminated in or by the year 2000.

When the IRS revoked the “Certificate of Release” at the direction of the Bivens Attorneys for the U.S. DOJ, I was granted a CDP hearing option under Title 26, Section 6320. I exercised that option but on January 9, 2009, after the IRS amended their “manual” on January 9, 2009 (same day), I received a letter saying I was not allowed a CDP hearing without any explanation as to why I was being denied the hearing I had a right to have.

I petitioned tax court in 3781-09L (2009) and the Chief Judge of Tax Court ordered a hearing on September 14, 2009, which was held, and to which Tax Court Judge Paris is to issue an order on the question as to whether a proper notice was sent to me in 1999. In this case, the IRS claims the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction and that the January 9, 2009 Letter is not a “determination.” The Chief Judge and Judge Paris decided if the letter deprived me of any right that the letter was a “determination” regardless of the phraseology used on the letter. In this case the IRS claim to have sent the CDP hearing notice back in 1999 to an address that was not my last known address. No one disputes the address used was incorrect. The question is consequences.

Today, November 29, 2009, I filed a Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction in 08-278 which explains the following issue (there are 7 but I only discuss my defense of this one as it relates to the criminal case against me also):

1. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICTS OR DISTRICT DIRECTORS, BEGINNING IN THE YEAR 2000 TO PRESENT DAY, WHETHER FRED RICE HAS ANY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY UNDER TITLE 26, SECTION 6301, AND 26 CFR 301.6301-1, Title 26, Section 7701(a)(12), 26 CFR 301.7701-9 AND 26 CFR 301.7701-10, TO CAUSE TO ISSUE OR ISSUE A NOTICE OF LEVY UNDER TITLE 26, SECTION 6331 AND 26 CFR 301.6331-1 AGAINST THE PROPERTY INTEREST OF LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER?

My defense is as follows:

That Title 26, Section 7621 directs

(a) Establishment and alteration -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.

(b) 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.

I argue that Title 4, Section 72, specifically provides “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.” (This is a quote from Hughes) Hughes v. U.S., 953 F.2d 531, 542 (9th Cir. 1992)(they rely on 4 U.S.C. § 72…, This section does not foreclose the exercise of authority by the IRS outside the District of Columbia. The President is authorized to establish internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws, and these districts can be created outside of Washington, D.C. See 26 U.S.C. § 7621.”)

My defense is further supported by the statement in Hughes which says:

“[23 Next, the Hugheses claim that the IRS cannot prevail because there is “no evidence of any delegated authority from the Secretary of Treasury to the various known or unknown agents involved.” Relevant statutes and regulations demonstrate, however, that the Secretary does have the power to collect taxes, and that such power can be delegated to local IRS agents. 26 U.S.C. § 6301 provides that “[t]he Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws.” The actual task of collecting the taxes, however, has been delegated to local IRS directors. “The taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws shall be collected by district directors of internal revenue.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6301-1. District directors in turn are authorized to redelegate the levy power to lower level officials such as collection officers. See IRS Delegation Order 191. The delegation of authority down the chain of command, from the Secretary, to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to local IRS employees constitutes a valid delegation by the Secretary to the Commissioner, and a redelegation by the Commissioner to the delegated officers and employees. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701-9. Therefore, the agents involved in the case at bar were acting within their authority when they collected taxes from the Hugheses.”

I am arguing that the President of the United State “abolished internal revenue districts as of October 1, 2000.” (I have attached an Exhibit 2 which the U.S. DOJ admitted on May 29, 2009 in 09-cr-043 that all Internal Revenue Districts were abolished)(I argue it is the President who abolished the Internal Revenue Districts under Title 26, Section 7621 and not Congress in any statute) See Exhibit 2 which cites “Testimony of David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, dated May 8, 2001, Implementation of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Joint Hearing Before Committees of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.” Without an Internal Revenue District there would be no boundary to identify and assign Internal Revenue District Directors. You can read his testimony at:

http://www.treas.gov/tigta/congress/congress_05082001.htm

I argue that 26 CFR 301.6331-1 is entitled “Levy and distraint” and states “(a) Authority to levy—(1) In general. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the tax within 10 days after notice and demand, the district director to whom the assessment is charged (or, upon his request, any other district director) may proceed to collect the tax by levy. The district director may levy upon any property, or rights to property, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, belonging to the taxpayer. The district director may also levy upon property with respect to which there is a lien provided by section 6321 or 6324 for the payment of the tax.”

I further argue that Title 26, Section 6322 clearly places the lien to arise at the time the “assessment” is made and assessments are made under 26 CFR 301.6203-1 by “The district director and the director of the regional service center” who “shall appoint one or more assessment officers. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment.”

I argue Officer Rice is not the “Secretary” under any Internal Revenue Law nor is he the Secretary of the Treasury. He likewise is no “delegate” of the Secretary or Secretary of the Treasury. The only way Officer Rice can exercise any authority of the Secretary is if he meets the definition under Title 26, Section 7701(a)(11)(:cool: which means the Secretary of the Treasury or his “delegate.”

I point out that under Title 26, Section 7701(a)(11) entitled “Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary” and defines (A) Secretary of the Treasury – The term “Secretary of the Treasury” means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally, and shall not include any delegate of his. (:cool: Secretary – The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. (12) Delegate (A) In general – The term “or his delegate”— (i) when used with reference to the Secretary of the Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context; and (ii) when used with reference to any other official of the United States, shall be similarly construed.

I argue further that 26 CFR 301.7701-9(2009) entitled “Secretary or his delegate” defines the terms to mean “the Secretary of the Treasury, or any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in the context, and the term 'or his delegate' when used in connection with any other official of the United States shall be similarly construed.”

I then argue that any Levy issued by Officer Rice would be in violation of several Federal Laws and Regulations. First, there exists no Internal Revenue District or District Director encompassing the State of Oklahoma and particularly where Springer lives.

Next, I argue that under 26 CFR 601.101(2009) the Secretary promulgates “General Procedural Rules” and in “Introduction” states “(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 then argue in addition, Officer Rice is not the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary. That Officer Rice has no delegation of authority under Title 26, section 7701(a)(11), 7701(a)(12), 6301, 6331, nor any authority under 26 CFR 26 CFR 301.7701-9, 301.7701-10, 301.6301-1, and 26 CFR 301.6331-1 to levy the property interests of Lindsey Kent Springer within the boundaries of the State of Oklahoma or County of Creek.

I will let you know of any response the United States or Court makes as soon as it happens.

The last issue and probably the most important is that on Monday, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus is being docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit by attorney Jerold Barringer out of Nokomis Illinois. You all may remember he was the attorney in 08-9004 (available on Pacer) where the 10^th Circuit stated that the Commissioner made a frivolous argument related to the merits of my Paperwork Reduction Act claims against the Form 1040 characterizing three previous appeal decisions by the 10th Circuit. You will also remember the 10^th Circuit, in their published opinion, stated that I raised difficult issues between the tax code and the Paperwork Reduction Act involving Form 1040.

In Mr. Barringer's Petition for Writ of Mandamus he raises the following issues for immediate relief on my behalf:

(A) whether Honorable Judge Stephen P. Friot has a commission to hold office of the United States' Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, based upon his commission to hold office in the United States' Western District of Oklahoma, dated November 4, 2001;

(:cool: whether the undisputed fact that the Internal Revenue Districts encompassing the State of Oklahoma were abolished by the President of the United States (or his designate) by year end 1999, renders void and makes wholly absent the Jurisdiction and Venue of the United States' Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, over offenses derived from the “internal revenue laws” alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment dated March 10, 2009 to have began in the year 2000 through 2007. [Remember 4 U.S.C. section 72 and 26 U.S.C. section 7621]

(C ) whether the Public Protection Provision, Title 44, Section 3512(a) prohibits imposition of penalty for willful failure to file Form 1040 (not withstanding any other provision of law), upon Springer by any Article III Court, where the undisputed fact is that the Form 1040, which is inexorably linked to each of the Six Counts of the March 10, 2009 Grand Jury Indictment levied against Springer, failed in every way to comply with either the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 or 1995, and/or with Office of Management and Budget Regulations requiring certification of compliance by the Chief Information Officer of the Internal Revenue Service for years 2000 through 2007.

Once there is a docket number tomorrow from the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, I will send that number out so each of you can find a way to obtain what Mr. Barringer has stated as an officer of the Court in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus on my behalf.

The District Court has not restrained me from receiving support for myself so I can defend myself. I do appreciate all the support you can throw my way. I can receive support at either Paypal through lindsey@mindspring.com or I can also receive any form of currency, including checks and money orders, in the name of Lindsey Springer only and at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135. Thank you for your consideration in supporting me in these matters.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Sent to us by a friend. Nancey Bergeson was the public defender of one of the defendants in the Saladino case mentioned earlier. She was found dead at her home only hours after the verdict in the case. Police are calling it a homicide.

_________________________

Nancy Bergeson got part of the way there but not all the way. Here are the steps to truth plus potential repercussions:

· General Ignorance and spouting the party line: Have existence, be a slave forever, live as old as you can afford to.

· Searching phase for freedom, grabbing the nearest law or court decision to substantiate: General ridicule as a means to discredit you, “conspiracy-labeling” methodology will totally confuse you, government simply dispenses with you by ignoring you.

· Helping others get free, still relying on law and court decisions: Instant target. Must be COMPLETE to avoid prosecution. If you help enough, jail eventually keeps you out of the population for XX years. Others hear of your jail or disbar and judge what you say on simply how well it kept you out of jail—i.e. worthless.

· Starting to unpeel the onion of the government usurpation by examining its foundation: If you advertise this at this point you are most vulnerable for those in power want to silence you BEFORE you get to the next phase. Right here you can die—especially if you are in any good position of credibility.

· Over the edge on truth: Once you tout more truth than the preceding step and have it “out there” in published format, knocking you off raises more questions than simply ignoring you.

__________________________________________

Tax Crime Public Defender Nancy S. Bergeson Dead of Homicide

Why does it not surprise me that Nancy S. Bergeson, the diligent public defender who represented Marcel Roy Bendshadler in the tax crimes case in which a Portland USDC jury found Bendshadler guilty Monday, suffered a gruesome murder on Tuesday?

She was found dead in her Portland Oregon home at her laptop keyboard in her pajamas on Tuesday. Of all the defense attorneys in the case, only Bergeson showed any sincere belief in the innocence of her client. Why? Because she really believed Bendshadler innocent. Why? Because for 21 months of their relationship in his case, Bendshadler had explained to her much of the skullduggery typical of the IRS and DOJ in tax crime cases, including subornation of both judge and jury, and many other dirty tricks, such as lugging into the courtroom many boxes to make the jury think the DOJ had a mountain of evidence against the defendants, so as to twist their minds and pervert their judgment. Her own research and observation corroborated the picture Bendshadler had painted for her.

And note that Bendshadler, 49, holds a Master's degree in Constitutional Law, and has argued at least one case before the Idaho Supreme Court. He has studied income tax law and IRS behaviors for years. He knows his subject very well and has watched with others in the tax honesty community across America while the DOJ racked up a putative 95+% win ratio in tax crime cases, a phenomenal win record, even for the biggest law firm in the world, the U.S. Department of Justice. Many believe such a win could not happen without suborning both judges and juries repeatedly throughout the years.

Now, I suspect that Bergeson got so close to the truth in her own investigations over the months of association with Bendshadler that she became a dire threat to the IRS and DOJ, putting both at severe risk of exposure of their crimes that deprived Bendshadler of due process. As you know from my earlier report, Bendshadler said the jury seemed bright, alert, and friendly toward him one day, and then later returned a guilty verdict against him, atypical of such a jury.

For this reason, the IRS and DOJ people associated with the case have become highly elevated in MY suspect list . I would feel no surprise at the discovery that one or more of them bore direct or indirect guilt for Bergeson's death.

“She held my hand for 21 months through this ordeal. Now she's dead, and Judge Ann Brown wants to know whether the defense will seek an extension of time for the sentencing hearing, ” said Bendshadler in an interview Wednesday. “You may now SCREAM BLOODY MURDER, for Nancy Bergeson,” he concluded in sadness.

We agree. As the mob at the DOJ might say, Bergeson now “sleeps with the fishes.”

Bob Hurt (see contact info below)

____________________________________________

Public defender killed in Southwest Portland

Reported by: Joel Iwanaga

Email: jiwanaga@koin.com

Last Update: 2:53 pm

[url url=”http://java%20script:IDMStoryPhoto(“]Slideshow[/url]

Nancy Bergeson

PORTLAND – Police made the grim discovery Tuesday afternoon.

They found Nancy Bergeson, 57, dead inside her Southwest Portland home on the 4100 Block of Southwest Hamilton Street.

Detectives say she died of “homicidal violence.”

Bergeson is a Federal Public Defender and has been on several high profile cases in recent years. She has had her Oregon Bar license since March of 1991, with much of her time being spent in Portland.

KOIN Local 6 spoke by phone with her boss, Steven Wax, who said that he and his colleagues are deeply saddened by the loss and that Bergeson has been with them for 18 years.

Police have not identified a motive, nor if Bergeson's job led to her violent death.

There are no suspects in custody.

_________________________________________

http://ww.examiner.com/Subject-Nancy_Bergeson.html

Friends mourn slain public defender in Oregon

Nancy Bergeson

Friends mourn slain public defender in Oregon

4 hrs ago

Friends are mourning a public defender found slain at her Portland home this week, with one of her clients calling her “a fighter.” …

Police: Federal public defender was murdered

10 hrs ago- KATU 2

____________________________

Detectives and crime scene investigators were at the home of 57-year-old Nancy Bergeson in the 4100 block of Southwest Hamilton most of Wednesday and …

Police

______________________

11 hrs ago- KATU 2

Detectives and crime scene investigators were at the home of 57-year-old Nancy Bergeson in the 4100 block of Southwest Hamilton most of Wednesday and …

Assistant federal public defender slain

______________________

21 hrs ago

Portland police say a 57-year-old homicide victim found dead in her southwest Portland home was an assistant federal public defender. …

Federal attorney found dead inside SW Portland home

22 hrs ago- Northwest NewsChannel 8

Nancy Bergeson was found inside her SW Portland home Tuesday afternoon. …

Police investigating death of woman in SW Portland

1 day ago- Portland Tribune

Portland police homicide detectives are investigating the death of a 57-year-old Bridlemile woman who was found in a house in the 4100 block of …

Breaking News, Southwest Portland

Friends remember slain lawyer as a champion of the defenseless

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/police_investigate_public_defe.html

By Melissa Navas, The Oregonian

November 26, 2009, 7:10PM

View full size

Courtesy of Bergeson family

Nancy S. Bergeson was an assistant federal public defender. She was found dead Tuesday in her Southwest Portland home.Nancy Bergeson cared deeply about the defenseless.

Once, on a deep-sea fishing trip off Florida, friends observed their catch decreasing as the day wore on. Eventually, they realized Bergeson, who was just along for the ride, was freeing the soon-to-be dinner over the side of the boat.

“They were just defenseless fish, so she was giving them their lives back,” said Lisa Maxfield, a friend on the trip.

Bergeson adopted the same philosophy with the clients she represented as an assistant federal public defender in Portland. While some clients faced deportation or drug charges, Bergeson's friends and colleagues said she looked beyond her clients' alleged crimes.

“She always tried to understand where they were coming from,” Maxfield said. “Not every defense lawyer does that. She had a lot of empathy. She could just find the humanity in anyone.”

Bergeson, 57, was found dead in her Southwest Portland home Tuesday. A day later, Portland police investigators said she was the victim of a violent homicide.

View full size

Amy Hsuan/The Oregonian

Police tape surrounds Nancy Bergeson's home in the 4100 block of Southwest Hamilton Street in Portland. Officers continue to investigate the death of the assistant federal public defender.On Thursday, police investigators moved in and out of her home in the 4100 block of Southwest Hamilton Street. Police tape cordoned off her home and an adjacent wooded area in the Bridlemile neighborhood.

Detective Mary Wheat, Portland Police Bureau spokeswoman, revealed no new details of the case Thursday. However, questions remain about motive, how Bergeson died and why it took a day to determine she didn't die of natural causes, as police first suspected.

As word of Bergeson's death spread, friends and colleagues said Thursday that the news was “inconceivable.”

Fighting back tears, Vernice Trease described Bergeson, whose birthday would have been Monday, as a fighter and someone who was willing to stick up for clients at the risk of angering judges. Trease, a 3rd District Court judge in Salt Lake City, met Bergeson more than 20 years ago when Trease was first hired at the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association.

There, Bergeson mentored her, discussed court cases and “was always available and helpful to give advice,” Trease said.

“The world has lost a champion, and those of us who know her lost a hero,” Trease said.

Bergeson also opened doors for new lawyers.

Maxfield, now in private practice in Portland, met Bergeson while at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law.

When Maxfield graduated, she landed a job as a public defender with Bergeson. Within a day, Bergeson invited the newcomer to help try a jury case — Maxfield's first.

“She just knew it would be exciting for me and it was,” Maxfield said. “She kind of understood that being a good lawyer was a communal effort. ”

Steve Sady, chief deputy federal public defender, said his colleague's death was a “devastating loss.”

“Nancy was unique and wonderful in her commitment to defending her clients and the Constitution,” Sady said. “She passionately embodied the American principal that no one has to stand alone before the government. “

Bergeson started at the Portland office in 1991 and had a stint in Eugene before returning in 1994. Her cases for the Portland office included issues of tax evasion, deportation, drug possession, and money-laundering.

Craig Weinerman, an attorney in the Eugene branch of the Office of the Federal Public Defender, worked with Bergeson in Eugene.

Weinerman said he did not want to speculate about whether Bergeson's death was tied to her cases.

“I just hope it had nothing to do with anything professional,” he said. “It just rarely happens. We've never had a problem with that so I'd like to think that's not what happened.”

Other friends agreed.

“To put the words 'Nancy Bergeson' in the same sentence as 'murder' is inconceivable,” Maxfield said.

Those who battled against Bergeson in court came to know her tenacity.

John Laing, assistant U.S. attorney, said he hadn't gone a month without facing Bergeson in nearly 19 years.

“It could be frustrating,” Laing said of arguing a case against Bergeson. “I often said about Nancy that she doesn't try cases as much as she tries causes. … She really took on the causes of her clients as her own.”

And though they were on opposite sides, those adversarial roles didn't extend outside the courtroom. The two often talked about parenting, their children at Lincoln High School and putting kids through college. Bergeson's only child, Jamie, graduated in 2008 from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

“We were often adversaries, but we were never foes,” Laing said. “We joked. … she'd give me a hard time, and I'd give her a hard time back.”

Both worked on a recent methamphetamine possession case where Bergeson was able to convince a judge to suppress some evidence. After Laing's appeal, Bergeson urged him to drop the motion. On Wednesday, Laing received a message from the U.S. Attorney General's Office recommending he not appeal the issue.

“She had hoped that that was going to be the result,” Laing said. “I was going to call and tell her the good news. And then two more e-mails up, I saw the news (of her death).”

Outside of work, friends said Bergeson found time to enjoy the outdoors, her dogs and dragon-boat racing. She was always on the go, said Brooke Wells.

Wells, a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Utah, and Bergeson bought a 7-year-old race horse named Charlie in the early 1990s.

“He fit her to a tee because she loved to go fast,” Wells said. “I can picture us on horses kind of flying over the ground. That was the gear she was in always.”

Bergeson was also generous, Wells said.

Before becoming a lawyer, Bergeson taught special education in Utah elementary and middle schools. She once made a promise to her students that she would pay their college tuition if they graduated, not thinking anyone would cash in.

“One of them called up, sent their diploma and asked for the check,” Wells said.

And Bergeson paid up.

Amy Hsuan, Casey Parks and Wendy Owen contributed to this report.

— Melissa Navas

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: For those who don't know:

1. Saladino was represented by a public pretender and welfare recipient called a licensed attorney who had a criminal conflict of interest pursuant to 18 USC 208. That's a NO NO.

2. He was preparing claim of right returns by the thousands. He even had it automated.

3. He was using social security numbers on the returns, which are de facto license numbers to represent a public office in the U.S. government: Another HUGE NO NO.

4. He was filing RESIDENT 1040 tax returns for others. Another NO NO. You MUST use nonresident returns and take make the deductions BEFORE you enter the amount on the return in computing gross revenues, and the amounts cannot be listed anywhere in the return if they are not from “U.S. sources”, meaning District of Columbia and U.S. government sources per 26 USC 863(c )(3) and 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).

5. At the time, he too was a resident of the federal zone, because he had a driver's license in Oregon, even though he was living in Idaho at the time. He was indicted and convicted in the place where he had his driver's license INSTEAD of where he actually lived. That was where the public officer “res” physically was domiciled, which was property of the U.S. government.

6. His tax returns presumed the filers were “taxpayers”. We won't even talk to “taxpayers”. You can't file a RESIDENT 1040, ALL OF WHICH is “trade or business” earnings, and then argue that your earnings are not “taxable”. The public office is filing the return, not the human being. For the same reason, its just as STUPID to try to take deductions for labor, because a human being didn't provide the services, but rather the public office did under the W-4 contract.

When are people going to learn and REALLY start paying attention to what is on this website?

See for yourself why his approach was flawed. Look at section 2 of the following, which he wasn't aware of. His ignorance on this subject is what got him prosecuted like a sitting duck:

How the Government Defrauds You Out of Legitimate Deductions for the Market Value of Your Labor, Form #05.026, Section 2

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

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

On this subject, the Bible says:

Quote:

“My [God's] people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

[Hosea 4:6, Bible, NKJV]

It's worth pointing out that Joe was a believer, and that he, like so many others, suffered because of his own ignorance. Truly sad.

On the brighter side, we sincerely hope that all of you are learning hard lessons from people who will pay the ultimate price for their ignorance and even greed. Hopefully, you won't make the same mistake these people did. Participating in these forums is a great way to ensure that you learn from the mistakes of others. That's what they are for.

If you see or hear of cases where people are prosecuted for tax scams, please post them in these forums so we can all learn from them.

______________________

Federal jury finds three guilty of $9 million tax evasion scheme

By Bryan Denson, The Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.s…hree_guilt.html

November 23, 2009, 12:25PM

A Portland jury this morning found three men guilty of defrauding the U.S. government of more than $9 million as part of a tax-resistance scheme they sold to hundreds of Americans in more than 40 states.

Joseph O. Saladino, 62, Marcel R. Bendshadler, 48, and Michael S. Mungovan, 66, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by interfering with the IRS's ability to accurately assess and calculate income taxes. A fourth defendant, Richard Ortt, was acquitted.

A fifth man involved in the scheme, 62-year-old Richard A. Fuselier, pleaded guilty to the crime in September.

The guilty men offered a tax evasion service from 2001 to 2005 in which they prepared more than 1,000 tax returns based on the theory that compensation for personal labor is not taxable, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Allan Garten.

“So let's assume for a moment that you would get a W2 that said $40,000,” Garten said. “(The guilty men) would list as income $40,000, and then they would deduct the value of your labor of $40,000 … so that you paid no taxes.”

That's illegal, he said.

“The argument that compensation for personal labor is not taxable income is both frivolous and has been rejected consistently by the courts and the IRS,” Garten said.

As a matter of policy, he said, the Internal Revenue Service seeks to recoup taxes not properly paid to the government through such schemes.

The four guilty men are scheduled for sentencing early next year before U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown. They face maximum sentences of five years in prison and fines of $250,000.

[fg_admin]

Combo,

Any chance you could do a high resolution scan of the front and back of the card, redact the personal information, and post it as either a PDF or JPG so we can all inspect it?

That would be a HUGE help to all of us trying to figure out this puzzle. If you don't know how to redact the personal information, then send us a private message and we will do it for you with graphics editing software and post it for you.

THANKS!

[fg_admin]

Brian,

Thank you for your passion on the subject matter of liberty and your advocacy of the free political speech found here. It's clear that you “get it”, but your questions and contributions to these forums so far other than your last, of course, don't reveal that.

There is no need to be polite or indirect here. Life is too short for that and please don't waste your time cluttering these forums with indirect obtuse questions that don't get to the heart of the matter. All of us here are far too busy researching and fighting for small talk.

Otherwise, thanks for your presence here and we hope that you will contribute more than you take from these forums. We need more warriors, not more parasites or politically correct people.

Quote:

“The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, And his tongue talks of justice.” [Psalms 37:30, Bible, NKJV]

“To do righteousness and justice Is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.” [Prov. 21:3, Bible, NKJV]

“Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.” [Isaiah 1:17, Bible, NKJV]

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘ Execute true justice, Show mercy and compassion Everyone to his brother.” [Zech. 7:9, Bible, NKJV]

Justice means speaking and acting forcefully when your neighbor is being hurt, regardless of the cost to you. Those who are politically correct or parasites care more about their own security and prosperity than the good of their neighbor under the standard of God's law. I ask our readers: Which god to YOU serve: The true and living God or the pagan idol of self?

Welcome.

[fg_admin]

Brian,

1. Those who leave the system become nonresident aliens if they follow what is on this website.

2. The filing and withholding situation in a family where the wife files 1040 returns and is a resident alien while the husband is a nonresident alien is discussed in:

Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Sections 19.6 and 24.2

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

3. The only lawful way for a nonresident alien to file a joint RESIDENT return is to be married to a statutory “U.S. citizen” and to make an election pursuant to 26 USC 6014(g) and (h). The nonresident must make the election and the resident (1040) cannot do it without the consent of the nonresident. Furthermore, if you have read the citizenship materials on this website, you know that your wife may “think” she is a statutory “U.S. citizen”, but in fact she is NOT. The public office she occupies unlawfully is, in fact, the REAL statutory “U.S. citizen” and you didn’t marry an office or an officer, but simply a human being. Therefore, it would be dishonest to make an election to be treated as a resident alien and file jointly with a “taxpayer” spouse. See:

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

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

As far as the ethical dilemma, the justification for leaving the system can be found in:

1. The Holy bible, which says we can’t contract with, do business, with, or nominate a king or ruler ABOVE us. That’s a sin because it is idolatry to put anyone between you and God or to serve two masters. See:

http://sedm.org/Commandments.htm

2. The Bible also says that we cannot join a crowd to do evil, and the present system is evil, because it is totally accountable to the people it is supposed to serve. For exhaustive proof that it is EVIL, see:

Great IRS Hoax, Chapters 2 and 6

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm

3. The government is totally unaccountable to the people it is supposed to serve. They don’t give a DAMN about you. When you don’t pay up, they lie and steal from you, they try to DESTROY your family and turn your spouse against you. They have no conscience even towards those who stay in the system. Why should you have a conscience about LEAVING it?

4. From a strictly economic standpoint, sit down and calculate EXACTLY how much you took from the system over the years. Then subtract how much you paid them. Chances are, you paid them a lot more than they ever paid you. Therefore, one is not abandoning any responsiblities by leaving.

I shouldn’t have to explain any of this. You should search out the scriptures yourself and answer your own question. We wouldn’t be writing this unless we had already done this, made a decision, and left the system. It’s absolutely evil, as you will find out the more you learn about it. It is based on fraud and enslavement using illegaly enforced franchises. See:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

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

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

The money is FRAUD. See:

The Money Scam, Form #05.041

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…w/MoneyScam.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

The taxes are fraud because they can only tax themselves and fool you into going t work for them by falsely declaring yourself a government “employee” on a W-4. Real property is a fraud because you don’t really own it…but just rent it from them. Every where you turn, you are on THEIR leash and they have no scruples at all about keeping you there, so why do you have so much compassion for your oppressors?

http://famguardian.o…vernmentCan.wmv

The main reason you would decide to stay is because of the same sin Adam and Eve committed. They wanted “insurance” from the serpent. They were told that if they sinned, they would not die and would not be accountable for their decisions. The serpent offered them insurance from their own sin and bad choices and actions. They took it. Things are the same today. Government has made a business out of enslaving us all using that same fear, insecurity, and sin. It’s called “social insurance” and it takes many forms. See:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituali…ityUniverse.htm

In the end, that fear and insecurity is what causes you to choose not leave your little government cage on the plantation and to not only be a good little slave, but also what the Bible calls “Babylon the Great Harlot”. The Harlot is living a life of luxury by becoming a cannibal and consuming other people and their stuff. As long as you do not support yourself and remain in the system, you become a parasite and a THIEF.

But God says that whatever is from fear is not love, because love casts out fear. Satan motivates by fear. God IS love and motivates through love. Therefore, SATAN is keeping you in your comfortable little cage. Read the above article and you will find out why and how.

It’s naive to expect us to care more than you, to post a question in these forums that presupposes that someone cares more than you, or to expect that you could pay anyone any amount of money to anyone in order to make them care more than you or to make you free. If you don’t care enough to do the home work and the hard work and would rather be a socialist and demand handouts and answers from us that you ought to be seeking and finding yourself, then you don’t belong here and you’re kidding yourself to ever expect to be free.

If you’re too lazy to study the bible and justify the decision yourself using the scripture and prayer and the overwhelming amount of evidence on this website and STILL need someone else to do all the work for you, then you are your own worst enemy, you aren’t ready to be free, and you ought to stay in your cage and be a good little slave and government WHORE.

Quote:

“But as for me and my house, WE WILL SERVE [ONLY] THE LORD!”

[ Josh. 24:15, Bible, NKJV]

We won’t serve any vain man or government of men. To do anything else is idolatry and serving two masters. There is no way you can be a Christian and regard the bible as a law book and NOT reach the same conclusion without denying your faith.

The government gives no mercy. And without mercy and EQUALITY of rights between you and the government, there can be NO JUSTICE. The Bible says JUSTICE is the FOUNDATION of God’s throne. Psalms 89:14. So we must be worshipping SATAN himself and a pagan religion. See the following for a description of that pagan, idolatrous religion:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016

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

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

They should get no mercy because they give none. That’s the golden rule. We should sow what we reap. There are times when God calls us to quit being the nice, compassionate, and considerate children the Bible sometimes refers to believers as, pick up our gun and our sword, and FIGHT for the safety and the future of those we love. THAT time is NOW, figuratively.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituali…/ButtPrints.htm

You are a man, and you have a divine commission to protect and lead your family. If you do nothing about this problem, you will INJURE them and your children will become surety for a financial elite of parasites that have infested a wicked government and made it into a satanic priesthood.

http://famguardian.o…cate-Part13.wmv

The longer you wait to confront and fix this problem, the more it will cost you and your family. There is no difference between putting a government between you and God and putting a wife between you and God. Either one is idolatry. If you want to take the leadership role God gave you and lead your family out of Egypt to the promised land, the following document describes how. If you are unequally yoked to an unbelieving spouse, God help you because it is a living HELL:

Family Constitution

http://famguardian.org/Publications/Family…FamilyConst.htm

Now get to work and pull your weight, or the Lord with leave your Butt prints in the sand and you’ll get the broom closet in Jesus house of many mansions.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and through some careful clarification I am able to write to you regarding my defense in the case which, through Jury Instructions and an allen instruction late in the game, I was found guilty of conspiring to defraud the IRS by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the IRS in the computation, ascertainment, assessment and collection of income taxes (Count One)(form 1040). I was also found guilty by the same jury of attempting to evade income taxes for calender years 2000, 2003 and 2005(form 1040). I was also found guilty of willfully failing to file a Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for calender year 2002 and 2004(form 1040).

IF YOU READ THIS SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM THE WAY I SEE IT–

As you are all aware I tried to present a complete and good faith defense to the claims alleged that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 that I was not subject to any penalty for failure to answer the questions on Form 1040 for any years because that Form, according to my understanding, miserably failed to comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. section 3506©(1)( 😎 . Also, to my understanding as well, the Form 1040 appeared to me that it did not contain any of the information certified by the IRS to OMB on Form 83-I that OMB required Form 1040 to display and inform the public for any year. OMB states that 5 CFR 1320.8( 😎 (3) and 1320.9 govern the certification made by the IRS to get OMB # 1545-0074.

I was allowed to read from the GAO Report from 2005 which on Page 34 zoomed into the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. That report is located at the United States Government's Web Page: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05424.pdf

On this page it explains how USGAO tells US IRS they are violating the Paperwork Reduction Act on Forms that merely state “the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States” when informing the person what specific law surrounds and supports the IRS's request for the information on Forms such as Form 1040.

As you can read for yourself, USGAO reports that US IRS thinks by telling you the specific provisions instead of the phrase “the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States” you would be burdened and as a result believe it is unnecessary and inappropriate to comply with Federal Law. In short, my understanding of the IRS position taken with GAO is they think telling you and me the law would confuse you.

Problem is that no where on the Form 1040 could I find the words “the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States.” Look at any Form 1040 for yourself and decide for yourself whether I misled you in any way. If I have misled you in any way I am sorry and please do not ever take my word for anything. If you are like me then always go check things out for yourself. Even under the US IRS position if the Form 1040 does not state “the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States” then Form 1040 would not comply with even IRS's ambiguous standard. The way I read it USGAO reported to Congress US IRS was in direct violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Regulations. Hmmm, where did they get that idea?

Anyway, during the trial the US DOJ continued to maintain the Form 1040 did not have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 because the obligation to file a “return” was mandated by statute. Here is an exchange during cross examination of me by Charles O'Reilly from the US DOJ:

Quote:

Q. There is absolutely nothing in Dole that supports

10 your position, is there?

11 A. Dole says typical information collection requests

12 include tax forms. The issues —

13 Q. Does it ever mention the Internal Revenue Service in

14 its entire opinion?

15 A. No, does not mention the Internal Revenue Service.

16 Q. Mr. Springer, does it ever mention the Form 1040?

17 A. No, it does not.

See Transcript, page 23, line 9.

O'Reilly- Cross

Q. You've read, for example, the GAO report that you

4 referenced on Tuesday?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. When you were reading that to the jury on Tuesday,

7 you almost omitted reading the passage in footnote 50

8 until Mr. O'Reilly, I, objected and that phrase was,

9 “However, the public protection provision may not apply

10 if a collection is mandated by statute (e.g., the

11 requirement to file a tax return).”

12 Please tell the jury why you were going to omit that

13 statement.

14 A. Actually, I wasn't intending to omit it. I believe

15 it was covered on page 34 quite extensively in the

16 report, which I read to the jury, that stated that the

17 IRS, if they want to claim a specific form is mandatory,

18 that they are required to cite the specific statute and

19 state on the form your obligation to answer these

20 questions is mandatory. And that's what the report said.

21 Q. Mr. Springer, isn't it a fact it is mandatory and

22 you know it?

23 A. What is mandatory?

24 Q. The filing of a return.

25 A. My understanding of the Form 1040 is that in order

Page 11 Ends

LINDSEY SPRINGER – CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

1 for it to be mandatory they must tell you that, they must

2 tell me that, and they must cite their authority for it.

3 And that's what the Government Accountability Office said,

4 and I agree with them. In fact, I had been making that

5 statement for years before the report was actually

6 drafted.

7 Q. Mr. Springer, how many cases have you read involving

8 the Paperwork Reduction Act in criminal willful failure

9 to file cases?

10 A. Every case ever mentioned the word Paperwork

11 Reduction Act I've read them over and over and over

12 again.

13 Q. Is your reading of those cases a basis for your good

14 faith?

15 A. Reading those cases develops but is not the basis

16 for.

17 Q. That's because there is no case that has said what

18 you claim. In fact, every case has stated, that

19 addresses it, that failure to file a tax return is not

20 protected by the Paperwork Reduction Act; isn't that

21 true?

22 A. That is not true.

23 Q. Name one case that is a published opinion that says

24 otherwise, sir.

25 A. First of all —

Page 12 Ends

LINDSEY SPRINGER – CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

1 Q. Sir, I asked you a question, to name a case. I

2 didn't ask you to opine.

3 THE COURT: Wait just a minute. First of all, I

4 need to understand the question. Does your question

5 relate to criminal prosecutions for willful failure to

6 file?

7 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Okay. Proceed.

9 MR. SPRINGER: United States v. Collins, 1990,

10 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, footnotes 12 and 13,

11 clarify it with undeniable terms.

12 Q. (BY MR. O'REILLY) Mr. Springer, is that the case in

13 which the Court said, “Dickstein” — who was referenced,

14 I believe, by Mr. Bennett, “thus lacked any arguable

15 basis in fact or law to argue that the non-compliance of

16 the 1040 forms, which defendant failed to file, did not

17 comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. His argument is

18 legally frivolous.” Is that the case you're talking

19 about?

20 A. That is part of the case that I'm talking about.

21 MR. SPRINGER: Your Honor, I object? He —

22 he did not read the entire opinion just then. And when I

23 did that, he made me read something else. Could you

24 please have him read footnotes 12 and 13 to the jury so

25 that they are not misled by his statement?

Page 13 Ends

LINDSEY SPRINGER – CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

1 THE COURT: I need to see what footnotes 12 and

2 13 say.

3 MR. SPRINGER: Defendants' Exhibit Number 74,

4 Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: First of all, that Collins case

6 doesn't involve a charge of willful failure to file.

7 Given my understanding of this line of questioning, I'm

8 having a hard time with the relevance of this case to

9 this line of questioning, but the relevant — the

10 footnotes that are involved here are which?

11 MR. SPRINGER: Twelve and 13, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Let's — first of all — we'll

13 address that one step at a time. First of all,

14 Mr. O'Reilly, it was my understanding — and let's just

15 make sure that all concerned understand where the matter

16 stands at this point. It was my understanding that your

17 question was whether Mr. Springer was aware of a case in

18 which the charge was willful failure to file and the

19 Court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act was a

20 substantive defense. Is that correct?

21 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Springer, you may answer

23 that question.

24 MR. SPRINGER: Was a substantive defense?

25 Q. (BY MR. O'REILLY) Yes, sir.

Page 14 Ends

LINDSEY SPRINGER – CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

1 A. I don't know of any case where a substantive defense

2 was raised on willful failure to file a tax form, Form

3 1040, ever.

4 THE COURT: Now, Mr. O'Reilly can read those two

5 footnotes or Mr. Springer can read those two footnotes

6 and you can do it now or later. It seems likely that one

7 way or another they'll be read. The relevance is another

8 matter, but you may proceed.

9 MR. O'REILLY: Thank you, Your Honor.

10 Q. (BY MR. O'REILLY) Mr. Springer, stepping back a

11 bit, you read, on Tuesday,

As you can see, Mr. O'Reilly chose not to proceed into Footnote 12 and 13 of the Collins decision. I am reproducing those two footnotes for you to see how Mr. O'Reilly's “filing of a return is mandatory” question was actually addressed in Footnote 12:

U.S. v. COLLINS, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (10th Cir. 1990)

[fn12] In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), this court held that tax forms were not information collection requests subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act because the filing of income tax returns was obligatory. This holding is superseded by the Supreme Court's analysis in Dole v. United Steelworkers, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990), which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act. Dole would also appear to call into question the holdings in Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D.Ind. 1984) and Cameron v. IRS, 593 F. Supp. 1540 (N.D.Ind. 1984), aff'd 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1985), both of which held the Paperwork Reduction Act inapplicable to IRS forms. However, Dole does not contravene our recent holding in Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990) that IRS summonses do not constitute information requests under the Act because they are issued in the course of an investigation directed against a specific individual or entity. See 44 U.S.C. § 3518©(1)( 😎 (ii).

Footnote 13 says:

U.S. v. COLLINS, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (10th Cir. 1990)

[fn13] In United States v. Weiss, 914 F.2d 1514, 1520-22 (2d Cir. 1990), the Second Circuit held that the Paperwork Reduction Act did not preclude prosecution for filing false medicare and Medicaid claims, despite the fact that the forms in question did not contain OMB control numbers. Distinguishing Smith, where defendants were prosecuted for failure to file a Plan of Operations with the Forest Service, the Second Circuit reasoned that the Act “`only protects a person from penalties for failing to files information It does not protect one who files information which is false.'” Id. at 1522 (quoting Funk, The Paperwork Reduction Act: Paperwork Reduction Meets Administrative Law, 24 Harv.J. on Legis. 1, 77 n. 411 (1987)) (emphasis in original). We recognize that because defendant was charged with tax evasion and not failure to file tax returns, he technically was not being prosecuted for failure to provide information. Had defendant's tax evasion been effectuated through the filing of falsified tax returns, Weiss would dictate that no Paperwork Reduction Defense would be available to him. But because the provision of information in 1040 forms is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes, and defendant failed to file such forms, the Paperwork Reduction Act was applicable to such conduct.

REMEMBER WHERE MR. O'REILLY SAID IN THE DOLE CASE THE FORM 1040 WAS NOT EVER MENTIONED OR THE PHRASE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WAS NOT MENTIONED?

NOT LINDSEY SPRINGER BUT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SAID “which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act.” See footnote 12 above.

Remember when Mr. O'Reilly pointed out page 31 and footnote 50 which connected this paragrarph:

• a statement that the public has a right not to respond to the request for information if a valid OMB control number is not displayed.50

Footnote 50 reads:

50 The requirements for this statement and the OMB number are together known as the “public protection provision,” in that a person cannot be penalized for not responding if either the control number or the statement is absent. However, the public protection provision may not apply if the collection is mandated by statute (e.g., the requirement to file a tax return).

I have reproduced page 34 herein for you to read and understand what my claim regarding the “Mandated by Statute” position is:

In the case of IRS, most of the agency's noncompliance resulted from forms that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected. OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social Security payment) or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to respond).51 However, the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:

We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS's burden estimation methodology increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us that citing the “Internal Revenue laws of the United States” provided adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite a specific law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested.

If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements described, the public may be asked to provide information without appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to exercise scrutiny of agencies' collections.

What is “public to exercise scrutiny of agency collections” mean? “You are not required to provide information on a Form subjet to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the Form displays a valid OMB control number (issued in accordance with this subchapter).

As I explained to the Jury, it is my understanding that if the IRS contends answering their questions on Form 1040 is “mandated by statute” then there is two things the IRS must display first to OMB for approval and then to the public at which the Form 1040 is intended.

First, they must cite the mandating statute of the tax code that makes it mandatory to answer questions on Form 1040 and Second, they must write these words: Your obligation to answer the questions on this Form is Mandatory. It is my and USGAO's understanding that without these two displays on Form 1040 there is no obligation whatsoever. Furthermore, I could not find any code section that even mentions form 1040 or defines the term “return.”

I did find section 6011 which begins “when required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title….” This group of words would clearly support the 10^th Circuit's position that the obligation stems from a request for information and not from some mandating statute as Mr. O'Reilly suggested.

I, like USGAO, could not find the words on Form 1040 “Internal Revenue laws of the United States” or “your obligation is mandatory.” In fact, I could not find any words on the Form 1040 which identify any statute or any statement of mandatory whatsoever.

During the trial on more than one occasion the District Judge told the Jury that the Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and in fact did comply.

As you can see the US DOJ says the requirement to file Form 1040 is mandatory [“[b][u]That's because there is no case that has said what (18) you claim. In fact, every case has stated, that (19) addresses it, that failure to file a tax return is not (20) protected by the Paperwork Reduction Act; isn't that 21 true”][/u][/b] and that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not apply to that obligation (why he had me read footnote 50 on page 31) and the District Judge told the Jury the Form 1040 did comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act repeatedly.

In fact, in the middle of my closing argument Mr. O'Reilly objected to statements I was making on the grounds the obligation to file was not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and the District Judge response to this objection was to tell once again the Jury that the Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and did comply.

So, I am only allowed in good faith to show why I believed the Form 1040 did not comply with Federal Law (Position 1) and the US DOJ is opposing arguing the Form 1040 is not subject to the public protection of the Paperwork Reduction Act in effort to oppose my defense (Position 2) while the District Judge continues to tell the Jury the Form complies in all respects with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Position 3).

CAN YOU NOW SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE IRS? Do you think the jury got confused?

The United States Government Accountability Office says IRS must comply and does not.

U.S. DOJ argues the IRS does not have to comply because the obligation to file is statutory and a mandate.

The United States Judicial Branch says IRS must comply but without any findings of facts whatsoever. The District Court says Form 1040 does not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Springer argued the Form 1040 is required to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Regulations and further argued Form 1040 contains none of the required displayed information and in fact does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 or OMB regulations IRS certified they would comply with.

Anyway, I hope this helps you understand why your support for me during this defense was and remains vitally important to all of us. On August 31, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reported and published its decision which, true, I did lose on whether failure to pay penalties and interest were penalties protected by the Public Protection Provision (on its way to Supreme Court), Title 44, Section 3512(1995), but what the Panel did say should show you where I am and where the 10^th Circuit is stuck:

“Mr. Springer has not alleged any cognizable PRA violations with respect to those penalties. Instead, the only PRA violations he asserts concern the IRS Form 1040. The failure-to-pay penalties have an independent and separate statutory basis under the Internal Revenue Code, however, that is not based on Mr. Springer's failure to file Form 1040s for the tax years in question.“

“Although Mr. Springer's appellate briefs are far from a model of clarity, he has managed to advance several arguments in this appeal that raise difficult issues under both the tax code and the PRA.”

“While we commend the Commissioner for the extremely helpful statement of the case and statement of facts in his response brief, we also note that the Commissioner himself has made a frivolous argument in his response brief and motion for sanctions that mischaracterizes what happened in Mr. Springer's prior appeal to this court.”

I know some of you probably wonder why this all matters. When the United States Government Accountability Office and United States Treasury cannot agree on what the law requires regarding Form 1040, that is a big deal and something we should never overlook. When the United States Government Accountability Office and United States Department of Justice do not agree on what the law requires regarding Form 1040, that is a big deal and something we should never overlook. When the United States Government Accountability Office and the United States Judiciary cannot agree on what the law requires regarding Form 1040, that is a big deal and something we cannot ever overlook. When a member of the public is willing to expose it all so the rule of law can once again prevail in the life of every American regarding Form 1040, that is priceless.

The Court is allowing me to continue to receive support during my defense of this case and actually made an exception yesterday to its order which does allow you to continue to support me without jeopardizing my bond conditions. I am so thankful as I thought I had made it this far and it was to be for nothing. I can no longer receive any support in the name of “Bondage Breaker's Ministries” until the Court Order is reversed or changed. I can only receive support in the name of Lindsey Springer. I can receive support through paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or lindsey@mindspring.com. As always, I can receive support at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135 in the name of Lindsey Springer. Please continue to show your support for me and the issues I am on.

THANK YOU FOR STANDING WITH ME. I AM SORRY IF YOU THINK I LET YOU DOWN BY BEING FOUND GUILTY. I WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND MY UNDERSTANDING TILL MY LAST BREATH OR THE COURT SYSTEM ADDRESSES THE MERITS OF MY CLAIMS HEAD ON WIN, LOSE OR DRAW.

November 18, 2009

[fg_admin]

Dear friends,

As you all know, Lindsey Springer was convicted this week of tax evasion. We warned all of you that this was going to happen and explained many of the reasons in this thread.

One of the conditions of his release was that he shut down the http://penaltyprotester.org website. Obviously, the government feels threatened by this powerful information, which is why they used his conviction as a bargaining chip to censor it. Well, before it was shut down, we downloaded EVERYTHING on the website to keep it available in the public domain.

You can find all the files on his website before it was shut down at:

http://famguardian.org/Disks/TaxDVD/Resear…ger,%20Lindsey/

An important role of this website is to be a repository for those who have been silenced unjustly so that the torch can be carried forward by all of you. Of course, we don't back up EVERYTHING we find, but rather only those things that we think have merit, such as Lindsey's efforts. There is far more disinformation out there than there is good information, so we have to be very selective about what we archive and what we don't. Like the patient farmer, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff so all of you stay on the right track and out of trouble.

Just in case you all haven't figured this out yet:

1. If you find a juicy morsal of credible and useful evidence on a government website, chances are it will disappear quickly after people expose it on this website or in these forums.

2. If you find useful evidence on a freedom website on the internet somewhere, chances are the government at some point will try to enjoin the provider for “tax shelters” and order the website shut down, thus causing loss of access to the information.

Consequently, we highly recommend that you download and archive everything you find AS SOON AS YOU FIRST SEE IT, wait and watch for it to be censored, enjoined, or prosecuted, and then repost it in these forums when it disappears.

Enjoy!

[fg_admin]

Bummer! Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

11/16/09

_______________________

Lindsey Springer here and I regretfully must inform you that after 10 plus hours of deliberation the Jury found me guilty on all six Counts and also found Oscar guilty on all three counts. In order for me to remain at liberty I had to agree to shut down penaltyprotestor.org. I had to agree not to use the name Bondage Breaker's Ministries and I had to agree not to speak to anyone regarding any “tax related matter” other than my family. I hope you can understand why I chose to agree with the Court's penalties at this time. I can still receive support in the name of Lindsey Springer and I can still speak about my case but cannot speak about anyone else's “tax matters.” The Court has requested that I do 30 hours of community work or get a job and work 30 hours per week. I will have much writing to do over the course of the next 7 days regarding a Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. I also have numerous other personal federal litigation that needs my attention since the trial part of the case is concluded. The Court gave the Prosecution till December 11, 2009 to respond to the Motion to Reconsider regarding the Grand Jury investigation of Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer that apparently began prior to October 6, 2004. I wish to thank you for all of your support. The Court stated it thought the evidence in the case showed Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer were scam artists and that my 20 years was over.

[fg_admin]

Brian,

The links were indeed broken. They have been fixed and reposted. Thanks for the feedback.

[fg_admin]

Dear sir,

The broken link you reference is contained in a book that we didn't write and are not responsible for. The link you reference is not a rendition of the Clark commentary mentioned in Chapter 1 of the Social Security: Mark of the Beast.

We can't and won't edit things we didn't write. The book is there only for reference purposes and we have no intention of keeping it entirely current.

On the other hand, if you do find a link to the Clark commentary referenced in the SSMOTB document, please provide it so we can fix the link without having to edit the test.

We are glad you are critically examining everything on our site, and welcome to our fellowship. Keep up with your due diligence and there is a very good chance you will be free one day.

Thanks for the feedback anyway.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and I wish to report that currently the jury in my case is stuck on something but that something no person actually knows. However, I would like to direct your attention to my direct testimony and show you where the problem is in this country. It is located on the form 1040 itself. I can make this no more clear than by showing you the three competing issues in the charges against me.

First, the Government in closing yesterday told the jury that Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer were con men who prayed upon people in distress with tax crimes by telling them the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 was a complete defense to any charge that encompassed the failure to file a “return” mandated by statute.

THE DISPUTE-

Our alleged “con” begins with these words:

CONGRESS’ WORDS THAT ARE ETCHED IN STONE

Quote:

§ 3512. Public protection

(a) 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 (Form) 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.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

The question is whether I, or anyone else, was required by any specific law to answer the questions on Form 1040 for years 2000 through 2005, for the purpose of being subjected to penalties. I have never told someone not to file a return because of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 commands or violations. I have only directed people to this act in effort to deflect or defeat penalty claims by the IRS because they have not earned them nor deserve them.

THE COURT–

LINDSEY SPRINGER – DIRECT BY MR. SPRINGER

1 The Court has emphatically rejected any substantive defense

2 based on the Paperwork Reduction Act

See Page 175, line 1-2

LINDSEY SPRINGER – DIRECT BY MR. SPRINGER

Members of the jury, perhaps it’s time to reiterate

8 one matter. And all I’m going to do is repeat one thing

9 I said yesterday. The Court has ruled that the Form 1040

10 did not and does not violate the Paperwork Reduction

11 Act.

See Page 207, beginning line 7 of Springer Direct Testimony

During the middle of my closing argument the District Court repeated this statement to the jury for the third time.

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE–

The United States Department of Justice argued on Docket 71, page 6 that United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir.1992) held “that tax form instruction books are not an agency request for information subject to the PRA”; United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1191-93 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990).

The United States Department of Justice argued in Docket 104, pg. 1 (first Bill of Particulars) that the “filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).

The United States Department of Justice and IRS have consistently argued that the requirement to file a “tax return” is mandatory but that they will not specifically commit that such requirement is mandated to be accomplished on Form 1040. Nor will they ever commit to what mandate the Form 1040 satisfies.

UNITED STATES’ IRS-BRIAN MILLER EXPERT –

November 5, 2009 during presentation of case-Springer asking questions-

Q. Is it your testimony here today that I was required

5 to file a return?

6 A. That is my testimony, yes.

7 Q. Because the income — the gross income exceeded the

8 threshold amount?

9 A. That’s absolutely right.

10 Q. What form was I required to file?

11 A. You were required to make a return.

12 Q. I wasn’t required to file a Form 1040?

13 A. The form — it has been a while since I’ve looked at

14 that. I know that the Form 1040 is an accepted form for

15 making a return, but it seems like — the law says you

16 have to make a return.

17 Q. So as far as you’re concerned, the law doesn’t

18 specify what the form is supposed to be for the word

19 “return”?

20 A. No, the law does specify what the form has to be.

21 It has been a long time since I’ve looked at that.

Miller Cross, pg. 93, beginning line 4

GAO REPORT MAY 2005 (listed at penaltyprotestor.org)

In footnote 50 of the May, 2005 GAO report on issue of IRS non compliance with the PRA, at page 31, GAO explains the obligation regarding any Agency claim that their request form (form 1040 for example) to the public is mandatory. This footnote reads:

The requirements for this statement and the OMB number are together known as the “public protection provision,” in that a person cannot be penalized for not responding if either the control number or the statement is absent. However, the public protection provision may not apply if the collection is mandated by statute (e.g., the requirement to file a tax return).

GAO report next begins to explain how to determine if the Agency demand for information on its request for information form is mandatory according to some law of congress. On page 32 of the GAO report, the GAO stated:

However, collection forms on the four agencies’ Web sites did not consistently include required information. Specifically, an estimated 41 percent of forms (487 of 1,179 total forms, excluding bootleg and expired forms) on the four agencies’ Web sites—ranging from 13 percent at VA to 55 percent at HUD—contained one or more violations

On page 34 of the GAO Report, GAO further explains how an agency may be excused from the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 regarding their request from the public for certain information:

In the case of IRS, most of the agency’s noncompliance resulted from forms that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected. OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social Security payment) or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to respond).51 However, the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:

We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS’s burden estimation methodology increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us that citing the “Internal Revenue laws of the United States” provided adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite a specific law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested.

If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements described, the public may be asked to provide information without appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to exercise scrutiny of agencies’ collections.

REVIEW OF THE ABOVE

Congress tells the whole world “no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—

the Form does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or

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.

Public Protection Provision (3512) can be raised as complete defense at any time.

Court tells Jury Form 1040 without citing to any specific year “does not violate” the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Court tells Springer there is no substantive defense regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act violations on form 1040 during trial.

United State Department of Justice argues the requirement to file a “tax return” is mandated by statute and therefore the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides no protection from penalties for failure to file a return when mandated by statute. In essence they argue the Form 1040 does not have to comply with the requirements of the PRA or OMB regulations.

IRS claims requirement is to file “return” and that they just could not remember which specific form the law requires to be filed by Springer. The IRS expert is certain a specific form is identified in the law but it had been so long he could not remember at the time he was testifying as an “expert.”

GAO says if any request for information by any Agency is asserted by such Agency to be “mandatory” or “mandated by statute” then the Agency must do two things. First, they must cite the statute on the Form itself and then they must inform the public on such form that the public’s obligation to answer the questions on the form is mandatory. In the second requirement, the Agency gathering the information is to explain on the purported mandated provision that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not apply to the mandated request and that if a member of the public does not answer such request there is criminal sanctions that could result citing to such specific criminal provision (giving proper notice to the public).

GAO also informs IRS in its report they are not in compliance with the PRA or OMB regulations on many of its forms without citing specifically to Form 1040. IRS argues to GAO that having to inform the public of what law mandates the public answer the form 1040 questions would place significant burden on the public to read the law and it is for that reason they do not cite any specific law.

Springer cannot even find on form 1040 the phrase “the law requires” or any other similar phrase referenced in the GAO report at issue between GAO, OMB and IRS let alone “mandatory” or other specific words explaining what obligates answers to be given with criminal penalty for failure to answer.

Springer claims the Form 1040 for 2000 through 2005 (at issue in criminal case) fails to comply with 44 U.S.C. section 3506©(1)(:cool:, 3507, 3512 as well as 5 CFR 1320.8, 1320.9, as well as said form 1040 does not fulfil the certification promise IRS’s Certifying Information Officer (CIO) certified on its 83-I for 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2005, that each Form 1040 would display information to the public regarding those 10 requirements the PRA and OMB regulations mandate.

Springer also claims form 1040 for years 2000 through 2005 does not cite a single code provision nor any statement the form is mandated by that code provision. The form also fails to inform the person being asked to answer questions on form 1040 any other mandated by Congress required information.

Because you probably would never ever see this again in your lifetime and because the possibility exists that I may not ever again be able to explain to you my findings, I thought I would take the opportunity to share with you my purported “con” so you can decide for yourself where the label “con” actually should be placed.

I am just a foot soldier serving my God and Country.

11.14.09

ps. Both transcripts of myself with the Court’s words and Mr. Miller’s words should be on penaltyprotestor.org today! The docket entries 71 and 104 should also be posted as well.

pss. If you wish to fix the problem with our country then you must join the fight to force IRS to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as well as the IRS “certifications” they purported to agree to on their Form 83-I application for OMB approval which is the only current way for the IRS to seek information from the public on Form 1040. If you do not focus your energy and attention on this specific issue then you and I will continue to wrestle with every Agency and be subject to criminal penalties with every agency, State or Federal, without any rules that govern their insatiable thirst for information, now electronic information, that big governments need to grow bigger. Imagine being tried criminally for willful failure to enter into a contract with the United States for “health” insurance. The issue is how do they compel you to sign your name to a contract and what law passed by Congress mandates such public activity and could such law pass constitutional challenges.

pss. As always with my purported “con” I include in that purported “con” a request for “money.” My paypal address is gnutella@mindspring.com and my mailing address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. Thank you for spending you time reading my “worthless” words.

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4718482

____________________

Wesley Snipes Slammed With 3 Years in Prision

Action Star Wesley Snipes Sentenced to 3 Years in Jail for Tax Fraud

April 24, 2008 —

Wesley Snipes is heading to the slammer.

A Florida judge sentenced the “Blade” movie star to three years in jail today. Snipes was convicted of tax fraud in February for not filing his income taxes for at least three years.

Snipes' attorneys had filed character-building testimonials from Denzel Washington, Woody Harrelson and television's Judge Joe Brown Wednesday, along with a sentencing memorandum recommending probation, not imprisonment.

In February, a federal jury convicted Snipes on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file a tax return. Jurors acquitted Snipes of felony tax fraud and conspiracy charges that carry more significant punishment upon conviction.

Had he been found guilty of all charges filed against him, Snipes could have faced up to 16 years in prison.

Three Misdemeanor Convictions

Prosecutors claimed that Snipes did not file his tax returns from 1999 through 2004, and jurors concluded that he failed to file for 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Snipes withheld tax returns based on his belief that the Internal Revenue Service is not a properly established government agency. According to the memo filed today, Snipes also contended that he did not file business returns because he “was personally not subject to taxation because he was a 'stateless person' or 'nonresident alien,'” or a “'nontaxpayer,'” which prosecutors flatly rejected.

In the sentencing memorandum, prosecutors cited Snipes' “frivolous correspondence” with the IRS in regards to his tax returns and his alleged manner of hiding assets.

The memo states, “It was Snipes' policy to send checks received at his business office for deposit offshore.”

The court document added that the “amount of unreported gross income proved at trial” amounted to more than $13 million during the three-year period.

Additionally, prosecutors said, Snipes shelled out money to family members, close friends and other organizations, including “some $498,000 in personal payments to Snipes' grandmother, his former wife, his then-fiancee, his personal lawyer, a tax defier organization, and M & S Finance, the Swiss alter-ego to which he fraudulently conveyed his business holdings in 1999.”

“In sum, Snipes' willful [sic] refusal to file income tax returns is far from a 'garden variety' tax offense,” the prosecutors wrote. “Snipes' nearly decade-long campaign against the IRS has combined brazen tax-defier tactics with sophisticated concealment of income and assets.”

Two co-defendants in the case were found guilty of conspiracy in addition to filing false claims for tax refunds. Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas Rosile could each face a maximum of 10 years in prison when they are sentenced.

ABC News' Luchina Fisher, Jason Ryan, Theresa Cook and The Associated Press contributed to this story.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and without saying much I offer this update. On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, I took the stand and began to explain how I got where I am and what I have learned. I was allowed to read certain parts to the jury regarding the General Accountability Office (GAO) http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GAO2005PRA.pdf Report from May, 2005 where GAO specifically informed both the Office of Management and Budget (OM:cool: and the United States Treasury Department (IRS) that simply saying on a Tax Form “the laws of the United States” or “internal revenue code” requires you answer these questions did not satisfy the obligation each Agency has regarding their seeking of income tax information from the public. GAO states in the report 10 standards which the IRS must comply and certify compliance with on their forms distributed to the public. See page 17 of the report. I showed the jury that GAO told both OMB and IRS that they must cite to the specific code sections which the “collection of information” encompassed and these citations must be on the form itself. See page 31 of the report. For an example of how a citation encompassing a request form should appear see Form 709 (2002). Go here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f709–2002.pdf

I was asked by the Prosecution to read page 31, footnote 50 which stated “may” not apply if the request is “mandated by statute.” I read from page 34 that if the IRS wished to maintain the requirement to file any of their hundreds of forms was mandated by statute to file under the tax law, they were required to cite such section making such request mandatory on the request form in order to justify non compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB regulations.

I read to the jury that “collection forms on the four agencies’ Web sites did not consistently include required information. Specifically, an estimated 41 percent of forms (487 of 1,179 total forms, excluding bootleg and expired forms) on the four agencies’ Web sites—ranging from 13 percent at VA to 55 percent at HUD—contained one or more violations. IRS was one of the “four agencies” randomly reviewed by GAO.

I was allowed to read the following passage:

Quote:

“In the case of IRS, most of the agency’s noncompliance resulted from forms that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected. OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social Security payment) or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to respond). However, the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:

We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

“When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS’s burden estimation methodology increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us that citing the “Internal Revenue laws of the United States” provided adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite a specific law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested.”

“If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements described, the public may be asked to provide information without appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to exercise scrutiny of agencies’ collections.” Footnote 51 states:

If the collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit or mandatory, the agency should cite the legal authority therefore as part of the notice to the respondents. This should ensure a higher response rate and help the respondent understand the benefit and/or need to respond in an accurate, complete manner.” OIRA, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Implementing Guidance for OMB Review of Agency Information Collection, draft (Aug. 16, 1999), Ch. V, section D.4.

The public’s scrutiny is stated as follows in one of the 10 standards as:

“a statement that the public has a right not to respond to the request for information if a valid OMB control number is not displayed.” The IRS actuallly tells the public:

“Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a valid OMB control number.”

See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=109046,00.html

Section 3512 reads

Public protection

(a) 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.

( 😎 The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction/3512.html

I will continue on Thursday giving my direct testimony. The Court is allowing me to give a narrative to the jury. IRS told GAO the reason why IRS refuses to tell the public on Form 1040 what makes the Form 1040 mandated by statute is because reading the law would cause significant burden on the public due to them needing to “read the law.” We must take this opportunity to rein the IRS back into compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRAy)

This may be my last email to you based upon what may happen at trial. My wife has agreed to send updates if I should become incarcerated. I will do my best. I thank you all for following the tribulations of Lindsey Springer. I also wish to thank each of you that supported me in this tremendous battle I am in.

I would request you consider continuing to support me regardless of the outcome of my trial as we must force the IRS to comply with Federal Law regarding their request for information forms. You and I are the only police of the IRS. No one else, besides GAO, even considers taking the IRS on but you and me.

I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or you can use the mail to send what ever is on your heart to give me. My address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135. Thank you.

11.11.09