fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
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
sourceng,
The software is no longer offered on Family Guardian. If you want to obtain it, you must do so through our sister website at:
http://sedm.org/Item…r/MFDecoder.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
We can't answer further questions about it, because we as a ministry are no longer responsible for it. If want to ask questions about how to use that software, please post the questions in their forums:
They have a Master File Decoder section on their forums, but you won't be able to read it until you join their forums and become a Member. The Master File Decoder section of the forums is not visible to guests who have not registered.
Sorry.
EDITORIAL: Yes…its true…the party Congress is planning on having administer your health care is the IRS. Per Congress this is the only agency with the ability “to track down people” via a Social Security Number. [All those people claiming “it's my SSN” should be feeling really stupid now…]
The plan is to have each person declare who they paid on their 1040 form….signed under PENALTY for perjury….then match those to 1099/W2/w3 filings filed by the insurance company. Don't be fooled like you are with the “voluntary compliance” income tax….you cannot be declared independent of government [see 1776 law] yet have a legal duty to government [aka forced to file and sign a form].
For years we have been trying to warn people that the 1040 form is a bogus form that is nothing more than a way for the unrighteous govt. to track you and your assets via a number scheme. I finally figured out it was an insult to what intelligence God gave me to fill it out. People thought I was crazy. Now we'll use it to track you on so called health care via the IRS. People never want to deal with shedding the security blanket Satan offers them.
1 Chron 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
3 And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
4 Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.
5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
6 But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
7 And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.
9 And the LORD spake unto Gad, David's seer, saying,
10 Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
11 So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
12 Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
13 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man
14 So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
17 And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.
_________________________________
DEBTORS PRISON
By Jeff Kropf
November 2, 2009
NewsWithViews.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Kropf/jeff100.htm
IRS enforced health insurance mandate is the new debtor's prison.
I love the progressive social movement. They are so full of contradictions and hypocrisy that it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad, or so dangerous to our liberty. After all, the irony of the progressives purporting to care more about the poor, but actually instituting policies which hurt them is stunning.
If you aggregate all of the concepts that the President and the Democrat controlled Congress are trying to implement (not to mention here in Oregon), it amounts to a huge increase in the cost of living, which disproportionately hurts poor people. Higher fossil fuel prices because Congress locks up America's oil, higher overall energy prices from cap and tax schemes, higher cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and on and on. Obviously, these higher prices ripple through the economy creating inflation that affects every aspect of life making it harder for the average person to live the American dream, but especially poor people.
Now add to this absurdity, the idea that Congress would mandate that each person in America (including illegal aliens) must buy health insurance, pay new taxes on their health care and if they don't, the IRS will fine them up to $25,000 and up to a year in jail and it is clear what the result would be: the modern version of debtors prison. The Heritage Foundation has an analysis of the effect of this mandate on lower income and middle income people here.
So let me get this right: We are going to help those who don't have health care because they can't afford it by taxing them up the wazoo for that very health care? And, if they don't buy health insurance, then we are going to turn the limitless power of the IRS against them, fine them outrageous amounts of money and throw them in prison?
This type of tyranny led to many revolutions in the world's history, as people objected to the ruling elites oppressing them with outrageous taxes and prison time if you couldn't pay the debt to the government. If this in actually implemented in the final bill, the revolution in America will be profound, as it should be. The average American trying to live the American dream will wake up from their slumber when this hits them square in the face and will throw out the bums who rammed this down their throat.
If being progressive means going back to the days of 16th Century England, then count me out.
© 2009 Jeff Kropf – All Rights Reserved
Former State Representative Jeff Kropf represented Oregon House District 17 for eight years, serving the people of Linn and Marion counties. He was elected to the Oregon House of Representatives in 1998 and served 4 terms until retiring in January of 2007.
During his tenure, he served on the Legislative Emergency Board, was a member of the full Ways and Means Committee, various sub-committees, Transportation committee and was the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for two legislative sessions. Nationally, he served as the Chairman of the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) Agriculture and Rural Development committee and the NCSL Homeland Security Task Force.
After retiring from the Oregon House he lobbied for a short time until he became the state Director of the Oregon Chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots, limited government political organization. Jeff serves on numerous boards including the Sublimity Rural Fire Protection District, Oregon Connections Academy and Water for Life.
In 2004 Jeff was embedded as a radio broadcaster with the Oregon National Guard in Iraq and again in Afghanistan in 2006, bringing live reports and interviews with Oregon Guardsmen from the combat zone. He hosts a week day radio talk show during early morning drive time on 1360 KUIK in Hillsboro, Oregon from 6am and 9am. His radio show website is http://www.jeffkropf.com
Jeff has received numerous awards from conservative business and government watchdog organizations and is a founding member of the New Budget Coalition. He is a passionate advocate for common sense government budget reform and speaks regularly to various organizations around Oregon on this subject.
His radio show website: http://www.jeffkropf.com
E-Mail: jkropf@afphq.org
We didn't presume anything. You're avoiding the question. What did you study before posting, and why was that not sufficient to answer your question? And if it wasn't sufficient, how could it be improved? You're presuming that we presumed. All we did was ask questions like Jesus did and by your omission in responding DIRECTLY and your silence, you confirm our hypothesis. Silence equals admission or a response without relevant evidence or proof is also an admission. Fed.Rul.Civ.P. 8(:cool:(6).
The focus of all those who participate in these forums and in this ministry should always be on minimizing demands on others, doing your homework before you pose questions, and improving the materials on this site. Your post doesn't appear to have satisfied any of that criteria, and by your avoidance of the questions, have admitted that you don't. Evasion isn't an answer, but an admission that you didn't do your homework, that you don't give a damn about pulling your own weight or helping others, and that you may be just as selfish and inconsiderate as the law breakers in the government we collectively are fighting. Who needs enemies with friends like that? No wonder the government wins so often: We are so busy being inhumane to each other and burdening other people with the work we should accept responsibility for that we don't have time to fight them.
See:
1. Citizenship means municipal domicile in most court settings. In the common sense used by most legally ignorant neophytes, it implies nationality instead of domicile.
2. Nationality means the place of one’s birth or naturalization in a constitutional and not statutory sense.
3. The word citizenship is often used by the legally ignorant interchangeably with nationality in the common meaning of the word, and because it’s use is so vague, it should be avoided and the words domicile or nationality substituted in its place to avoid the confusion.
4. Nowhere in Title 8 of the U.S. code or in the implementing regulations is the word “citizenship” defined. As you well know, it is dangerous to use words that are not defined. Such words should be avoided at all costs, and especially on government forms. Any form that uses that word should ALSO come with its own definition to prevent any and all presumptions that could damage your status. Definitions on all forms one fills out removes ALL discretion from judges, lawyers, and administrators, and thereby protects your liberty.
Why don’t you read the following and answer your own question, all of which are consistent with the above:
1. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory “CItizen”, Section 9-does a great job showing how the terms are often deliberately confused so the judge can pick whatever definition he wants when using the word “citizenship”. This is the reason why the word “citizenship” should be avoided and domicile and nationality substituted in its place.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
2. Citizenship
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…citizenship.htm
3. Citizen
http://famguardian.o…pic/citizen.htm
4. Domicile
http://famguardian.o…ic/domicile.htm
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
You are supposed to start off every new topic you start such as this one by explaining all the research you did to answer your own question BEFORE you posted, so you don’t just SUCK on people, but also add value and thereby pull your own weight. Is there a reason you didn’t admit either doing that or looking at the above BEFORE posting your question? This is a mandatory part of the due diligence expected of all forum participants.
What research did you do before posting your question and if you didn’t do any, why are you blatantly violating the rules of these forums as a frequent flyer? I won’t go further with this until you answer that question.
Lastly, if you are going to use your question as a trap to criticize something on this website, you must also post HOW to fix the thing you are criticizing, instead of just criticizing it. The purpose of these forums is to improve materials on this website, not shoot the messenger.
That link should not have been there. It was removed. If you want an example complaint, see:
SEDM Litigation Tools Page, Section 1.8: Disciplining Government Officials
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
In particular, see:
Criminal Complaint in Connection with IRS Notice of Deficiency, Form #08.006
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm#1….NMENT_OFFICIALS
You will have to obtain the item through the bookstore to view it.
Hardwood,
Thank you so much for sharing your passion, your inspiration, and your heart and the truth of God word that allows you to stand firm in your conviction that Christians cannot serve Caeser when Caesar violates God's delegation of authority order, which is God's Law.
Your exposition proves that Christians:
1. MUST be God's hands and feet while here
2. Are enforcers of His law in every aspect of how we interface to secular society, and especially as jurists, voters, “citizens”, or “residents”. Obedience to His sacred law and supreme allegiance to Him and that law is, in fact, the essence of what it means to be a Christian.
3. Are his fiduciaries, agents, and trustees serving him 24 hours a day.
4. Are not allowed to have allegiance to a civil ruler or serve as public officers in the context of those civic duties, because it causes a conflict of allegiance and interest and violates the command not to serve two masters.
Someone did forward your communication to us and we posted it here:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3291
The introduction in Isaiah 58 is, in fact, a fulfillment of the following proverb:
Quote:Isaiah 58Fasting that Pleases God
1 “Cry aloud, spare not;
Lift up your voice like a trumpet;
Tell My people their transgression,
And the house of Jacob their sins.
2 Yet they seek Me daily,
And delight to know My ways,
As a nation that did righteousness,
And did not forsake the ordinance of their God.
They ask of Me the ordinances of justice;
They take delight in approaching God.
3 ' Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and You have not seen?
Why have we afflicted our souls, and You take no notice?'
[Isaiah 58:1-3, Bible, NKJV]
The scriptures which it is a fulfillment of are as follows. God was not answering their prayers because they were not enforcing HIS laws as His agent and fiduciary:
Quote:“One who turns his ear from hearing the law url=”http://../Litigation/Reference/LawsOfTheBible.pdf”]God's law[/url] or [url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/LegalResrchSrc.htm”]man's law[/url, even his prayer is an abomination.”[Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]
“But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow and use] the law is accursed.”
[John 7:49, Bible, NKJV]
You may also have noticed, as we have, that user Author #2 uses the above scripture as his signature. Now you know why.
Admin
See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evid…ashingtonDC.jpg
Washington, D.C. is not a state and is not representated in the Congress. They are a trust territory whose governor is appointed by the President. Therefore, they are not represented and yet they have to pay taxes. The revolutionary war was fought over taxation without representation, and yet the nation's capital still has it. Hypocrisy. That's what the license plate is about.
The hypocrisy of this situation is discussed in section 6.5.1 of the following:
Great IRS Hoax
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm
SOURCE: http://www.kitco.com/ind/nadler/nov052009.html
Jon Nadler shares his views on whether the Gold Standard will ever return again.
_________________________
Quote:“As stated in these columns many times before, the vast majority of those central banks which wanted to offload their gold holdings, -for whatever reason- have already done so. Wise or unwise, ill-timed, or not, symbolic, or not. Some have even floated the idea that the Indian gold purchase is decoy, a ploy to ultimately 'whack' the budding moonshot in gold with. Okay. Sure. And Ben Bernanke regularly sends me Christmas gifts for being a good Jedi apprentice…Way too much is being read into such actions, or the lack thereof, mainly by amateur observers who cannot grasp the concept that ALL the gold in the world (163.000 tonnes of it) adds up to 0.6% of total global wealth, and that it is not about to make a comeback as the de facto 'currency' of the realm or peg among the world's central banks. Can adjustments over the next three decades take place that take away some of the dollar's dominance and bump up gold's position in the hierarchy take place? Why, sure they can. Will there be tectonic shifts that completely reverse the status quo? Nope.
The gold standard as we knew it, is history, let us face that inescapable fact. And that, is not just Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's take on the matter. None of this, however, should preclude you, and/or any other investor from making it your own 'standard' if that is your preference. For the majority of individuals, the same exact average that the computation of the official sector's average holdings amounts to (roughly 10%) is a perfectly adequate level. Notwithstanding Portugal's 90% or Canada's practically zero gold allocation levels. As we said, these are matters of personal preference, and not standards by which to judge other countries, or individuals' allocation decisions.
At the end of the day, it has now been more than three years since individuals around the world have surpassed the official sector in terms of the sheer tonnage of holdings. Thus, there is very little to be gained by constantly pointing to this sale or that purchase as a harbinger of…anything, or a 'vote' on anything. You may rest assured that no change in central bank reserve management policies would come about, even given $5.000 per ounce gold. It simply does not matter.”
[Jon Nadlter, Kitco, Commentary on Nov. 5, 2009; http://www.kitco.com/ind/nadler/nov052009.html%5d
Nadler is flat out wrong in concluding that only 0.6% of the world's money could be backed by gold. For detailed proof why, see:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041, Section 12.8 entitled: “Is a return the gold standard realistically possible?”
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
Republic,
Thanks for that feedback. I contacted the SEDM folks and let them know about this problem. They said they added the Government Issued Identity Affidavit back to the end of the following again:
USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/USAPassPortAppAtt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
They said they also posted the Government Issued Identity Affidavit as a separate form on their website:
Government Issued Identity Affidavit, Form #06.021
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/GovIs…IdentityAff.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
Republic,
Thanks for that thorough and interesting research. We REALLY appreciate people who do their due dilligence and share the results of it for the edification of everyone in the ministry by posting them in these forums and thereby subjecting them to peer review to improve their accuracy and authority.
Based on what you found, it looks like not ALL the states removed the physical boundaries from being described in their constitution after the Civil War as reported in the Corporatization ad Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024. In the case of those states that didn't, the statutory law is where the corporatization and privatization happens by virtue of the definitions therein instead of the Constitution in the exceptions you cite. Perhaps the corporatization and privatization document needs to be clarified, and that clarification wouldn't be done by us and should be posted to their errata p. of their forums:
http://sedm.org/forums/index.php?showforum=6
They would probably appreciate an itemized list of each state, which have boundaries, and which implement the corruption in their statutes instead of their constitution. Can you post your itemized list here also?
Subject: BENSON UPDATE
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:50:18 -0600
From: Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Reply-To: Jeffrey A. Dickstein jdlaw@wi.rr.com
Please distribute to your mailing list
Just as the Department of Justice, the federal district court in Chicago, the federal district court in Pensacola, Florida and the Seventh Circuit has no answer to the Bill Benson certified documents, so too the Office of the Solicitor of the United States has no answer.
On October 27, 2009, The Solicitor of the United States notified the Supreme Court that it will not be filing an opposition to our Petition for Writ of Certiorari. A copy of their waiver is attached.
The Solicitor was complicit in the original 16th Amendment fraud, and appears to be willing to rely on the justices of the Supreme Court to continue the cover up.
The FightBackNow.us website has been active for just under seven days. So far approximately 4400 e-mails have been sent to local and national newspapers, TV and radio stations. 67 people have signed the Petition for Redress. No one has purchased a bumper sticker or T-shirt.
Today I received an e-mail with a link to a lady in California who took on a credit card interest rate hike from Bank of America. She posted a video on YouTube and has has just under half a million hits. Type her name (Ann Minch) in google search and you can see how her fight has gone viral. You can also see how the publicity caused Bank of America to fold.
We can do the same thing, but we have not yet done so.
There are no blogs and no youtube vidoes linked to our efforts. If we are going to win this case, you need to get pro-active, and you need to do it now. If you have not yet forwarded the Critical Action Alert (copy attached) to everyone you know, if you have not spoken of this to your friends, if you have not yet sent letters to the media (There are 5 preformatted letters – sending a letters will take you less than one minute, or if you have not yet signed the petition for redress, then we have not applied the political pressure necessary to prevail.
We need blogs and youtube videos. Bill, Larry and I cannot do this all ourselves. Its your fight…you need to Fight Back Now.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
–Edmund Burke
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
11/2/2009
Lindsey Springer here and without saying much I wish to report the first week of trial is recorded. Several things have occurred and I only wish to tell you I am doing the best I can. It is not easy having two stand by expert counsel shooting thoughts and words at you (I welcome it) while Stilley participates with his thoughts and then having the Prosecution doing their mumbo jumbo, having then to follow the court's order on any such exchange. All this, then get back to what ever I was on before the exchange began. Anyway, it looks like this week the Gov will rest and then I will begin my defenses which include the Paperwork Reduction Act among others. This evening I get to cross examine their expert away from the Jury and on the record. I am constantly running into road blocks financially. Sometimes we spend 1000 in kinkos on a single day (morning). Needless to say over the past 2000 plus years the rocks have turned to paper and the paper is very heavy. I am sorry but I choose not to say more. There is someone who attends the trial every day and you can listen to their blog at http://chroniclingtheendofanera.blogspot.com:80/
I appreciate each of you and if you are led to help me I would be forever in your debt and humbled. My paypal address is gnutella@mindspring.com and/or I can receive what ever you wish to send at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. Again, my name is Lindsey Springer and you may use Bondage Breaker's Ministries.
PS. Hovind's Appeal to Supreme Court not only drew an opposition brief from the Solicitor General but Hovind also timely docketed a reply. http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=hovind&x=36&y=22
Brian,
There is nothing wrong with the regs referenced. What is wrong is what you are using to read the regs. The GPO website is deliberately designed to be HORRIBLE and discourage you from reading the regs or supervising agency activity. If you are SERIOUS about learning this stuff, you need to get the following:
CFS Tax Research CD
http://www.taxtools.com/products_tr.aspx
We have it and it gives a hierachical, drill down tree view that makes things much easier to find. Government websites are deliberately designed to prevent you from reading the law or finding what you are looking for so they can perpetuate the legal priesthood that keeps you enslaved.
26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3) is on p. 82 of the following page of the GPO website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/apr…cfr1.1441-1.pdf
We aren't a legal reference service and we won't do your legal research for you. You need to learn how to do your own research and if you ask a question like this again and don't get the CD as we suggest to make it easier to do your own research, then we won't answer the question because you didn't do what we said.
It's listed at the beginning of section 5 of the following:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm
The direct link is:
http://famguardian.org/Media/HowToKeep/movie.htm
We reorganized the site. It wasn't moved or removed due to pressure.
In the future, please use our search function so you can find it yourself. If you had, you wouldn't need to post this question:
http://famguardian.org/Search.htm
The search function is in the upper left corner of the opening page:
