[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: A reader sent this to us as a response to the above, which originated with Larry Becraft

__________________________

Dear Larry:

Thanks for this update. I have been pondering upon how I can start a non-profit similar to MADD that will bring to the attention of the world the epidemic deaths caused by car crashes. According to the world Health Organization, there are about 3300 deaths per day around the world due to car crashes. It seems to me that this is a bone fide epidemic. I think our efforts would be better spent and we could get more returns for time effort and money invested if we all joined a movement to encourage people to stop driving cars. I would gladly accept a small payment of 2,000 per week to stay home and stop being part of this car crash epidemic. Do you think we can get the government to get behind this worthwhile cause to save lives? It is always good to hear from you.

[fg_admin]

Truthseeker,

GREAT INFORMATION! Thanks for your follow up on this important matter. We hope that you enjoy the book and that readers suffering from the same disability will take advantage of your excellent suggestion.

[fg_admin]

…and it's hostile because violating these commandments DAILY and HABITUALLY is part of their de facto but not de jure job description. They would be framed, lose their license, reduce their “beneifts”, or fired if they didn't worship the BEAST by violating these commandments, in fact. God forbid that the light of TRUTH should ever illuminate these dark places of wickedness. They would scurry like cockroaches.

Quote:

“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness [or Truth] with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?”

[[url url=”http:///passage/?search=2%20Corinthians+6:13-15&version=NKJV”]2 Corinthians 6:13-15[/url], Bible, NKJV]

There is a reason judges wear BLACK robes instead of WHITE robes: They hide just how dirty and disgusting and wicked these devil worshippers really are.

Hilarious!

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Here is what one reader who shall remain anonymous just sent us about the Texas law that kicked off this forum. He lives in Texas and has used the law in court against the IRS:

_____________________________

This statute was passed about 10 years ago to keep the republic of Texas citizens from putting liens on the land and assets of the de facto officers of this state who would not do their job and were in violation of their oath. It does not work for the IRS. I used it back in 2003 and the feds promptly removed it to the fed court down the street and I got it moved back to the state court and then they got rid of the elected judge and put in a piece of garbage with gonad cancer who told me no one has jurisdiction over the case and he was dismissing it with prejudice. All we can hope for is that Putin did not sell out to the Kenite bankers and he will do as he has been instructed in the Bible and send the Bears over the North Pole and destroy New York, Washington DC, Philly, Boston, and Chicago, getting rid of the majority of the communist attorneys, and we can start over. However, if the rumours about Hardin Montana are true, and the contracted thugs with guns police force are indeed Russian, then Putin has sold out and he will not be the one to destroy the managers of the bankruptcy for us. Putin will be the one who provides the plantation guards for the continued pilliaging of The United states of America. We, the posterity, are doomed to watch helplessly as the 99.99 per cent of the stupid people continue to allow the demise of this once great republic.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and for those of you watching the “statutory origin theory” vs. “regulations thereunder” theory, I received an order today from the Court I thought you might wish to see as such is not seen very ofter. You may wish to print it out just so people will believe you when you tell them about it.

Short background.

Springer indicted on March 10, 2009 wherein it was alleged Springer was “required by law” to “file a tax return.” Court ordered the Government to explain “required by law” on July 2, 2009 as those words appear in their charging document. The Government cited sections 1,61,63,6011,6012,6071, 6091, 6151 and 7203 as the meaning of “required by law” in the charging document. Since Section 6011 begins “When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary..” I asked for another Bill of Particulars asking the Court to force the Government to explain the theory identifying every “regulation” involved in the “requirement.” The Court denied that Motion without comment. The Government then filed a Court Ordered “trial brief” in which in its “Required by Law” section it stated “regulations thereunder” and so I moved the Court for a Fourth Bill of Particulars pointing out the appearance of “regulations” coupled with the Government’s burden of proving knowledge and intent required I know those “regulations” in their theory before trial on their theory. On October 8, 2009, after the Government remained silent on the Fourth Bill of Particular’s Motion, the Court GRANTED the Fourth Bill directing the Government identify the “regulations” that make up the “obligation to file a return.” The Government on October 8, 2009 moved to reconsider claiming they would not use any regulations and only reference them as clarifying the statutory duty. I opposed their Motion on October 9, 2009 and the District Court today issued the following Order http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GJCourtOrder10.12.09.pdf;

For those of you who cannot go to read it above I have reproduced it here:

Before the court is the United States’ Request for Extension of Time to Respond and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. nos. 185 and 187), filed on October 8, 2009. Defendant Springer has timely responded to that motion. See doc. no. 188, filed on October 9, 2009.

In its motion, the government makes the arguments it would have made if it had timely responded to Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. no. 166). The court has carefully considered those arguments, thus effectively granting the government’s request for extension of time, so, to that extent (i.e. to the extent that the government requests more time to respond to Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars), the motion is GRANTED.

By order dated October 8, 2009, the court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars to the extent of directing the government to file “a supplemental bill of particulars, not later than October 19, 2009, specifying the ‘regulations thereunder’ (see government’s trial brief, doc. no. 138, at p. 12) specifically relied upon by the government in this case as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 184, at pp. 1 – 2.

2

The court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars because the government, in its trial brief, wrote (under the heading “Required to File by Law”) that “Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder) specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 138, at 12. The court was of the opinion when it entered its order on October 8, and is still of the opinion, that if regulations are important enough to the government’s case to be referred to at all, then they should be cited specifically. It seems passing strange that, in this criminal tax case, the government would see fit to refer generally to operative regulations, but resist informing the defendant (and, by the way, the court) as to what it refers to when it writes about “the regulations thereunder.” For this reason, the court is unmoved by the government’s arguments as to the niceties of bills of particulars. If the device of a supplemental bill of particulars were not available to provide the specificity called for by fundamental fairness, the court would, in the blink of an eye, require the government to provide the needed specificity in a supplement to the trial brief that made reference to “the regulations thereunder” but gave no indication of which regulations.

Accordingly, to the extent that the government’s motion is a motion for extension of time, it is GRANTED. To the extent that the motion seeks reconsideration of the court’s October 8, 2009 order, it is DENIED. The supplemental bill of particulars remains due not later than October 19, 2009.

Dated October 13, 2009.

Thanks for watching. More I am certain to come.

PS. If you become interested in supporting me I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or traditionally at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 in name of Bondage Breaker's Ministry or Lindsey Springer.

[fg_admin]

poldon

All the sources cited so far are already listed on our free page as follows;

Legal Research Sources

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef…alResrchSrc.htm

The last one posted is listed in the “Other” column under item #4 on the line labeled “3.2.1” on the left. There is nothing new under the sun. The only things that are new are the tools you haven't learned how to use yet on this website.

[fg_admin]

We have seen no evidence of that and we can't reach a conclusion without evidence. You might want to get a legal research account and do the case research yourself to verify that for yourself. Only $9.95/month.

http://versuslaw.com

Getting such a law research account is a mandatory part of the Path to Freedom document that is referenced on this website and required of all those who use our materials.

Our understanding of what is “domestic” in the context of the federal government is anything on federal territory or anything connected to federal franchises such as social security numbers or income taxes. Anything in a state of the Union is foreign if not on federal territory and not donated to a public use and a public purpose by connecting it with a de facto license number used to engage in government franchises such as an SSN or TIN.

This is covered in:

1. Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…stIndenture.pdf

2. Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf (OFSITE LINK)

[fg_admin]

American Patriot

Welcome to the Family Guardian Fellowship. There isn't much research on land patents on this website. This forum has most of it. All of it would be posted in section 3.5 of the following page if it was here at all:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm

A book on allodial land patents is also available through the SEDM Member Subscription Library as well:

http://sedm.org/Membership/Subscriptions.htm

After you get an account by following the above, you can access the Member Subscriptions Library on the following page under “Member Resources” by clicking on “Member Subscription Library”:

http://sedm.org/index.htm

Generally, the best place to start to find information on any specific subject is too look at the following:

Subject Index

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/SubjectIndex.htm

If nothing is listed on the above, page, then the subject probably isn't covered on this website.

Admin

[fg_admin]

Based on the response to this member poll, we have decided NOT to offer an emailing list. The forums are a much more convenient and interactive method for getting the word out than member emailing lists. Thank you for sharing your views.

[fg_admin]

Court Ordering Government to Provide all “regulations” “triggering an obligation to file a return”

10/8/09

Lindsey Springer here and for those of you paying close attention the District Court issued in the criminal case against me an order directed to the United States Tax Division of the Department of Justice and IRS that they are required by October 19, 2009, to give me a list of all regulations that they intend to rely upon:

“specifying the “regulations thereunder” (see government’s trial brief, doc. no. 138, at p. 12) specifically relied upon by the government in this case as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return”

Back on July 14, 2009, the same group of Attorneys for the Government filed a Bill of Particulars list out several code sections one of which was section 6011. This section begins “When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary…”

I moved for a third Bill of Particulars asking the Court to direct the Government to explain the meaning of “regulation” they rely upon in showing specific intent to violate what the “law requires.”

The District Court initially denied the Motion claiming it was out of time and denied it on the merits saying I had all I need to go to trial on October 26, 2009.

The Government was ordered to file a trial brief in which it placed in its “required by law” section the phrase “and the regulations thereunder” showing they were moving away from the “statutory origin theory” and towards regulational commands.

I filed a request for a Fourth Bill of Particulars which was also styled in a foot note a motion to reconsider the denial of the Third Motion for Bill of Particulars.

This morning, the District Court ordered the Government to answer the Fourth Bill of Particulars by October 19, 2009 by saying:

Before the court is defendant Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. no. 166), filed on September 30, 2009. Although the government’s response date was October 7, 2009, no response has been received.

The court notes that the motion was filed after the deadline for motions of this kind. In his motion, defendant Springer asserts, in some detail, the reasons for which he suggests that the motion should be considered on its merits even though not timely filed. The court accepts this unchallenged showing, and accordingly does not strike the motion as having been untimely filed.

Having reviewed the motion, the court concludes that the motion should be granted to the following extent:

THE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTED to filed a supplemental bill of particulars, not later than October 19, 2009, specifying the “regulations thereunder” (see government’s trial brief, doc. no. 138, at p. 12) specifically relied upon by the government in this case as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return. (See Footnote 1)

Dated October 8, 2009.

(Footnote1) In defendant Springer’s motion, he cites page 20 of the government’s trial brief as the page where the reference to “and regulations thereunder” appears. Motion, at 4. However, the only place in the government’s trial brief that that phrase appears is page 12.

Signed Judge Friot

10.8.09

I just thought this order was worthy of comment by me and that you should know the progression of events taking place. I really appreciate your support and could not be here if it was not for the support of those of you who now who you are.

If you become interested in supporting me I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or traditionally at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135.

More to come I am certain.

PS The Order is on penaltyprotestor.org at http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GJCourtOrder4thBillGranted.pdf

[fg_admin]

Don't know. It's easier to just visit the law library and answer your own question instead of cluttering these forums with trivia. Alternatively, you can:

1. Look at the 1939 and 1984 Internal Revenue Codes for yourself:

http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Go…dIncTaxActs.htm

2. Get an account on Lexis-Nexis and read the online Statutes at Large yourself:

http://academic.lexisnexis.com/online-serv…es-atlarge.aspx

3. Look at the Statutes at Large on GPO from the Legal Research Page we pointed you to:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection…ionCode=STATUTE

In practice, very few lawyers use anything BUT the online version of either the Statutes at Large or the U.S. Code. Therefore, your question is little more than academic. You should study the law the SAME way your opponents do, which is almost entirely electronic. Visit any law library for a few days as we have and you will quickly find out that even in the largest law schools, few students actually crack the books and the entire law library is practically a ghost town.

Do we have to do EVERYTHING? These forums are a LAST RESORT for those who have done their “due dilligence”, not a first resort for lazy people who refuse to do their own homework. Couldn't you find the above yourself? It took us only one minute to find them.

[fg_admin]

Stija,

The way you are doing it is the only way we know of. If you have a westlaw account, you can go directly to the SAL referenced from the notes section of the USC, but viewing costs you $17/page!

The Legal Research Sources page, item 3.2.1, also contains links to the various places you can view the SAL as follows:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef…alResrchSrc.htm

The following may also prove useful in your studies:

Derivations of Code Sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and 1954, SEDM Litigation Tool #09.004

LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Litigation/Reference/Deriv…deSectOfIRC.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Springer v. Commissioner Hearing 9.14.09

______________________

Lindsey Springer here and tendering another installment in your quest and determination to follow the last days of the Internal Revenue Service.

Since 1992 I have been absorbing like a sponge everything in my sight related to how the Internal Revenue Code is enforced. I have seen and learned so many things that would demonstrate to any simultaneous viewer most of the Internal Revenue Code is written to speak to different languages (both English).

There is one version which uses terms that are not defined in the Tax Code most commonly known as “common everyday meaning.” This common version provides a key for the other version to make its way into the communication scheme utilizing the phrase “common law.” The common law meaning of words has its base all the way back into the Magna Carta, and even before then, accompanying other written theories that attempt a logical track towards the “common everyday meaning” thought to be understood in today’s time. Think of “common everyday meaning” as the meaning we would teach a Fourth Grade Student while “common law” may actually make no sense to anyone, let alone the Fourth Grade, when compared to the “common everyday meaning.” Common Law is only that meaning given words by the Court System or allowed by the Court system when Congress has not defined the term. I call this the lawyers definition.

The other version mentioned above is “statutorily defined” words. Even in the rare occasion Congress defines terms specifically those definitions incorporate common everyday meanings to give meaning to the definition of the statutorily defined terms. I would also point out that ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law so long as the law is definite and knowable then everyone is presumed to know the law. To override the presumption here is simply to show that the meaning given words written by Congress is not the same meaning one would have thought the common everyday meaning subscribed.

Recently, at Hearing in Tax Court, I successfully obtained and tendered documents into the Tax Court record via subpoena on the Attorney for the Commissioner (trading moot for no objection) wherein the meaning of the phrase “last known address” was at the heart of a controversy. This phrase appears in many due process statutes owed by the IRS to the taxpayers and is the source of tremendous controversy between myself and hundreds of United States employees working at various levels of the get Springer campaign.

The IRS Attorney Elizabeth Downs was arguing “last known address” mean “last used address by the taxpayer” while I argued “last known address” meant last address known by the IRS records to be used to communicate whatever needed communicated with the taxpayer by the IRS.

The Commissioner’s Attorney argued against my definition arguing because Congress had not defined the phrase in the Tax Code specifically that the definition should be whatever she wished the phrase to mean. I countered that since Congress had not define the phrase then each word in the phrase should be given their common every day meaning. IRS rebutted that the Courts have defined the phrase and thus, as the argument goes, the phrase had well defined “common law” meaning.

In argument, I demonstrated that the Court system was divided on the “common law” meaning of the phrase and therefore the Commissioner’s position under the “common law” was actually proving the “common law” divided against itself. I continued, the “common everyday meaning” was the only logical answer the Tax Court could use because, I argued, the Tax Court was a Court set up by Congress for my benefit and not the benefit of the IRS. I followed, only if I choose not to accept the benefit, then and only then, does the law allow the IRS to gain from my failure to take advantage of the benefit(s). Of course, this is what the IRS was attempting to argue in Tax Court on September 14, 2009.

The IRS (t h e i r s)(ha!) argument was that because they had sent a notice on April 28, 1999, I was not afforded another CDP hearing on a lien notice they filed on August 4, 2008. These lien notices, you will remember, were the subject of many high ranking treasury official depositions I took in April and May, 2009.

Short background. In September, 1996, after I had been on my post for 4 years, the IRS decided to issue a notice of deficiency to me claiming that I owed a tax on the basis of applying the Bureau of Labor Statistics. IRS used my correct address. In December, 1996, I petitioned Tax Court using the same address appearing on the notice of deficiency, asserting use of such statistics to impose a tax liability was synonymous with slavery and involuntary servitude. In February, 1997, Tax Court ruled my slavery claims were frivolous and impose a sanction of $4,000 against me for raising slavery and servitude in violation of the 13^th Amendment as a defense.

On May 29, 1997 the IRS reported (in 2008 in 08-278) issuing “assessments” (I would not learn about such “assessments” were even said to exist until March 7, 2005 in a Notice of Levy). On April 28, 1999, the IRS claims they issued a Notice of Lien against me and in that notice a right to a Collection Due Process Hearing was offered me. This option was first enacted into law on July 22, 1998, in the overhaul of the IRS called the “Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.” The statutes at issue are codified at Title 26, Section 6320 –

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006320—-000-.html ; and 6330-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006330—-000-.html.

Worth mentioning here, the usage of Bureau of Labor Statistics was reduced to ceremonial thought in the same overhaul-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00007491—-000-.html.

Anyway, in January, 2004, the IRS began a 6700 investigation of me using the same address they used in 1996 on the Notice of Deficiency (correct address). In March 2005, the IRS begins Notice of Levy procedure sending this Notice to the KNOWN WRONG address to which I find out about after the Officer taped his business card to my front door and I called him.

In September 2005, the home I live in is raided by 11 Agents of the CI Division for the IRS. Among other things, they stole $ 2,000 from me. I learn the CI Agent Brian Shern leading the invasion was assigned on April 25, 2005, the same day I filed suit in Oklahoma City against the Agent who stuck a card to my door (Western District Oklahoma U.S. 05-466) I learned about the theft in January, 2006, when Brian Shern returned a portion of the money they took during the raid accompanied a request for me to waive my right to sue.

Nonetheless I sued under Bivens for the theft of money in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and the DOJ Attorneys who represented the 11 Bivens’ Defendants in that case (06-156) present a Complaint in May 10, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (08-278), claiming the IRS had a Notice of Lien against me (April 28, 1999), proper assessment (May 29, 1997), and their procedural conduct should be converted to judgment in favor of the United States of America (this is case where I was allowed to take depositions of high ranking treasury officials by Court Order). This complaint was brought at the direction of Elizabeth Downs working for IRS Area Counsel Office in Oklahoma City (remember her name) where she “authorized” the DOJ to sue me over a lien that she knew had been withdrawn and released (though she left that out of her authorization) on August 23, 2007.

In March, 2008, Bivens’ Attorneys attempted to settle the Bivens case with me in which they asked me to pay them. You can imagine how many thoughts ran through my mind on that ridiculous suggestion.

On August 23, 2007, I received “Withdrawal of Notice of Federal Tax Liens” from the IRS and considered any tax lien or levy moot. I considered my appeal in 08-9004 (case where Commissioner found frivolous on 8.31.09) like a play from scrimmage in Football where the defense jumped off sides and so it was like a free play for the offense. If the offense succeed in advancing the ball they can decline the penalty and if they fail they can accept the off sides and advance 5 yards forward and repeat the down. I am the offense in this comparison.

Anyway, after I was served with the complaint in 08-278, I received in the mail on July 17, 2008, from the IRS, a Certificate of Release of Lien dated August 23, 2007. I Did not know why I had not received it in 2007 so I called the IRS up and asked about the particulars of the release. I then attached a copy of the “release” certification to a pleading in 08-278 moving to dismiss the complaint in 08-278 because no valid lien existed.

The same attorneys who represented the Bivens’ Defendants (06-156) and who also represented the lien complaint against me (08-278) called up the IRS Area Counsel Elizabeth Downs asking her what the heck is going on down in Oklahoma and convinced her to pressure the local IRS to “revoke” the “Certificate of Release” and write a letter to me saying the lien was released a year earlier in error. This took place on August 4, 2008.

In this same revocation, the IRS issued a new Notice of Tax Lien and offered me a Collection Due Process Hearing. I timely requested the hearing as the revocation of release was what was erroneous and not the certificate of release of lien. I claimed the revocation was done at the direction of DOJ Attorneys and not because of any other reason and that the DOJ option was not listed in Title 26, Section 6323(j):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006323—-000-.html.

See also Section 6325(f)(2) – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6325.html..

Needless to say, the IRS had never done before to anyone what they were attempting to do to me. On October 10, 2008, the DOJ Attorneys amended their complaint in 08-278 attaching the release of lien, revocation of the release of lien, and new Notice of Lien alleging their lien stemming from April 28, 1999 remained valid.

I sought injunction under Section 6320 and 6330 on grounds the DOJ was forbidden from proceeding with their complaint in 08-278 because a hearing request was pending before the IRS administratively pursuant to Section 6320 and 6330 above. The DOJ responded that I had a previous opportunity for such hearing on Arpil 28, 1999 and therefore was not entitled to another hearing. Remember, we are at this point in December, 2008. There has been no ruling on this motion but 08-278 has been suspended indefinitely by the District Court in Tulsa.

On January 9, 2009, IRS wrote into their Manual a new theory that said I could not have a hearing on their 2008 Notice of Lien and Revocation of Release of Lien because I had received an opportunity for such hearing leaving out any explanation as to how they determined this. This new manual position then caused a Mr. Greg Clark on the same day, January 9, 2009, to send me a letter telling me he had decided I was not getting the hearing offered by the IRS to me on August 4, 2008.

I Petitioned timely Tax Court from this January 9, 2009 Letter claiming it erroneously denied me a right to a hearing on the propriety of the August 4, 2008 Revocation of Release of Lien and New Notice of Lien (3781-09L). Of no surprise was that Elizabeth Downs entered her appearance for the Commissioner and moved to dismiss my Petition claiming the January 9, 2009 Letter sent to me by Mr. Clark was not a “determination” and therefore Tax Court had no jurisdiction. I opposed the Motion citing to several cases where the meaning of “determination” in the Tax Code is not restricted to documents the IRS entitles “determination” but rather when the substance of the document can be read to have made determinations then the taxpayer would have a right to review such determination in Tax Court. Remember, common law, common everyday meaning and statutorily defined.

The Chief Judge of Tax Court ordered hearing on September 14, 2009 in Oklahoma City on the IRS’s Motion to Dismiss drafted and filed by Elizabeth Downs. Yes, the same Elizabeth Downs who directed I be sued without mentioning that the May 29, 1997 lien (arising from alleged assessment) had been certified released in her authorization letter. Yes, the same Elizabeth Downs who directed the IRS to revoke the properly issued Certificate’s of Release on August 4, 2008. Yes, the same Elizabeth Downs who directed a new Notice of Lien be issued to me on August 4, 2008 and to give me notice of my right to a Collection Due Process Hearing under Title 26, Section 6320. Yes, the same Elizabeth Downs who directed the IR Manual be altered on January 9, 2009. Yes, the same Elizabeth Downs who directed Mr. Clark reject my request for a Collection Due Process Hearing after the IRS gave me such option in its August 4, 2008 letter directed by none other than Elizabeth Downs. Yes, the same Elizabeth Downs who moved to dismiss my Petition in Tax Court saying the January 9, 2009 letter determining I had no right to a Collection Due Process Hearing issued by Mr. Clark was not a formal determination thus purportedly preventing Tax Court from reviewing what Elizabeth Downs, Mr. Clark, along with the DOJ attorneys, had accomplished against me administratively.

I subpoenaed Elizabeth Downs, Mr. Clark and a person named Alan Ambuehl. Ms. Downs moved to quash her own subpeona which stood to get her in much trouble. Ms. Downs moved to quash the subpoena on Clark and Ambuehl.

Go to:

http://psa.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/SearchPartyResults.asp?SearchLevel=0001&strTemp=&LastName=springer&FirstName=lindsey&MidInit=&State=&SubRef=Search

From here click on 3781-09L and then look at entry 0010, 0013 and 0015. These three docket entries show that Elizabeth Downs was trying to keep me from obtaining the evidence she knew existed to prove some really bad fraud was taking place against Lindsey Springer by the United States.

At hearing the Tax Court Judge allowed Ambuehl to be dismissed so long as he turned over all the documents I sought by subpoena before he left which he did turn over. Ms. Downs I let out of her obligation to testify so long as she did not object to documents she signed under the penalty of perjury in 08-278 from being entered into the record in 3781-09L. She agreed but when I moved to enter them during the trial she stood up and objected arguing she did not know the relevance of her previous testimony which the Judge reminded her why I withdrew my subpoena was because she agreed not to oppose me entering documents she submitted under penalty of perjury in 08-278. She sat down and shut up after that. See 3781-09L in Tax Court entry 0016.

These documents she provided under penalty of perjury in 08-278 showed that 6 days before May 29, 1997, on May 23, 1997, the IRS was using internally the same address appearing on the Notice of Deficiency dated September 3, 1996, the same address used in 2004 to do the 6700 investigation, while documents stemming from those documents only used an address that I had never used personally, as pointed out by the Tax Court Judge to Elizabeth Downs, and could have only related to Corporation issues in the 1980s and not me personally. The address used on April 28, 1999 and March 2, 2005, to give me notice of my right to a Collection Due Process Hearing used this intentionally wrong address.

It was the April 28, 1999 Notice of Lien and Right to Collection Due Process Hearing that Alan Ambuehl declared under penalty of perjury in 08-278 that purportedly had been sent to me on April 28, 1999 which upon the document’s face purported to use the wrong address and not last known by the IRS address of Lindsey Springer.

This is where Elizabeth Downs in Tax Court case 3781-09L and the DOJ Attorneys and her in the context of 08-278 argued the “last known address” was used as appearing therein because the address on the April 28, 1999 Notice of Tax Lien contained the last address known by the IRS that Springer used to file some tax form which they allege was filed in the late 1980s.

Of course, the IRS could not show how then in 1996 they used the correct address to make 6020(b) “substitute for returns” using the correct address in their Notice of Deficiencies or how after the issuance of the Notice of Deficiency, dated September 3, 1996, the IRS switched back to the alleged address used in a corporate capacity in the late 1980s.

In the end the evidence satisfied the Tax Court Judge that I had answered the two questions she was considering involved within Elizabeth Downs Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Tax Court. I was ordered to redact certain information for the Tax Court on the 17 Exhibits entered into evidence. See 3781-09L in Tax Court entry 0017.

Those questions were was the August 4, 2008 Tax Lien Notice a new lien, a refile or a refresh? Of course I argued it was not even a lien at all because the 10 year limitation from May 29, 1997 to August 4, 2008 had been exceeded:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006502—-000-.html

The second question then was there a determination made in the January 9, 2009 Letter written to me by Mr. Clark to which Mr. Clark testified using the term “determination” more than 10 times.

The Judge asked him to explain how he determined the April 28, 1999 Tax Lien remained valid in light of the Certificate of Release to which he said the “serial number” on the April 28, 1999 Notice of Lien was not affected by the Certificate of Release because the serial number on the Certificate of Release was different than the April 28, 1999 Notice.

In other words, Clark testified even if the Lien was “released” completely a Notice of Lien remained valid. The Judge looked more than perplexed and I told her I would testify and clear that up which I did.

The reason why the April 28, 1999 Notice of Lien “serial number” was not “released” by the Certificate of Release was because it had been refiled in June, 2007 just 2 days before the 10 year expiration which if anyone reads a Notice of Lien it says to treat the Notice of Lien as a release of lien pursuant to the date in column “(e).”

The IRS had filed refiles in June, 2007 and then “withdrew” those and as I showed the Judge the serial number on the April 28, 1999 Notice of Lien was indicated on the “re-file” and therefore when the re-file was withdrawn, this concluded the April 28, 1999 “serial number” because of the 10 year expiration. In short, between the withdrawals and releases there was nothing left on file.

You can imagine how draining this case alone can be but I remain convinced this is one of the ways to get rid of the IRS is to prevail against them on procedure because it is clear to me they have no uniform plan to enforce what Congress writes and when Congress does not define what they write the IRS gets even more bizarre.

If you would be so kind as to consider me and the mission I am on by sending financial support to Lindsey Springer or Bondage Breaker’s Ministry, ADDRESS OF 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. If you could support me monthly that would be a blessing to me and my mission beyond measure. I can also receive your contribution through PAYPAL at gnutella@mindspring.com

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Another Updated from Lindsey Springer, 10/3/2009

______________________

Lindsey Springer here and giving an update on cases you are aware of I am involved in. In respect to Liens and CDP see my previous email to this email. I give a lengthy explanation of what is going on in this regard. I could not have accomplished any of the below without your financial help and otherwise.

In Summary:

Springer v. Shern, et al 09-5033 (District Court case 06-156) is pending on interlocutory appeal where the DOJ appealed denial of their 5^th claim of qualified immunity asking the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals to conclude that when U.S. Employees steal money after they seize money that they should be given immunity from liability.

I should have no problem prevailing on this issue as the District Court has repeatedly stated that there is a question of fact only a jury can decide as to when the money was stolen, how much was stolen and who stole it. The Court stated these answers need be considered in order for the qualified immunity claims of each Bivens’ Defendant to be addressed.

U.S.A. v. Springer in 08-278 suspended waiting Tax Court disposition on validity of tax lien dated April 28, 1999. See email previous to this email for lengthy explanation and disposition.

Springer v. IRS, 08-9004 where Commissioner found “frivolous” I have 12 days to Petition for Rehearing En Banc on whether failure to pay penalties and interest is a penalty under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (and 1980 per that order). The 10^th Circuit was wrong on this issue. They said that failure to pay penalties are separate from failure to file penalties. But see U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (footnote 13) (10th Cir. 1990)(“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.”) See also Holywell Corp. v. Smith, 503 U.S. 47, 52 (1992)(“The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6151(a) (“when a return of a tax is required . . . the person required to make such return shall . . . pay such tax”))

As to the issue of interest not being a penalty, the 10^th Circuit said they could not find any cases supporting their conclusion that interest is not a penalty but published that it was not none the less. So, at issue in this case is huge if you are facing interest and penalties for failure to pay. Clearly, failure to file penalties are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and 1995 and that will not change as they held the Commissioner’s construction of Springer I, II and III was frivolous on this subject.

Springer v. Richardson Law Frim, et al., State Supreme Court 106,227 is a case where I have challenged whether an attorney filing a complaint on behalf of his client can be held to answer libel and slander charges because he knew at the time he uttered his complaint the alleged facts were completely false. In this case I have sued a corporation and 3 attorneys. The Corporation changed its name after I sued them for libel and slander and the three attorneys I sued were removed from the Law Firm. I still seek damages and trial regardless of the self imposed remedy the Law Firm imposed.

Springer v. Springfiled Business Journal, et al. 09-1410 is a case where the IRS paid two people to go on the radio and say what the IRS could not say themselves. They structured the entire communication at Lindsey Springer yet all the substance was about Eddy Kahn and two deacons of a church. The District Court dismissed this case based upon holding that there was no difference between publicly speaking about how the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 operated and telling people to fail to file tax returns. I appealed to the 8^th Circuit and this case remains fully briefed. The District Court simply denied my motion to stay responding to a Motion for Summary Judgment and at the same time of said denial ruled on the motion. The procedure followed by the District Court was in order to evade the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 issues. She knew the dispute would rest on whether I reported correctly to the public the words written by the IRS regarding the public protection of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See 44 U.S.C. section 3512 and IRS statement since 1996 in instruction booklets “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.” http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=109046,00.html

The business journal opposed the Appeal claiming defect in the timeliness of my appeal because I had filed a Motion to Reconsider timely in the District Court. All Appellees rely upon this argument in their opposition to my appeal and I expect that decision by the District Court to be overturned shortly as completely in error.

USA (grand jury) v. Springer 09-cr-043 is a criminal indictment brought against me for conspiracy to defraud, attempted tax evasion and willful failure to file Form 1040s. The case agent is none other than Brian Shern, the person who was involved in the theft of $ 2,000 and the cover up of that theft (06-156)(on appeal 09-5033 interlocutory) In the heart of this case is the defense of the Paperwork Reduction Act made applicable after the August 31, 2009 Order finding the Commissioner frivolous. There are many other issues but I choose to keep those close to my heart for trial. Because the Government had taken a frivolous position with regard to Springer I, II and III, dated May 1, 2007, their quickly having to try and salvage something out of their erroneous presentment to a grand jury. Trial is set for October 26, 2009 and is expected to take 3-5 weeks. The Prosecution is calling 65 witnesses and I intend calling 45. It should promise to keep everyone on their toes. The main issue is whether money people tendered to me was “gross income” or a “donation” or a “gift.” In the conspiracy claim the main issue is whether I conspired with another to defraud the IRS out of something. The something is still being discovered. The basic argument they have made is that I made it difficult for them to learn about money people gave me by asking for donations and gifts. The Prosecution has spun the amounts given into “services rendered” by offering lucrative incentives by either forgiving hundreds of thousands in debt owed the IRS or knocking off multiple years of prison or probation and supervised release for the uttered words “services.” In most instances the U.S. also traded not pursuing the person for other crimes in exchange for these “services rendered” theories.

There are many cases pending where District Director and Internal Revenue District are pending both civilly and criminally besides my own. Assessments, Liens, Notices, and Liability are each at issue in my case.

I wish to thank each of you for supporting my efforts thus far but I am not through yet. With your thoughtful help I will complete many goals in the next couple of months. If you have supported me in the past I ask you to consider continuing to support me as your help is greatly needed right now. If you have not supported me in the past but have thought about it then I write to you asking you to come on over and help me.

Supporting me and my mission has exposed the fact no “exempt amount” exists in Federal Law. The Form 1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements and is not a frivolous claim. There are no District Directors or Internal Revenue Districts since October 2000. There are no assessments since at least October 2000, under section 6201,6202,6203 and their regulations, that if challenged could be sustained and proved existing in Court. This also makes liens since October 2000 not valid under notice and demand. I have shown how all tax lien notices are invalid on their face including addressing the electronic signature. I have showed tax collection under 6301 and their regulations is impossible without a District Director. These are just but a few of the highlights exposed because of your support or support I have received. In my previous email I showed how I challenged use of Bureau of Labor Statistics and how that eventually was made impossible to do to anyone else by section 7491. Currently, I am advancing everyone into how a summons issued under 7601, without a Internal Revenue District to canvas, is unlawfully issued as there are no “areas” under 7621 or even mentioning of areas in 7601 and 7621. This list can go on and on.

I know each of you care as I do about getting rid of the IRS. It is hard to imagine anyone person you could identify that has been used to expose issues like what is listed above anymore than myself, Bondage Breaker’s Ministry, and the countless people who are and were willing to take their case to Court in effort to make a difference.

If you would be so kind as to consider me and the mission I am on by sending financial support to Lindsey Springer or Bondage Breaker’s Ministry, ADDRESS OF 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. If you could support me monthly that would be a blessing to me and my mission beyond measure. I can also receive you contribution through PAYPAL at gnutella@mindspring.com

[fg_admin]

Neo,

Yes. You are right and we understand and have understood this issue the same way over the last several years. That understanding just never made it into the diagram. This subject is covered in:

Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 16.1

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

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

The change that needs to be made in the diagram you reference is to take the Nonresident Alien box and move the bottom up to exclude U.S. nationals. We just fixed the diagram and reposted it. Below is the updated post, for those who want to look:

http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm

Thanks. Please keep your constructive suggestions and feedback coming. They provide great insight into ways to remove confusion from our materials and improve them.