Lindsey Springer says Quatloos is "enemy territory"

[Famspear]

This was posted at Bob Hurt's web site, purportedly from Lindsey Springer, and dated Saturday, May 15, 2010:

Lindsey Springer here and thank you for considering supporting my family and me at this time. I realize there are many people who simply do not have time to understand the issues I am raising. I will herein provide a more simple understanding of the issues.

For most of you, only 2 issues I am raising matter. The first has to do with Form 1040 and whether that form or any other tax form are [sic] subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Subsidiary to this question is whether the Form 1040 complies. If it does not, then you cannot be penalized for anything that involves a failure to file such forms.

I guess the fact that Springer is in prison for something that involves a failure to file such forms proves he's right.

Springer continues:

The Tax Division has been propagandizing everything it can to convince the public that the Form 1040 and the requirement to same is not subject to the PRA. Every United States Circuit Court who has addressed the issue has repeatedly said Form 1040 MUST comply. There are a few cases in passing that said the law which requires use of the Secretary's tax forms withstands the public protection provision at Title 44 Section 3512.

Section 3512 begins "Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty...". Those few cases referenced above are completely in opposition to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit holdings on the subject of the PRA.

At my trial, for example, the Tax Division argued before the jury that although the Dole decision in 1990 by the Supreme Court said "tax forms" were "typical" information collection requests subject to the PRA, and that no where in the Dole decision was the Form 1040 ever specifically mentioned. That argument will not withstand scrutiny at the 10th Circuit,. The 10th Circuit has repeatedly told the Tax Division that Form 1040 is subject to the PRA. The Tax Division continues to tell the public my PRA claims are "legalistic gibberish".

The Tax Division told judge Friot on May 6 2010 that I have been repeatedly told numerous times that my specific PRA claims are frivolous and meritless. The last time Tax Division made that argument in the 10th Circuit, they were told by the 10th Circuit for the 1st time ever, they were making a frivolous argument to that court. The frivolous argument found by the 10th Circuit, that Tax Division maintains, was that they(10th Circuit) had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims. Again, the 10th circuit told the Tax Division that their claim was false.

The reason why the Tax Divisions [sic] continues to maintain the argument they made in Springer v. the Commissioner, 08-9004 is because at the time I was indicted, the 10th Circuit had not entered it's [sic] published decision extending from 08-9004. That decision came out 8-31-09. Recently, the 10th Circuit ordered the Tax Division to address each issue in my motion for release from jail pending appeal on or before May 19, 2010.

In particular, the 3rd issue I raised in the 10th Circuit demands that they explain why they told Judge Friot the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return withstands Section 3512 and PRA. The 10th Circuit has held for over 19 years that the Form 1040 MUST comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act or no person can be subject to any penalty including criminal for any claim inexorably linked to failing to file a Form 1040 tax return.

(bolding added).

Oh, really?

Springer continues:

If there is any doubt at this point by anyone as to whether the requirement to pay a tax to the Secretary has any independent basis than from a Form 1040, the Tax Division in it's [sic] Bill of Particulars left no room to question this proposition. While describing the requirement by law to file the Form 1040 tax return, they informed the Court and me that Title 26 Section 6151 was their basis and theory for my failure to pay a tax. Anyone who reads Section 6151 will no doubt recognize that you are only required to pay a tax that you show is owed UPON the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return.

I have tried to get this relief under the Paperwork Reduction Act for many years. Each time I get closer to getting it as in 2007, the 10th Circuit told me I can only raise the PRA as a defense and not on the offense. If the Form 1004 [sic] was not subject to the PRA, they would have affirmed Judge Eagan on her erroneous claim [that] the requirement to file was not subject to the PRA. In 2009, the 10th Circuit said in a published opinion, [that] I raise difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA. They also said the Tax division made a frivolous argument when they argued to the 10th Circuit that the 10th circuit had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims which they informed the Tax Division again, they had not EVER made any such ruling.

I know it has been a long and difficult time to get these PRA issues ruled upon on their merits by the 10th Circuit and I believe that time is now here.

The second issue is what the impact should be on the revelation by the Tax Division that since 2000, there has been no delegates of the Secretary of Treasury authorized by law to act outside of the District of Columbia in the enforcement for administration for the Internal Revenue laws.

(bolding added).

I have to give him credit. If you're gonna lie, you might as well be blatant.

In my case the Tax Division admits those offices or districts simply no longer exist. I really need your help for the next few months so I can maintain my appeals on these issues. There are now 4 cases in the 10th Circuit to which I am prosecuting or defending. If you have any questions about my appeal, email me and I will try to respond. I am currently asking for release pending appeal and I am waiting in jail for that ruling. Please consider supporting me and my family while we end this battle. For instance, the filing fees for each appeal are $455.00. The phone call expense alone for the last month in order to get motions filed has cost over $1000.

I recognize that some will post this email in places of enemy territory such as Quatloos, however, someday really soon all of those who make their living off of forms that violate the PRA will stand account for their own words.

I can receive support through [contact information not reproduced...]

Thank you for any support you can give and please keep me in your prayers.

Godspeed,
Lindsey

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... cdaf03ef79

I hate to have to admit it, but I do "make a living" in part by preparing the dreaded forms that Lindsey Springer claims violate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Yes, Mr. Springer, we all will stand account for our words. By your words you will be justified; by your words you will be condemned. I will pray for you tonight, Mr. Springer.

[Famspear]

Just to refresh our memories, and for the benefit of those who may not know Mr. Lindsey Kent Springer's history, Springer was convicted in the fall of 2009 of conspiracy to defraud the United States, three counts of tax evasion, and two counts of willfully failing to file tax returns. United States v. Springer, case no. 09-cr-043-JHP (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma. He is now in prison, having recently begun serving his 15 year sentence.

[The Operative]

I will pray for you tonight, Mr. Springer.

Jaron and The Long Road to Love - "Pray for you"
http://www.youtube.com/user/Jaronwoodvideo

[Harvester]

.. that some will post this email in places of enemy territory such as Quatloos, however, someday really soon all of those who make their living off of forms that violate the PRA will stand account for their own words.

Yes they will and "Enticement to slavery" comes to mind. Preach it Brother Lindsey! And thanks for sharing Fammie. Yep it's enemy territory alright, but someone's gotta run recon and share the Good News with the Quatlosers. God loves you and the income tax is a scam. Just one of many run by fatso elites in partnership with our very own govt institutions. Fatsoes who think they're better than us. Not to worry though, it's all collapsing like the house o' cards it is. We're a self-governing nation after all! Keep starving the beast mates, don't use the private credit of the FED, don't pay the misapplied tax, and pay with coins! Huzzah!

[Nikki]

For all of his posturing, pseudo-legal rhetoric, whining, and misrepresentation of facts, Springer overlooks two significang factors related to his "PRA defense":

1 - The specific language of the PRA and several court decisions clearly state that the PRA can not and does not override any other statutory responsibility. In plain language, when congress passed legislation requiring the filing of tax returns and the paying of income taxes, that law immediately overrode the optional-response provisions of the PRA

2 - Despite Springer's allegations and interpretation, the form 1040 does bear a valid OMB number. Although it is the same number that has been assigned to the form (and many other IRS forms) for several years, it is a valid number. There is absolutely no requirement that a form receive a new number each year.

Irrespective of the above, maroons like Harvester and Reenie family:Sooey will continue to worship at Springer's clay feet and to predict the imminent collapse of the IRS.

[notorial dissent]

Nikki, Looney Lindsey’s whining not to the contrary, but I do not remember anything to the effect that

The 10th Circuit has held for over 19 years that the Form 1040 MUST comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act or no person can be subject to any penalty including criminal for any claim inexorably linked to failing to file a Form 1040 tax return.

I do remember that so far ALL the courts have said that PRA is NOT a defense for failure to file, and I do remember them finally saying that YES the forms all do have a valid number.

I see he is still beating the very long dead horse of the revenue districts, after he had been told by the trial court, and later by the appeals court that it was a non issue, for reasons previously discussed here, which basically left him with nothing viable in his appeal.

Has the Appellate Court finally flushed his last effort? For some reason, I thought they already had.

Looney Lindsey seems to live in a world of delusion, rather like Planet Van Pelt, where wishing something really really hard, despite the reality of it all, overrides what goes on in the real world.

[LPC]

1 - The specific language of the PRA and several court decisions clearly state that the PRA can not and does not override any other statutory responsibility. In plain language, when congress passed legislation requiring the filing of tax returns and the paying of income taxes, that law immediately overrode the optional-response provisions of the PRA

I'm not sure about the statute, but the regulations of the OMB are now clear, because 5 C.F.R. 1320.6(e) now provides that “The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute--e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return)....”

2 - Despite Springer's allegations and interpretation, the form 1040 does bear a valid OMB number. Although it is the same number that has been assigned to the form (and many other IRS forms) for several years, it is a valid number. There is absolutely no requirement that a form receive a new number each year.

Yes, even assuming that the PRA would be a defense to Springer's failure to file convictions (but not his conspiracy and evasion convictions), he still has to point to something about Form 1040 that does not comply with the PRA.

And on this issue, the 10th Circuit has ruled. In Scott A. Lewis v. Commissioner, 523 F.3d 1272, 1276-77, No. 07-9006 (10th Cir. 4/29/2008), the court stated that, “In fact, the [IRS] agency has complied with the PRA by periodically updating the expiration date applicable to IRS Form 1040.”

Of course, the 10th Circuit hasn't yet conveyed this information to Springer personally, but I'm sure that that omission will be cured soon, and Springer will have 15 years to think about whether it might have been better to file those income tax returns and pay those taxes after all.

[fortinbras]

THe provision in 5 CFR §1320.6 goes back to August 29, 1995 and hasn't been changed since, so it's not as if it were either new or unobtainable.

[wserra]

Of course, the 10th Circuit hasn't yet conveyed this information to Springer personally

We've said it before: if the Hand of God were to emerge from the clouds and skywrite, "You all owe income tax", these guys would claim that the gold fringe on His sleeve means that His words are only valid over water. Facts (including fairly indisputable ones, like incarceration) only serve to confuse the real issue: "I'm right, goddam it. PS: send money."

[Dezcad]

The second issue is what the impact should be on the revelation by the Tax Division that since 2000, there has been no delegates of the Secretary of Treasury authorized by law to act outside of the District of Columbia in the enforcement for administration for the Internal Revenue laws.

May I suggest that Lindsey read US v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209, (9th Cir. 1968), and pay particular attention to the last two sentences of the opinion (bolding added):

Defendant's final point, first asserted in his post-trial motion for acquittal, is that there was no venue in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant's residence was either in Chicago or suburban Oak Park, Illinois, and his place of business was in Chicago. Therefore, there was venue below if his returns had to be filed with the District Director of the Internal Revenue District in Chicago.

Section 6091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 6091) requires individuals to file their income tax returns in the internal revenue district of their legal residence or place of business. Defendant contends that there is no venue on the ground that neither the President nor his delegate, the Secretary of the Treasury, has established any internal revenue districts under Section 7621 of said Code (26 U.S.C. 7621), which provides:

7621. Internal revenue districts.

'(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, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one district two or more States or a Territory and one or more States.'

This contention ignores Section 7851(b)(2) of the Code (26 U.S.C. 7851(b)(2)), which provides:

'7851. Applicability of Revenue Laws.

'(b) Effect of Repeal of Internal Revenue Code of 1939.--

'(2) Existing offices.-- The repeal of any provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 shall not abolish, terminate, or otherwise change--

'(A) any internal revenue district.'

In 1946 the Secretary of the Treasury divided Illinois into two collection districts, with Cook County, in which Chicago and Oak Park are situated, in the First District (11 F.R. 177 A, p. 28). Except for changes in nomenclature, Illinois has subsequently retained the same two collection districts. Inasmuch as Chicago and Oak Park are in the First Collection District (now entitled 'District Director, Internal Revenue Service, Chicago, Illinois'4, venue was properly laid in the Northern District of Illinois. To hold otherwise would mean that no one could be prosecuted for failure to file tax returns anywhere in the United States. Congress intended no such ludicrous result.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

May I suggest that Lindsey read US v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209, (9th Cir. 1968),
...

There are those who would argue anything from the 9th shouldn't be considered "law."

[Pottapaug1938]

...

May I suggest that Lindsey read US v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209, (9th Cir. 1968),
...

There are those who would argue anything from the 9th shouldn't be considered "law."

There are those who would argue that anything coming from a court other than the type of "common law court" the sovruns set up in trailer parks, warehouses and the like shouldn't be considered "law" either.

[bmielke]

...

May I suggest that Lindsey read US v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209, (9th Cir. 1968),
...

There are those who would argue anything from the 9th shouldn't be considered "law."

There are those who would argue that anything coming from a court other than the type of "common law court" the sovruns set up in trailer parks, warehouses and the like shouldn't be considered "law" either.

I was actually told, when i got my Paralegal Certificate, that when doing legal research and writing use precident from California as a last resort. In fact only if every other court in the land has not ever ruled on something, and no one has ever come close should you then use Calfornia Precident, otherwise stay away from it. Of course tennessee judges don't like those commie pinkos in Cal-i-forn-i-a.

ETA: Ok so the instructor was going a little over board, but the point was California=BAD (or in Sovrun REFUSED FOR CAUSE)

[fortinbras]

US v. Gorman is NOT from the 9th Circuit.

United States v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209 (7th Cir. 1968) cert. denied 393 U.S. 832 (1968)

[Demosthenes]

Lindsey tries hard to remain relevant:

From: Lindsey Springer
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:40 AM
To: lindsey springer
Subject: Lindsey's Ties to Supreme Court Nominee

Lindsey Springer here with my ties to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
On September 16th 2005. During an armed raid at the home I lived in for 9 years, $19,000 in currency was discovered and seized at the direction of an assistant U.S. Attorney named Douglas Horn and/or Melony Noble Nelson. After a U.S. magistrate suggested the $19,000 was not contraband and that it should be returned to me, the Secretary of Treasury purportedly made a request for the $19,000 to be returned to me.
Three months later, on Jan 10, 2006, a purported delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury Brian Shern, approached me with a check from Treasury in the amount of $17,000. I was being asked to just ignore $2,000 had been stolen. When asked where the other $2,000 was, Mr. Shern informed me he did not know.
I commenced a civil action, Feb. 2006 in the United States District Court against 13 people who I claimed either stole, covered up the theft of my $2,000. The remedy I sought had been the law of this land for 35 years called a "Biven’s action". After three years,2 months and after numerous motions filed by the Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, all of their motions were denied by US District Judge Gregory Frizzell. The motions denied included motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a motion for summary judgement claiming no facts were in dispute, a motion for a judgement on the pleadings(again, claiming qualified immunity, and a motion to reconsider the foregoing.
In each motion filed by the Tax division, they argued the $19,000 was really only $17,000 and that the Biven’s defendants simply were not trained in how to count currency. The $19,000 was counted by three different people prior to me receiving a receipt for $19,000 at the conclusion of the unlawful search(the search warrant filed in the Clerk’s office contained no SWORN statement and it was missing page 18). I give you this information only to demonstrate the lawlessness the Tax Division will endorse in disregard of the Constitution of the United States.
On May 15,2009, three months after I had been indicted, Judge Frizzell set a Discovery schedule which included taking the deposition of several people involved in the theft and cover-up. Production of numerous documents was sure to follow that would show the theft that occurred at my home during a purported search. After the May 15th order was issued, the Tax Division removed my case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver seeking the 10th Circuit to determine whether the Biven’s remedy should be set aside after 38 years. The question to Biven’s defendants raise asks whether they should be given immunity because they stole the money after they left my home not while they were there. This is case 09-5088 at the 10th Circuit.
The entire reason why I was being attacked in the 1st place by the Tax Division was because I had drawn public attention to the Paperwork Reduction Act and how the Government accountability office(GAO) report in May of 2005 found most all forms including tax forms unequivocally violated the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and 1995(PRA).
This law Title 44,Section 3512 denies the Treasury the subjecting of any person to penalty for failure to file any tax form including From 1040 unless the form complies in every respect with the PRA. I contended publicly the Treasury complies with none of the 10 GAO standards. Neither do any of the forms distributed to the public provide any of the specific information congress mandates each agency including IRS provide to the public on their forms. One such example is that all forms are supposed to tell you that you are not subject to any penalty for failure to file a form timelu unless the form complies in every respect with the PRA.
Once the Tax Division had removed my Biven’s action interlocutory to the 10th Circuit, I quicly moved to dismiss their frivolous appeal because as Judge Frizzell had found, the qualified immunity claims were hinged upon a fact that was in dispute. That question was when was it stolen, where was it sloen and who stole the $2000. I receive a receipt for $19,000 and a check for $17,000.
This is where the Solicitor General Elena Kagan first shows up to my knowledge in this case. The Tax Division opposed my motion to dismiss, in the 10th circuit, their frivolous interlocutory appeal by first admitting to the 10th circuit The Biven’s defendants had stolen the $2000 for the purposes of their appeal. Their new argument to the 10th Circuit is that the money was not stolen until AFTER the agents left my home. This argument was contrary to three years and 2 months of arguments the Tax division made in front of District Judge Frizzell. There they maintained the money never existed therefore they simply must have miscounted 3 times in hundred dollar bills. There was a reason why they counted the currency 3 times. The answer they give me in discovery should settle any lawyering the Tax division is advancing.
Once I received the Tax divisions opposition to my motion to dismiss and their opening brief I moved for sanctions against the attorney’s involved and each of the Biven’s defendants because their reasons given to the 10th circuit were shockingly different than those they had made before District Judge Frizzell. The tax division asserted they had received authorization to make these frivolous arguments by Elena Kagan. They said as much in their pleadings at the 10th circuit all though they denied their claims were frivolous. The Tax Division has been opposing my motion for sanctions against each of them and the Solicitor General Elena Kagan merely argued noone should be sanctioned because the Solicitor General of the US had never been made a request by anyone to be sanctioned nor had any sanctions ever been granted against the Solicitor General. What makes their interlocutory appeal so beyond frivolous and meritless is how the argument in the District Court went from they never stole any $$ to the argument now that they did steal the money but the theft did not occur until after the Biven’s defendants had departed from my 4th Amendment protected home. The Tax division told the 10th circuit Elena Kagan had approved their interlocutory appeal and argument.
Elena Kagan currently is President Obama’s nominee for the vacating supreme court justice Stephens. I know very little about Elena Kagan but what I do know I reject. It seems to me that when a person asks the US Court to disregard 40 years of settled law and the only reason is so she can win. Such conduct provides a glimpse of what could be if that person was tendered one of the 9 seats created by Congress in the Supreme Court.
Twice at the District Court, the Tax division sought to have Judge Frizzell overturn the Supreme Court’s Biven’s remedy that had been law of the United States of America since 1971, which he repeatedly told the tax division he was unwilling nor authorized to do.
I remain vigilant in my pursuit of defending my Biven’s rights and Judge Frizzell’s numerous orders in my favor. It is one of the most difficult tasks I have ever faced when lawyering and an unaudited budget are used to override a constitutional right. Each of us must pause to take a closer look b4 we let such conduct become the law of the land.
Thank you for supporting me and my family in my cases both at the District Court and 10th circuit. I can accept your financial support through Paypal at lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com My mailing address is 5147 S Harvard Ave #116 Tulsa,OK 74135
Thank you for your continued support and prayers, Lindsey Springer

[fortinbras]

LONG long before Kagan became Solicitor General, the courts had uniformly held that (1) a Bivens action was inappropriate against IRS agents as there was a law in place that specifically provided a remedy for misconduct by IRS employees and therefore claims that might be made under Bivens against employees of other departments must be made under this specific law when against IRS employees. And (2) the Paperwork Reduction Act is (a) not violated by the tax return forms and (b) unavailing in a failure to file case.

[Noah]

Brian Shern, approached me with a check from Treasury in the amount of $17,000. I was being asked to just ignore $2,000 had been stolen. When asked where the other $2,000 was, Mr. Shern informed me he did not know.
I commenced a civil action, Feb. 2006 in the United States District Court against 13 people who I claimed either stole, covered up the theft of my $2,000.

Looks like Springer wanted a pound of flesh when all he was entitled to was an additional $2000. It seems to follow his only recourse was to go back to Magistrate and or the Department of the Treasury. He had a reciept for 19,000. and only 17,000 was returned, he was entitled to an additional 2,000. I made no difference who, where or when the shortage occured. It was up to the Government to sort out the guilty parties. I don't think the government would think too kindly on the shortage no matter what the reason, either bad math or theft.

[LPC]

The entire reason why I was being attacked in the 1st place by the Tax Division was because I had drawn public attention to the Paperwork Reduction Act and how the Government accountability office(GAO) report in May of 2005 found most all forms including tax forms unequivocally violated the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and 1995(PRA).

Only if "most" is less than half.

And Springer's statement is a gross distortion of what the GAO report says, as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the GAO report.

The "penalty protection" provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act that Springer keeps wanting to rely on only provides a defense only if (1) the form does not display a valid OMB control number or (2) the agency fails to give notice that you are not required to fill out the form unless it displays a valid control number.

If you actually read the GAO report, you'll find that the GAO reviewed a selection of forms from four federal agencies, including the IRS, and found that 41% of all forms (43% of IRS forms) failed to comply with the PRA in some way. Table 4, on page 33, shows that, of the 474 randomly selected IRS forms, 0 (0%) failed to display an OMB number, 0 (0%) were missing an expiration date, and 202 (43%) were "missing one or more notices."

What notices?

The discussion on page 34 explains that "most" of the noncompliance resulted from forms that "did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected." IRS officials reportedly believed 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." However, the GAO report stated that "the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed."

So the GAO report concludes that IRS forms contain valid OMB control numbers. The "one or more notices" that are omitted *might* include the required notice that you are not required to fill out the form if it does not display a valid OMB control number, but "most" of the omitted notices are due to a failure to cite specific tax laws.

There is, therefore, nothing in the GAO report that supports the conclusion that taxpayers can refuse to fill out IRS forms and rely on the PRA as a defense.