Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Update March 28, 2010

Lindsey's email response to "Dwayne":

Dwayne, Lindsey Springer here. Maybe I can help you understand why the US Special Trial Attorney said what he said during one of my defenses (doc. 71, pg. 4). I took 11 depositions in March and April 2009, including the lady who signs notice of liens and release of liens named R.A. Mitchell. If you follow the Hughes decision at paragraph 23 and 75 (original report)(19 and 70 respectively in this link) you will understand how delegations of authority the last time any judicial officer addressed the subject was said to work.

Each of the employees I was allowed to depose, and that is all they are is employees of the United States, as they are not delegates under 26 U.S.C. section 7701(a)(11) or (12)(2009), nor are they delegates under 26 CFR 301.7701(9)(2009), testified that they nolonger work for a district director or under a district director structure because those positions were eliminated by the chief counsel in late 1999 until the beginning of 2000 (many were difficult to change all at one). Where things get confusing for the sound bite looker is how the elimination was conducted.

You can resolve any doubt by asking yourself what is the name of the current district director over the place I live?

Some have argued that the1998 overhaul ("overhaul" interesting word and did not mean haul away) directed the abolishing of internal revenue districts. That argument does not work on "intention" because in the 1998 act Congress specifically makes mention of district directors in amending a certain section of the tax code. Also, Section 7621 clearly and unmistakbly shows districts are needed to administer and enforce the tax code. Several regulations also maintain district directors and internal revenue districts are the only manner in which such enforcement and administration is to happen. I maintain there is a difference between voluntary compliance and "enforcement" which lacks any suggestion of voluntary about anything. My defense centers around the "enforcement" side and not the voluntary compliance side. See 26 CFR 601.107(2009) (crminal investigation division "mission" of district director for purpose to "encourage and achieve highest degree of voluntary compliace")

If you look at 26 CFR 601.101(2009) you will see the entire judicial theory of the IRS stems from this regulation. If you then see 26 CFR 301.7701-10(2009) you will see how that is supposed to flow.

"Plaintiff apparently believes that this conclusion is avoided by his assertion that the IRS is a "private corporation," and not a part of the United States. Plaintiff offers two arguments for this conclusion. The first is that the IRS was never created by "positive law" (i.e., a statute of Congress) but by fiat of the Secretary of the Treasury in 1952. It is clear, however, that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, a statute of Congress, gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a). Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS, 26 C.F.R. § 601.101, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute. As such, the IRS is a creature of "positive law," and an agency of the federal government, not a private corporation." See Snyder v. CIR 596 F. Supp. 240, 247 (1984)(D.C. Indiana).

Now I know most say 1984 district court decision? Do not be fooled. In the most recent case citing to 601.101 where the DOJ sought the Court to determine the IRS was an "agency" (why would they need to do that?) under section 371, the district court wrote:

"Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a) provides the administration and enforcement of the IRC "shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury." In addition, 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a) provides for the appointment of a
Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury who "shall have such duties and powers as may be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury," including the power to "administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the
execution and application of the internal revenue laws." Finally, Department of the Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. § 601.101(a)
provides in pertinent part:

The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate
direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the
assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue
Service is the agency by which these functions are performed.

[Page 3]

The Supreme Court has noted "the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Treasury under section 7801(a) of the [Internal Revenue] Code for the administrative and enforcement of the
internal revenue laws." Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971). Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has held: "[T]he IRS is an agency of the United States government and, of course, a conspiracy to defraud that agency necessarily constitutes a
conspiracy to defraud the United States." United States v. Scott, 37 F.3d 1564, 1584 (10th Cir. 1994). See also McNeil v. United
States, 78 Fed. Cl. 211, 221 (2007) ("[T]he IRS is an agency of the United States government.").

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes the fact that the IRS is an agency of the United States government is both
"generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" and "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" including by reference to publicly available statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(a).The Court, therefore, takes judicial notice of that fact."

U.S. v. DUTSON (Or.U.S.D.C.)(1-28-2010)(08-CR-206-BR)

Notice how much the District Court in Oregon left out of its quoting 601.101. Here is the actual words from the begining with highlighted words left out:

(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal revenue.

So now the IRS is within a "territory" of the United States in Oregon! Oregon of course is Title 28, Section 117 and not the State of Oregon. Again do not get lost. The devil is in the details.

So to answer the question other than a U.S. Special Trial Lawyer agreement with me that districts were abolished where does the law abolish the IRS districts? It simply does not exist. Section 7621 remains the tax law. No law abolished or repealed section 7621. All you have to do is take a trip down regulation station and you will see all delegations remain flowing from Secretary to Commissioner to District Director to sub delegates of the District Director of each internal revenue district. Title 4, Section 72 prohibits any office of Government from being exercised outside D.C. unless expressly provided by Law.

Without regulations what enforcement could the Secrertary himself exercise outside D.C.? Take away 26 CFR 601.101(2009) and IRS is not an agency. Take away 26 CFR 301.7701-9, 7701-10 (2009), no district director or delegate of the Secretary would exist. Then there is the key ones. 26 U.S.C. section 6301 which clearly directs only the Secretary can collection taxes owed to the United States.

26 CFR 301.6301(2009) says all taxes imposed by the code are to be collected by "district directors" so sayeth the Secretary.

Since at least 2000, my defense is that there has been no authority of the Secretary authorized by law outside the District of Columbia to be exercised by the Secretary or anyone else. I live in the State of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma is not within the District of Columbia.

I do not know how the three questions I have asked the Supreme Court will ultimately be decided but when they first ordered me to serve each of the 6 federal judges all 6 remained silent with no response whatsoever. The Solicitor also waived. Whoever is arguing this issue must be better prepared than the Devil himself as details will otherwise surely prevent resolution of the main issue. What is the impact abolishing all internal revenue districts has upon enforcement and administration of the internal revenue laws outside the District of Columbia from 2000 to present?

Hope this helps in some way understand what I am saying in my defense. Lindsey Springer 3.28.2010

To all who oppose I simply begin with ok, then what is the name of your district director over the place you live and what law provides him with that cover?

Update March 15, 2010

Lindsey Springer here and hoping this update finds you both well and encouraged.

Little background. On March 18, 2009 Judge Payne recused himself in 09-cr-043 (criminal indictment brought against me). The rules of the Court were to have random reassignment. That did not happen. For 13 days the Clerk of Court was my "judge". On March 31, 2009, Chief Judge Eagan hand picked Judge Friot out of the Western Judicial District of Oklahoma.

I objected. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2009 U.S. Attorney resigned leaving no appointment or other person to "prosecute" me. Trial began on October 26, 2009. After 10 hours and some judicial intrusion of the Sixth Amendment a jury returned guilty verdict on the Court’s jury instructions.

On November 27, 2009, I petitioned the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus dealing with the selection of Judge Friot, that judicial district and internal revenue districts do not coincide, and regarding the paperwork reduction act errors made by Judge Friot at trial.

On December 4, 2009, a three judge panel in 09-5165 issued an order concluding Judge Friot was "designated" but not "assigned" according to Title 28, Section 292(b) and the rest of my issues could wait for the appeal process. I disagreed. I have given the 10th Circuit four different times to rule on the merits of the PRA and the closest I got was on August 31, 2009 where they said I raise difficult issues and the Commissioner’s attorneys made frivolous arguments. That case currently is pending for conference in the Supreme Court on March 19, 2010 regarding whether a penalty is a penalty and what "notwithstanding any other provision of law" means.

On December 10, 2009, six days later, Chief Judge Henry from the 10th Circuit resigned as a Judge and Chief Judge.

Meanwhile, on January 13, 2010 I filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Supreme Court of the United States. 09-8701. This involved six judges. I was ordered on January 26, 2010 to serve process on each of the six federal judges involved. I did that and they were given until late February to file any opposition. They each remained silent as one would expect most Americans would do under the circumstances. I remain shocked at how Americans claim the Fifth Amendment of silence and they are indicted while Judges remain silent without any ramifications.

Anyway, the Supreme Court set conference for March 5, 2010 in 09-8701. On March 8, 2010, they sent me an order requesting I submit my Petition for Writ of Mandamus under a rule written by attorneys and for attorneys. There were many other cases that were dismissed or denied but I survived the conference.

In the Petition I have raised three issues. They are as follows:

I. Has Chief Circuit Judge in Misc. # 23 and the Panel in 09-5165, so far departed from Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b), including the sanctioning of such departure by a lower district court, calling for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to render such exercise clear abuse of such limited power extended by Section 292(b)?

A. Does Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b) authorize a Chief Judge of a circuit, to designate United States’ Judicial District Court Judges commissioned in one "Oklahoma" judicial district, to 1 year terms in the other two "Oklahoma" judicial districts on a renewable yearly basis for no reason?

B. What is the limitation on the meaning of the term "temporarily" and phrase "public interest" in Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b)?

C. Does Misc. # 23 qualify as a lawful and legal Article III designation pursuant to Title 28, Section 292(b) of Stephen P. Friot to 09-cr-043?

D. Should all orders entered by Stephen P. Friot in 09-cr-043 outside Stephen P. Friot’s Western Judicial District Court commission be rendered coram non judice and invalid?

II. When the Secretary abolishes "internal revenue districts," by calender year 2000 encompassing the State of Oklahoma, what original, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction does a District Court Judge have over alleged "internal revenue law" offenses pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3231?

III. Is a United States Judicial District under Title 28, United States Code, Section 116(a) a valid substitute for an "internal revenue district" required for administration and enforcement of the "internal revenue laws" pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621 in the State of Oklahoma?

Those experienced have concluded once I comply with the Court’s most recent order derived from the conference of March 5, 2010, that they have taken the beginning steps of taking direct aim at the issues above. Obviously they should. Issue # 2 and # 3 are at the heart of why issue # 1 arose in the first place. I call this judge shopping by other judges (unauthorized shopping).

Anyway, I have filed a number of personal Mandamus Petitions and other writs and have never survived the original conference meeting. I cannot say that anymore. I have now survived that meeting.

I realize most do not understand what is going on and that the procedures are so difficult to understand it remains a blur. I however am watching every procedure like an eternal hawk. If you read the above orders list from the Supreme Court you will see the number of cases that were denied and dismissed. Again, I was not.

The Supreme Court addressing internal revenue district and district director or the difference between an internal revenue district and a judicial district are currently the object of my Petition’s affection and could go a long way to helping fix what is so wrong with one part of this Country.

I need your continued help. I realize most of you probably have lost hope but I have not. Please consider recommitting to help me submit the documents the Supreme Court has asked me to submit by March 29, 2010.

If you wish to send me by mail that address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. If you wish to send paypal you can use My other Petition regarding the "difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA" is up for conference this Friday.

Thank you for not ever giving up. Lindsey Springer. March 15, 2010

Monday, February 1, 2010

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Depositions of High Ranking Treasury Officials Begin April 2, 2009 and your help is greatly needed.

Lindsey Springer here and I would like to report that on April 2, 2009, I will be honored to take the Court Ordered deposition of R.A. Mitchell. My case is 08-278. If you have ever had a tax lien or assessment then listen up.

How I was able to convince the United States District Court this deposition was relevant was that I subpoenaed R.A. Mitchell because this name was on several documents in a civil case the U.S. Department of Justice attached to their amended complaint against me.

The Government tried to block the deposition saying R.A. Mitchell did not even know her name was on the documents they relied upon. I pointed out that was an admission of forgery. On February 24, 2009, I took the deposition of a Kim Norman in Tulsa who swore that R.A. Mitchell was a stamp and not any real person.

Needless to say if that is true all Notice of Federal Tax Liens are no good and I will be able to show each of you how that would be. In each State you have a Uniform Federal Tax Lien Act and this Act directs federal tax liens to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code. A Forged document in the County Recorder’s Office violates both the Act and the UCC. It gets worse for the revenuers from here.

Assessments are required for a lien to arise after notice of that assessment is given and a demand for payment. Once you refuse to pay then a lien arises as a matter of law. Assessments are done under section 6201, 6202 and 6203 of the Tax Code. Regulations under 26 CFR 301.6203-1 require the district director to appoint an assessment officer. The position of district director was abolished by the Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. As of 2000 no district directors existed to appoint summary record of assessment officers. The regulation above says the record of assessment must be signed and if the person signing was not assigned by the district director or director of the service center servicing the internal revenue district that you live in then no assessment exists according to the law and no notice, demand, or refusal, could be proven in Court for the collection of any purported assessment.

I need your help. I cannot afford to take the this part of the IRS down without some help from each of you. I need whatever you can give me. I realize many of you know someone who is in some way making some challenge to the status quo. Please realize it is rare to be offered the opportunity to depose high ranking treasury officials and even more rare to actually do it. Most attorneys would simply not do it for fear of attack. I hope you know by now I am not afraid. Concerned yes, afraid no. Imagine me getting to ask the questions and the U.S. Department of Justice not being able to do anything to obstruct me, my questions, or the answers.

My ministry is asking each of you to consider being part of actually getting to ask questions. If you email me your questions relative to assessments, liens, and notices, I will be glad to consider your ideas in forming my questions. I get to take depositions on the 2, 6,7 and 9th of April, 2009. I realize this is short notice but I would not ask for held if it was not needed.

Please stand with me and help me take this part of the IRS out of the County Court Houses. You can send any support to Lindsey Springer or Bondage Breaker’s Ministries, 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135, or you can paypal at Those of you willing to support me in this endeavor will be emailed a copy of the transcript of any of the depositions I take once it is read and signed by the deponent and as always your blessings for such support will be difficult to even count or express in words. Thank you,

Lindsey Springer 3.26.09


Lindsey Springer here and since 1992 I have been executing my effort to help what I claim is God’s [GOD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH] calling on my life to help him, me and you "get rid of the Internal Revenue Service" from the Earth. The Mission is Bondage Breaking hence Bondage Breaker’s Ministries.

In order to understand the context of my statements I believe it important you have a basic understanding of historical facts applicable to those issues alleged by the United States Department of Justice whom I might add for fiscal year 2009 just received 374 "Billion Dollars" pledge from Congress to execute enforcement of what they claim to be conduct in violation of "laws of the United States."

I might add that with the Secretary of Treasury not being charged criminally, but in fact being rewarded with his appointment, with most people inside Washington knowing what I am telling you herein, it should come as no surprise when you learn that this or that person being vetted by the Obama administration has trouble with the revenuers. Almost everyone would have trouble with the revenuers if they look close enough.

At a time when bailouts are in, earmarks are knocking on the number 9000's door for fiscal year 2009, and most either have problems with the revenuers, or are getting ready to have problems with the equity adjustments considered as gains revenuers will claim, you would think people would realize what has caused this problem plaguing the economy is the Internal Revenue Service.

This problem we have is Congress writing one thing and attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice telling Internal Revenue Service Agents to do something other than what the law directs. The Agents are told not to worry about breaking the law and that lawyering can take care of what they cannot threaten their way out of.

The Tax Law if to be enforced must be done so uniformly. This means no matter where you live the law means the same and any provision or rule is applied across the board the exact same way. I have so much evidence that there is no uniformity in the Internal Revenue Service that you would wonder how people affected remain so silent. I can tell you it is because many people think that when the IRS is attacking them that such is a sort of shame. A shame they would rather not speak about. It makes some feel dirty. Not worthy of being an American.

Let your heart not be troubled. The shame is in writing so many thousands of pages called the "tax law" that no person could logically have the time to understand it. No person in Congress understands it. I recently took the depositions of three persons for the IRS who swore they had not ever read the section encompassing "assessments" but these same three had previously swore valid assessments existed against me.

To some of you that may not matter now but soon you will understand why it does matter.


Since at least 1791 most people having ever sworn to support and defend the "Constitution of the United States" swear this allegiance to "enemies foreign and domestic" defending both the United States, each of the States, and the people therein. The entire concept of a "Constitution" stems from "the act of constituting, enacting, establishing, or appointing." See Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary. Noah states "it is the state of being." The "new testament is the moral constitution of modern society." For any act or action to be deemed or said to be "constitutional" it must be "consistent with the constitution; authorized by the Constitution." Noah goes on to say that "Constitution" means the "established form of government in a State, Kingdom, or Country." For the general meaning of words not defined by Congress, when they attempt to enact laws "consistent with the constitution," an excellent starting place is Black’s Law, 6th Edition, and Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Black’s 6th Edition defines Constitution as to be "the written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union, or of a particular State, as the absolute rule." What derives from both of these definitions of Constitution could not be more clear. It is the "rule of law."

In most instances Congress must define the subject matter of its enactment. If this enactment is to be understood to be "authorized by the constitution" then a word spoken within limits placed upon Congress, by the Constitution, can wind up being used well beyond the legislative intent Congress had at the time any specific law is duly enacted.

Today there is 50 States with "Constitutions" describing their exterior limits. Indian reservations, for example, may be found looking from God’s view to be within the exterior limits of the State of Oklahoma but the reservation itself is not territorially within any State, including the State of Oklahoma. These places are nations unto themselves. There are many examples of how something is located within the exterior limits of a State but not to actually be legally described "in the State."

The phrase "in the State" has huge constitutional significance. The phrase "among the several States" competes with phrases like "in the State" throughout the Constitution of the United States. Compare "among the several States" in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and the 16th Amendment. The phrase "in the State" Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, explaining where all Federal Criminal Trials are to be held.

In the Sixth Amendment, the said "trial" is to be "of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously been ascertained by law..." There are many commands expressing the term "State" such as "to the States" in the Tenth Amendment, "in any State" at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, "each State" at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, "one State" at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, "any other State" at same, and the list can go on and on and on. The point here being that the Constitution of the United States gets its genius from the Constitutions of the 50 States even though 37 of them did not exist at the time the 13 States entered into the contract agreement called the Constitution of the United States.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, dated 1791, clearly show that the powers given to the United States, or in other words, the powers flowing from the States to the United States, by way of adoption of the Constitution of the United States, have outer limits or limitations.

Take for instance the words "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." These are the exact words of the Tenth Amendment. You can find this Tenth Amendment in your "Bill of Rights." Once you say "Bill of Rights" you ask then "for whom are these Rights?" Noah Webster in 1828 stated that "Bill" "in law" is "a declaration in writing" and is a "summary of rights and privileges, claimed by a people." In "America, a bill or declaration of rights is prefixed to most of the Constitutions of the several States."

The Bill of Rights is for you and me. The question then becomes how do those "rights" get honored and enforced? The United States does not "enforce" your rights when they are trying to take something from you. States will not stand in between you and the United States in effort to utilize the protection of the rights and privileges and as Noah said "claimed by a people." You must claim your rights or the United States construes your failure to object timely as a waiver of your rights.

There can be no better example of this than the 1976 Supreme Court case of Garner v. United States 424 U.S. 648 you can find at

"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness," as that term is used herein." GARNER at 656

In 1974, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974 which requires that every "(e) Agency" maintains a system of records shall-- (3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual--

(A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by Executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;

(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;

(C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and

(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information;

In 1980, Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 which required all Federal Agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget to then be authorized by "law" to ask members of the public for information not already in the possession of the United States or within one of its agencies or branches. The Supreme Court explained this in Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990) and expressly found that any request for income tax information sought by the Internal Revenue Service was required to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget. There they said "Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records." Dole at pg. 33.

The Supreme Court also pointed to a Senate Report to support their findings and conclusions. This case can be viewed at

The Supreme Court went on to say that the "Act prohibits any federal agency from adopting regulations which impose paperwork requirements on the public unless the information is not available to the agency from another source within the Federal Government, and the agency must formulate a plan for tabulating the information in a useful manner." Dole at pg. 33

Many United States appointed for life Judges at the District and Appellate levels rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in Dole. The actual holding said third party requests for information were not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. The genius of the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA")(sounds like pray) is that Congress forbid any Agency from imposing any "penalty" upon any person unless the Agency proves compliance with Congressional mandates. Former President Jimmy Carter signed the 1980 enactment into law.

In 1995, Congress decided to enact the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to make it unequivocally clear that the protections and mandates provided by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 were intended to apply to third party requests and requests by the Internal Revenue Service specifically. The entire time Department of Justice Attorneys and United States appointed for life Judges were giving the Internal Revenue Service a pass on the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, the Internal Revenue Service was sticking an OMB number on the Form 1040 anyway. This number will become known as 1545-0074.

The requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 and both the 1980 and 1995 Paperwork Reduction Acts could not be more clear. The Internal Revenuers are required to tell you on their "form" why they are asking the questions, how they intend to use your testimony, and whether your obligation to answer truthfully is voluntary, required to receive a benefit or mandatory. All one must do is look at the Form with OMB # 1545-0074 and you will simply see that none of the information required is present on the Form for any year.

In 1927, when about four questions were asked on a Form 1040, the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 that a "tax return is the statement of account between the taxpayer and his Government. It is impressed with a public interest and constitutes a public document. The cases of Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, and Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, both recognize that records required by law to be kept constitute an exception to the application of the Fifth Amendment." Sullivan at pg. 261 You can read this case at

They went on to say that if "the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all." Sullivan at 263 I have provided a 2005 report by the General Accounting Office which explains in great detail why the Internal Revenue Service is not complying, in GAO’s view, with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Since the Sullivan case, the Supreme Court explained that in certain situations a person may not have to say anything to the Internal Revenuers on any request for information form if saying that "anything" would incriminate the person. These cases were Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667 (1971), the relevance of which can be understood only in light of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968).

In the latter cases the Supreme Court considered whether the Fifth Amendment was a defense in prosecutions for failure to file the returns required of gamblers in connection with the federal occupational and excise taxes on gambling. The Court found that any disclosures made in connection with the payment of those taxes tended to incriminate because of the pervasive criminal regulation of gambling activities. Marchetti, supra, at 48-49; Grosso, supra, at 66-67. Since submitting a claim of privilege in lieu of the returns also would incriminate, the Court held that the privilege could be exercised by simply failing to file.

Remember, each of these cases was prior to the 1980 or 1995 Paperwork Reduction Acts. The law as it is written today regulating the Internal Revenue Service and its thirst for income tax information cannot be overlooked. The question is what does the Internal Revenue Service intend to do with the information you provide today, not as it was in 1927. Today, the Internal Revenue Service shares, under 26 U.S.C. § 6103, all the information you give them, or someone else gives them, voluntarily with many places upon the earth. I have not found a place yet where the Internal Revenue Service wishes to give you a benefit by volunteering certain information. In fact, I have found that in almost every case the motive to quench is finding something wrong with what you have said or someone else has said already to them. With $ 374 Billion it would be hard to see how they could not attempt to do about whatever they wished with your information.

Since 1996, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue told the public that you "are not required to provide the information requested on a form subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number." See page 75 of the 2004 Instructions - A number is valid if the Form displaying such number complies with the certifications made by the agency application listed at 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3). This regulation is found listed on the application by the Agency requesting approval to seek information from the public on form called 83I. The 83I is created by the Office of Management and Budget. The section is section "19." You may view the Internal Revenue Service’s application to seek income tax information from the public on Form 1040 for 2004 at

On many forms the Internal Revenue Service informs the public that the information provided could be given to the United States Department of Justice to be used for civil and criminal litigation. Its on the W-4, W-2, 1099, and 1040 instructions. The only question you must ask yourself is since the Internal Revenue Service cannot share my or your information with the public without your [or my] approval, why would the United States Department of Justice need my permission to use any information you provide them in any "criminal" litigation? The answer is only if it is to be used against you, the one providing the information.

This situation is quite the opposite from the 1927 Sullivan Supreme Court where they said most "of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application [264] of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law."

As report above, there is so many dangers that it can hardly be said that writing your name on a tax form and writing "Fifth Amendment" all over it would somehow pass by the Internal Revenuers attention without further investigation. Gathering information is conducting an investigation.

On the one hand the United States wanted to prevail upon the claim if you answer any question on the Government request form you have waived your right to be protected by the Fifth Amendment while on the other hand, if you remained silent, the Government requests they be able to take your silence and use it against you to prove you willfully failed to answer their questions on their request for information Form.

For over 26 Years, the Internal Revenue Service displayed apprx. 207 different OMB numbers on apprx. 207 different requests for information. For instance, the W-4 displayed OMB approval number 1545-0010 through the year 2005. The Form 1040 displayed OMB approval number 1545-0074. The Form 1040EZ displayed OMB approval number 1545-0675. Beginning in 2006, Internal Revenue Service decided to stop giving the appearance of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 an took the purported "approval" number 1545-0074 and decided to use that number on the W-4 and 1040EZ. The Internal Revenue Service went from displaying the appearance of one number to one specific request form and now, from 2006 til present, they have one number displayed on apprx. 207 different request for information.

The theory is that since OMB does not actually ever look at the Form the approval number will be displayed on, that the Internal Revenue Certification seeks, the promise by the Internal Revenue Service they will comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is good enough for the Office of Management and Budget. After all, why would anyone not trust the Internal Revenue Service to do what the law requires them to do?

When you see that in 1998 Congress passed the Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, and that many things about the Internal Revenue were to change, you will soon learn many things that led to the change have found there way back into the place the reformation was to guard against, with Attorneys and Judges for the United States aligning for a common cause to silence anyone who would demand the Internal Revenue Service actually comply with Federal Laws. See

In this Department of Justice assault on due process they even refer at the end of this directive to all involved that the actual manual being updated is called the "bible." How many "books" or "opinions" do you call "bible"?

Anyway, I will give but a few examples of how the Internal Revenue Service is refusing to comply with any substantive laws whatsoever. Since 1998, there have been no "district directors" or "internal revenue districts" as 26 U.S.C. § 6091 requires. 26 U.S.C. § 7621 direct the President to create "internal revenue districts." He doesn’t. Instead he gives the power to the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of Treasury is to then create "districts" by regulation but he cannot. Nothing is even published in the Federal Register.

Next is 26 U.S.C. § 6301. This is where Congress gives the authority to "collect" taxes to the Secretary of the Treasury which is done by regulations. 26 CFR 301.6301 is the treasury regulation that directs the "district directors" to "collect" income taxes. Since at least 2000 there have been no internal revenue districts and no district directors of those internal revenue districts. See For a map of the internal revenue districts see

Seems Congress wishes each of us to submit ourselves to the criminal jurisdiction of a United States Judicial District outside of the State you and I live in to provide answers to their questions governed by the Privacy Act of 1974 and both Paperwork Reduction Acts of 1980 and 1995 to satisfy commerce clause rules for gathering information under the Tenth Amendment. See Article I, Section 8, Cl. 3 (regulate commerce "among the several States").

Currently there are no district directors, no internal revenue districts, and only "areas." Attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service formerly were called "District Counsel" and now they are called "Area Counsel."

In a 2007 proposed rule changes were premised by United States Department of Treasury for Internal Revenue Service saying "Those regulations also remove all references to IRS district director or service center director, as these positions no longer exist within the IRS. The offices of the district director and service center director were eliminated by the IRS reorganization implemented pursuant to the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998."

In April, 2008, IRS wrote Treasury Decision 9378 which demonstrates the Secretary of Treasury problem changing "district director" to "appropriate official." This is made clear by reading

Put simply, IRS cannot tell you why they are asking questions, how they will use your answers, whether your response is voluntary or mandatory, and where you are required by law to answer their questions or who is assigned to collect taxes from you. This raises another huge problem for the Secretary of Treasury by "assessments" under 26 U.S.C. § 6203 not being in accord with regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 26 CFR 301.6203-1 which requires the "district director" or "director" of the service center assign persons who are authorized to "sign" the "Summary Record of Assessment" commonly known as RACS 006. There can be no authorized signature if there is no district director. There has been no district director since at least 2000, so all notices and demand for payment cannot comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6201 if dated anytime around the year 2000.

For those of you paying close attention to Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and the fact the United States Judicial Districts are not authorized to function in "any State," I recommend reading Harvard Law Review written in 1899 entitled "the Status of our New Territories. It can be read at [just highlight this and past in the search window]

At page 385 you clearly see how United States Districts are unconstitutional as well as not within any State. "Thus, the 6th Amendment provides that all criminal trials shall be by a jury of the "State and district" in which the crime shall have been committed;2 and by "district" is here meant either an entire State or a subdivision of a State.

Footnote 2 in the 1899 article above cites to the decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dawson, 56 U.S. 15 How. 467 467 (1853) which said "But it will be seen from the words of this [6th] amendment that it applies only to the case of offenses committed within the limits of a state, and, whatever might be our conclusion if this offense had been committed within the State of Arkansas, it is sufficient here to say, so far as it respects the objection, that the offense was committed out of its limit and within the Indian country." For the complete decision which explains why "United States District Courts" or "United States Circuit Courts" were created, go to

You can best understand how an act taken or required cannot ever be within the "territorial limits" of "any State" and also be within the "territorial limits" of the United States by reading this decision in 1850s.

I realize those under the $ 374 billion U.S. Department of Justice spin machine will have a field day with what I am telling the public but I cannot continue to allow the United States Department of Justice and their 25 public relations gurus to make public statements that they know are false at the time they make such statements.

The problem with your and my life is that we live on land subject to certain laws while we pretend we live in a place which has established theories of law whether they exist or not. Until the discussion turns to getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service and implementing tax information gathering rules that protect each person’s constitutional rights, everything else you read or see won’t even qualify as smoke or mirrors.

Maybe when America admits Santa Clause actually does not exist to each Parent’s children, admit that slaughtering Indians was worthy of the designation of crimes against humanity and so reflected in the record books naming all who perpetrated such crimes, and that Slavery and what it built needs torn down completely, you nor I will ever be able to verify by sight what is in the spirit of our Heart and Soul.

There is no golden years, no American Dream, no rule of law, no due process that is fair, and certainly no protection for the average person involving their rights when the $ 374 billion U.S. Department of Justice decides to wage war against one of the 50 States’ citizens.

The way I see it you have two choices. Become a statistic that did nothing about it or create a new statistical category. The new category will be with you in the did something section because everyone else chose to place their choice in the "did nothing" category.


If you are trying to understand why corporate church has grown in the past years consider the reason being that the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and the right to exercise that freely are rights a corporation does not possess. Can you see the question? What religion is your corporation? Exactly! The Bill of Rights, where the First Amendment is etched in stone, is a right held and reserved for human beings not corporations. Neither Congress or the IRS have any authorization from anyone to burden with tax a person freely exercising his religious beliefs no matter where, when, how or why.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

ThanksTaking Comment From Lindsey: 11/27/08

The duty alway falls upon those with responsibility. The 10th Amendment says that is you and me ("people"). We must make the Electors do what they are elected to do. Electors elected were not elected according to State Laws in 2008. The Electors are not "Elected" because the only way they arrived at that office was based upon a party affiliation that did not offer direct "evidence" of a natural born office seeker for President. If they intend to live (be elected Elector) by the sword of Democrat or Republican then they must die by the same sword. I have come to the conlcusion that those who swear to uphold the Constitution and spend their entire privileged time ignoring it, should be given a trial in the State where they entered the conspiracy to violate the Constitutions, and then let 12 suffering equals decide their future life, liberty and property interests (short appeal time). At this trial, the prosecution will be allowed to present the history of the Constitution, including pictures of grave yards, mass burial cites, wounded men and women, and the many other attributes that come with war for liberty. The Constitution created a temporary King or Queen post that is subject to all the millions of Kings and Queens power situated in each State. It took to much time and effort to maintain the Constitutions and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being ruled by written laws, including the Constitutional basis for those laws, as opposed to being ruled by law-yers. When you mix a license to practice law (really regulations) with a paycheck from a remotely located King, such a mixture in Black's Law, 6th Edition, spells this cocktail "P I R A T E" - "Practicing In Regulation At Taxpayer Expense."

Lets stop hoping someone else takes care of it. Stop reading emails hoping to find words that lull us into inaction, and lets start taking care of our business. Tell that side of your brain getting in the way to get behind you or get out. If you have ever stood for anything you should stand up for this issue. When someone asks you why should it matter about "natural born" you best tell them it matters because they asked that question and when the rule of law is no longer the only place you live in is the town of chaos. Tell them when they send a letter to someone the address will not be "any town USA" but rather "Total, Chaos 66666." Tell them Fear kept them from reading and understanding the Constitution and its rules of law, until now (obviously), just imagine what chaos will bring them if they continue to ask others why instead of learning it for themselves. You can also tell them it matters because otherwise they will have to learn, in real time, why those words were written by the blood of men and women who occupied these lands before us.

We can obviously all agree the 50 States United have been attacked by a group of terrorist that walk around looking like they own the place. Realistic wise, they probably do own the place. However, no matter what you own, you will not sit in the oval office as President of the 50 United States of America, unless you are with direct evidence you were naturally born in one of the 50 States and that same evidence shows you have attained the age of 35. Title 3 defines "State" to include the District of Columbia." What year did D.C. become a State and which one of the 50 are they? Lindsey Springer 11.27.08

Happy ThanksTaking everybody!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

It is time tax on income measured in Federal Reserve Notes find its way into Boston Harbor

Lindsey here and Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls, the problems you and I face are not about wars, rumors of wars, famine across the earth and disease. No, your and my problem is the tax imposed on income. An income which has no actual value until you spend it.

Lets look at what maintaining a tax on labor accomplishes. I will start with the "United States National Debt." Million times Million times Million equals Trillion. Ten Trillion Dollars of Debt. How was this possible? Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 enumerated to Congress the limited power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 enumerated Congress with limited power to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures." Article I, Section 8, Clause 6, enumerates Congress with limited power to "provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States."

As you can see regulating the value of "securities" was not contained within Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. Only the power to "coin money," regulate its value, and fixing the "Standards of Weights and Measures." Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, prohibits any "State" to "coin money" or "emit Bills of Credit" or "make anything but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts."

Where did Congress get the Power to "emit Bills of Credit"? You are correct, not there! All of Congress' powers applicable to the 50 States United are found at Article I, Section 8 and certain Constitutional Amendments. For instance, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, does not provide the "power" to impose a "direct tax" but rather only provides the rule by which "direct tax" are to be levied. Here, it is to be "apportioned among the several States." Interesting, the phrase "free persons" is referenced in explaining the formula for determining what each "State" would proportionally be liable for which led to the 16th Amendment leaving no person free. Also appealing is the fact this clause explains the number of "Representatives" to be "apportioned." Congress could not do a direct tax without knowing how much they intended to spend.

Can you imagine: Congress shall have power to determine the number of Representatives each State shall have in the Congress of the United States without the rule of apportionment? Exactly! In Price v. U.S., 269 U.S. 492, 501 (1926) the Supreme Court of the United States was dealing with an issue related to a State's obligation regarding receipt of notes violating Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. The Supreme Court compared its decision in Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, and Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472, to show that taxes are not debts under the general terms of the Constitution of both the States and the United States.

The question in Lane County v. Oregon was whether under the Acts of Congress making United States notes "legal tender in payment of all debts," the State was bound to accept such notes in payment of taxes required by its own laws to be paid in gold and silver coin. The court held that the Acts had no reference to taxes imposed by state authority. There were two clauses which were intended to give currency to the notes. In one of them, taxes were plainly distinguished from debts; and it was held that the word "debts" in the other was not intended to include taxes. Price at 502

In Home Bldg & L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 429 (1934) the Supreme Court said "The obligation of a contract is 'the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement.' Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 197; Story, op. cit., § 1378." This Court has said that "the laws which subsist at the time and place of the making of a contract, and where it is to be performed, enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms. This principle embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement. . . . Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement. . . . The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion." Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 550, 552. See also, Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314, 317. All Constitutions are Contracts.

So, the Supreme Court, to help States get around Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, because of currency notes and the prohibitions on the States, decided owing taxes was not owing "debts" under Clause 1. This is a "now you see me now you don't."

The income tax caused States to violate Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. Caused Congress to violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 counterfeiting its own "Securities" by emitting Bills of Credit and then taking the proceeds from those debts and fractionalizing them at some points into over 30 times the amount borrowed. This is hardly borrowing money on their credit. Next, Social Security and the box with no lock on it measured by income but not qualified as an "income tax." The 16th Amendment directs Congress was given power to lay and collect a tax on income, from whatever source derived, so what is the "withholding tax" deducted from everyone's pay on a weekly, by-weekly, or periodic basis? It is not a tax on income. It is merely a stimulus check. Instead of them stimulating you, as they have done twice in the last few years, you stimulate them daily.

What is the credit the United States borrows money on you ask that leads to a fiction $ 10 Trillion Debt of the United States? Your labor and the currency circulation it generates parading as income. Who is liable for this debt? Congress and the media tell you and me we are the one liable. Where did Congress get the power to borrow money and placing you and me as collateral for that debt? Not there!

Why is it you buy a car and it falls 25% the second you sign borrowing the money for it? You guessed it, the income tax. Lets take houses and cars for instance on borrowing. What is the one thing you need to borrow money for these items? Not credit, but a job earning, you guessed it, income. Homes with a 30 year fixed rate. The first 20 years you use the home you hardly pay down the debt but the last 10 years your payments really begin to pay off the debt. Why not put the last 10 years where the first 10 years are currently? Because, your home would be paid off 10 years before you needed to update it instead of the update competing with the last 10 years of the 30 year note to pay off the debt. Here comes home equity financing. Yep, if you had anything left after Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes, State Taxes, Sales Taxes, Fuel Taxes, State and Federal, Taxes on Groceries, Cloths, Tires and Toothbrushes, it would show up in the equity in your home.

Inflation causes homes to increase in value while cars drop at two times the pace of making payments. You get warranty of lets say 12,000 miles for 3 years or 36,000 miles while you borrow money for 60 to 72 months. To pay off the car in 3 years would be genius because at least you are staying even between your expense for the car and the warranty, unless of course, you drive more than 1000 miles a month.

So, you add to this that houses are cheaper in the Country, and voila, you have 2500 miles a month, a warranty expired in 15 months with payments continuing for an additional 45 to 60 months. What causes this you ask? Income Taxes.

Oh, the "do you owe more than your car is worth, we can help" pitch is sitting there waiting for you to dig the hole deeper. Home equity loans to pay off credit cards is waiting for the call. You know, the "we can loan you up to 125% of your home's value to pay off your credit cards. As soon as you pay them off the credit card company likes you so much they double your credit line.

Then there is Jury Trials and juries who sit in tax paying judgment of a fellow taxpayer. Oh, I know, they were not on trial for paying all those taxes one cannot breath without owing, but rather, a selection of a certain tax you chose not to pay because of one reason or another. You see that "chose" in the previous sentence. If you did not have any choice what do you call that? Yep, a tax on income. I think it better to refer to it as an "attack on income." Sounds the same but with greater emphasis on the lack of choice.

Jurors are chosen based upon their tax paying status. Having future welfare beneficiaries deciding you were a threat to there future does not bode well with having a jury free of conflict. Everyone knows what a 401K is but what section of the tax code proclaims every State Citizen is liable for a 16th Amendment Tax on Income to the United States? You are getting good at this. No such section like 401K. And why could this be you ask? Well, putting it in the words of U.S. Senator Grassley, "We" just cannot write a law that covers every possible way to tax income. Guess why that is? Income tax.

Grand Jurors are no different. They stay in secret and are used by the United States to commit treason and tyranny on a continual basis. Have you heard the commercials "Do you know what the number 1 fear of every American is" and the answer is the "IRS." Guess what the IRS is most notably associated with? The income tax. Guess what those Grand Jurors and Jurors are. Americans whose number 1 fear is the IRS.

I am certain Judges at the Federal Level are afraid of the IRS because before they are sworn to their oath of treason and tyranny, they must endure a rigid investigation by the FBI and IRS.

Now, Socialism has stuck its head out of the black income tax hole recenlty to see what State Citizens will say in hearing this word. Income Taxes are now being sold to the welfare recipients of the future as a way to take from a person who is working hard and give some of what they received for that hard work to some one who, for whatever reason, cannot or did not work so hard. The tool used to accomplish this "spread the wealth" in the name of Government is the tax on income.

News flash. People by the thousands are in Federal Prison, Probation, Supervised Release, previously convicted, and tax lien-ed to the tune of trillions of U.S. Obligations, because they chose, for whatever reason, to oppose spreading the wealth in the name of income taxes. These people who wish to spread the wealth wish to accomplish this spreading by threatening you if you do not pay the spread they will see to it you are deprived of several things, including your property and liberty.

Are you for spreading the wealth by threat of imprisonment if you choose not support the spread? The only way this could happen is with an income tax. It is a group of words with no legal meaning and to which are allowed to accomplish both the escape of some, in the name of loopholes, and the bondage of others, in the name of a tax protestor.

How about Socialism Protestor? How about a Treason Protestor? How about a Tyranny Protestor? How about a Protestor of Slavery? How about a Protestor of fractionalizing book entries at a rate of more than 30 to 1?

Neither Blacks Law, 6th Edition or Noah Webster 1828, define the term "Socialism." Maybe because the word was covered by the words Treason and Tyranny instead. What should be shocking to most of you is when the income tax is used as a political tool to get you to vote for a Presidential hopeful. Can you imagine, "vote for me" and "I'll give 95% of you a break from increasing the amount of time you are enslaved? A slave is a slave. Do you remember the average person works till sometime in mid June to pay off their tax obligations?

I am glad most of America is having to throw away its religion in the name of Government and the income tax. For the longest time, I would ask thousands around the country which comes first God or the IRS. You know, there is only two sure things, death and income taxes. Most would say God but, in actuality, put the IRS first. Diversity is fine in any culture but when "spreading the wealth" is your public policy then religion has taken center stage in the income tax policy of the United States.

At a time when the IRS is challenging the code section 501(c)(3) or 508 status of many religious organizations for making comparisons between "the end times" and current status of what people outside of Saturday, Sunday, or whatever day you choose to keep without holes in it, about world events, it seems to me it is not that the IRS should have any claim to challenge the religion of any person or group associated freely, but rather, it is that person or group of freely associated persons that should be challenging the IRS.

The only way I have found is to take what the IRS does and show how an income tax done the way the IRS does it is unequivocally a declaration of war upon you and me. You think the middle east wars have been going for some time? What about the war on earning income? I have only given you some of the things tax on income and earning the undefined term "income" has caused.

Myself, the IRS made up statistics and used those to impose a tax on me. Had I not chose to fight, such would have certainly became a standard to which all slavers production would be measured. Oops, you did not produce as much as the statistics say so you owe us even though we know you did not actually earn what the statistics are based upon. A tax just because is a declaration of war. Guess what? Yep, only the income tax could produce such a absurd result.

When those needed to be cared for become the ones who say what those not needing to be cared for say and do, it is a sign that those not needing cared for are too busy to care about the things those cared for are doing to them.

When the Constitution was enacted, voting was contingent on owning land. Today, owing land inside any State is the enemy of the United States. When the Constitution was enacted, being free was also a criteria of voting. Today, being free is an enemy of the United States. Washington D.C. is not a Republic and it has no Constitution to govern its affairs. It simply has a group of people elected that changes every two, four and six years, telling D.C. residents what to do. Washington D.C. is a plantation and the States are its owners.

Then there is Judicial Districts of the United States hidden and laid over each State like a clear sheet of clear wrapping paper. If you are not compelled to ask, or look close enough, treason will pass by your eyes without any alarm whatsoever being sounded.

Imagine a place where in the United States Judicial District of Oklahoma, housing both Federal Judges and U.S. Attorneys, not one elected person holds any of those offices. Not one! Yet, they are the place the IRS does all its tyranny. The place America fears the most is the place America has not one elected official doing anything. Congress, don't get me started on that one. The House Ways and Means Committee is supposed to be policy and watch dog over the IRS yet the chairman was unclear his rental income was to be reported on his tax return? Really!

In late 2007, the 7th Circus United States Court of Appeals published a decision that said no one has to use any Form issued by the IRS, the word "return" is not defined, and all that is "required" is a "candid report of income." I did a word search and could not find the phrase "candid report of income" in any code provision of the IRS. Not there. Regulations, not there. No other judicial decision every said that before this case in the 7th Circus. USA v. Patridge is the case. Yet a man sits in prison based upon this revelation by the Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit, the infamous appointed for life Judge Easterbrook. Income tax plus appointed for life Judges equals end to rule of law. I am certain Easterbrook would be voted out of office at the next election and replaced by someone who 7th Circus Citizens thought better prepared to see to it the laws were correctly applied and faithfully executed.

There is this long standing notion cited by the Supreme Court that "ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law so long as the law is definite and knowable." This is so because everyone is presumed to know the law. In the same decision, Easterbrook said no person need know the law regarding taxes anymore than they need to know the frequency they are watching on TV. Really, this is what he said. And the 8th Circus has recently jumped on that ship to the bottom of the sea.

The Supreme Court said in 1991 that the there was one exception to the ignorance of the law notion and that was in tax cases because in tax cases the law is not definite and certainly not knowable. Cheek, 1991, page 201. Do loopholes come to mind anybody? What about regulations, publications and procedures?

So, the Supreme Court said there is ignorance of the law that can justify not being penalized regarding the complex tax code and regulations. Easterbrook said he disagrees with the Supreme Court. What could cause a lower inferior Court judge to disagree with the Supreme Court and defy its proclamations? Nothing but the tax on income.

I have even seen where the income tax has caused Divorce, Suicide, Sickness, and having one spouse forced to testify against the other spouse. When an appointed for life attorney for the United States sits down with a spouse and says you will either say what we want you to say or we will charge you next, what is a good slave to do? Right again. The wife comes in and tells a Jury what she never said to her own husband. Truth does not matter. The law does not matter. Constitution does not matter. It is just one person against the creature created by the Constitution of the United States. You know why States are losing jobs at an alarming rate? Income tax.

Lets say the United States wished to pay off its 10 Trillion debt and it sent a bill to every State, based upon its population, and said, here is how much direct tax you would owe. 10 Trillion divided by 300 million equals $ 3300 for every person. Imagine you getting a bill in the mail from your State Governor saying we need your $ 3300 to pay off our direct tax debt to the United States.

It would take $ 9.00 per day and we could call it the national debt tax ("NDT"). We could even proportion it according to how much you make. If you make 12k a year, your tax would be $100.00 per month for 12 months and if you make 120k a year your NDT would be $1000.00 per month for 12 months. If you make $1.2 million, your tax would be 10k a month for 12 months. If you make $12 million a year, your NDT would be 100k per month for 1 year.

As long as this money went to pay down the national debt and for no other purpose, including borrowing off of it or fractionalizing it out, the debt would be paid off in no time. But that is not what would be to the benefit of the United States. Because people out of debt is a free people. I realize some of you economist would find holes in my proposal but the example is given to show you paying off the debt is not the objective. Being in debt and always at the line of broke is where the appointed for lifers wish us all to be. Here is my check Government and how much of it can I keep.

The reason why it took so long for all people to come on board is that income tax had several layers of bribery and corruption. Most needed to have it made personal to them before they would fall to their knees and ask the same questions some of us began asking years ago. The great thing is that those who knock on that door now will have a much easier time arriving at the place some of us took years to learn.

Why would people with a job to go register people to vote commit crimes in voter registration? Income Tax. Why would politicians be the greatest new comer to the millionaires club? Income Tax. Run for office, write a book, retire and leave this mess to the rest of us. Not the U.S. but us! Why would men and women agree to uphold the Constitution to get their lawyer license and then spend the rest of their life trying to defeat it? Income tax.

When a people stand up and say we chose not to pay into the socialism or sharing the wealth and are told that such choice is a crime against the laws of the United States, if you were on a jury, what would you do? Would you place your decision with the likes of Santa Clause or would you stand up and defend your countrymen?

"The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives." P. Devlin, Trial by Jury 164 (1956). See "Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-156 (fn. 23) Trial by jury was not insisted because of murder like what is seen on forensic files, but rather, trial by jury, charged by Grand Jury, was the vehicle by which people oppressed by Government action could defend their actions against such Government.

"Other safeguards designed to protect defendants against oppressive governmental practices were included. One of these was considered so important to liberty of the individual that it appears in two parts of the Constitution. Article III, § 2, commands that the "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 15 (1955)

The only way anyone could ever say "spread the wealth" is their policy in the United States is when there is an income tax without specific meaning, persons subject to an internal revenue tax to which no such tax exists (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14), and whereby the Constitutions of each State, and certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States, are treated as if they were never written whatsoever. Add to this the presumption all things not given specifically to the United States are decided in the United States favor (opposite of the 10th Amendment) by appointed for lifers, and voila, you have the Socialist Country United States.

If you wish to do something about this when you vote on November 4, 2008, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, make certain whoever occupies the office is fired. If you are independent, keep doing what you are doing because that is what makes you an independent. But fire them all. Even if computers already know the winners and losers, someone will look to see what each of you actually did say. Oh, did I leave off that the United States is buying up banks with borrowed money through the bail out. How did they get the money to do that? Income Tax futures. I am certain you have heard of futures trading correct? Income Tax futures, Social Security Collection futures, the list goes on and on.

Only in a country governed by debt to the tune of trillions could we be told we are the wealthiest nation in the world. The only word left off that phrase is "wealthiest indebted nation." Only in the United States are millionaires people who owe more than a million to someone.

And this could only happen because of a tax on income with its origin in voodoo and emphasis on doo!

Lindsey Springer 10.22.08