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.
THE BEGINNING-
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 http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/648/case.html.
"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 http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/26/case.html.
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 http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/259/case.html.
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. http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GAO2005PRA.pdf
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 - http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/1040Instruction2004.pdf. 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 http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/2004-83I.OMB.pdf.
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 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab4904.pdf
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
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICC/is_5_69/ai_67265608 For a map of the internal revenue districts see
http://tracfed.syr.edu/help/geo/irsmap.html.
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."
http://www.aba.com/NR/rdonlyres/F4F1CD5C-F97B-40EC-8415-7CEDA3BFADAD/49158/IRSNoticeofProposedRulemaking.pdfIn 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
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2008-14_IRB/ar11.html.
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
http://www.antiimperialist.com/templates/Flat/img/pdf2/c.c.langdell.pdf. [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
http://supreme.justia.com/us/56/467/case.html.
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.
NOTE:
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.
