I somehow missed the important fact that Lindsey Springer was convicted on November 19, 2009 of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, three counts of tax evasion and two counts of failure to file a tax return.  This is his last update before his sentencing, which occurred on April 23, 2010.  I’ll post a separate blog about that in the next day or so.


From: Lindsey Springer
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 11:18 AM
To: lindsey springer
Subject: Springer update

Lindsey Springer here and offering you an update as to each of the cases currently pending between me and the attorneys of the United States.

In the case (06-156) where I did actually prevail against 11 agents of the Secretary of the Treasury for violating my constitutional rights the Tenth Circuit has not yet issued any orders on the interlocutory (piecemeal) appeal where Bivens Counsel admitted their clients stole the money from me but did not act out the theft until they departed from the home I then occupied.  Their defense in that regard is they are only admitting they stole it so they can get to the issue of whether my alleging they stole the money made out a Bivens claim which is a claim against the Secretary’s agents when they violate a taxpayer’s constitutional rights.  Obviously there is some debate on how to overturn Judge Frizzell’s order against each of the 11 and in my favor without making it look like the Tenth Circuit sanctions agents of the Secretary taking property for its Agents own personal gain while under the disguise of acting on behalf of the Secretary.   The bottom line is the money never was deposited into the Treasury account.   It somehow got stuck in certain pockets or something like that.  I have not had discovery on that case and it has now been over 4 years since I commenced action on the theft of my money.

The proof and lesson here is even if you could get a lower United States District Court Judge to rule against the Secretary of the Treasury’s agents for violating constitutional rights the Judges at the Tenth Circuit simply divide on upholding that decision because to do so would be problematic for the Secretary since he already knows I know he has no delegates outside of the District of Columbia to act as his agents due to the undisputed fact all district directors and internal revenue districts since at least 2000 have been abolished.  This may be the last you hear on this subject from me so I thought I would remind you about the case and give a short update.  The case at the Tenth Circuit is 09-5088.

In the case where the attorneys who represent the 11 agents of the Secretary mentioned above sued me under the name of the United States of America to foreclose a lien to judgment and take the home I have occupied for 14 years, after I would not settle with those two attorneys my claims in that case, on March 3, 2010, United States’ Northern Oklahoma District Court Judge Terence C. Kern issued an order that found summary judgment in favor of the Bivens Counsel and against me.   This is the case where I was given by the Secretary of the Treasury a lien release “certified” and then one year later and after the Bivens Counsel learned of the release they contacted a local employee of the United States and had her sign her legal but fake name to a revocation of certificate of release and then had her issue a new lien in favor of the Secretary of the Treasury.   In this case I argued that without a district director of an internal revenue district under 26 CFR 301.6325(f)(2) and Title 26 Section 6325(f)(2) the Secretary had no “delegate” outside D.C. to issue or override the Secretary of the Treasury’s lien release.   This is the case where numerous officials involved in this cover up of fraud (most did not know what they were participating in) testified they no longer worked for district directors because that position had been abolished in 2000.

Anyway, without mentioning district director or internal revenue district and their relevance to the issuance of a revocation of certificate of lien release, Judge Kern simply ignored every issue under both the tax code and regulations that were clearly and unmistakably in my favor and against the claims of the Bivens Counsel and on March 16, 2010 ruled in their favor and ordered me to vacate the home no later than April 15, 2010.   HMMMM!

I have appealed that decision and asked for a stay at both the district court and Tenth Circuit and both were denied without a single word uttered about district director or internal revenue district and the impact neither existing would have on the outcome of any appeal.   I asked for a stay on April 15, 2010 with the Supreme Court and Justice Sotomayor (Justice assigned to Tenth Circuit) denied that initial application on April 16, 2010 without comment.  I will send off today a request to the entire Court for the stay in that case.  I have vacated my family from the home we lived in for 14 years while preparing to be sentenced.

Lastly, I am to be sentenced on April 21, 2010 by United States Western Judicial District Judge Stephen P. Friot.  I know, I know.  I live in a county which has been listed in the Northern Judicial District and so you wonder why a Western District Judge is sentencing me?  Well, that is the subject of a huge debate between me and currently 6 United States Judges.   The case is docketed as 09-8701 in the Supreme Court.   I know, I know.   You ask what would they do?   Well, I simply cannot ever allow the attorneys employed by the United States to ever say I consented to whatever because I did not object.   I am a chief objector.

For those of you wondering about this case.  All you need to do is read Title 28, Section 292(b) and you will see that a judge outside his or her commission district must be designated and assigned by the chief judge of a circuit court to a specific case for a specific period of time and there must be a public need and the assignment must be temporary.    Judge Friot stated on January 28, 2010 and again on February 22, 2010 that it was Judge Eagan from the Northern District who assigned him and not Chief Judge Henry.   Chief Judge Henry resigned on December 10, 2009 to begin on June 1, 2010.  You are either for or against a United States of limited power.

If you are for limited power then you must be for strict interpretation of laws written by Congress.  If you are for a United States that chooses to rule the world by fear and intimidation then you are for a liberal construction of laws written by Congress.   What you have seen in my tenure is a person objecting to a liberal construction of certain laws and this case is no different.   It is interesting that strick is better known as black and white and not grey ever.

Anyway, I have been pending since January 25, 2010 in the Supreme Court and they are scheduled for a second conference on April 23, 2010 just two days after Judge Friot is to impose sentence upon me.

In the case sentence is to be imposed, the attorneys for the United States are asking for 20 years because they say I counseled thousands to violate the internal revenue laws.  They also say I misled many on the Paperwork Reduction Act of  1980 and 1995.   The only way they can say this without smiling is if the Judges will say or do anything to avoid ruling on the merits of my claims against Secretary of the Treasury’s non compliance with the PRA.  It seems amazing to me that Congress can write a law that says “No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply” with a collection of information request form like Form 1040 and that a “complete defense” to claims otherwise subjecting a person to penalty could be raised, and yet every time the specific words in these sections are raised, something insane or crazy occurs in writing by the Attorneys or the Courts.  Either the Court completely ignores it or as in my most recent case they said I raised difficult issues between the tax code and PRA but would not elaborate on what those difficult issues were.  America deserves better.  I deserve better.

If you wish to change America then you need to change Congress and elect a Congress that will send a strong message to the judges by impeaching the worst offenders and giving examples of what type of writings  will not be tolerated anymore.   The Paperwork Reduction Act is the best example of showing how the law can say one thing and the Judges will say something in total opposition to the words written by Congress.  I realize there are many excellent Judges on the bench but it remains to be seen when they will start ruling in the Citizens favor and against the United States at the district court level when the law supports such conclusion.  For now, they continue to rule against the Citizen and in favor of the United States no matter how defiant that appears to the public to be.

The Judges write criminal laws are to be strictly construed but then they liberally construe them in favor of the United States.  It is upside down, backwards, or in reverse.

I have never advocated anyone not file a Form 1040 because of the Paperwork Reduction Act violations by the Secretary of the Treasury.   The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did that all on his own in booklet after booklet after booklet.  I merely publicly stated the Form 1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act and this claim only relates to the Secretary’s ability to deprive you of property by way of penalties.  Not taxes.  You will still owe taxes until you change the law because so long as Attorneys are allowed to write or ignore what Congress wrote we will never be able to rely upon a single word written by Congress that is in the people’s favor.

Anyway, unless I am not remanded to custody of the United States Department of Justice (Bivens Counsel) at the conclusion of sentencing, this will be my final report to you.     I have done what I can do and I have never nor will I ever give up hope in what I believe is right.  My wife for now will monitor your emails and receive any gift or donation that comes in.   Her name is Jeanie.  If I am sorry for anything it is that I was unable to ever get the Court to rule on the merits of my PRA claims.    You must know by now why they have chose not to make such a ruling.

For those of you led, I will always be able to receive support through paypal at [email protected], [email protected], or through regular mail at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135.

God save the 50 independent States of the United States of America first.

Lindsey Springer April 19, 2010


No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, April 26th, 2010 at 6:03 pm and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)