I’m playing catch-up on my Lindsey Springer updates.  In my mind, Lindsey is a true patriot, battling IRS agents, Department of Justice attorneys, District Court judges and Appeals Court judges on issues of law that have never been addressed before.  I would attempt to summarize them, but, Lindsey says it best, in his own words, below:


From: Lindsey Springer
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: Lindsey Springer and update to defense involving internal revenue districts among others

Lindsey Springer here and wishing each of you a Merry Christmas and or happy holy-day season. I am writing to report on the current status of things in my former internal revenue district of Oklahoma-Arkansas.

In 09-cr-043 the United States verified that all internal revenue districts and district directors were abolished in 2000. In 08-278, I took several depositions that showed those districts and directors were abolished in late 1999.

I have filed in 08-278 a restraining order and injunction request in USA v. Springer, seeking an injunction on the basis that without any internal revenue districts no internal revenue law, including the ones at issue in 08-278, are enforceable. I cite to Title 4, Section 72, and show how without any office outside of D.C. or delegation of authority from the Commissioner to someone with an office outside D.C., the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Secretary of Treasury are prohibited from acting outside the District of Columbia. Equally enforceable is that if anyone other than these two officer holders are acting as either of them then they must have a proper delegation of authority. I argue without District Directors that delegation is impossible under current internal revenue laws, regulations, and court decisions on the subject of delegation.

I have also filed in 3781-09L in Tax Court a request for restraining order against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any delegate acting outside D.C. for substantially the same reasons as in 08-278 above.

Yesterday, I spoke with the Tax Court’s Judge’s office deputy who attended the Tax Court trial in September, 2009 in Oklahoma City, and she instructed me that Judge Paris is issuing an order directing the Commissioner respond to my restraining order requests filed on December 7, 2009.

I argue, among others, that 26 CFR 601.101, 301.6301, 301.6331, according to Title 26, Section 7621 and 26 CFR 301.7621, without any “internal revenue districts” and “district directors” there is no “delegation of authority” and that the “revenue officer” or “revenue agent” is not the Secretary of Treasury or Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

In my defense I am filing in the Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on these five questions:

1. Does a Chief Judge of a Judicial District, specifically, Title 28, Section 116(a), have lawful Article III judicial power or other statutory authority, to assign a District Judge commissioned to another Judicial District to preside over a criminal trial held in the Chief Judge’s Judicial District?

2. Are all orders entered by such person in a criminal trial held outside such person’s Judicial District coram non judice and invalid?

3. Does Misc. # 23 issued by the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit, dated December 30, 2008, exceed Title 28, Section 292(b)’s purpose and intent warranting an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 10(a)?

4. Can criminal internal revenue laws outside the District of Columbia be violated and/or enforced, within the exterior limits of the State of Oklahoma, without established internal revenue districts pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621?

5. When Congress obtains from GAO a report in May of 2005 that finds IRS Tax Forms do not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, doesn’t such conclusion by GAO warrant dismissal of the Grand Jury Indictment dated March 10, 2009, for failure to allege an offense under the internal revenue laws?

Title 4, United States Code, Section 72 reads in relevant part: “All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.”

Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621(a) reads in relevant part: “The President shall establish convenient internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws. The President may from time to time alter such districts.

Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621(b) reads in relevant part:  Boundaries-For the purpose mentioned in subsection (a), the President may subdivide any State, or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one district two or more States.

Title 44, United States Code, Section 3512(a) reads in relevant part:  “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if- (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or (2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

26 CFR 601.101(2000-2009), in relevant part provides: “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.

26 CFR 301.6301(2000-2009) in relevant part provides: “taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws shall be collected by district directors of internal revenue.”

26 CFR 301.6201 (2000-2009) in relevant part provides: “district director is authorized and required to make all inquiries necessary to the determination and assessment of all taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or any prior internal revenue law.”

26 CFR 601.107(2000-2009) provides in relevant part: “Each district has a Criminal Investigation function whose mission is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the internal revenue laws.”

In my defense, I am convinced without internal revenue districts there is no way for any determination to be made as to where a certain statute or regulation is administered, enforced or allegedly violated. If you get the time check those regulations I cited to above, as there are enormous numbers of others, to see how the abolishment of internal revenue districts and the office of district director impacts the issues in my cases.

I am also intending to file Petition in the Supreme Court regarding the published decision where the Tenth Circuit held the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue made a frivolous argument regarding previous rulings involving the Paperwork Reduction Act the Tenth Circuit was said to have made. That case is 08-9004. This is the case where they said I raised difficult issued between the tax code and PRA.

If any of you would like to help support me during this time of my need I would be forever grateful and will use it wisely. It is most difficult to be locked down to my home, defend against the claims against me, maintain the actions in my favor against the United States (Bivens), all the while taking care of the most basic of necessities. For those of you hearing this call, I can receive paypal at [email protected] or by mail at Lindsey Springer, 5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135.

It is my humble opinion there is nothing more important regarding the defenses I have standing to raise, to the future of this Country and all of us in it, than issues related to internal revenue districts and district directors.  Nothing!


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)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 27th, 2010 at 2:26 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) (*)