I just discovered that I missed this Lindsey Springer update.  This completes the series to date.  My apologies.


—– Original Message —–
From: Lindsey Springer
To: lindsey springer
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Lindsey Springer thanking you for your continued support and update

Lindsey Springer here and offering updates on each case demanding my attention at the moment.

The case where money was stolen from me in 2005 sits idle at the Tenth Circuit (09-5088) while Judges ponder whether to stay with me and Judge Frizzell (United States District Court Judge) and hold 11 employees of the Commissioner liable for theft or to find the employees are not liable because they did not know stealing money from me was illegal. I know, and it is even harder to write.

I have two cases in the Supreme Court docketed. The first is a Writ of Mandamus and has not been scheduled for conference yet. It involves challenges to the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit abusing his authority under Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b).


The second is the published decision from the Tenth Circuit where the Commissioner was found to have made a frivolous argument related to the previous orders by the Tenth Circuit involving the Paperwork Reduction Act related to Form 1040.

http://www.supremecourt us.gov/docket/ 09-8858.htm

The Tenth held a penalty was not a penalty under the Paperwork Reduction Act unless it was a penalty imposed for failing to file Form 1040 and not failing to pay or interest. I obviously oppose that construction. My argument in that case is that all penalties, including interest as “compensation for damages,” are penalties under the public protection of the Paperwork Reduction Act. And as I said above those cases are present in the Supreme Court of the United States.

I am filing another Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking recusal of the Judge in the criminal trial based upon his January 28, 2010 order which admitted he was hand picked by Chief Judge Eagan after Judge Eagan disqualified herself. The law is very clearly and says once the Judge is disqualified they can have nothing more to do with the case they were disqualified in. Judge Friot’s admission Judge Eagan continued after she was disqualified to select him shows Judge Friot was selected in violation of Federal Law. That should be docketed sometime mid week.

I realize some of you have little hope in the words written in laws but I have chosen not to lose such hope. I think 99.9999 percent of the time people give in instead of never giving in no matter what. I am doing everything I can to be one of those .0001 percent that continues to believe it is the words in the law and their meaning that govern and not men or women. I know to some it is a novel idea but I remain that our entire human existence depends upon words having fixed meanings.

My interpretation of the bible demands it. I cannot begin to understand what certain words in the bible inspirationally mean without words having a fixed meaning. If a word or phrase in the bible has a different meaning than words used in the common law then my laser aims point blank at that target. I realize Congress is required to define terms if they intend a meaning other than the common law meaning of a word or phrase and to that I will always rely.

Judges being able to define a word, other than the common law meaning, when Congress has not defined such word like “gift” is at the heart of this controversy. Congress has not defined gift. The Secretary of the Treasury has not defined gift. Yet, in my case Judge Friot used two pages to define gift and for the most part told the jury what was not a gift. This creates a third origin for the meaning of words written in law. It would be a meaning not defined by Congress. Not defined by common everyday usage. And defined by a Judge after a trial to such a degree that the meaning can impact the outcome of a trial. If a word is to be defined that acts to such a controlling part of any prosecution of the Secretary of the Treasury, that term should have been defined so all interested persons knew of that meaning before not only trial but before the actions which led to the reason for the trial occurred in the first instance.

Anyway, internal revenue district and district director remain center stage in any issue between me and the Secretary of the Treasury. Also, issues surrounding the Form 1040 and the Paperwork Reduction Act violations will also remain at the top of my list. Interestingly, recently I filed a Motion to Dismiss on the undisputed fact all regulations corresponding to code sections of the tax law that were substantive did not comply with the APA. The DOJ all but admitted this when they attempted to argue that regulations have nothing to do with the “events triggering the obligation to file a return” or that a return “is mandated by statute, not by regulation” and that such “explicit” statutory requirements are not subject to the PRA.

As I recently told the Court in a reply I filed where I stated that without regulations the tax code is meaningless and that the phrase “Notwithstanding any other provision of law” means what if some other law withstands the very law the phrase Notwithstanding any other provision of law begins by saying.

I am doing what I can and to those of you watching closely I know you recognize the brevity of my defenses. I remain needing your help to survive

If you support the defense of the Paperwork Reduction Act related to Form 1040 or the lack of any internal revenue districts or district directors has upon a defense to claims made by purported delegates of the district director, then please support me so I can defend myself. The issues in my hands will rarely if not ever be before the Court and must be fully adjudicated now. I will only remind you that on August 31, 2009, the Tenth Circuit told the world that I managed to advance “difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA.” Those issues are front and center and the reason why they did not address those issues directly in that published opinion are now satisfied in the case herein being addressed.

Thank you for your time and I am always glad to answer questions related to the above if you have any. I can receive your continued support at my address of 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 and I can receive paypal at [email protected] .com. I wish I had other ways but these are the only two that I have presently. Any support you can afford will be greatly appreciated.  I hope this finds you blessed beyond measure.


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, April 3rd, 2010 at 9:45 am 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) (*)