This is the last in this series of Lindsey Springer updates.  I will post future updates as I receive them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:59 PM
To: lindsey springer
Subject: Springer survives Supreme Court conference March 5, 2010 on district director and internal revenue district issues among others

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. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/030810zor.pdf

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 [email protected] My other Petition regarding the “difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA” is up for conference this Friday. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-8858.htm

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

Tags: , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 27th, 2010 at 3:09 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) (*)
URI
Comment