This is Lindsey Springer Update #4 in which he further details the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) issue.


From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:gnute…]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:50 PM
Subject: Lindsey Springer Update 10th Circuit PRA

Lindsey Springer here and thank you for considering supporting my family and me at this time.  I realize there are many people who simply do not have time to understand the issues I am raising. I will herein provide a more simple understanding of the issues.

For most of you, only 2 issues I am raising matter.  The first has to do with Form 1040 and whether that form or any other tax form are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Subsidiary to this question is whether the Form 1040 complies.  If it does not, then you cannot be penalized for anything that involves a failure to file such forms.

The Tax Division has been propagandizing everything it can to convince the public that the Form 1040 and the requirement to same is not subject to the PRA.  Every United States Circuit Court who has addressed the issue has repeatedly said Form 1040 MUST comply.  There are a few cases in passing that said the law which requires use of the Secretary’s tax forms withstands the public protection provision at Title 44 Section 3512.

Section 3512 begins “Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty…”.  Those few cases referenced above are completely in opposition to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit holdings on the subject of the PRA.

At my trial, for example, the Tax Division argued before the jury that although the Dole decision in 1990 by the Supreme Court said “tax forms” were “typical” information collection requests subject to the PRA, and that no where in the Dole decision was the Form 1040 ever specifically mentioned.  That argument will not withstand scrutiny at the 10th Circuit.  The 10th Circuit has repeatedly told the Tax Division that Form 1040 is subject to the PRA.  The Tax Division continues to tell the public my PRA claims are “legalistic gibberish”.

The Tax Division told judge Friot on May 6 2010 that I have been repeatedly told numerous times that my specific PRA claims are frivolous and meritless.   The last time Tax Division made that argument in the 10th Circuit, they were told by the 10th Circuit for the 1st time ever, they were making a frivolous argument to that court.  The frivolous argument found by the 10th Circuit, that Tax Division maintains, was that they(10th Circuit) had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims.  Again, the 10th circuit told the Tax Division that their claim was false.

The reason why the Tax Divisions continues to maintain the argument they made in Springer v. the Commissioner, 08-9004 is because at the time I was indicted, the 10th Circuit had not entered it’s published decision extending from 08-9004.  That decision came out 8-31-09.  Recently, the 10th Circuit ordered the Tax Division to address each issue in my motion for release from jail pending appeal on or before May 19,2010.

In particular, the 3rd issue I raised in the 10th Circuit demands that they explain why they told Judge Friot the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return withstands Section 3512 and PRA.  The 10th Circuit has held for over 19 years that the Form 1040 MUST comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act or no person can be subject to any penalty including criminal for any claim inexorably linked to failing to file a Form 1040 tax return.  If there is any doubt at this point by anyone as to whether the requirement to pay a tax to the Secretary has any independent basis than from a Form 1040, the Tax Division in it’s Bill of Particulars left no room to question this proposition.   While describing the requirement by law to file the Form 1040 tax return, they informed the Court and me that Title 26 Section 6151 was their basis and theory for my failure to pay a tax.  Anyone who reads Section 6151 will no doubt recognize that you are only required to pay a tax that you show is owed UPON the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return.

I have tried to get this relief under the Paperwork Reduction Act for many years.  Each time I get closer to getting it as in 2007, the 10th Circuit told me I can only raise the PRA as a defense and not on the offense.  If the Form 1040 was not subject to the PRA, they would have affirmed Judge Eagan on her erroneous claim the requirement to file was not subject to the PRA.  In 2009, the 10th Circuit said in a published opinion, I raise difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA.  They also said the Tax division made a frivolous argument when they argued to the 10th Circuit that the 10th circuit had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims which they informed the Tax Division again, they had not EVER made any such ruling.

I know it has been a long and difficult time to get these PRA issues ruled upon on their merits by the 10th Circuit and I believe that time is now here.

The second issue is what the impact should be on the revelation by the Tax Division that since 2000, there has been no delegates of the Secretary of Treasury authorized by law to act outside of the District of Columbia in the enforcement for administration for the Internal Revenue laws.

In my case the Tax Division admits those offices or districts simply no longer exist.  I really need your help for the next few months so I can maintain my appeals on these issues.  There are now 4 cases in the 10th Circuit to which I am prosecuting or defending.  If you have any questions about my appeal, email me and I will try to respond.  I am currently asking for release pending appeal and I am waiting in jail for that ruling.  Please consider supporting me and my family while we end this battle.  For instance, the filing fees for each appeal are $455.00. The phone call expense alone for the last month in order to get motions filed has cost over $1000.

I recognize that some will post this email in places of enemy territory such as Quatloos, however, someday really soon all of those who make their living off of forms that violate the PRA will stand account for their own words.

I can receive support through Paypal at gnute… or lind… as well as at 5147 S Harvard Ave#116 Tulsa, OK 74135

Thank you for any support you can give and please keep me in your prayers.




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, June 21st, 2010 at 4:08 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) (*)