Lindsey Springer Update – April 7, 2012

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

Bob Here is the latest update from Lindsey Springer from his cell in Federal prison in Big Spring, Texas.  The forward is from Bob Hurt, who runs the “Lawmen” Google Group from his home in Florida.

For all who have suffered at the hands of the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice, Bob and Lindsey say it all.  The only thing I will add is that, while I continue to fight my own battle, I will also continue to post updates from Lindsey here, as I receive them.

Please read on.

From Bob Hurt:

A federal court convicted Lindsey Springer of tax crimes and sentenced him to years in prison, and did the same to Arkansas attorney Oscar Stilley.  The court treated them all the more brutally for their leadership roles in anti-IRS litigation.  Lindsey, bless his heart, writes from prison and his son types the messages and forwards them to some.  So, I forward this in order that you might take heart from his fight.

I have written a main point Lindsey made at the time of his conviction, that the law requires Internal Revenue District Directors in the chain of delegation of authority from Congress to individual tax collectors in the IRS, but by Treasury Department Order over a decade ago, the districts no longer exist, so the IRS may not collect income tax.

But of course, the IRS does it anyway under some rubric of law most do not understand.  And the agents hem, haw, and sputter in court when questioned about that and the connection between the requirement to file and the 1040 which clearly violates the Paperwork Reduction Act, even though courts seem reluctant to admit it.

The long and short of this:  many good and honorable people like Lindsey and Oscar and Sherry Jackson languish or languished in prison who should not because America’s crooked executive branch commits enforcement crimes against the people who stand up against illegal taxation.

In my personal opinion, the typical American owes no income tax because the internal revenue laws cannot and do not apply to him.  Ways exist to deal with government agents for wrongly forcing folks to pay tax they don’t owe.  When contemplating physical force as a tool, patriots and tyrants should mind the historical and prudential notions that:

1.       From time to time the “blood of patriots and tyrants must water the tree of liberty;”

2.      A fire-breathing dragon does not function well without its head; and

3.      One most easily defeats an enemy at the inception of the plots to injure, rob, or enslave; and

4.      EVERY American has culpability for the crimes in government, and personal obligation to take down the criminals.

Lindsey and Oscar sit in prison for YOU.  They might not have approached their American duty correctly, but at least they approached it, which is more than I can say for most of the people I know and who have taken liberty for granted.

If you want your life to matter at all, you ought to join Truth Attack and work to implement 1-4 above without seeing too much of your own blood spilt.

Before I send you below to read Lindsey’s remarks, I ask that you consider the following:

1.       What law makes you liable for or subject to an income tax for revenue purposes?

2.      Under what law does the money you receive constitute “taxable income?”

3.      What difference exists between tax liabilities under Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A and F?

4.      What should you do about lies in your Individual Master File regarding your status (are you engaged in a “trade or business”, what is your “trade or business”, do you live in the “federal zone,” and are you a “filer” or “non-filer)?”

5.      What should you do about false 3rd party reports that you earned “taxable income?”

6.      What should you do to determine whether a tax collector has an unbroken chain of delegation of authority from Congress?

7.      What should you do to a tax collector who attempts a collection action?

a.      Without that unbroken chain of delegation of authority?

b.      Without a valid assessment certified under penalty of perjury (see 26 USC 7806 and 6065)?

c.       Without a valid tax return that complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act?

8.     Who are your US Senators and Representatives, and what have you told them to do regarding the convoluted  internal revenue laws that make you seem liable for tax that you actually do not owe, and about the confusing language of the 16th Amendment (why do you keep electing the bastards who allow the executive branch to steal from you), and the crooked behavior of judges in tax related controversies?

9.      How can you keep government-employed criminals from stealing your wealth and thereby preventing you from fighting an administrative, legal, and political battle for your rights and against unconstitutional, unlawful collection of taxes you don’t owe.

If you cannot answer the above questions, and if you want the ability to answer them, let me know by return email.

Okay, read Lindsey’s comments below

Bob Hurt


From Lindsey Springer:

From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:44 PM
To: Lindsey Springer
Subject: Issues to pay attention to in the Supreme Court

Lindsey Springer here hoping each of you are blessed and that God answers all your needs.  I have two dates to watch and pray for.  First, is my Criminal Petition for Writ of Certiorari due this month,  and Second, my civil case returns for the third time where they took my home and suspended Mr. Barringer for pointing out that internal revenue districts no longer exist.  Interestingly, the Tenth Circuit, in the Criminal case, found internal revenue districts no longer exist showing they were just retaliating against me and Barringer for forcing them to acknowledge what the law really is.

The questions presented herein are simplified versions to what I am presenting to the Supreme Court.  The reason this may grab more attention is due to the obligation most people would have to report their insurance status to the IRS on Form 1040.  In the criminal case against me, the Tenth Circuit overturned the Grand Jury indictment, where I was alleged to be required to file a “Form 1040” and “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” for 2000 through 2005, and held the requirement to file a tax return is “divorced” from Form 1040.  Yep, seems hard to believe since at trial the Court told the Jury Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and both Special Agent Brian Shern and Revenue Agent Brian Miller testified the Form 1040 was the Form required (Miller did have trouble answering those questions though).

The Fact the Tenth Circuit held Form 1040 was divorced from the obligation to file a tax return is shocking.  That they would move the requirement out of 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b), and into 6091(a), is simply erroneous.  That they would affirm all Six Counts on Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 1.6091-2(2005) after the Government, in its Court ordered Second Bill of Particulars, denounced any connection with any Treasury Regulations, and never cited 1.6091-2 in that Second Bill of Particulars, each are equally not in accord with due process or the Grand Jury indictment.

That the Tenth Circuit would apply a 2005 Treasury Regulation to years 2000 through 2004 both violates the ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 9, Cl. 3, and 26 U.S.C. Section 7805(b).  Even the Criminal referral was limited to years “2000 through 2004”.  Section 7805(b) prohibits retroactive  application of Treasury Regulations in any case, civil or criminal.

The reason why the Court was able to give such a stiff sentence was because it went beyond the referral and did so without jurisdiction.   The Court prohibited me from obtaining the testimony of now Special Agent Donna Meadors who on December 2, 2004, thanked me for cooperating with her investigation.  The Court said Touhy regulations overrides the Sixth Amendment.  Essentially, I have to ask permission to have Meadors testify because she works for the IRS.  I have obviously objected to that as being in violation of the Sixth Amendment as it clearly is.

Other areas I have hit hard are what authority the Secretary of the Treasury has after referral and what happens with that authority when a Grand Jury is empaneled and Revenue Agent simultaneously enforce, or seek to enforce, tax laws.  The issue about how IRS Special Agents can enforce, or act under 26 U.S.C. Section 7608(b), after referral, is also center stage.  Special Agent Brian Shern is named in the June 3, 2005, letter of referral and on September 16, 2005, he and Eleven Special Agents, in their IRS capacity, searched my home.  This is where the $2,000 was stolen creating Springer v. Horn, et al, 06-cv-156 in the Northern District, which led to being overturned on appeal, where the Tenth Circuit granted qualified immunity to all those alleged to have stolen from me.  This is where they held no case had given the Agents notice they could be held liable for stealing money during a search.  Their only immunity was they were in my home as IRS Agents.  If that was not true, and the June 3, 2005, letter shows it is not, then all evidence construed against me must be suppressed and the Trial Court was wrong for refusing to do so.

Besides the Paperwork Reduction Act providing a complete defense, I have also asserted the entire conviction was obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 9, Cl. 3.  Consider the following:

1)  Did Congress direct the internal revenue districts called for by Congress at 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b), 7601, and 7621, be abolished in enacting the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998?

2)  Is the obligation to deliver a prescribed Form of Return to the Secretary of the Treasury fall under 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b), as alleged by the Prosecution and maintained in the District Court by the Trial Judge, or does the requirement to file a “Tax Return” fall under Section 6091(a), as the Panel on appeal switched to?

3)  Where the Prosecution denounced Treasury Regulations played any role in the obligations alleged in the indictment to deliver a “Tax Return” Form 1040 and pay taxes, was it a violation of due process and Grand Jury provision secured by the Fifth Amendment, and Jury Trial Right secured by the Sixth Amendment, for the Tenth Circuit on appeal to affirm all Six Counts on Treasury Regulation 26 CFR Section 1. 6091-2(2005)?

4) Do the Penalties imposed on Petitioner for not filing prescribed Forms of Returns to the Secretary withstand the public protection under 44 U.S.C. Section 3512(a)(1995)?

5)  Is the Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return “divorced” or “inexorably linked” to the obligation to provide income tax information to the Secretary and pay taxes owed therefrom?

6)  Is the District Court’s Jurisdiction over the offenses limited to the years listed in the letter dated June 3, 2005, of 2000 through 2004, or is it 1990 through 2007, as the District Court proceeded to trial and sentencing?

7) Did the Secretary of the Treasury’s Agent use of his Congressional authority while a Grand Jury was empaneled, or after the June 3, 2005, referral for 2000 through 2004, violate the prophylactic rule announced in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308 to 317(1978)?

8)  What authority to serve search warrants remains with the Secretary of the Treasury after referral?

9)  At what point does a loan become “gross income”?

10) Do Touhy Regulations override the Right to call witnesses secured by the Sixth Amendment for Trial?

11) Did the Court’s Jury Instruction on gift which told the Jury gifts were not “income” and its decision to deny Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on issues related to the receipt of gifts, violate CIR v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 284-89(1960)?

12)  Is the Tenth Circuit’s finding Petitioner, during one approximately 10 minute colloquy with the Trial Judge, voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently, waived his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel for all stages of the Trial Process?

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers and I hope this provides you with enough information to know what to pray for.  I will refile the civil case at the same time as the criminal case is filed.  Once docketed, I will send out the 40 page arguments in both cases.  With so much riding on the Form 1040 it is difficult the imagine the Supreme Court would endorse the public to take the position the requirement to file an income tax return is “divorced” from Form 1040.  How would anyone report their insurance contract, or need to be penalized, if the issue does not arise on Form 1040?

I am in need of financial help if you are so led as the costs is enormous.  My exhibits exceed 600 pages and I have to mail numerous copies.

Thank you for your time.

God Bless You,

Lindsey Springer



Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far.  I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:  [email protected]

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________  Springer
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK  74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX  79720


Lindsey & Family


In freedom,

Bob McNeil
Ph: (713) 806-5199
All About Me


No direct unapportioned 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 9th, 2012 at 6:05 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.

2 comments so far


Thanks for sharing your thoughts on irs installment agreements.

October 22nd, 2014 at 6:18 am

Thank you for this informative post. I just want to share a good source for Tax forms and tutorials – PDFfiller. It has a ton of Tax Forms. It helps me fill out a needed form neatly and gives me the option to esign. http://goo.gl/TGCvBH

November 8th, 2014 at 3:56 am

Leave a reply

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