24
Mar

Lindsey Springer Update – March 22, 2012

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

Bob Here is the latest update from Lindsey Springer, as he continues to battle the IRS, Department of Justice, and the Courts from his prison cell in Big Spring, Texas.  In this update, he discusses the jurisdiction of the United States within a State; the effect of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 on internal revenue districts; the Tenth Circuit’s use of the 2005 version of 1.6091-2 to apply backwards to 2000 through 2004 (unconstitutional ex-post facto action); and his April 26th deadline to submit his criminal case to the Supreme Court.

Please read more below and contribute to his defense, if you are moved.

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

From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:58 PM
To: Lindsey Springer
Subject: Change you can believe in is on the Horizon

Lindsey Springer here thanking each of you for paying close attention to the events unfolding in the Supreme Court in the next few weeks over affordable health care.  The rhetoric has toned way down because it is very apparent the United States made an astronomical effort to circumvent the Constitution.

Since the Constitution was accepted the States operated exclusively within their boundaries and the United States within theirs.  The Sixth Amendment requires juries for criminal cases be drawn from the “State and district” where the offense is alleged to have occurred.  What is a “district”?  It is certainly not a State or there would be no reason to say “State and district.”  Congress is given no power to apply its local laws to conduct wholly within one of the 50 States.  The Tenth Amendment memorializes this thing called federalism.

True, they may regulate commerce “among the several States” under Article I, Section 8, Cl. 3, but if they could never impose a tax on the thing regulated then where do they get the power to prohibit it.  Federal Commerce involves articles either entering a State from another or leaving a State to another.  Thus the meaning of “among the several States” meaning between two or more States, not just one.  The phrase “among the several States” also appears in the 16th Amendment.   Words in the same contract are given the same meaning unless specified otherwise.

This is why offices created by Congress with authority are prohibited from acting outside D.C. “unless expressly provided by law.” See 4 U.S.C. Section 72.  Article III, Section 2, Cl. 3 requires any trial to be held in the State where the offense was committed but when not committed in “any State” the trial shall be at such place as Congress directs.  Offenses committed in a State are not within Congress’ power and when committed within a District they are.

26 U.S.C. Section 6091(a) is Congress directing “any return” be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury (“Secretary”) at a place designated by the Secretary  when not otherwise provided by “this title.”  Section 6091(b) so provides “Tax Returns”, which is different than “any return”, to be filed in the internal revenue district at a place prescribed therein by the Secretary. Hand carried returns under section 6091(b)(4) are to be delivered to the same place as under 6091(b)(1)(A)(i).

Those districts no longer exist since 1999.  There are many Federal Agencies that office outside D.C. but within a “district.”  U.S. Attorneys, Judges, FBI, INS, Homeland Security, and the list is endless.   The United States has no authority within a State’s jurisdiction.  The Tenth Amendment expresses this clearly.  It is an either or proposition and not joint or shared authority. The IRS was created by the Secretary through a Treasury Regulation at 26 CFR Section 601.101.  Congress directed the Secretary to work through internal revenue districts at Section 7601.  Congress directed people to work with the Secretary through internal revenue districts also at Section 6091(b).  Congress directed the President to establish these internal revenue districts. See Section 7621.  Taxes are to be paid in each internal revenue district through Section 6151.

The United States argues the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts. That is not true.  The United States refers to the Act as changing or altering the “Internal Revenue Service” not the President or Secretary’s authority.  Section 7601, 7621, nor 6151 and 6091 were changed in any way.

The President is top under Article II of the Constitution.  The Secretary’s office is created at 31 U.S.C. Section 301(a).  The Commissioner below him at 26 U.S.C. Section 7803.  The IRS under treasury regulations at Section 601.101. The Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 only directed the Commissioner to change the IRS and nothing above it. The IRS cannot tell the President what to do nor could they abolish what Congress directed the President to do. The tail does not wag the dog.

The Government in my case claimed that because revenue districts were abolished in 1999-2000, I was required to file a tax return according to regulations.  But, they also simultaneously filed statements directing the offenses alleged regarding failing to file a tax return have no connection to any regulations.  It is easy to understand why the Tenth Circuit switched my offense of conviction from Section 6091(b) to Section 6091(a).

But it was not lawful.  Congress directs “Tax Returns” under Section 6091(b) and not 6091(a).  Read it for yourself.  Just google “6091” and “tax”.

To then see how Section 6091(a) leads to regulation 1.6091-2 shows even more unconstitutional behavior.  In my case the Tenth Circuit used the 2005 version of 1.6091-2 to apply backwards to 2000 through 2004. Section 7805(b) along with the Constitution at Article I, Section 9 prohibits all ex-post facto laws (meaning laws applied after the facts occurred).

It is not hard to see what is wrong with the affordable health care act of 2010.  If people are forced to say on their Form 1040 that they did not buy insurance then the IRS will be able to use your admission against you.  There is no revenue raising connection to the penalty they will impose and if you do not pay criminal sanctions will follow.  What will be used against you to put you in prison is your own tax return.

In my case, the Tenth Circuit held a “Tax Return” and a “Tax Form” are not married but “divorced” from each other.  The law is so clear about that issue it is hard to imagine the mind set that wrote it.  For those of you dealing with the Tenth Circuit’s “local IRS office” replacing “internal revenue district district director office” I give you an example of the problem this causes.

In Tulsa, the IRS office is surrounded by a fence and a guard and no one goes in without an appointment.  How can you file a tax return under that circumstance?  You obviously cannot.  Can you image, “I left it with the Guard along with the money”?

I hope my words point you in the direction the Supreme Court is heading regarding the IRS.  I am sure they realize Congress cannot change anything and that leaves them to do it.  In order for them to do it they need a case or controversy to do it.  That is where us people come in very handy.

God bless you all and thank you for all your continued support.  My civil case has been returned to me for one more correction not noted last time and my criminal case is due to the Supreme Court by April 26, 2012.

I need as much help as God inspires you to give.

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

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

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

May God bless Lindsey Springer and his 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 Saturday, March 24th, 2012 at 12:39 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