Posts Tagged ‘10th Circuit’


Lindsey Springer Update – Abolish the IRS Now!!

   Posted by: BobMcNeil    in IRS


From his prison cell in Big Spring, Texas, Lindsey Springer offers some insight into the current IRS scandal in Washington, D.C. involving certain tax exempt organizations.

Specifically, he asks:

“Who is the IRS?”

“Is the IRS an agency created by Congress, or by regulation?”

“What is the IRS’ legal function regarding certain organizations seeking tax exempt status?”

“Who is responsible for administering and enforcing Title 26 of the U.S. Code?”

Lindsey explains it all below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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


Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


20100508 Lindsey Springer Update from Prison

   Posted by: BobMcNeil    in IRS

Here is Lindsey Springer Update #3 – his first update from prison.


From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:gnute…]
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:26 PM
To: lindsey springer
Subject: Lindsey Springer update

Lindsey Springer here (my wife Jeanie typing while I’m on collect call) and hoping this finds you well.  For those of you who have supported us with your prayers and those who have been able to support financially, thank you very much.  I offer you this update of my current status and the issues which are being argued.

The short of it is the United States argues the 1040 complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act and in the alternative, they argue it doesn’t have to.  They cite to the Dawes decision by the 10th Circuit in ’91 which specifically didn’t accept and in fact rejected the US’s statutory origin theory.  This theory, as the argument goes, states that because the obligation to file a tax return has it’s origin in Federal law, that somehow the origin exempts the Secretary of the Treasury from complying with the mandates of Congress pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which requires the Secretary inform each of us certain information in order to be authorized to request information from us (i.e.,tax forms such as 1040).

My issue is not about taxes, income taxes or the tax laws in general.  My issue is and has always been about the Secretary of the Treasury complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act.  In the coming days, the United States is going to tell the 10th Circuit why the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the form 1040.  Their bald assertion that the Form 1040 does comply was never even suggested by them prior to trial, during trial, prior to or at sentencing.  They will need to tell the 10th Circuit that it’s Dawes decision held the Form 1040 is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The 10th Circuit has said on four different occasions to the Department of Justice the Form 1040 must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.  They said it in the Collins 1990 decision, their Dawes decision in 1991, and reaffirmed their decison in Lewis and Chisum published in 2007 by the 10th Circuit.  They also told Department of Justice on Aug. 31, 2009, the Paperwork Reduction Act defense applies to failure to file penalties and in each of the counts charged against me, without failure to file, there would be no cause of action against me.  In fact each charge specifically alleges either a Form 1040 or US individual income tax return.  On May 5, 2010, the United States altered their theory by telling the District Court their theory did not necessarily include Form 1040.  Repeating that to the 10th Circuit will not be good for them.  I know this is difficult to follow.  It is something I am continually led to pursue.

Please consider me and my family in your prayers.  And again thank you for your financial support.  For those of you interested and able to continue to support me and my family through this battle, I can receive your support still through Paypal at either lind… or gnute… or traditionally at 5147 S Harvard Ave #116 Tulsa, OK 74135 .


Anything the government says on this issue, you will be alerted immediately.

God speed,

Lindsey Springer


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: , , , , , , , ,