Springer's purported "con" by Lindsey Springer
Wolf
Springer's purported "con" by Lindsey Springer
From: "Lindsey Springer" <gnut...@mindspring.com>
Date: November 14, 2009 04:54:45 AM PST
To: "lindsey springer" <lin...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Springer's purported "con" by Lindsey Springer
Lindsey Springer here and I wish to report that currently the jury in
my case is stuck on something but that something no person actually knows.
However, I would like to direct your attention to my direct testimony and
show you where the problem is in this
country. It is located on the form 1040 itself. I can make this no more
clear than by showing you the three competing issues in the charges against
me.
First, the Government in closing yesterday told the jury that Oscar Stilley
and Lindsey Springer were con men who prayed upon people in distress with
tax crimes by telling them the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 was a
complete defense to any charge that encompassed the failure to file a
"return" mandated by statute.
THE DISPUTE-
Our alleged "con" begins with these words:
CONGRESS' WORDS THAT ARE ETCHED IN STONE
§ 3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject
to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that
is subject to this subchapter if--
(1) the collection of information (Form) does not display a valid control
number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the
collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the
collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a
complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency
administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
The question is whether I, or anyone else, was required by any specific
law to answer the questions on Form 1040 for years 2000 through 2005, for
the purpose of being subjected to penalties. I have never told someone not
to file a return because of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 commands or
violations. I have only directed
people to this act in effort to deflect or defeat penalty claims by the IRS
because they have not earned them nor deserve them.
THE COURT-
LINDSEY SPRINGER - DIRECT BY MR. SPRINGER
1 The Court has emphatically rejected any substantive defense
2 based on the Paperwork Reduction Act
See Page 175, line 1-2
LINDSEY SPRINGER - DIRECT BY MR. SPRINGER
Members of the jury, perhaps it's time to reiterate
8 one matter. And all I'm going to do is repeat one thing
9 I said yesterday. The Court has ruled that the Form 1040
10 did not and does not violate the Paperwork Reduction
11 Act.
See Page 207, beginning line 7 of Springer Direct Testimony
During the middle of my closing argument the District Court repeated this
statement to the jury for the third time.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-
The United States Department of Justice argued on Docket 71, page 6
that United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir.1992) held "that
tax form instruction books are not an agency request for information subject
to the PRA"; United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1191-93 (10th Cir.
1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990).
The United States Department of Justice argued in Docket 104, pg. 1
(first Bill of Particulars) that the "filing of income tax returns is
mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th
Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189,
1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th
Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991);
United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).
The United States Department of Justice and IRS have consistently
argued that the requirement to file a "tax return" is mandatory but that
they will not specifically commit that such requirement is mandated to be
accomplished on Form 1040. Nor will they ever commit to what mandate the
Form 1040 satisfies.
UNITED STATES? IRS-BRIAN MILLER EXPERT -
November 5, 2009 during presentation of case-Springer asking questions-
Q. Is it your testimony here today that I was required
5 to file a return?
6 A. That is my testimony, yes.
7 Q. Because the income -- the gross income exceeded the
8 threshold amount?
9 A. That's absolutely right.
10 Q. What form was I required to file?
11 A. You were required to make a return.
12 Q. I wasn't required to file a Form 1040?
13 A. The form -- it has been a while since I've looked at
14 that. I know that the Form 1040 is an accepted form for
15 making a return, but it seems like -- the law says you
16 have to make a return.
17 Q. So as far as you're concerned, the law doesn't
18 specify what the form is supposed to be for the word
19 "return"?
20 A. No, the law does specify what the form has to be.
21 It has been a long time since I've looked at that.
Miller Cross, pg. 93, beginning line 4
GAO REPORT MAY 2005 (listed at penaltyprotestor.org)
In footnote 50 of the May, 2005 GAO report on issue of IRS
non-compliance with the PRA, at page 31, GAO explains the obligation
regarding any Agency claim that their request form (form 1040 for example)
to the public is mandatory. This footnote reads:
The requirements for this statement and the OMB number are together known as
the "public protection provision," in that a person cannot be penalized for
not responding if either the control number or the statement is absent.
However, the public protection provision may not apply if the collection is
mandated by statute (e.g., the requirement to file a tax return).
GAO report next begins to explain how to determine if the Agency demand
for information on its request for information form is mandatory according
to some law of congress. On page 32 of the GAO report, the GAO stated:
However, collection forms on the four agencies? Web sites did not
consistently include required information. Specifically, an estimated 41
percent of forms (487 of 1,179 total forms, excluding bootleg and expired
forms) on the four agencies. Web sites "ranging from 13 percent at VA to 55
percent at HUD" contained one or more violations
On page 34 of the GAO Report, GAO further explains how an agency may be
excused from the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 regarding their request
from the public for certain information:
In the case of IRS, most of the agency's noncompliance resulted from forms
that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected.
OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite the law or
other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain
or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social Security payment) or is
mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to
respond).51 However, the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the
required reference to the law:
We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue
laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We
need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to
figure and collect the right amount of tax.
When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring
information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS
Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS's burden estimation methodology
increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to
include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us
that citing the "Internal Revenue laws of the United States" provided
adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite
a specific
law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the regulations require
citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS
corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is
associated with the information requested.
If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements
described, the public may be asked to provide information without
appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to
exercise scrutiny of agencies collections.
REVIEW OF THE ABOVE
Congress tells the whole world "no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is
subject to this subchapter if--
the Form does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in
accordance with this subchapter; or
the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of
information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of
information unless it displays a valid control number.
Public Protection Provision (3512) can be raised as complete defense at
any time.
Court tells Jury Form 1040 without citing to any specific year "does
not violate" the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Court tells Springer there
is no substantive defense regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act violations
on form 1040 during trial.
United State Department of Justice argues the requirement to file a
"tax return" is mandated by statute and therefore the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 provides no protection from penalties for failure to file a
return when mandated by statute. In
essence they argue the Form 1040 does not have to comply with the
requirements of the PRA or OMB regulations.
IRS claims requirement is to file "return" and that they just could not
remember which specific form the law requires to be filed by Springer. The
IRS expert is certain a specific form is identified in the law but it had
been so long he could not remember at the time he was testifying as an
"expert."
GAO says if any request for information by any Agency is asserted by
such Agency to be "mandatory" or "mandated by statute" then the Agency must
do two things. First, they must cite the statute on the Form itself and then
they must inform the public on such form
that the public's obligation to answer the questions on the form is
mandatory. In the second requirement, the Agency gathering the information
is to explain on the purported mandated provision that the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 does not apply to the mandated request and that if a
member of the public does not answer such request there is criminal
sanctions that could result citing to such specific criminal provision
(giving proper notice to the public).
GAO also informs IRS in its report they are not in compliance with the
PRA or OMB regulations on many of its forms without citing specifically to
Form 1040. IRS argues to GAO that having to inform the public of what law
mandates the public answer the form 1040 questions would place significant
burden on the public to read the law and it is for that reason they do not
cite any specific law.
Springer cannot even find on form 1040 the phrase "the law requires" or
any other similar phrase referenced in the GAO report at issue between GAO,
OMB and IRS let alone "mandatory" or other specific words explaining what
obligates answers to be given with criminal penalty for failure to answer.
Springer claims the Form 1040 for 2000 through 2005 (at issue in
criminal case) fails to comply with 44 U.S.C. section 3506(c)(1)(B), 3507,
3512 as well as 5 CFR 1320.8, 1320.9, as well as said form 1040 does not
fulfill the certification promise IRS's Certifying Information Officer (CIO)
certified on its 83-I for 1998, 2001, 2004
and 2005, that each Form 1040 would display information to the public
regarding those 10 requirements the PRA and OMB regulations mandate.
Springer also claims form 1040 for years 2000 through 2005 does not
cite a single code provision nor any statement the form is mandated by that
code provision. The form also fails to inform the person being asked to
answer questions on form 1040 any other
mandated by Congress required information.
Because you probably would never ever see this again in your lifetime
and because the possibility exists that I may not ever again be able to
explain to you my findings, I thought I would take the opportunity to share
with you my purported "con" so you can decide for yourself where the label
"con" actually should be placed.
I am just a foot soldier serving my God and Country.
11.14.09
ps. Both transcripts of myself with the Court's words and Mr. Miller's
words should be on penaltyprotestor.org today! The docket entries 71 and 104
should also be posted as well.
pss. If you wish to fix the problem with our country then you must join the
fight to force IRS to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as
well as the IRS "certifications" they purported to agree to on their Form
83-I application for OMB approval which is the only current way for the IRS
to seek information from the public on Form 1040. If you do not focus your
energy and attention on this specific issue then you and I will continue
to wrestle with every Agency and be subject to criminal penalties with every
agency, State or Federal, without any rules that govern their insatiable
thirst for information, now electronic information, that big governments
need to grow bigger. Imagine being tried criminally for willful failure to
enter into a contract with the United States for "health" insurance. The
issue is how do they compel you to sign your name to a contract and what law
passed by Congress mandates such public activity and could such law pass
constitutional challenges.
pss. As always with my purported "con" I include in that purported "con" a
request for "money." My pay pal address is gnut...@mindspring.com and my
mailing address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135.
Thank you for spending your time reading my "worthless" words.
cpt banjo
> Springer's purported "con" by Lindsey Springer
>
> mailing address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135.
>
> Thank you for spending your time reading my "worthless" words.
Your boy was convicted of all counts today.