Lindsey Springer's Supreme Court Petition - Part 1

[Bob Hurt]

FYI

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Springer's Supreme Court Petition - Part 1
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 19:27:48 -0500
From:	Lindsey Springer <gnut...@mindspring.com>
To:	Lindsey Springer <gnut...@mindspring.com>

Lindsey Springer here hoping these words continue to draw your attention to the extent God allows.   Since my Petitions are docketed, I am sending you in a series of emails each Part of the Criminal Petition first then the Civil Petition.   Thank you for your continued prayers and support as I could not have accomplished these words without God and you.   Here is where the Petition begins:

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of ceritiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions of the United States court of appeals appear at Appendix A to the Petition and is unpublished per curiam.

The opinions of the United States district court appear at Appendix O, P, R, and are unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was October 26, 2011.  A timely petition fo rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the following date:  November 28, 2011, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix T.  An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certioari was granted to and including April 26, 2012, on February 16, 2012, in Application No. 11A791.  Jurisdiction of the Court of first instance was in dispute and was asserted to arise under 18 U.S.C. Section 3231.  The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article III, Section 2, Cl. 2 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1254(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Fifth, Sixth, and Sixtheenth Amendments, Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl.2 and 3; 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and 3231; 26 U.S.C. Sec. 61, 63, 102, 6011(a), 6012(a), 6072, 6091(a) and (b), 6151, 6201(a), 7201, 7203, 7514, 7601, 7602(a) and (b), 7808(b), 7621(a) and (b), 7801, 7805(a) and (b); 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(1)(B), 3507, and 3512(a) and (b); P.L. 105-206, Sec. 1001; 5 CFR  Sec. 1320.8(b)(3); 26 CFR 1.6011, 1.6012, 1.6091, 301.7514, 301.7701-10, 601.101, et seq.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The President ceased establishing Internal Revenue Districts pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621(a) or (b) by calender year 2000.  App. OO-4.  Petitioner contends the tax law considers the  money he receives as "gifts" and "donations" excluded from "gross income" calculations.  Petitioner did not "file" Form 1040s for any year at issue claiming a legal impossibility without "Internal Revenue Districts" identified at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6091(b), as articulated at 26 CFR Sec. 1.6091-2(2000-2004). The Secretary of the Treasury changed this regulation in 2005.

From years 2000 through 2004, Attorney Oscar Amos Stilley represented a corporation out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, named NESCO.  NESCO was controlled by Eddy Patterson. In April, 2003, Patterson and his Wife were indicted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Doublas Horn and Melody Noble Nelson ("Horn and Nelson") out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, for various crimes.  Revenue Agent Donna Meadors was "cooperating agent" with Horn and Nelson.  App. OO-15.  Stilley represented Eddy Patterson at trial.

Patterson was found guilty along with his wife on December 16, 2003.  App. W-1.  Stilley's representation was terminated in January, 2004.  On January 26, 2004, cooperating agent Meadors issues Summons to Petitioner.  App. V-1.  On May 3, 2004, Horn and Nelson, along with Special Agents of the Secretary's IRS, interviewed Ms. Patterson.  App. X-1.  On May 6, 2004, Horn and Nelson, and Special Agent Tim Arsenhault, interviewed Eddy Patterson in the "on going criminal investigation" of Petitioner and Stilley.  App. W-2.  Patterson was a supporter of Petitioner's ministry. App. G-9.  Neither Stilley or Springer knew Pattersons during the conduct alleged against them. App. G-7.

Eddy Patterson entered a post trial plea agreement with Horn and Nelson.  App. W.  Ms. Patterson received a Rule 35(b) at the same time. App. X.  On October 26, 2003, Ms. Patterson testified before Horn and Nelson's Grand Jury in the "Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley."  App. Y.  She testified to transactions between 2000 and 2003, the same years of Meadors reasons for issuing Summons.  Y-14

Petitioner cooperated fully with Meadors Summons unaware of the Grand Jury.  On December 2, 2004, Meadors closed her investigation and thanked Petitioner for his cooperation.  App. Z.  In March, 2005, Petitioner learned of Notice of Intent to Levy for 1990 through 1996.  App. AA.  In June, 2005, the Secretary purportedly issues an institutional referral for years "2000 through 2004" only.  App. CC.  This letter refers to "Brian Shern" as contact person.  App. BB-2

On September 16, 2005, Shern and Ten other Secretary's Special Agents of the "Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Division", App. EE-2, searched Petitioner's home pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7608(b) authority.  App. EE-2.  Prior to the search, Petitioner acquired a $ 250,000.00 loan from prosecution witness Patrick Turner.  App. I-4.  Turner held lien on an RV purchased with the proceeds of the loan. App. I-3.  Petitioner agreed to make $ 1400.00 payments upon renegotiating the loan.  App. I-6 

Stilley was subpoenade by Horn and Nelson's Grand Jury with the option of turning over documents to Grand Jury agent Brian Shern. App. OO-17. Stilley was repeatedly told he was not a target of the Grand Jury by Horn and Nelson when he actually was.  After meeting with Shern and Special Prosecutor Charles O'Reilly, Petitioner was indicted on March 10, 2009, along with Stilley, for conspiracy to impede the lawful functions of the IRS, Tax Evasion of Petitioner's liabilitites, and that Petitioner failed to file U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns for years 2000 through 2007.  App. JJ.  Failure to file is a lessor included offense in all Six Counts and is inexorable to the alleged conduct.  App. PP.

Petitioner waived counsel after an approximate 10 minute colloquy with the trial judge.  App. C-25.  Petitioner moved to dismiss on various grounds including the alleged Form 1040 violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, money given Petitioner was treated as income excluded from the calculation of "gross income", the place Congress directed "Tax Returns" be filed no longer existed, and evidence obtained by Meadors, Fred Rice, Brian Shern, was gathered without Congressional authorization due to both institutional committment to prosecute in 2004 and gathered after June 3, 2005, institutional referral for "2000 through 2004".  All Special Agents involved were prohibited.

The Court ordered Two Bill of Particulars.  The first defined "required by law" and the second defined "regulations thereunder."  The Prosecution proclaimed the Grand Jury indictment is not relying upon any Treasury Regulations."  App. QQ-2.  The Trial Judge denied all Motions to Dismiss by  minute order.  App. B; App. C-27; App. D; App. E-5.

At trial Petitioner's defenses were centered around money being income excluded from the calculation of "gross income", the Grand Jury's "Form 1040" and "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return" was not in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction and venue due to the revenue districts not existing.

The Trial Court instructed the Jury Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act, defined "gift" to exclude "income", and that if Petitioner lived in the Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, he was required to file Tax Returns and Pay taxes in Tulsa.  Petitioner was found guilty after 3 days of being hung and sentenced to 15 years, and ordered to pay $ 690,000.00 to the Secretary for years 1990 through 2007, and the State of Oklahoma $ 80,000.00.  On Appeal, the Panel changed the duty at issue, held Form 1040 was "divorced" from the duty, regulations control, and all revenue districts no longer existed.

I.  IN THE ABSENCE OF INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICTS AND DISTRICT DIRECTORS OFFICES, AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE LAWS RELATED TO INTERNAL REVENUE OUTSIDE WASHINGTON D.C.

The Panel holds the Secretary of the Treasury ("SOTT") and its "rule" made Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") need no authority or law expressing enforcement of laws related to internal revenue within each of the 50 States.  App. A-7.  The Panel holds correctly "Internal Revenue Districts" ("IRD") no longer exist. App. A-7.  However, the Panel holding the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, P.L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 "abolished internal revenue districts and district directors" is clearly not what Public Law 105-206 ("RRA") intends.

Section 1001(a)(2) directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") to develope and implement a plan to reorganize the SOTT's IRS.  App. U-9.  This "plan" is to "eliminate or substantially modify the existing organization of the [IRS]."  112 Stat. 685, 689 (7.22.98).  There is no mention of "IRS" in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621.  App. U-5.  No mention in Secs. 7514 or 7601 or 7602 and 7608.  "Congress, by [sec] 7601, has required the [SOTT] to canvas revenue districts."  U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308 (1978).  Summons and Search Warrants must be issued for a "Congressionally authorized purpose."  Id.  at 318. The IRS is created at 26 CFR Sec. 601.101 by the SOTT.  Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240, 247 (N.D. Ind. 1984).  Commissioner is not above the President.

The SOTT "proceeds through each internal revenue district."  U.S. v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 145 (1975).  See also Donaldson v. U.S., 400 U.S. 517, 523 (1971)(7601 "flatly imposes upon the [SOTT] the duty to canvas and inquire.")  "Without jurisdiction the Court cannot proceed at all in any case."  Steel v. Citizen for Better Envt., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998).  The presumption is against jurisdiction.  Kokkonen v. Gauradian Life, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).  Judicial districts do not coincide with Internal Revenue Districts.  See Rush v. U.S., 286 F. 2d 862, 864 (10th Cir. 1958).  See Grunsted v. CIR, 136 T.C. 455-58(2011).

Without IRDs the Secretary is not authorized to canvas and inquire.  The Panel held IRDs no longer exist.  App. A-7.  The RRA only affects the agency IRS and no statutes duly enacted and codified by Congress were abolished or changed.  If Congress intended the RRA to abolish the President's IRDs then it should have repealed every provision of law which relies upon the President establishing IRDs.  The Secretary's Treasury Regulations, which are voluminous, have not been changed.  If Congress intended what the Panel holds then why in 12 years has Congress not removed the authority under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7601 and 7621 and explained the Secretary's authority and structure?  The Panel's decision the RRA abolished IRDs and District Director Offices renderes the term "district" in the Sixth Amendment meaningless as well.

Petitioner accepts Congress may delegate authority to executive agencies to implement its programs.  See Lichter v. U.S., 334 U.S. 742, 778 (1948).  However, as the Panel recognized, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72 prohibits the power Congress granted to the Secretary from being exercised outside D.C. "unless expressly provided by law."  App. U-2.  The Panel agrees with words but identifies no provision of law allowing the Secretary to exercise his authority outside Washington D.C.

Whether it be the exercise of "lawful functions" alleged in Count One, or how the tax imposed is imposed in Counts Two, Three, and Four, or simply not filing tax return forms alleged in Six Counts "as required by law", without IRDs established conveniently by the President pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621(a) and (b), or District Director offices therein, no jurisdiction or venue to enforce tax laws was established.

[Part 2 coming soon]

=====================================================

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:

gnut...@mindspring.com

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