Independent American News

Please go to http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html or just click here to post a comment on this article.

Bury them is pro-Kahre pro hard money comments.

Bilderberg Group orders destruction of US Dollar?
Thursday, 21 May 2009

A new Kremlin report on the shadowy Bilderberg Group, who this past week held their annual meeting in Greece, states that the West’s financial, political and corporate elite emerged from their conclave after coming to an agreement that in order to continue their drive towards a New World Order dominated by the Western Powers, the US Dollar has to be “totally” destroyed.

Even worse, a new US report on these secret Bilderberg meetings states: “Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.”

Prior to the Bilderberg Meeting, the Kremlin report continues, most of the West’s wealthiest elite convened at an unprecedented secret meeting in New York called for and led by the staunch New World Order list David Rockefeller to plot the demise of the US Dollar and which, strangely, was reported in the US mainstream propaganda media, but to which the dissident American website PrisonPlanet.Com questioned by stating:

“ABC News today devoted a prominently featured three page story to a “secret meeting” of rich philanthropists which took place earlier this month in New York, and yet one of the biggest news corporations in America was completely silent during a far more important meeting of around 150 of the world’s powerbrokers at the Bilderberg conference last week.”

To the ‘ultimate’ outcome of the plans of the West’s elite classes, connived under the auspicious of the Nazi backed Bilderberg Group, Russian Intelligence Analysts predict that their fears of “losing control” due to the catastrophic chaos they are embroiling our World in are, indeed, valid, especially since the unleashing upon our Earth’s population the bioengineered H1N1 Swine Flu variant that is continuing its unrelenting march of death and illness across our entire Earth, and when coupled with the total collapse of the Global economic system can only lead to Total War.

Russian President Medvedev has joined calls by China, Brazil, and other Nations, to prepare for the collapse of the US Dollar and has put forth the Russian Ruble as one of a number of International Reserve Currencies to replace the soon to collapse American currency, and as warned about by the St. Petersburg Times News Service:

“Last week, despite the apparent appeal of the dollar in the midst of this global crisis, the U.S. bond market — often a harbinger of future trends — suddenly panicked, and the prices of U.S. Treasury bonds plummeted with 10-year yields jumping to over 3.3 percent. This could be ominous for the future of the dollar.”

Even worse for these American people is how horrific their immediate economic future is going to be, and as best articulated by Gary Dorsch, the editor of Global Money Trends, who writes: “No one is asking who will purchase the $1-trillion of US Treasuries to be offered to the market by September. Once that colossal amount of paper is bought, who will purchase another $5-trillion of Treasury paper over the next four-years, as the US-government plunges deeper into insolvency. The Federal Reserve would be forced to print (monetize) vast quantities of US-dollars to pay the principal and interest on the national debt that is not covered by tax revenue.”

Bloomberg News Service is further reporting today that the concerns of the US Federal Reserve Bank are also growing, and as we can read, “Policy makers, meeting April 28-29 in Washington, saw “significant downside risks” to the outlook for the economy, with the global financial system still “vulnerable to further shocks,” minutes of the session released yesterday said.”

With the US now reporting another record being set in the number of their citizens out of work and claiming unemployment benefits, the true number of American jobless has reached a staggering 15.8% of their workforce with no relief in sight and many Russian analysts predicting a summer of violence due to massive discord among these beleaguered people as once their relief payments run out there exists no more money to pay them.

It is important to note that Great Britain is preceding the US into bankruptcy and is reported close to losing its AAA Credit Rating as it suffers its worst economic crisis since World War II, with the Financial Post issuing a further warning to the Americans, and as we can read:

“The U.S. dollar’s day of reckoning may be inching closer as its status as a safe-haven currency fades with every uptick in stocks and commodities and its potential risks - debt and inflation - are brought under a harsher spotlight. Ashraf Laidi, chief market strategist at CMC Markets, said Wednesday a “serious case of dollar damage” was underway. “We long warned about the day of reckoning for the dollar emerging at the next economic recovery,” Mr. Laidi said in a note.”

After the deliberate collapsing of the US Dollar, these reports continue, the Bilderberg ‘plan’ for the Global economy rests on what are called Special Drawing Rights issued by the Western controlled International Monetary Fund, and which the Telegraph News Service succinctly warns:

“The International Monetary Fund is poised to embark on what analysts have described as “global quantitative easing” by printing billions of dollars worth of a global “super-currency” in an unprecedented new effort to address the economic crisis.”

Russian economists warn that this IMF attempt to destroy the value of Eastern European, Asian and Middle Eastern economies is ‘doomed to failure’, and now being reported that oil rich Saudi Arabia has now joined Russia, China and Brazil by refusing to lend to this travesty of a bank backed by the West and intent upon massive destruction to obtain their goals.

The American people continue to remain, for the most part, blissfully unaware of catastrophe looming before them and continue to believe the litany of Orwellian lies being poured upon them by their propaganda media organs, never once raising any objection to trillions of dollars that have been stolen from them and which continues to flow the pockets of their political and corporate overlords intent upon destroying, forever, their once great Nation and which the US Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman stated brazenly before the US Congress that she has “no idea” where $9 Trillion of US taxpayer has gone, or who got it.

But, to the worst actions being done by these witless Americans is their continuing to pay into their bankrupt banks their hard-earned monies which within the next year will cease to have any value whatsoever instead of using what little time they have left to prepare for the many catastrophes to come. And, what makes this especially appalling is that these Americans are continuing to pay their debts so that they can remain good credit risks, while at the same time their banks are bankrupt, their government broke and their way of life changed forever.

One wonders if these people have truly lost the instinct to survive or, before all is said and done, they will explode with righteous anger over the destruction of their homes, families and Nation as a whole. //Sorcha Faal

By Christopher Hansen,

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made a telling declaration concerning METRO and their level of “integrity.” The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that Gillespie said: “As your sheriff, it is extremely important to me that Metro continues to have a reputation of integrity and transparency… I promise you that as your sheriff, I will do everything I can to maintain the public trust.”

Did you honestly read what the Sheriff said? He said it was important that METRO continues to have a reputation of integrity, not that METRO actually have integrity. BIG DIFFERENCE. The Sheriff continued his propaganda by saying, “I will do everything I can to maintain the public trust.” Like lie? Like cover up so the public does not know what criminals they have working for them as Police? Why didn’t the Sheriff say that he would do everything he can to ensure that the public can honestly trust these distrustful law violating criminal Cops? Because he said what he meant and meant what he said is why. He does not care a whit if his Cops have integrity or he would have said it. He said it was important to him that Metro continues to have a reputation of integrity. And that is VERY different!

My brother, Danny, always used to say that Richard Nixon got the reputation of being an anti-Communist by prosecuting Communist Spy Alger Hiss so it no longer mattered how much he proved he was a Communist or a Socialist by implementing the Communist Manifesto in the America because if you can just get the REPUTATION as an earlier riser then you can sleep as late in that day as you want to.

Sheriff Gillespie is just following this age old adage of the propaganda rule book followed by tyrants of every nation, kindred, tongue and people. Make it LOOK or SOUND like you want things to improve but be honest. Don’t seek for actual integrity. Just get the people to believe you have integrity and then you can continue to be criminals. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Bush and Nixon would be so proud of Sheriff Gillespie, their disciple of the Religion of Marxism.

Just look at all of the Hope and Change we have since Obama took office. Obama has changed into George Bush. Now that may not be the Hope and Change Democrats were looking for but that is what they got.

Now back to the criminal Cops expose’:

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie changed his story from the original Cover the Cops First and Ask Question Later Standard Operating Procedure and admitted that METRO officer James Manor was driving at an excessive speed EVEN if he had been running with lights and sirens AND that METRO officer James Manor was driving 109 MPH without lights OR sirens. YES! This “hero Cop” died in the commission of a crime. Sheriff Gillespie’s SAYS he received incorrect information from officers OTHER than the “secondary officer” that was, according to eye witnesses, racing Officer Manor on their way to a 911 call that later proved to be a non-emergency.

Has the other criminal or so called “secondary officer” that Officer Manor had been racing at 109 MPH been charged with contributory negligence in the death of Officer Manor? Why not? Has he been charged with reckless driving or careless driving or speeding? Will we ever know or will that be private personnel information that would harm the “reputation of the integrity” of METRO and so needs to be silenced by Sheriff Gillespie so that he can keep his promise that he will do EVERYTHING he can to “maintain the public trust”?

Once again the facts and evidence confirm what the non-Cop eyewitnesses told officers at the scene and show the immediate cover-up that started AT THE SCENE to protect the “reputation of integrity” of METRO. The Officer that tragically died was BREAKING THE LAW. The officer that was following him was BREAKING THE LAW. Officer Manor died because he was BREAKING THE LAW.

Oh yes…I forgot to mention. Officer Manor was not wearing his safety belt either. That is also a misdemeanor.

Please write to Sheriff Gillespie and tell him that you don’t want METRO to have a reputation of integrity. Tell him you want them to actually HAVE integrity.

Office of The Sheriff
(702) 828-3231
Sheriff@lvmpd.com

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
3141 SUNRISE AVENUE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101

By Christopher Hansen

I just received the following news from Lindsay Springer. It is wonderful news for those of us that are battling the Beast. And yet at the same time it shows how evil our executive branch has become. Everyone that wants to fight the IRS had best read this and then if you decide that it is just to risky to be a good Christian and fight the Beast then may your chains set lightly upon you and may history REMEMBER that you were a coward that cared more about your temporary safety than you did about the liberty of the next generation.

Subject: Court Orders depositions to begin in 06-156 Springer v. 11 CID Agents, Trial in November, 2009 and warning to Department of Justice lawyers “there will be no more motions without leave of Court” - Tax Court Orders Area Counsel to address misconduct.

To:

Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 3:13 PM

Lindsey Springer here and providing you with an update regarding certain litigation in various Congressionally established United States Courts to which I am a party. For those of you who did not get my email on R.A. Mitchell that deposition can be down loaded at www.penaltyprotestor.org. Look on the Right side of the front page.

There are three cases discussed herein and all related: Springer v. 11 CID Agents of the IRS 06-156 (N.D..Oklahoma), USA v. Springer 08-278 (N.D. Oklahoma) and Springer v. CIR 3781-09 L (Tax Court)

06-156 Bivens Theft of Money Case:

In 2002, I witnessed the United States Department of Justice Attorneys then in the Northern District U.S. Attorney’s Office, Melody Noble Nelson (now back in Oklahoma Medcare Fraud Unit) and Douglas Horn (Presently transfered to the U.S. Attorney Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma heading that “districts” criminal prosecution as “chief”) threatened a witness before a 28 U.S.C. section 1861 “Grand Jury” after his testimony by spitting on his attorney and telling this person that if he did not get another attorney he would be going to prison for the rest of his life. I remember thinking to myself why would it matter who the attorney was in relation to any length of sentence a person might get if they are found guilty of violating certain laws of the United States.

Anyway, in 2003, trial was finally held and this person, along with his wife were found guilty. During the trial, a chief witness for Horn and Nelson was then Revenue Agent Donna Meadors who had testified as to the tax information and its meaning against this Husband and Wife. In January 2004, Nelson and Horn directed a David Reed, the civil/criminial coordinator for “Oklahoma” to cause me to be investigated under section 6700 for no reason whatsoever other than I had seen what they had done. Usually in criminal tax cases there are no persons watching from the public seats. I was watching as I have done 31 times from start to finish. This investigation of me was conducted by, you guessed it, Donna Meadors. Ms. Meadors informed me of her summons by using 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135.

From January 2004 to December 2004 this investigtion was conducted. I first asked if I was under criminal investigation and Donna Meadors without any hesitation answered NO. I asked her if she was working with any criminal investigators because I knew she had done so in the case I recently witnessed her testify in and she answered that question NO. I asked her who appointed her to investigate me and she said she was not allowed to tell me that but she assured me there was not even the hint of any criminal investigation. She told me she had a tape she found for sale on the internet with me speaking in 1995. I have never sold any tapes on the internet or made any money from the sale of any tapes on the internet. I have never prohibted any recording of any thing I have to say. Based upon these assurances the investigation continued. In December, 2004, I was given a letter telling me I was no longer under investigation pursuant to section 6700. What I was not told was that Ms. Meadors was actually doing a preliminary criminal investigation. She was up to far more than she stated to me.

On March 4, 2005, I returned home from practice after being gone a week to have an IRS Revenue Officer card taped to my front door with the words “call me” on it. I did and on March 6, 2005, an Agent Fred Rice told me he had sent me a Notice of Levy on March 2, 2005. I asked him where did he send this notice and when he told me the address was 5943 E. 13th, Tulsa, Oklahoma, I asked him where he got that address. He told me he got it from the same file Donna Meadors was using. Remember, Meadors used 5147 S. Harvard at all times.

In August 2004, Ms. Meadors informed me that she had mis-spoke when she told me she was the only person reviewing any information given her by summons and informed me a reveneu officer is always assigned with 6700 investigations. She also informed me that she was approved to become CID Agent and that my 6700 case was her last assignment. In April, 2009, she was deposed by me and said that she had actually applied for CID (Criminal Investigation Division)(now referred to as CI) and that her application was pending in 2003 during the criminal case I spoke about above. That application was later turned down. She also said it was the second application for her to go from Revenue Agent (since 1992) to CID Agent that was pending during her investigation of me under 6700. Rice’s “Notice of Levy” was accompanied by an offer, as 26 U.S.C. section 6330 mandates, for a Collection Due Process hearing. He just used the wrong address to give me notice. He sent me a copy and needless to say I demanded that hearing. Eventually that hearing was denied.

Knowing I had only used the 5147 S. Harvard address, I smelled a dead fish (or rat if you like). Because of this blatant and reckless violation of due process and because that smell was in the air, I sued Mr. Rice in Federal Court in Oklahoma City. Not for any money damages but just for deterimination he was intentionally violating my rights uner CDP which requires usage of the last known address. This case No. 05-466 and the Judge assigned was Steven P. Friot after several recusals of other Judges. A Robert D. Metcalfe for the U.S. Department of Justice was assigned to the case to represent Rice and others involved in the due process violations. This case was commenced on April 25, 2005, and on April 26, 2005, CID Agent named Brian Shern declared he was assigned to investigate me. I learned later this stemmed from Ms. Meadors “criminal referal..” Shern became a CID Agent in March, 2005, at the same time Rice was using intentionally the wrong address to give me certain notices required by law.

CID Agent Shern began working with, yep, you geussed it, Melody Noble Nelson and Dougals Horn, to investigate me for criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code. On August 16, 2005, I received formal denial of my request for a Collection Due Process hearing. On September 15, 2005, I appealed that determination to the same Court that the case I filed against Mr. Rice was pending. This case was 05-1075 and Judge Steven P. Friot was assigned to that case (same Judge as 05-466). Metcalfe for the Department of Justice was also assigned to represent the IRS.

Things are about to dramatically change at this point. On September 16, 2005, the day after I timely filed 05-1075 in Oklahoma City, 11 Agents and Nelson and Horn by phone, including Shern, stormed the home I live in with what purported to be a search warrant. There was not a single listing of any contraband whatsoever to be searched for or seized. Just things I had written and currency. This warrant was represented as “at the request of a Grand Jury.” I was given no list until almost the end of the search of what they were to look for and take. With guns drawn the 11 CID Agents began their assault. At the beginning of the search while I was quarantined upstairs with Shern and another CID Agent, other Agents located $ 19,000 in currency. Three Agents along with my wife counted each note and all arrived at the same amount. A receipt 7 hours later was given to me which indicated this amount along with all other things they were taking.

I asked why the currency was being taken and Shern said because Nelson and Horn ordered it to be taken and that if I had any questions to contact Nelson. You bet I did. Ms. Nelson refused to give the currency back arguing that it was evidence of “cash dealing.” I asked her if she was aware of the collection freeze in Oklahoma City by way of 05-1075, and she responded that was a civil case for different years and did not affect what she was doing. P.U. at this point.

I filed a request for the money back and car titles to which Nelson and Horn opposed saying these items were “evidence” of crimes. I asked “what crimes” could these things possibly be evidence of under the tax code and Nelson refused to say. The Court denied my request “without prejudice” and in a footnot informed Nelson and Horn that they need to be prepared to show how the titles and currency were “contraband” in order to keep them. Within 60 days Shern delivered titles to me but not the currency. I persisted in seeking its return. Shern directed me to Horn and after Horn did not respond, I decided first of the year, 2006, I would move again for the return of the currency.

On January 10, 2006, Shern and another Agent pay a visit to me at the home where I live and handed me a “waiver” to sue form. I said what is this and as I read it the waiver asked me to not sue for the taking of $ 17,000. I asked where the other $2,000 was and Shern replied he did not know. I was told I could not have the $ 17,000 unless I signed the waiver. I signed the waiver and took the check.

In February, 2006 I sued Horn, Nelson, and the 11 Agents under a Bivens style case based upon the violation of the Fourth Amendment. I had my first hearing in this case on May 15, 2009. This is why I write on this case today.

In the beginning service of process on Horn, Nelson and Shern took place. The other defendants were not so easy to find. a Jason White (one of the ones who counted the currency) was watching the Blackstock trial when I noticed his presence. I walked up to him and asked if he remembered me. He said yes. I said to him “do you have a card on you” and he said “No.” I asked him if he would give me his name and he said “No.” I then told him his new name was “John Doe, # 1.” I went across the hall to the Clerk’s Office and obtained a summons made out to John Doe, # 1″ and had Mr. Blackstock serve him. At first he would not take it. With several CID Agents and U.S. Attorneys standing around, the case Agent in the Blackstock case said to him “you better take it.” I chimed in “if you don’t all of these people standing around you will be witnesses agasint your refusal to accept service in a Federal Courthouse.” You guessed it, he took it.

The rest of the defendants being served resulted in numerous threats of assaults upon the process servers. One in fact refused to ever serve CID Agents again and another server was arrested by the County Sheriff for an outstanding traffic warrant. The CID Agents made the server leave his card and come back the next day. When he did he was arrested. Seems the IRS took the server’s card and did a back ground check on him before they were willing to be served. Surely they did this background check violating the server’s taxpayer bill of rights.

Needless to say, eventually after surviving Motions to Dismiss, Motions for Summary Judgment, Motions for Judgment on the pleadings, and other defense claims, all the defendants were served with service and yesterday discovery began by Court Order.

In March, 2008, Metcalfe tried to settle the Bivens case with me by claiming the IRS had a lien against me. I obviously rejected that offer. On May 9, 2008, Metcalfe and his side kick, James Strong, filed a claim against me in the Northern District Court, 08-278, where they claimed to have an assessment and lien and wished to secure judgment and take the home their other clients stole money in during the 2005 violation of my Fourth Amendment Rights. They just needed to get rid of the scene of the Bivens crimes levied against me. [this case is the case where I recently took depositions of R.A. Mitchell and others. I discuss this case below as an update.]

In July, 2007, I was on appeal on the September 15, 2005, CDP appeal of 05-1075 (Section 6330 provided that if the District Court determined appeal was to the wrong Court, the taxpayer has 30 days from that decision to appeal to the Tax Court), at oral argument, in Tax Court, proving no assessment existed against me. On August 23, 2007, in the mail, I received taxpayer copies of withdrawal of Notice of Federal Tax Liens with certain serial numbers. The withdrawal made the IRS liens no good because of the 10 year statute of limitations on collection. May 29, 1997, to August 23, 2007 equals greater than 10 years.. This was why I knew the May 9, 2008 case brought against me was purely political and for harrassment only. It was after the tax court hearing in Washington D.C. that the liens were withdrawn.

In July, 2008, I received a “Certificate of Release of Lien” from the IRS. Faced with this music, Metcalfe and Strong [same attorneys in 08-278 who sued me on May 9, 2008] convinced a local fake agent named Kim Norman to “revoke” that release and issue a new Notice of Federal Tax Lien. This new lien is dated August 4, 2008, way over 10 years. On October 10, 2008, Metcalfe and Strong amended their complaint against me to include these revocations of Norman and new liens as forming the basis of their May 9, 2008 claims against me. Needless to say I have moved to dismiss these ridiculous claims. This is the case where I convinced a Federal Judge to allow me to depose R.A. Mitchell and others because of the outrageous conduct advanced by Metcalfe and others. What you have read so far that the Government has done to the rights of this 12th grade educated American is beyond criminal.

During the hearing on Friday May 15, 2009, the Court ruled discovery would begin and trial over the theft of $ 2,000 will begin in November, 2009. The Judge asked the Government about their theory and Metcalfe answered they are intending to argue before the jury that the agents simply miscounted the currency because they only counted bundles and not each invididual note. The Judge quickly asked him “so your position is the agents left the home with $ 17,000″ and Metcalfe answers “yes.” This exchange is what leads to the trial being set in November, 2009. When Metcalfe was explaining the receipt for $19,000 he told the judge that was just “approximately.” Judge Frizzell responded, as he rolled his eyes and said “you know, juries are pretty smart.” I countered with “how can three Agents all Count currency and all arrive at the same approximate number (all filed declarations stating amount was $ 19,000) and all three miscount $ 2,000″? Metcalfe has tried to stay discovery pending the outcome of the “indictment” against me and Judge Frizzell said he was refusing to address that issue at this time and that this case had gone on long enough and that discovery and trial were going to go forward unless some other order is entered in the future.

Metcalfe has threatened appeal interlocutory claiming that his clients did not know they could be held liable for the theft of money stolen by some while others were scavenging through the fourth amendment protected home I live in. District Judge Frizzell has already denied that defense 3 times and Metcalfe has already filed an interlocutory appeal once and then withdrew it 60 days later. This case has been pending since February 2006, and on May 15, 2009, I got my first hearing. Currently there had been 180 docket entries without a single hearing. Number 181 changed all that. Discovery is to last 4 months.

I get to take the deposition of 11 CID Agents, Meadors, David Reed, and Horn and Nelson.

08-278 This is Government trying to get judgment on assessment that does not exist and lien that has been released case.

This case is the case where the depositions of R.A. Mitchell and others were ordered taken by me in February through April, 2009. I have posted three depositions taken at penaltyprotestor..org. During the pendency of this case, the IRS had issued a new tax lien on August 4, 2008 and gave me an offer for a Collection Due Process Hearing. These hearings are jokes. But none the less I asked for it to stop the injustice of the IRS revoking my Certificate of Release I received in July, 2008. Worth mentioning here is the July, 2008 Certifice I received, which was actually issued on August 23, 2007, is with the same date the lien withdrawals occurred.

Anyway, I filed an injunction request in this case asking the Court to dismiss the 08-278 lien case because of the pending CDP request. I asked for the CDP request on September 2, 2008, and Metcalfe and Strong amended their complaint in 08-278 to include the August 4, 2008 fraudulent Notice of Lien and revocation of Certificate of Release on October 10, 2008.

Metcalfe and Strong countered that Motion by arguing I did not have a right to a CDP hearing because of an earlier Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated April 28, 1999 which they argued offered the CDP hearing in that Notice to me. This April 28, 1999 Notice Metcalfe and Strong rely demonstrated the Notice was sent to 5943 E. 13th St. in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I have never lived at that address. Even in the 1996 Notice of Deficency where the IRS simply made up a liability out of Bureau of Labor Statistics and to which I argued was slavery, the address used by the IRS was 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135. It is the only address ever used by the IRS in comunicating anything with me. Whether it was 1994, 1996, 2004, and whether it was in any case I had filed, the address was always the Harvard address.

My motion to dismiss is still pending on this issue in this case along with summary judgment because the IRS has no “assessment” or “lien.” The Government did file cross motion for summary judgment but left out any evidence of any assessment. Because of what you will read next hopefully this nightmare is about to take a rest. It appears R.A. Mitchell will be deposed a second time along with others who were named in those depositions.

3781-09 L This is Tax Court Case where IRS intentionally used wrong address in 1999 and seeks to benefit from that offense.

Because of the opposition above in 08-278, that I had already received the Notice of Tax Lien in 1999 with the CDP hearing offer, at the wrong address, my request for a Collection Due Process hearing was eventually denied in January, 2009, claiming I had received such an offer over a year earlier. I petitioned Tax Court over this error in bad judgment, and the Tax Court assigned 3781-09L as the case number. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, through his attorneys, moved to dismiss that case because Tax Court lacked jurisdiction. They argued the denial to give me a CDP hearing was not a “determination.” I have to tell you the IRS attorneys play fast and loose with the term “jurisdiction.” After 19 years I think I am finally getting my understanding to intersect with the understanding of Judges and hopefully the outcome will capture the usurpers and hold them accountable.

Anyway, I was ordered by the Tax Court to address each issue in the Comissioner’s Motion to Dismiss. I did that showing that I never received that April 28, 1999 Notice of Tax Lien and Right to CDP Hearing because it was obviously sent to the intetionally wrong address. I cited to the address on the Notice of Deficiency and other documents and pointed out the only time the IRS uses this 5943 E. 13th St. Tulsa, Oklahoma, seems to be when they have to give me notice of my rights. Rice did it in 2005 when he taped a business card to my front door and now a Brenda Jones seems to have done it on April 28, 1999. I took both depositions and both could not remember anything. I argued that the decision not to give me a hearing was a “determination” and cited to clearly words of the Tax Court on this subject.

In any event, the Chief Judge of Tax Court got involved on May 7, 2009, accepted by opposition and, as “served” May 11, 2009, I thought I would share with you his ORDER:

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Washington, DC 20217

Lindsey K. Springer,

Petitioner,

v. Docket No. 3781-09 L

Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

Respondent.

ORDER

On April 10, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of determination under I.RC section 6320 or 6330 or other notice of determination was issued to petition with respect to taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 that would confer jurisdiction upon this Court. In it, among other things, respondent states that: (1) A Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) was filed with respect to petitioner’s 1990 through 1996 tax liabilities on April 28, 1999; (2) respondent sent petitioner a notice of filing ofNFTL and right to CDP hearing (i.e., CDP lien notice) on April 29, 1999; (3) petitioner in 1999 did not seek a CDP hearing with respect to the filing ofNFTL; (4) on September 4, 2008, petitioner sought a collection due process hearing regarding a NFTL filed on August 4,2008, with respect to liabilities assessed against him for taxable years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, which are the same liabilities as those reflected in the NFTL filed on April 28, 1999; and (5) the alleged Notice of Determination attached to the petition is in fact a letter to petitioner notifying him Appeals had determined he was not entitled to a collection due process lien hearing. On May 5, 2009, petitioner filed an Opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. In it, among other things, petitioner asserts the CDP lien notice sent by respondent on April 29, 1999, was not sent to petitioner’s last known address.

In Kennedy v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2008-33, this Court, among other things, held that where a CDP lien notice was not mailed to a taxpayer’s last know address, that CDP lien notice was invalid. See sec. 301.6320-1(a)(2), Q & A-12, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Buffano v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2007-32.

Upon due consideration, it is

ORDERED that, on or before June 1, 2009, respondent shall file a Response to petitioner’s opposition. Among other things, respondent in that Response shall set forth respondent’s position as to whether or not the CDP lien notice sent by respondent on April 29, 1999, had been sent to petitioner’s last known address.

(Signed) John O. Colvin

Chief Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.

May 7, 2009

SERVED May 11 2009

(2) pages numbered.

Not only are liens no good without an “assessment” signed by a properly assigned “assessment officer,” see 26 CFR 301.6203-1, or that there are no “district directors” or “internal revenue districts” since at least October 2000 (REG-118886-06), and that those “asessment officers” must be assigned by the “district directors,” or the fact the IRS does not comply with its Certification under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) which they make to the Office of Management and Budget to obtain OMB # 1545-0074 usage (see 83I Form), and that the IRS must use your “last known address” to give you notice, along with the fact they are doing an ongoing criminal investigation on everyone, 24/7, and that they declared they do not have any procedure that shows them how to count currency, and that the “assessment officer” now appears to be a computer program, I strongly urge anyone reading this email raise up their volumn a little bit on why its time the IRS to go.

I thank you very much for paying close attention to the Springer file as the issues advanced in these cases, and 8 others I am personally a party in, all being related, most certainly have changed policy of the IRS and hopefully, with your help we will separate the phrase “Internal Revenue Service” from the word policy once and for all.

As you can see “ground zero” is looking much like it is wherever Lindsey Springer is located in relation to the Internal Revenue Service. I continue to need your support to help me in the expenses of these cases. I pray you are inspired to help me. One thing you will come to learn about me is I will only ask for help when I truly need it (hard for me to ask). I will get to take 11 CID Agent depositions related to the theft of money and 2 Attorneys who were behind these actions taken to violate my rights. I will post depositions as they become available. Thank you for taking your valuable time today in reading this email. I can receive your gracious gifts through paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or my address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135. Thank you for praying for me and this mission I am on.

5.17.09 Lindsey Springer

P.S. this is just small example of what I deal with on a daily basis.

Independent American Party State Chairman Mark Andrews sent in this link

This same story made it on the Colbert Report.

If you want a good laugh we suggest you take a look.

By Christopher Hansen

The depth of the IRS fraud to be exposed by brave men and women around the USA.

Lindsy Springer took a deposition of an IRS employee. The fact that a judge allowed this deposition was a miracle. This is only a few pages of that depo. It shows that the IRS is using non-original signatures on IRS liens. That means the signatures are essentially forged on a certified document. To my mind that means the Certified Document is not a Certified Document but a forgery. What witness do you call upon to testify that the document is true and correct if only a computer has seen it?

cer⋅ti⋅fy –verb (used with object)
1. to attest as certain; give reliable information of; confirm: He certified the truth of his claim.
2. to testify to or vouch for in writing: The medical examiner will certify his findings to the court.
3. to guarantee; endorse reliably: to certify a document with an official seal.
4. to guarantee (a check) by writing on its face that the account against which it is drawn has sufficient funds to pay it.
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009

If We the People tried to do such a thing we would end up in prison.

The work the Mr. Springer is doing is amazing.

For more information and the complete depositions go to his web site.

DEPOSITION OF: RENEE MITCHELL IRS employee
Thursday, April 2, 2009 17
10:00 a.m.

Starting at page 127

Q What do you mean by “facsimile”?
A A facsimile is legally authorized where
I signed my name into the system, so I know I have
done that. Then rather than me personally signing
all of the documents, a certified facsimile of my
signature is then what is used.
Q Who certified that?
A I have to basically say that is mine
when I sign.
Q Okay. When you certified that is your
signature, did you also certify who could use it?
A It is understood, based on my position,
that certain documents — that certain documents
issued through that operation, my signature is
used. I am the authority — or authorized in that
capacity of my position.
Q You could never actually sign every
document that needs your signature, could you?
A No.
Q Is that more difficult because of the
Reform and Restructuring Act?
A I do not think so.
Q Seems like your name appears
individually more times than anybody else’s?

128

A It was not under the RA ‘98 that that
happened.
Q Was that Restructuring — did you know
that the districts were done away with?
A Yeah.
Q Do you know about when that was done?
A I know officially in October 2000 we
stood up as the new organization.
Q Physically 2000, but could it have been
earlier that they started piecing it together?
A Well, nothing official. I think
something was signed that said October 2000 you
are operating, like, you know, under the new
structure.
Q So if your signature is on a document,
that is the same signature; a facsimile does not
mean it is faxed?
A No.
Q In that terminology you are
saying “reproduced”, it is a reproduced signature?
A That I provided.
Q You authorized the IRS through their
policies or procedures –

129

A No, the IRS authorizes me, in my
position, as a director of campus compliance with
oversight for the lien operation, to sign those
documents.
Q So you do agree it is signed?
A Yes.
Q It is a facsimile signature?
A Right.
Q Then the oversight you have over that,
you do not know who is using it, when it being
used, you just trust the computer system that it
is being done right?
A No, I do not agree with that, no. I do
not agree.
Q Of the percentage of times your name
appears on documents, at least here today, you
have never seen any of the documents with your
name on them?
A Right.
Q So, is it safe to say that a majority of
the documents that have your name on them, you
have never seen before?
A Yes.
Q By his question “facsimile”, you were

130

meaning it is in the computer, you signed it into
the computer, then by your employment agreement
with the United States, you agree to allow them to
use your signature on these documents as long as
they do it according to the IRM?
A No. I am saying in the position I hold,
which I think is a little different — the
position I hold as director of that organization,
I am authorized to sign those documents, releases,
levies or sign over.
Q So do you still consider a document with
your name on it, even though it is facsimile, that
is a document that you signed?
A That has my signature.
Q Your facsimile signature?
A Yes.
Q So at the time you made the facsimile
and certification for that signature, you did not
know when it was going to appear on documents, you
just knew what the plan was to use that signature
on the Notice of Tax Lien?
A I do not understand that.
Q At the time you — you obviously knew
you why you signed that into a computer? The

131

United States was planning on using your name on
Notices of Tax Liens and even documents offering
CEP hearings as campus compliance director, right?
A Yes.
Q So, you knew at the time that your
facsimile signature was going to be a — any
signature — one of the signatures to appear as
the signor?
A It should appear based off my position.
Q By “position”, you mean your employment?
A Yes, employment. Not me personally.
Q I have been very careful not to get into
that. Okay. I am fine, thank you.

By Christopher Hansen

The following is a summery of an article published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal which “is a peer-reviewed journal which aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in chemical physics. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.”

So what does this mean? It means our government lied to us about what really happened on 911.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit *,1 , Jeffrey Farrer 2, Steven E. Jones *,3 , Kevin R. Ryan 4, Frank M. Legge 5, Daniel Farnsworth 2, Gregg Roberts 6, James R. Gourley 7 and Bradley R. Larsen 3

1 Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
4 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7 International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite.

Ernest Hancock
Website: www.ernesthancock.com
Date: 05-03-2009
Subject: Gun Rights

Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.

The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.

Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.

Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.

Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.

There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana. Way to go Montana.

Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA. The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same with the USA. Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

Text of the New Law
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.