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.
Since 2001, when my pension check was purloined by a Community Property Clerk, and handed over to the IRS, unlawfully, (because they demanded my pension check) , PERS has covered up this fraud and theft refusing to return my check. amount, $1,372.44. I have been told to get it from the IRS! In essence, they acknowledge the “taking” yet refuse to return my money. The cover-up is worse than the crime, by many in the PERS office, including all CEO’s in office since that year. So far, there have been at least 4, now, it is Anne Stausboll.The levy is bogus and does not conform to any of the many requirements for a legal action called a “lien” or levy. I want to sue them!
Good luck. I cannot help you there. I do which I could. Suing them for 1,372.44 is like spending money on a worthless house that will never have any value. It cost so much to sue that the numbers have to be extreme. that is why they win. The cost to fight is so high.
I am truly sorry for your problem and believe the only way to stop it is to END the IRS. I have been working toward that goal for over 30 years but people believe that the IRS will only hurt you if you do something wrong. They are wrong. The IRS does not comply with their own rules or laws. They are thieves and the government wants them to remain thieves because the government gets the proceeds from the theft.
Maybe God will help us. I see no other real hope.