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.