Just in case you’ve not seen this action prior, I thought I would forward this to you so you could see the progress of the legal theories being applied. Lindsey needs our financial support. prayers, and blessings in order to see this thing through. If one has ever seen how twisted things have become over the years where the law is concerned, one need only to read taxing cases to how corrupt things have become. It is time we the people straighten this mess out. Here is one way we can start doing so. Stand up and be heard even if it is through another like Lindsey.
From: Lindsey Springer
Subject: Court Rejects Government statutory obligation theory and Holds Paperwork Reduction Act is complete defense and good faith defense during trial.
To: “lindsey springer”
Lindsey Springer here and providing an update on the status of the Governmentâ€™s theory regarding the obligation to provide information on a Form 1040 with the threat of prison for willful failure to do so.
Trial begins on Monday, October 26, 2009, and is expected to last 3 to 5 weeks.
On October 13, 2009 the United States District Court ordered the Government to provide a list of each regulation they theorize encompasses the “obligation to file a return” allegedly “required by law” in the Grand Jury indictment returned against me.
On October 19, 2009, with just minutes to spare, the Government filed the following Bill of Particulars:
“The Court ordered the United States to file a supplemental bill of particulars “specifying the â€˜regulations thereunderâ€™ . . . specifically relied upon by the government as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 192 at 1. The abbreviated answer to the Court’s order is that the passing, parenthetical reference to regulations in the government’s trial brief was not intended to suggest that the Government would be relying on Treasury Regulations in proving its case in chief. As indicated in the Government’s prior filings and further referenced below, the obligation to file a tax return is a statutory obligation. In its case in chief, the Government will prove that the defendant had a statutorily-mandated obligation to file a federal tax return without reference or reliance on Treasury Regulations.
In the United States Trial Brief (doc. no. 138), the United States included the parenthetical phrase “and regulations thereunder,” when describing the law that specifies the events that trigger an obligation to file a return. Doc. no. 138 at 12. As previously stated by the Government in earlier responses to Defendantsâ€™ motions for bill of particulars, the filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990). In its Bill of Particulars filed July 17, 2009, the United States identified the statutes that impacted on the required filing of individual federal income tax returns: Title 26, United States Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151, and 7203. Doc. no. 104 at 2. Given the likely defense that the funds received by Defendant Springer were gifts and therefore not taxable income, Title 26, United States Code Section 102 is also implicated.
Regulations under the Internal Revenue Code provide some clarification and specific examples regarding filing requirements that may or may not be helpful in a specific individual’s situation. In this case, a review of the regulations reveals no exceptions or qualifications that would exclude Defendant Springer from the filing requirement. The regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code that provide clarification of the filing requirements for individuals include the following: Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 1.1-1, 1.61-1 et seq., 1.63, 1.102-1, 1.151-1, 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-1. However, as stated above, the United States did not rely upon any regulations specifying events triggering an obligation for the Defendants to file tax returns.
So, on October 21, 2009, a pretrial hearing was held and the District Court rejected the Prosecutionâ€™s statutory mandate theory. It told the United States that the Court was denying their Motion in Limine which sought to prevent me from even uttering the words “Paperwork Reduction Act” of both 1980 and 1995. The Court informed the Prosecution that I am allowed to present the Paperwork Reduction Act during their case in chief and as a good faith defense.
The reason why this is so significant is because every Court agrees that if regulations are involved in the “obligation to file a return” or play any role, then the request Form 1040 must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 5 CFR 1320 by the Office of Management and Budget.
Here is just but a portion of the words I uttered to accomplish the outcome regarding “statutory mandate obligation” v. “statutory and regulation thereunder obligation” to which regulations obviously won:
“Similarly, the fact that incriminating evidence may be the by product of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return,[fn14] maintaining required records,[fn15] or reporting an accident,[fn16] does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege.[fn17] United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35 (2000)
“Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records. See S. Rep., at 3-4. Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990)
“In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), this court held that tax forms were not information collection requests subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act because the filing of income tax returns was obligatory. This holding is superseded by the Supreme Court’s analysis in Dole v. United Steelworkers, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990), which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act. Dole would also appear to call into question the holdings in Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D.Ind. 1984) and Cameron v. IRS, 593 F. Supp. 1540 (N.D.Ind. 1984), aff’d 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1985), both of which held the Paperwork Reduction Act inapplicable to IRS forms.” U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-631 (fn 12) (10th Cir. 1990)
“We would be inclined to follow the general analysis of Wunder and Hicks and hold that the operation of the PRA in these circumstances did not repeal the criminal sanctions for failing to file an income tax return because the obligation to file is a statutory one. However, we are not compelled to rest our opinion on the statutory origin theory because we find the analysis of other courts which have considered the issue to be persuasive.” U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991)
If you notice the Government cited in their “2nd Bill of Particulars” after they said “mandate of statute” they cited to “United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).
It is clear the Collins and Dawes decisions by the 10th Circuit rejected this theory. It is true the decision in Neff, Hicks, Kerwin and Wunder mentioned the statutory origin theory but Neff said “Congress created Neff’s duty to file the Returns in 26 U.S.C. Â§ 6012(a), and nowhere did Congress condition this duty on any Treasury regulation. See United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990).” See Neff at page 700 cited by the Government.
In Hicks, the 9th Circuit said “But where Congress sets forth an explicit statutory requirement that the citizen provide information, and provides statutory criminal penalties for failure to comply with the request, that is another matter. This is a legislative command, not an administrative request.” U.S. v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991)
In Kerwin, the 5th Circuit said “This issue was considered in United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990), which held that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return. Since Kerwin, like the taxpayer in Wunder, was convicted of that statute, which is not an information request, there is no violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For the reasons set forth in Wunder, we AFFIRM.” U.S. v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92, 92 (5th Cir. 1991)
And of course, the problem child for the Judiciary is United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990) which held “The tax years in question here were 1979, 1980, and 1981. Clearly, tax returns for 1979 and 1980 would not be affected by the PRA. As for the 1981 return, it did display the appropriate control number, and the regulations do not need a number because the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation. Defendant was not convicted of violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. Â§ 6012 and 7203. The Paperwork Reduction Act, therefore, does not apply to the statutory requirement, but only to the forms themselves, which contained the appropriate numbers.”
In 1995 Congress rewrote the Paperwork Reduction Act and specifically stated that its reason to write the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act was to eliminate “exemptions” for the Internal Revenue Service. See Public Law 104-13, see 109 Stat. 163, page 171
The Commissioner instructs yearly that his or her request for income information stems from sections 6001, 6011, 6012 and “their regulations.”
There is a reason why the Government is fighting so hard against the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and that is because the Form 1040, or any other Form, must comply with the Act and they see that if they succeed on arguing the obligation is purely statutory then they think they escape the Public Protection under 44 U.S.C. section 3512.
What type of person would wish to escape a law that is entitled “public protection”? Obviously someone who is against the public. The same person argues they are protecting the public when they are ignoring the public protection provision.
For now I leave you with the words of Congress written in law greater than that of the Internal Revenue Code and that is:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if â€”
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
See 44 U.S.C. section 3512
I cannot begin tell you how appreciative I am to those of you who have given me and my family the financial support in recent months you have given no matter what the amount. Great thought goes into how I can make requests of you and I concluded that if you are led to help me then please do not ignore that leading. I can really use your support more now than ever. I am up against the Billionaires of the U.S. Department of Justice and IRS. I can receive paypal at firstname.lastname@example.org or traditionally at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 in name of Bondage Breaker’s Ministry or Lindsey Springer
I will provide periodic updates throughout the trial. If you have signed up for this email and did not get it do not worry because I simply have not been able to update my list and I am so busy tyring to do something with nothing. I will try during my breaks to update the list.
Thank you, Lindsey Springer 10.25.09