Springer Appeal

[freeindeed]

Please see below

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Crosstalk:

You are too busy laughing to see the truth of the matter. This is no laughing matter at all. Many peoples very lives are at stake because of a fraud. The PRA will either help them or it won't. Thank you for thinking I know more about Lindsey's case and appeal than he does. Let me clarify, it is you that thinks he knows more than Lindsey does about his own case. You keep using your crystal ball and telling everyone that Lindsey has lost his appeal, when no such thing has happened. I read a couple paragraphs of the appeal on the thread you started the other day [here]. I made informed comment about the paragraphs I read there.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/misc-d...225-david.html

Since you have no axe to grind with me I gather this thread is just more whining. I am glad you find my thoughts and many attachments and links amusing. Many others consider that sort of thing evidence.Most of what you link is mere "theory" like so much else on this forum. I am not saying "theory" is bad just that there is no proof it works. That is not what I call evidence. I posted the PRA that was enacted by congress and no one rebutted it. Like what you call a broken record. The reason I kept saying that about Page 78 of the 1040 Instructions is because that is the reason Lindsey Springer's case has flopped.The 1995 PRA has not been litigated till now. You, again, look into your crystal ball and tell us to believe you know it all with regard to Lindsey's case. Do you have proof that Lindsey's case will flop and he will lose the appeal? If so please provide it. You tear Lindsey down to bring attention to yourself and that you are all knowing. Hogwash!! It never even deserved time in court because there was no cause before the bench.Now you are telling us the "judge" in his case ruled correctly, when she could not even quote other court citings correctly. Lindsey has addressed what took place in lower court very nicely, IMHO. But again, DM knows best and what the appelate court will do, just ask him.

You and Dawgwise sound like the same broken record to me. All you two do is complain that all I state here is opinion and conjecture. I support (LOL) about half my posts with some kind of extra and most of the time informative and entertaining attached or linked evidence. 2501 transcribed a very informative article into one of the threads that explained my point about the OMB# Fiasco nicely. That may be one reason I did not dwell on proving my point to you - 2501 made it for me.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Dear Freeindeed;

It is easy to see why when Dawgwise posted the Masonic symbols on his bio and told me that he was fooling me with it, I thought he meant he was a girl. You two prefer to nag, nag, nag. I have been responding because I find it an enjoyable way to kill commercial breaks on TV.

Originally Posted by REDCLOUD

I don't think I'd ever heard of Lindsey K. Springer before, but he may be running a close second to Irwin Schiff in most crackpot litigation.

A PACER search shows 25 separate civil actions in his name (filed in 6 different federal courts), one criminal action (criminal contempt, although the charge was dropped when he purged himself), and 23 appeals to 5 different circuit courts. He also has one Tax Court docket entry, and two petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

His magnum opus was a civil action he filed in 1999 against all fifty states individually, which he was able to drag out for more than a year. The docket runs 42 pages, and ends with him being sanctioned and enjoined from filing any further pleadings or appeals in the matter. U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. No. 4:99-cv-00003.

His current project is trying to prevent the US from collecting the tax penalties that were assessed against him for 1990-1995, relying on a Paperwork Reduction Act/faulty OMB number argument. U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. No. 4:06-cv-00110. See www.penaltyprotester.com for free downloads of key pleadings.

From the government's brief in support of its motion to dismiss:

Quote:
Plaintiff Lindsey K. Springer seeks to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from imposing civil and criminal penalties related to his federal income tax liabilities. This is Springer’s third frivolous complaint filed in an effort to avoid the collection of his unpaid 1990-1995 federal income tax liabilities and the IRC § 6673(a)(1) penalty imposed by the Tax Court. Springer’s complaint is a “hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish,” essentially arguing that he (and everyone else in the country) is not required to file federal income taxes because of a purported deficiency with the OMB control number on the 1040 form.[1] The Court should dismiss his complaint because he does not set forth a jurisdictional basis for his motion and the basis for his claim is patently frivolous and has repeatedly been dismissed by other Courts.

The brief also provides a long and somewhat entertaining summary of the procedural history.

Originally Posted by Freeindeed

I posted the PRA that was enacted by congress and no one rebutted it.

Why rebut it? According to REDCLOUD Lindsey Springer is not only a chronic litigator, he is off base - without foundation and really spends a lot of time generating useless heat (spinning his wheels).

Your PRA enacted by congress was rebutted so many times you call me a broken record... but here I go again.

The law at play is contract law. The Title 26 U.S.C. is not law and you are notified of that in the front cover or within the first three pages of every U.S.C. Code book. There is a table of the Titles and they specify with an asterist the Titles that have been enacted into positive law.

Therefore the law at play is the notice and grace; common law. The 1040 Form notifies the Taxpayer that the PRA Act of 1980 (Page 78 of the Instructions) is relevant. You and Springer seem to think that means the PRA of 1995 is relevant and it is not. Now if the Instructions notified the Taxpayer that the PRA of 1995 was relevant to the matter it would be. But it does not so it is not.

I certainly appreciate REDCLOUD's interjection of the Quatloser Insultinator to make Lindsey Springer look like a fool. You and I both know better. But he assumes he is working with law within the US Codes when indeed the judge flushing his cause and appeal, without even giving it a hearing knows better than that.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

The 1995 PRA has not been litigated till now.

Of course not. There is no play for it within the scope of the notice on Page 78 of the 1040 Form Instructions. It will not be litigated. The appeal will flop.

[dawgwise]

The Baby Davy (I will briefly enter your sandbox little baby Davy and one time sink to your level so you will understand) continues to turn decent people from Sui Juris. I evidenced one. I only came back to browse after days away and must to my dismay I had to read that Baby Davy continues in his crybaby attempts to demean me on a new thread. And he calls others a NAG? What does that say about baby davy?

David Merrill said:"It is easy to see why when Dawgwise posted the Masonic symbols on his bio and told me that he was fooling me with it, I thought he meant he was a girl."

YOU TRICKED YOURSELF YOU IDIOT. ALL OF YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS and YOUR UNICORNLAND CONJECTURES ABOUT ME, ABOUT THE "CLUB" ABOUT HOW EMBARRASSED YOU WERE THAT DEMOSTHENES TRICKED YOU AS YOU THOUGHT SHE WAS ALSO DAWGWISE, AND ABOUT SEX, AND ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE WERE BROUGHT FORTH VIA THE WINDMILLS OF YOUR MIND AND YOU POSTED THEM WITHOUT PROOF OR EVIDENCE AND THAT IS A FACT!!!! I POSTED THE MASONIC SYMBOL AS A FREAKIN JOKE TO YOUR TWISTED MINDS ACCUSATION ABOUT JOINING A CLUB BECAUSE BACK THEN I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE YOU LOOK A FOOL AS YOU HAVE DONE WITH YOURSELF EVER SINCE. YOU FOOLED YOURSELF, YOU TRICKED YOURSELF AND YOU CONTINUE TO DO SO. You irresponsibly posted your made up crap and keep on doing it....nag nag nag. And you continue to blame other!


Of course all your b.s. had nothing to do with actual ON POINT conversation. It was just your way of running around in circles chasing you own ass trying to kiss it.

Now baby davy turns his crap toward Weiss.

Let's see what one can learn from baby Davy?

OH, so he thinks he is the only one that knows CONTRACT! HA. I learned nothing of contract from Davy boy upon the PRA threads. Gee whiz seems I knew contract years ago. He talks big about what someone else posted (2501) well lets see, I knew of Wayne Bentsen et. al. years ago so that is not big revelation. hmmm....what did I learn from Davy?

Oh here is an example of what I have learned -

"Baby Davy sittin in a tree, k i s s i n g his own hand looking for someone to agree. Here comes Redcloud happy to agree, and now they meet upon their knees."

See how well you teach people to make up crap and songs Davy boy? Your such a fine teacher!

Any idiot can behave like you and I just proved it! Thats right anyone can be an idiot, it takes self control and responsiblity to not act an idiot and that is why this is the only time I shall mimic you. I proved my point!

I never met a conceited man whom I did not find inwardly embarrassed.

[David Merrill]

See? That's what I mean. You just keep going on and on about me.

YOU TRICKED YOURSELF YOU IDIOT.

That is not possible for me to put up the Masonic square and compass on your bio. You did that. Not me.

I POSTED THE MASONIC SYMBOL AS A FREAKIN JOKE TO YOUR TWISTED MINDS ACCUSATION ABOUT JOINING A CLUB

When you posted the symbol I thought you were a guy; then you corrected me that the symbol was a trick. So I thought you were a girl. So what? Since Demosthenes' MO is to feign various internet disguises, I recall asking Admin to check into that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[freeindeed]

See response below

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Why rebut it? According to REDCLOUD Lindsey Springer is not only a chronic litigator, he is off base - without foundation and really spends a lot of time generating useless heat (spinning his wheels). That is simply REDCLOUDS opinion and is based on what? How else do people learn? Lindsey has been involved in may cases, one in particular (Whitey Harrell) where he was an advisor. Harrell was acquitted in that tax case. He has of course lost cases as well, but does that mean he has failed? I do not think so. He has honed and perfected his skills in the court system. He is the only one that can effectively litigate the 1995 PRA. He is ready to go to the Supremes, but there are other cases in appeal right now that may go first.

Your PRA enacted by congress was rebutted so many times you call me a broken record... but here I go again.

The law at play is contract law. The Title 26 U.S.C. is not law and you are notified of that in the front cover or within the first three pages of every U.S.C. Code book. There is a table of the Titles and they specify with an asterist (sic) the Titles that have been enacted into positive law.

Therefore the law at play is the notice and grace; common law. The 1040 Form notifies the Taxpayer that the PRA Act of 1980 (Page 78 of the Instructions) is relevant. Congress disagrees with you and the IRS. The 1980 PRA has been replaced by the 1995 Act and that’s a fact you and REDCLOUD seem to overlook. The 1995 PRA has never been litigated and that is being changed now. You and Springer seem to think that means the PRA of 1995 is relevant and it is not. That is simply your unsupported opinion based on a footnote from a “judge” that cannot even cite other cases properly. Now if the Instructions notified the Taxpayer that the PRA of 1995 was relevant to the matter it would be. But it does not so it is not. Again this is your opinion. You have absolutely no supporting documentation your assertion is correct. It simply more assumption and presumption on your part.

I certainly appreciate REDCLOUD's interjection of the Quatloser Insultinator to make Lindsey Springer look like a fool. You and I both know better. Lindsey is certainly no fool, this is for sure. But he assumes he is working with law within the US Codes when indeed the judge flushing his cause and appeal, without even giving it a hearing knows better than that. I know where you are coming from here and all I can say is the courts have shot these arguments to pieces. This is all based on theory and has not been proven, for if it had things would be different, but they aren’t because it hasn’t.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

Of course not. There is no play for it within the scope of the notice on Page 78 of the 1040 Form Instructions. It will not be litigated. The appeal will flop. This is more assumption and presumption on your part. Provide the proof of your allegation? Is the instruction book law or even code? Does the IRS enact law or code? Do they have to follow the PRA of 1995? What does the Act itself say about it? I have provided documented proof the 1995 Act is in fact relevant. End of story.

[David Merrill]

The 1980 PRA has been replaced by the 1995 Act and that’s a fact you and REDCLOUD seem to overlook.

Untrue.

If that were true then the Instructions for the 1040 Form would say so on Page 78, as notified from the bottom of the 1040 Form itself. The PRA of 1980 has not been replaced with the PRA of 1995.*

You have become so childish and rediculous I really hope that you are not expecting me to be offended by you. Instead I am sure most readers must agree with me that there is something else happening here - something like the tactic to cover up the OMB# Fiasco and the authority for criminal prosecutions being hijacked from BATF and territorial US jurisdiction.

The comments I have been making are factually founded but you fly off into such a childish rage... Thanks for making this point for me. I think it is pretty easy to see there is something much more than a difference of opinions here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* That is factual evidence right there and you jump up and down hoping I will discard all the evidence I will ever need for new arguable evidence.

[dawgwise]

David said: "See? That's what I mean. You just keep going on and on about me."

A brand new thread and David brought me into it on post number seven (#7) prior to my personal entrance, so again false data. I only entered to displace the lies.

David said: "That is not possible for me to put up the Masonic square and compass on your bio. You did that. Not me."

While it is true that David did not put the Masonic symbol on my account that is where the truth ends! David conjured up his interpretation, via the windmills of his mind, and all manner and sorts of ridiculous garbage regarding the symbol, which was only placed because David conjured up that I joined a private club with Freeindeed and David posted that prior to my placing the joke of the private Masonic club symbol. David conjured and posted, conjured and posted and continues… He never asked me just like he never asked Demothenes, he conjured and posted, conjured and posted.

David said: "When you posted the symbol I thought you were a guy; then you corrected me that the symbol was a trick. So I thought you were a girl. So what? Since Demosthenes' MO is to feign various internet disguises, I recall asking Admin to check into that."

The admission! David thought, thats right David thought. His admission that he thought all those things and therefore the forum and PRA thread was the proper place to air the dirty laundry in his mind. The many twists and turns. I asked David to PM thinking that would be the proper forum but David refused and opted to conjure and post and conjure and post. He even conjured up more garbage because I asked him to PM the issue.


I was new to Sui and posted recently and now I know why some laugh at what goes on here. David has posted many times. Quatloos looks good compared. And that is why I know people to leave Sui Juris.

I hope someday David apologizes to the many fine men and women that are lucky enough to avoid dealing with this type of crap.

Some souls are like an old school blackboard. Time writes signs and rules and examples upon them that are immediately erased with a wet sponge.

[David Merrill]

He never asked me just like he never asked Demothenes, he conjured and posted, conjured and posted.

I asked if not too much trouble for Admin to make sure that Demosthenes was not duplicitous in identity. It is not much trouble to see if the two posters are sending from the same geographical area. It is my belief that Admin would frown on deceptive duplication of identity to defraud on the forums. [You seem to suggest I would ask you or Demosthenes over the Internet if you are falsifying your identity?]

Otherwise my proof the appeal will flop is right there where I have been saying it is; on the 1040 Form and Page 78 of the Instructions. Freeindeed and Dawgwise are determined to make this into a circus of distractions. And it seems they are determined to convince me they are consciously playing the role of counterintelligence about the Lawrence Dismissal.

It is interesting especially that they now downplay 2501's interesting article about BATF authority hijacked to provide an illusion of law enforcement authority to the IRS for tax collection (civil) purposes. And it is a bit astounding that they will trouble to spend the time spinning such yarn when I have been just sticking to the same stance all along summarized in this post. There is something going on here more than these two being neurotic opposed to me. They cannot seem to stand for me making my assertion upon my proof that the Lindsey Appeal will flop.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

If that were true then the Instructions for the 1040 Form would say so on Page 78, as notified from the bottom of the 1040 Form itself. The PRA of 1980 has not been replaced with the PRA of 1995.*

David,

I have uploaded for you once again the Federal Register that states the 1980 PRA was replced by the 1995 PRA. If you disagree with the FR take it up with them. Just because the IRS refuses to recognize the 1995 PRA does not make you or they correct. This is my last post to you on the subject. Have a nice day.

This is quoted from the top of page 2 of the attached PDF. I have already posted this before.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13 (May 22, 1995)) replaced the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended in 1986. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 takes effect on October 1, 1995. The procedural requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended in 1986, continue to apply to collections of informa¬tion approved by OMB on or before September 30, 1995, and which have a valid OMB control number expiring after that date.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

David,

I have uploaded for you once again the Federal Register that states the 1980 PRA was replced by the 1995 PRA. If you disagree with the FR take it up with them. Just because the IRS refuses to recognize the 1995 PRA does not make you or they correct. This is my last post to you on the subject. Have a nice day.

Simply not so. If the 1980 PRA had been replaced by the 1995 PRA then the IRS would notify the 1995 PRA on the (Page 78) Instruction for the 1040 Form. The evidence is still the 1040 Form and the Instructions for it. That is cold hard fact.

The other fact is that the Title 26 of the U.S.C. is not positive law. One is notified of that in the front cover of any U.S.C.A. Code Book. So you really have no business involving the Federal Register, now do you?



Regards,

David Merrill.