Springer Appeal

[freeindeed]

For those interested I have uploaded Lindsey Springer's appeal. I think you will find it most interesting. Enjoy!!

[charlesa6]

Very intrigue. No doubt.

[David Merrill]

In 1980, Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, P.L 96-511 which purpose, in part, was to both “Minimize the public burden of Federal paperwork”, Maximize usefulness” and to “Ensure that the collection ....of information is consistent with applicable laws relating to privacy, security, and confidentiality.” House Report, P.L. 104-13 [page 8][ page 171]. 44 U.S.C. § 3512 (1980) required all information collection request forms to display a current OMB control number or STATE ON THE FORM THAT THE REQUEST WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE 1980 PRA. Since the IRS chose to seek and display a number this Court can logically conclude that the IRS believed their request Form 1040 was subject to the PRA of 1980.

One law governing this request for information is the Privacy Act of 1974 of which Appellee states to the public in its “instruction” booklets and not on any Forms at issue in this case, that when the IRS asks you for information we must first tell you our legal right to ask for the information, why we are asking for it and how it will be used. We must also tell you what could happen if we do not receive it and whether your response is voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory under the law.” See Dkt # 2-1, [District Court Exhibit 3, page 2]. Since 1996, the IRS has purposefully referred to the PRA of 1980, in stead of the PRA of 1995, in all its publications and statements.

Yes indeed. That is what I was saying all along.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

Page 78 of the Instructions says exactly that. Lindsey kills his own cause in the appeal. He is better to accuse people of being clumsy in contract law than to expect the IRS to suffer the consequences of people's clumsiness.

The form should have been a counterclaim if indeed the IRS was compelling Lindsey Springer to use the 1040 Form for filing a Return. Actually I can presume they were not doing anything but bluffing him over the phone. They would never have directed a confession to such coercion in writing.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Questionmark_Y]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Yes indeed. That is what I was saying all along.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

Page 78 of the Instructions says exactly that. Lindsey kills his own cause in the appeal. He is better to accuse people of being clumsy in contract law than to expect the IRS to suffer the consequences of people's clumsiness.

The form should have been a counterclaim if indeed the IRS was compelling Lindsey Springer to use the 1040 Form for filing a Return. Actually I can presume they were not doing anything but bluffing him over the phone. They would never have directed a confession to such coercion in writing.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Why doesn't the IRS refer to the 1954 code?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Questionmark_Y

Why doesn't the IRS refer to the 1954 code?

According to the snippet I read of Springer's appeal, there is subsequent history behind the PRA; namely a Privacy Act. That is the foundation for the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act.

Speculating the reason for your question relates to the use of the 1980 PRA instead of the 1995 PRA, that is a simple matter of contract law. The 1980 PRA is cited in the Instruction form for the 1040 Form (Page 78).


Regards,

David Merrill.

[REDCLOUD]

Why doesn't the IRS refer to the 1954 code?

For the same reason the laws regarding stop signs aren't posted on every street corner, and the laws regarding the Pastuerizing of milk aren't in the supermarket.

For those interested I have uploaded Lindsey Springer's appeal.

All this guy has done is posted a big red bullseye on his forehead. Poor strategy, poor planning, no basis in fact or law. The time he has spent on these suits (filed in the wrong court) could have been better used to actually accomplish something. The outcome here is highly predictable. He will lose. He will owe lots of tax. He may do jail time because now he has identified himself as a tax cheat and tax protestor. To spend so much energy on the Paperwork Reduction Act in the wrong court is absurd. He has also missed the fact that with a little planning he probably could have achieved his objectives and nobody would have been the wiser. Instead, he has made himself a public spectacle for no discernable reason.

[David Merrill]

Crosstalk:

Originally Posted by freeindeed

David there are other posts such as this one in the same thread that I will not copy and paste, as you know which ones they are.

There were some threads that I was posting on with regard to the PRA. There were others that were posting pissing matches with each other and not about the PRA. Demo came on and was pissing with xmakox and ruining the threads. Instead of rebutting my posts there wre nothing but useless arguing goin on and I got tired of it.I asked that this be stopped because it happens here frequently. Threads go off on tangents all the time here. My wanting to keep the threads on topic had nothing to do with you, but you made that an issue.

You are nothing more than an inflated ego. I have no axe to grind with you, but you know more than Lindsey Springer does about his own case. I posted documented facts that no one could rebut. All you did was sound the broken record with your referral to the footnote regarding page 78 of the "1040" instruction book. You nor anyone else has rebutted what I posted regarding the PRA. Assumptions and presumptions have been spouted with no supporting evidence.

You can talk about me all you want, but get your facts straight. I do not post here any more because the people here rather than being together are at odds with each other. We will never win the battle we are in as long as people like you and others here on suijuris think they know better than anyone else, but cannot give supporting evidence. I have never seen you post anything other than conjecture and speculation with regard to the PRA. Then you accuse me of whinning. I used to have respect for you, but now you have become a joke.

You are too busy laughing to see the truth of the matter. Thank you for thinking I know more about Lindsey's case and appeal than he does. 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. 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. It never even deserved time in court because there was no cause before the bench.

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 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.

[dawgwise]

There are “persons” upon this blog that pretend that others have not read the book “Are You Lost at Sea?” and/or have not researched and understand the admiralty/maritime process and how it is connected to the subject matters often discussed in taxation.

Those “persons” pretend that they know what others do not, even though the fact and truth is that “others” have read the aforementioned book, understood it’s contents and have performed outside research and, in some cases, did so many years ago. The readers also know the author or collaborative author was indicted sometime the middle of this year.

Many also know about trusts as well as other issues.

Those that wrongfully attack Mr. Springer’s efforts say he is a “tax protestor” when clearly he protests being penalized due to the form. This error clearly shows they are blind to the issue. They also complain that he is in the wrong court but fail to state the court he should be in. Of course since they “believe” the argument is wrong how could they say he is in the wrong court, implying there would be a “right court” when, in their minds, the argument is so wrong?

These same type of people post old stuff by Wayne Bentsen, William Cooper and Dan Meador making claim it is somehow proof yet offer nothing in the form of "positive proof." Yes the data posted by 2501 is evidence but not PROOF.


With regard to Mr. Springer –

The people making their negative assertions, using the above data and the IMF and delegation orders, have not confessed to actually having personal communications with Mr. Springer regarding his efforts and/or his knowledge base and therefore have no idea what Mr. Springer does and does not know regarding the data they use against him upon this blog. All those placing their personal negative commentary here have not confessed to telling Mr. Springer personally that he will lose or exactly how he is wrong just as they have not confessed to making their argument known to Mr. Springer directly and either winning or losing their case against him. They instead opt to offer conjecture hiding behind their computer mask while extolling their virtues as if ego, stupidity and hate were somehow virtues.

Regardless the fore stated, it is the absolute truth and fact that no final, or end outcome regarding Mr. Springer’s et.al. efforts (the effort extends beyond Mr. Springer personally) have been placed in print upon this blog. The soothsayers seem to seek an end prior to the end.

Moreover, those who attempt to discredit Mr. Springer et. al., do so while not exposing anything of theirs to a large audience of American’s opting to make their assertions or knowledge upon this minimalist blog site. Mr. Springer has achieved a large nationwide ear in attempt to find answers for the use of all people and does not try to cause dissention among those collective that seek a bit of liberty. I have not witnessed the aforementioned type of consideration from the local nay sayers, contrariwise I have witnessed ridiculous assertions about people while having no basis in fact. THE WINDMILLS OF THEIR MINDS! If your willing to lie about other bloggers you must be willing to lie about anyone and everyone and everything. I have not read any evidence where Mr. Springer or his efforts have brought harm to any of the negative individual bloggers, yet they cast their stones as though pearls. Those that do little for the public will continue to berate Mr. Springer and you will know exactly who they are for they are known by their words. By your words are you justified and by your words so shall you be condemned.



Now with respect to the PRA –

Either the IRS is a bonafide agency or bureau within and of the US government and has to, as all agencies, comply with the ACTS of Congress, which would thus require a valid OMB number as per the 1995 PRA be placed upon their request for information forms,

OR in the alternative

The IRS and it’s agents are not a bonafide agency or bureau within and of the US government and do not have to comply with the ACTS of Congress.

The 1040 is not mentioned in statute.
The 1040 is mentioned in regulations but without mention of who is to use it.
The 1040 is mentioned in five known to date treasury decisions wherein it is stated the form is to be used by non-resident alien individuals, or withholding agents for non-resident alien individuals.

The questions and issues above have not been cited, in absolute terms using “positive proof” to include case cites, by the Sui Juris nay sayers. Instead they post bits and pieces of evidence minus any actual decisions. Mr. Springer has brought the aforementioned questions/issues before the Public, Congress, Courts, which surpasses what those negative posters here have accomplished.

I, for one, must continue to allow proper and reasonably considerate time for a conclusion, which may or may not lead toward more and better options, but at least we will know where we stand collectively.

I am not a woman, as accused. I am not a member of any club, esoteric or otherwise, as also accused. I am not Demosthenes in disguise as was accused. These accusations were all feeble lies told to remove the discussion from topic to off color and off topic.

I am a member of the human species and place my efforts toward better understanding and consideration for all mankind. Liberation comes thorugh surrender of ego.

Now David post your absolute positive proof your Supreme Court decission(s) to uphold your position that Mr. Spinger and the issue he spearheads has flopped or say no more. Thats the challenge.

[David Merrill]

I have already met that challenge so many times Freeindeed opened a thread just to call me a broken record.

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

I figure REDCLOUD has his own reasons but they are likely in alignment with Demosthenes' cases and the fact that the trial court would not even let the matter be heard.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. You say:

These accusations were all feeble lies told to remove the discussion from topic to off color and off topic.

Untrue except in the sense that the Lindsey Springer appeal and flopped cause are in alignment with a tactic from the DOJ/Treasury to divert people's attention away from the real reason for the Lawrence Dismissal. Maybe you buy the DOJ backing off a criminal case because they did the mathematics a little wrong on the amount owed, as reported to the jury for indictment? That is such hogwash unless maybe the miscalculation meant that Lawrence did not have to file a Return - which I do not believe is the case.

[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.