Thursday, November 12, 2009

Trial update on Lindsey Springer

This is a IRS trial in progress. As Promised, Lindsey Springer is sending out updates on what is happening. I thought some of you may be interested as this is the first time anyone has argued the Paper Work Reduction Act as a defense for Willful Failure to File. I should note that this is a jury trial. Juries are the acting body of government and one of the checks and balances our Founders put in place.

It's unfortunate but the courts have usurped this power as well because of lack of education.

Judges now ask: "will you follow the law even if you disagree with it?"
if you say no...you don't get picked.

This violates your Unalienable Rights as all political power is inherent in the people, we have the right to alter or reform government, to instruct government and to nullify any bad law.

It also violates the defendant of due process of law, and the right to a fully informed jury of peers.

The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).

The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).

But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).

They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: trial update on Lindsey Springer

Lindsey Springer here and without saying much I offer this update. On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, I took the stand and began to explain how I got where I am and what I have learned. I was allowed to read certain parts to the jury regarding the General Accountability Office (GAO) http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GAO2005PRA.pdf Report from May, 2005 where GAO specifically informed both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the United States Treasury Department (IRS) that simply saying on a Tax Form "the laws of the United States" or "internal revenue code" requires you answer these questions did not satisfy the obligation each Agency has regarding their seeking of income tax information from the public. GAO states in the report 10 standards which the IRS must comply and certify compliance with on their forms distributed to the public. See page 17 of the report. I showed the jury that GAO told both OMB and IRS that they must cite to the specific code sections which the "collection of information" encompassed and these citations must be on the form itself. See page 31 of the report. For an example of how a citation encompassing a request form should appear see Form 709 (2002). Go here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f709--2002.pdf

I was asked by the Prosecution to read page 31, footnote 50 which stated "may" not apply if the request is "mandated by statute." I read from page 34 that if the IRS wished to maintain the requirement to file any of their hundreds of forms was mandated by statute to file under the tax law, they were required to cite such section making such request mandatory on the request form in order to justify non compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB regulations.


I read to the jury that "collection forms on the four agencies’ Web sites did not consistently include required information. Specifically, an estimated 41 percent of forms (487 of 1,179 total forms, excluding bootleg and expired forms) on the four agencies’ Web sites—ranging from 13 percent at VA to 55 percent at HUD—contained one or more violations. IRS was one of the "four agencies" randomly reviewed by GAO.

I was allowed to read the following passage:

"In the case of IRS, most of the agency’s noncompliance resulted from forms that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected. OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social Security payment) or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to respond). However, the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:

We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

"When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS’s burden estimation methodology increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us that citing the "Internal Revenue laws of the United States" provided adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite a specific law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested."

"If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements described, the public may be asked to provide information without appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to exercise scrutiny of agencies’ collections." Footnote 51 states:

If the collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit or mandatory, the agency should cite the legal authority therefore as part of the notice to the respondents. This should ensure a higher response rate and help the respondent understand the benefit and/or need to respond in an accurate, complete manner." OIRA, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Implementing Guidance for OMB Review of Agency Information Collection, draft (Aug. 16, 1999), Ch. V, section D.4.

The public’s scrutiny is stated as follows in one of the 10 standards as:

"a statement that the public has a right not to respond to the request for information if a valid OMB control number is not displayed." The IRS actuallly tells the public:

"Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a valid OMB control number."

See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=109046,00.html

Section 3512 reads

Public protection

(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--

(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.


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction/3512.html


I will continue on Thursday giving my direct testimony. The Court is allowing me to give a narrative to the jury. IRS told GAO the reason why IRS refuses to tell the public on Form 1040 what makes the Form 1040 mandated by statute is because reading the law would cause significant burden on the public due to them needing to "read the law." We must take this opportunity to rein the IRS back into compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRAy)

This may be my last email to you based upon what may happen at trial. My wife has agreed to send updates if I should become incarcerated. I will do my best. I thank you all for following the tribulations of Lindsey Springer. I also wish to thank each of you that supported me in this tremendous battle I am in.

I would request you consider continuing to support me regardless of the outcome of my trial as we must force the IRS to comply with Federal Law regarding their request for information forms. You and I are the only police of the IRS. No one else, besides GAO, even considers taking the IRS on but you and me.

I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or you can use the mail to send what ever is on your heart to give me. My address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135. Thank you.

11.11.09

2 comments:

Dodad said...

When a judge ask will you to follow the law,you answer yes,then follow the Constitution.And if it's Unconstitutional,other words a government code,mandate or statute disguised as law find the defendent not guilty.We as jurors are the master and the judge is the servant,they don't have power over us.The judges are only there to referee the court proceedings.

Patriot35 said...

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, so it will be easy to answer the YES to the Judge when he asks the UNLAWFUL question 'will you follow the law even if you disagree with it?'.

Then the Judge is the only one lying here, for he is sworn to uphold the Constitution (The SUPREME LAW of the Land).

Case closed.