Source: http://www.freedom-school.com/tax-matters/background-check-of-the-irs.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:22:58+00:00

Document:
Lindsey Springer writing some words of encouragement and wisdom as to how the IRS functions within each of the "several States." This is properly entitled "Background Check of the IRS."
The "system" of the United States is one of taxation and can appear to be more than complicated especially to those you perceive to know or should know how this "system" functions or works because most of those who you pay to know it actually no nothing about the actual system. They just know how to do the thing they are selling to you and go to the next client.
There is a reason why Attorneys will not make any system changing representations against the Department of Justice´s promotion of the system, and its enforcement, and that is because the license is worth more to the Attorneys then any single clients money.
You must start somewhere. Usually the starting point is what gave rise to your situation which caused you to encounter the "system" in the first place. I will use the IRS as an example since everyone knows that part of the system exists at least in theory.
For the purpose of this email lets presuppose you either did not file ("deliver") a tax form containing the information sought by the IRS´s "information collection request" "form" or you failed to pay ("deliver") the correct amount the information collected by the IRS suggests you actually owed (W-2 or 1099).
For example, the Department of the Treasury is created at Title 31, Sec. 301. The Department of Justice is created at Title 28, Sec. 501. Both of these "departments" are "at the seat of Government." The seat of United States Government codified to be in the District of Columbia at Title 4, Sec. 71.
The Department of Justice has an "Attorney General," See Title 28, Sec. 503, who has "functions" including those "of agencies...of the Department of Justice..." See Title 28, Sec. 509. What then are "agencies of the Department of Justice"?In order to answer this question you must first understand the term "Bureau." For example, the letters "FBI" is commonly known to stand for "Federal Bureau of Investigation" established by Title 28, Sec. 531 "in the Department of Justice." BOP stand for Bureau of Prisons which actually is the FBOP.
For example, under the Federal Tort Claims Act Congress defines a "Federal Agency" to "include [the] executive departments....of the United States." See Title 28, Sec. 2671. So, if the "Bureau" is in a "Department" then it is an agency of the United States. There are many other examples that support this explanation.
The simple way to understand "Agency" is one that acts or takes action upon the authority of another. In 2006, Congress established the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives" within the Department of Justice. See Title 28, Section 599A. Prior to this statutory enactment the SOTT defined "Bureau" at 27 CFR Part 447, Sub Chapter B at Chapter II "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of JUSTICE." In Subpart B in a part Titled "Definitions" the meaning of terms define "Bureau" as "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Department of TREASURY."
So, to understand the Department of Justice has a Bureau of ATFE and the Department of Treasury as a Bureau of ATF. The difference of course is "explosive" and separate statutory existence. However, both are "agencies" of the United States but one is established by Congress and the Secretary´s ATF is an agency created by regulation.
There is no doubt the IRS is an "agency" of the Secretary of the Treasury. The IRS is established by regulation of the Secretary at 26 CFR 601.101. The regulations are known as "Part 600". The Tenth Circuit found this in Losable v. U.S. 919 F. 2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). In Snyder v. U.S. 596 F. Supp. 240, 247 (N.D. Ind. 1984) it was held the IRS owes its entire legal existence pursuant to 26 CFR 601.101. The Tenth Circuit cited to Section 601.101 in U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193(N.3)(10th Cir. 1991).
The Supreme Court has found the IRS is "organized to carry out" the Internal Revenue Laws. U.S. v. Euge 444 U.S. 707, 719 (N.3)(1980). The Supreme Court held in U.S. v. LaSalle, that Congress ONLY authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to administer and enforce the laws related to internal revenue. 437 U.S. 298, 308 (1978). The Courts have found the Secretary has the power to create a collection (collection of information and money) agency at Title 26, Section 7805.
If you are blessed to read and understand how the power given the Secretary of the Treasury is different than any other Department or Agency you can then see by "background check" whether the U.S. District Court has "Jurisdiction" to enforce or adjudge any alleged transgression of laws related to internal revenue. I realize those who deal with matters related to internal revenue will understand this explanation sooner than most others, but you can be the exception.
If a U.S. Attorney could do a Grand Jury proceeding related to internal revenue offenses while the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate pursues institutional goals of the IRS, the 5th Amendment Grand Jury then becomes under the control of the United States´ IRS which completely violates the reason for a Grand Jury explained in U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992). A Grand Jury´s purpose is to stand between the Government and people and that cannot happen when either the IRS becomes the Grand Jury´s agency or the Grand Jury becomes an agency of the IRS. Hence, the indict a ham sandwich theory.
The Supreme Court calls the "authorization" a "referral" to a local U.S. Attorney. LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312. The United States Department of Justice has been aware the only way to have a person lawfully indicted by a 5th Amendment Grand Jury related to internal revenue laws, including banking laws under Title 31, since before 1978, and for some unknown reason refuses to obey LaSalle.
I guess the reason is that if the IRS had to stop doing a "criminal" investigation at the point a referral to a U.S. Attorney was lawfully made, the IRS Investigators, as Grand Jury Agents, would lose the sting they possess readily apparent when the Grand Jury and IRS become one flesh.
All the IRs must do is complete their institutional investigation and then if it unearths enough to make a referral the Grand Jury can hear the evidence. The U.S. Attorney may be able to use a Grand Jury to gather post referral evidence, not already gathered, in most cases, but not tax cases. In referral cases the "prophylactic rule" prohibits the U.S. Attorney to continue an IRS investigation of a certain calendar year after referral is more than clear.
At the point an IRS Criminal Investigator testifies as to the evidence he learned of before referral he is called a "witness." The point the Criminal Investigator´s name appears on a Grand Jury subpoena he no longer is just a witness but now an agent of the Grand Jury which is unlawful. Just ask yourself where can a Grand Jury employ a witness who has testified before it to act on the Grand Jury´s behalf?
The violation of the 5th Amendment is endless. Wouldn´t a witness who testifies against a suspect, truthful or not, have motive to preserve his version of the facts? How this effects the District Court´s Jurisdiction is also endless. A referral ends the IRS´s institutional authority, civil or criminal, given it by the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce any provision of law related to internal revenue.
Look at it this way. The Secretary, by referral, takes his power from the IRS and hands it to the U.S. Attorney who then presents a case for Grand Jury indictment. Without the authorization from the Secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. Attorney would have no authority to consider prosecution under Title 28, Section 547(1) on "offenses" related to internal revenue. If a proper referral is made, no evidence obtained by the IRS through post referral enforcement statutes could ever be used to obtain an indictment or conviction because it was obtained without legal authority. Remember a subpoena or summons seeks the evidence by enforcement.
If you are being pursued by the Grand Jury and IRS at the same time you are experiencing modern day tyranny. You are also experiencing violations of your rights to a Grand Jury being properly empanelled, only be prosecuted by referral, and your rights protected by the Tax laws themselves. If a search warrant was obtained after referral you have a 4th and 5th Amendment violation. After indictment you should demand to see and have an expert examine the alleged referral to determine if it really is a referral or the type of made up letter used in the case against me and Mr. Stilley.
"Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statutes, See Willy v. Coastal Corp. 503, U.S. 131, 136-37, 117 L.ED. 2d 280, 112 S.Ct. 1076 (1992), which is not to be explained by Judicial Decree. Fire & Casualty Co. v. Fin, 341 U.S. 6, 95 L.Ed. 702, 71 S.Ct. 534, 19 ALR 2d 738 (1951). It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall, 8,11, I L. Ed 718 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." McNutt v. GMAC 298 U.S. 178, 182- 83, 80 L.Ed. 1135, 56 S. Ct. 780 (1936).
´Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction...which cannot be explained by judicial decree...It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction."
The Party is the USA when a Grand Jury pursues or issues an indictment. So, when you are faced or know someone who was or is facing Grand Jury charges derived form laws related to internal revenue, consider that it is presumed the Government has not complied with the referral requirements and the District Court never had jurisdiction. If on the other hand a referral does exist for a specific calendar year, any evidence obtained by the IRS after that date by enforcement proceedings will most likely be excluded, when claimed, by law, since it was obtained after referral in very bad faith.
Just do a background check and you will see for yourself.
I pray in Jesus name you each are given understand of these words and those of you affected by IRS and Grand Jury are relieved based upon the discovery the U.S. Attorney and IRS violated LaSalle and its bright line rule of referral.
Thank you for continuing to support our family and Dad´s mission.
NOTICE: Lindsey Springer and other presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.