Lindsey Springer & Oscar Stilley Indicted (Part 2)

[Weston White]

No the judicial branch is found and empowered in Article III, if Congress wanted a tax court for the people of our Nation they would have done so under Article III, they did not though did they. They did it as an Article I, this is for that fact that the IRC pertains to federal government and its instrumentalities, for such purposes, as made clear by President Taft.

You want to to argue about something with somebody, it is done under Article III, not Article I, that does not apply to me, that applies to the federal government, the national government, that has nothing to do with me... maybe for you it does, hell you probably work for the CIA for all I know... not that I really care, one way or the other.

[Famspear]

You want to to argue about something with somebody, it is done under Article III, not Article I, that does not apply to me, that applies to the federal government, the national government, that has nothing to do with me...

And yet, Congress established the U.S. Tax Court as an Article I court. And Congress gave the Tax Court the power to decide disputes between you and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. You are "somebody," aren't you Weston? And the Commissioner is "somebody" too.

You are a mess, fella.

EDIT: Boy, I bet your parents are so proud of you.

[Prof]

Here is what Wiki says is a complete list of Art. 1 federal courts:

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
US Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
United States Tax Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
United States territorial courts
United States bankruptcy courts
Courts-martial in the U.S. armed forces
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
United States Merit Systems Protection Board
Administrative law adjudicative entities (e.g. Social Security Administration's Appeals Council)

Of course, it leaves off US Magistrate Judges and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels and, I am sure, other tribunals.

These courts are in use every work-day -- and deal with, among other things, very important, real disputes. Courts martial can, for example, impose the death penalty. Their constitutionality is not disputed; only the scope of their jurisdiction (e.g., Bankruptcy Courts can only try matters as to pending bankruptcies.

[Doktor Avalanche]

... For we have been through this many many times and you still fail to grasp it... as very simple as it is to grasp.

The only thing you're going to ever be able to grasp behind bars is the ol' rugged rod of remorse.

Would his name be Chainsaw by any chance?

[Joey Smith]

Sorry, Weston, but if you lose in tax court the judgment will be binding unless you successfully appeal it.

You can whine and babble a lot about it, but it won't matter.

[RyanMcC]

Yes, the "I must be right about tax law because my girlfriend is apparently smart" argument. I use that one all the time, too.

Does your wife know?

[Famspear]

Yes, the "I must be right about tax law because my girlfriend is apparently smart" argument. I use that one all the time, too.

Does your wife know?

[notorial dissent]

If she is so smart, why is she dating Whining Beagles, one would seem to preclude the other, excepting of course that most of the Mensa's I've known don't have the sense my long dead Siamese cat had-which in all charity to my dear Fudge was nearly nil, which may explain a lot.

edited for memory failure, after a time one loon begins to resemble another.

[Duke2Earl]

Actually the mensa in question is allegedly dating Mr. AUandsillyeagles. But also one of the more instructive parts of that reply by Mr "Eagles" is the rash of name calling by one who has lectured us on the calm imparted by his "Eastern philosophies." So I guess that isn't working for him either.

[LPC]

In Stilley's latest disciplinary proceedings, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the hearing judge on 4/22/2009. I haven't been able to find a copy of the document, but it must have found Stilley guilty of something because a sanction hearing is now scheduled for 5/21/2009.

Stark Ligon, Executive Director, v. Oscar Stilley, Ark. Bar No. 91096, No. 08-73 (Ark.).

[notorial dissent]

Ah gee, can I register my shock and amazement at the obvious gross miscarriage of justice a sanctions hearing implies???????? And say it is about time!!!!!!!!!

[Dezcad]

Recent docket activity - Springer is busy.

05/15/2009 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 52 First BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 54 Second BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 56 Third BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 58 Fourth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 60 Fifth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 62 Sixth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 64 Seventh BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 66 Eighth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 5/18/2009 to remove defendant Lindsey Springer from text (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 68 BRIEF in Support of Motion to dismiss for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint ) by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 5/18/2009 to remove Lindsey Springer from text (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 69 JOINDER of motions filed by Lindsey Springer (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009) by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 5/18/2009 to remove Lindsey Springer from text (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/18/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: These documents were filed as to both defendants in error; Correction: Edited docket text and removed Lindsey Kent Springer from text (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 69 JOINDER (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009), 68 Brief in Support of Motion ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/2009)

[Judge Roy Bean]

The Stilley defense strategy: "When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

[LPC]

05/15/2009 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 56 Third BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

Duberstein is a Supreme Court decision addressing the circumstances under which a transfer of property by a business to an individual might be a "gift" (and not income).

I can see Springer arguing to the jury that the payments he received from Stilley were gifts and not income, and demanding an instruction from the judge on the issue, but I can't see how he can ask for a dismissal of the indictment for what is *at* *best* a factual issue for the jury.

[wserra]

I can see Springer arguing to the jury that the payments he received from Stilley were gifts and not income, and demanding an instruction from the judge on the issue, but I can't see how he can ask for a dismissal of the indictment for what is *at* *best* a factual issue for the jury.

In addition, IIRC the charge is that these payments went to Springer from Stilley's escrow account. I don't see how Oscar can live with the idea that he is giving Springer "gifts" of escrow money.

BTW, did I call this one or what?

[LPC]

In addition, IIRC the charge is that these payments went to Springer from Stilley's escrow account. I don't see how Oscar can live with the idea that he is giving Springer "gifts" of escrow money.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), Stilley will probably have been disbarred before the criminal case gets to trial, so he will probably be past worrying about the ethical implications.

[Dezcad]

05/15/2009 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

05/15/2009 56 Third BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

Duberstein is a Supreme Court decision addressing the circumstances under which a transfer of property by a business to an individual might be a "gift" (and not income).

I can see Springer arguing to the jury that the payments he received from Stilley were gifts and not income, and demanding an instruction from the judge on the issue, but I can't see how he can ask for a dismissal of the indictment for what is *at* *best* a factual issue for the jury.

Here's the gist of his argument, as taken from the "Brief".

“The conclusion whether a transfer amounts to a ‘gift’ is one that must be
reached on consideration of all the factors.” Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S.
278, 288 (1960) “Specifically, the trier of fact must be careful not to allow trial of the
issue whether the receipt of a specific payment is a gift to turn into a trial of the tax
liability.” Id.

Whether the liability is alleged that Springer was prohibited from impeding
lawful functions of the IRS in the computation, ascertainment, assessment or
collection of taxes, or whether he is alleged to be “required by law” to provide
information to the Internal Revenue Service on a U.S. Individual Income Tax Form
1040, or whether the alleged claims are that Springer owed a tax deficiency for
years 2000, 2003 and 2005, based upon some newly concluded construction of gifts
Springer is alleged to have received, each of the alleged crimes in each Count rely
almost solely upon whether the money received by Springer triggered a “liability”
Springer was then required to report or pay.

Before any determination can be made as to whether Springer has some
liability to report or pay, a determination must be made as to whether money
received by Springer was excludable from gross income as a “gift” or includable
as “gross income.”

Duberstein holds that the question as to whether money given Springer is a
“gift” or otherwise, must be decided by a non criminal trial first, and is NOT to be
decided in a trial determining any tax liability or tax consequence.

[LPC]

Duberstein holds that the question as to whether money given Springer is a
“gift” or otherwise, must be decided by a non criminal trial first,

This is arrant nonsense, of course. The Duberstein decision was two appeals, one from a decision of the Tax Court and the other from a district court decision in a refund suit. The Supreme Court did not have a criminal case before it, and never said anything about any criminal trials or criminal proceedings.

and is NOT to be decided in a trial determining any tax liability or tax consequence.

WTF? Springer seems to be saying that the federal income tax consequences a transaction must be determined in a non-tax proceeding?

He seems to be misconstruing, and taking out of context, a statement by the court that "the trier of fact must be careful not to allow trial of the issue whether the receipt of a specific payment is a gift to turn into a trial of the tax liability...." But the context is as follows:

The Government derives its test from such propositions as the following: That payments by an employer to an employee, even though voluntary, ought, by and large, to be taxable; that the concept of a gift is inconsistent with a payment's being a deductible business expense; that a gift involves "personal" elements; that a business corporation cannot properly make a gift of its assets. [...] The taxing statute does not make nondeductibility by the transferor a condition on the "gift" exclusion; nor does it draw any distinction, in terms, between transfers by corporations and individuals, as to the availability of the "gift" exclusion to the transferee. The conclusion whether a transfer amounts to a "gift" is one that must be reached on consideration of all the factors.

Specifically, the trier of fact must be careful not to allow trial of the issue whether the receipt of a specific payment is a gift to turn into a trial of the tax liability, or of the propriety, as a matter of fiduciary or corporate law, attaching to the conduct of someone else. The major corollary to the Government's suggested "test" is that, as an ordinary matter, a payment by a corporation cannot be a gift, and, more specifically, there can be no such thing as a "gift" made by a corporation which would allow it to take a deduction for an ordinary and necessary business expense.

363 U.S. at 287-288.

In context, it is clear that the Supreme Court was stating that the deduction (or deductibility) of the payor is not necessarily determinative of the income for the payee.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

I can see Springer arguing to the jury that the payments he received from Stilley were gifts and not income, and demanding an instruction from the judge on the issue, but I can't see how he can ask for a dismissal of the indictment for what is *at* *best* a factual issue for the jury.

In addition, IIRC the charge is that these payments went to Springer from Stilley's escrow account. I don't see how Oscar can live with the idea that he is giving Springer "gifts" of escrow money.

Politicians do it all the time.

Does that qualify Oscar and Lindsey as "politicians"? lol

Tell me why they aren't treated equally in the eyes of the law?

[wserra]

Politicians do it all the time.

Does that qualify Oscar and Lindsey as "politicians"? lol

Tell me why they aren't treated equally in the eyes of the law?

It's hard to know where to begin with stuff like this.

Perhaps you could start by telling me the purpose for which you believe politicians use escrow accounts.