Lindsey Springer BOP #4 Granted

[Noah]

The cases I handled weren't. I litigated against DOJ on a daily basis, winning some and losing some. A couple of the wins - outright acquittals, not cutting losses - were on high-profile cases. I have never in my life been audited, and I guarantee that - were it DOJ's practice to do so - I would have been audited long before a USDJ.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Just because you were not notified is not proof your returns were not audited.

[.]

Just because you were not notified is not proof your returns were not audited.

You obviously aren't aware of how audits are conducted. Stop digging the hole while you're still visible.

[Famspear]

The cases I handled weren't. I litigated against DOJ on a daily basis, winning some and losing some. A couple of the wins - outright acquittals, not cutting losses - were on high-profile cases. I have never in my life been audited, and I guarantee that - were it DOJ's practice to do so - I would have been audited long before a USDJ.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Just because you were not notified is not proof your returns were not audited.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

[notorial dissent]

Noah, basing this on your reality, consider this, what possible reason could the average IRS schlub come up with to even more than annoy a sitting Federal judge. Losing before a Federal judge isn’t going to affect their career, annoying one could well end it. Judges have long memories, and they talk to each other, do the math.

It is one thing for the IRS to audit/whatever the average Joe sixpack, and another matter entirely for the them to take on a Federal Judge, if only for the fact that something like that is going to get noticed, and noticed big time, and unless they actually have something seriously substantiative(you know like real evidence of a crime having been committed-NOT the judge having ruled against the IRS) it will blow up in their faces in a manner making Krakatoa look like a hiccough. The biggest problem with your theory, is that IF they audit someone and then threaten to take action, the person audited can take the whole thing to court, and what do you think is going to happen when a flimsy IRS case comes up before a sitting judge and the case is against another judge? If the case has no merit, it is going to get tossed, and the IRS will get sanctioned, big time, particularly if it appears to have been as a reprisal, even and particularly if it has even the appearance of reprisal.

Finally, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the IRS loses all the time, usually because they missapplied a law or rule, or were just plain wrong, but generally they win, much as you will not like this, because they did get it right. The other thing that you fail to take into consideration is that it is not the IRS who actually makes the decision to go to court, it is the DOJ, looking at it from a standpoint of do we have enough evidence to prosecute, and can we win if we do, and they have a whole different set of parameters to consider. It is the DOJ who actually makes the decision to proceed, not the IRS, IRS only presents the material and requests prosecution or action. The DOJ is not going to go in to court with a really bad case unless they are just totally off the beam, or they have someone who shouldn’t be making those type of decisions, which isn’t to say it doesn’t happen, political appointees and all. The main point is that they aren’t going to spend the money to go to trial and lose, it is bad PR, it is bad practice, and it makes for some serious ‘splainin’ to do when budget time roles around.

As to Mr Springer, he is a loser and a fool. His excuses for his conduct are just that, excuses, with no basis in law, fact, or reality, and he is going to lose. If he had anything resembling a real defense he would have long since trotted it out, and he hasn’t, and is now grasping at straws that are already long waterlogged. This is the equivalent of someone demanding that the entire statute be read out at trial as opposed to the short title for it, other than wasting a lot of time, it changes nothing in the end.

The current BOP nonsense being a prime example. He is not going to be convicted on what ever regulations he is fretting about, he is going to be convicted on the Federal Statutes he has violated, and the proof thereof, and no matter how he twists and turns that isn’t going to change.

This, like his cohorts vaunted PRA defense is a sure fire LOSER too. He is going to have to show that he didn’t violate the law, or that the law in this case doesn’t apply to him when it comes to trial, and I just don’t see that happening.

[Prof]

In other words, Noah, you do not know what you are talking about; and, the US has already responded to the Court’s order.

I missed the government's response, where is the response posted.
Thanks,
Noah

Second Bill of Particulars filed 10/19/09; buy a PACER account if you want to read it.

[wserra]

Just because you were not notified is not proof your returns were not audited.

Ya know, I've often wondered if I still have my appendix. They could have removed it without notifying me.

[wserra]

I missed the government's response, where is the response posted.

This very thread, a few posts above.

If you don't have PACER access, ask and I will link to the entire response.

[LPC]

Lindsay Springer's views of the matter can be read in a posting to makethestand.com.

From the posting:

So, on October 21, 2009, a pretrial hearing was held and the District Court rejected the Prosecution’s statutory mandate theory. It told the United States that the Court was denying their Motion in Limine which sought to prevent me from even uttering the words "Paperwork Reduction Act" of both 1980 and 1995. The Court informed the Prosecution that I am allowed to present the Paperwork Reduction Act during their case in chief and as a good faith defense.

Despite Springer's spin, I don't think that the court was saying that the PRA is a legal defense, but that Springer's misunderstanding of the PRA is a factual defense to the element of willfulness. Which I believe is correct. Springer should be allowed to explain his reliance on the PRA in his defense of his failure to file a return.

But (and as I think I've noted before) the fact that Springer himself has lost in court several times, and that his website has citations to many of the court decisions rejecting his PRA theory, is going to cause him some problems. (Springer's website even includes a copy of Rev. Rul. 2006-21, which declared his PRA argument to be frivolous.)

Springer also claims that "In 1995 Congress rewrote the Paperwork Reduction Act and specifically stated that its reason to write the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act was to eliminate "exemptions" for the Internal Revenue Service. See Public Law 104-13, see 109 Stat. 163, page 171." I'm not exactly sure what Springer is talking about, but if he means that Congress intended the "penalty protection" provisions of the PRA to apply to tax returns, he's just plain wrong. From my Tax Protester FAQ:

The Office of Management and Budget cited many of those cases, and followed those cases, when it adopted 5 C.F.R. 1320.6(e), which now provides that “The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute--e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return)....”

That regulation was added after the 1995 amendments to the PRA, and in proposing the regulation the OMB cited the Salberg, Neff, Dawes, Hicks, and Wunder decisions, concluding:

"In those cases, the courts concluded that Congress, in enacting the Paperwork Reduction Act, did not intend to require itself to comply with the requirements of that Act (and seek and obtain OMB approval) whenever Congress decides to impose a paperwork requirement on persons directly by statute.

“There is no legislative history pertinent to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 that suggests that Congress intended to change this court interpretation for 44 U.S.C. 3512.

“Accordingly, where Congress imposes a collection of information directly on persons, by statute (as, e.g., in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011(a) and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6938(c)), then the public protection provided by proposed Sec. 1320.6(a) would not preclude the imposition of penalties for a person’s failure to comply with the statutory mandate.”

60 F.R. 30437, 30441 (6/8/1995) (emphasis added; footnote omitted).

Finally, according to Springer, the trial that starts today is expected to last 3-5 weeks.

[LPC]

The Office of Management and Budget cited many of those cases, and followed those cases, when it adopted 5 C.F.R. 1320.6(e), which now provides that “The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute--e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return)....”

There are also several documents on Springer's website which cite that regulation, so Springer can be shown to have been aware of the regulation that refutes his PRA claims.

[Dezcad]

Seems like Lindsey isn't quite playing fair, not that it is a surprise:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER,
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY,
Defendants.

Case No. 09-CR-043-SPF

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Thomas Scott Woodward, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Kenneth P. Snoke, Assistant United States Attorney, and Charles A. O’Reilly, Special Assistant United States Attorney, hereby provides notice to the Court that as of the filing of this notice, Defendants have provided no discovery to the United States despite have received reciprocal discovery requests.

During the deposition of Ms. Vikki Wiggins on October 16, 2009, Defendant Springer offered exhibits without having provided copies of the exhibits to opposing counsel. Defendant Springer requested breaks during the deposition in order to retrieve exhibits from his car, and would then present these exhibits to the witness without ever having shown them to the United States. Furthermore, despite offering Defendant’s Exhibits 9 and 10 during the deposition, Defendant Springer failed to provide these exhibits to the Court Reporter. Defendant Springer did provide the Court Reporter with copies of Defendant’s Exhibits 1 through 8 and 11 through 12. The United States first received marked copies of Defendant’s Exhibits 1 through 8 and 11 through 12 when the United States received the deposition transcript and exhibits from the Court Reporter on Wednesday, October 21, 2009. The United States files this notice to make the Court aware that the prosecuting attorneys may need more time than usual to review Defendants’ exhibits when and if exhibits are offered during trial.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS SCOTT WOODWARD
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Charles A. O’Reilly
CHARLES A. O’REILLY, CBA NO. 160980
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
KENNETH P. SNOKE, OBA NO. 8437
Assistant United States Attorney
110 West Seventh Street, Suite 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
(918) 382-2700

[bmielke]

Finally, according to Springer, the trial that starts today is expected to last 3-5 weeks.

Is the trial really going to last 3-5 weeks? Also can anyone tell me where I can get an Oscar Stilley Action figure? He really is my favorite TP. I would settle for a poster or trading card even.

[Pottapaug1938]

Finally, according to Springer, the trial that starts today is expected to last 3-5 weeks.

Is the trial really going to last 3-5 weeks? Also can anyone tell me where I can get an Oscar Stilley Action figure? He really is my favorite TP. I would settle for a poster or trading card even.

I think that you just came up with a great business opportunity. Just think of the advertising slogans....

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Is the trial really going to last 3-5 weeks? Also can anyone tell me where I can get an Oscar Stilley Action figure? He really is my favorite TP. I would settle for a poster or trading card even.

Someone with more time than I have could paste a picture of Oscar on this:

[LPC]

Finally, according to Springer, the trial that starts today is expected to last 3-5 weeks.

Is the trial really going to last 3-5 weeks?

It's possible.

Most of the failure to file prosecutions that I have followed didn't last more than 3-5 days. But this case involves involves more than one defendant and conspiracy charges, so it's really more like the Wesley Snipes trial, which took almost three weeks from jury selection to jury verdict.

[Dezcad]

Latest docket entries:

10/26/2009 215 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Voir Dire/Jury Selection began as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009 216 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Voir Dire/Jury Selection held on 10/26/2009 as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009 217 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Jury Trial began as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009 218 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Jury Trial held , continued to following day, setting/resetting scheduling order date(s): ( Jury Trial set for 10/27/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009 219 JOINDER (in 210[RECAP] Motion to Quash filed on 10/24/09) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/27/2009 220 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot ruling on Government's Oral Motion re: witness Philip Roberts as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/27/2009 to correct title(pll, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/27/2009)

10/27/2009 221 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Jury Trial held, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #210 and 219 denied as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Re: 210[RECAP] MOTION to Quash Testimony of Vikki Wiggins, 219 JOINDER (in 210[RECAP] Motion to Quash filed on 10/24/09) ) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/27/2009)