Springer's brief on appeal in criminal case

[Dezcad]

After many extensions, Springer has finally filed his brief in the appeal of his criminal conviction. If you find some of it difficult to read, the reason may be that the brief was reduced in length (it seems like a lot of articles like "a" and "the" and prepositions were removed) it was because Springer had requested to file a 40K word brief, instead of the 14K word limitation.

Here is the result of some of the editing that makes this so difficult to read and understand, apart from the legal nonsense:

Secretary attempted to create a nationwide system, but there is no authority for Congress to create something called “Nationwide Jurisdiction.” The 16th Amendment forbids “Nationwide Jurisdiction.” (Among the Several States.).

Setting aside notion none of three IRS employees were acting in their capacity as
delegate of Secretary, due to criminal referral, Court should have followed laws Congress
wrote, or did not write, instead of making laws as facts were disclosed.

With no IRS with jurisdiction and no IRD or DD, gift, return, service not defined, no duty
under willfulness, every transaction in Springer's name and BBM, all property in Springer's
name, Counts One through Six failed to allege offense and dismissal was required by law.

For reasons no referral made, neither IRS or any "lawful functions" existed due to no IRDs or DDs, terms return, gift, services, not defined, form 1040 not complying with PRA, Court's jurisprudence on PRA unclear, evidence obtained in violation of 7601-02, purported affidavit not sworn, capacity of Shern, Meadors and others not as delegates, evidence insufficient, no overt act or affirmative act alleged furthering any offense, No U.S. Attorney, violations of Sixth
Amendment jury trial, venue, jurisdiction, including presentation of good faith and complete
defense, instructions, counsel, Fifth Amendment due process, Judge prevented and recusal
warranted, as well as sentence of 180 months and restitution of $770,000 each clearly
erroneous, lenity, reversal of all convictions is required by law.

[Pottapaug1938]

It would have been nice if he'd written his brief in English.

[fortinbras]

Springer's brief was filed by a bona fide lawyer, but the brief is tough reading; the unhelpful Table of Contents and the odd telegraphese of the prose combine to make it a real challenge to pay attention. Early on it raises the notorious "Paperwork Reduction Act" argument, which has been rejected so often that it qualifies now as "sanction bait". Since that's its leading argument I find it hard to continue plowing through this not-very-brief.

[wserra]

Springer's brief was filed by a bona fide lawyer

Well, not exactly. It's Barringer, after all.

[grixit]

Judge Thog say, Thog read brief. Thog see brief not so brief. Thog see brief hard to read. Thog think man try make fool of Thog. Thog see man try slip frivolous argument past Thog. Thog reject brief. Thog say henceforth, to wit, egregious and other lawyer type words so man know Thog serious. Thog impose $12,000 frivolous penalty on man. Thog say court take cash or cerified check, not clamshells or other ficticious instruments of exchange. Thog say man still has to stay in cave of much grumbling.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Springer's brief was filed by a bona fide lawyer

Well, not exactly. It's Barringer, after all.

Excellent point! Barringer isn't your typical egotistical, arrogant lawyer!

[fortinbras]

You're right about Jerold Barringer. In fact, just last week the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld a severe monetary penalty imposed on Barringer, for his dilatory and frivolous legal antics while handling the case of Powell v. CIR, Tax Ct Memo 2009-174. He was Springer's lawyer below, and has handled cases for many other tax dodgers, with a very lopsided win-loss ratio.

[Judge Roy Bean]

It takes a certain kind of idiocy to play linguistic games with courts;

It takes an even more dangerous kind of idiocy to do it on behalf of a client.

A show-cause hearing sounds appropriate if the judge is willing to waste even more time.

[Cathulhu]

Judge Thog say, Thog read brief. Thog see brief not so brief. Thog see brief hard to read. Thog think man try make fool of Thog. Thog see man try slip frivolous argument past Thog. Thog reject brief. Thog say henceforth, to wit, egregious and other lawyer type words so man know Thog serious. Thog impose $12,000 frivolous penalty on man. Thog say court take cash or cerified check, not clamshells or other ficticious instruments of exchange. Thog say man still has to stay in cave of much grumbling.

Grixit, I think I love you. Don't tell my spouse!

[Gregg]

Judge Thog say, Thog read brief. Thog see brief not so brief. Thog see brief hard to read. Thog think man try make fool of Thog. Thog see man try slip frivolous argument past Thog. Thog reject brief. Thog say henceforth, to wit, egregious and other lawyer type words so man know Thog serious. Thog impose $12,000 frivolous penalty on man. Thog say court take cash or cerified check, not clamshells or other ficticious instruments of exchange. Thog say man still has to stay in cave of much grumbling.

Grixit, I think I love you. Don't tell my spouse!

I think he stole most of that from my dissertation or "She's So Fine" George Harrison joke

[Dezcad]

The brief was difficult to read as it was since there was an attempt to reduce the length of it, but now, the tag team of Springer and Barringer will have to get more creative.

12/22/2010 Open Document [9826325] Supplemental deficiency notice issued. Type of deficiency: Further review of appellant's brief has revealed that the brief exceeds the word limit as set by FRAP 32(a)(7)(B). Within 10 days of the date of this letter, a revised brief shall be filed. See letter for further information. Appellant's revised brief shall be served and filed on or before 01/03/2011 for Lindsey K. Springer.

[notorial dissent]

Well, they could always just submit blank pages, same result as far as I am concerned, the original was just so much gibberish, and removing the articles and stray bits didn't improve it at all, where a full delete would.

The big problem, as I see it, is that if they actually do submit something coherent, then they can both be sanctioned for not obeying the court's orders on what not to submit, since it appears they are just going back to the same old stuff that the court refused and tossed the first time around.

[Pottapaug1938]

Unfortunately, given the personalities involved, I wouldn't expect anything submitted by Springer and Barringer to be legally sufficient or coherent.

[notorial dissent]

I quite agree, they are both in total nonsense mode at this point. Springer has his little fantasies that he will continue to cling to to the very end, and Barringer has his own agenda, which apparently includes getting sanctioned and disbarred(far too late in my opinion). I have to say that in as much as he is doing this more as a platform for his agenda rather than as an advocate for Springer I wonder if that does not come close to violating canons on behaviour?

At this point I don't see how they are going to submit a brief that won't get them both sanctioned since they won't deviate from the nonsense they have latched on to.

[LPC]

The brief was difficult to read as it was since there was an attempt to reduce the length of it, but now, the tag team of Springer and Barringer will have to get more creative.

12/22/2010 Open Document [9826325] Supplemental deficiency notice issued. Type of deficiency: Further review of appellant's brief has revealed that the brief exceeds the word limit as set by FRAP 32(a)(7)(B). Within 10 days of the date of this letter, a revised brief shall be filed. See letter for further information. Appellant's revised brief shall be served and filed on or before 01/03/2011 for Lindsey K. Springer.

Unfortunately, the quality (and persuasiveness) of the brief would not be diminished if they were to simply delete every fifth (or fourth or third) word.

[Famspear]

The brief was difficult to read as it was since there was an attempt to reduce the length of it, but now, the tag team of Springer and Barringer will have to get more creative.

12/22/2010 Open Document [9826325] Supplemental deficiency notice issued. Type of deficiency: Further review of appellant's brief has revealed that the brief exceeds the word limit as set by FRAP 32(a)(7)(B). Within 10 days of the date of this letter, a revised brief shall be filed. See letter for further information. Appellant's revised brief shall be served and filed on or before 01/03/2011 for Lindsey K. Springer.

Unfortunately, the quality (and persuasiveness) of the brief would not be diminished if they were to simply delete every fifth (or fourth or third) word.

An an alternative, the authors may want to consider simply eliminating all vowels. Make it more Slavic, you know, without degrading the overall quality in any way......



Edit: Thus, for example, if Lindsey ("Humdinger") Springer writes:

Form 1040 does not have a valid OMB control number! So, let me out of jail, now!

The text becomes:

Frm 1040 ds nt hv vld MB cntrl nmbr! S, lt m t f jl, nw!

See? The latter is just as likely to work as the former! And it saves not only paper, but also the time of those overworked judges and law clerks!

Never let it be said that Quatloosians don't provide pro bono services to the delusional and morally deficient blowhards in our prisons!

[Gregg]

Lindsey is just having trouble accepting the fact that his destiny is to help clean up the hands of the inmates who work in the cafeteria at federal prisons.

Warriors must wash hands before returning to Stand Tall and work the fryers!

[wserra]

I didn't have the opportunity to read this "brief" until this morning. It's very difficult to read. Two observations:

(1) It's hard to believe that even Barringer would brief (or sign a brief Springer wrote raising) jurisdiction. He deserves to be sanctioned just for that.

(2) grixit, that was inspired.

[notorial dissent]

wserra, I have read some considerable drivel, and more to the point poorly written drivel since I joined this group, but I will have to put this latest effort at the top of the list for absolute worst. My take on it, is that it is almost pure Springer, it reads like Springer, it sounds like Springer, and it makes all the same points that Springer has been going at all along, to the point I really do think that all Barringer did was maybe clean it up a bit and then sign it, which was monumentally stupid on his part, and I agree, I think he should be sanctioned since this is the same stuff that was already denied at trial and that they were warned not to bring back up. I personally think that Barringer should be sanctioned for not acting in his client's best interest, since this obviously wasn't, and I still say he is just using this as a platform for his own agenda.

[LPC]

I really do think that all Barringer did was maybe clean it up a bit and then sign it,

Clean it up? Barringer?

If Barringer touched the brief, he probably made it worse.

In another case for another client, Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals critiqued Barringer's briefing skills:

"Patridge's brief in the criminal appeal presents 19 issues, all frivolous. Many are in the style of tax-protest arguments that we might expect from a layman representing himself but do not expect to see in a brief filed by a member of the bar. [….] Jerold W. Barringer represented Patridge at trial, in the Tax Court, and during the three appeals to this court. He has performed below the standard of a pro se litigant; we have serious doubt about his fitness to practice law. The problem is not simply his inability to distinguish between plausible and preposterous arguments. It is his disdain for the norms of legal practice (19 issues indeed!) and the rules of procedure."

After citing several ways in which Barringer's brief did not comply with rules of practice, the court gave Barringer 14 days to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $10,000 for “frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules” and why he should not be suspended from practice “until he demonstrates an ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly.” United States v. Denny R. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094-95, 2007 TNT 221-11, Nos. 06-3635 and 06-3785 (7th Cir. 11/14/2007), cert. den., No. 07-1045 (U.S. 3/24/2008) (conviction for tax evasion affirmed). Sanctions were in fact imposed, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for mandamus by Barringer seeking review. In re: Jerold W. Barringer, No. 07-1140 (S.C. 4/14/2008).