Springer's brief on appeal in criminal case

[notorial dissent]

I did after all say "maybe", facetiously, but in truth, it does read like pure Springer, and i wholeheartedly agree with Judge Easterbrook's sentiments on the matter, Barringer does not really even come up to the level of hack at this point.

[landons]

The sheer ignorance of those posting in this forum is unnerving, if not altogether shocking. Could someone please explain to me how you would fit five years' worth of argument into 13,000 words? Mind you, this is fewer words than the judge's closing speech at sentencing...

Also, it's curious how every one of Springer's setbacks is documented and ridiculed here, while it recently came out that the deed to Springer's home was given away illegally, that the so-called special agents that siezed money from Springer's home were not operating under a criminal referral, and that Springer was simultaneously investigated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury (while he was deceived into believing he was not under grand jury investigation at the time). Would these omissions also be due to ignorance, or mere cowardry?

[Judge Roy Bean]

The sheer ignorance of those posting in this forum is unnerving, if not altogether shocking. Could someone please explain to me how you would fit five years' worth of argument into 13,000 words?

With appropriate legal acumen, well-reasoned argument and command of the language.

Mind you, this is fewer words than the judge's closing speech at sentencing...

Which is meaningless. There are no rules regarding the number of words a Judge uses during sentencing.

...Also, it's curious how every one of Springer's setbacks is documented and ridiculed here, while it recently came out that the deed to Springer's home was allegedly given away illegally, that the so-called special agents that allegedly siezed [sic] money from Springer's home were allegedly not operating under a criminal referral, and that Springer was allegedly simultaneously investigated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury (while he was allegedly deceived into believing he was not under grand jury investigation at the time). Would these allegedomissions also be due to ignorance, or mere cowardry?

You need to learn the appropriate use of the terms "alleged" and "allegedly." I have taken the liberty to apply it where it belongs. You should also seek to explain what the vague "it recently came out" really means.

Welcome to Quatloos.

[LPC]

The sheer ignorance of those posting in this forum is unnerving, if not altogether shocking.

I agree.

But which postings are we talking about?

Could someone please explain to me how you would fit five years' worth of argument into 13,000 words?

I think that if I had been arguing about something for five years, I would have by that time learned how to fit my argument into 500 words.

There's a difference between five year's worth of argument and one argument repeated (ad nauseum) over five years.

Mind you, this is fewer words than the judge's closing speech at sentencing...

You were there? And you counted them?

Also, it's curious how every one of Springer's setbacks is documented and ridiculed here, while it recently came out that the deed to Springer's home was given away illegally, that the so-called special agents that siezed money from Springer's home were not operating under a criminal referral, and that Springer was simultaneously investigated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury (while he was deceived into believing he was not under grand jury investigation at the time). Would these omissions also be due to ignorance, or mere cowardry?

None of those things "came out" and there were no "omissions."

[bmielke]

The sheer ignorance of those posting in this forum is unnerving, if not altogether shocking. Could someone please explain to me how you would fit five years' worth of argument into 13,000 words? Mind you, this is fewer words than the judge's closing speech at sentencing...

That's probably a 30-40 page brief, they have lots of style and formating that tends to make them longer they they would be if it was an essay.

Have you ever read much less written a brief, because I have, you don't need more than 30-40 pages even when the issue is complicated. 10-15 is just about perfect.

[Demosthenes]

Hi LandonS. How's your dad coping in prison?

[triumphguy2]

That's probably a 30-40 page brief, they have lots of style and formating that tends to make them longer they they would be if it was an essay.

Have you ever read much less written a brief, because I have, you don't need more than 30-40 pages even when the issue is complicated. 10-15 is just about perfect.

I do quite a bit of civil appellate work, and when my brief hits 20 pages I start seriously looking at where it can be trimmed. I think the longest brief I ever filed was about 40 pages, and that was a contested adoption with a complicated set of facts that took a lot of space to lay out. I don't think I've ever used more than 10 pages (at the most) to make a legal argument, even when I was dealing with an issue of first impression.

There is a great quote from Justice Works of the California Supreme Court which inferred from a lengthy brief on a single issue that there was little support for the position argued: "We are inclined to doubt the correctness of the ruling of the court below, on account of the extreme length of the brief of the learned counsel for respondent in its support. Knowing the abilities of counsel, and their accurate knowledge of the law, a brief of 85 pages, coming from them in support of a single ruling of the court below, casts great doubt upon such ruling. However, the learned counsel may not have had time to prepare a short brief..." King v. Gildersleeve 79 Cal. 504, 507, 21 P. 961, 962 (Cal.1889).

[bmielke]

Also, the noob may not be aware that in many courts the rules for the court state the maximum length a brief can be usually 10 to 15 pages.

I am only guessing, but the courts probably do this to make their workload a bit easier and as a method to keep the attorneys focused and on point. Or as Sgt Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts please."

I heard a horror story about an attorney who was conducting voir dire on an expert witness in a Med Mal Case he filed a motion to exclude or a motion in limine and in support of the motion he filed a brief with exhibits that took up an entire file box. It took six hours to get through the hearing they had on the motion.

I think he lost, to be honest all I remember is the moral to the story is that if you can't fit what your filling in a normal file folder, have someone else cut it down to size.

[.]

Hi LandonS. How's your dad coping in prison?

Ha. I knew sooner or later someone would get to the heart of the matter.

[bmielke]

That's probably a 30-40 page brief, they have lots of style and formating that tends to make them longer they they would be if it was an essay.

Have you ever read much less written a brief, because I have, you don't need more than 30-40 pages even when the issue is complicated. 10-15 is just about perfect.

I do quite a bit of civil appellate work, and when my brief hits 20 pages I start seriously looking at where it can be trimmed. I think the longest brief I ever filed was about 40 pages, and that was a contested adoption with a complicated set of facts that took a lot of space to lay out. I don't think I've ever used more than 10 pages (at the most) to make a legal argument, even when I was dealing with an issue of first impression.

There is a great quote from Justice Works of the California Supreme Court which inferred from a lengthy brief on a single issue that there was little support for the position argued: "We are inclined to doubt the correctness of the ruling of the court below, on account of the extreme length of the brief of the learned counsel for respondent in its support. Knowing the abilities of counsel, and their accurate knowledge of the law, a brief of 85 pages, coming from them in support of a single ruling of the court below, casts great doubt upon such ruling. However, the learned counsel may not have had time to prepare a short brief..." King v. Gildersleeve 79 Cal. 504, 507, 21 P. 961, 962 (Cal.1889).

I have read many, the longest was 43 pages it was a pre (or post?) hearing brief in a Medicaid Appeal (administrative level), most are between 7-12 pages. I have only written a few, all of mine have been under 10 pages.

[Nikki]

Then again, there was the Judge's response to one of SFBFKADMVP's filings -- something along the lines of "Too much space between the covers"

[LPC]

There is a great quote from Justice Works of the California Supreme Court which inferred from a lengthy brief on a single issue that there was little support for the position argued: "We are inclined to doubt the correctness of the ruling of the court below, on account of the extreme length of the brief of the learned counsel for respondent in its support. Knowing the abilities of counsel, and their accurate knowledge of the law, a brief of 85 pages, coming from them in support of a single ruling of the court below, casts great doubt upon such ruling. However, the learned counsel may not have had time to prepare a short brief..." King v. Gildersleeve 79 Cal. 504, 507, 21 P. 961, 962 (Cal.1889).

There is a natural tendency to doubt the accuracy (or sincerity) of any explanation that goes on too long. ("The lady doth protest too much" is another example.)

And, looking at it from the other direction, brevity can be persuasive. Sometimes, the most powerful expression (and the most difficult to write) is a simple declaratory sentence: subject, verb, and object.

These nuances of rhetoric are lost on the tp crowd, who think that their repetitive appeals can be more persuasive if they add ever more strident adjectives.

[landons]

(Sorry, but I jump around a bit here. There are quotes from at least four different posts.)

With appropriate legal acumen, well-reasoned argument and command of the language.

So, you're saying that everyone should be as educated as you to defend themselves? (Aside from the grammatical abuses incurred while shortening the brief from 50,000 words to 14,000...)

In Lindsey's case against the IRS Commissioner, the court found that, "Although Mr. Springer's appellate briefs are far from a model of clarity, he has managed to advance several arguments in this appeal that raise difficult issues under both the tax code and the PRA." Everyone pokes fun at his grammar. Sorry, but you're late on that bandwagon.

Which is meaningless. There are no rules regarding the number of words a Judge uses during sentencing.

You've missed the forest for the trees. The point is that Judge Friot had all day to tell everybody how much of a "con artist" Lindsey is, but Lindsey gets fewer words to defend himself in his appeal. I neither stated nor implied any such restriction on the Judge; I merely wanted to point out the absurdity of limiting Lindsey to so few words when 15 years of his life depend on them. (As an aside, it was quite clear how limitless Judge Friot's words could be. He literally took the time to tell Lindsey how much his family should hate him for his actions...)

You need to learn the appropriate use of the terms "alleged" and "allegedly." I have taken the liberty to apply it where it belongs. You should also seek to explain what the vague "it recently came out" really means.

Welcome to Quatloos.

Though you're right that I should gather and cite my sources, I'm inclined to think you're an ass who wasted his time correcting me, rather than considering whether there was truth in what I said. Are you interested in my sources, or are you assuming there aren't any?

I think that if I had been arguing about something for five years, I would have by that time learned how to fit my argument into 500 words.

There's a difference between five year's worth of argument and one argument repeated (ad nauseum) over five years.

I agree, except that there's only one argument. Which argument was that, exactly? At 500 words an argument, I still doubt you could fit five years of issues into 14,000 words (I previously said 13,000--my mistake). There were multiple issues to address (many being newly introduced as a result of the criminal trial and sentencing hearing themselves), and several of the issues warrant multiple arguments.

You were there? And you counted them?

I was there, but it was Lindsey who read the transcripts (and multiple times at that). Yes, he even counted the words in the judge's closing statement.

None of those things "came out" and there were no "omissions."

My point exactly. If anyone cared enough actually to follow the cases, they would know about these other developments. However, those sorts of things don't appear in these forums, and the bias is evident. (And how in the world could you know if there were no omissions?)

Also, the noob may not be aware that in many courts the rules for the court state the maximum length a brief can be usually 10 to 15 pages.

I am only guessing, but the courts probably do this to make their workload a bit easier and as a method to keep the attorneys focused and on point. Or as Sgt Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts please."

Setting aside the condescension of talking to me indirectly, I was fully aware of that limitation. The original "brief" was nearly 50,000 words, Lindsey filed a request for overlength-brief (which was denied), and he had to shorten it to 14,000 words (but still avoid losing the opportunity to raise certain arguments). I personally would hope that the potential for 15 years in prison warrants a slightly tougher-than-normal workload...

Hi LandonS. How's your dad coping in prison?

How do you think he's coping? It's prison.

[wserra]

I merely wanted to point out the absurdity of limiting Lindsey to so few words when 15 years of his life depend on them.

The number and complexity of appellate issues - and thus the length of an appellate brief - are almost completely unrelated to the length of the sentence imposed. I've seen a shoplifting case that had more issues that various murders.

The point of length restrictions in briefs is to make the litigants do some work, rather than just throwing everything including the kitchen sink before an appellate court. It's much harder to write a short brief than a long one. It's also much more effective, as you may have noticed from some of the criticisms and sanctions levelled at Barringer. Do you think that Springer is well served by a prolix, near incomprehensible brief from a lawyer who has been previously sanctioned for prolix, near incomprehensible briefs?

Though you're right that I should gather and cite my sources

Only if you want to persuade anyone. If that's not important to you - if all you really want to do is rant - then by all means keep posting your own conclusions that various courts are wrong. The point isn't that courts can't be wrong - of course they can - but that it is rational to presume that they're right unless shown otherwise. Shown, not ranted.

Hence JRB's comment.

Are you interested in my sources, or are you assuming there aren't any?

Speaking for myself, I'm interested in your sources. Since you don't cite any, I'm presuming pending evidence to the contrary that the courts (before which Springer had a full opportunity to state his positions) are correct.

At 500 words an argument, I still doubt you could fit five years of issues into 14,000 words

At 500 words per argument, I virtually guarantee that I could fit five years of issues which matter into 14,000 words. In fact, at 5,000 words per argument, I could probably fit five years of issues which matter into 14,000 words.

There were multiple issues to address (many being newly introduced as a result of the criminal trial and sentencing hearing themselves), and several of the issues warrant multiple arguments.

Assume that the appellate court to whom Springer addresses his arguments disagrees to the point of not even addressing most of those arguments. That's happened in the past, right? Is he right or are they? If you believe that those 25+ arguments and sub-arguments Barringer briefed all should be addressed, but the Circuit doesn't do so, cert. denied, are you still "right" in any meaningful sense?

If anyone cared enough actually to follow the cases, they would know about these other developments.

Trees. Forests. Think about it. That's what a lawyer is supposed to do, but it requires work.

How do you think he's coping? It's prison.

Believe it or not, I'm truly sorry about that. In these situations, frequently the family suffers most. Still, the family needs to take care not to enable.

[landons]

Only if you want to persuade anyone. If that's not important to you - if all you really want to do is rant - then by all means keep posting your own conclusions that various courts are wrong.

It was a rant, and for that--I apologize. I just now realized that my arguments really aren't yet relevant, as the issues are still pending in the courts. I wasn't arguing with the courts' decisions; I was pointing out the bias in what does or does not appear in these forums.

I suppose better points might have been how Judge Frizzell ruled in Lindsey's favor on the Bivens action, or how it was peculiar that "special agent" Brian Shern was both a witness against Lindsey in the criminal trial and a co-defendant in the Bivens action. It's surprising how those sorts of things are addressed so infrequently, while Lindsey's grammar is criticized every other post.

Regardless, a lesson on the word "allegedly" was a deflection. I wasn't trying to persuade, but to invoke a discussion concerning biases.

Believe it or not, I'm truly sorry about that. In these situations, frequently the family suffers most. Still, the family needs to take care not to enable.

I appreciate your concern. To be frank, I don't agree with everything he does or believes. I do, however, support him in everything. I suppose the difference is that I wouldn't do it myself. One thing is for certain--he's not trying to deceive, but to expose. When picking sides, I like to choose the one with nothing to hide, and that's certainly not the IRS.

[wserra]

It was a rant, and for that--I apologize.

No need to apologize. Folks rant here all the time. My point was that ranting doesn't take the place of proof.

I wasn't arguing with the courts' decisions; I was pointing out the bias in what does or does not appear in these forums.

But you didn't do so successfully. The only "bias" you've shown is something that makes perfect sense: that people here will presume a court ruling, issued after notice and an opportunity to be heard, is correct unless shown otherwise. Feel free to prove away.

I suppose better points might have been how Judge Frizzell ruled in Lindsey's favor on the Bivens action,

But that's not exactly what happened. He denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that there were questions of fact on the agents' qualified immunity. That's not the same thing as saying that Springer had a case, just that he had enough to go to a jury. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. That happens all the time, and hardly shows any type of "bias". If that's not your point, I'm not sure what it is.

or how it was peculiar that "special agent" Brian Shern was both a witness against Lindsey in the criminal trial and a co-defendant in the Bivens action.

Why is that "peculiar"? Should it be the law that a criminal defendant can prevent a witness from testifying against him by the simple expedient of suing him? If that's not your point, I'm not sure what it is.

It's surprising how those sorts of things are addressed so infrequently, while Lindsey's grammar is criticized every other post.

There. They're just addressed. With all due respect, perhaps they weren't addressed before because they're pretty obvious. Anything else?

I do, however, support him in everything.

I assume that Demo is correct in saying that you are his son. (One finds that Demo is pretty much always correct.) Suppose you see that your dad is rushing headlong towards a cliff. I've been a lawyer for a long time; I see what he has been doing for some time as the legal equivalent. How do you best "support" him: by heading him off as best you can, or by being uncritically silent and allowing him to plunge off it?

When picking sides, I like to choose the one with nothing to hide, and that's certainly not the IRS.

What is the IRS trying to hide?

[Thule]

I agree, except that there's only one argument. Which argument was that, exactly? At 500 words an argument, I still doubt you could fit five years of issues into 14,000 words (I previously said 13,000--my mistake). There were multiple issues to address (many being newly introduced as a result of the criminal trial and sentencing hearing themselves), and several of the issues warrant multiple arguments.

So Lindsey is unhappy with the limit, fair enough. But why does he use all that space on an all-time loser like the PRA-argument. That horse has been beaten into a pulp. Lindsey wastes paper, and then whines about not getting more paper to waste.

[Judge Roy Bean]

(Sorry, but I jump around a bit here. There are quotes from at least four different posts.)

With appropriate legal acumen, well-reasoned argument and command of the language.

So, you're saying that everyone should be as educated as you to defend themselves? (Aside from the grammatical abuses incurred while shortening the brief from 50,000 words to 14,000...)

If your opponent is, then you should be or you should retain equally, if not more, competent counsel. Volume does not necessarily equal competency.

...
You've missed the forest for the trees. The point is that Judge Friot had all day to tell everybody how much of a "con artist" Lindsey is, but Lindsey gets fewer words to defend himself in his appeal.

I think you are misunderstanding the fundamentals of appellate courts - it is not a re-hearing of the case. It is very narrowly focused on specific decisions the trial court made - pointing out the error(s) and showing compelling, reasoned argument in support of those matters.

...
I neither stated nor implied any such restriction on the Judge; I merely wanted to point out the absurdity of limiting Lindsey to so few words when 15 years of his life depend on them. (As an aside, it was quite clear how limitless Judge Friot's words could be. He literally took the time to tell Lindsey how much his family should hate him for his actions...)

Step back from the forest for a moment. Some criminals tend to see themselves as being above the law and are willing to throw the lives of other people away so they can have the "glory" of being martyred for some "cause" they imagine to be important to huge numbers of people.

...
Though you're right that I should gather and cite my sources, I'm inclined to think you're an ass who wasted his time correcting me, rather than considering whether there was truth in what I said. Are you interested in my sources, or are you assuming there aren't any?

How does one determine the truth behind claims without some foundation?

...
... There were multiple issues to address (many being newly introduced as a result of the criminal trial and sentencing hearing themselves), and several of the issues warrant multiple arguments.

Again - study what appeals are really all about.

...
I was there, but it was Lindsey who read the transcripts (and multiple times at that). Yes, he even counted the words in the judge's closing statement.

To what end?

Do you not see from that how diffuse and self-destructive his mental processes are?

... I personally would hope that the potential for 15 years in prison warrants a slightly tougher-than-normal workload...

I think you're also misunderstanding the role of Judges in observing the convicted party's acuity and sheer grasp of what they're facing, as well as their attitude. Springer is held to a higher standard because of his former status as an attorney. By flaunting even the simplest of standards in forming cogent arguments he makes himself out to be deliberately contemptuous.

[Pottapaug1938]

It's been almost 18 years since I left the practice of law; but one thing I do remember being taught is that a good brief is as short as possible, sticks as close as possible to the points being argued; and includes citations only to cases which directly buttress points raised in the arguments. It also covers ONLY the issues which give rise to the appeal (or which counter the other party's appeal). It does NOT serve as a means to re-try the case; and it should NOT serve as a vehicle for copious citations with little or no relevance to the points being argued.

If Stilley cannot construct a cogent argument as to why the conviction should be reversed, within the customary limits of the court, I question whether his "brief" says anything worthwhile at all.

[wserra]

Springer is held to a higher standard because of his former status as an attorney.

JRB - I think you mean Oscar Stilley. AFAIK Lindsey Springer was never a lawyer.