Springer's brief on appeal in criminal case

[LPC]

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."

To put the above quote in context, it should be pointed out that the 10th Circuit had just rejected every one of Springer's arguments, and was addressing the question of whether or not he should be sanctioned:

One final matter remains to be disposed of and that is the Commissioner's motion to impose sanctions against Mr. Springer and his counsel for maintaining a frivolous appeal. We deny the motion. 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. As a result, we cannot say that this appeal is sufficiently frivolous to justify the imposition of sanctions.

Lindsey K. Springer v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 167-4, No. 08-9004 (10th Cir. 8/31/2009), aff'ng No. 017707-06L (U.S.T.C. 11/14/2007), cert. den., No. 09-8858 (U.S.S.C. 3/22/2010).

I don't think that the court was saying that the issues were difficult to decide, because the court had no difficulty in deciding them. In fact, the court does not deny that his arguments were frivolous, but only that they were not sufficiently frivolous to deserve sanctions. I think that the court was saying that the issues were difficult to explain, and that Springer was somewhat incoherent, but still coherent enough to present at least some issues that were not entirely frivolous.

Bottom line: There is one case in which Springer was able to present at least some losing (but non-frivolous) arguments in a somewhat coherent way.

[Judge Roy Bean]

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.

Indeed . . . my mistake. For some reason I thought he had been.

[notorial dissent]

In looking at the (not so)brief filed, Springer brings up 7 issues

• 1. Does the abolition of Internal Revenue Districts, offices, and District Directors void the Secretary’s authority to collect taxes?
  
  2. Are the counts linked to whether Springer was “required by law” to file a specific tax return to a specific place for 2000 - 2007?
  
  3. Do Forms 1040 for the years 2000 - 2007 violate the PRA?
  
  4. When do civil and criminal aspects of the Secretary’s authority to delegate his power cease?
  
  5. Should the court have suppressed all evidence obtained by Meadors using civil summons while a Grand Jury investigation was ongoing?
  
  6. Did Court’s numerous trial instructions each and collectively violate Springer’s Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial?
  
  7. Was Springer’s waiver voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently made rgarding his Sixth Amendment Trial counsel?

My recollection of the trial proceedings was that the district abolition and PRA nonsense had been brought up at trial and had been shot down repeatedly, which should eliminate 1, 2, 3, and probably 4 if it was even broached at trial, as I thought the delegation thing had been argued to death before now as well. I’m not sure what 5 is all about, but if it was important shouldn’t it have been argued at trial as well, and if not then it is not appealable? I thought 6 and 7 had been shot down when they granted Springer pro se status and ruled that he could, and then don’t I remember that one also having been ruled on as well?

So what it looks like to me is that Springer is still trying to retry the case at the Appeals level with what he had already lost with at the DC level, since most of this is already established law at this point. So it doesn’t look like anything that was appealable was brought up in the appeals brief, or am I missing something here?

[webhick]

it has to be called a brief for a reason, right?

Well, that explains men's briefs.

[LPC]

You, given the name of the document a lawyer has to file, you would think that alone would be a guide to its length, or lack there of - it has to be called a brief for a reason, right?

Nope. "Brief" is the only one-word oxymoron.