Twenty Years Later

[The Observer]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LINDSEY K. SPRINGER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE S.L.C.A. FAMILY TRUST,
Defendant-Appellant,
AND
REGINA M. CARLSON,
AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE S.L.C.A. FAMILY TRUST;
MARTHA F. MOORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE W.T. MOORE
AND MARTHA F. MOORE REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JUNE 12, 2002;
W.T. SMITH; JANETH S. SMITH,
Defendants.

Release Date: JUNE 23, 2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00278-TCK-PJC)
(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT/*/

Before TYMKOVICH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

After years of wrangling, the government initiated this action to reduce to judgment Lindsey K. Springer's tax assessment and to foreclose on real property acquired through Springer's nominee, the S.L.C.A. Family Trust (Trust). The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, and Springer appealed. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2008), and now affirm.

The origins of this appeal span more than twenty years, with a complex array of intervening proceedings in various tribunals. For our purposes, suffice it to say Springer failed to pay his taxes from 1990 to 1995, and as a consequence, he received two notices of deficiency from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Springer challenged the deficiencies in the Tax Court, but the court upheld the notices and sanctioned Springer pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6673 for filing a frivolous petition intended to delay the collection of his outstanding liabilities.

This court dismissed Springer's appeal from that decision, Springer v. Comm'r, No. 97-9008 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 1997) (unpublished), because he had not satisfied another sanction we imposed in a different frivolous appeal, Springer v. IRS, Nos. 95-5072 & 95-5142 (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 1996) (unpublished). The IRS then issued a notice of intent to levy, the Tax Court eventually approved the levy, and this court affirmed, see Springer v. Comm'r, 580 F.3d 1142, 1143-44 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1907 (2010).

Matters became somewhat more complicated, however, when the IRS withdrew duplicate lien notices that it had issued in 2007. The withdrawal prompted the IRS's automated-lien-processing system to generate certificates of release that were recorded in the county clerk's office where the subject property is located. Nevertheless, the IRS revoked the releases, refiled the liens, and continued its efforts to foreclose.

In motions to dismiss the government's amended complaint, Springer challenged the validity of the liens and release revocations, and asserted that the foreclosure action was precluded by the applicable statute of limitations. Springer also moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was not properly notified of the tax assessment. For its part, the government moved for summary judgment, claiming that res judicata barred any challenge to the underlying tax assessment. The government also sought a determination that the property was subject to foreclosure because the Trust was Springer's nominee.

The district court rejected Springer's arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The court detailed the salient facts and concluded, among other things, that: 1) the liens and release revocations were valid; 2) the foreclosure action was not barred by the statute of limitations; 3) res judicata barred Springer from contesting the underlying tax assessments; and 4) the Trust was Springer's nominee, and its property was subject to foreclosure. 1

On appeal, Springer advances only meritless arguments. He questions why the government would seek to enforce liens that were invalidated by the release certificates, but he fails to mention that the releases were revoked and the lien notices were refiled. See Aplt. Br. at 16-17. He also refuses to acknowledge that the initial lien remained intact, see 26 U.S.C. section 6322 ("the lien imposed by section 6321 . . . shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed . . . is satisfied or becomes unenforceable"), that the lien notices simply asserted the government's priority over other creditors, see id. section 6323(a), and that the certificates of release were properly revoked, see id. section 6325(f)(2).

Further, Springer devotes a considerable portion of his brief to the theory that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes outside of Washington, D.C., see Aplt. Br. at 17-24, ignoring authority recognizing such arguments as patently frivolous. See, e.g., Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (rejecting jurisdictional tax-protester argument as "completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous"); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) ("For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves; efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous." (citations omitted)).

Finally, Springer continues to dispute the underlying tax assessment, asserting the lien notices were not sent to his last known address. But as the district court recognized, Springer had actual notice, and the underlying tax assessment "is no longer open to challenge," Springer v. IRS, 231 F. App'x 793, 801 (10th Cir. 2007).

In short, Springer advances no reasoned basis for upsetting the district court's particularly comprehensive and well-reasoned analysis. 2 Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' appellate materials, the relevant legal authority, and the record on appeal, we AFFIRM the district court for substantially the same reasons stated in the court's order dated March 3, 2010.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge

//*//

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ On the last page of his reply brief, Springer suggests he might have filed a counterclaim; he also seems to contest the district court's ruling that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations. We do not consider these arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104-05 (10th Cir. 2007).

/2/ Springer contends the grant of summary judgment violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. This argument is meritless. See Shannon v. Graves, 257 F.3d 1164, 1167 (10th Cir. 2001) ("The Seventh Amendment is not violated by proper entry of summary judgment, because such a ruling means that no triable issue exists to be submitted to a jury."). Equally meritless is Springer's contention that the court should have denied as untimely a cross-claim seeking judgment, and a counterclaim seeking priority, on the sale proceeds for a note secured by the subject property. The district court excused the delay because counsel misunderstood the court's deadline. We perceive no abuse of discretion. See SIL-FLO, Inc., v. SFHC, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507, 1518 (10th Cir. 1990).

[Famspear]

He [Lindsey Springer] also refuses to acknowledge that the initial lien remained intact, see 26 U.S.C. section 6322 ("the lien imposed by section 6321 . . . shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed . . . is satisfied or becomes unenforceable"), [and] that the [recordation of the] lien notices simply asserted the government's priority over other creditors....

These are key points of law, and 99% of all tax protesters are totally clueless about this.

Come to think of it, 99% of all tax protesters are clueless about a lot of things.

[Cathulhu]

There's a basic, but still interesting, article on brains and feedback loops in this month's Wired, which is why I find myself wondering if there's a missing part of the TD brain. Learned behavior is not something they exhibit much evidence of. New one for the science wish list: brain scans of TDs to compare to those taken of both "normal" people and criminals. I've seen documentaries of brain scans regarding serial killers...

[The Observer]

But it always boils down the fascinating question of which-came-first-chicken-or-egg?

Is the TPs behavior due to environment - did they learn to do this? Or is it due to their genetic makeup? Or is it just a combination of both?

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that the basic TD mentality boils down to this:

1. They are making me do it.

2. I don't want to do it.

3. I don't understand whey they are making me do it.

4. This is a free country, so I shouldn't have to do it.

5. If they are still trying to make me do it, I have to find some explanation
as to why they are doing all this to me.

6. They use fancy lawyer-talk to make me do it.

7. I need to find some fancy lawyer-talk of my own to make them stop.

And on it goes from there....

[Brandybuck]

It is genetic and it's hardwired into the the human DNA. It is we who are the exception, we who have had to learn to rise above the nonsense.

The various cognitive biases that haunt TPs are survival traits that aided our distant ancestors. We recognize patterns where none exist, because that splotch over there in the trees might be a tiger. Even if it's not a tiger it's safest not to chance it. And all our hut doors face east because the one guy whose hut faced west got eaten by a tiger, we don't know why but it's safest if we don't question it and just face our huts east. And we use logical fallacies in our arguments because the point of arguing is to win over our rivals, not to discern the truth.

[LPC]

Attorney Jerrold Barringer was also ordered to show cause why he should not referred to the 10th Circuit disciplinary panel:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LINDSEY K. SPRINGER,
Individually and as Co-Trustee of the
S.L.C.A. Family Trust,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
REGINA M. CARLSON, as
Co-Trustee of the S.L.C.A. Family
Trust; MARTHA F. MOORE,
Individually and as Trustee of the
W.T. Moore and Martha F. Moore
Revocable Trust dated June 12, 2002;
W.T. SMITH; JANETH S. SMITH,
Defendants.

No. 10-5037
(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00278-TCK-PJC)
(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Attorney Jerold W. Barringer is directed to show cause why he should not be referred to the Tenth Circuit Disciplinary Panel. On December 15, 2010, this court admonished Mr. Barringer for submitting a motion containing “numerous blatantly frivolous statements” asserting that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not exist and could not collect taxes outside Washington, D.C. United States v. Springer, No. 10-5037, Order at 2 (10th Cir. Dec. 15, 2010). This court warned Mr. Barringer that frivolous statements would not be tolerated “from a licensed attorney in the guise of advocacy,” and “f such conduct persists, Mr. Barringer will be referred to the Tenth Circuit Disciplinary Committee.” Id.

The warning from this court issued after multiple appeals in which Mr. Barringer advanced patently frivolous arguments. The briefs in this appeal, filed before the admonishment, suggested or explicitly stated that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes outside of Washington, D.C. According to Mr. Barringer, the Secretary of the Treasury must delegate collection authority to individual revenue districts, which were abolished when the IRS was restructured in 1998. Mr. Barringer similarly stated in another recent appeal that “there is no authority to act on behalf of the Secretary [of the Treasury] outside of D.C.” Springer v. Comm’r, No. 10-9001, Aplt. Reply Br. at 9 (filed Nov. 15, 2010); see also id. at 11 (“Without [Division Districts] and [Internal Revenue Districts,] all treasury regulations are effectively meaningless.”). And in a petition for mandamus relief: “Without Internal Revenue Districts encompassing the State of Oklahoma none of the claimed offenses of violating the ‘internal revenue laws’ can be alleged or proven.” In re Springer, No. 09-5165, Pet. at 16 (filed Nov. 30, 2009). These types of unauthorized-delegation arguments “have long been held to be lacking in legal merit and frivolous.” Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008).

Mr. Barringer has persisted advancing meritless arguments. For example, in a pending criminal matter, Mr. Barringer “challenges the [Treasury] Secretary’s jurisdiction and authority to enforce offenses concerning the Internal Revenue Laws.” United States v. Springer, No. 10-5055, Aplt. Revised Opening Br. at 8 (filed January 3, 2011). Similar to the frivolous claims he made in this appeal, Mr. Barringer argues that “[w]ithout [Internal Revenue Districts] and [Division Districts] there could never have been any proper delegation of authority outside the District of Columbia from the Secretary [of the Treasury] to any U.S. Attorney.” Id. at 11. Mr. Barringer thus concludes that “[t]he District Court should have dismissed all counts for failure to establish jurisdiction and venue of each Count since all [Internal Revenue Districts] and [Division Districts] were abolished in 2000 preventing any authorization to prosecute [defendant] for any offenses related to internal revenue . . . .”). Id.

We now consider the appropriateness of sanctions, just as the Seventh Circuit, see United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1095-97 (7th Cir. 2007) (directing Mr. Barringer to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 and suspended from practice for making frivolous arguments and failing to comply with court rules), and the Tax Court have done, see Barringer v. United States Tax Court, 408 F. App’x 381, 382 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (affirming sanction against Mr. Barringer for his “unreasonable and vexatious conduct”). Accordingly, within twenty days from the date of this Order, Mr. Barringer shall respond to the court in writing to show cause why he should not be referred to the Tenth Circuit Disciplinary Panel.

Entered for the Court,
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

[LPC]

After years of wrangling, the government initiated this action to reduce to judgment Lindsey K. Springer's tax assessment and to foreclose on real property acquired through Springer's nominee, the S.L.C.A. Family Trust (Trust). The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, and Springer appealed. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2008), and now affirm.

Petition for Cert.!!!

[notorial dissent]

Petition for Cert.!!!

Why not, what have they got to lose at this point, I mean besides Barringer's license, but I suspect that will be going away soon enough anyway.

I thought the no district argument was Springer's and his buddy Stilley's. So is Barringer parroting them, or are they parroting him, or are they just fellow travelers on the road to lunacy?

[Harvester]

Where's my lien?

[Joey Smith]

Where's my lien?

Right around the corner ....

[fmmcosta]

More fake trusts. great

[LPC]

I thought the no district argument was Springer's and his buddy Stilley's. So is Barringer parroting them, or are they parroting him, or are they just fellow travelers on the road to lunacy?

My recollection/understanding is that Barringer only entered an appearance and fronted for Springer because Springer is barred from appearing pro se in the 10th Circuit (at least in civil matters such as this). Springer doesn't have any money to pay a lawyer, and so I'm sure Barringer was spending as little time as possible on the appeal, mainly signing whatever Springer prepared or dictated.

Which isn't going to be recognized as a defense during the disciplinary proceedings. Quite the opposite in fact. So it will be interesting to see what kind of explanation or defense Barringer is able to present.

[notorial dissent]

Thanks, that is what I thought, but I am not up on whatever it is Barringer is actually shilling for himself. I know he is another of the alternate theory of reality crew, just not sure which one. I thought this sounded more like Springer than anything else, but wanted to be sure. I think you are right, being lazy and fronting for another loser may just cost him more than he anticipated, and he doesn't seem to be good at anticipating much of anything.