Springer's Motion to Vacate Sentence

[Dezcad]

Springer's recent Motion to Vacate Sentence is a typical Springer filing - long (76 grounds and 90 pages long) and rehashes all the old standbys (PRA defense, no internal revenue districts etc.) but two new points he raises caught my eye. Not for their validity but for Springer's ability to incorporate more frivolous nonsense (not that him doing so is much of a surprise).

Ground 63 (p.73) - Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of President "due to his being born outside of any of the 50 Tenth Amendment States".

Ground 69 and 70 (p.79-80) - FRNs, redeemable in "lawful money", are worthless securities and not taxable

[fortinbras]

Distinguished from typical SovCit legalism only by its prolixity.

The argument that the Constitution requires that the President be born in an Tenth Amendment State of the Union is a bit awkward, considering that the requirement that the Prez be a "natural born citizen" predates the Tenth Amendment by about 3 years. In any case, "natural born citizen" did not require that the Prez be born inside one of the States (no point in mentioning the qualified candidates born in DC); Goldwater was born in the Territory of Arizona, McCain in the Republic of Panama (not the US Canal Zone) - but to two US citizens. The US House adopted a resolution in honor of the 50th anniversary of Hawaii Statehood that expressly says that Obama was born there (about two years after it became a state).

[AndyK]

When sitting in prison with little to do except to browse the prison library and troll the Internet, people come up all kinds of interesting legal theories.

Secondly, there is a theory that if one slings enough pasta against a wall, eventually something will stick.

Once Springer's appeal is shot down, it should only take him a month or two to reword and resubmit it.

After all, he's got nothing else to do for the next ten years.

[The Observer]

When sitting in prison with little to do except to browse the prison library and troll the Internet, people come up all kinds of interesting legal theories.

Except he doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to try come up with original nonsense that has no relevance to vacating a sentence. Instead he borrows nonsense from other losers who have never prevailed. Is he that desperate that he has to fall back on Orly and Van Pelt material?

(Reminds me of an apocryphal story about Bob Hope discussing with his writers about putting a particular joke in his routine. When one of the writers pointed out that he shouldn't use it because Jack Benny had a similar joke in his routine, Hope quipped, "Of course not. We don't want Milton Berle using third-hand material.")

[Famspear]

....(Reminds me of an apocryphal story about Bob Hope discussing with his writers about putting a particular joke in his routine. When one of the writers pointed out that he shouldn't use it because Jack Benny had a similar joke in his routine, Hope quipped, "Of course not. We don't want Milton Berle using third-hand material.")

Hey, but I think Springer has spent so much time in federal prison that he's lost perspective. Instead of wasting his time filing repetitive, frivolous nonsense about his federal tax convictions, he should divert his energy to more a more useful line of work: wasting his time filing repetitive, frivolous nonsense about his PRIOR federal conviction -- for odometer fraud.



I'm just tryin' to be helpful!

[fortinbras]

At some point, under the prevailing law, Springer will have to pay the full filing fee to mount an appeal, at which point he will stop (or at least try something very different).

[AndyK]

At some point, under the prevailing law, Springer will have to pay the full filing fee to mount an appeal, at which point he will stop (or at least try something very different).

Probably, he'll attempt to file in pauper mode -- which will open another round of appeals up to the Supreme Court.

[notorial dissent]

I can't say that I am impressed, as that would imply that I was, but 96 pages of pure sovrun, pseudo lawyer gibber jabber is definitely something.

I have to admit that the "not born in any of the 50 Tenth Amendment States" is new and unique as I don't remember ever coming across it before, possibly since it makes even less sense than any of the others!!!!

I'm really not sure what the "lawful money" argument is good for, but it loses whenever it is trotted out, so why not.

Springer has never been known for either originality, or much in the way of thought processes prior to this point, so I don't see much point in expecting him to start now.

He's been using the same material since this all started, going back to the comedy routine analogy, so I don't suspect he sees any reason to change a habit that has failed for so very many before him. I suspect, as has been previously pointed out, that what he'll do after this latest attempt and unintended comedy failes will be to go back and reword and try it again, since that is what he did with his defense and later appeal. After all, he's held this losing hand this long, why should he throw it in now!!!