Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilly criminal case (V3)

[Dezcad]

Latest in the case:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. 09-CR-043-SPF

LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER, )
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY, )

Defendants. )

ORDER
The court has carefully considered defendant Lindsey Kent Springer’s Motion
for Protective Order Pending Resolution of Prospective Franks Hearing (doc. no. 35),
as well as the government’s response (doc. no. 42), defendant Springer’s reply (doc.
no. 44), and the government’s surreply (doc. no. 48).
The court concludes (i) that the government’s discovery obligations in this case
require the government to turn over to defendant Oscar Amos Stilley the materials
seized in the search of the residence of defendant Springer, and (ii) that defendant
Springer has not established a right to prevent the government from turning the
materials over to defendant Stilley. The fact that the court may ultimately determine
that these materials are not admissible against defendant Springer does not affect the
court’s conclusion that the materials in question should be turned over to defendant
Stilley. Of course, the conclusions set forth in this order are not determinative of the
outcome of any motions to suppress that may hereafter be filed in this case.
Accordingly, the Motion for Protective Order Pending Resolution of
Prospective Franks Hearing (doc. no. 35) is DENIED, the stay entered by the court
on April 22. 2009 is VACATED, and the government is DIRECTED forthwith to
turn over to defendant Stilley copies of the materials seized at the residence of
defendant Springer.
DATED May 26, 2009.

[Demosthenes]

Springer has not established a right to prevent the government from turning the
materials over to defendant Stilley.

Oooh.

[.]

So, what are the educated guesses about what, if anything, is it that Springer doesn't want Stilley to see?

[Dezcad]

In a previous thread, there was a discussion of monies going into Stilley's trust account and payments to Springer. The affidavit for the search warrant of Springer's residence, seen here, gives some examples of what happened.

This involved Stilley's representation of Eddy Patterson, Dr. Phillip Roberts, James Lake and many others investigated by the IRS . Some excerpts from the affidavit exemplify how Springer was being paid for work helping Stilley:

In March 2000, PATTERSON met with STILLEY and LINDSEY SPRINGER (SPRINGER) to discuss the issue of him being under criminal investigation for tax violations. At the meeting, PATTERSON decided to hire SPRINGER and STILLEY to represent him with respect to his criminal tax investigation. SPRINGER told PATTERSON that he was not an attorney, but that he had been doing tax law research for the last ten years. Upon SPRINGER'S recommendation, PATTERSON hired STILLEY. STILLEY is an attorney practicing out of Ft. Smith, Arkansas.

PATTERSON stated that SPRINGER initially told him that he needed $45,000 to work on the case. PATTERSON said he paid SPRINGER this $45,000 over the next several months. SPRINGER asked PATTERSON to write "donation" on the memo line of the checks that were written to him. SPRINGER said that he did not charge fees, but took money for his ministry. PATTERSON said that any payments to SPRINGER represented fees for services related to handling his criminal case.

On or around the Spring of 2003, PATTERSON endorsed a $112,500 check payable to him for the sale of ECC Energy Stock over to STILLEY for legal fees. PATTERSON said that he gave STILLEY permission to pay SPRINGER $15,000 for services rendered by SPRINGER for
PATTERSON'S criminal case. Your affiant reviewed billing records provided by PATTERSON that were given to PATTERSON from STILLEY showing descriptions of services provided and amounts charged for work on PATTERSON'S criminal case. Your affiant also reviewed STILLEY'S bank records for his client interest on lawyer's trust account (IOL TA), account number 570124271 with Arvest Bank in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. Both the billing records and the bank records show the $112,500 deposit into the IOLTA from PATTERSON, and a $14,539 check paid to SPRINGER from the IOLTA.

In November 2003, approximately $375,000 was wired to STILLEY'S IOLTA on behalf of PATTERSON. This money represented partial proceeds from an insurance settlement PATTERSON received in accordance with an officers and directors liability insurance policy he had. PATTERSON said that after he gave STILLEY permission, STILLEY paid SPRINGER $90,000 of this money for SPRINGER'S expertise and services rendered for PATTERSON'S criminal case. STILLEY'S billing records show a payment to SPRINGER of $78,000 on November 7,2003, which
represents the $90,000 payment less $12,000 that SPRINGER owed to the IOLTA. STILLEY'S lOL TA records show four cash withdrawals on November 7,2003 totaling $78,000.

[Dezcad]

Docket entry for July 2, 2009 hearing in Springer and Stilley criminal case:

07/02/2009 100 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Motion Hearing held on 7/2/2009, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #51,53,55,57,59,61,63,65,67,69,72,74,77,92 Denied, #82 Granted in Part, Denied in part, #94 Moot, striking/terminating deadline(s)/hearing(s) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions, 77 MOTION for Hearing (submitted as part of Doc # 74 ), 92 JOINDER (in [81; 82] Springer's Reply Regarding Opposition to Springer's Motion to Dismiss; Motion for Bill of Particulars filed on 6/15/2009; 6/15/2009), 69 JOINDER (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009), 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein, 94 MOTION to Quash, 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element, 72 MOTION to Suppress Grand Jury testimony and evidence, 82 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four, 74 MOTION to Suppress ) (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

[Judge Roy Bean]

Judge Priot has seen his share of nutballs:

http://patrickpretty.com/2009/02/06/bre ... -of-trial/

[Dezcad]

Latest in the case:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER,
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY,
Defendants.
))))))))))
Case No. 09-CR-043-SPF

UNITED STATES’ BILL OF PARTICULARS

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Thomas Scott Woodward, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Kenneth P. Snoke, Assistant United States Attorney, and Charles A. O’Reilly, Special Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Bill of Particulars pursuant to the Court’s order dated July 2, 2009.

Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Indictment each include the phrase "required by law" in reference to Defendant Springer’s failure to file a federal income tax return. The filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990). The statutes that required Defendant Springer file individual federal income tax returns are as follows:

Title 26, United States Code Section 1 - Tax Imposed;
Title 26, United States Code Section 61 - Gross Income Defined;
Title 26, United States Code Section 63 - Taxable Income Defined;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6011(a) - General Requirement of Return, Statement or List;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6012(a)(1)(A) - Persons Required to Make Returns of Income;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6072(a) - Time for Filing Income Tax Returns;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6091 - Place for Filing Returns or Other Documents;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6151 - Time and Place for Paying Tax Shown on Returns;
Title 26, United States Code Section 7203 - Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information or Pay Tax.


Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS SCOTT WOODWARD
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s Charles A. O’Reilly
CHARLES A. O’REILLY, CBA No. 160980
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
KENNETH P. SNOKE, OBA No. 8437
Assistant United States Attorney
110 West Seventh Street, Suite 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
(918) 382-2700
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 14th day of July 2009, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:
Lindsey Kent Springer
Pro se Defendant
Oscar Amos Stilley
Pro se Defendant
Robert Williams
Standby Counsel assigned to Lindsey Kent Springer
Charles Robert Burton, IV
Standby Counsel assigned to Oscar Amos Stilley.
/s Charles A. O’Reilly
CHARLES A. O’REILLY, CBA No. 160980
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

[Nikki]

The government's response is not good enough.

Although "Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Indictment each include the phrase "required by law" ...", the government did not cite a single law.

All they did was refer to CODE sections of 26USC, which isn't even positive law.

To provide an adequate justification, the government needs to provide citations to the specific LAWS which were passed by Congress and signed by the President creating the alleged sections AND provide corresponding documentation of the mandatory implementing regulations.

As a matter of fact, the government needs to retrieve, from the National Archives, the original wet-ink-signature copies of the laws and introduce them into evidence.

Plus, they'll have to produce the election result certifications which document that every member of Congress, and the President(s), who enacted these laws were legitimately in office AND the original, long-form birth certificates of each person involved to justify their compliance with citizenship requirements.

[fortinbras]

All they did was refer to CODE sections of 26 USC, which isn't even positive law.

Under 1 USC §204, the U.S. Code titles are either positive law or else prima facie evidence of the positive law. What does "positive law" mean? It means that the law is The Exact Words approved and passed by Congress, as distinguished from the possibility that words may have been "massaged" by editors who compiled several separate Acts of Congress into a coherent collection. A title is made positive law by an (enormous) Act of Congress that simply states the text of all the sections of a title, so that it may be said that every word is precisely the wording chosen by Congress.

The Official Note (by the House Legislative Revision Counsel) to §204 lists the various titles that were enacted into positive law, and then mentions the Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code:

TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 1. Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that the Internal Revenue Title enacted Aug. 16, 1954, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986". The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

In other words, the whole of Title 26 is the exact text passed by Congress, but unlike the other titles, this didn't start out as prima facie law and then get rewritten and passed as positive law. It began as one huge Act of Congress which was thereafter adopted as a title of the US Code, a different sequence of events than the other positive law titles.

Even if this does not satisfy you (or anyone) that Title 26 is positive law, the positive law would be the original Acts of Congress printed in Statutes at Large. Since title 26 is, at worst, prima facie evidence of the law, the burden falls on the person disputing the validity of a section to show that the title 26 section differs from the wording of the original Acts of Congress as set forth in Statutes at Large. So the burden falls on Springer and Stilly.

I do not recall an instance, since the 1954 Internal Revenue Code was adopted as Title 26, that a section of that title has been successfully contested as not correctly reporting positive law.

This "positive law" argument has been touted by many tax dodgers, and some courts have gone so far as to say that Title 26 is positive law, but usually the courts say that it doesn't matter if it is positive or not because the tax dodger cannot prove that the original Acts of Congress said something different from the Code.

[Demosthenes]

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/10/2009 1 DEFENDANT INFORMATION SHEET(S) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
03/10/2009 2 INDICTMENT by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3-4, 5-6, Oscar Amos Stilley (2) count(s) 1, 3-4 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
03/10/2009 3 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to Lindsey Kent Springer (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
03/10/2009 4 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
03/18/2009 5 MOTION for Electronic Access by Lindsey Kent Springer as to Lindsey Kent Springer (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 6 MOTION for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer by Lindsey Kent Springer (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 7 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 6 MOTION for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 8 MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Lindsey Kent Springer (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 9 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Payne, due to Court conflict, recusing Judge James H Payne, this case is hereby returned to the Court Clerk for further reassignment, Court Clerk reassigned to case as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 10 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary: Initial Appearance held on 3/18/2009, Arraignment held on 3/18/2009, appointing CJA attorney Robert Scott Williams for Lindsey Kent Springer, setting/resetting bond as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Court Reporter: C1) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 11 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary (for purposes of initial appearance only), appointing CJA attorney as to Lindsey Kent Springer (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 12 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting conditions of release as to Lindsey Kent Springer (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 13 BOND approved by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary as to Lindsey Kent Springer (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 14 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary: Initial Appearance held on 3/18/2009, Arraignment held on 3/18/2009, appointing CJA attorney Terry Lee Weber for Oscar Amos Stilley, setting/resetting bond as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Court Reporter: C1) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 15 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary (for purposes of initial appearance only), appointing CJA attorney as to Oscar Amos Stilley (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 16 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting conditions of release as to Oscar Amos Stilley (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/18/2009 17 BOND approved by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary as to Oscar Amos Stilley (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
03/19/2009 18 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary directing defendants regarding representation, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): (copy of Order mailed to both defendants on 3/19/09) ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 3/30/2009) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
03/23/2009 19 RESPONSE (Re: 8 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 5 MOTION for Electronic Access, 7 Brief in Support of Motion, 6 MOTION for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Snoke, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
03/24/2009 20 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) R. Scott Williams by Lindsey Kent Springer as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Williams, Robert) Modified on 3/25/2009 to reference to Oscar Stilley (tjc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
03/24/2009 21 MOTION for Hearing (Re: 20 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) ) by Lindsey Kent Springer as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Williams, Robert) Modified on 3/25/2009 to remove reference to Oscar Stilley (tjc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
03/25/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: During e-filing the attorney was prompted to select a case, all defendants were selected; Correction: Edited docket text to remove Oscar Stilley as these pleadings did not name him (Re: 20 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s), 21 MOTION for Hearing ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
03/25/2009 22 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Hearing set for 3/30/2009 at 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
03/30/2009 23 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 3/30/2009 re Representation; Defendants Waive Counsel, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #5 granted, striking/terminating deadline(s)/hearing(s) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Re: 5 MOTION for Electronic Access ) (Court Reporter: C1) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
03/31/2009 24 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk at the direction of Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan, reassigning case to Judge Stephen P Friot. Court Clerk no longer assigned to case, changing case number to 09-CR-43-SPF as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (a-hc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
04/01/2009 25 MOTION for Protective Order by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
04/02/2009 26 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot (Protective Order), ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #25 Granted (Re: 25 MOTION for Protective Order ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
04/03/2009 27 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary Appointing Standby Counsel, adding attorney Robert Scott Williams for Lindsey Kent Springer, Charles Robert Burton, IV for Oscar Amos Stilley, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #20 and #21 moot (Re: 20 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) R. Scott Williams, 21 MOTION for Hearing ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
04/06/2009 28 MOTION to Permit Oscar Stilley to File by CM/ECF by Oscar Amos Stilley (s-srb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
04/07/2009 29 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot, Scheduling Conference set for 4/22/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot) (Re: 8 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 6 MOTION for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
04/07/2009 30 MOTION to Clarify appointment of Honorable Judge Stephen P. Friot by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
04/08/2009 31 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #28 Granted (Re: 28 MOTION to Permit Oscar Stilley to File by CM/ECF ) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
04/08/2009 32 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot : setting Motion for hearing on 4/22/09 (Re: 30 MOTION to Clarify appointment of Honorable Judge Stephen P. Friot ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
04/10/2009 33 MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
04/10/2009 34 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot : setting Motion for hearing on 4/22/09 (Re: 33 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 29 Order,,,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
04/13/2009 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
04/13/2009 36 MOTION to Unseal Document(s) in 03-CR-55E (Re: 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
04/13/2009 37 MOTION Request for Release of Affidavit and Transcript surrounding issuance of Search Warrant dated 9.15.05 by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
04/13/2009 38 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot) (Re: 37 MOTION Request for Release of Affidavit and Transcript surrounding issuance of Search Warrant dated 9.15.05, 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing, 36 MOTION to Unseal Document(s) in 03-CR-55E ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
04/15/2009 39 MOTION Unopposed Motion for Limited Unsealing of Search Warrant and Affidavit and Materials from Case 03-CR-055-CVE by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Snoke, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
04/15/2009 40 NOTICE NOTICE RE GOVERNMENT MOTION FOR LIMITED UNSEALING OF SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND MATERIALS FROM CASE 03-CR-043-CVE (Re: 39 MOTION Unopposed Motion for Limited Unsealing of Search Warrant and Affidavit and Materials from Case 03-CR-055-CVE ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
04/16/2009 41 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot setting Motion for Hearing on 4/22/09 (Re: 39 MOTION Unopposed Motion for Limited Unsealing of Search Warrant and Affidavit and Materials from Case 03-CR-055-CVE ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
04/16/2009 42 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Consolidated (Re: 37 MOTION Request for Release of Affidavit and Transcript surrounding issuance of Search Warrant dated 9.15.05, 33 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 8 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing, 30 MOTION to Clarify appointment of Honorable Judge Stephen P. Friot, 6 MOTION for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer, 36 MOTION to Unseal Document(s) in 03-CR-55E ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
04/22/2009 43 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Motion Hearing held on 4/22/2009, Scheduling Conference held on 4/22/2009, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #30 Granted, #6, 8, 33 Denied, #36, 37, 39 Granted in Part, Denied in part, taking motion(s) under advisement, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motions due by 6/1/2009, Responses due by 6/15/2009, Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot, Jury Instructions, Voir Dire & Trial Briefs due by 8/3/2009, Pretrial Conference set for 10/21/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot, Jury Trial set for 10/26/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Re: 37 MOTION Request for Release of Affidavit and Transcript surrounding issuance of Search Warrant dated 9.15.05, 33 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 8 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 39 MOTION Unopposed Motion for Limited Unsealing of Search Warrant and Affidavit and Materials from Case 03-CR-055-CVE, 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing, 30 MOTION to Clarify appointment of Honorable Judge Stephen P. Friot, 6 MOTION for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer, 36 MOTION to Unseal Document(s) in 03-CR-55E ) (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
04/27/2009 44 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
04/29/2009 46 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 5/11/2009) (Re: 44 Reply to Response to Motion ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (sjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 5/1/2009 to seal PDF, as ENTERED IN ERROR; duplicate entry see Doc # 45 for correct entry (tjc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 04/30/2009)
04/30/2009 45 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot directing surreply (Re: 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing, 44 Reply to Response to Motion ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
05/01/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: Duplicate entry, ENTERED IN ERROR; Correction: Sealed PDF as this was a duplicate entry; see Doc # 45 for correct entry (Re: 46 Order,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),, ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
05/01/2009 47 NOTICE of Request pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.Pr.Rule 16(a)(1)(G) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
05/06/2009 48 SURREPLY to Motion (Re: 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Snoke, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
05/08/2009 49 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) July 9, 2009, Hearing on Motion for Franks Issue and/or Suppress (Re: 43 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,,,, Minutes of Scheduling Conference,,,,,, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
05/12/2009 50 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #49 Granted in Part, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot) (Re: 49 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
05/15/2009 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 52 First BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 54 Second BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 56 Third BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 58 Fourth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 60 Fifth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 62 Sixth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 64 Seventh BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 66 Eighth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 5/18/2009 to remove defendant Lindsey Springer from text (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 68 BRIEF in Support of Motion to dismiss for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint ) by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 5/18/2009 to remove Lindsey Springer from text (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/15/2009 69 JOINDER of motions filed by Lindsey Springer (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009) by Oscar Amos Stilley as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 5/18/2009 to remove Lindsey Springer from text (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/15/2009)
05/18/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: These documents were filed as to both defendants in error; Correction: Edited docket text and removed Lindsey Kent Springer from text (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 69 JOINDER (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009), 68 Brief in Support of Motion ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
05/26/2009 70 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot vacating the stay entered by the court on 4/22/2009 & directing government to turn over materials to defendant Stilley, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #35 denied (Re: 35 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Prospective Franks Hearing, 42 Response in Opposition to Motion,, 43 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,,,, Minutes of Scheduling Conference,,,,,, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), 44 Reply to Response to Motion, 48 Surreply to Motion ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
05/29/2009 71 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Fifty-one through Sixty-seven (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions, 69 JOINDER (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009), 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein, 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element, 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
06/01/2009 72 MOTION to Suppress Grand Jury testimony and evidence by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
06/01/2009 73 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 72 MOTION to Suppress Grand Jury testimony and evidence ) by Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
06/01/2009 74 MOTION to Suppress by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) Modified on 6/2/2009; This is a multi-part motion, see Doc # 77 for second event (tjc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/01/2009)
06/01/2009 75 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 74 MOTION to Suppress and For Franks Hearing ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) Modified on 6/2/2009 to seal parts 22, 23 and 24 (s-srb, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/01/2009 77 MOTION for Hearing (submitted as part of Doc # 74 ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/02/2009 76 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Motion (Re: 74 MOTION to Suppress and For Franks Hearing ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/02/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: Document # 74 is a two-part motion, but not all parts were filed; Correction: Filed the remaining motion part as Document # 77 (Re: 74 MOTION to Suppress ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/02/2009 78 SEALED MOTION (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/02/2009 79 SEALED ORDER (s-srb, Dpty Clk) Modified on 6/2/2009 to seal pdf and correct docket text(s-srb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
06/15/2009 80 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Consolidated (Re: 77 MOTION for Hearing (submitted as part of Doc # 74 ), 72 MOTION to Suppress Grand Jury testimony and evidence, 74 MOTION to Suppress ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 81 REPLY to Response to Motion to Dismiss (Re: 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions, 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein, 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element, 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 82 MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/15/2009 83 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearings/Deadlines for filing of motion for bill of particulars by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) Modified on 6/16/2009; this is a two-event document and combined documents are not allowed with CM/ECF; also changed text to reflect correct motion event (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
06/16/2009 84 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk, Having reviewed the docket entry and/or PDF for Dkt # 83, the Court has determined that this document contains two events and combined documents are not allowed with CM/ECF. Attorney Oscar Stilley is hereby directed to re-file his Adoption, using that event. (Re: 83 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s)MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) ) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
06/17/2009 85 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Stephen P Friot), ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #83 Denied (Re: 82 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 83 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s)MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/17/2009 86 MOTION to Strike Document(s) (Re: 81 Reply to Response to Motion,,, ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
06/18/2009 87 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot , directing Sur-Reply, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #86 Denied (Re: 86 MOTION to Strike Document(s), 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions, 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein, 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element, 69 JOINDER of motions filed by Lindsey Springer (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009), 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
06/18/2009 88 SEALED MOTION (s-srb, Dpty Clk) Modified on 6/19/2009 to correct event (s-srb, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009 89 SEALED MINUTE ORDER (s-srb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009 90 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (Snoke, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/23/2009 91 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #90 Granted (Re: 90 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation, 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions, 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein, 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element, 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
06/23/2009 92 JOINDER (in [81; 82] Springer's Reply Regarding Opposition to Springer's Motion to Dismiss; Motion for Bill of Particulars filed on 6/15/2009; 6/15/2009) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
06/25/2009 93 SURREPLY (Re: 51 First MOTION to Dismiss, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss, 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss, 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss, 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Snoke, Kenneth) Modified on 6/29/2009 to change text to reflect correct event and to change links to reflect base motions (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 06/25/2009)
06/29/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong event selected (Reply); wrong links made; Correction: changed text to reflect correct event (Surreply); created links to base motions (Re: 93 Reply, ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
06/30/2009 94 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
06/30/2009 95 ***Remark: 9 subpoenas returned as to Lindsey Kent Springer (s-srb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
07/01/2009 96 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 94 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
07/01/2009 97 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 82 MOTION for Bill of Particulars ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
07/01/2009 98 Clarification of (Re: 94 MOTION to Quash ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) Modified on 7/2/2009 to correct title of event (pll, Dpty Clk). Modified on 7/2/2009 (pll, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 07/01/2009)
07/01/2009 99 MOTION to Quash subpoena by Eddy Lynn Patterson as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (sjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 7/6/2009 to correct file date (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 07/02/2009)
07/02/2009 100 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot: Motion Hearing held on 7/2/2009, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #51,53,55,57,59,61,63,65,67,69,72,74,77,92 Denied, #82 Granted in Part, Denied in part, #94 Moot, striking/terminating deadline(s)/hearing(s) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Re: 67 MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for fraud and violation of the 5th Amendment, 59 Fifth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint on Fifth Amendment Grounds, 63 Seventh MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege certain specific provisions, 77 MOTION for Hearing (submitted as part of Doc # 74 ), 92 JOINDER (in [81; 82] Springer's Reply Regarding Opposition to Springer's Motion to Dismiss; Motion for Bill of Particulars filed on 6/15/2009; 6/15/2009), 69 JOINDER (in [51-66] Generally dispositive filed on May 15, 2009), 55 Third MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint pursuant to CIR v. Duberstein, 94 MOTION to Quash, 51 First MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for lack of venue, 53 Second MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 65 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint violation of Fourth/Fifth Amendment and Selective Prosecution, 57 Fourth MOTION to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for failure to allege tax deficiency element, 72 MOTION to Suppress Grand Jury testimony and evidence, 82 MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 61 Sixth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three and Four, 74 MOTION to Suppress ) (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 7/8/2009 to indicate attached PDF has incorrect hearing date. Date hearing held was 7/2/2009 (pll, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 07/02/2009)
07/02/2009 101 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot : Following the hearing held this date, the Motion to Quash filed by Eddy Lynn Patterson is hereby moot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #99 Moot (Re: 99 MOTION to Quash subpoena ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
07/02/2009 103 SEALED EXHIBIT(S) to Order/Minutes (Re: 100 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,,,,,, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
07/08/2009 102 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot re: jury instructions as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
07/14/2009 104 BILL OF PARTICULARS (Re: 82 MOTION for Bill of Particulars ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
07/30/2009 105 Second MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
08/03/2009 106 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) Modified on 8/4/2009 to correct title of event (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 107 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 108 First PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 109 First MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) 1 Conspiracy charge (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/03/2009 110 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 109 First MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) 1 Conspiracy charge ) by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
08/04/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: This was filed using the incorrect event (Motion for Miscellaneous Relief); Correction: Edited docket text to reflect correcte event (Re: 106 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
08/04/2009 111 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #106 Denied (Re: 106 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
08/05/2009 112 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 109 First MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) 1 Conspiracy charge ) by USA as to Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) Modified on 8/6/2009 to delete "as to" defendant Springer (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/05/2009)
08/05/2009 113 MOTION to File Out of Time Proposed Jury Instructions by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) Modified on 8/6/2009 to change text to reflect correct event (sac, Dpty Clk). Modified on 8/7/2009 to seal attachment PDF as it was stricken per 117 (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/05/2009)
08/06/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong event selected (Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearings/Deadlines); Correction: changed text to reflect correct event (Motion to File Out of Time) (Re: 113 MOTION to File Out of Time ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
08/06/2009 114 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Unredacted) of Motion Hearing held on 04/22/2009 before Judge Stephen P Friot (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (Pages: 132). NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: A party must file a Transcript Redaction Request within 21 calendar days. If a party fails to request redaction, this unredacted transcript may be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the court public terminal at no charge or may purchase a copy from the court reporter. (Re: 43 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,,,, Minutes of Scheduling Conference,,,,,, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (sam, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
08/06/2009 115 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Unredacted) of Motions Hearing held on 7/2/09 before Judge Stephen P Friot (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (Pages: 159). NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: A party must file a Transcript Redaction Request within 21 calendar days. If a party fails to request redaction, this unredacted transcript may be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the court public terminal at no charge or may purchase a copy from the court reporter. (Re: 100 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,,,,,, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
08/06/2009 116 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 105 Second MOTION for Bill of Particulars ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (O'Reilly, Charles) Modified on 8/7/2009 to delete "as to Oscar Amos Stilley" as this document states it is as to defendant Springer only (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/06/2009)
08/06/2009 117 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #113 Denied, striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 113 MOTION to File Out of Time ) (Documents Terminated: 113 MOTION to File Out of Time ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
08/07/2009 118 MOTION to Reconsider (Re: 111 Order, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), 117 Order,, Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Ruling on Motion(s)/Document(s), Striking/Withdrawing Document(s), Striking/Withdrawing Document(s) ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
08/12/2009 119 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 118 MOTION to Reconsider ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 120 OBJECTION to Proposed Jury Instructions (Re: 108 Proposed Jury Instructions ) by USA as to Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 121 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 105 Second MOTION for Bill of Particulars ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 122 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 118 MOTION to Reconsider ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 123 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six (Re: 2 Indictment ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 124 Eighth BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 123 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/13/2009 125 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 123 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six ) by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
08/13/2009 126 NOTICE of Intent to Use Expert Witness Testimony by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
08/17/2009 127 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #118 denied (Re: 111 Order, Ruling on Motion, 117 Order, Ruling on Motion); (Re: 118 MOTION to Reconsider ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (kjp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 8/18/2009 to add links to #111, 117 (kjp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 128 OBJECTION to Proposed Jury Instructions (Re: 107 Proposed Jury Instructions ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 129 OBJECTION to Proposed Jury Instructions Of the government (Re: 108 Proposed Jury Instructions ) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/19/2009 130 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 123 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
08/19/2009 131 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 109 First MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) 1 Conspiracy charge ) by Oscar Amos Stilley (With attachments) (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
08/19/2009 132 JOINDER (SUBMITTED AS DOC # 131 )(in 123 Eighth Motion to Dismiss Count(s) filed on 8/12/09) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
08/19/2009 133 ADOPTION (SUBMITTED AS DOC # 131 ) (of [124, 130] Eighth Brief in Support of Motion, Reply to Response to Motion filed on 8/12/09, 8/19/09) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
08/20/2009 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: Document No. 131 is a multi-event document and only one event was e-filed; Correction: Filed the remaining events (Joinder in Motion) and (Adoption) as Document Nos. 132 & 133 (Re: 131 Reply to Response to Motion ) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2009)

[LPC]

Is there some significance to these docket entries?

[Demosthenes]

Nope. Just updating the thread.

[ASITStands]

Is there some significance to these docket entries?

Docket 123 seems misnamed, "Eighth Motion to Dismiss," as it conflicts with Docket 65.
Docket 65 alleged "selective prosecution" and Docket 123 alleges defects in the indictment.

[Noah]

Nope. Just updating the thread.

http://www.ram-v-irs.com/blog_wp/irs/20 ... liability/

Interesting conclusion by Springer to Gov't's response to bill of particulars.

"Yesterday, on August 12, 2009, the United States Department of Justice in 09-cr-043-SPF, USA v. Springer, told the United States District Court the following:

“IT IS NOT THE PROSECUTION’S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT DEFENDANT SPRINGER WAS LIABLE BY EXPRESS WORDS IN TITLE 26, US CODE SECTIONS 1,61,63,6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151 or 7203…”

This issue arose in the wake of the Court ordering the United States to explain to the Court, Springer and Stilley, what the Grand Jury meant when it said “required by law” in the Grand Jury indictment.

The code sections cited in the quote above are the exact code sections the United States gave the Court, Springer and Stilley, as purportedly meant by the Grand Jury in uttering such phrase “required by law.”

The reason why this is so important is because section 6011(a), cited by the United States in the quote above and in the Court Ordered particulars, says “When required by regulation prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title….”

They are now admitting no express words in Title 26 make Springer liable for any tax imposed by “this title” yet they allege a tax was “due and owing.”

The United States admits each and every code section listed above does not “by express words in Title 26″ make Springer “liable” for any tax."

[wserra]

Interesting conclusion by Springer to Gov't's response to bill of particulars.

Well, it might be if it happened like that, depending on context. This isn't the first time someone has posted this claim here. The first time, I actually looked at the likely govt documents in the docket, and saw no such thing. I could have missed it, so perhaps you could point it out to me.

Or perhaps not.

[Noah]

Interesting conclusion by Springer to Gov't's response to bill of particulars.

Well, it might be if it happened like that, depending on context. This isn't the first time someone has posted this claim here. The first time, I actually looked at the likely govt documents in the docket, and saw no such thing. I could have missed it, so perhaps you could point it out to me.

Or perhaps not.

It would be good to find the minutes of the hearing where the Government was to have made the statement on the burden of proof. I have not located any yet. That is why I posted "conclusion by Springer". I find no clue myself looking at docket posted here. The Government position could have been on the procedural process or the substantive process. I just dunno....

[Famspear]

I'm too dazed and tired by real world exploits to read this thread carefully enough to follow every "in and out," but I think that this is another venture into the "hey, that statute has to specifically state the word 'liable' to make me 'liable' for the federal income tax" argument. Or maybe it's the old "hey, the government has to prove that I was aware of a specific code section, by number, that makes me liable before I can be held liable" argument. Both arguments are legally frivolous.

It's like saying that a statute making murder a crime must actually use the word "crime" in the text of the statute in order for the offense to be a crime. This, in turn, is an example of the kind of ingredients found in a seemingly endless series of permutations on the tax protester theme that tax protesters can somehow make up their own imaginary rules about the law, and that the courts will somehow, some day, "buy" those imaginary rules.

It won't happen.

[Noah]

I'm too dazed and tired by real world exploits to read this thread carefully enough to follow every "in and out," but I think ....

After that statement , who would care or waste ones time on what you thought? Assume means ass u me. Count me out.

[ASITStands]

Interesting conclusion by Springer to Gov't's response to bill of particulars.

Well, it might be if it happened like that, depending on context. This isn't the first time someone has posted this claim here. The first time, I actually looked at the likely govt documents in the docket, and saw no such thing. I could have missed it, so perhaps you could point it out to me.

Or perhaps not.

The language is found in the government's response to Stilley's proposed jury instructions. See Docket 120. Here's the relevant events that led to the words quoted by Springer.

Docket 82, "Motion for Bill of Particulars" (Springer):

Lindsey Kent Springer (“Springer”) request this Court issue an order directing the United States to identify each provision of law encompassing the phrase “required by law” alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment in each Count. This should include the regulations involved if the theory in the indictment intended to rely upon any words from any regulation. The regulation should also include the year the regulation was in effect. (Emphasis added.)

Docket 100, "Minute Sheet" (Friot):

Springer’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (#82) argued and granted in part (counts 2, 3, 5, 6), denied in part. Government directed to file Bill of Particulars within 14 days.

Docket 104, "Bill of Particulars" (government):

Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Indictment each include the phrase "required by law" in reference to Defendant Springer’s failure to file a federal income tax return. The filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990). The statutes that required Defendant Springer file individual federal income tax returns are as follows:

• Title 26, United States Code Section 1 - Tax Imposed;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 61 - Gross Income Defined;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 63 - Taxable Income Defined;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 6011(a) - General Requirement of Return, Statement or List;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 6012(a)(1)(A) - Persons Required to Make Returns of Income;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 6072(a) - Time for Filing Income Tax Returns;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 6091 - Place for Filing Returns or Other Documents;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 6151 - Time and Place for Paying Tax Shown on Returns;
  Title 26, United States Code Section 7203 - Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information or Pay Tax.

(Emphasis added.)

Docket 105, "Second Motion for Bill of Particulars" (Springer):

Lindsey Kent Springer (“Springer”), files request for a second Bill of Particulars based upon the Government’s response to this Court’s order on the first Bill of Particulars dated July 2, 2009.

No statute making Springer “liable” under any tax deficiency theory is alleged or exists in regard to the element of “substantial tax deficiency” For Counts Two, Three and Four. The Government lists section 6091 as the place where the returns were “required by law” to be filed for Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six, and yet tactically admits the “internal revenue districts” or “District Directors” ceased existing for such requirement as of October, 2000.

On July 2, 2009, this Court granted in part Springer’s Motion for Bill of Particulars regarding the meaning of the phrase “required by law” alleged in Counts Two, Three, Five and Six. This motion encompasses each of the Six Counts individually because the Government agrees the meaning of “required by law” applies whether stated or not in each of the Six Counts of the Indictment. (Emphasis added.)

Docket 108, "First Proposed Jury Instructions" (Stilley):

Lindsey Springer is charged in Counts 3 and 4 with a violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7201. This law makes it a crime for anyone willfully to attempt to evade or defeat the payment of federal income tax.

To find the defendant guilty of this crime you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: the defendant owed substantial income tax for the year 2003, (Count 3) or 2005 (Count 4) for which he was made liable by express words in Title 26, US Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151 or 7203; and with respect to which he was duly assessed, and;

Second: the defendant intended to evade and defeat payment of that assessed tax;

Third: the defendant committed an affirmative act in furtherance of this intent; and

Fourth: the defendant acted willfully ... (Emphasis added.)

Docket 120, "Response in Opposition to Defendant Stilley's Proposed Jury Instructions."

Simply put, Defendant Stilley misstates the law. It is not the prosecution’s burden to prove that Defendant Springer “was made liable by express words in Title 26, US Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151 or 7203 . . ..” Nor is there any requirement that the defendant be assessed, as indicated by Defendant Stilley’s proposed instructions. (Emphasis added.)

So, you see, it's really in response to language used by Oscar Stilley.

Still, it's quite an admission if you read it just for what it says, "It is not the prosecution’s burden to prove that Defendant Springer 'was made liable by express words in Title 26, US Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151 or 7203 . . ..'”

And, that's what Springer is counting on.

ADDENDUM: The issue involves the government's theory of liability, as it appears in this case, and as it was presented to the grand jury or even if it was presented to them.

[Famspear]

In short, there is no law that requires that "each and every code section listed above, by express words in Title 26, make someone 'liable' for a tax" in order for that someone to be liable for the tax imposed under those particlar sections, or some other sections, of the Code. Neither is there any law requiring that the word "liable" appear in some particular place in order for a defendant to be properly convicted of the crime charged.

So, whether the government "admits" what Mr. Springer allegedly claims that the government "admits", or not, is of no real importance.

The government is required to prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have the luxury of the opportunity to define the elements of the crime to include a phantom requirement that some code section or another includes the word "liable".

And the answer to your question, Noah -- no offense intended -- is that I can think and pontificate more clearly about what the law is -- even in in my busy condition -- than you can ever hope to do in any of your most lucid moments. You should care very much about what I think about this, and about what other posters here think.