Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilly criminal case (V3)

[ASITStands]

Mr. 'Famspear,' Sir:

Who is made liable for employment taxes under subtitle C?

And, who is made liable for estate and gift taxes under subtitle B?

Then, who is made liable for income taxes under subtitle A?

The only statute given by the government in their bill of particulars that even comes close is 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a), "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title ..." (Emphasis added.)

Springer is simply asking where he's been made liable, and the government is finding every way they can to avoid making an answer. Mighty suspicious if the answer's so obvious.

EDIT: A man's liberty is at stake! I'd suppose we'd give him a little deference in logic.

2nd EDIT: By the way, my salutation is taken from Walt Disney's Robin Hood where one of the children upon meeting the hero addresses him as, "Mr. Robin Hood, Sir."

[Noah]

ASITstands, thanks for the clarification of the docket events.

Famspear, no offense taken. I apologize for any offense on my part. You stated your starting point for your comment and I should have quietly considered what you thought.

[wserra]

Thank you, ASITStands, for showing the context of the quoted govt language. As I expected, it does not mean what Springer would like it to mean when he ripped it from (and presented it without) that context.

As you say, the context is the govt response to Stilley's proposed jury instructions. That's where the importance of context begins: more criminal cases are reversed on jury instructions than on any other single cause. Every Circuit has pattern instructions for all common offenses, and a defendant must as a matter of practice show a very convincing reason to deviate from those instructions. Even then, trial judges are loath to do so, since appellate courts have approved the pattern instructions. In this context, Stilley requested the following:

To find the defendant guilty of this crime [tax evasion] 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;

Now, without knowing the pattern charge used in OK, I all but guarantee that it does not contain the phrase "he was made liable by express words in Title 26". I can't imagine what that means. Does Title 26 have to name Springer personally? Does it have to expressly include as income "funds from Oscar Stilley's escrow account"? No judge will or should charge that language. In that context, the govt's response is perfectly reasonable: it is not the govt's burden to prove Springer "liable by express words", if only because that phrase can mean anything Springer wants it to mean.

Springer, in taking those words from context, wants his brainless cheerleaders to believe that he was right all along - that no law exists creating income tax liability. Some apparently have done so.

[Quixote]

Who is made liable for employment taxes under subtitle C?

The employee is made liable for the tax imposed by IRC §3101, although not expressly. Although the employer is made expressly liable for the payment of the tax, IRC §3102 requires the emplyer to deduct the tax from the employee's wages, so only the employee is ultimately liable in any real sense. The word "liable" has no magical properties and liability for a tax can be imposed in a number of ways.

[Famspear]

ASITstands, thanks for the clarification of the docket events.

Famspear, no offense taken. I apologize for any offense on my part. You stated your starting point for your comment and I should have quietly considered what you thought.

I accept the apology. I know we all have something to contribute.

Mr. 'Famspear,' Sir:

Who is made liable for employment taxes under subtitle C?

Various statutes impose the liability, using words or phrases such as "shall be imposed on" or "shall be paid by".

For example, the liability for payment of federal income tax withheld from an employee's pay is imposed on the "employer" under section 3403.

The liability for payment of the employee witholding Social Security and employee withholding Medicare components of the FICA tax is imposed on the "employer" under 3102(b).

The liability for payment of the employer Social Security and employer Medicare components of the FICA tax is also imposed on the "employer", this time under 3111(a) and (b), respectively.

The liability for payment of the section 2501 federal gift tax is imposed on the the "donor" (the giver) under section 2502(c).

The liability for payment of the section 2001 federal estate tax is imposed on the "executor" under section 2002.

And so on....

Then, who is made liable for income taxes under subtitle A?

There is no "one" code section that imposes all liabilities for taxes, and there is no legal rule that requires that all the liabilities be imposed under one and only one code section. The CIVIL liability for payment of penalties for failure to timely pay federal income tax is imposed by section 6651(a)(2), according to the United States Supreme Court in the Holywell case. The civil penalty for failure to timely file the tax return is imposed under 6651(a)(1) -- all by way of sections 6011, 6012, 1, 11, 61, 62, 63, and so on. The criminal penalties relating to willful failure to timely file, timely pay, etc., are imposed under section 7201 et seq.

I don't think there is anything "suspicious" -- except Springer's demand that the government cite code sections to him. These are code sections of which Springer is almost surely already aware. And, as one court has more or less stated, there is no legal requirement that a defendant be aware of the actual code section numbers in order for his or her conduct to be considered "willful," any more than a television viewer must be aware of the actual frequency numbers on which a particular TV channel is found in order to watch a TV show on that channel, and there is no requirement that the TV station tell me the numerical frequency range of the channel I am watching.

Sorry, but giving Mr. Springer "deference in logic" does not mean that he gets to make up his own rules, which, I argue, is what he might be trying to do here.

I know that making this public statement probably disqualifies me from consideration in the jury pool, but I believe Mr. Springer is well aware of the existence of the laws that make him liable for payment of federal income tax, etc. Mr. Springer simply disagrees with the courts' interpretations of those laws. And it is that disagreement with court interpretations, or the evidence of that disagreement (if presented in open court) that could form part of the basis for a finding of the element of willfulness by a jury in his case. Remember the Cheek case and the Willie case.

Willfulness involves the voluntary, intentional violation of a KNOWN legal duty. Mere disagreement with the proposition that paying the tax IS YOUR LEGAL DUTY does not necessarily negate a proper jury finding that you KNEW of that duty -- that you were AWARE of the EXISTENCE of that duty.

Not every actual belief qualifies as a belief that also negates willfulness.

[ASITStands]

Now, without knowing the pattern charge used in OK, I all but guarantee that it does not contain the phrase "he was made liable by express words in Title 26". I can't imagine what that means. Does Title 26 have to name Springer personally? Does it have to expressly include as income "funds from Oscar Stilley's escrow account"? No judge will or should charge that language. In that context, the govt's response is perfectly reasonable: it is not the govt's burden to prove Springer "liable by express words", if only because that phrase can mean anything Springer wants it to mean.

Springer, in taking those words from context, wants his brainless cheerleaders to believe that he was right all along - that no law exists creating income tax liability. Some apparently have done so.

The pattern jury instruction appears on pg. 320 [336] here:

The defendant is charged in count _________ 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 in addition to the tax liability which he reported on his [year] income tax return;
  Second: the defendant intended to evade and defeat payment of that additional tax;
  Third: the defendant committed an affirmative act in furtherance of this intent, that is he [describe affirmative act as alleged in indictment]; and
  Fourth: the defendant acted willfully, that is, with the voluntary intent to violate a known legal duty.

To ‘‘evade and defeat’’ the payment of tax means to escape paying a tax due other than by lawful avoidance. The indictment alleges a specific amount of tax due for each calendar year charged. The proof, however, need not show the exact amount of the additional tax due. The government is required only to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the additional tax due was substantial.

The government used that pattern instruction [Docket 107] with one error:

First: Springer owed substantial income tax in addition to the tax liability which he reported on his 2003 (Count Three) and 2005 (Count Four) income tax returns;

Springer filed no return for tax year 2003 or 2005.

Perhaps I should have cited more of Docket 105, "Second Motion for Bill of Particulars:"

In U.S. v. Farr, 536 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008) the Tenth Circuit found that by “charging Ms. Farr with willfully attempting to defeat the "payment of the quarterly employment tax . . . due and owing by her," the indictment effectively limited the first element of Section 7201 — a substantial tax due and owing — to liability for quarterly employment taxes which she purportedly owed.” Farr at 1181 “From that point on, absent a proper amendment to the indictment by the grand jury, the government was not free to prove any other tax liability at trial. See Stirone, 361 U.S. at 218, 80 S.Ct. 270 ("It follows that when only one particular kind of commerce is charged to have been burdened a conviction must rest on that charge and not another, even though it be assumed that under an indictment drawn in general terms a conviction might rest upon a showing that commerce of one kind or another had been burdened.").

“While the ultimate object of the IRS's interest — recovering the underlying delinquent tax — is undoubtedly the same, the quarterly employment tax provision of Section 3403 and the trust fund recovery penalty of Section 6672 provide materially different means for achieving that end.” Id.

Section 3403 directs the employer to be “liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld.” Section 6672 provides that Any “person....in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of tax evaded, or not collected.”

In the Government’s response to the Court’s ordered Bill of Particulars they list out several sections. They list Section 1,61,63,6011,6012, 6072, 6091,6151 and 7203. None of these sections individually state how Springer is or would be “liable” for any specific tax. None of these sections refer to any of the others. In fact, the Government only states their list is “the statutes that required Defendant Springer file individual federal income tax returns are as follows.” The Government knows that the phrase “required by law” in Counts Two and Three are not just limited to filing returns but essential to the tax deficiency liability. (Emphasis in the original)

Judge Friot was reversed by the Tenth Circuit for his decision in Farr.

Reading Docket 105, in connection with 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a), shows where Springer came up with his theory of "being made liable," while the government's response is less than stellar.

[ASITStands]

There is no "one" code section that imposes all liabilities for taxes, and there is no legal rule that requires that all the liabilities be imposed under one and only one code section.

You know, it's so straight-forward when it comes employment, estate and gift taxes.

Thanks, 'Quixote!' and 'Famspear!' You made my argument.

It's a shame Congress could not have been more explicit in describing, determining and imposing liability in regard to income taxes and filing returns. I know "it's in there," but it takes such a circuitous route, and that's something for a defendant to ask a jury to decide.

I know that making this public statement probably disqualifies me from consideration in the jury pool, but I believe Mr. Springer is well aware of the existence of the laws that make him liable for payment of federal income tax, etc.

That's presuming, of course, that Mr. Springer has taxable income.

[Famspear]

Correction: The reference that I mentioned about Holywell was a reference to section 6151, not 6651. Both provisions relate to tax liability, of course.

Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly ''impose'' an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]" and section 11 stating: "A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation."). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in 26 USC 61.

In Holywell Corp. v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court (in a unanimous case) stated the legal significance of 26 USC 6151:

The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. 6151(a) ('when a return of a tax is required . . . the person required to make such return shall . . . pay such tax').

503 U.S. 47 (1992) (statutory citation, parenthetical phrase, ellipses, and quoted language in the original) (bolding added). Note that section 6151 applies to any tax return required under the Code. That means that if you are the person required to file the return, you are automatically obligated to pay the tax. And if you are obligated to pay the tax, you are liable for the civil or criminal penalties that relate to those requirements or obligations.

Regarding civil monetary penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, 26 USC 6651(a)(2) states (in part):

In case of failure—

[ . . . ]

(2) to pay the amount shown on tax on any return specified in paragraph (1) on or before the date prescribed for payment of such tax (determined with regard to any extension of time for payment), unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount shown as tax on such return 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate [ . . . ]

Regarding Federal income tax returns for single (unmarried) individuals, 26 USC 6012 provides (in part):

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: [ . . . ]

(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—

(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual [ . . . ]

Further provisions of section 6012 refer to tax return filings for other individual taxpayers (e.g., married persons filing joint returns, surviving spouses, heads of household, married persons filing separate returns) as well as for other entities such as corporations, estates, and trusts. See also 26 USC 6011.

Civil monetary penalties for failure to timely file tax returns (denominated as "additions" to tax) are mentioned at 26 USC 6651(a)(1). Under 26 USC 6061, with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed ''in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary''" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return must be filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc. See 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6).

Criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes are mentioned at 26 USC 7203:

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution [ . . . ]

The Federal tax evasion tracks the language of statutory provisions such as Code section 1 (the imposition statute for the individual income tax), with both statutes using the word "imposed" [To "impose" means "to lay as a burden, tax, duty or charge"; Black's Law Dictionary, p. 680 (5th ed. 1979); "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy; ''impose a tax''; American Heritage Dictionary, p. 646 (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).]:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

26 USC 7201.

[ASITStands]

Mr. 'Famspear,' Sir:

Is this why the tax code is 10,000 pages? It takes how many words to describe "liable?"

EDIT: And, remember, I don't disagree with you. It's just that the People are tired of it all.

Everywhere they look it's another politician or lawyer telling them what to do. I don't want to take this thread off-topic (so no one jump in on these comments), but it's alarming.

It takes how many words to describe someone made liable for an income tax?

[Famspear]

There is no "one" code section that imposes all liabilities for taxes, and there is no legal rule that requires that all the liabilities be imposed under one and only one code section.

You know, it's so straight-forward when it comes employment, estate and gift taxes.

Thanks, 'Quixote!' and 'Famspear!' You made my argument.

It's a shame Congress could not have been more explicit in describing, determining and imposing liability in regard to income taxes and filing returns. I know "it's in there," but it takes such a circuitous route, and that's something for a defendant to ask a jury to decide.

You are very right; especially for the federal income tax, tracing all the sections that impose liability/liabilities involves looking at many code sections.

And lots of practitioners get tired of the complexity, too (even though the complexity helps give us a way to make a living).

[Quixote]

It's a shame Congress could not have been more explicit in describing, determining and imposing liability in regard to income taxes and filing returns. I know "it's in there," but it takes such a circuitous route, and that's something for a defendant to ask a jury to decide.

That's why the IRS explains the law more straightforwardly in its publications and instructions. People who are confused by statutory language should probably stick to activities that do not involve understanding statutory language.

[Famspear]

It's a shame Congress could not have been more explicit in describing, determining and imposing liability in regard to income taxes and filing returns. I know "it's in there," but it takes such a circuitous route, and that's something for a defendant to ask a jury to decide.

That's why the IRS explains the law more straightforwardly in its publications and instructions. People who are confused by statutory language should probably stick to activities that do not involve understanding statutory language.

Also, the average person (of normal intellect and psychological makeup) has no problem accepting the correct proposition that the federal income tax is perfectly valid. The average person does not feel the need to "research" the complex Internal Revenue Code -- just as the average person does not feel the need to "research" medical journals, etc., to accept the proposition that cancer can kill you. Cancer can kill you, and you can see people dying of cancer. The income tax law is valid, and you can see courts ruling that the law is valid -- over and over, without exception. You can see the news reports of people going to prison for violating the tax law.

Only people with an axe to grind, or people with psychological problems, feel the need to "research" the complex Internal Revenue Code to somehow "prove" that the tax law is invalid, that the word "includes" doesn't "really" mean what it really means, etc., etc.

[wserra]

The pattern jury instruction appears on pg. 320 [336] here:

Thank you again, ASITStands. As I predicted, nothing close to Springer's "express words" language. And, more to the point, Springer characteristically rips the govt response from context. The govt is hardly admitting that no law makes Springer liable; it is, in an exasperated and perhaps inartful way, saying quite correctly that Springer has no right to have the jury charged that they must find any "express words".

[LPC]

Springer is simply asking where he's been made liable, and the government is finding every way they can to avoid making an answer. Mighty suspicious if the answer's so obvious.

Springer is NOT "simply asking where he's been made liable," because Springer already knows the answer, and doesn't really want another answer from the government.

What Springer is trying to do is confuse (or conflate) the legal issue of civil liability and the factual issue of criminal liability. Like every other tax denier since Cheek, he's hoping for a chance to argue over, and confuse the jury with, the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.

According to the jury instructions that you yourself posted, in order to prove tax evasion, the government must prove that the defendant had unreported income (or overstated deductions) resulting in a "substantial" understatement of tax, and that the actions of the defendant were intended to evade a tax that the defendant knew that he owed (i.e., that the evasion was "willful").

It is NOT necessary for the government to prove which section of the IRC imposed the tax or the liability for the tax. All that is necessary is for the government to prove facts showing that defendant had income on which there would have been a "substantial" amount of tax. Typically, the government does this by introducing evidence of unreported income and then expert testimony as to the amount of tax that should have been paid on that income. The defendant can counter the government's expert testimony either by introducing their own expert testimony or by convincing the judge that the income was not taxable, or that there was no tax liability, as a matter of law. But the government is NOT required to walk the jury through each section of the IRC relevant to the determination of tax liability and convince the jury of the correctness of each step of the determination.

And it is NOT necessary for the government to prove that the defendant knew which section of the IRC imposed the tax that the defendant was attempting to evade. All that is necessary if for the government to prove that the defendant knew that he was supposed to file a return and pay the tax and willfully evaded those known duties.

In other words (and repeating again the familiar nostrum that is constantly challenged by tax deniers), the government is obligated to prove FACTS to the jury, and not laws. Issues relating to the validity and effect of LAWS are left to the judge, who instructs the jury on the law.

Springer's attempts to include legal arguments in a "bill of particulars" is just another attempt to blow smoke.

[wserra]

The govt has filed its notice of intention to introduce various stuff under FRE 404(b). For those not familiar, FRE 404(b) provides for the admission of "prior bad act" evidence against a defendant in certain (quite expansive, actually) circumstances. The govt's proffer:

- defendant Springer’s tax filing history from 1981 up to and through 2008 for his
personal income taxes and business entities;
– defendant Springer’s litigation history;
– defendant Springer’s involvement with various criminal tax trials and
investigations;
– defendant Springer’s involvement with abusive trusts;
– defendant Springer’s involvement with Securities Exchange Commission v.
The Infinity Group, et al.;
– defendant Stilley’s income for the years 2000 through the present;
– defendant Stilley’s tax filing history from 1981 up to and through 2008 for his
personal income taxes and business entities;
– defendant Stilley’s litigation history;
– defendant Stilley’s involvement with various criminal tax trials and
investigations;
– defendant Stilley’s practice of law, including suspensions, sanctions and
disbarment proceedings.

Man, I would like to be there for this one. Demo?

[LPC]

The govt has filed its notice of intention to introduce various stuff under FRE 404(b). For those not familiar, FRE 404(b) provides for the admission of "prior bad act" evidence against a defendant in certain (quite expansive, actually) circumstances.

FRE 404(b) provides as follows:

"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial."

"Intent," "knowledge," and "absence of mistake or accident" all seem relevant in any tax case that requires proof of willfulness.

[Dezcad]

Lindsey's Motions to Dismiss and for Bill of Particulars has been denied, but he has been quite busy filing pleadings in the case (see docket update below).

09/18/2009 136 ORDER by Judge Stephen P Friot, ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #105 denied; 109 denied; #123 denied (Re: 105 Second MOTION for Bill of Particulars, 109 First MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) 1 Conspiracy charge, 123 Eighth MOTION to Dismiss Count(s) One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six ) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
09/21/2009 137 MOTION in Limine by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (O'Reilly, Charles) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 138 TRIAL BRIEF by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Snoke, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 139 MOTION Government's Proposed Summary of Indictment by USA as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley (Snoke, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 140 MOTION Summary of Indictment by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 141 MOTION for Subpoena(s) under Rule 17 by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 142 TRIAL BRIEF as to Lindsey Kent Springer (With attachments) (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 143 MOTION Summary of Indictment by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 144 First MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 145 Second MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 146 Third MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 147 Fourth MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 148 Fifth MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 149 MOTION in Limine regarding hearsay and confrontation issues by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 150 Sixth MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 151 Seventh MOTION in Limine by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 152 MOTION for Subpoena(s) pursuant to Rule 17(b) by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 153 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 152 MOTION for Subpoena(s) pursuant to Rule 17(b) ) by Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 154 MOTION Opposition to Prosecution 404(b) (Re: 134 Notice (Other) ) by Lindsey Kent Springer (Springer, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
09/21/2009 155 JOINDER (in [141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, and 151] Motions in Limine, for subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(b), and trial brief filed on 9-21-09) as to Oscar Amos Stilley (Stilley, Oscar) (Entered: 09/22/2009)

[Dezcad]

Out of everything recently filed, this one by Stilley is my favorite:

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

MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS PURSUANT TO RULE 17(b)

Comes now OSCAR AMOS STILLEY1 by limited special appearance, and not a general appearance, and for his motion states:
1. Oscar Stilley moves the Court to authorize the issuance of subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(b), with costs to be paid, or alternatively advanced, in the same manner as those subpoenaed by the government.
2. The persons whose attendance is sought, together with their position or other aid to identification, is as follows:

Mark Zokle, former client who testified against Oscar Stilley at disbarment trial
Mark McBride, attorney for Mr. Zokle
Seth Uram, US Attorney prosecuting Mark Zokle
Thomas Baird, Accountant for Mark Zokle who allegedly stole tax deposit money from Zokle
Stark Ligon, Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.
W. H. “Dub” Arnold, Former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice
Tom Glaze, Former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice
Ray Thornton, Former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Donald Corbin
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Hannah
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Robert Brown
US District Court Judge Thomas Eisele
US District Court Judge Jimm Larry Hendren
Sebastian County, Arkansas, Circuit Judge Stephen Tabor
Paul Beran, Chancellor of University of Arkansas at Fort Smith
James Marschewski, former Sebastian County, Arkansas, Circuit Judge, currently a US Magistrate
US District Court Judge Claire Eagan
US District Court Judge Terence Kern
US District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell
US District Court Judge James Payne
US District Court Judge Mary H. Murguia (USDC Phoenix, Arizona) For her a
subpoena duces tecum is sought, to require her to bring all records related to
the payment of Oscar Stilley’s billings as a lawyer at public expense for Patricia
Ensign.
3. Oscar Stilley reserves the right to substitute others in the place of any of these if the Court suggests that there is a better witness by which to obtain the testimony sought.
4. Other information about such persons including but not limited to addresses, phone numbers, or other information which may be of assistance in issuing and serving summons will be promptly provided on request.
5. Oscar Stilley lacks the financial resources to subpoena the witnesses named above.
6. Oscar Stilley has been suspended pending disbarment since December 27, 2007. This suspension has cut the earning capacity of Oscar Stilley to a small fraction of what it was formerly.
7. The government has been providing assistance toward the effort to obtain suspension and disbarment, and thus bears at least some responsibility for Oscar Stilley’s financial straits.
8. Oscar Stilley respectfully requests to be heard ex parte upon this request.
9. The witnesses named, and each of them, have important information that is essential to the defense of this action, especially in light of the 404(b) disclosures September 10, 2009.
10. Oscar Stilley incorporates his brief in support of motion filed contemporaneously herewith, which in addition to authorities sets forth a summary of the facts to be elicited from each witness or class of witnesses.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Oscar Stilley respectfully requests that the Court issue the listed subpoenas; for all such other and further relief as may be appropriate whether or not specifically prayed.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Oscar Stilley
Oscar Stilley, Attorney at Law
7103 Race Track Loop
Fort Smith, AR 72916
479-996-4109
(866) 673-0176 Fax
oscar@oscarstilley.com

[LPC]

Out of everything recently filed, this one by Stilley is my favorite:

I can see why. The freaking moron wants to re-litigate both his disbarment and the case leading up to his disbarment.

I hope the judge cuts him off at the knees (or maybe slightly higher).

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think that's the first time I've seen someone try to subpoena the US Attorney prosecuting another subpoenaed witness in an-going prosecution.