Springer's message from prison

[Famspear]

Here's a message purportedly from Lindsey Springer on Saturday, May 8, 2010, posted at Bob Hurt's web site:

Lindsey Springer here(my wife Jeanie typing while I'm on collect call) and hoping this finds you well. For those of you who have supported us with your prayers and those who have been able to support financially, thank you very much. I offer you this update of my current status and the issues which are being argued. The short of it is the United States argues the 1040 complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act and in the alternative, they argue it doesn't have to. They cite to the Dawes decision by the 10th Circuit in '91 which specifically didn't accept and in fact rejected the US's statutory origin theory. This theory, as the argument goes, states that because the obligation to file a tax return has it's [sic] origin in Federal law, that somehow the origin exempts the Secretary of the Treasury from complying with the mandates of Congress pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which requires the Secretary inform each of us certain information in order to be authorized to request information from us(i.e.,tax forms such as 1040).

My issue is not about taxes, income taxes or the tax laws in general.

Oh, really? I thought Lindsey Springer had previously said his goal was nothing less than to "get rid of the IRS." Oh well....

My issue is and has always been about the Secretary of the Treasury complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act. In the coming days, the United States is going to tell the 10th Circuit why the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the form 1040. Their bald assertion that the Form 1040 does comply was never even suggested by them prior to trial, during trial, prior to or at sentencing. They will need to tell the 10th Circuit that it's [sic] Dawes decision held the Form 1040 is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 10th Circuit has said on four different occasions to the Department of Justice the Form 1040 must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. They said it in the Collins 1990 decision, their Dawes decision in 1991, and reaffirmed their decison [sic] in Lewis and Chisum published in 2007 by the 10th Circuit. They also told Department of Justice on Aug. 31, 2009, the Paperwork Reduction Act defense applies to failure to file penalties and in each of the counts charged against me, without failure to file, there would be no cause of action against me. In fact each charge specifically alleges either a Form 1040 or US individual income tax return. On May 5, 2010, the United States altered their theory by telling the District Court their theory did not necessarily include Form 1040. Repeating that to the 10th Circuit will not be good for them. I know this is difficult to follow. It is something I am continually led to pursue.

Please consider me and my family in your prayers. And again thank you for your financial support. For those of you interested and able to continue to support me and my family through this battle, I can receive your support still through [ . . . . .]

(Springer's contact information not reproduced)

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... bb4dfe8027

EDIT: The Federal Bureau of Prisons web site, as of this Sunday evening, May 9, 2010, lists Lindsey Kent Springer, # 02580-063, a 44 year old white male, as being "IN TRANSIT."

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=82&y=12

[LPC]

I offer you this update of my current status and the issues which are being argued.

The "issues being argued"? There are no "issues being argued." It's over. You're in jail. [Cue Black Knight hopping around on one leg.]

The short of it is the United States argues the 1040 complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act and in the alternative, they argue it doesn't have to.

There's also a third argument, which is that the PRA might be relevant to your conviction on two counts of failing to file income tax returns, but it's absolutely, totally irrelevant to your conviction on three counts of tax evasion. See, United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237, 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (conviction for tax evasion affirmed; the PRA protects a person only “for failing to file information. It does not protect one who files information which is false”).

[Dezcad]

Springer's Motion for Release pending Appeal has been denied. The very patient Judge Friot has some very accurate, and strong, observations about Lindsey. I've highlighted some of them.

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

Plaintiff, )

vs. Case No. 09-CR-043-SPF

LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER and )
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the court is defendant Springer’s Amended Motion for Release and Stay of Execution of Judgment and for Bond Pending Appeal, filed on May 3, 2010 (doc. no. 359). The government has responded to the motion by response filed on May 6, 2010, doc. no. 361.

The defendant has been convicted on all counts in the indictment and has been sentenced to serve a term of 180 months of incarceration. He has timely filed an appeal, and seeks to be released pending appeal. Under these circumstances, as a prerequisite to obtaining the relief sought in the motion, the defendant must establish: (i) by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released, and (ii) that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a sentence that would be shorter than time served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).

Mr. Springer’s motion fails on both of the principal prongs of the § 3143 test.

As for flight risk or danger to the community, it is true that the court did permit Mr. Springer to continue on bond pending sentencing. The reasoning underlying that decision was explained at length (with citation of relevant authorities with respect to danger to the community) at the conclusion of the proceedings on November 16, 2009. The supplemental conditions of release were set forth in the order which was entered on November 17, 2009 (doc. no. 247). At that juncture, post-verdict and pending sentencing, the court concluded that it would be possible to fashion conditions of release which would reasonably assure Mr. Springer’s appearance when required and would reasonably minimize the danger to any person or to the community. (The authorities cited by the court at the conclusion of the proceedings on November 16 clearly establish that the concept of danger to the community, for this purpose, includes the risk of financial harm to others.) Accordingly, the court fashioned additional conditions of release to govern Mr. Springer pending sentencing. These additional conditions gave the court a reasonable comfort level, even if just barely, that Mr. Springer would appear as required and would not pose a danger to any person or to the community.

The situation is radically different now. At this point, Mr. Springer is well aware that he faces a substantial period of incarceration, punishment much more severe than the probation for which he apparently believed he could plausibly argue, as he did in his sentencing memorandum. See doc. no. 321, filed March 30, 2010, at p. 15.

In permitting Mr. Springer to remain on bond pending sentencing, the court was under no illusions that Mr. Springer is naturally inclined to obey the law. To the contrary, the court’s decision to permit Mr. Springer to remain on bond was based entirely on the court’s perception of how Mr. Springer would likely calculate the risks and benefits of compliance or noncompliance with his conditions of release (including his obligation to appear before the court as required). The court determined that, under the circumstances existing post-verdict but pre-sentencing, Mr. Springer’s calculation of the potential risks versus the potential benefits of flight would cause him to conclude that the alternative of compliance with his conditions, and appearance as required, was more attractive than the alternative of flight (or other noncompliance).

Under the circumstances that now exist, however, the court is far from certain that Mr. Springer’s reckoning of the situation would be the same. Bearing in mind that Mr. Springer’s calculation would clearly be premised on his uniquely personal assessment of his situation, there is no basis, at this point, for any conclusion, much less a conclusion on the basis of a clear and convincing showing, that Mr. Springer is not a flight risk. The short of the matter is that Mr. Springer is a thoroughly lawless individual who may well now perceive flight to be the more attractive alternative. The court is also convinced that Mr. Springer is unusually resourceful and thus unusually capable of avoiding apprehension.

As for the conjunctive requirement that the court find that Mr. Springer has raised serious legal issues which might result in reversal or other relief of similar import, the court concludes, for the reasons that have been stated by the court on several occasions in addressing Mr. Springer’s defenses, that appellate resolution of the legal issues on which Mr. Springer relies is unlikely to result in a grant of relief of the sort contemplated by § 3143(b).

Accordingly, defendant Lindsey Springer’s Amended Motion for Release and Stay
of Execution of Judgment and for Bond Pending Appeal is, in all things, DENIED.

Dated May 7, 2010.