To put the above quote in context, it should be pointed out that the 10th Circuit had just rejected every one of Springer's arguments, and was addressing the question of whether or not he should be sanctioned:landons wrote:In Lindsey's case against the IRS Commissioner, the court found that, "Although Mr. Springer's appellate briefs are far from a model of clarity, he has managed to advance several arguments in this appeal that raise difficult issues under both the tax code and the PRA."
Lindsey K. Springer v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 167-4, No. 08-9004 (10th Cir. 8/31/2009), aff'ng No. 017707-06L (U.S.T.C. 11/14/2007), cert. den., No. 09-8858 (U.S.S.C. 3/22/2010).10th Circuit wrote:One final matter remains to be disposed of and that is the Commissioner's motion to impose sanctions against Mr. Springer and his counsel for maintaining a frivolous appeal. We deny the motion. Although Mr. Springer's appellate briefs are far from a model of clarity, he has managed to advance several arguments in this appeal that raise difficult issues under both the tax code and the PRA. As a result, we cannot say that this appeal is sufficiently frivolous to justify the imposition of sanctions.
I don't think that the court was saying that the issues were difficult to decide, because the court had no difficulty in deciding them. In fact, the court does not deny that his arguments were frivolous, but only that they were not sufficiently frivolous to deserve sanctions. I think that the court was saying that the issues were difficult to explain, and that Springer was somewhat incoherent, but still coherent enough to present at least some issues that were not entirely frivolous.
Bottom line: There is one case in which Springer was able to present at least some losing (but non-frivolous) arguments in a somewhat coherent way.