Countdown to judgment -for Oscar Stilley & Lindsey Springer

[notorial dissent]

And on top of that we already know how good he is at procedural stuff, why his list of wins on that alone, is well, nonexistent, kind of like his list of other wins.

Let's face it, we had a crooked, and dare I say it, wholly incompetent and inept lawyer, fronting for an equally inept and incompetent con man ex-used car salesman, neither of which was very good at even being crooked, but both were really good at very obviously breaking a number of laws, and not covering their tracks at all. Facts are facts, we have two schlubs who are right where they should be.

[LPC]

And the hits just keep coming: The 10th Circuit has dismissed Stilley's appeal of a district court order suspending him from practice in that court, holding that the case is moot because his criminal conviction provides a separate grounds for suspension.

In re: Oscar A. Stilley, No. 09-5090 (10th Cir. 8/30/2010).

In re:
OSCAR A. STILLEY,
Attorney-Appellant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

(D.C. No. 4:08-AP-00001-CVE)
(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before McKAY, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Attorney-Appellant Oscar A. Stilley appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Northern District) suspending him from practice before that court under Local Civil Rule 83.6 (Rule 83.6) of the Northern District. The district court automatically suspended him from practice after being notified that he had been suspended from practicing in the Arkansas state courts pending conclusion of disbarment proceedings there. Mr. Stilley first argues that automatic reciprocal suspension prior to a hearing under Rule 83.6 is unconstitutional. He also argues that his continued suspension after a hearing was improper because the suspension was based on his suspension from practice by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, and the prior suspension was unconstitutional because he did not receive due process prior to that suspension.

Mr. Stilley's arguments notwithstanding, there is a separate basis supporting his suspension. Mr. Stilley was subsequently convicted on charges of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Tax Evasion and Aiding and Abetting, and has been sentenced to 180 months in prison. Under the Northern District's rules, his conviction is a separate ground for the suspension of which he now complains. Further, Mr. Stilley was disbarred from this court after he failed to file a timely response to our order to show cause why his conviction should not result in disbarment. This, too, would serve as a separate ground for suspension. Because of these alternate mandatory bases for suspension and disbarment, we conclude that Mr. Stilley's appellate claims are moot.

"Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction." McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996). "An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. A case is moot if a court can no longer grant effective relief as a practical matter." The Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane Cnty., Utah, 581 F.3d 1198, 1214 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation, citation, and brackets omitted). "An abstract, conjectural, or hypothetical injury is not enough to support jurisdiction." Disability Law Ctr. v. Millcreek Health Ctr., 428 F.3d 992, 996 (10th Cir. 2005). Here, even if this court were to rule in Mr. Stilley's favor, reversal of the Northern District's suspension would not, as a practical matter, afford him the relief requested. This is so because, under Rule 83.6, both his intervening criminal conviction and this court's disbarment mandate suspension of his right to practice in the Northern District.

Mr. Stilley's appeal, and the accompanying motion to enlarge the record, are DISMISSED as moot.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTE

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

END OF FOOTNOTE

[notorial dissent]

Just out of morbid curiosity, has Stilley ever actually won a real court case on anything that matters?

He's done so well representing himself, I had just wondered if he had actually shared his expertise with anyone other than Lindsey.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Just out of morbid curiosity, has Stilley ever actually won a real court case on anything that matters?

He's done so well representing himself, I had just wondered if he had actually shared his expertise with anyone other than Lindsey.

He made a "name" for himself over in Arkansas before the turn of the century trying to eliminate property taxes but the amendment didn't get enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot.

But as far as cases? I would venture to say he was not glaringly successful.

[notorial dissent]

So the current evidence would indicate. I just thought maybe I had missed something, but would seem not. The fact that he can't even seem to write a compliant motion would tend to indicate he didn't have much contact with any real law at any time.

[LPC]

Just out of morbid curiosity, has Stilley ever actually won a real court case on anything that matters?

That's a difficult question to answer, because lawyers can "win" (or lose) lots of cases without any court record, or without any published decisions.

Still, I was curious, so I did a Google Scholar search, and found 90+ decisions with Stilley's name in them, either as a lawyer or a party (or both). I didn't do an exact count, but eliminating duplicates and Stilley's own disciplinary proceedings seemed to leave about 50+ cases with Stilley's name in them, which is a rather large number, in my opinion.

In almost all of the appellate opinions I found, Stilley was listed as counsel to the appellant, which is a bad sign because it means he'd already lost at the trial level. I looked at about 20 of those cases, and every single one of them was an affirmance, meaning that his loss at the trial level was affirmed on appeal. Appeals result in affirmance about 80%-90% of the time, so I think it's safe to say that Stilley was losing 90+% of appellate cases reported.

In fact, I really found only three cases that could be considered "wins":

1. In Fitch v. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 795 F. Supp. 904 (W.D. Ark. 1992), Stilley represented the plaintiffs and prevailed on a motion (or something; the procedural posture isn't clear to me) establishing that his client's insurers were estopped from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition, which looks to be a pretty clear victory on a carpal-syndrome claim on unknown value.

2. In Woods v. Wills, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 2005), Stilley represented 8 plaintiffs, and the court granted summary judgment for the defendants as to 4 of the defendants, but denied summary judgment as to the other four. That's a victory. Sort of. Or at least it would be a victory if the remaining 4 plaintiffs ultimately prevailed (which I don't know).

3. In Barclay v. Melton, 5 SW 3d 457 (Ark. 1999), Stilley represented the appellee (i.e., he won in the lower court), and the judgment was affirmed. (Woo-hoo!).

However, I should point out that Stilley's won/loss record appears to be skewed because (in true tax protester fashion) he seems to have continued to re-litigate issues he had previously lost. What seems to have been his professional ruin was his insistence on re-litigating the validity of local property tax appraisals under a particular Arkansas statute. After litigating the issue twice, and losing twice (see Elzea v. Perry, 12 SW 3d 213 (Ark. 2000)), Stilley filed a third suit that resulted in sanctions. Parker v. Perry, 131 SW 3d 338 (Ark. 2003). Stilley failed to comply with the sanctions, which resulted in a finding of civil contempt. Stilley v. Fort Smith School Dist., 238 SW 3d 902 (Ark. 2006). And then a conviction for criminal contempt. Stilley v. Univ. of Arkansas at Fort Smith, 287 S.W. 3d 544 (Ark. 2008).

Meanwhile, Stilley's repeated efforts to get judicial recognition of the Used Car Tax of 2000, and caps on salaries of state employees, along with intemperate accusations against members of the Arksansas Supreme Court for voting against him, eventually led to his suspension from the practice of law. See White v. Priest, 73 S.W. 3d 135 (Ark. 2002); White v. Priest, 73 SW 3d 572 (Ark. 2002); Stilley v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, 259 S.W. 3d 395 (Ark. 2007).

Ultimately, Stilley litigated not wisely but too well.

[Joey Smith]

A little reality: Oscar and Lindsey are going to die in prison.

Shame that they couldn't have done something positive with their lives than scamming people.

[notorial dissent]

That was what I was wondering, thanks. I had kind of figured that would be the case since if he'd actually been winning any of the other stuff he would have been making sure all and sundry knew about it, which he hadn't, since he wasn't winning any of them. It sounds like a pretty pedestrian practice when he can find something to practice on, and not doing too well at that, which is why i suspect he moved on to the TP nonsense, at which he is even worse.

[Demosthenes]

On 9/2/2010 1:56 AM, Lindsey Springer wrote:

Hello,

I hope this email finds you well. I'm Lindsey's son, Landon. I'll be taking over the communication channel for the time being. Without further ado, Lindsey's letter:

Lindsey Springer here, and I once again wish to thank you for your continued prayers and support of me and my defense issues.
Recently, the Tenth Circuit decided that eleven IRS employees were immune from liability for stealing $2,000 while searching my property. Simply put, before they entered my home on September 16, 2005, I had just received $19,000. In January, 2006, I was given back $17,000. Something happened to the other $2,000. At first, I thought to leave it alone. It took almost two months to file for the money back.
At the district court, it was argued that the money was miscounted or stolen after it left my house. (Just ask yourself how much time you or I would get to throw defense after defense at the court until something stuck--the defendants were given three and a half years.) After they lost over and over again, they appealed to the Tenth Circuit, and a few days later the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. They found that the agents were clearly not aware that the theft of $2,000 (having "seized" $17,000 and not $19,000) violated the Fourth Amendment.
I used a case called "Bivens," which the Supreme Court created uner Title 28, §1331 in 1971. The Tenth Circuit said my relying on Bivens was not enough. I needed more. The error in the fact construction is that the agents claimed to have seized $19,000. This, though, is in error. If they had taken $19,000, then why didn't they return $19,000? Exactly...
As you can see, I disagree with the three-judge panel and am petitioning for rehearing. I love my country and my God, but what she's doing to me is far more than I can stand. Even though the panel said the law was not clearly established, it still chose not to make the law clear. Ask yourself why they would do this. I believe it was because of a misunderstanding of the facts and the case. That is what rehearing and En Banc procedure is designed to correct.
I have thought long and hard about what I should do. After losing my house, wife, liberty, ministry, and the right to see loved ones (my visitation requests were denied multiple times before I was moved to Texas, while it was easier for my family to see me), I decided to continue on. I could care less about the money. What I do care about is the U.S. following the Supreme Court's decisions, and that the IRS agents think long and hard before stealing again. I have suffered for 42 months in this case alone (I'm battling through several concurrent cases). It's bad enough for one to endure theft; who should have to endure both a violation of rights and years of fighting to redemy it? The agents simultaneously deny the existence of the $2,000 and ask not to be held liable because they didn't know stealing it, even behind the guise of a warrant, was unlawful. The U.S. did this without my taking one deposition or asking a single question in discovery.
Thank you again for you support of me and my defense of this order. I pray the Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead bless you and your finances, keep you safe and blessed beyond measure.

- Lindsey

Thank you for taking the time to read this. It has been, at best, a very challenging time for me and family. At worst, it's a rude awakening to the condition of our country. I highly doubt that such blatantly lawless behavior is isolated to just these instances, but that's just my speculation.
Thank you for the support (financially, morally, and spiritually) you've given our family over the years. If you appreciate what Lindsey is doing--and have the means and desire to do so--I'd ask that you give anything you're led to give. Part of why the judge denied Lindsey's motion to stay pending appeal was that he is "unusually resourceful." He meant it negatively, but really it reflects kindly upon anyone who has supported Lindsey during his journey. We truly and simply could not have gotten this far without you.

You can send money through PayPal (lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com), or at a new mailing address:

Landon Springer
14690 S. 82nd E AVE #5303
Bixby, OK 74008

I'll see to it that the money is well accounted (money is, after all, why he's in jail) and used as he directs. I'd also like to offer to forward any letters of encouragement that you'd like to send him. I can't imagine how difficult it would be, being so isolated. We need to keep his spirits high!

I won't be monitoring this mailbox very closely. If you'd like to contact me directly, please send to landon.springer@gmail.com.

Thank you and God bless,
Landon Springer

[Demosthenes]

Clarification posted by Ralph Winterrowd.

Lindsey mentions losing his "house, wife, liberty, ministry, and the right to see loved ones ..." That's a picture of what life-in-prison is all about.

It has gone unannounced to this date. However, Lindsey's wife is suing for divorce under pressure from her former husband in regard to a minor child. I'm sure I don't have to discuss the hurt on both sides.

Lindsey believes it was instigated by one of the attorneys in the Richardson Law Firm. I do not have enough knowledge to confirm. However, Lindsey's wife will not take his phone calls, and that's hurtful.

Landon is in charge of the day-to-day operations in Oklahoma. He's helped greatly to gather documents and information and get them in the right hands (including mine). He and I communicate regularly.

Everyone has had reasons to be discouraged, but this is not the time to give up. Do what you can.

[bmielke]

Clarification posted by Ralph Winterrowd.

Lindsey mentions losing his "house, wife, liberty, ministry, and the right to see loved ones ..." That's a picture of what life-in-prison is all about.

It has gone unannounced to this date. However, Lindsey's wife is suing for divorce under pressure from her former husband in regard to a minor child. I'm sure I don't have to discuss the hurt on both sides.

Lindsey believes it was instigated by one of the attorneys in the Richardson Law Firm. I do not have enough knowledge to confirm. However, Lindsey's wife will not take his phone calls, and that's hurtful.

Landon is in charge of the day-to-day operations in Oklahoma. He's helped greatly to gather documents and information and get them in the right hands (including mine). He and I communicate regularly.

Everyone has had reasons to be discouraged, but this is not the time to give up. Do what you can.

Is there going to be anything left for Springer's wife to take?

Not that I blame her for divorcing him, I am assuming that if she has a minor child by another man then she is younger then Springer is it makes sense she would want to be free of him.

[grixit]

The agents simultaneously deny the existence of the $2,000 and ask not to be held liable because they didn't know stealing it, even behind the guise of a warrant, was unlawful.

Did they? Let's assume that this is one time where a tp really is the innocent victim of corrupt cops. Since both categories are well attested, one would expect them to intersect eventually. I would expect said cops to claim that the 19,000 was an estimate and the actual count showed 17,000, or that the 2,000 must have disappeared after the money left their custody. But to say, "we didn't know it was illegal" would require an amazing level of stupidity.

So, does anyone know what was actually claimed?

[LPC]

The agents simultaneously deny the existence of the $2,000 and ask not to be held liable because they didn't know stealing it, even behind the guise of a warrant, was unlawful.

Did they? Let's assume that this is one time where a tp really is the innocent victim of corrupt cops. Since both categories are well attested, one would expect them to intersect eventually. I would expect said cops to claim that the 19,000 was an estimate and the actual count showed 17,000, or that the 2,000 must have disappeared after the money left their custody. But to say, "we didn't know it was illegal" would require an amazing level of stupidity.

So, does anyone know what was actually claimed?

Because Springer chose to bring a Bivens action, instead of a claim under the federal tort claims act, he had to prove that the actions of the agents were not just *illegal* but a constitutional violation of the 4th Amendment.

The Circuit Court eventually held that, because the agents were acting under a valid warrant, it was not "clearly established" that the loss of the funds would be a violation of the 4th Amendment, and so they were entitled to qualified immunity as agents of the federal government acting in an official capacity. Lindsey K. Springer v. Douglas Horn, et al., No. 4:06-cv-00156 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. 4/7/2009), rev. sub nom. Lindsey K. Springer v. Christopher D. Albin et al., No. 09-5088 (10th Cir. 8/5/2010).

[LPC]

Simply put, before they entered my home on September 16, 2005, I had just received $19,000.

In used, unmarked bills. Undoubtedly part of his "ministry."

In January, 2006, I was given back $17,000. Something happened to the other $2,000. At first, I thought to leave it alone.

I find that hard to believe.

It took almost two months to file for the money back.

Only because he first had to figure out the most self-righteous legal claim possible. It wasn't enough that money was taken; it had to be a violation of his constitutional rights.

I have thought long and hard about what I should do. After losing my house, wife, liberty, ministry, and the right to see loved ones (my visitation requests were denied multiple times before I was moved to Texas, while it was easier for my family to see me), I decided to continue on. I could care less about the money.

That, I believe. It's not about the money, it's about the martyrdom and the self-immolation.

Most (all?) lawyers know better than to take on a client who's in it for the "principle of the thing." A client who wants financial compensation is relatively easy to deal with because money can be negotiated. A client who goes into litigation on "principle" is basically crazy, and not going to get any saner.