Lindsey Springer & Oscar Stilley indicted

[Demosthenes]

Two charged in federal income tax case

By STAFF REPORTS
Published: 3/10/2009 4:04 PM
Last Modified: 3/10/2009 4:04 PM

Two men were charged Tuesday in Tulsa with participating in an alleged federal income tax conspiracy.

Lindsey Kent Springer, 43, of Kellyville, and Oscar Amos Stilley, 45, of Fort Smith, Ark. are also charged with tax evasion.

According to the indictment, Springer used the name Bondage Breakers Ministry to solicit and receive money.

Springer's alleged stated purpose for Bondage Breakers Ministry was "to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service," according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The indictment alleges that Stilley while practicing as an attorney assisted Springer's tax evasion through a variety of means.

Stilley maintained an interest bearing account, called an Arkansas IOLTA Foundation Trust account, which lawyers use to deposit and hold client funds, according to the prosecution.
The pair allegedly used the account and various other devices such as cashier's checks, check cashing services, money orders, cash and other means to conceal Springer's actual income and avoid creating the usual records of financial institutions.

Springer allegedly told IRS employees that all funds he receives are gifts and donations to his ministry and that he does not have any income and he does not provide any services for payment.

The indictment lists numerous transactions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars between Springer and Stilley that flowed through the IOLTA account, such as $166,000 paid out in August 2005 to purchase a motor home, and a September 2005 payment of $25,813 to purchase a Lexus automobile.

Also, the indictment states that neither Springer or Stilley have filed an income tax return since the late 1980's.

Springer faces five counts alleging criminal violations of the federal tax laws for the years 2000, and 2002 through 2005.

[Famspear]

Holy Guacamole! Oscar Stilley did not need this.

On top of this, we're waiting for a result on Oscar Stilley's Arkansas disbarment proceeding. I think that's due later this month (?).

EDIT: It's in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Case no. 4:09-cr-00043-JHP

The indictment is on PACER.

[Demosthenes]

The indictment:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/stilley2.pdf

[Edit by LPC to fix link.]

[LPC]

Oh wow, a two-fer. (One indictment requiring two updates to the TP Dossiers.)

I have to admit, I really didn't see that one coming.

[Demosthenes]

I'm hearing rumors of some other upcoming announcements.

[Famspear]

I'm hearing rumors of some other upcoming announcements.

Now, will you please just stop teasing us!!???! We're gettin' all excited!

Seriously, Stilley and Springer all at once. Wow. First, Hendrickson coming up this Spring. Then Stilley and Springer. We're gonna be poppin' lots of popcorn. Es freut mich.

EDIT: One thing that bothers me, though, is the effect on the families. I don't know about Springer, but I know Stilley has a wife and young kids. Reminder to myself: This is also tragedy.

[LPC]

I'm hearing rumors of some other upcoming announcements.

The 4/15 poster child? Oh, please let it be Schulz.

[Famspear]

I'm hearing rumors of some other upcoming announcements.

The 4/15 poster child? Oh, please let it be Schulz.

With apologies to Sir James Paul McCartney:

When I find myself in times of trouble
Dirty Harry comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom:
Let it be.
And in my hour of sorrow
Harry stands right there in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom:
"Schulz-ee please, Schulz-ee please."
Let it be, let it be,
Let it be, let it be:
"Let it be Bob Schulz-ee
Pretty please, pretty please......"

Turning back to the current matter:

A loopy Arkansan called Stilley
Could avoid a conviction -- but will he?
Yes, it might be quite hard
If he ends up disbarred
And a jail term will give him the willies.

And we don't want to leave anyone out........

An arrogant con man called Lindsey
Pushes tax protestations of whimsy.
Mister know-it-all Springer
Has a problem humdinger
If his alibi proves to be flimsy.

[wserra]

Ooh. Change you can believe in.

[Nikki]

The indictment is void -- lacks a valid OMB Control number.

[grixit]

Hmm, Springer's birth certificate doesn't have one either. No rights for you!

[LPC]

I have to admit, I really didn't see that one coming.

Only because I can't remember what I've written. The TP Dossier entry for Lindsey Springer noted that, in the course of one of Springer's civil suits, the government had notified the court that Springer was the subject of "an active criminal investigation," and that was November of 2007.

[wserra]

I took a look at the indictment. If this case results in a joint trial, it'll be one to which it will be worth going.

Stilley is charged with, among other things, concealing income by giving Springer a bunch of money from his escrow ("attorney trust") account. That raises the issue of why in the world he is doing that in the first place. Playing with client funds is the single biggest no-no for a lawyer. There are only two things he can say: (1) the money was actually Springers - IOW, Stilley received the money on Springer's behalf, such as being Springer's lawyer in a real estate sale, or (2) he was paying Springer for services rendered on the case for which he received the money. The way the indictment reads, I assume that (2) is the case at least some of the time, and case records will make it very clear. But wait a second - I thought all of Springer's receipts were not "income", but rather "gifts". Why in the world were "gifts" going through a lawyer's escrow account, if not to conceal income?

So, assuming that Springer was not Stilley's client in all of the matters in which he got distributions from the latter's escrow account, Stilley is going to have to say that he was paying Springer for services. Springer is going to have to say, au contraire, they were gifts, and I have no idea why Stilley would agree to use his escrow account for "gifts".

The idea of a motion for a severance comes to mind. However, to have any chance of success at all, such a motion must contain affidavits from those with personal knowledge of the supposedly contradictory defenses - Springer and Stilley. Those affidavits would be fun to read. And severances on the grounds of inconsistent defenses are quite hard to come by.

Couldn't happen to nicer guys.

[wserra]

Update: at the arraignment last Wednesday (March 18), the Court directed Stilley and Springer to appear March 30 either (1) prepared to go pro se, (2) with retained counsel, or (3) with a financial affidavit supporting a request for appointed counsel. Springer then jumps the gun with three pro se motions, all made "by Limited Special Appearance, and not a General Appearance". Ooh, Lindsey is going to contest jurisdiction.

Anyway, one of those motions was for electronic access - I think it likely that the Court will require it to be clear first whether he is pro se or represented. Of the other motions, one is for a bill of particulars demanding items such as "Please identify what particular land in the City of Kellyville is within the exclusive judicial power of the United States" and "Please identify with particularity the date and place the 28 USC 1861-1878 Policy Grand Jury was given power to return an indictment against Lindsey K. Springer". I would quote more of these humorous and extremely unlikely to be granted demands, but the filed copy is a scanned image rather than a document converted to pdf. Read them yourselves.

The final "motion" is titled, "Motion for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer". Except that Springer generally speaks and writes gibberish, this would otherwise raise the question of whether Lindsey has been talking behind Oscar's back (a "proffer" generally refers to a private session between defendant and prosecutor which precedes cooperation). However, read it for yourselves. I have no real idea what he's babbling about.

This one's gonna be fun.

[Dr. Caligari]

However, read it for yourselves. I have no real idea what he's babbling about.

I have made in camera proffers when I was representing a witness who took the 5th Amendment and the other side disputed whether the privilege was invoked in good faith-- I asked (and the courts sometimes agreed) to explain to the judge in camera why the witness had a real fear of self-incrimination.

if I am reading this document correctly (hard to say because it is so badly written), Springer wants to tell the judge in camera why he supposedly had a 5th Amendment right not to file a tax return. (He has no such right, of course, under the Sullivan case.)

[Weston White]

I thought Springer was apart of the Freedom Lawschool group? Is he no more or did I get him mixed up with them?

Either way looks like he found a way to do himself pretty good and in such a short amount of time. See doing a cheesy Google video or two really does pay off... he is living proof of that! heh

[ASITStands]

However, read it for yourselves. I have no real idea what he's babbling about.

I have made in camera proffers when I was representing a witness who took the 5th Amendment and the other side disputed whether the privilege was invoked in good faith-- I asked (and the courts sometimes agreed) to explain to the judge in camera why the witness had a real fear of self-incrimination.

if I am reading this document correctly (hard to say because it is so badly written), Springer wants to tell the judge in camera why he supposedly had a 5th Amendment right not to file a tax return. (He has no such right, of course, under the Sullivan case.)

There is a "Memorandum in Support of the Motion for In Camera Review" that explains his view of Sullivan, Garner, Mackey and other cases regarding a Fifth Amendment privilege.

It also explains his theory of "gifts" and how he's been under criminal investigation for eleven years, and on that basis, believes a Fifth Amendment privilege is warranted.

I thought Springer was apart of the Freedom Lawschool group? Is he no more or did I get him mixed up with them?

Either way looks like he found a way to do himself pretty good and in such a short amount of time. See doing a cheesy Google video or two really does pay off... he is living proof of that! heh

Springer broke with Peymon Mottahedah (and Freedom Law School) roughly one year ago.

[grixit]

Looks as if half the things on the BOP list are just nonsense and the other half are going to show up as prosecution exhibits anyway.

[wserra]

There is a "Memorandum in Support of the Motion for In Camera Review" that explains his view of Sullivan, Garner, Mackey and other cases regarding a Fifth Amendment privilege.

It also explains his theory of "gifts" and how he's been under criminal investigation for eleven years, and on that basis, believes a Fifth Amendment privilege is warranted.

Right you are, ASIT. I maxed out on three pieces of nonsense before getting to that. As Dr. C says, he should reread Sullivan.

[LPC]

The final "motion" is titled, "Motion for In Camera Review of Fifth Amendment Proffer".

The "Certificate of Service" is usual (to say the least), in that it states:

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Lindsey Kent Springer's
Motion to for In Camera Review regarding Fifth Amendment proffer was not
served on:

Emphasis added.

It's either a very strange typo, or Springer is playing a very strange game. (My guess is the latter.)

I would quote more of these humorous and extremely unlikely to be granted demands, but the filed copy is a scanned image rather than a document converted to pdf. Read them yourselves.

The full version of Adobe Acrobat has built-in OCR, so you can convert the scanned image to text and save the text as part of the image file, allowing you to copy-and-paste just as you would with a native PDF (created from text).

It's very slick, and very convenient.