Lindsey Springer & Oscar Stilley indicted

[ASITStands]

'GoldandSilverEagles' probably should not have said anything about his own case!

It puts him (her) in the position of having to defend himself and potentially reveal his privacy. I have no problem with those on the forum who want to challenge him, and I have no problem with those on the forum who want to understand what was said when and why.

I want to know those things too, but I am not ready to demean the man for remaining silent.

Maybe if we give 'GoldandSilverEagles' a chance, we'll learn more.

[Famspear]

Is not a lack of interstate nexus a jurisdiction issue?

"... an interstate nexus is essential to confer jurisdiction." Kunzman, 54 F.3d 1522

United States v. Kunzman, 54 F.3d 1522 (10th Cir. 1995).

In that case, the Court was referring to 18 USC 1957, engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity.

In section 1957(f)(1), the term “monetary transaction” means "the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce . . . . " Here's an excerpt from the case:

Kunzman [the defendant-appellant] also contends that the district court should have granted his Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal on these counts because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the required interstate nexus. Although Kunzman did not argue this point before the district court, we address the merits of this contention because an interstate nexus is essential to confer jurisdiction. See United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 926, 112 S.Ct. 341, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991) (requirement under section 1957 that the transaction be "in or affecting interstate commerce" must be met to confer jurisdiction on federal courts); Kerbs v. Fall River Indus., Inc., 502 F.2d 731, 737 (10th Cir.1974) (interstate nexus is required to confer subject matter jurisdiction over securities fraud actions).

The Court was treating the definition in 18 USC section 1957(f)(1) as jurisdictional. I don't see that section 1957 has anything to do with our friend's case, based on the information given so far. We would need to know the specific statute our friend is talking about -- and we would have to look at the case law interpreting that statute.

[Famspear]

Regarding Lindsey Springer as a "freedom fighter", GoldandSilverEagles wrote:

He's been trying to get rid of the irs for over 20 years,. It's his mission. Now granted we disagree on lots of 'strategies', but when I start seeing name calling, that is when i get a little pissy.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things like "get rid of the IRS." Filing frivolous law suits, or helping others present frivolous arguments in court, is not only legally wrong but it is, in my personal opinion, morally wrong. And that's what Springer does. If he is doing this to "get rid of the IRS," then he is wrong. So, Springer and I probably strongly disagree on both tactics and strategies.

I called your friend a "corn flake," and I appreciate your standing up for your friend. However, as I said before, this is a web site that exposes scams. Whether you like it or not, and whether Springer "believes" it or not, he is engaged in scamming people. He presents arguments in court as though they were legally valid arguments when he is obviously aware that the courts have ruled those arguments to be legally frivolous. That kind of behavior is not indicative of someone who is trying to play by the rules. Whether Springer is guilty of criminal violations or not, he is breaking some important rules. I do not respect people who engage in that kind of behavior. That's just my personal view.

Unfortunately, Springer has been charged with doing things that are much more serious than just "trying to get rid of the IRS." In court, he will be presumed innocent until and unless the government can persuade the jury that he is guilty.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

So you're just going to make an unsupported statement and hope that no one challenges you? Good luck.

"Judges also allow for ppl being recognized as legal fictions when one is not legally required to do so." is a blatant sovereignoramus claim. Are you alleging the difference between names in capital letters versus mixed case? If so, your time here will be short.

That particular claim has been roundly quashed by every court where it's been raised.

You do not have the privilege hare to throw out assertions and then refuse to discuss them as if they were inscribed in one of the two tablets.

This is a forum of, by the most part, fact -- not opinion.

Either state supportable facts, or prepare to be torn into small pieces.

LOL You have quite the sense of humor!

[GoldandSilverEagles]

How was a year of "jail time" a win? If there was a successful jurisdictional challenge there could not have been a finding of guilt.

Methinks we're dealing with another troll.

Lol ....

[GoldandSilverEagles]

'GoldandSilverEagles' probably should not have said anything about his own case!

It puts him (her) in the position of having to defend himself and potentially reveal his privacy. I have no problem with those on the forum who want to challenge him, and I have no problem with those on the forum who want to understand what was said when and why.

I want to know those things too, but I am not ready to demean the man for remaining silent.

Maybe if we give 'GoldandSilverEagles' a chance, we'll learn more.

I appreciate your input my friend, but if the boys in here wanna play hard ball.... let them. They dont bother or frighten me. I'm much too old for that sort of bs. After facing (and defeating) the feds, in open court, very few ppl frighten me anymore, in open confrontation. In terms of facing up to 30 years in the pokie, few ppl can match the ferocity and intimidation of the federal govt.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things like "get rid of the IRS." Filing frivolous law suits, or helping others present frivolous arguments in court, is not only legally wrong but it is, in my personal opinion, morally wrong. And that's what Springer does. If he is doing this to "get rid of the IRS," then he is wrong. So, Springer and I probably strongly disagree on both tactics and strategies.

I called your friend a "corn flake," and I appreciate your standing up for your friend. However, as I said before, this is a web site that exposes scams. Whether you like it or not, and whether Springer "believes" it or not, he is engaged in scamming people. He presents arguments in court as though they were legally valid arguments when he is obviously aware that the courts have ruled those arguments to be legally frivolous. That kind of behavior is not indicative of someone who is trying to play by the rules. Whether Springer is guilty of criminal violations or not, he is breaking some important rules. I do not respect people who engage in that kind of behavior. That's just my personal view.

Unfortunately, Springer has been charged with doing things that are much more serious than just "trying to get rid of the IRS." In court, he will be presumed innocent until and unless the government can persuade the jury that he is guilty.

Actually I agree with you to a large degree. Lindsey has the habit of filing lots of "stuff" that has a tendency not to work. The only real success I've seen him have is when he helped me, so I am bias 2wards him.

If I were to "judge" what he is doing, I will not castigate him. But in terms of how he does it, yes I agree, he goes off into some deep weeds. But i do know his heart and he sincerely tries to help whoever comes in to his path.

He may make a lot of poor decisions, yet he does not have the heart of a scam artist. The law of association...we become like the ppl we hang with... thus I am very particular with whom I make friends with and Lindsey is indeed a very dear friend! I love him dearly!

[LPC]

After facing (and defeating) the feds, in open court, very few ppl frighten me anymore, in open confrontation. In terms of facing up to 30 years in the pokie, few ppl can match the ferocity and intimidation of the federal govt.

For which we have your personal (and anonymous) word, because you have not provided any information that would allow anyone to verify anything you say.

Several of us have access to PACER, so a name or docket number would allow us to confirm that what you say is true.

[LPC]

Friend, in reference to your comment above..."But I do fault him for his refusal to accept the opinions of judges and lawyers who have read the laws and have understood them." Your overlooking a very big and strong factor in the American judicial system, the court of appeals. If judges didnt **habitually** make mistakes, we would have no need for the court of appeals (including the supreme courts I might add.)

I'm not sure why you think I'm "overlooking" anything.

Judges of the federal district courts are appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate. Judges of the federal circuit courts of appeal are appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate.

Let's assume that, despite the review by the President and Senate, federal judges are wrong 50% of the time. That would mean that a federal district judge is wrong 50% of the time and, on review by a three-judge federal circuit of appeals panel, they are going to be wrong 33% of the time.

So, if federal judges rule totally randomly, judges would rule against Lindsay Springer 50% of the time at the federal district court level and, if he were to lose at that level, his appeals would be denied 33% of the time at the circuit court level.

Now let's look at Springer's actual record.

My review of the cases that Springer has filed in federal courts leads me to believe that he has lost 100% of the time at the district court level, and 100% of the time on the circuit court level on appeal after he has lost at the district court.

In fact, my review of the cases that Springer has appealed after losing at the district court level lead me to believe that Springer has been sanctioned (i.e, "punished") for filing frivolous (i.e., stupid or sure-losing appeals) in all of the cases he has appealed to the federal circuit courts.

So, far from "overlooking" the impact of the federal courts of appeals, I believe that I have taken into account the fact that Springer is a known loser and loony that will almost certainly lose, if not be sanctioned, on any appeal.

[LPC]

I do not label my self "Christian" but Lindsey does, and he's one of the very few I've seen who actually puts forth an earnest effort in following what Christianity advocates.

Having embraced the Quaker faith, I now consider myself to be a Christian, and I would be very interested to know why you think that being a "Christian" allows one to put "forth an earnest effort in following" a path that I consider to being a damn idiot.

Is there some part of the New Testament in which Christ says that we should go forth and be idiots?

[LPC]

Lindsey has the habit of filing lots of "stuff" that has a tendency not to work.

Among lawyers, we call that "losing."

[GoldandSilverEagles]

For which we have your personal (and anonymous) word, because you have not provided any information that would allow anyone to verify anything you say.

Several of us have access to PACER, so a name or docket number would allow us to confirm that what you say is true.

I'd love share the case with you all, but it's MY case, and as such is very private to me.

Btw, I do understand your apprehensions in believing me, you folks don't know me....yet (God help you all!..lol) Personally I do trust ppl...until they demonstrate reason not to, but that's me. I don't generally worry about someone screwing me over, because I dont screw ppl, (I quit that years ago,) so I dont fear bad karma coming back to bite me in me arse! lol Hope that makes sense my friend!

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Having embraced the Quaker faith, I now consider myself to be a Christian, and I would be very interested to know why you think that being a "Christian" allows one to put "forth an earnest effort in following" a path that I consider to being a damn idiot.

Is there some part of the New Testament in which Christ says that we should go forth and be idiots?

As with most ppl labelling themselves "Christian" you have your own POV..lol j/king

I'm not gonna judge him as those in the faith frequently do, I simply have felt his heart. Nor am I my 'brothers keeper', Lindsey's a big boy, he's responsible for his own actions.

[Tax Man]

Btw, I do understand your apprehensions in believing me, you folks don't know me....yet (God help you all!..lol) Personally I do trust ppl...until they demonstrate reason not to, but that's me. I don't generally worry about someone screwing me over, because I dont screw ppl, (I quit that years ago,) so I dont fear bad karma coming back to bite me in me arse! lol Hope that makes sense my friend!

We won't screw you over, silly goose.

Go ahead and give us the case my friend.

[wserra]

I'd love share the case with you all, but it's MY case, and as such is very private to me.

Well, of course it is. That's why you blab about it on strangers' web sites.

No, the part you'd like to keep private is the truth.

[webhick]

I'd love share the case with you all, but it's MY case, and as such is very private to me.

What if you PM'd the info to a mod or admin here, they downloaded it, sanitized it, and then posted the case? You would be able to back up your claims without having to reveal your identity to more than one person and we would know whether or not you're telling the truth.

This forum deals with informing people about those who lie, cheat, and steal - people who routinely lie about victories to either support their chosen scammer or because they are operating the scam themselves - so don't expect anyone here to just magically accept your claim of victory without any kind of proof.

[Demosthenes]

How was a year of "jail time" a win? If there was a successful jurisdictional challenge there could not have been a finding of guilt.

Lol ....

Instead of laughing at this post, please address the point made in it.

If you won on jurisdictional issues, there should have been zero time in prison.

One year in prison is proof of a loss, not a victory.

[ASITStands]

I agree with the suggestion of 'webhick.'

Sanitize the case; e-mail it to someone like 'Demosthenes;' and let her post it. You could prove your point; vindicate Lindsey's efforts in your behalf; and not be called a liar.

I still believe there could be answers to the questions by a consideration of the difference between felony and misdemeanor and the jurisdictional issue of interstate nexus.

"It could happen!" as one of my favorite child actors exclaimed.

[LPC]

I'd love share the case with you all, but it's MY case, and as such is very private to me.

And yet it's a matter of public record.

Btw, I do understand your apprehensions in believing me, you folks don't know me....yet (God help you all!..lol) Personally I do trust ppl...until they demonstrate reason not to, but that's me.

You have already provided sufficient reasons not to believe you, because you have told us a story that makes no sense, and refused to provide us with any way of verifying that story.

I trust people who provide me with information that makes sense, that I can verify, and that I find is accurate. I mistrust people who provide me with gibberish and expect me to take their word for it even while remaining anonymous.

In other words, I know them by their fruits.

[ASITStands]

In other words, I know them by their fruits.

Careful! The same could be said about all of us this Easter weekend.