Lindsey Springer & Oscar Stilley indicted

[LPC]

I've checked the status of Springer's various court cases, and his appeal of his most recent Tax Court loss is still pending in the 10th Circuit. The following is the statement of the case from the government in its motion for joint and several sanctions against Springer and his lawyer, Jerold Barringer:

Taxpayer has an extensive history of frivolous litigation in the Tax Court, in the federal district courts, and in this Court, for which he repeatedly has been sanctioned. See Springer v. I.R.S. ex rel. United States, 231 F. App’x 793,795-96, 800, 801 n.6, 802 (10th Cir. May 1, 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1093 (2008) (attached) (describing taxpayer’s litigation history and imposing sanctions of $8,000 on him). This is the latest in a series of his frivolous cases that relates to his 1990-1995 federal income tax liabilities, which were finally determined by the Tax Court in Springer v . Commissioner, No. 26045-96 (T.C. Feb. 10, 1997) (copy at Doc. 4, Ex. 2-E),[footnote omitted] appeal dismissed (due to failure to pay sanction imposed in a previous appeal), Springer v. Commissioner, No. 97-9008 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 1997) (unpublished) (copy at Doc. 4, Ex. 2-F), and which tax liabilities he still has not paid.

This series of cases began with taxpayer’s challenge to his liability for taxes in a Tax Court case, in which he sought to challenge the entire tax system on constitutional grounds. He then brought three intervening district court cases seeking injunctive and other relief relating to the same tax liabilities and the IRS’s proposal to collect them by levy, in which he argued, among other things, that the failure-to-file penalties could not be imposed because IRS Forms 1040 did not contain valid control numbers issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et. seq. [2]

[Footnote 2] See Springer, No. 26045-96 (T.C. Feb. 10, 1997); Springer v. United States, et al., No. CIV-05-466-F (W.D. Okla. Oct. 6, 2005) (copy at Doc. 3, Ex. A), aff’d, 231 F. App’x 793; Springer v. United States, No. CIV-05-1075-F (W.D. Okla. August 7, 2006), aff’d, 231 F. App’x 793; Springer v. United States, No. 06-CV-0110-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla. June 21, 2006) (copy at Doc. 3, Ex. B), aff’d, 231 F. App’x 793.

Taxpayer has continued to litigate these same issues in the instant case, in which he challenges notices of determination issued by the IRS Office of Appeals approving the proposed collection by levy of the unpaid tax liabilities, including penalties for failure to file returns and for failure to pay the taxes due. Taxpayer asserted the same PRA argument (among others) in defense to the failure-to-pay penalties (Doc. 1 at 17-18; Doc. 9 at 18-20), but the Tax Court held his arguments to be frivolous and sustained the notices of determination (Doc. 14).

As required by the filing restrictions that this Court previously imposed on him,[3] taxpayer petitioned for leave to proceed pro se, proposing to argue that the PRA provided him with a defense to the failure-to-pay penalties. The Commissioner opposed his petition, and this Court denied it. Taxpayer then retained attorney Jerold W. Barringer to represent him in this appeal. Because taxpayer still had not paid the $8,000 in sanctions that this Court imposed on him, see 231 F. App’x at 801, 804, the Commissioner moved to dismiss his appeal. Taxpayer, through his counsel, objected to the Commissioner’s motion. On August 7, 2008, the Court ordered taxpayer to pay the $8,000 sanction in full by August 21, 2008. Taxpayer did so, and on August 29, 2008, the Court issued an order reserving judgment on the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss while allowing briefing on the merits to proceed. Taxpayer, through counsel, filed and served a 30-page opening brief on November 20, 2008.

[Footnote 3] The Court previously enjoined taxpayer from proceeding in this Court as an appellant in a civil matter “unless he is represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court or unless he first obtains permission to proceed pro se.” 231 F. App’x at 803-04. The Court specified in detail the process taxpayer must follow to appear pro se. Ibid.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

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.

"Sanitize" the case you say....(???) lol ...ok, I download the case in my pc, "sanitize it" (ie,...take my name out, the case number, and the district the ruling was made,) then send it to a member of this forum who is in an authoritative position and I maintain my privacy??????? ***RollingOnTheFloorLaughingMyF*****AssOff!!!!****

Then you folks take it and google it, (or whatever else you sorcerers are capable of doing,) and walaa, the case in it's entirety!

So I'm being "convicted" of being a 'liar' simply because I value my privacy??? lol You dont know me, and you call me a 'liar"??? Your quite a piece of work mate! lol So I refuse to give in to your tactics of intimidation, and I'm a 'liar'...lol...I have a much more accurate description for your behavior mate....You are behaving very immaturely!

BTW, who ever said **I** felt any need to "prove" myself to you folks as your claim above? lol

[Nikki]

Dear TinselTroll:

You have made certain claims which are, at best, suspect.

You have the opportunity to provide factual backup to those claims.

Instead, you refuse to provide a single bit of information which could prove you are not just another lying, self-aggrandizing troll.

Until such time as you put some facts where your mouth is, you are just another troll -- and a typically uneducated one, at that. FYI, it's "voila", not 'walaa'. Perhaps instead of posting here, you should dedicate that time to completing your GED.

[ASITStands]

And, for what it's worth, I am not your enemy.

I did not convict you of being a liar. I didn't even call you one. I only suggested you had a way of showing you were not a liar, as others may have suggested. Don't get offended.

You have every right to protect your privacy. It's just that no one can verify the statements you made, as to how Lindsey helped you with your case, and most here don't believe them.

I only made a suggestion as to how you might prove them wrong. Sorry I offended you.

[The Operative]

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.

"Sanitize" the case you say....(???) lol ...ok, I download the case in my pc, "sanitize it" (ie,...take my name out, the case number, and the district the ruling was made,) then send it to a member of this forum who is in an authoritative position and I maintain my privacy??????? ***RollingOnTheFloorLaughingMyF*****AssOff!!!!****

Then you folks take it and google it, (or whatever else you sorcerers are capable of doing,) and walaa, the case in it's entirety!

So I'm being "convicted" of being a 'liar' simply because I value my privacy??? lol You dont know me, and you call me a 'liar"??? Your quite a piece of work mate! lol So I refuse to give in to your tactics of intimidation, and I'm a 'liar'...lol...I have a much more accurate description for your behavior mate....You are behaving very immaturely!

BTW, who ever said **I** felt any need to "prove" myself to you folks as your claim above? lol

Fine, you do not want to provide any details of your case, that is your decision. However, YOU were the one to make an outlandish claim that doesn't make sense and you want us to simply take your word for it? This is a forum where VERIFIABLE FACTS are important. Most people here do not make claims without being able to back them up with court decisions, or other verifiable information. Your claim that Lindsey Springer helped you "win" a federal case in which you still served a year in prison is not verifiable and not credible. So, don't get defensive when we do not believe your claim without something to back it up.

[LPC]

BTW, who ever said **I** felt any need to "prove" myself to you folks as your claim above?

If you don't care what we think, then stop trying to convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

The best way to express your indifference to what we think is to walk away.

[notorial dissent]

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.

It was a win in the same sense that frivolous filers won when they only got a $5k penalty as opposed to the full one allowed by law.

Dear TinselTroll:(thank you for that by the way, Nikki, I like it) it has obviously escaped your notice, along with most of the rest of reality, but if Springer was in any way involved in your “so called” Federal case, then he it will be findable simply by looking up the long list of disasters he has been associated. So you might as well come clean before someone gets sufficiently irritated and looks it and you up. There is no such thing as a Federal case that cannot be looked up and all the interesting little tidbits found out and exposed to the light.

[LPC]

if Springer was in any way involved in your “so called” Federal case, then he it will be findable simply by looking up the long list of disasters he has been associated.

Not as far as I can tell.

You can search PACER by party or by lawyer. Springer is not a lawyer, but holds himself out as a "paralegal" or "researcher." If he's not a party, and not a lawyer of record, then he's not going to show up in PACER even assuming that his name is on pleadings (which it probably isn't in order to avoid unauthorized practice of law issues).

So, for example, Springer claims to have assisted in the defense of Robert Lawrence, but the Lawrence case doesn't turn up in a search for Springer on PACER. As far as I can tell, the only cases that PACER returns for Springer are the cases in which he is a named party.

[Judge Roy Bean]

re: PACER

[rant=on] It will probably be later than sooner but someday PACER will eventually catch up to the twenty-first century in terms of technology. As it is now, it is one of the most primitive (and abusively priced) sources of important information in existence.[rant=off]

[notorial dissent]

My error, although I wasn’t necessarily referring to pacer. Trying to keep track of too many loonies.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

I have been informed this forum exists to expose frauds, scams, and the like, ad nausaum...(spelled wrong, oh welll!!! ...lol)

It appears that you folks worship case law. In doing so you have made the courts your 'gods', your 'Caesar'.

In doing so you have allowed 'the created' to become masters of 'the Creator'...."we the ppl".

In posts addressed to me you've spit, hissed, erupted, and verbally assaulted/chastised me. Lol...Has all of this been picturesque of 'slaves' defending their 'masters' in fear of sinful punishment? You folks have made me wonder this (??????) Yes I do study law, but I've been a student of philosophy since my childhood.

Me thinketh it would be wiser, in the long run, towards being courageous and 'taming these beasts', remembering that ***we created them***, and NOT the other way around.

I'm a newcomer, so please correct me if i am wrong, but it appears the residents of this thread have opted the 'safer' approach in 'defending their masters', rather than seeking to 'slay them' via the pen and ink within a court of competant jurisdiction.

The saying, "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" comes to mind.

[Famspear]

I have been informed this forum exists to expose frauds, scams, and the like, ad nausaum...

It appears that you folks worship case law. In doing so you have made the courts your 'gods', your 'Caesar'.

No, we don't "worship" case law. We don't "worship" any kind of law. Your rhetoric rings hollow.

In doing so you have allowed 'the created' to become masters of 'the Creator'...."we the ppl".

No. Your rhetoric rings hollow.

In posts addressed to me you've spit, hissed, erupted, and verbally assaulted/chastised me. Lol...Has all of this been picturesque of 'slaves' defending their 'masters' in fear of sinful punishment? You folks have made me wonder this (??????) Yes I do study law, but I've been a student of philosophy since my childhood.

Me thinketh it would be wiser, in the long run, towards being courageous and 'taming these beasts', remembering that ***we created them***, and NOT the other way around.

Your rhetoric rings hollow.

I'm a newcomer, so please correct me if i am wrong, but it appears the residents of this thread have opted the 'safer' approach in 'defending their masters', rather than seeking to 'slay them' via the pen and ink within a court of competant [sic] jurisdiction.

Your rhetoric rings hollow.

The saying, "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" comes to mind.

Thank you for sharing that with us. Your rhetoric, however, rings hollow.

EDIT: You see, pal, this not about the worship of law, or the worship of any kind of law. This is not about Masters and Slaves. It's not about Creator and Created. And it's not about The People.

You are trying to dress up the criminality of tax deniers and you are trying to make it appear that the criminality is somehow something noble. You are wrong -- and your rhetoric rings hollow.

[Paul]

In posts addressed to me you've spit, hissed, erupted, and verbally assaulted/chastised me.

Actually, I've been laughing at your claim successful claim of "no jurisdiction" resulted in a prison sentence. Whether you are personally stupid or untrustworthy or simply laughable, I don't know. All I know is that your claim is BS and your post about slaves and masters is laughable, and, since that's all I have to evaluate you on, I would be forced to conclude that you're either a liar or an idiot. Attacking other people for ridiculing your facially absurd claim doesn't help much.

[The Operative]

I have been informed this forum exists to expose frauds, scams, and the like, ad nausaum...(spelled wrong, oh welll!!! ...lol)

Yes, that is at least one purpose of this forum.

It appears that you folks worship case law. In doing so you have made the courts your 'gods', your 'Caesar'.

No, we do not worship case law. We do know the Constitution and how the system created by the Constitution works.

In doing so you have allowed 'the created' to become masters of 'the Creator'...."we the ppl".

No. In your world, everyone would simply decide what they believed the law to be. That system would be completely unworkable. The courts interpret the law whenever a disagreement on what the law means occurs. In order to not have to restate the interpretation for every Tom, Dick and Harry that disagrees, the system uses the concept of stare decisis.

In posts addressed to me you've spit, hissed, erupted, and verbally assaulted/chastised me. Lol...Has all of this been picturesque of 'slaves' defending their 'masters' in fear of sinful punishment? You folks have made me wonder this (??????) Yes I do study law, but I've been a student of philosophy since my childhood.

I disagree. Some have been more virulent than others, but overall, the posters here have tried to simply explain to you how wrong you are.

Me thinketh it would be wiser, in the long run, towards being courageous and 'taming these beasts', remembering that ***we created them***, and NOT the other way around.

If you do not like the system, what do you propose to replace it? I am fairly certain that whatever you come up with will not be as good as what currently exists.

I'm a newcomer, so please correct me if i am wrong, but it appears the residents of this thread have opted the 'safer' approach in 'defending their masters', rather than seeking to 'slay them' via the pen and ink within a court of competant jurisdiction.

The saying, "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" comes to mind.

As usual, you are wrong.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Me thinketh it would be wiser, in the long run, towards being courageous and 'taming these beasts', remembering that ***we created them***, and NOT the other way around.

I'm a newcomer, so please correct me if i am wrong, but it appears the residents of this thread have opted the 'safer' approach in 'defending their masters', rather than seeking to 'slay them' via the pen and ink within a court of competant [sic] jurisdiction.

The saying, "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" comes to mind.

You're confused as well as a victim of reliance on hyperbole.

Any number of beasts are routinely tamed with reasoned argument based on sound and well-presented cases.

[Nikki]

In posts addressed to me you've spit, hissed, erupted, and verbally assaulted/chastised me.

Actually, I've been laughing at your claim successful claim of "no jurisdiction" resulted in a prison sentence. Whether you are personally stupid or untrustworthy or simply laughable, I don't know. All I know is that your claim is BS and your post about slaves and masters is laughable, and, since that's all I have to evaluate you on, I would be forced to conclude that you're either a liar or an idiot. Attacking other people for ridiculing your facially absurd claim doesn't help much.

They're not mutually exclusive.