Lindsey Springer & Oscar Stilley indicted

[LPC]

I'm still waiting for Mr. Springer to explain why IRC 6323 or Regs 301.6323(d) omit any requirement that a signature must appear on a notice of tax lien
...
And I am still waiting for him to explain why the date and locale of preparation of the notice of lien is relevant and meaningful if the law itself does not require that this information appear on the notice.

If you get a chance, you might also ask Springer to explain why the validity of a notice of tax lien is even relevant to the case against him.

The case in question is an action by the United States under section 7403 to enforce its liens against properties owned by Springer. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the "lien" referred to in section 7403 is, generally speaking, the lien created by section 6321. United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 681-682 (1983). In a related footnote, the court recognized that the validity and priority of the lien against third parties is determined under section 6323, which is an implicit recognition of the fact that the notice of tax lien under section 6323 has nothing to do with the rights of the government against the taxpayer himself.
Cf., United States v. Webb, KTC 2008-527 (D.Hawaii 2008) ("The United States' tax liens are perfected upon assessment, [citation omitted], and are effective against the taxpayer and other lienholders without filing notice.")

For a case in which the timing of the filing of the notice of federal tax was relevant to the rights of a third party in a section 7403 action, see United States v. McCombs-Ellison, 826 F.Supp. 1479, KTC 1993-340 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).

In other words, Springer is going to be disappointed (to say the least) when he learns that the US can prevail against him in a section 7403 action even if no notice of federal tax lien were filed at all, and so all of his "discovery" has been a waste of time.

[Famspear]

I'm still waiting for Mr. Springer to explain why IRC 6323 or Regs 301.6323(d) omit any requirement that a signature must appear on a notice of tax lien
...
And I am still waiting for him to explain why the date and locale of preparation of the notice of lien is relevant and meaningful if the law itself does not require that this information appear on the notice.

If you get a chance, you might also ask Springer to explain why the validity of a notice of tax lien is even relevant to the case against him.

The case in question is an action by the United States under section 7403 to enforce its liens against properties owned by Springer. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the "lien" referred to in section 7403 is, generally speaking, the lien created by section 6321. United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 681-682 (1983). In a related footnote, the court recognized that the validity and priority of the lien against third parties is determined under section 6323, which is an implicit recognition of the fact that the notice of tax lien under section 6323 has nothing to do with the rights of the government against the taxpayer himself.
Cf., United States v. Webb, KTC 2008-527 (D.Hawaii 2008) ("The United States' tax liens are perfected upon assessment, [citation omitted], and are effective against the taxpayer and other lienholders without filing notice.")

For a case in which the timing of the filing of the notice of federal tax was relevant to the rights of a third party in a section 7403 action, see United States v. McCombs-Ellison, 826 F.Supp. 1479, KTC 1993-340 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).

In other words, Springer is going to be disappointed (to say the least) when he learns that the US can prevail against him in a section 7403 action even if no notice of federal tax lien were filed at all, and so all of his "discovery" has been a waste of time.

--An illustration of the cluelessness of corn flakes like Lindsey Springer and the dimwits who follow their writings.

[LPC]

--An illustration of the cluelessness of corn flakes like Lindsey Springer and the dimwits who follow their writings.

I don't fault Springer for his ignorance of the laws governing federal tax liens, or even for his inability to understand them when he reads them. 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.

It is the arrogance of his delusions that is both appalling and pathetic.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

--An illustration of the cluelessness of corn flakes like Lindsey Springer and the dimwits who follow their writings.

I don't fault Springer for his ignorance of the laws governing federal tax liens, or even for his inability to understand them when he reads them. 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.

It is the arrogance of his delusions that is both appalling and pathetic.

I have been watching this thread/forum for several days and have successfully 'bit my tongue' until last night when I decided to register in this forum.

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.)

Btw, dear thread reader and that includes you [you], I'm new in here, but have been involved in the 'patriot movement' for many many years. I am sure my comments in this thread wont win me any friends, as that is not my intent. I'm tired of seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!

My, how easy it is to judge, criticize, condemn, persecute a fellow *freedom fighter* you've never met!

I have a*lot of posts to comment to in here, and after I learn how to comment to several ppls posts I'll deal with multiple posts at once.

[Famspear]

--An illustration of the cluelessness of corn flakes like Lindsey Springer and the dimwits who follow their writings.

I don't fault Springer for his ignorance of the laws governing federal tax liens, or even for his inability to understand them when he reads them. 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.

It is the arrogance of his delusions that is both appalling and pathetic.

I have been watching this thread/forum for several days and have successfully 'bit my tongue' until last night when I decided to register in this forum.

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.)

Btw, dear thread reader and that includes you [you], I'm new in here, but have been involved in the 'patriot movement' for many many years. I am sure my comments in this thread wont win me any friends, as that is not my intent. I'm tired of seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!

My, how easy it is to judge, criticize, condemn, persecute a fellow *freedom fighter* you've never met!

I have a*lot of posts to comment to in here, and after I learn how to comment to several ppls posts I'll deal with multiple posts at once.

GoldandSilverEagles, welcome to Quatloos! This is a forum that exposes scams.

Without your identifying yourself or revealing confidences, if any, that should not be revealed, can you say that Lindsey Springer is someone who knows you personally?

In what way is Lindsey Springer a "freedom fighter"?

[Nikki]

I have been watching this thread/forum for several days and have successfully 'bit my tongue' until last night when I decided to register in this forum.

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.)

Btw, dear thread reader and that includes you [you], I'm new in here, but have been involved in the 'patriot movement' for many many years. I am sure my comments in this thread wont win me any friends, as that is not my intent. I'm tired of seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!

My, how easy it is to judge, criticize, condemn, persecute a fellow *freedom fighter* you've never met! ]/b]

I have a*lot of posts to comment to in here, and after I learn how to comment to several ppls posts I'll deal with multiple posts at once.

1 - Judges do not habitually make mistakes. If you took the time to review the decisions of the various courts of appeals, you would find that the majority of the time they uphold the action of the lower court. And, courts of appeals do not exist solely to correct mistakes of judges. Think about things like Miranda. Did anyone amke a mistake there?

2 - No one is persecuting Springer. The correct term is prosecuting. Although we do mock him for his inane attempts to ignore years of court decisions finding his position and arguments without merit, we are not persecuting him.

[wserra]

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.)

Showing a fairly basic misunderstanding of the nature of law generally, and appellate law in particular. And it's "You're overlooking".

Sure, humans make mistakes, judges are human, so judges make mistakes. It's a simple syllogism. But, first of all, by far the majority of appeals result in affirmances - meaning that the appellate court found that the trial judge (or lower appellate court) got it right. And, of those appellate decisions which are reversals, the higher court rarely finds that the lower court made a "mistake" in the sense that one makes a "mistake" of arithmetic. Appellate decisions surely do not bear out your conclusion that "judges ... habitually make mistakes". There are gray areas in the law, and that is where most reversals lie. That shows the other purpose of appellate courts - to make the interpretations of the law uniform, a critical aim of any stable legal system. It's like the umpire in a baseball game - perhaps different umpires will call the same pitch differently. Perhaps one is "right" and one is "wrong". But what matters during the course of a single game is that the calls be consistent.

I am sure my comments in this thread wont win me any friends, as that is not my intent.

Welcome to Quatloos. It is not necessary to make friends to get along here. Many of us disagree routinely. It is much more important to make sense. We'll see.

I'm tired of seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!

I never realized that it was necessary to know someone personally to figure out that he's full of it. I always thought that, if someone not only continually takes positions that lose, but continually says things that make no sense, then that should be sufficient.

Silly me.

I have a*lot of posts to comment to in here, and after I learn how to comment to several ppls posts I'll deal with multiple posts at once.

Have at it. Unlike in other places, you won't be censored.

[The Operative]

I have been watching this thread/forum for several days and have successfully 'bit my tongue' until last night when I decided to register in this forum.

Welcome to Quatloos! If you are willing to properly read what others here at Quatloos write, you may learn quite a bit.

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.)

You have things a little backwards. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution. It was left up to Congress to establish whatever lower courts were necessary. There are instances where higher courts have reversed or remanded a decision back to the lower courts, however, most appeals are affirmed and not remanded. The cases that are remanded, I would bet that most are not full reversals but are rather remanded to clear up a single issue.

To the best of my knowledge, Lindsey Springer has NEVER presented an argument that met that condition. Additionally, in the past, some of his arguments were typical tax protester arguments that have already been ruled upon in another case. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act argument has been tried before. The courts have already determined that argument to be frivolous and presenting that argument will get Springer nowhere. This is what LPC is referring to. After several courts have ruled on a specific issue or argument, most lawyers understand that pursuing that line is a waste of time and resources. There are exceptions, but Springer's case is not one of them.

Btw, dear thread reader and that includes you [you], I'm new in here, but have been involved in the 'patriot movement' for many many years. I am sure my comments in this thread wont win me any friends, as that is not my intent. I'm tired of seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!

I do not know him. He may be a nice guy outside of his wacky tax theories, but it is his wacky tax theories and his persistence to hold on to them when court after court has explained he is wrong.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

GoldandSilverEagles, welcome to Quatloos! This is a forum that exposes scams.

Without your identifying yourself or revealing confidences, if any, that should not be revealed, can you say that Lindsey Springer is someone who knows you personally?

Thank you for your welcome! Yes. Lindsey and i go back to the early '90's. He helped me in a federal case and his help won me a victory.

In what way is Lindsey Springer a "freedom fighter"?

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.

I'll now reply to the posts below.

[wserra]

Lindsey and i go back to the early '90's. He helped me in a federal case and his help won me a victory.

What case was that?

[GoldandSilverEagles]

1 - Judges do not habitually make mistakes. If you took the time to review the decisions of the various courts of appeals, you would find that the majority of the time they uphold the action of the lower court. And, courts of appeals do not exist solely to correct mistakes of judges. Think about things like Miranda. Did anyone amke a mistake there?

Judges are human like the rest of us and they do make lots of mistakes. The court of appeals is not the only indication of judicial misconduct. Another is the habeaus corpus, and judges hate seeing them across their desks. Judges also allow for ppl being recognized as legal fictions when one is not legally required to do so. I'm not going to debate this, there are bigger fish to fry.

2 - No one is persecuting Springer. The correct term is prosecuting. Although we do mock him for his inane attempts to ignore years of court decisions finding his position and arguments without merit, we are not persecuting him.

I feel the name calling of a good friend a form of personal persecution.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Btw, dear thread reader and that includes you [you], I'm new in here, but have been involved in the 'patriot movement' for many many years. I am sure my comments in this thread wont win me any friends, as that is not my intent. I'm tired of seeing a good friend (Lindsey Springer) being needless persecutes by a bunch of fill in the blank who do not know him personally, as I do, and I'm quickly getting a belly full of it!

I do not know him. He may be a nice guy outside of his wacky tax theories, but it is his wacky tax theories and his persistence to hold on to them when court after court has explained he is wrong.

Yes I agree he's a bit wacky in his qwest, but hes very persistent..I will give him that. 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.

In terms of the court of appeals, I'm bowing my ego out of this one, we are both correct within our own POV.

Btw, it's nice to have a place to discuss law intelligently/pragmatically with others, as I truly enjoy a good debate. .

[GoldandSilverEagles]

What case was that?

Years ago I was under federal indictment where I made the very stupid mistake in showing an undercover narc (my neighbor, at the time,) an 'illegal' explosive (illegal in that I did not possess a 'license') . He turned me in and I was facing up to 30 years. Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time. His plea was based on lack of jurisdiction in that the explosive had not entered into interstate commerce. He was right and we won!

[Nikki]

1 - Judges do not habitually make mistakes. If you took the time to review the decisions of the various courts of appeals, you would find that the majority of the time they uphold the action of the lower court. And, courts of appeals do not exist solely to correct mistakes of judges. Think about things like Miranda. Did anyone amke a mistake there?

Judges are human like the rest of us and they do make lots of mistakes. The court of appeals is not the only indication of judicial misconduct. Another is the habeaus corpus, and judges hate seeing them across their desks. Judges also allow for ppl being recognized as legal fictions when one is not legally required to do so. I'm not going to debate this, there are bigger fish to fry.

2 - No one is persecuting Springer. The correct term is prosecuting. Although we do mock him for his inane attempts to ignore years of court decisions finding his position and arguments without merit, we are not persecuting him.

I feel the name calling of a good friend a form of personal persecution.

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.

[wserra]

What case was that?

Years ago ...

Is "Years ago" anything like "Once upon a time"?

How about a District and docket number?

[Paul]

His plea was based on lack of jurisdiction in that the explosive had not entered into interstate commerce. He was right and we won!

You don't see the disconnect here?

Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time.

If there was no jurisdiction, how did you wind up getting jail time? Normally, a finding of no jurisdiction results in dismissal of the case. Maybewe'll just have to disagree on what it means to win in court, but I suspect that a strongly-expressed jurisdiction argument by Springer actually changed the judge's mind after he had decided to give you a good scolding and probation. Too bad you got the jail time, and not your guru.

[ASITStands]

You don't see the disconnect here?

Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time.

If there was no jurisdiction, how did you wind up getting jail time?

Could it not be the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Welcome to Quatloos! Not everyone here resorts to name-calling.

However, as has been said, you might also wind up learning a few things. Ask intelligent questions! Don't get in a hen fight! Listen intently! And, think about what you write.

Does 'GoldandSilverEagles' refer to gold and silver coins?

And, revealing the district and docket number reveals your identity. Some of us would be very interested in reading the case, but it's not necessary to compromise your privacy.

Always remember, you're posting on a public forum with many eyes watching!

[Judge Roy Bean]

...I was facing up to 30 years. Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time. His plea was based on lack of jurisdiction in that the explosive had not entered into interstate commerce. He was right and we won!

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.

[wserra]

And, revealing the district and docket number reveals your identity. Some of us would be very interested in reading the case, but it's not necessary to compromise your privacy.

Perfectly true. But the person who does not wish to reveal his/her identity must forego "arguments" based on personal experiences. Otherwise the "argument" devolves to "trust me". As others have pointed out, "Lindsey got me off with a year of jail time. His plea was based on lack of jurisdiction in that the explosive had not entered into interstate commerce. He was right and we won!" makes no sense, and is not what happened.

[ASITStands]

I'll not disagree with you, Wes.

However, you're asking a man who probably doesn't know the intricacies of the arguments that were made, and who probably only really wanted to say something nice about Lindsey.

And, while he understood it was a jurisdiction argument, it may have been something else.

The difference in jail time could very well be the difference between felony and misdemeanor, and while most of us know that a lack of jurisdiction results in dismissal, the poster evidently thought it was a lack of interstate nexus that changed it to a misdemeanor.

Is not a lack of interstate nexus a jurisdiction issue?

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