Lindsey Springer BOP #4 Granted

[Noah]

Latest update on Springer....

http://www.penaltyprotester.com/files/G ... ranted.pdf

[LPC]

Big deal.

The government will now tell Springer to look at Treas. Reg. § 1.6012-1.

[Famspear]

Big deal.

The government will now tell Springer to look at Treas. Reg. § 1.6012-1.

If I were Springer I would stop asking stupid questions and spend my time working out. Where he's probably going, he's gonna need all the strength he can muster. Filing doofus motions asking the government to point out citations to regulations of which he is already aware does not seem to be a productive use of his time.

[notorial dissent]

Well, since it would appear by the evidence at hand that he ran out of smart questions a long time ago, it would seem that this is all he is left with.

[ASITStands]

Filing doofus motions asking the government to point out citations to regulations of which he is already aware does not seem to be a productive use of his time.

Well, since it would appear by the evidence at hand that he ran out of smart questions a long time ago, it would seem that this is all he is left with.

If this is such a non-productive use of his time, why did the Judge grant the motion?

The court notes that the motion was filed after the deadline for motions of this
kind. In his motion, defendant Springer asserts, in some detail, the reasons for which
he suggests that the motion should be considered on its merits even though not timely
filed. The court accepts this unchallenged showing, and accordingly does not strike
the motion as having been untimely filed.

We might find an answer by looking at Springer's motion:

• SPRINGER’S FOURTH MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Lindsey Kent Springer (“Springer”) moves the Court for a Bill of Particulars
relating specifically to the phrase “and regulations thereunder” that the Prosecution
mentions in their “trial brief” regarding under the explanation of “required by law.”
See Doc. 138, pg. 20 of 33. Each of the Counts are “specific intent” crimes.

• GOOD CAUSE

This Court seems to require that since a Bill of Particulars was not filed by the
original schedule for Bill of Particulars regarding “required by law” means
“regulations thereunder” that Springer is required to show good cause if he seeks
such particulars any time after that date. Springer shows the Court that up and until
July 14, 2009, there was never any mention of “regulations” being involved in the
“duty” requiring Springer say or do anything alleged not said or not done in the
Grand Jury Indictment. On July 2, 2009, this Court ordered the Government to
provide a Bill of Particulars regarding “required by law.” The July 14, 2009 filing
alleged section 6011 which beings “when required by regulations...” There is no
possible way this Court could find Springer was given knowledge the Prosecution
intended to rely upon any “regulations” in its theory that Springer was “required by
law” by reading of the indictment. The term “law” does not suggest “regulation.”
The Supreme Court in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991 specifically
addressed this issue in defining willfulness (addressed more fully below) where in it
said the term “Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases,
requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant,
that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally
violated that duty. We deal first with the case where the issue is whether the
defendant knew of the duty purportedly imposed by the provision of the statute or
regulation he is accused of violating,”1
On September 21, 2009, in an ongoing shift of theory the Prosecution now has
directly informed this Court that it intends to rely upon “regulations thereunder”
regarding its meaning of “required by law” in effort to prove specific intent. Yet,
not in one single pleading has one “regulation” been identified or offered, nor is
any mention of regulation, generally or specifically, in any Count of the Indictment.
If Springer now has to defend against “regulations” as deriving some “duty”
then Springer must be allowed to know in advance of trial what that or those
“regulations” are identified specifically to be. Springer is certain the Grand Jury was
never told about any regulations.
There is no way Springer could have presupposed the Prosecution was
intending to engage the “regulations” side of section 7203 nor was there any way
Springer could know “regulations” were included in the phrase “required by law.”

• In Springer’s construed 3rd Bill of Particulars, Springer did seek:
  
  3. What are the “regulations,” if any, promulgated by the Secretary of
  the Treasury under its authority in section 6011, that the Grand Jury
  relied upon in alleging “required by law” involving section 6011?

Please identify any and all if relied upon by the Grand Jury?
This Court without addressing this question stated it denied this request for
being out of time, not showing Good Cause, and denied this request on the merits
without any explanation whatsoever. Both are completely erroneous
determinations by the District Court.2 See Doc. 136 at 2.
Good cause having been shown, Springer turns to the request herein.

1Here it is “statute” or “regulation” in the disjunctive.

Emphasis in the original.

Apparently, Judge Friot didn't consider the exercise one of asking "non-smart" questions or the filing of a "doofus" motion, and just as apparently, he's interested in the answer as well.

I'd guess that Springer is trying to limit the government's "theory of liability" by making them specify both the statutes and regulations upon which they relied, or more importantly, that were presented to the grand jury. Said theory was, after all, the focus of his first motion.

In view of the government's propensity to "jump all over the place," it seems to me he's made reasonable requests for a specific bill of particulars, and the Judge has agreed.

[wserra]

In view of the government's propensity to "jump all over the place," it seems to me he's made reasonable requests for a specific bill of particulars, and the Judge has agreed.

There's no question that one of the few legitimate uses of a BoP in a criminal matter is to require the citation of statutes and regulations on which the govt will rely in proving its case. I don't read Dan, ND or Famspear to claim that the request is frivolous, or the ruling incorrect. I read them to be saying that it will not help Springer to make the govt specify the obvious - the regulations "specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return".

I'll give Springer an additional motive - to allow him to bray about a "victory". God knows he doesn't have many. Please send money.

[ASITStands]

There's no question that one of the few legitimate uses of a BoP in a criminal matter is to require the citation of statutes and regulations on which the govt will rely in proving its case. I don't read Dan, ND or Famspear to claim that the request is frivolous, or the ruling incorrect. I read them to be saying that it will not help Springer to make the govt specify the obvious - the regulations "specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return".

Fair enough! I guess describing it as a "doofus motion," and suggesting he's "run out of smart questions," is not the same as saying, it's a "frivolous request." Makes sense to me.

It's always easy to "dish it out" and not so easy to "take it."

The government likes to present a "bare bones" theory initially, and let the defendant "define" the case through motions to dismiss, etc., and I think we're seeing just the opposite here with Springer trying to get the government to "define" where they'll take it.

Who's planning to attend the trial? I think this could be the "trial of the century," thus far. With the Hendrickson trial starting the week before, and then Springer and Stilly ...

[LPC]

There are at least 27 documents with references to section 6012 on Springer's web site (http://www.penaltyprotester.com), so it's going to be easy for the government to prove that Springer was aware of his legal duty to file.

And most of those 27 documents are decisions or pleadings in cases in which the Paperwork Reduction Act was asserted as a defense, and the defense was *denied*.

But we should give Springer some credit, because unlike most other tax gurus he actually did raise his own theory (the PRA defense) in a motion to dismiss the indictment (Docket #53).

Do I need to add that the motion was denied?

[wserra]

Who's planning to attend the trial?

I definitely would, but it's a long way from NY to Tulsa. As I've posted before, the tension between two pro se defendants over the payments Springer received from Stilley's escrow account should be worth watching. Springer will need to say that they were gifts; if they were compensation, he had to report and pay tax on them. But it will be difficult for Stilley to explain why he was giving away escrow money.

Crook v. crook.

[Demosthenes]

This trial overlaps with Hendrickson's and I can't go to either one because I'd already made travel plans for that date range.

[LPC]

This trial overlaps with Hendrickson's and I can't go to either one because I'd already made travel plans for that date range.

Book tour?

(He asked with very innocent look on his face.)

[Imalawman]

This trial overlaps with Hendrickson's and I can't go to either one because I'd already made travel plans for that date range.

Book tour?

(He asked with very innocent look on his face.)

hey!! Keyboard warning please!

[Truthstalker]

Here I thought it was Bureau of Prisons, lockup #4.

[notorial dissent]

My comment was based on it being a waste of time. His asking the question is not going to change anything or accomplish anything other than to remind a DOJ attorney to be more careful about his writing. In the end, laundry list or not, he is not going to be any further ahead than he is now. My personal opinion is that the judge granted the motion more to spank the AUSA for sloppy drafting than to appease Springer.

Basically, when you already know the answer it is a stupid question, particularly when you think that asking it in a different way is going to magically make it all go away, which is what Springer is hoping. News Flash, it won’t.

I am coming to the conclusion that Springer is another card carrying member of the magic words society.

[ASITStands]

My comment was based on it being a waste of time. His asking the question is not going to change anything or accomplish anything other than to remind a DOJ attorney to be more careful about his writing. In the end, laundry list or not, he is not going to be any further ahead than he is now. My personal opinion is that the judge granted the motion more to spank the AUSA for sloppy drafting than to appease Springer.

The government filed a Request for Extension of Time to Respond and Motion for Reconsideration, Docket 185. Springer filed a Response in Opposition, Docket 188.

The government stated in its motion:

As previously articulated in the United States’ pleadings, “the requirement to file a tax
return is mandated by statute, not by regulation.” See United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1191 (10th Cir. 1991). The regulations promulgated serve only to clarify the statutory duty to file. The United States does not intend to introduce regulations into this trial. The United States anticipates that all information regarding the law will come from the Court.

Emphasis added.

Judge Friot has now issued an Order, granting in part and denying in part:

• ORDER

Before the court is the United States’ Request for Extension of Time to
Respond and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Springer’s
Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. nos. 185 and 187), filed on October 8,
2009. Defendant Springer has timely responded to that motion. See doc. no. 188,
filed on October 9, 2009.
In its motion, the government makes the arguments it would have made if it had
timely responded to Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. no. 166).
The court has carefully considered those arguments, thus effectively granting the
government’s request for extension of time, so, to that extent (i.e. to the extent that the
government requests more time to respond to Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of
Particulars), the motion is GRANTED.
By order dated October 8, 2009, the court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for
Bill of Particulars to the extent of directing the government to file “a supplemental bill
of particulars, not later than October 19, 2009, specifying the ‘regulations thereunder’
(see government’s trial brief, doc. no. 138, at p. 12) specifically relied upon by the
government in this case as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return.”
Doc. no. 184, at pp. 1 - 2.
The court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars because the
government, in its trial brief, wrote (under the heading “Required to File by Law”)
that “Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder)
specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 138, at 12. The
court was of the opinion when it entered its order on October 8, and is still of the
opinion, that if regulations are important enough to the government’s case to be
referred to at all, then they should be cited specifically. It seems passing strange that,
in this criminal tax case, the government would see fit to refer generally to operative
regulations, but resist informing the defendant (and, by the way, the court) as to what
it refers to when it writes about “the regulations thereunder.” For this reason, the
court is unmoved by the government’s arguments as to the niceties of bills of
particulars. If the device of a supplemental bill of particulars were not available to
provide the specificity called for by fundamental fairness, the court would, in the blink
of an eye, require the government to provide the needed specificity in a supplement
to the trial brief that made reference to “the regulations thereunder” but gave no
indication of which regulations.
Accordingly, to the extent that the government’s motion is a motion for
extension of time, it is GRANTED. To the extent that the motion seeks
reconsideration of the court’s October 8, 2009 order, it is DENIED. The
supplemental bill of particulars remains due not later than October 19, 2009.
Dated October 13, 2009.

Judge Friot chastises the government in the fourth paragraph.

I like that, "and, by the way, the court!" "f regulations are important enough to the government’s case to be referred to at all, then they should be cited specifically."

[Imalawman]

wow, that's a good ol' fashioned hand slap from the judge. Those aren't the best days when the court chastises you like that...

[grixit]

lawman, you need to visit your image account.

[wserra]

I'll give Springer an additional motive - to allow him to bray about a "victory". God knows he doesn't have many. Please send money.

Hate to quote myself, but . . .

Lindsey Springer here and for those of you watching the "statutory origin theory" vs. "regulations thereunder" theory, I received an order today from the Court I thought you might wish to see as such is not seen very often. You may wish to print it out just so people will believe you when you tell them about it.
...
If you become interested in supporting me I can receive paypal at [redacted] or traditionally at [redacted] in name of Bondage Breaker's Ministry or Lindsey Springer.

[Imalawman]

lawman, you need to visit your image account.

Thanks..

[wserra]

The relevant parts from the govt's BOP response, indicating why I (and others) wrote that it won't help Springer:

The abbreviated answer to the Court's order is that the passing, parenthetical reference to regulations in the government's trial brief was not intended to suggest that the Government would be relying on Treasury Regulations in proving its case in chief. As indicated in the Government's prior filings and further referenced below, the obligation to file a tax return is a statutory obligation. In its case in chief, the Government will prove that the defendant had a statutorily-mandated obligation to file a federal tax return without reference or reliance on Treasury Regulations.

In the United States Trial Brief (doc. no. 138), the United States included the parenthetical phrase “and regulations thereunder,” when describing the law that specifies the events that trigger an obligation to file a return. Doc. no. 138 at 12. As previously stated by the Government in earlier responses to Defendants’ motions for bill of particulars, the filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. [Citations omitted.] In its Bill of Particulars filed July 17, 2009, the United States identified the statutes that impacted on the required filing of individual federal income tax returns: Title 26, United States Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151, and 7203. Doc. no. 104 at 2. Given the likely defense that the funds received by Defendant Springer were gifts and therefore not taxable income, Title 26, United States Code Section 102 is also implicated.

Regulations under the Internal Revenue Code provide some clarification and specific examples regarding filing requirements that may or may not be helpful in a specific individual's situation. In this case, a review of the regulations reveals no exceptions or qualifications that would exclude Defendant Springer from the filing requirement. The regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code that provide clarification of the filing requirements for individuals include the following: Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 1.1-1, 1.61-1 et seq., 1.63, 1.102-1, 1.151-1, 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-1. However, as stated above, the United States did not rely upon any regulations specifying events triggering an obligation for the Defendants to file tax returns.

There you go, Lindsey, live it up. Won't help your defense, but you can keep on bragging to and begging from people who don't know better..