Lindsey Springer BOP #4 Granted

[LPC]

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.

The government seems to be admitting that the phrase "and regulations thereunder" is one of those largely meaningless phrases that tax lawyers learn to insert into documents in somewhat random places instead of actually thinking, much like teenagers and other semi-articulate people insert "you know" at the end of every sentence.

Face it, what meaning could "and regulations thereunder" possibly add to any sentence? All the phrase means is that there are regulations and that the regulations affect the application of the statute, just like we learned in law school. So the phrase is added to sentences just in case the reader never went to law school, or has forgotten that there might be regulations?

I hope that at least one lawyer for the government now wishes he hadn't added that "passing, parenthetical reference" to the trial brief, and that he/she thinks twice before ever using that phrase again.[/rant]

[ASITStands]

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

The government seems to be admitting that the phrase "and regulations thereunder" is one of those largely meaningless phrases that tax lawyers learn to insert into documents in somewhat random places instead of actually thinking, much like teenagers and other semi-articulate people insert "you know" at the end of every sentence.

Face it, what meaning could "and regulations thereunder" possibly add to any sentence? All the phrase means is that there are regulations and that the regulations affect the application of the statute, just like we learned in law school. So the phrase is added to sentences just in case the reader never went to law school, or has forgotten that there might be regulations?

I hope that at least one lawyer for the government now wishes he hadn't added that "passing, parenthetical reference" to the trial brief, and that he/she thinks twice before ever using that phrase again.[/rant]

Since this began with Docket # 82, Motion for Bill of Particulars, and Springer's request for "each provision of law encompassing the phrase 'required by law' alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment" (including regulations), and Judge Friot ordered the government to respond ...

And, since the government listed the relevant statutes at Docket # 104, Bill of Particulars, but later used the phrase, "and regulations thereunder," in its Trial Brief ...

And, since Springer drew attention to the word, "liable," at Docket # 105, Second Motion for Bill of Particulars, and the government's specific "theory of liability" ...

It would seem to me the purpose of all this is to get the government's "statutory origin" theory on the table, and by getting the regulations introduced, Form 1040 and the PRA.

Is not the Paperwork Reduction Act Springer's preferred argument?

Far from being an exercise in futility, it would appear to have fulfilled Springer's intent.

10/21/2009 207 MINUTES of Proceedings - held before Judge Stephen P Friot:
Motion Hearing held on 10/21/2009, Pretrial Conference held on 10/21/2009,
ruling on motion(s)/document(s): #137,155 grant in part, deny in part; 144,146,147,150,151,159 denied; 148, 204, 205, 206 granted, striking/terminating deadline(s)/hearing(s) as to Lindsey Kent Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley

(Re: 204 SEALED MOTION, 145 Second MOTION in Limine, 150 Sixth MOTION in Limine, 137 MOTION in Limine, 146 Third MOTION in Limine, 149 MOTION in Limine regarding hearsay and confrontation issues, 155 JOINDER (in [141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, and 151] Motions in Limine, for subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(b), and trial brief filed on 9-21-09), 148 Fifth MOTION in Limine, 159 MOTION Emergency Motion Regarding Denny Patridge, 144 First MOTION in Limine, 205 SEALED MOTION, 206 MOTION to Exclude MENTION OF THE TESTIMONY OF VIKKI WIGGINS PRIOR TO A REASONABLE TIME AFTER PRODUCTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF HER TESTIMONY, 151 Seventh MOTION in Limine, 147 Fourth MOTION in Limine ) (Court Reporter: Tracy Washbourne) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2009)

Docket # 137, Government's Motion in Limine, excluding various arguments and evidence, including the Paperwork Reduction Act. Denied in part, granted in part.

A lot would seem to depend on which parts were denied and which parts granted.

[LPC]

The government seems to be admitting that the phrase "and regulations thereunder" is one of those largely meaningless phrases that tax lawyers learn to insert into documents in somewhat random places instead of actually thinking, much like teenagers and other semi-articulate people insert "you know" at the end of every sentence.

Face it, what meaning could "and regulations thereunder" possibly add to any sentence? All the phrase means is that there are regulations and that the regulations affect the application of the statute, just like we learned in law school. So the phrase is added to sentences just in case the reader never went to law school, or has forgotten that there might be regulations?

I hope that at least one lawyer for the government now wishes he hadn't added that "passing, parenthetical reference" to the trial brief, and that he/she thinks twice before ever using that phrase again.[/rant]

Since this began with Docket # 82, Motion for Bill of Particulars, and Springer's request for "each provision of law encompassing the phrase 'required by law' alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment" (including regulations), and Judge Friot ordered the government to respond ...

And, since the government listed the relevant statutes at Docket # 104, Bill of Particulars, but later used the phrase, "and regulations thereunder," in its Trial Brief ...

And, since Springer drew attention to the word, "liable," at Docket # 105, Second Motion for Bill of Particulars, and the government's specific "theory of liability" ...

It would seem to me the purpose of all this is to get the government's "statutory origin" theory on the table, and by getting the regulations introduced, Form 1040 and the PRA.

Is not the Paperwork Reduction Act Springer's preferred argument?

How does what you wrote relate to what I wrote?

I'm not challenging the accuracy or validity of what you wrote, but just wondering why you're trying to piggy-back onto what I wrote.

[Noah]

The government seems to be admitting that the phrase "and regulations thereunder" is one of those largely meaningless phrases that tax lawyers learn to insert into documents in somewhat random places instead of actually thinking, much like teenagers and other semi-articulate people insert "you know" at the end of every sentence.

Face it, what meaning could "and regulations thereunder" possibly add to any sentence? All the phrase means is that there are regulations and that the regulations affect the application of the statute, just like we learned in law school. So the phrase is added to sentences just in case the reader never went to law school, or has forgotten that there might be regulations?

I hope that at least one lawyer for the government now wishes he hadn't added that "passing, parenthetical reference" to the trial brief, and that he/she thinks twice before ever using that phrase again.[/rant]

Don't sell the government lawyers short...The government did not send teenagers after Springer. They are far from stupid as some might think. They know what they are doing.

[ASITStands]

How does what you wrote relate to what I wrote?

I'm not challenging the accuracy or validity of what you wrote, but just wondering why you're trying to piggy-back onto what I wrote.

I wanted to pick up Wes' comment:

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

I presumed you were "one of the others."

And, your words:

The government seems to be admitting that the phrase "and regulations thereunder" is one of those largely meaningless phrases that tax lawyers learn to insert into documents in somewhat random places instead of actually thinking, much like teenagers and other semi-articulate people insert "you know" at the end of every sentence.

Face it, what meaning could "and regulations thereunder" possibly add to any sentence?

While you may be right, it appears to me that Springer had a motive.

Far from being an exercise in futility, it would appear to have fulfilled Springer's intent.

Is it really that hard to connect your words to mine? "... and regulations thereunder ..."

[LPC]

How does what you wrote relate to what I wrote?

I'm not challenging the accuracy or validity of what you wrote, but just wondering why you're trying to piggy-back onto what I wrote.

I wanted to pick up Wes' comment:

Then quote Wes, and leave me out of it.

[wserra]

I hope that at least one lawyer for the government now wishes he hadn't added that "passing, parenthetical reference" to the trial brief, and that he/she thinks twice before ever using that phrase again.[/rant]

I think you're exactly right, and that Judge Friot shares this particular pet peeve. I don't see how it will help Springer, though.

[wserra]

It would seem to me the purpose of all this is to get the government's "statutory origin" theory on the table, and by getting the regulations introduced, Form 1040 and the PRA.

Is not the Paperwork Reduction Act Springer's preferred argument?

I'm not sure I understand the point. I think the govt's position has always been that the obligation to file was statutory (that would certainly be my reading of the law). To the extent that the govt threw in a silly empty phrase concerning regs, it got its hand slapped. ASW (And So What)?

As far as the PRA is concerned, I would be astounded if the Court permits Springer to argue this to the jury, "preferred argument" or not.

[Prof]

SubVet speaks on Sui:

[SubVet

Re: Why Pete Hendrickson is Right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by reenie
SubVet............I too am following Springer's case and am excited about his progress.

I have tried to see how the (IRS) government complied with the Judge's ruling re:


THE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTED to filed a supplemental bill of particulars, not later than Oct. 19, 2009, specifying the "regulations thereunder."

I have not been able to find any information on what they came up with and here it is Oct. 22 or even Oct 23 on the east coast.

Do you have any information?

No, nothing has been posted but I am certain it will be when (if) it is ever produced by the IRS - The "Income Tax" is the biggest and longest-running fraud against America EVER and there are so many lies and deliberate misconstructions that it took this long to pull it all together. The collective of the American people addressing this fraud have made the truth available an now the IRS is at the end of their rope. Ralph Winterrowd is another tireless fighter and he has had many discussions on the regulations, their different types and application, the Federal Register requirements associated with all "rules and/or regulations" that must be posted on the FR for public review/comment, etc.

Their pack of lies and deceit is falling apart and they know it. I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger push for some form of tax overhaul, the "Fair Tax" or something akin as the current system is crumbling. Not that I'm an advocate for the "Fair Tax" but it could get them out of their current mess and that's why I'm surprised. Maybe they are not concerned as they know that the end is here and they intend to fully employ the "Law of Force" as they no longer have the ability to maliciously misapply the law to "enforce" their theft.

They were able to get away with their lies against Schiff and Rose, likely due to the personalities on trial - Both Irwin and Larken are kinda "cocky" gents and it ain't a good thing to piss off a Bear. Peter is calm and FULL of the truth and Lindsey is a self-professed follower of what "G-d has commanded him to do", a humble man when you listen to him. There is a three-hour lecture Springer recently gave that is really something to listen to. It is fact-filled and entertaining to those of us who are embedded in this fight for truth.

Regarding the order from the judge, I do not believe that the IRS/DOJ complied with the judge's order and we will either soon see a victory for Springer or the sudden recusal/death of the judge.

[The Observer]

Regarding the order from the judge, I do not believe that the IRS/DOJ complied with the judge's order and we will either soon see a victory for Springer or the sudden recusal/death of the judge.

Yes, everyone knows about those unholy death squads that the IRS sends out to deal with judges who forget who pays their salary. I guess that is what happened to Judge Crater.

[Noah]

Yes, everyone knows about those unholy death squads that the IRS sends out to deal with judges who forget who pays their salary. I guess that is what happened to Judge Crater.

Not the death squads, but, rather the audit squads. Judge's return had better be audit proof. If not then maybe a crime has occurred which is about the only thing that would cost the Judge his job. He has a lifetime appointment with no reduction in salary. How his salary got to be included in Gross income is another story. A Judge who cannot withstand a fly spec audit is in no way an impartial Judge.

[Famspear]

Yes, everyone knows about those unholy death squads that the IRS sends out to deal with judges who forget who pays their salary. I guess that is what happened to Judge Crater.

Not the death squads, but, rather the audit squads. Judge's return had better be audit proof. If not then maybe a crime has occurred which is about the only thing that would cost the Judge his job. He has a lifetime appointment with no reduction in salary. How his salary got to be included in Gross income is another story.

The idea that federal judges who rule against the IRS thereby routinely become the target of IRS audits is laughable. Can you imagine what would happen to an IRS employee caught engaging in that kind of activity?

Has any tax protester -- anywhere -- ever come up with a verified example of a federal judge who was audited by the IRS because that judge ruled against the IRS on a case?

It is true that in the olden days, some politicians tried to use the IRS against enemies for political gain.

[Famspear]

Judge who cannot withstand a fly spec audit is in no way an impartial Judge.

Noah, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Famspear]

Noah, if IRS employees were bold enough to attack federal judges in the form of retaliatory audits of judges' tax returns, don't you think IRS employees would be even bolder in attacking attorneys, CPAs, and others who represent taxpayers in dealings with the IRS (either in or out of court)? Do you have any idea what would happen to an IRS employee who would be stupid enough to try a stunt like that with me, for example? Do you really think I fear that IRS employees will audit my tax returns? Never mind about whether I'm "audit proof" or not.

Look, I myself have defeated the IRS many, many times over many, many years, in representing clients. And I'm nobody. The idea that federal judges, as a group, fear IRS employees to the extent of being fearful of ruling against the government in court cases is silly.

[wserra]

Has any tax protester -- anywhere -- ever come up with a verified example of a federal judge who was audited by the IRS because that judge ruled against the IRS on a case?

Of course not. But we are talking lunatic fringe here. They don' need no steenkin' proof.

[Noah]

Judge who cannot withstand a fly spec audit is in no way an impartial Judge.

Noah, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

I hope your right, but there is the possiblility. The cases you handled, "tax" , was probably a given and the disagreements were likely over how to compute the numbers or "tax liability". You start with point B and Springer is contesting point A. Lets see if the government ever answers the BOP with the obivious regulations that is key to the filing requirements.

[Prof]

Judge who cannot withstand a fly spec audit is in no way an impartial Judge.

Noah, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

I hope your right, but there is the possiblility. The cases you handled, "tax" , was probably a given and the disagreements were likely over how to compute the numbers or "tax liability". You start with point B and Springer is contesting point A. Lets see if the government ever answers the BOP with the obivious regulations that is key to the filing requirements.

Having once held a federal judicial office (Art. I) and having frequently ruled against the IRS (i.e., the attorneys from the Justice Department who represent the IRS), I can state without any hesitation that I was never pressured, never audited, never threatened with an audit, and no AUSA ever even intimated that I should rule for the government or my non-lifetime appointment might be in jeopardy.

In other words, Noah, you do not know what you are talking about; and, the US has already responded to the Court’s order.

[Famspear]

.....You start with point B and Springer is contesting point A. Lets see if the government ever answers the BOP with the obivious regulations that is key to the filing requirements.

A tempest in a teacup. The government should have no problem citing "regulations". And Springer is already aware of the regulations. Springer thinks he can gain some advantage by throwing paper at the problem. He is probably wrong.

He is in serious trouble, and he does not know how to extricate himself from his trouble -- except to the extent he might be good at finding a way to confuse the jury. It's not an unsurmountable task. I give him a 10% chance for acquittal. That's a non-scientific, "gut feeling" probability, just like the 10% chance for acquittal I give to Peter Hendrickson.

[wserra]

I hope your right, but there is the possiblility.

There is the possibility that the sun will nova tomorrow, or that a comet will land on your roof. Most people discount such "possibilities".

The cases you handled, "tax" , was probably a given and the disagreements were likely over how to compute the numbers or "tax liability".

The cases I handled weren't. I litigated against DOJ on a daily basis, winning some and losing some. A couple of the wins - outright acquittals, not cutting losses - were on high-profile cases. I have never in my life been audited, and I guarantee that - were it DOJ's practice to do so - I would have been audited long before a USDJ.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Noah]

In other words, Noah, you do not know what you are talking about; and, the US has already responded to the Court’s order.

I missed the government's response, where is the response posted.
Thanks,
Noah