New Garbage from Springer

[Dezcad]

Latest from the SCOTUS:

No. 09-8701
Title:
In Re Lindsey Kent Springer, Petitioner
v.
Docketed: January 25, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 21 2010 Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 24, 2010)
Feb 12 2010 Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed.
Feb 18 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 5, 2010.
Feb 24 2010 Response to petition from respondent Oscar Stilley filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2010 Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2010 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 29, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

No. 09-8858
Title:
Lindsey Kent Springer, Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docketed: January 29, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-9004)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
Rehearing Denied: October 27, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 25 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 1, 2010)
Feb 16 2010 Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
Feb 25 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 19, 2010.

[notorial dissent]

Any guesses as to how many pounds the supplemental brief weighed in at? The filing fee was maybe to pay for someone or several someones to haul it around and distribute it, probably had to reinforce the conference table for the extra weight, the additional copying charges, and the anticipated extra disposal surcharges when it comes back unanimously DENIED?

[Pottapaug1938]

In most non-written aboriginal languages, the words we have derived from them over the years are essentially phonetic representations of the sounds heard by white people. Thus, in pronunciation don't leave anything out.

Waam-pah-noh-agg.

That help?

Back in November, my wife and I went to Plimoth Plantation, which is a replica of what the Pilgrim village looked like around 1640. The staff act and speak as if they were the actual residents of that time. Not too far way from it is a Wampanoag village, setup like a village would have been; but the staffers act and speak in the present time, in order to affirm that they are still around. They pronounced their name of their "nation" (as they called it), "WHOMP-un-awg".

[LPC]

The docket quoted by Dezcad is an appeal from an adverse decision of the Tax Court, allowing a levy to proceed against Springer.

No. 09-8858
Title:
Lindsey Kent Springer, Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docketed: January 29, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-9004)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
Rehearing Denied: October 27, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 25 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 1, 2010)
Feb 16 2010 Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
Feb 25 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 19, 2010.

[Famspear]

Here's a recent message purportedly from Lindsey Springer, as posted on Bob Hurt's forum:

Lindsey Springer here and hoping this update finds you both well and encouraged.

Little background. On March 18, 2009 Judge Payne recused himself in 09-cr-043 (criminal indictment brought against me). The rules of the Court were to have random reassignment. That did not happen. For 13 days the Clerk of Court was my "judge". On March 31, 2009, Chief Judge Eagan hand picked Judge Friot out of the Western Judicial District of Oklahoma.

I objected. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2009 U.S. Attorney resigned leaving no appointment or other person to "prosecute" me. Trial began on October 26, 2009. After 10 hours and some judicial intrusion of the Sixth Amendment a jury returned guilty verdict on the Court’s jury instructions.

On November 27, 2009, I petitioned the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus dealing with the selection of Judge Friot, that judicial district and internal revenue districts do not coincide, and regarding the paperwork reduction act errors made by Judge Friot at trial.

On December 4, 2009, a three judge panel in 09-5165 issued an order concluding Judge Friot was "designated" but not "assigned" according to Title 28, Section 292(b) and the rest of my issues could wait for the appeal process. I disagreed. I have given the 10th Circuit four different times to rule on the merits of the PRA and the closest I got was on August 31, 2009 where they said I raise difficult issues and the Commissioner’s attorneys made frivolous arguments. That case currently is pending for conference in the Supreme Court on March 19, 2010 regarding whether a penalty is a penalty and what "notwithstanding any other provision of law" means.

On December 10, 2009, six days later, Chief Judge Henry from the 10th Circuit resigned as a Judge and Chief Judge.

Meanwhile, on January 13, 2010 I filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Supreme Court of the United States. 09-8701. This involved six judges. I was ordered on January 26, 2010 to serve process on each of the six federal judges involved. I did that and they were given until late February to file any opposition. They each remained silent as one would expect most Americans would do under the circumstances. I remain shocked at how Americans claim the Fifth Amendment of silence and they are indicted while Judges remain silent without any ramifications.

Anyway, the Supreme Court set conference for March 5, 2010 in 09-8701. On March 8, 2010, they sent me an order requesting I submit my Petition for Writ of Mandamus under a rule written by attorneys and for attorneys. There were many other cases that were dismissed or denied but I survived the conference.

In the Petition I have raised three issues. They are as follows:

I. Has Chief Circuit Judge in Misc. # 23 and the Panel in 09-5165, so far departed from Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b), including the sanctioning of such departure by a lower district court, calling for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to render such exercise clear abuse of such limited power extended by Section 292(b)?

A. Does Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b) authorize a Chief Judge of a circuit, to designate United States’ Judicial District Court Judges commissioned in one "Oklahoma" judicial district, to 1 year terms in the other two "Oklahoma" judicial districts on a renewable yearly basis for no reason?

B. What is the limitation on the meaning of the term "temporarily" and phrase "public interest" in Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b)?

C. Does Misc. # 23 qualify as a lawful and legal Article III designation pursuant to Title 28, Section 292(b) of Stephen P. Friot to 09-cr-043?

D. Should all orders entered by Stephen P. Friot in 09-cr-043 outside Stephen P. Friot’s Western Judicial District Court commission be rendered coram non judice and invalid?

II. When the Secretary abolishes "internal revenue districts," by calender year 2000 encompassing the State of Oklahoma, what original, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction does a District Court Judge have over alleged "internal revenue law" offenses pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3231?

III. Is a United States Judicial District under Title 28, United States Code, Section 116(a) a valid substitute for an "internal revenue district" required for administration and enforcement of the "internal revenue laws" pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621 in the State of Oklahoma?

Those experienced have concluded once I comply with the Court’s most recent order derived from the conference of March 5, 2010, that they have taken the beginning steps of taking direct aim at the issues above. Obviously they should. Issue # 2 and # 3 are at the heart of why issue # 1 arose in the first place. I call this judge shopping by other judges (unauthorized shopping).

Anyway, I have filed a number of personal Mandamus Petitions and other writs and have never survived the original conference meeting. I cannot say that anymore. I have now survived that meeting. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 810zor.pdf

I realize most do not understand what is going on and that the procedures are so difficult to understand it remains a blur. I however am watching every procedure like an eternal hawk. If you read the above orders list from the Supreme Court you will see the number of cases that were denied and dismissed. Again, I was not.

The Supreme Court addressing internal revenue district and district director or the difference between an internal revenue district and a judicial district are currently the object of my Petition’s affection and could go a long way to helping fix what is so wrong with one part of this Country.

I need your continued help. I realize most of you probably have lost hope but I have not. Please consider recommitting to help me submit the documents the Supreme Court has asked me to submit by March 29, 2010.

If you wish to send me by mail that address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. If you wish to send paypal you can use [text deleted] My other Petition regarding the "difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA" is up for conference this Friday. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-8858.htm

Thank you for not ever giving up. Lindsey Springer. March 15, 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 11d2adfd13

[grixit]

Sounds like a sports coach trying to erase a loss by complaining that the league's selection of referees didn't meet his approval.

[LPC]

I have given the 10th Circuit four different times to rule on the merits of the PRA and the closest I got was on August 31, 2009 where they said I raise difficult issues and the Commissioner’s attorneys made frivolous arguments.

A good example of selective reading. In the 10th Circuit opinion he referring to, which was part of a challenge to an IRS levy, the court stated quite clearly that Springer "does not have a valid challenge under the PRA to any of these amounts" for which levy was being made.

The "difficult issues" phrase came in the part of the opinion in which the court explained why it was not going to impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

So here we have an actual, real-life, honest-to-God example of a tax denier bragging that his arguments were good enough to escape sanctions. (Victory!)

Finally, the "frivolous argument" (singular) that the court says that the government made was not about the merits of the PRA argument, but what the court considered to be mischaracterizations of the rulings against Springer in previous cases. The government argued that Springer should be sanctioned because Springer made the same PRA argument in previous (losing) cases before the 10th Circuit, but the 10th Circuit pointed out (correctly) that it did not actually reach the merits of whether or not the PRA had been violated in those cases because the actions were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, or for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

Anyway, the Supreme Court set conference for March 5, 2010 in 09-8701. On March 8, 2010, they sent me an order requesting I submit my Petition for Writ of Mandamus under a rule written by attorneys and for attorneys. There were many other cases that were dismissed or denied but I survived the conference.

Springer seems particularly delusional (or dishonest) here. According to the order list, the Supreme Court denied Springer the right to proceed "in forma pauperis" and ordered that he pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and re-submit his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

In other words, he "survived the conference" only because the court decided he hadn't yet filed a proper petition.

(VICTORY!)

[The Observer]

Finally, the "frivolous argument" (singular) that the court says that the government made...

And no sanctions against the government for a frivolous argument? Yay! The bad guys finally get a victory too!

[Dezcad]

The docket quoted by Dezcad is an appeal from an adverse decision of the Tax Court, allowing a levy to proceed against Springer.

No. 09-8858
Title:
Lindsey Kent Springer, Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docketed: January 29, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-9004)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
Rehearing Denied: October 27, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 25 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 1, 2010)
Feb 16 2010 Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
Feb 25 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 19, 2010.

The petition for cert has now been denied:

No. 09-8858
Title:
Lindsey Kent Springer, Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docketed: January 29, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-9004)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
Rehearing Denied: October 27, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 25 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 1, 2010)
Feb 16 2010 Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
Feb 25 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 19, 2010.
Mar 22 2010 Petition DENIED.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Lindsey K. Springer 5147 South Harvard (918) 748-5539
No. 116
Tulsa, OK 74135
Party name: Lindsey Kent Springer
Attorneys for Respondent:
Elena Kagan Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

[Dezcad]

Looks like Lindsey and Oscar have soon have more free time to prepare for their sentencing in the criminal trial:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 09-CR-0043-SPF
)
LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER, and )
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Paragraph 16 of the order establishing conditions of release, entered herein on November 17, 2009, states as follows:

You shall maintain employment which meets the approval of the probation officer, failing which you shall perform community service as shall be directed by the probation officer for at least 30 hours per week.

In order to facilitate the defendants’ preparation for the sentencing hearing, this requirement is VACATED, effective as of April 5, 2010.

Dated March 25, 2010.

Stephen P. Friot
United States District Judge

[Dezcad]

Updates:

Jan 21 2010 Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 24, 2010)
Feb 12 2010 Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed.
Feb 18 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 5, 2010.
Feb 24 2010 Response to petition from respondent Oscar Stilley filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2010 Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2010 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 29, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Mar 29 2010 Petitioner complied with order of March 8, 2010.
Apr 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.

It appears that Lindsey filed a Motion to Continue his sentencing since he is so busy with all his cases, which Motion was denied.

An interesting note in Springer's Motion asserts that Springer convinced people to file and pay taxes:

At trial Ms. Hosden and Dr. Pizzino testified they paid taxes and filed their returns after Springer convinced them to file their returns and pay those taxes in the amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is but one example and both the United States and the Gollihare Report have refused to address these issues while suggesting Springer counseled others to violate the internal revenue laws. Also, there is Mr. Logsden who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars because of Springer. Mr. Simmons same. Mr. Mitchell from Colorado paid over 1 million dollars because of Springer. There is countless others during the relevant period who if not for Springer’s direction no taxes would have been paid or returns filed.

Order denying below:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 09-CR-0043-SPF
)
LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER, and )
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the court is defendant Springer’s Motion for Continuance or Extension of Sentencing Hearing and Other Relief, doc. 322, filed on April 4, 2010. The government has filed a response, doc. no. 323. By this motion, defendant Springer seeks a continuance of the sentencing in this case for at least 60 days. He also seeks scheduling relief with respect to the court’s requirements relating to exhibit lists, witness lists and other matters. Motion, at 9.
The jury returned verdicts of conviction with respect to Mr. Springer on November 16, 2009, more than five months before the date presently set for sentencing in this case. On January 22, 2010, the court entered a scheduling order with respect to sentencing. That order established a detailed scheduling sequence, and was entered with a view to providing, for all concerned, a fair and orderly process leading to fair and orderly sentencing proceedings, now scheduled for April 21, 2010. On March 25, 2010, the court, sua sponte, entered an order relieving the defendants from their work or community service requirements, effective as of April 5, 2010, for
the purpose of facilitating their preparation for sentencing. See doc. no. 316. According to Mr. Springer’s motion, the Presentence Investigation Report with respect to Mr. Springer was mailed on February 26, 2010. Mr. Springer submitted his objections on March 12, 2010. The government filed its Sentencing Memorandum with respect to Mr. Springer on March 16, 2010. Thus, Mr. Springer has been aware of his “worst case” sentencing exposure, and of the actual and potential sentencing-related issues, at least since March 16, 2010, more than one month prior to the date scheduled for sentencing.
In his motion, Mr. Springer provides information with respect to a number of legal proceedings in which he is involved. It would appear that most, if not all, of these proceedings relate in some way to Mr. Springer’s long history as a tax protester. It does appear that events in several of those proceedings are converging in such a way that Mr. Springer will be required to make some choices as to which matters shall have a priority claim on his time and attention in the immediate future. Given the history of this case, viewed in light of the care with which the court has addressed scheduling matters, the court is unimpressed with Mr. Springer’s suggestion, in substance, that the sentencing in this case should give way to Mr. Springer’s perceived needs with respect to his various civil tax litigation matters. Another of the principal reasons for which Mr. Springer asserts that the sentencing should be postponed is that he desires to subpoena “CPAs and other preparers who Springer needs to bring in to testify about how Springer directed tax challenged individuals to them individually to clean up their tax problems if they were unable to find a CPA who would help them.” Motion, at 6. Mr. Springer asserts that “[t]his issue relates directly to tax loss calculations caused by Springer which is in the amount of several million dollars in Springer’s favor.” Id. It is clear that, in essence,
Mr. Springer seeks to reduce the tax loss attributable to him for guidelines purposes by the amount of taxes that other, perhaps more compliant, persons paid to the Internal Revenue Service at his behest. The court rejects this contention (and, consequently, the asserted need to subpoena the relevant witnesses) as a matter of law. The court’s determination of the tax loss, for guidelines purposes, resulting from Mr. Springer’s failure to comply with his personal obligations under federal tax law will not be affected by any considerations relating to any taxes purportedly paid by other individuals at Mr. Springer’s instance. It appears from the sentencing memoranda filed by the government and by Mr. Springer that there will be several issues directly relevant to the court’s determinations under the advisory sentencing guidelines which will be genuinely in issue in this case. However, it also appears from Mr. Springer’s sentencing memorandum and from the motion addressed by this order that Mr. Springer intends to assert, with respect to sentencing, matters which are either precluded by the verdicts in this case or are contrary to law or are irrelevant to the court’s determinations under the advisory
sentencing guidelines. The court is also reliably informed by the probation officer that some issues initially raised by the Presentence Investigation Report as originally disclosed have been resolved or eliminated. For these reasons, it does not appear to the court that the issues to be resolved at sentencing will be nearly as numerous or complex as may presently be contemplated by Mr. Springer.
Accordingly, having carefully considered Mr. Springer’s motion, the court concludes that Mr. Springer’s motion for continuance should be, and hereby is, in all respects DENIED.
Dated April 5, 2010.