Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley in the CA10

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-5055.pdf

[LPC]

The reference to Barringer having been suspended from the practice of law before the 10th Circuit while the appeal was pending (page 3, note 2) seems rather gratuitous. It's almost like the judges enjoyed repeating it.

[wserra]

Wouldn't you?

[LPC]

In the section of the opinion addressing the Paperwork Reduction Act arguments, the court makes a telling observation:

According to defendants, they cannot be penalized for their crimes because IRS Form 1040 does not comply with § 3512(a).

Initially, defendants make no showing that IRS Form 1040 fails to comply with § 3512(a).

(Emphasis added.)

I've said the same thing before, which is that Springer repeatedly rants about how the 1040 must comply with the PRA, but he never explains exactly how it doesn't comply.

[AndyK]

The court's opinion can be summarized in two words: "You're f**ked."

[JamesVincent]

you're forked?

[LPC]

You're finked.

[LPC]

You're finked.

True story: During the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley shouted something from the floor to one of the speakers that was translated by lip-readers as "You fink!"

More modern examples of bad lip-reading here.

[grixit]

BTW, i read that when actors in silent movies would sometimes say different things than what appeared on the title cards. This provoked a lot of complaints from deaf moviegoers.

[LPC]

BTW, i read that when actors in silent movies would sometimes say different things than what appeared on the title cards. This provoked a lot of complaints from deaf moviegoers.

According to Tony Hillerman (author of "Sacred Clowns" and other murder mysteries in Navaho culture), Navaho indians found several Hollywood movies, such as "Cheyenne Autumn," to be terribly funny, because the extras playing the native americans in the movies were Navaho and not Cheyenne (or Cherokee) and frequently went "off script," inserting comments on the size of the US cavalry officer's genitalia and other irrelevancies instead of what was presented as the subtitles on the screen.

When I watch war movies, I sometimes compare my understanding of what the German soldiers are saying to what is presented in the subtitles, and it's usually pretty close, but not always what I think is the right translation.

[Paul]

The version of the old French movie "King of Hearts" that I saw about 30 years ago had English subtitles for the French, German and English dialog. It didn't bother me that the subtitles didn't match the German dialog, but they didn't match the English dialog, either.

[Dezcad]

Lindsey filed a "Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc" which was a 38 page rehash of all the arguments previously discussed and denied. Since Barringer was suspended, this was filed solely by Lindsey.

Not surprisingly, it was denied.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER, Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 10-5055, 10-5156 & 11-5053
_______________________________
ORDER
_______________________________
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
_______________________________
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. As no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the court requested that the court be polled, that petition is also denied.
Entered for the Court,
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 28, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

[notorial dissent]

Well, gee, isn't that still 0 for all for our boy? Maybe he should have made it 40 pages instead, then they'd surely have agreed to it. So since he obviously can't dazzle them with brilliance, and the baffle them with BS effort didn't work, looks like he is about out of options, particularly since brevity doesn't seem to be part of his repertoire.

[LPC]

Lindsey filed a "Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc" which was a 38 page rehash of all the arguments previously discussed and denied. Since Barringer was suspended, this was filed solely by Lindsey.

Not surprisingly, it was denied.

Springer ought to find a more useful hobby, not involving court filings. Knitting or crossword puzzles would both be more productive.

[Gregg]

Well, gee, isn't that still 0 for all for our boy? Maybe he should have made it 40 pages instead, then they'd surely have agreed to it. So since he obviously can't dazzle them with brilliance, and the baffle them with BS effort didn't work, looks like he is about out of options, particularly since brevity doesn't seem to be part of his repertoire.

He has a few options left....

He can go Skankbeat on the Court, invoke Common Law and prevail on the basis of his property rights.

He can go Van Pelt on the Court, file a $20 gazongazillion dollar lien against the Government and then spend the rest of his life being made fun of by intelligent society while wasting forests of trees to a never ending paper campaign of meaningless drivel. (a route he clearly has an aptitude for) This route may involve people flying airplanes into buildings to thwart your settlement, may also bring out litigious motor scooters.

He can remove his case to a Court convened in a Denny's, presided over by fake Native Americans, in a trial that opens with a Prayer, closes with a blood sacrifice and has a three stooges plot in the middle.

Ha, and you guys think SCOTUS is the final arbiter!

[notorial dissent]

Don't forget, the scooter WON, doesn't bode well for his chances the way he has been going.

You're right about the wasting of reams of paper, he's already accomplished that and look where it has gotten him.

[notorial dissent]

So is Springer still trying to beat the already dead horse to death? Or has he finally exhausted his appeals? There was some noise about that he had filed a Writ of Certiorari at the SCT over what sounds like the same old nonsense that the 10th Cir has already slapped down, what twice, three times now?

It sounds like he has just reprinted the same nonsense that he trotted out for the 10th and changed the dates and headers on it. Apparently just because his reasoning has failed every other time he hast trotted it out in front of a court he somehow expects it to be different this time.

[LPC]

Springer apparently plans to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. On February 8, he filed a petition asking that the deadline for filing his petition for cert be extended to April 26, and the petition was granted. No. 11A791 (2/16/2012).

[Gregg]

Springer apparently plans to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. On February 8, he filed a petition asking that the deadline for filing his petition for cert be extended to April 26, and the petition was granted. No. 11A791 (2/16/2012).

Is that the first motion he's ever had granted?

[LPC]

Springer apparently plans to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. On February 8, he filed a petition asking that the deadline for filing his petition for cert be extended to April 26, and the petition was granted. No. 11A791 (2/16/2012).

Is that the first motion he's ever had granted?

I think that a motion for extension of time is pretty much a "gimme" in a pro se criminal appeal. After all, what does is cost the court to allow the extension of time? They're going to deny cert anyway.

And I'm sure that Springer has won some procedural motions at some point. After all, even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

That said, the only "win" I know of was in the "Bivens" action that Springer filed against several named employees of the IRS for $2,000 alleged to be missing following the execution of a search warrant at Springer's home on 9/16/2007. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied by the district court on 4/7/2009, meaning that Springer won the motion, but the denial was reversed on appeal, and the action ordered to be dismissed, on the grounds that the agents were entitled to "qualified immunity" because the alleged theft was not "clearly established" as a violation of the 4th Amendment. Lindsey K. Springer v. Douglas Horn, et al., No. 4:06-cv-00156 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla. 4/7/2009), rev. sub nom. Lindsey K. Springer v. Christopher D. Albin et al., No. 09-5088 (10th Cir. 8/5/2010), rehearing denied (10/15/2010), cert. den., No. 10-8484 (2/28/2011).