New Garbage from Springer

[wserra]

It's a new week, so it's time for Springer to file more nonsense.

Determined to challenge the "Most Patient Jurist" nomination which JRB and I recently awarded to Judge Friot, Springer has filed another motion to dismiss, this time on the highly original theory that "the regulations applicable to the requirement to “file a return” for years 2000 through 2005 were not promulgated in accord with the Administrative Procedure’s (sic) Act".

I guess the words "It's the statute, moron" don't have sufficient impact.

[Pottapaug1938]

I guess that when your main premises have no substance whatever, your only recourse is to "highly original" arguments if you still maintain a (delusional) hope that somewhere, buried in the law, is a "magic bullet" that will slay the hated Tax Monster....

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think we're seeing what happens when an ego of major proportions is facing imminent irrelevance.

[Famspear]

A hapless protester named Springer
Has an ego enormous -- humdinger!
But his motions will fail,
And he’s going to jail.
Yes, his Lindsey is caught in the wringer!

[wserra]

And now Springer has moved to stay all trial court proceedings pending the inevitable success of his Supreme Court writ of mandumbass (which we discussed in the last closed Springer thread). While I'm sure that 20-page motion shows without any doubt at all the irremediable prejudice Springer would suffer should trial court proceedings continue during the Supreme Court (ahem) deliberation, I have had my quota of Springershit for the month.

Detailed analysis is left for those who have the IQ points to spare, since reading any more of his stuff will surely result in their loss.

[Dezcad]

And now Springer has moved to stay all trial court proceedings pending the inevitable success of his Supreme Court writ of mandumbass (which we discussed in the last closed Springer thread). While I'm sure that 20-page motion shows without any doubt at all the irremediable prejudice Springer would suffer should trial court proceedings continue during the Supreme Court (ahem) deliberation, I have had my quota of Springershit for the month.

Detailed analysis is left for those who have the IQ points to spare, since reading any more of his stuff will surely result in their loss.

The US has moved to strike it because of length (greater than 15 pages), and subsequently Lindsay withdrew it and filed a shorter version. Read footnote 1 of the US' Motion to Strike. Lindsey continues to reinforce what a "conman" he is.

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT SPRINGER’S MOTION STAY ALL ORDERS PENDING RULING FROM SUPREME COURT BRIEF IN SUPPORT AND FOR ALTERNATIVE (DOC. NO. 303)
The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Thomas Scott Woodward, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Kenneth P. Snoke, Assistant United States Attorney, and Charles A. O’Reilly, Special Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves to strike Defendant Springer’s nineteen-page Motion Stay All Orders Pending Ruling From Supreme Court, Brief in Support and For Alternative (doc. no. 303) (hereinafter Defendant’s Motion).
Defendant’s Motion is filed in violation of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Pursuant to ND LCR 1.2, LCvR7.2 applies to criminal cases. LCvR 7.2(h) provides that “briefs exceeding fifteen (15) pages in length shall be accompanied by an indexed table of contents showing headings or sub-headings and an
indexed table of statutes, rules, ordinances, cases, and other authorities cited.” LcvR 7.2(c). Defendant’s Motion contains no indexed table of contents, nor does it contain a table of authorities cited.
There is no excuse for Defendant’s persistent failure to comply with the rules. Defendant has been reminded of the applicability of these rules on more than one occasion, including the Court’s previously striking of pleadings filed by both Defendant and his codefendant that were in violation of the rules. See doc. no. 265 and Defendant’s Motion (doc. no. 303 at 3 FN1).


FN1.The page referenced is that assigned by the CM/ECF system. On Defendant’s
pleading, the pagination at the bottom of the page for this citation indicates page “iii.”
Defendant’s Motion is paginated as follows: the first five pages are numbered i through
v, followed by two page 1's, and then continuing to the last page, the Certificate of Service, which is erroneously numbered 14 (it should be numbered 20). A glance at the last page of Defendant’s Motion would make it appear the motion totals less than fifteen pages, which would render LCvR 7.2(c)’ indexing requirement inapplicable. However, Defendant’s Motion is nineteen pages long (the twentieth page being the certificate of service).

(Bolding added)

[Judge Roy Bean]

Ain't the good ol' cut-and-paste function great!!!!

One of the really bad parts of this long walk on a short pier is the utter waste of resources being expended to cater to his idiocy.

[Joey Smith]

Merely another example of the tax protestor strategy of repeating a lie in the hopes that someday it might become true.

[wserra]

Judge Friot continues on his record-breaking pace towards the "Patient Jurist of the Year" award with a simple, polite denial of the latest raft of Springer detritus (and Stilley's "Me too! Me too!"), rather than a richly-deserved "STFU".

[Doktor Avalanche]

A hapless protester named Springer
Has an ego enormous -- humdinger!
But his motions will fail,
And he’s going to jail.
Yes, his Lindsey is caught in the wringer!

This is by far one of your better limericks.

[Famspear]

A hapless protester named Springer
Has an ego enormous -- humdinger!
But his motions will fail,
And he’s going to jail.
Yes, his Lindsey is caught in the wringer!

This is by far one of your better limericks.

Danke!

Mr. Springer delights in his babble,
But his study of law is mere dabble.
And the judge won’t agree:
“Off to jail! One! Two! Three!”
I can’t wait for the sound of that gavel!

[The Observer]

Judge Friot continues on his record-breaking pace towards the "Patient Jurist of the Year" award with a simple, polite denial of the latest raft of Springer detritus (and Stilley's "Me too! Me too!"), rather than a richly-deserved "STFU".

Is there a legal Latin phrase for "STFU"?

[The Observer]

[quote="FamspearDanke!

Mr. Springer delights in his babble,
But his study of law is mere dabble.
And the judge won’t agree:
“Off to jail! One! Two! Three!”
I can’t wait for the sound of that gavel![/quote]

Well, Famspear is getting better as time goes by. Those early attempts were quite painful.

[Famspear]

Well, Famspear is getting better as time goes by. Those early attempts were quite painful.

I'm thinking of going back and collecting all my limericks, back since day one here at Quatloos.

I can just see it now....

Famspear's Greatest Hits!
This offer is not available in stores!

Wait a minute, releasing a "greatest hits" collection could be a sign that I'm over the hill.....

[Dezcad]

Not too long before Springer's nonsense at the SCOTUS is denied:

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.

[Dezcad]

Springer's latest petition in Tax court, dealing with 1990 and 1996 tax years, has been dismissed - see Order of Dismissal.

The inevitable appeal follows, I'm sure.

[Pottapaug1938]

Springer's latest petition in Tax court, dealing with 1990 and 1996 tax years, has been dismissed - see Order of Dismissal.

The inevitable appeal follows, I'm sure.

It HAS to follow. As long as this case is not finally decided, with no further appeals possible, Springloose will still be able to shout "we will prevail in the end!" Of course, the new refrain will then become, "we WOULD have prevailed, if the courts weren't corrupt/weren't scared of the IRS/hadn't refused to hear our Well-Reasoned and Legally Factual Arguments/your favorite excuse here".

[LPC]

Springer's latest petition in Tax court, dealing with 1990 and 1996 tax years, has been dismissed - see Order of Dismissal.

The inevitable appeal follows, I'm sure.

From the order of dismissal:

Further, it is important,to note that petitioner had already litigated these tax years, through deficiency and collection actions, with judgment rendered in respondent's favor in each matter. This Court already decided in Lindsey K. Springer v. Commissioner, Docket Number 17707-06L, that respondent could begin collecting petitioner's tax liabillities due for tax years 1990 through 1996 by levy, and that decision was recently affirmed by the U .S . Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on November 9, 2009.

Springer has filed a petition for certiorari from the 10th Circuit to the Supreme Court, so the full citation is now Lindsey K. Springer v. Commissioner, No. 017707-06L (U.S.T.C. 11/14/2007), aff'd, 2009 TNT 167-4, No. 08-9004 (10th Cir. 8/31/2009) (government motion for sanctions against Springer and his lawyer, Jerold Barringer, denied), on appeal, No. 09-8858 (U.S.S.C.).

Which means that Springer now has *two* petitions before the Supreme Court (the appeal noted above and his petition for a writ of mandumbass in the criminal case).

He is also fighting an appeal in the 10th Circuit over the non-dismissal of a Bivens action he began to recover $2,000 that was missing after the execution of a search warrant some years ago, and is still facing sentencing in his criminal case.

And the Tax Court dismissal order reports that, following affirmation of the 10th Circuit in No. 17707-06L, collection actions have apparently resumed against Springer.

A very, very, very busy boy.

[Famspear]

Personally, I'm a little concerned over how Humdinger Springer will fare in the federal prison system. I hope for his sake he doesn't come across to fellow inmates the way he comes across to me in his videos on the internet.

[Dezcad]

Fortunately, it looks like the Judge will take a hard stance against S&S:

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
The court hereby gives notice to defendants that, at sentencing, it is considering imposing non-standard conditions as a part of defendants’ terms of supervised release following incarceration (in the event that the sentence, as to either defendant, includes a term of incarceration). See, Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(C), 32(i)(4)(A)(i); and United States v. Bruce, 458 F.3d 1157, 1166-67 (10th Cir. 2006), citing United States v. Bartsma, 198 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1999) (based on Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, pre-hearing notice was required of the court’s intent to impose, as a special condition of supervised release, that defendant consent to suspicionless searches), overruled on other grounds in U.S. v. Atencio, 476 F.3d 1099, 1105 at n.6 (10th Cir. 2007).

The non-standard conditions which this court is considering include many of the special conditions imposed by the court in its November 17, 2009 order (doc. no. 247), the imposition of which permitted defendants to remain on bond pending sentencing. Conditions the court is considering imposing as terms of supervised release include the following:
-- Restrictions on defendants’ filing, without permission, civil actions relating to federal income tax.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from advising individuals or entities other than immediate family members with respect to matters relating to federal taxation.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from maintaining websites that make reference to matters relating to federal taxation.
-- Restrictions prohibiting activities of any kind in the name of Bondage Breakers Ministry.
-- Restrictions prohibiting representation of, or services to, any person or entity, with respect to matters relating to federal taxation.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from working, directly or indirectly, in businesses related to the sale or trade of real property, securities or negotiable instruments.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from engaging in telemarketing activities.
-- Requirements that defendants disclose email accounts, Paypal accounts, internet connections and connection devices, including screen names and passwords.
-- Certain restrictions on defendants’ use of email, internet connections, or an internet connection service, including but not limited to the monitoring of defendants’ use of such facilities by monitoring software and otherwise, with the cost of remote computer monitoring to be paid for by the defendants.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from accessing any on-line service by using an alias or the internet account, name or designation of another person or entity.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from altering or using any form of encryption or other methods that limit access to, or change, the appearance of data or images.
-- Restrictions prohibiting defendants from altering or destroying records of computer use.
-- Requirements that defendants provide originals or copies of all personal and business phone records and all credit card, checking account, and Paypal statements.
-- Requirements that defendants report all transactions consummated with a check cashing service.
-- Requirements prohibiting defendants from possessing firearms.
-- Requirements that defendants maintain approved employment.
-- Requirements that defendants abide by electronic monitoring, curfew requirements, and travel restrictions.
Defendants are referred to the court’s November 17, 2009 order for more explicit information regarding the types of non-standard conditions the court is considering.

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2010.

_____________________________________
STEPHEN P. FRIOT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE