LPC wrote:wserra wrote: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.
Latest docket entry wrote: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.