Springer and Stilley guilty on all counts

[bmielke]

From the same Article:

O'Reilly (AUSA) estimated that the pair could face between five and 10 years in prison when they are sentenced.

Bye Oscar, Bye Lindsay see you later.

[Dezcad]

A longer local article on the verdict:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... otax132387

Excerpt:

Lindsey Kent Springer, 44, and Oscar Amos Stilley, 46, have been free on bond, and U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot allowed them to remain out of jail until they are sentenced.

However, the judge beefed up considerably the conditions of their bonds — including placing them on home detention and holding out the possibility that they might have to perform community service even before they are sentenced.

Friot warned them that their activity as "scam artists must end today."

No wonder why Lindsey shut down his website.

[LPC]

Friot warned them that their activity as "scam artists must end today."

No wonder why Lindsey shut down his website.

Yes, "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." (Samuel Johnson)

I doubt if we'll be able to say the same about Hendrickson.

[wserra]

The release order finally appeared on PACER.

I like it. This is a judge with imagination. They're both gonna do time, but I think these are generous yet fair conditions pending sentence.

[wserra]

From the blogger

The (few) comments on that blog are a hoot. "If only they'd seen my hallucinations . . ."

[Dezcad]

The release order finally appeared on PACER.

I like it. This is a judge with imagination. They're both gonna do time, but I think these are generous yet fair conditions pending sentence.

I agree that they are generous and fair conditions and pretty detailed. I only wonder if Lindsey or Oscar will somehow try to circumvent them or interpret them differently.

[Famspear]

Posted on Bob Hurt's "lawmen" page

From: Lindsey Springer
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:14 PM
To: lindsey springer
Subject: Jury after Allen instruction Finds Springer and Stilley Guilty

Lindsey Springer here and I regretfully must inform you that after 10 plus hours of deliberation the Jury found me guilty on all six Counts and also found Oscar guilty on all three counts. In order for me to remain at liberty I had to agree to shut down penaltyprotestor.org. I had to agree not to use the name Bondage Breaker's Ministries and I had to agree not to speak to anyone regarding any "tax related matter" other than my family. I hope you can understand why I chose to agree with the Court's penalties at this time. I can still receive support in the name of Lindsey Springer and I can still speak about my case but cannot speak about anyone else's "tax matters." The Court has requested that I do 30 hours of community work or get a job and work 30 hours per week. I will have much writing to do over the course of the next 7 days regarding a Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. I also have numerous other personal federal litigation that needs my attention since the trial part of the case is concluded. The Court gave the Prosecution till December 11, 2009 to respond to the Motion to Reconsider regarding the Grand Jury investigation of Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer that apparently began prior to October 6, 2004. I wish to thank you for all of your support. The Court stated it thought the evidence in the case showed Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer were scam artists and that my 20 years was over.

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 8d5ff6a10f

[wserra]

Posted on Bob Hurt's "lawmen" page

From: Lindsey Springer
...
I also have numerous other personal federal litigation that needs my attention since the trial part of the case is concluded.

The court is concerned about the defendants’ use of civil litigation prosecuted directly or indirectly in support of activities such as those which form the basis of their offense conduct (or relevant conduct) in this case.... The information called for herein, with respect to the defendants’ litigation activities, is relevant both for sentencing purposes and for the purpose of assuring that, while on bond pending sentencing, the defendants do not use civil litigation in support of activities such as those which form the basis of their offense conduct (or relevant conduct) in this case.

Emphasis supplied.

While it is true that the letter of the bond order prohibits outright only the "filing" of a civil suit relating to taxation, I don't think this is a good time for Springer to test the boundaries.

[jg]

At http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... 8ef6215ff8

THANK YOU FOR STANDING WITH ME. I AM SORRY IF YOU THINK I LET YOU DOWN
BY BEING FOUND GUILTY. I WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND MY UNDERSTANDING TILL MY
LAST BREATH OR THE COURT SYSTEM ADDRESSES THE MERITS OF MY CLAIMS HEAD ON
WIN, LOSE OR DRAW.

There is a purported portion of the cross examination of Springer in that post.
Springer says that "the District Judge told the Jury the Form 1040 did comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act repeatedly" but does not seem to understand why that is proper.

So, I am only allowed in good faith to show why I believed the Form 1040
did not comply with Federal Law (Position 1) and the US DOJ is opposing
arguing the Form 1040 is not subject to the public protection of the
Paperwork Reduction Act in effort to oppose my defense (Position 2) while
the District Judge continues to tell the Jury the Form complies in all
respects with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Position 3).

CAN YOU NOW SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE IRS? Do you think the jury
got confused?

[wserra]

I WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND MY UNDERSTANDING TILL MY LAST BREATH OR THE COURT SYSTEM ADDRESSES THE MERITS OF MY CLAIMS HEAD ON WIN, LOSE OR DRAW.

It's hard to tell whether this claim is the result of clinical delusion or breathtaking megalomania (or both).

Just on his pet subject of the PRA, here's a guy who has filed hundreds of lawsuits and lost every one. He was just convicted of federal felonies despite raising the PRA in a motion to dismiss (to the Court) and as the basis for a Cheek defense (to the jury). To the jury, the prosecution had to disprove his defense beyond a reasonable doubt - and did. He's about to go away for a while. And he still insists that "the court system" refuses to "address the merits of my claims head on".

I think he wants to be tied to the Acela tracks with a copy of the PRA in his pocket. Then perhaps he will agree that his claim was met "head on".

[LPC]

Has Springer already violated the terms of his release?

Yesterday, November 18, Springer posted a message to the "Lawmen" Google group in which he proceeded to re-argue (or re-explain) why he believes that IRS Form 1040 does not comply with the PRA. But his release order contains the following:

You will post no material of any kind on any website that refers to any matter relating to federal taxation. Exception: You may solicit funds in support of your defense, and, in so doing, accurately make reference to the nature, history, result and status of this case, as long as, in so doing, you provide no advice, suggestions, or recommendations to any person or entity, public or private, other than immediate family members, with respect to any matter relating to federal taxation.

His rant is more than the "nature, history, result and status" of the case because he is re-arguing his position. But is what he wrote in the nature of "advice, suggestions, or recommendations"? I have to admit that re-arguing a losing position does not really sound like a "suggestion."

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="LPC"]Has Springer already violated the terms of his release?

Even if he hasn't, I'm sure that he eventually will. He's just too single-mindedly convinced of the righteousness of his philosophy -- such as it is -- and of the evil being perpetrated by his "persecutors". He's doubling down; and soon he'll find himself with an extension on his enforced vacation....

[Judge Roy Bean]

Has Springer already violated the terms of his release?
...

Yes, particularly if the probation officer(s) haven't already installed the monitoring software on his machines.

[Dezcad]

Lindsay, by and through Jerold Barringer, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition is 220 pages long but the gravamen of the petition is:

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION
(i) RELIEF SOUGHT
Lindsey Kent Springer (“Springer”), by and through his attorney, Jerold W. Barringer, Petitions this United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition (Order), directing the Honorable Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan, United States’ Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, and Honorable United States’ District Judge Stephen P. Friot (“Judge Friot), United States’ Western Judicial District of Oklahoma Judge sitting only by assignment of the Honorable Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan, to cease exercising Article III Judicial Power of the United States, including Jurisdiction and Venue, over Springer’s person and vicinage, in case number 09-cr-043, in the Grand Jury Indictment dated March 10, 2009, United States of America v. Lindsey Kent Springer, due to the undisputed fact (1) Judge Friot is not commissioned under Article III, Section 1, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 9, to hold the office of a United States District Court Judge in the United States’ Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, including that he has no statutory authority under Title 28, Section 116(a), 132, 133, 134, 451, and under Title 18, Section 3231-3237; (2) no essential “Internal Revenue Districts” established under Title 26, Section 7621, encompassing the State of Oklahoma or Arkansas, existed from the year 2000 to present, rendering the United States’ Northern Judicial District without Jurisdiction and Venue over any matter related to “internal revenue laws”; and (3) the Form 1040, as a request for the “collection of information” covered by the Public Protection Provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for the years 2000 through 2007, does not and did not comply with the mandates set forth by Congress upon the Internal Revenue Service at Title 44, Section 3506, 3507, 3512, and under 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.6, 1320.8 and 1320.9., and accordingly, Form 1040 violated the Paperwork Reduction Act(s) and Springer should never have been subjected to any penalty inexorably linked to the non-filing of Form 1040 for any years as the claims against Springer fail to allege any offense under Title 18,
§ 3231.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I smell sanctions.

[Famspear]

Lindsay, by and through Jerold Barringer, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition is 220 pages long but the gravamen of the petition is:

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION
(i) RELIEF SOUGHT
Lindsey Kent Springer (“Springer”), by and through his attorney, Jerold W. Barringer, Petitions this United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition (Order), directing the Honorable Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan, United States’ Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, and Honorable United States’ District Judge Stephen P. Friot (“Judge Friot), United States’ Western Judicial District of Oklahoma Judge sitting only by assignment of the Honorable Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan, to cease exercising Article III Judicial Power of the United States, including Jurisdiction and Venue, over Springer’s person and vicinage, in case number 09-cr-043, in the Grand Jury Indictment dated March 10, 2009, United States of America v. Lindsey Kent Springer, due to the undisputed fact (1) Judge Friot is not commissioned under Article III, Section 1, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 9, to hold the office of a United States District Court Judge in the United States’ Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, including that he has no statutory authority under Title 28, Section 116(a), 132, 133, 134, 451, and under Title 18, Section 3231-3237; (2) no essential “Internal Revenue Districts” established under Title 26, Section 7621, encompassing the State of Oklahoma or Arkansas, existed from the year 2000 to present, rendering the United States’ Northern Judicial District without Jurisdiction and Venue over any matter related to “internal revenue laws”; and (3) the Form 1040, as a request for the “collection of information” covered by the Public Protection Provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for the years 2000 through 2007, does not and did not comply with the mandates set forth by Congress upon the Internal Revenue Service at Title 44, Section 3506, 3507, 3512, and under 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.6, 1320.8 and 1320.9., and accordingly, Form 1040 violated the Paperwork Reduction Act(s) and Springer should never have been subjected to any penalty inexorably linked to the non-filing of Form 1040 for any years as the claims against Springer fail to allege any offense under Title 18,
§ 3231.

I smell sanctions.

And, in addition, I smell something I normally find in the barnyard.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Person and vicinage". I love the way that these idiots construct their pleadings as if there had been no reform of civil procedure and pleadings.

[The Observer]

"Person and vicinage". I love the way that these idiots construct their pleadings as if there had been no reform of civil procedure and pleadings.

That is why we call it a "Writ of Man, dumbass" here at Quatloos.

[Prof]

Apparently, the argument is that the Circuit did not/does not have the power to make a Judge appointed to one of Oklahoma's US Districts eligible on a sort of standing order to serve in the other districts. Who knew? Also, there is some sort of strained argument that IRS Districts are no longer in existence and allegations that an event happened in a "district" is a reference to IRS and not judicial districts.

These are the sort of hypertechnical arguments that bad lawyers often rely on; those rarely go anywhere, but we'll see.

[grixit]

...Nor hoodwink a judge who's not over wise...

Pretty sure judges who make it to the appellate level are plenty wise.