Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley in the CA10

[notorial dissent]

I think it is safe to say that Springer's fantasies about what he has accomplished, and reality, are light years apart. His latest bit of self serving twaddle that he has sent out to his followers makes it sound like he thinks he is winning on all fronts and that this next appeal will vindicate and free him. It sounds like he has retooled the same mass of maundering drivel, all 40 pages of it, that the 10th Cir drop kicked and is sending it on to the SCT. Maybe whiting out all the headings is what is taking all the time that he had to have an extention. I thought they had a size limit on filings.

[Dr. Caligari]

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?

A motion for extension of time to file a cert . petition is, in my (OK, not all that extensive)experience, always granted, so long as it is made before the original due date. It doesn't prejudice either the Court or the other side.

[ASITStands]

The Petition for Certiorari in the criminal matter was DENIED:

No. 11-10096
Title:
Lindsey Kent Springer, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: May 2, 2012
Linked with 11A791
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (10-5055, 10-5156, 11-5053)
Decision Date: October 26, 2011
Rehearing Denied: November 28, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 8 2012 Application (11A791) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 26, 2012 to April 26, 2012, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Feb 16 2012 Application (11A791) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until April 26, 2012.
Apr 24 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 1, 2012)
May 10 2012 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
May 11 2012 Supplemental brief of petitioner Lindsey Kent Springer filed. (Distributed)
May 16 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 31, 2012.
May 18 2012 Brief of respondent Oscar Stilley filed. (Distributed)
Jun 4 2012 Petition DENIED. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

The Petition for Certiorari in the "house" matter was also DENIED:

No. 11-10134
Title:
Lindsey K. Springer, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: May 4, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (10-5037)
Decision Date: June 23, 2011
Rehearing Denied: August 1, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 28 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 4, 2012)
May 10 2012 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
May 16 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 31, 2012.
Jun 4 2012 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

[Dr. Caligari]

More than just denied, Springer was hit with SCOTUS's version of a vexatious litigant order:

Jun 4 2012 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

[LPC]

May 18 2012 Brief of respondent Oscar Stilley filed. (Distributed)

Anyone know how (or why) Oscar Stilley, who was Springer's co-defendant in the criminal case, became a "respondent" in Springer's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court?

[notorial dissent]

Stilley doesn't know what he is doing? Oh! Wait! We already knew that. Still sounds like a possibility.

[Dezcad]

May 18 2012 Brief of respondent Oscar Stilley filed. (Distributed)

Anyone know how (or why) Oscar Stilley, who was Springer's co-defendant in the criminal case, became a "respondent" in Springer's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court?

Stilley filed OSCAR STILLEY’S PROVISIONAL RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OF LINDSEY SPRINGER and the Clerk appears to have docketed as " Brief of respondent Oscar Stilley filed."

[LPC]

Stilley filed OSCAR STILLEY’S PROVISIONAL RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF LINDSEY SPRINGER and the Clerk appears to have docketed as "Brief of respondent Oscar Stilley filed."

The "response" is kind of interesting, in that Stilley admits he's never seen Springer's petition, and so the whole "response" is devoted to whining about how Stilley has been treated by the courts and the BoP.