Lindsey Springer is making waves in his criminal court trial. Below is the latest update. He is following a procedure that I think is really smart. He is using the gov’s own words in his motions. Whenever a phrase is in quotes, that phrase came from the gov attorney’s court docs. Notice how the gov attorneys whine when they are required by the Court to explain what these boiler plate phrases actually mean. I don’t know how this saga will end, but Springer is giving a seminar in CA this weekend, & his trial date is set for 10/26. (along with Oscar Stilley)

Let us pray for him.

Subject: Federal Court Orders Government again to provide all “regulations” involved in “obligation to file return” by 10.19.09

Lindsey Springer here and for those of you watching the “statutory origin theory” vs. “regulations thereunder” theory, I received an order today from the Court I thought you might wish to see as such is not seen very ofter. You may wish to print it out just so people will believe you when you tell them about it.

Short background.

Springer indicted on March 10, 2009 wherein it was alleged Springer was “required by law” to “file a tax return.” Court ordered the Government to explain “required by law” on July 2, 2009 as those words appear in their charging document. The Government cited sections 1,61,63,6011,6012,6071, 6091, 6151 and 7203 as the meaning of “required by law” in the charging document.

Since Section 6011 begins “When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary..” I asked for another Bill of Particulars asking the Court to force the Government to explain the theory identifying every “regulation” involved in the “requirement.”

The Court denied that Motion without comment. The Government then filed a Court Ordered “trial brief” in which in its “Required by Law” section it stated “regulations thereunder” and so I moved the Court for a Fourth Bill of Particulars pointing out the appearance of “regulations” coupled with the Government’s burden of proving knowledge and intent required I know those “regulations” in their theory before trial on their theory.

On October 8, 2009, after the Government remained silent on the Fourth Bill of Particular’s Motion, the Court GRANTED the Fourth Bill directing the Government identify the “regulations” that make up the “obligation to file a return.” The Government on October 8, 2009 moved to reconsider claiming they would not use any regulations and only reference them as clarifying the statutory duty. I opposed their Motion on October 9, 2009 and the District Court today issued the following Order http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GJCourtOrder10.12.09.pdf

For those of you who cannot go to read it above I have reproduced it here:

Before the court is the United States’ Request for Extension of Time to Respond and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. nos. 185 and 187), filed on October 8, 2009. Defendant Springer has timely responded to that motion. See doc. no. 188, filed on October 9, 2009.

In its motion, the government makes the arguments it would have made if it had timely responded to Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. no. 166). The court has carefully considered those arguments, thus effectively granting the government’s request for extension of time, so, to that extent (i.e. to the extent that the government requests more time to respond to Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars), the motion is GRANTED.

By order dated October 8, 2009, the court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars to the extent of directing the government to file “a supplemental bill of particulars, not later than October 19, 2009, specifying the ‘regulations thereunder’

(seegovernment’s trial brief, doc. no. 138, at p. 12) specifically relied upon by the government in this case as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 184, at pp. 1- 2.

2

The court granted Springer’s Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars because the government, in its trial brief, wrote (under the heading “Required to File by Law”) that “Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder) specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 138, at 12.

The court was of the opinion when it entered its order on October 8, and is still of the opinion, that if regulations are important enough to the government’s case to be referred to at all, then they should be cited specifically. It seems passing strange that, in this criminal tax case, the government would see fit to refer generally to operative regulations, but resist informing the defendant (and, by the way, the court) as to what it refers to when it writes about “the regulations thereunder.”

For this reason, the court is unmoved by the government’s arguments as to the niceties of bills of particulars. If the device of a supplemental bill of particulars were not available to provide the specificity called for by fundamental fairness, the court would, in the blink of an eye, require the government to provide the needed specificity in a supplement to the trial brief that made reference to “the regulations thereunder” but gave no indication of which regulations.

Accordingly, to the extent that the government’s motion is a motion for extension of time, it is GRANTED. To the extent that the motion seeks reconsideration of the court’s October 8, 2009 order, it is DENIED. The supplemental bill of particulars remains due not later than October 19, 2009.

PS. If you become interested in supporting me I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com

or traditionally at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135

in name of Bondage Breaker’s Ministry or Lindsey Springer.

www.independentamerican.org/2009/10/14/lindsey-springer-is-making-waves/