Discover more from Tax Court Help
Springer's Supreme Court Petition, Part V, LaSalle, Criminal Referral
Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley are political prisoners serving 15 year sentences for "tax crimes." I urge you to support them both spiritually and financially. An address for donations appears at the end of this post.
X. PANEL REJECTED U.S. v. LASALLE'S "INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT" TO GATHER EVIDENCE FOR U.S. ATTORNEY, AS BAD FAITH, WARRANTING SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY SUMMONS.
The Panel rejected every aspect of this Court's decision in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S 298, 308-317(1978). This Court's instruction to the Courts below is not to "countenance delay in submitting a recommendation to the Justice Department" by the SOTT. Id. at 317. Delay is unjustified "when there is an institutional commitment to make the referral and the [SOTT] merely would like to gather additional evidence."
The Panel finds the institutional referral was made for years 2000 through 2004 on June 3, 2005. App. A-4. Documents held under seal turned over per force of the Court showed Eddy and Judith Patterson had entered into agreements with Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Horn and Melody Nelson ("Horn and Nelson") in the "ongoing" Grand Jury investigation of Petitioner and Oscar Stilley. App. W-2. The SOTT's "cooperating" Agent was named "Donna Meadors" in the Patterson trial. App. OO-15. Pattersons were both convicted on December 16, 2003. App. W-1
On January 26, 2004, Meadors notified Petitioner by Summons she sought records of Petitioner's receipt of money for 2000 through 2003. App. V-1. While Meadors continued cooperating pre-sentence in the Patterson case with Horn and Nelson, Horn and Nelson interviewed Ms. Patterson on May 3, 2004, "concerning an ongoing investigation concerning Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer." App. X-2. Ms. Patterson even agreed to testify "before the grand jury" and at "jury trial." App. X-2. For this testimony, Ms. Patterson received a reduction in her sentence. App. X-2. On August 30, 2004, Mr. Patterson entered a post-trial plea agreement with Horn and Nelson explaining "cooperation" as follows:
"[Patterson] agrees to cooperate fully with the United States Government and all of its various departments and agencies on the continuing investigation into the alleged criminal conduct of Oscar Stilley...and Lindsey Springer." App. W-2
The Post Trial plea agreement is littered with evidence Horn and Nelson were presenting evidence to a Grand Jury. App. W-5. On October 6, 2004, Ms. Patterson testified before the "Grand Jury" "In the Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley." App. Y-1. Meanwhile, Meadors, the cooperating "agent" for the SOTT in the Patterson case, continues to issue summons enforcing tax laws. By December 2, 2004, Meadors closes her "investigation" and thanks Petitioner for his cooperation. App. Z-1 The LaSalle/Power rule was clearly violated.
To avoid LaSalle's rule on institutional commitment, the Panel finds that "during most of 2004, the IRS was conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Springer's promotion of abusive tax shelters, and it did not refer him to the Justice Department for possible criminal violation under June 3, 2005." App. A-10. The Panel then ignores Horn and Nelson's statements in Ms. Patterson's Rule 35(b) or Mr. Patterson's Post Trial Plea agreement that they were investigating Petitioner and Stilley, and fails to even mention the Grand Jury transcript dated October 6, 2004, where the "matter" was not "an expanded criminal investigation in a related case" but rather "In the Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley." App. Y-1. What the Panel has done is reduce LaSalle's rule to some formalistic endeavor without even considering the Assistant U.S. Attorney's declarations made to the Court numerous times. As Petitioner argued below, the Patterson case was closed as of September 1, 2004, and the evidence is overwhelming the Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Agent Meadors were involved in working together in the Patterson case and simultaneously conducting a Grand Jury investigation of Petitioner and Stilley.
XI. THE PROPHYLACTIC RULE ANNOUNCED IN U.S. V. LASALLE APPLIES TO SPECIAL AGENTS ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 7608(b) AND ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AFTER JUNE 3, 2005, UNDER SECTION 7608(b) VIOLATED LASALLE'S RULE WARRANTING SUPPRESSION AND BAD FAITH
The Panel found June 3, 2005 was the day the SOTT's authority was somehow transferred to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tulsa. App. A-10. Eleven "Special Agents" claiming authority under Section 7608(b) obtained and served a "search warrant" upon Petitioner's home on September 16, 2005. App. EE-2. The Panel order identified the issue:
"Defendants...assert the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained after their case was referred to the Department of Justice for Criminal investigation." App. A-9 However, the referral is not for "Criminal investigation" but rather for Grand Jury to be empaneled. The IRS does "Criminal Investigations", not a Grand Jury. The "referral" letter for years "2000 through 2004" only was to the local Assistant U.S. Attorney. App. BB-1. AUSA Nelson clearly made the referral and received it at the same time. There is no recommendation from the revenue district "Special Agent" as required by LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 314, n.17. The Panel never addressed the fact that evidence had been gathered after June 3, 2005, when they look before that date, stating "most of 2004, the IRS was conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Springer's promotion of abusive tax shelters and did not refer him...until June 3, 2005. App. A-10. (ignoring October 6, 2004 Grand Jury Transcript). App. Y. It was not until the eve of trial the Prosecution disclosed the October 6, 2004, Grand Jury transcript in the "Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley." App. 0-3. The Panel never mentions this transcript or its impact on the June 3, 2005, referral theory. App. A-10. Instead, the Panel lumps this issue in its "catch all" denial:
"to the extent defendants raise other issues that we have not explicitly discussed, we have considered them and find them to be meritless." App. A-22
The Panel admitted "on September 16,  of that year, the government executed a search warrant of Mr. Springer's residence." App. A-4. The Grand Jury alleged in Count One:
"On September 16, 2005....Springer told Internal Revenue Service employees that all funds he received are gifts and donations, that he does not have any income, and that he does not provide any services..." App. JJ-4
The Grand Jury's allegation as to the capacity and function of the employees was found by another Panel in the Tenth Circuit in Springer v. Albin, et al., 398 F. Appx. 427, 429 (10th Cir. 2010): "On September 16, 2005, agents executed a search warrant at Mr. Springer's home as part of an investigation into his activities." App. S-3
The Albin Panel did not have the benefit of the June 3, 2005 letter of referral for 2000 through 2004 as that letter had been first disclosed on June 15, 2009, the day before then Solicitor General, now Justice Elena Kagan, authorized interlocutory appeal in Albin. The Declarations made part of the record in this case, submitted in Albin, stated the Special Agents served the "Search Warrant" under the SOTT's authority pursuant to Section 7608(b). App. EE-2. Special Agent Shern declared he was assigned to "conduct the investigation." App. EE-2 He declared he was acting on behalf of the "Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division" as of September 16, 2005. App. EE-2. His declaration further declared his authority on September 16, 2005, as to:
"perform all duties conferred upon such officers under laws and regulations administered by the Internal Revenue Service." App. EE-1
Shern continued in his declaration his authority included to investigate, execute search warrants, and "make seizures of property subject to forfeiture and to require and receive information as to all matters relating to such laws and regulations." App. EE-2
Shern declared the IRS was investigating Petitioner for tax evasion and failure to file tax returns. App. EE-9. In this case, Petitioner was pursued by Grand Jury and the SOTT's "Special Agents" continued to enforce Section 7608(b). There are obviously no "steps" to follow after referral. LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 318. From the U.S. Attorney, its Grand Jury, or the SOTT's "special agents", the LaSalle rule in this case is beyond violated. LaSalle's "rule applies solely to the statutory scheme of the internal revenue code in which the IRS's civil authority ceases...upon referral of a taxpayer's case." SEC v. Dressler, 628 F.2d 1368, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1980)(en banc)
Upon recommendation, the "Internal Revenue Code itself terminates the IRS's investigation authority on referral." Linde Thompson, et al., v. RTC., 5 F.3d 1508, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1993); citing LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312-31. The "referral" "inhibits" the SOTT. U.S. v. Anaya, 815 F.2d 1373, 1377(10th Cir. 1987) "Once a criminal referral has been made the Commissioner is under well known restraints." Badaracco v. CIR, 464 U.S. 386, 399 (1983). The designations "Special Agent" and "Revenue Agent" are not significantly different. U.S. v. Garden, 607 F.2d 61, 65(n.3)(3rd Cir. 1979). The SOTT's role after referral is that of "interagency cooperation." LaSalle, at 312. The Grand Jury is a "buffer or referee." U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992). The "rule" is to prevent broadening discovery or infringing on the role of the Grand Jury. Dressler, 628 F.2d at 1378
Both the indictment and trial relied almost exclusively upon evidence gathered using enforcement authority of the SOTT while a Grand Jury was convened. This is the "future case" this Court in LaSalle implied. Id. at 318(n.20). After the referral, no authority under Section 7608(b) remained with the SOTT to enforce "in the performance of his duties." Horn and Nelson declare the IRS was still enforcing as of September 16, 2005. App. FF/GG
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
PayPal: gnutella at mindspring.com Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):
5147 S. Harvard, #116,
Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
02580-063 FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks, Lindsey & Family