Here's some information on the person Dr. Dino has chosen to represent him in his pending U.S. Tax Court filing:
Tax Protester Dossiers; Gurus and Other Big Fish
Jerold W. Barringer
A lawyer admitted to the bar in Illinois in 1983.
Barringer has been involved with several cases in which it was claimed that Form 1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act so no one can be penalized for failing to file a tax return.
Books, Web Sites, Videos, and Organizations
Barringer was censured by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2001 for filing a motion with accusations against a judge that Barringer either knew or should have known were false. In re Jerold Wayne Barringer, No. 00SH0080 (Ill. 9/21/2001).
In affirming the conviction of one of Barringer's clients, Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also critiqued Barringer's performance in the appeal:
> "Patridge's brief in the criminal appeal
> presents 19 issues, all frivolous. Many
> are in the style of tax-protest arguments
> that we might expect from a layman
> representing himself but do not expect
> to see in a brief filed by a member of
> the bar. [
.] Jerold W. Barringer
> represented Patridge at trial, in the
> Tax Court, and during the three appeals
> to this court. He has performed below
> the standard of a pro se litigant; we
> have serious doubt about his fitness to
> practice law. The problem is not simply
> his inability to distinguish between
> plausible and preposterous arguments.
> It is his disdain for the norms of legal
> practice (19 issues indeed!) and the
> rules of procedure."
After citing several ways in which Barringer's brief did not comply with rules of practice, the court gave Barringer 14 days to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $10,000 for "frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules" and why he should not be suspended from practice "until he demonstrates an ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly." United States v. Denny R. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094-95, 2007 TNT 221-11, Nos. 06-3635 and 06-3785 (7th Cir. 11/14/2007), cert. den., No. 07-1045 (U.S. 3/24/2008) (conviction for tax evasion affirmed).
Sanctions were in fact imposed, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for mandamus by Barringer seeking review. In re: Jerold W. Barringer, No. 07-1140 (S.C. 4/14/2008).
Barringer has also been sanctioned by the Tax Court and required to pay $4,725 for time spent by government lawyers responding to what the Tax Court described as "frivolous discovery requests" that amounted to "unreasonable and vexatious conduct" and conduct that was "reckless and in bad faith." Robert Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-174, 2009 TNT 138-7, No. 18134-06L (7/21/2009) (sanctions of $25,000 were also imposed against Barringer's client for maintaining frivolous arguments).
Barringer represented Lindsey Springer in an unsuccessful appeal to the 10th Circuit in which the opinion of the court described Barringer's briefs as "ambiguous" and "far from a model of clarity."
Barringer also tried to raise new issues in a reply brief that the court refused to consider because the arguments were not raised in the initial brief. Lindsey K. Springer v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 167-4, No. 08-9004 (10th Cir. 8/31/2009), aff'ng Tax Court No. 17707-06L (levy allowed to proceed for collection of taxes, penalties, and interest notwithstanding Paperwork Reduction Act claims; government's motion for sanctions denied).
Barringer has represented Gaylon Harrell, Jo Hovind (wife of Kent Hovind), and Lindsey Springer.