Kent Hovind's U.S. Tax Court Counsel Jerold W. Barringer!
- I don't think the following analysis has been posted here before:
Tax Protester Dossiers
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.
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 appealAfter citing several ways in which Barringer's brief did
> 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."
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 of $10,000 were 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), aff'd
No. 09-1266 (D.C. Cir. 12/2/2010).
Penalties of $1,200 were imposed by the Tax Court against
Barringer in another case because he "repeatedly asserted
frivolous arguments on the basis of PRA 1995 throughout these proceedings." Because Barringer persisted in those arguments
even after the same arguments had been rejected by the 7th
Circuit in the Patridge case described above, the Tax Court
found that Barringer had acted in bad faith, so that sanctions
were warranted. Denny and Judy Patridge v. Commissioner, No. 027746-07L (U.S.T.C. 9/29/2010).
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, 580 F.3d 1142, 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 also represented Lindsey Springer in an appeal from
the judgment against Springer that reduced his federal tax liabilities (which, together with interest and penalties,
totaled $368,383.32 as of 3/31/2008) to a judgment and an
order allowing the sale of his real property. Because Barringer continued making the same frivolous arguments that Springer had raised in the lower court regarding the lack of district
directors, the non-existence of the IRS, and the lack of
authority of the Treasury to collect taxes outside of Washington
DC, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Barringer on
6/23/2011 to show cause why he should not be referred to the disciplinary board of the 10th Circuit. Barringer responded
with a rehash of the same arguments and the 10th Circuit has
referred his case for discipline. United States v. Lindsey K. Springer, No. 10-5037 (10th Cir. 7/28/2011). Refusing to
reconsider whether Barringer's positions were legally frivolous,
the 10th Circuit has suspended Barringer from the practice of
law in the federal courts in that circuit. In re: Jerold W. Barringer, No. 11-816 (10th Cir. 9/2/2011), reh'g en banc
On June 4, 2012, the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission finally filed a disciplinary
complaint against Jerold Barringer for the frivolous
arguments he made in the Denny Patridge and Lindsey Springer
cases described above. In the Matter of Jerold Wayne Barringer,
No. 2012PR00055 (Ill. A.R.D.C. 6/4/2012).
Barringer has represented
> Gaylon Harrell,-----------------------------------------------
> Jo Hovind (wife of Kent Hovind), and
> Lindsey Springer.