Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7th Cir. oral argument on Paperwork Reduction Act

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    ... Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:28 AM To: Dick Clift Subject: Fwd: Oral Argument at 10:00 Central Time This Morning Please find below Lindsey
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 6 9:42 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      -----Original Message----- From: Bob law [mailto:saveyourpay@...] Sent: Tuesday,

      February 06, 2007 10:28 AM To: Dick Clift Subject: Fwd: Oral Argument at 10:00 Central

      Time This Morning

       

      Please find below Lindsey Springer's comments as to the events of Monday morning. Mine

      comments will follow his commentary:

       

      Note: I have not been given authorization to share Lindsey's e-mail address directly

       

      --- Lindsey Springer wrote:

       

      From: "Lindsey Springer" To: "Lindsey Springer" Subject: Oral Argument at 10:00 Central

      Time This Morning Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:15:49 -0600

       

      This morning at 10:00 AM Central Time in Chicago Illinois the Government and Robert

      Lawrence's Attorney squared off in oral argument at the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

      regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and how the government owes Lawrence 's

      Attorney Fees because the PRA of 1995 says "no person shall be subject to any penalty" and

      even though Lawrence won his case, the government violated section 3512 by subjecting him

      to an indictment that they knew would be defended with the public protection provision.

      Government has claimed ignorance of the law as an excuse and that the OMB number is

      valid because it appears on the forms. I will keep you updated of today's events as they

      unfold. This is the first case on the PRA of 1995 to be orally argued before any Appellate

      Court since 1995. Lindsey Springer

       

      Now for my comments: First I wish to thank Yahuwah my Creator for giving Lindsey

      Springer a vision and a mission, and for guiding him to the information, where he was able

      to draw-out the legal theories upon which this case was based. I also want to thank Lindsey

      for his time and and his very valued opinions concerning the research into the PRA and the

      public protection provision. Without this research coupled with Lindsey's and Oscar's

      understanding of process and procedure this case would not have happened the way it did.

      Anyway; Monday was a real treat and an experience I will never forget. We had trouble

      getting to the Clerk's Office to file an important document that would allow us to present

      information from the "Pond" decision with the court, but we made it with time to spare.....by

      providence we left the hotel early to do this not knowing where the Clerk's office was. So,

      after the filing we went to the court-room to watch the proceedings and to get a grasp of the

      demeanor of the justices. I found it humorous how the justices would ask a simple questions

      of the various counsel who were presenting cases and how they failed to understand the

      simplest of terms as asked directly by the justices? Amazing how a case of nerves affects a

      person of reasonable intelligence, and how our learning creates pre-conceived notions of

      what another wants to hear rather than the plain language of what was asked. Well after a

      couple of cases it became apparent to me how these justices sought information from the

      litigants, and to seek answers to legal questions which may or may not have been answered

      in court appearances prior to appeal(checking consistency of theory), or to give clarity to the

      subject matter in order to see whether or not the justices had full comprehension of the

      events, facts as presented, and/or the legal theories of the parties before them.

       

      Then it was Oscar's turn to give his arguments relevant to our case. Once he began it was immediately

      obvious that the justices didn't like the angle Oscar was taking and that he had an issue

      which might cause consternation to the government...imagine that. Shortly into his dialog, he

      was interrupted by the eldest member of the board (the one on the left who was a grey-haired

      woman who appeared to be in her late 60's)and was asked why there was a problem....."we all

      know we are required to file a return" type of question,...to which Oscar gave a descent reply

      and to which the justice seemed to grasp his answer. Then the youngest justice (the one on

      the right who appeared to be in her mid-30's) said I thought that the PRA has already been

      determined not to be a defense in a criminal prosecution (siting Salsburg), to which Oscar

      stated that was under the PRA of 1980 and not the PRA of 1995 which this case was being

      moved under. Then the justice on the left stated that it was her understanding that this was

      then a case of first instance within the 7th Circuit, and it was Oscar's desire for them to rule

      upon it... to which Oscar said yes. The Chief justice (the one in the center who appeared to

      be running the proceedings) said that it might be the first but it could also be the last time it

      is litigated. Furthermore, he said he didn't understand why Oscar brought the case forward

      and said something to the fact that rule 11 sanctions might be in order for bringing a case in

      bad faith to which Oscar again defended his position with good information, and reasoning

      as to why this case was important. (Note: as one who is intimately aware of the issues I had a

      better understanding of the direction Oscar was meaning to take the information--- to one

      who was not knowledgeable of the issues...such as possibly the justices, the reasonings may

      have evaded them...time will tell.) There was other discussion on a couple of other points

      including the appropriateness of the "HYDE" amendment being used in this case as it was

      their understanding that it was only for civil cases and not criminal but that the justices

      would check into it.

       

      Then it was time for opposing counsel to make his case. Right out of the

      gate, the Chief justice asked him to answer a question for him which was a mystery to him.

      Opposing counsel said he was answer as best he could. The Chief justice then asked:(maybe

      not in there exact words) "Why when you have a defendant stipulate to the facts in a case,

      would you dismiss with prejudice?" His answer was classic..... he said "I don't know!" The

      justice then asked him: "Wouldn't it have been appropriate under the circumstances to

      dismiss without prejudice..correct your numbers, and return with a new indictment and then

      prosecute? To which the DOJ counsel said yes...that would have been correct and more

      appropriate as to his understanding. To which the Chief Justice again asked him to explain

      their actions. He said he was not part of the prosecution team and was not privy to the

      discussions relevant to this matter so all he could say is that he did not know why the

      government chose to take this tact. Needless to say the justices (all of them) didn't seem to

      take well to the "I don't know" situation. If memory serves they even made comments that in

      not so many words meant that there is more to this story than is being presented by the

      governments counsel. It is my belief that the DOJ's counsel who were involved in the case

      didn't want to be cross examined by the justices for their actions and that they couldn't

      continue doing what they were doing if they had to give direct answers for what they did.

      Thus the best way out was to have another counsel make an appearance which by the way

      was without proper notice to us or the court(we did not object to their being there due to

      tactical concerns as we wanted the record set with whatever reasonings they could give and it

      might be better for us to leave some things alone). After what appeared to me to be a

      spanking by the Chief Justice, the DOJ's counsel made a few comments...none of which had

      any legal basis and he sat down. So in a nut shell, we had our side offer solid reasoning for

      the basis of our position, and the DOJ gave an I don't know...for what happened....not good

      for their side. I believe we will not see a decision until after April 15th...especially if the

      justices find for us. If they find against us...then it will not be long for a decision to come

      down. However, I do not see where they can go legally speaking, but time tells all tales and I

      don't wish to be a prognosticator at this point. All Is in Yahuwah's hands and all in

      accordance to His will as He can move the minds and the hearts of the justices to do as He

      desires. We are all only tools to do His will after all. To Yahuwah be all the glory, honor,

      and praise for all that is to happen. In His service, Bob L.

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.irs-armory.com

      www.irslienthumper.com

      www.legalbears.com

      www.legalresearchvideo.com

      www.cantheydothat.com

      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.