Lindsey Springer here and for those of you paying close attention the District Court issued in the criminal case against me an order directed to the United States Tax Division of the Department of Justice and IRS that they are required by October 19, 2009, to give me a list of all regulations that they intend to rely upon:
"specifying the "regulations thereunder" (see government'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"
Back on July 14, 2009, the same group of Attorneys for the Government filed a Bill of Particulars list out several code sections one of which was section 6011. This section begins "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary..."
I moved for a third Bill of Particulars asking the Court to direct the Government to explain the meaning of "regulation" they rely upon in showing specific intent to violate what the "law requires."
The District Court initially denied the Motion claiming it was out of time and denied it on the merits saying I had all I need to go to trial on October 26, 2009.
The Government was ordered to file a trial brief in which it placed in its "required by law" section the phrase "and the regulations thereunder" showing they were moving away from the "statutory origin theory" and towards regulational commands.
I filed a request for a Fourth Bill of Particulars which was also styled in a foot note a motion to reconsider the denial of the Third Motion for Bill of Particulars.
This morning, the District Court ordered the Government to answer the Fourth Bill of Particulars by October 19, 2009 by saying:
Before the court is defendant Springer's Fourth Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. no. 166), filed on September 30, 2009. Although the government's response date was October 7, 2009, no response has been received.
The court notes that the motion was filed after the deadline for motions of this kind. In his motion, defendant Springer asserts, in some detail, the reasons for which he suggests that the motion should be considered on its merits even though not timely filed. The court accepts this unchallenged showing, and accordingly does not strike the motion as having been untimely filed.
Having reviewed the motion, the court concludes that the motion should be granted to the following extent:
THE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTED to filed a supplemental bill of particulars, not later than October 19, 2009, specifying the "regulations thereunder" (see government'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. (See Footnote 1)
Dated October 8, 2009.
(Footnote1) In defendant Springer's motion, he cites page 20 of the government's trial brief as the page where the reference to "and regulations thereunder" appears. Motion, at 4. However, the only place in the government's trial brief that that phrase appears is page 12.
Signed Judge Friot