The factual side of the criminal charges

The last post discussed the legal side of the charges.  This post addresses the government’s factual basis for the charges.

Once again there is a great deal of overlap between the charges, along with highly implausible theories.  There are nuances that are likely to be addressed in later posts.

The government claims that Oscar Stilley and Lindsey Springer conspired to defraud the United States in 2000, and committed the first overt act in 2003.

The government attempts to soften the impact of this absurdity by claiming that the statute of limitations prevented them from alleging older overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.  However, limitations didn’t preclude them from alleging other matters back to 2000, including but not limited to the alleged unlawful agreement.  Furthermore, any delays were occasioned solely by the government.

The conspiracy count was made on the theory that the defendants prevented the government from getting information it needed to assess taxes against Springer.  However, the government didn’t even claim that they could not get the information.  In fact, most of the information at issue was spoon fed to them by way of currency transaction reports.   It was undeniable that the government received much more than the usual amount of information concerning money received by Lindsey Springer.

The essence of the government claims against Oscar Stilley is as follows:

Count 3 – 2003 – Transferred $90,000 donation from Eddie Patterson to Lindsey Springer.
Count 4 – 2005 — Transferred $250,000 loan from Pat Turner to Lindsey Springer according to the directives of Lindsey Springer.
Count 1 –             Told the grand jury that Lindsey Springer did not charge for his services, i.e., that the money transferred to Springer was a donation as opposed to “compensation for services.”  Conveyed the moneys alleged in counts 3 and 5.

Let’s address these facts in turn.  First, Patterson was a client who settled an insurance claim and sent the money to my IOLTA (lawyer’s trust account).  Trial was just days away when the money was received.  Patterson told me that he had gifted $90,000 to Springer.  Springer was therefore entitled to the money, and I transferred it according to his instructions.

Second, Pat Turner was under IRS criminal investigation and therefore a potential client at the time he sent his funds.  When he informed me that Springer was entitled to the funds, I respected that decision.  When Lindsey told me that some other person had become entitled to those funds, for whatever reason, I respected that decision, and conveyed the money as directed.

Lastly, the grand jury did not allege any perjury on the part of Stilley.   No one had ever told Oscar Stilley that he was to pay Springer for any services.  On the contrary they unequivocally stated that the funds were donations.    Stilley was commanded pursuant to grand jury subpoena to supply records showing compensation paid to Springer for services.  Stilley simply stated to the grand jury the same credible representations he had received from persons whose funds were conveyed to or for the benefit of Springer.  Anything less would have been misleading testimony.

An attorney is required under the law and ethical rules of the state of Arkansas to promptly distribute funds to the person “entitled” to the funds, where no genuine dispute exists as to the identity of the person entitled.  As to counts 3 and 4, the failure to promptly turn over the funds, upon request, would have constituted 1)  the tort of conversion, 2) a violation of legal ethics, and 3) quite possibly a crime as well.

If Oscar Stilley is forced to choose between a “pretended offense,” and a real offense, it will be the pretended offense every time.  There was no real choice for Oscar Stilley, at the time of the events.

The alleged facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the government is not honestly attempting to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.  Rather, the government seeks to chill 1st Amendment rights of speech, association, and peaceful petition for redress of grievances.  The message the government wishes to send is that any person who associates with persons known to resist illegal and abusive IRS activity is liable to criminal indictment and imprisonment.

Some people have asked what they can do to help.   At the present time I can think of three ways. First, you have the opportunity to support this fight financially, if you feel so led.   PayPal to oscar@oscarstilley.com, or send funds to Oscar Stilley, 7103 Race Track Loop, Fort Smith, AR, 72916.

Second, sign up for an RSS feed to this blog.   Go to http://www.problogger.net/what-is-rss/  if you are new to RSS.  Learn it, use it, and tell your friends about it.  Publicity is the cure for government evils.  An RSS feed is a great way to get prompt notice when a new post is placed on the blog.

Third, if you can think of a way to improve this blog, send me an email.   I’m going through a learning curve.    Tell me about my mistakes, and tell me how to make things better.

 

The criminal charges against Oscar Stilley – the accusations

Many people have asked for information about the criminal case against Oscar Stilley.  After way too much delay, I am ready to begin with a basic explanation of the charges against me.   The case is complicated, and it is hardly possible to include all the nuances while at the same time maintaining some semblance of brevity.  This being said, let’s start with a chart showing generally who is charged with what:

Charge ………………………………………………  Party named

1 – Conspiracy to impair the                                 Oscar & Lindsey
determination, assessment,
and collection of taxes
2 – Tax evasion for years 00-09                          Lindsey
3 – Tax evasion for year 03                                    Oscar & Lindsey
4 – Tax evasion for year 05                                    Oscar & Lindsey
5-  Willful failure 04                                                  Lindsey
6- Willful failure 04                                                   Lindsey

Lets cross reference this with the tax loss claimed by the government, since tax loss is the major determinant of sentencing.

Year ………Loss claimed
00                  $33,777
01                   $      500
02                                 0
03                  $89,350
04                                 0
05                  $33,463
06                                 0 this year and following

This information was obtained directly from Charles O’Reilly, a US Department of Justice lawyer prosecuting the case, during a telephone conversation.

Several things jump out from this modest bit of information.  First, Lindsey Springer is charged on two counts of willful failure to make tax returns on two separate years, for each of which the government frankly admits that the tax loss is zero.  Granted, tax loss is not an element of willful failure to make tax returns.  But it seems strange that the government hinged its entire willful failure case on two years for which they admit the complete lack of tax liability, and stranger still that the jury bought the story.

Second, Lindsey was charged in Count 2 of tax evasion that he was also charged with in Count 3 and 4.  How this is legally permissible was not explained.   The years 2000 and 2001 were clearly outside the 6 year statute of limitations.  Every penny of tax evasion alleged in Count 2 was either clearly stale, or unmistakably charged in Count 3 or 4.

Based on the original tax loss figures, the federal sentencing guidelines provide for a sentence of 21-27 months.  After the verdict, I asked Mr. O’Reilly to explain reports in the press that he would ask for 5-10 years incarceration.  Here is the exchange, italicized because I can’t readily figure out how to indent a block of text:

Mr. Stilley:

We will discuss the potential sentence at the appropriate time” your sentencing hearing. I can confirm that a member of the media asked what the anticipated       Guideline Sentence was and that we, with the strong caveat that no actual computation had yet been calculated, stated that we anticipated the sentences would be between five and ten years.  Now that we have had an opportunity to review the relevant provisions and facts, we anticipate the Guideline Sentence may be significantly greater.

Respectfully,

Charles A. O’Reilly
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Northern District of Oklahoma

From: Oscar Stilley [mailto:oscar@oscarstilley.com]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 1:28 AM
To: O’Reilly, Charles A. (TAX); Snoke, Ken (USAOKN)
Subject: Theory for 5-10 year sentence

Dear Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Snoke:

Would either of you care to explain your theory for suggesting to news media that I face 5-10 years in prison? If you never said that then I’ll decide if I want to take that up with the responsible parties publishing such.   However, if you did say words to that effect, I’d like to know your theory for it.

Oscar Stilley
os

This has been the standard modus operandi for the government in this case.  The indictment means little if anything.  The word of the government investigators and lawyers means even less.  The facts, the law, and the rules, are all whatever the government wants them to be on a given day, neither more nor less.

Stephen Friot, who presided over the trial, issued an Order [docket 247] which included the following proviso:

2. Subject to the exception set forth below in this paragraph (B)(2), you will maintain no website that refers to any matter relating to federal taxation.  You will immediately take down any website that you control that makes reference to any matter relating to federal taxation. You will post no material of any kind on any website that refers to any matter relating to federal taxation. Exception: You may solicit funds in support of your defense, and, in so doing, accurately make reference to the nature, history, result and status of this case, as long as, in so doing, you provide no advice, suggestions, or recommendations to any person or entity, public or private, other than immediate family members, with respect to any matter relating to federal taxation.

Since it was put to me this way, I’ll be happy to ask.  Can I please have some money?  How about some Federal Reserve Promises to Pay Nothing?  Their value drops on a daily basis anyway.  Rubles, francs, pounds, euros, what have you?   As a beggar I can’t very well be a chooser.

You can send it via Paypal at oscar@oscarstilley.com, or you can send it to Oscar Stilley, 7103 Race Track Loop, Fort Smith, AR, 72916.   Call the phone number at www.oscarstilley.com if you need to talk.

For those who have already contributed, I’d like to thank you mightily.  This is not aggressive panhandling, please don’t take it that way.  Nevertheless, if you’d like to see the corrupt practices of the IRS and the DOJ exposed, this would be a fine opportunity.  Fighting the IRS can be a blood sport, figuratively speaking, and there are advantages to watching from afar.

Admission is free and everyone is heartily invited.   Sign up on RSS, any way you can think of it, and tell your friends to do the same.  Send your friends to http://www.problogger.net/what-is-rss/ if they’re new to RSS.  Publicity is the cure for government evils.

This is the first but by no means the last missive you’ll see on these pages from undersigned counsel, directly informing you about the case and the issues involved in it.  I’ll just pass the hat from time to time, and at least as often as is necessary to satisfy any orders of the court.  I hope you’ll understand.

Oscar Stilley
os

 

Conversation with an American soldier — part 6

Continued from part 5
Soldier:    We had less than half the populace on our side, and there were a lot of Tories on the other side.  We won anyway.   Do you know why?

Oscar:    Tell me.

Soldier: Start with this.  We used every resource available to us, and even then it was just barely enough.  Take for example Robert Morris.  He contributed $1.4 million to the war effort on one occasion, and large amounts at other times as well.  Yet he spent 3 years in a debtor’s prison later in life.  He was just one of many who were unquestionably vigorous and arguably reckless in their pursuit of liberty.

Oscar: So what you’re telling me is that rich and poor alike paid a great price for the liberty we enjoyed today, right?

Soldier: Amongst lovers of liberty, you are right.  I lived in a little cabin right here at the bottom of this hill.  I built here because of the spring, and soon grew to love this place.  I wanted to die here.  But it was not to be, because I loved liberty more than I loved anything else in this world.

But I built on the foundation laid by my fathers.  The Magna Carta was centuries old at the time.  In recent memory were such patriots as John Peter Zenger.  Do you know about him?

Oscar: I do.  He was a publisher who spent 8 months in jail pending a trial for libel of a public official.  He had argued, eloquently I might add, that the citizenry should have the right to utter truthful criticisms of the government.  Two lawyers were disbarred for their efforts on his behalf.  The third lawyer obtained his acquittal, at great risk to his own career, by arguing that the jury had the right to acquit in the teeth of the evidence and the law given by the court, if the law was unjust.

Soldier: That took place in 1735.  It would be 40 years before the tensions spilled over to the point of bloodshed.   In the meantime, this nation was blessed with what Samuel Adams described as an “irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

Oscar, you’ve had a long time to speak, and by your own admission have done precious little of it.   Perhaps the things you hold dear are getting in your way of informing your fellow countrymen of your knowledge of the dire circumstances facing this once great country.   If that’s the case, having nothing left to lose might bring unexpected freedom.

Oscar: Are you saying I am going to prison?

Soldier: I am not here to predict your future, one way or another.  You hold your destiny in your own hands.  The same is true of your countrymen.   But you might need to understand how our tactics evolved during the war.

Oscar: How so?

Soldier: Washington was initially quite enamored with formal, European style fighting formations and tactics and strategies.  The main problem with that thinking was that his forces just didn’t work that way.  He had liberty minded individuals who came not for pay but out of devotion to the cause.  The redcoats could be ordered around, they generally obeyed without thinking.  They fought for pay.  Their main concern was money, and avoiding the iron discipline of their superiors.  As drill master von Steuben later explained to a Prussian visitor, “You say to your soldier, ‘Do this’ and he doeth it; but I am obliged to say ‘This is the reason why you ought to do that,’ and then he does it.”

American privates followed orders they thought were correct.  They would without hesitation run away if they thought the situation too dangerous.   They deserted at astonishing rates, and the colonial communities would protect the deserters.

Washington figured that out.  As he came to understand his resources, he respected his limitations.  He commanded his officers in such a manner as to maximize the benefits of his resources.  Furthermore he came to understand that it was not his job to win, but rather to not lose.

To be continued…

 

Conversation with an American soldier — Part 5

Oscar:    I know you paid a terrible price for liberty.  How can I possibly express my gratitude?

Soldier:    Hang on to the liberty we bequeathed you.  Don’t lose it.  On a good day you might add to liberty, but don’t lose it.

Oscar:     I totally understand.   I just feel trapped, pinned down.  The government suspended my law license for pretended offenses two years ago.  For longer than that, the government has scorched the earth on me, and on Lindsey Springer as well.  Now, facing the fight of my life, I just don’t have the material resources to do a creditable job.

Soldier:    Jesus fed 5,0000 men plus women and children on a resource base that was by all appearances absurdly inadequate.  Do you remember what he asked his disciples?

Oscar:    Sure.  He asked them what they had.

Soldier:    Friend, the words of the Almighty were transmitted to us very sparingly.  Given the state of the art of book making at the time, there really wasn’t any other option.  But He made His words count.   Learn as much as we can from those words.  So you tell me what you have.

Oscar:    I’ve drafted briefs on the subject from time to time.   I’ve practiced in federal criminal defense area of law for a long time.

Soldier:     Just a second, let’s think about this.  Why did people hire you as a lawyer?

Oscar:    Because I would advocate their position.  I listened to them and made the arguments they wanted made, as opposed to what I might have wanted to make.

Soldier:    You made your living doing this, didn’t you?

Oscar:    Sure.  I made a decent living, actually a good living at it until I lost my license.

Soldier:     Right now you have a straight shot at a decision on the merits of the PRA, right?

Oscar:    That I do.

Soldier:    What percentage of the people you represented wanted this issue litigated?

Oscar:    Everyone that had any colorable basis for the argument in their case.  The PRA one of the stronger arguments out there.   The government is afraid of it.

Soldier:    After all these years of fighting, do you think these people want to see you fail for the lack of funds or basic resources?

Oscar:    Of course not.  But the government bullied and intimidated and threatened   Lindsey Springer’s major contributors.  They’re afraid to contribute.

Soldier:    When I was at Valley Forge, there were farmers that brought us food.  Do you have any idea what would have happened to them if the Redcoats caught them?
Oscar:    Ben Franklin said that you would all need to hang together lest you all hang separately.

Soldier:    It wasn’t just a figure of speech.  Even in our own constitution, we said “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

That being said, what sort of appellation do you think might have been affixed to the farmers who brought us food?

Oscar:    Traitors.   That would be treason by definition, I suppose.  And that would generally call for a death sentence.

Soldier:    Do you think that someone who contributed to your defense might be sentenced to death?

Oscar:    Of course not.   In fact that’s their legal right.  The government has just made people nervous about it by throwing their weight around.

Soldier:    Then ask.  The apostle James said that you have not because you ask not, or else because you merely want to consume it on your own selfish desires.   Swallow your pride, ask for help.  You will do no one a favor if you stagger and fall for the lack of resources.  You’ve gotten some donations, right?

Oscar:    Certainly.
To be continued.

 

Girls dancing at Boguchar orphanage

 

Conversation with an American soldier — Part 4

Continued from Part 3
Soldier: OSCAR!!!   Think about what you just said.  We didn’t even have ball point pens.  We used quills & inkwells.  Paper was expensive and money was tight.  Practical typewriters wouldn’t come along until almost 100 years after the Revolutionary War.   We never even dreamed of the day that we would have the power to electronically transmit our words to nearly anyone on the planet who cared to listen to our ideas.  Any chance the real reason has more to do with fear than the lack of resources?

Oscar: I couldn’t deny that.  I have four kids, two biological and two adopted.  I’ve seen a lot of people go to prison, including too many on my watch.  I know what happens to kids that lose daddy.  I knew the risk factors.  Speaking publicly, criticizing the government, and especially filing lawsuits questioning the legal foundation of certain activities of the IRS could land you in prison, and I didn’t want to go.  Hacking at the branches is tolerated and almost even invited, but a few hacks at the roots would get your name mentioned in high places, and not for your own good.

Soldier: So the price of liberty’s too high?  Do you have any idea what your liberty cost me?

Oscar: No I don’t.

Soldier: I died in a British prison camp at the age of 36.  You’ve already gotten ten more years on this earth than I got.  Furthermore, I had 6 children, or 7 if you count an orphan that lived with us.  Do you think I loved my kids any less than you loved yours?

Oscar: Certainly not.  Any man worth his salt loves his kids.

Soldier: Can you imagine my panic and fear as I faced death?  I knew that my wife would suffer privation and hardships because of my decision to fight for liberty.  She had a dark foreboding when I left, and her premonition turned out to be well founded.  I died from disease, racked with pain,  in obscurity, as a prisoner of war.   I did it not only for my own family, community, and nation  – I did it for you too.

Somehow people have a hard time fathoming the personal tragedy arising from the death of an individual.  During the Revolution we didn’t have social services, not that we wanted them.  Our community was our social services and we didn’t want anything else.  Much of the time the troops weren’t even paid, for extended periods.  We couldn’t afford to fight, but then again we couldn’t afford not to fight either.

Oscar, any price you could possibly pay in your fight for liberty will pale in comparison to the ultimate sacrifice paid by any one of some 25,000 dead Revolutionary war soldiers.  Less than a third of them were actual battle casualties, but every one was a tragedy, and every one of them was a down payment on the price of liberty in the United States.

Another 25,000 were wounded.  My best friend lost one of his feet to frostbite at Valley Forge.  We suffered just about any loss that could be suffered without causing death.   What do you think about that? 

To be continued.

 

Conversation with an American soldier — Part 3

Continued from Part 2.

Oscar: In 2005 the IRS just went nuts.  Amongst other things, each information request form is required to have a currently valid number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget, known as OMB.    The IRS plastered over 200 forms with a single number.  Our research shows that the neither the IRS nor the OMB is making a college try to comply with the congressional mandates of the PRA.

Soldier: Is that just your opinion?  Sometimes it’s helpful get the perceptions and insights of other people.

Oscar: Actually, there is a body called the US Government Accountability Office, (GAO)  which has the job of assessing and reviewing the government’s information collection function.  The IRS is just one of many agencies whose activities are reviewed.    GAO prepared a report, published May of 2005, which concluded that the IRS routinely violated the PRA. Among other violations, GAO found that the IRS  routinely violated the PRA by refusing to cite the law that required the collection of information.

The IRS explained that it would have to increase its estimate of time required for compliance, to allow for the time necessary to read the cited laws, and further said that it would sometimes be impractical to disclose such laws.

GAO responded by saying that the law required such disclosures, and further said “Until the IRS corrects this language on its forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested.”  GAO recommended that the IRS as well as OMB and other agencies take steps to ensure that such violations cease.

Soldier: Aha.  It sounds like the Executive Branch of government is trying to call balls and strikes against another part of the Executive Branch.   How did that work out?

Oscar: The IRS just thumbed its nose at GAO.   GAO didn’t have an effective enforcement mechanism, and the IRS knew it.

Soldier: We left you with three branches of government, executive, judicial, and legislative, to provide checks and balances.  We also left you with grand and petit juries to provide a check in case that didn’t work.  Did you try any of those?

Oscar: The government evaded the question in US v. Lawrence.   My co-defendant, Lindsey Springer, then began filing lawsuits, trying to get a legally binding answer.  He filed 4 lawsuits, all of which he lost on technicalities.  However, in the last case the 10th Circuit stated unequivocally that they had not issued an opinion on the merits of the PRA claim.  They actually told the Commissioner of the IRS that his argument to the contrary was frivolous.

Soldier: I’m getting the picture.  Nobody wants to call balls and strikes for this game, right?

Oscar: You’re dead on.  Furthermore, in my practice the pattern has become crystal clear.  The dissidents and loudmouths get charged criminally.  They get convicted, and those convictions are used to threaten and silence others with similar ideas.

Soldier: You still have a powerful weapon.  We fought a massive campaign in the court of public opinion.  We had pamphleteers, fiery orators, and of course the newspapers.  What kind of support are you getting from your news media?

Oscar: Basically nothing.  Between 80 and 90% of the mainstream media has been bought up by a handful of media conglomerates, and none of them will tell our side of the story.  Newspapers, radio, TV – the government might as well hold legal title to the whole shooting match, for all the good they do.  In fact most of them are propagandists for the government.

Soldier: You’ve had the right to speak, haven’t you?

Oscar: Yes.

Soldier: What have you said?

Oscar: Basically nothing.  I didn’t do any seminars and I wrote practically nothing about my experiences.  I have a website and a blog, but I’m kind of obsessive-compulsive, and I never could get them up to my standards.  I like footnotes or endnotes, separate, organized documents, searchability, and a pleasant layout.  That costs money, and I haven’t gotten that done yet.

……………

To be continued.

 

Conversation with an American soldier — Part 2

Oscar:     Hmmmm.  Hearts and minds.  How do you know that?  No, scratch that, how did you know what I was going to say before I said it?

Soldier:    I got your dossier.

Oscar:     How did you get that?

Soldier:     Let me tell you about how I didn’t get it.  I didn’t get that dossier the way the government got theirs, by sneaking around behind your back to subpoena every record remotely related to you, or by lying to you to get you to testify to a grand jury.  I didn’t subpoena adoption records hoping the agency would turn them over out of fear and intimidation.

Yes, I know you asked how I got them, not how I didn’t get them.  I fought in the War for Independence.  You call it the Revolutionary War.  Does that answer your question?

Oscar:    You fought in the war?  I’m fascinated.  Were you an officer?

Soldier:    I was an enlisted man.  I signed up because I believed in the cause of liberty.

Oscar:    Just about everything I’ve done in the last 10 years is because I believed in the cause of liberty.

Soldier:    Keep in mind, liberty and the rule of law are for all practical purposes two sides of one coin.

Oscar:    We’re on the same page there.

Soldier:    Keeping in mind our one rule, tell me about your law practice?

Oscar:    I’ve represented a number of people with problems arising out of their dealings with the federal government.  I’ve tried a few criminal cases.  I’ve represented a lot of people who got on the “enemies list” of the federal government, or just had questions they couldn’t get an answer to.

Soldier:    On the criminal side, how many federal cases have you tried?

Oscar:    Seven if memory serves.

Soldier:    How many wins?

Oscar:    On jury verdicts, none.  I got a felony dismissed on one case, leaving only misdemeanors.  On another case, US v. Lawrence, the government dismissed the case with prejudice on Friday, May 12, 2006.  Trial was supposed to start the following Monday, but that case just went away.

Soldier:    What reason did the government give for dismissal?

Oscar:     Math errors on 2 out of 6 counts of the indictment..

Soldier:    Did you believe that story?

Oscar:    No.

Soldier:    Why not?

Oscar:    I had a previous case, in 2004, in which the government tried Eddy and Judy Patterson.  After the trial, Eddy fired me but told me to do whatever his wife requested.  Judy asked me to draft an appellate brief in which a principal issue was the Paperwork Reduction Act (the PRA).  Her lawyer read and signed the brief, and filed it with the 10th Circuit.  The government got two extensions of time to file their response brief, and then released Judy from prison in exchange for an agreement to dismiss the appeal.

Soldier:    What’s wrong with letting someone out of prison for dropping their appeal?

Oscar:    There’s nothing inherently wrong with it.  However, in this case the government lied to the court, telling the judge that Judy had given substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of some other person.  She didn’t even talk to government agents or lawyers.  She testified to that under oath at my trial just a few days ago.  I see no reason for her to lie about that.  If anything, such a statement would be against her own interest.

Soldier:    That’s four years ago?  What happened next?

To be continued….

 

Conversation with an American soldier — Part 1

It was a small valley, mostly grassy with a few trees, with what appeared to be a perennial stream on the other side.  On the right was a small wetland, perhaps a half acre in size, connected to the stream by a slender strip of willows and cattails.

To the left was an ancient, field grown American beech tree, at the bottom of the toe slope of a finger ridge.  There were several large stones under the tree, apparently placed there intentionally.   A short distance away lay the remnants of a stone fence, and also what appeared to be the remains of a chimney.

As I was admiring the massive branches of the beech tree, I noticed a  man briskly striding down a faint trail on the hillside.  He was tall and lanky, with hard English features.  His blue eyes met mine, and a broad smile creased his face.  “I’m an old soldier,” he smiled, offering his hand.  “I’m Oscar,” I replied, “Oscar Stilley.”    “Have a seat,” he began, “I came to talk to you.  You’ve been having a tough time, and your friends thought you needed a bit of cheering up, amongst other things.”

Oscar:    I couldn’t deny that.

Soldier:    What’s troubling you?   What’s on your mind?

Oscar:    I’m in a criminal trial.  I’m a lawyer, but this time it’s me on trial.  I’m eating candy out of my own store, and I really can’t afford it.

Soldier:    For what?

Oscar:    That’s part of the problem.  For one thing, I am accused of conspiring the violate a law, but any time I ask what law I was allegedly conspiring to violate, they say that I was conspiring to “defraud” the United States. Every time I get close to getting answers, the government clams up.

Soldier:    Sounds to me a lot like a common law crime.   Such a thing is not supposed to exist in the United States.

Oscar:    We’re on the same page on that issue.

Soldier:    Anything else?

Oscar:    I am also charged with two counts of assisting Lindsey Springer in the evasion of his…

Soldier:    STOP!!!

Oscar:    What do you mean, stop?

Soldier:    You were about to use a word that starts with “t,” ends with “x” and rhymes with “flax,” weren’t you?

Oscar:     What’s wrong with that?

Soldier:     You won’t understand now but you’ll understand later.

Oscar:     I can’t even explain it to you without your word, uh, how did you say that?

Soldier:     Starts with “t,” ends with “x” and rhymes with “flax.”  The nice thing about this conversation is that just about any other word is fair game.

Oscar:     But I can’t explain anything to you without using that word!!  That’s what the whole case is about!

Soldier:     No it’s not.  You are wrong.  Matter of fact the main reason you are in the mess you’re in is that you’ve fallen into the problem of imprecise and unfocused thinking and communication.  You think your problem relates to a concept that starts with a  “t,” ends with “x” and rhymes with “flax.”  The enemies of liberty have deceived you about the true root of your problem.

Oscar:     Then what is our problem?

Soldier:     You have a symptom is known by a word with three letters, starting with “t,” ending with “x,” and rhyming with “flax.”

Now technically you didn’t ask for the symptom.  You asked for the problem, so I’ll tell you.  You have a hearts and minds problem.  You’ve lost the hearts and minds of your countrymen.

 

MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT OR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.e68c81b3-44f1-4dcf-b99e-ceeb5992ae42&hl=en