Tax Update Blog: Permalink

« Previous · Tax Update Blog Home · Next »

BAD DAY FOR BARRINGER THE BARRISTER

November 15, 2007

Attorney Jerold W. Barringer probably won't list Federal Appeals Judge Easterbrook as a reference on his next resume.

Mr. Barringer has represented convicted tax evader Denny Patridge in civil and criminal tax litigation, losing every time. And he lost his appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday in a big way. From Judge Easterbrook's opinion:

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.

Discussing the "statement of facts" in Mr. Barringer's brief, Judge Easterbrook says:

This contains not a single fact and verges on illiteracy. One might think that Barringer had confused the "Statement of Facts" section with the "Summary of Argument" required by Rule 28(a)(8), except that this passage does not contain any argument (it is argument free, though full of assertion) and is immediately followed by a six-page-long "SUMMARY OF APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS".

The tongue-lashing is the least of it:

Members of the bar must be held to standards at least as high as those of unrepresented litigants. Barringer is a recidivist; he ignored our 2006 decision reminding him that taxpayers cannot use a request for a collection hearing to contest their substantive liability. We therefore give Barringer 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his 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.

But your honor, how does he get better if he doesn't practice?

Mr. Barringer appears to be an Illinois attorney (note his 2001 censure by the Illinois Supreme court), but he has a far-flung client base. He unsuccessfully defended Floridian Jo Hovind, one of the operaters of "Creation Science Evangelism Ministry," on tax evasion charges. The ministry operated a theme park based on the theory that dinosaurs and humans co-existed back in the old days. And we think our deer problem is bad...

Via Orin Kerr at Volokh. The TaxProf has more.

Cite: U.S. vs. Patridge, No. 06-3635 and No. 06-3785 (CA-7)

Tags: Jerold W. Barringer.Judge Easterbrook.Patridge.tax crime.tax protesters.

      Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit