Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01429/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1429

___________

Kenneth L. Israel; Dee Ann Israel, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Internal Revenue Service, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006

Filed: December 29, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth L. and Dee Ann Israel appeal from the district court’s1

 dismissal of

their civil action against the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and the

denial of their postjudgment motions. The government has filed a motion for

sanctions to partially cover its expenses in defending this suit; it seeks sanctions in the

amount of $8,000 for defending a frivolous appeal. Appellants have filed a motion

against sanctions, repeating many of their arguments about jurisdiction and

sovereignty.

Appellate Case: 06-1429 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263827
-2-

After de novo review, see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th

Cir. 2006), we conclude the dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the

district court. We also find no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the Israels’

disqualification motion or the denial of their Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3)

motion. See United States v. Edwards, 159 F.3d 1117, 1131 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard

of review for disqualification motions); E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Berns, 757 F.2d 215,

217 (8th Cir. 1985) (standard of review for Rule 60(b)(3) motions). Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Regarding the request for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single

or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912;

Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we find that the Israels have filed a frivolous appeal

raising tax-protester arguments which have been repeatedly rejected in numerous

other proceedings, including some involving the Israels. Moreover, the district court

repeatedly warned the Israels that continuing to press such patently frivolous

arguments would likely result in sanctions. In these circumstances, we conclude that

sanctions are appropriate. See United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th

Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (when appellant brought frivolous appeal based on taxprotester argument, court granted government’s motion for sanctions). After

considering appellants' motion against sanctions, we deny their motion. The

government is awarded $5,000 in sanctions, with Judge Bye dissenting from the

imposition of sanctions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1429 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263827