Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01051/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Internal Revenue Service
Appellee
Mary M. Weninger
Appellant
Roman Weninger
Appellant

Document Text:

, 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROMAN WENINGER and ) 

MARY M. WENINGER, ) 

FILED 

Uoited States O:>urt of Appeals 

Tenth Cir':'1it 

SEP 21 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) 

) No. 89-1051 

V • ) 

) 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) 

(United States), ) 

) 

Defendant/Appellee. ) 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 88-C-2014) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Roman G. Weninger and Mary Madeleine Weninger filed pleadings 

on November 7, 1988 in the district court for the County of 

Washington, State of Colorado (civil action no. 88-CV-32), 

entitled "Unlawful Attempts to Extort and Confiscate Property 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1051 Document: 01019973965 Date Filed: 09/21/1989 Page: 1 
Without Jurisdiction," "Petition for Writ of Prohibition," and 

"Temporary Restraining Order," all of which sought to prevent the 

Internal Revenue Service from collecting taxes owed by the 

Weningers. The case was removed to the United States District 

Court of the District of Colorado by the United States, pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. §§ 1441, 1442(a)(l). The Weningers thereafter filed 

in the district court a "Motion for Temporary Injunction," "Motion 

to Establish Jurisdiction," and "Writ of Assistance." Thereafter, 

they filed a "Notice'' in the . district court. Those documents also 

sought to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from selling the 

Weninger's property to recover taxes owed by them, and contested 

the jurisdiction of the United States to levy taxes, and the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court over the 

Weningers. 

On February 9, 1989 the district court denied the Weningers' 

motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction, and granted the United States' motion to dismiss, and 

dismissed the Weninger's action with prejudice. On February 22, 

1989 the Weningers filed two documents, a Notice of Appeal from 

the district court's order of dismissal, and an "Objection to 

United States Memorandum." The district court treated the latter 

document as a motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. 

59(e), and denied the objection on February 27, 1989. 

was taken from that order. 

Civ. P. 

No appeal 

If the Weninger's "Objection to United States Memorandum" was 

in fact an attempt to obtain a reconsideration by the district 

court of its order of dismissal, then this court lacks 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1051 Document: 01019973965 Date Filed: 09/21/1989 Page: 2 
jurisdiction over this appeal, since no appeal was filed by the 

Weningers from the district court's order denying the motion to 

reconsider. However, since the document in question did not 

address the district court's order of dismissal, but was in the 

nature of a belated reply brief, we elect to treat the Notice of 

Appeal filed by the Weningers in this case as timely, thus giving 

us jurisdiction over this appeal. 

In their brief on appeal the Weningers assert that the United 

States have neither taxing nor judicial powers over them on the 

ground that the United States' sovereignty is confined to the 

geographic area of the District of Columbia and other federal 

lands and the Weningers appear 

"in Propria Persona Sui Juris as FREE BORN WHITE 

SOVEREIGN PREAMBLE COMMON LAW 'DE JURE' Citizens of the 

sovereign State of COLORADO of the UNION OF THE 

SOVEREIGN STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as the 

ONE PEOPLE with GOD ENOOWED/GIVEN/UNLIENABLE/INALIENABLE 

RIGHTS under the DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF THE DECLARATION OF 

INDEPENDENCE at PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, and 32, and under the 

PREAMPLE too, and the CONSTITUTION of the United States 

of America as the WE THE PEOPLE and as the POSTERITY of 

our founding fathers." 

Appellant's Brief at 3-4, 6, 7, 8, 10-11, 17-19, 22-23, 37-40. 

In their reply brief, the Weningers repeat that they are not 

subject to paying taxes, Reply Brief at 5. And, they more fully 

explain their position as follows: 

"The NONTAXPAYERS ARE NONTAXPAYERS BECAUSE THEY 

REFUSE TO BECOME A PART OF THE COMMUNIST MANTOFESTO, 

which is now a documented proof of existance in the 

United States of America. America citizens have traded 

the old deal Republic for a New Deal Democracy, in which 

the Appellants Roman G. Weninger and Mary Madeleine 

Weninger will have no active part in, willingly. 

The Government has spent billions of tax dollars 

for the employment of Rogues, repabates and mofia type 

thugs, to rip off, steal from, kill and extort from good 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1051 Document: 01019973965 Date Filed: 09/21/1989 Page: 3 
honest hardworking Americans, who are unawear of the 

vial democracy practices, being introduced to enslave 

the American people, and the Appallents realize now, 

that when they went into this Action asking for the God 

Given/enailable PROTECTED RIGHTS guarenteed to them by 

the United States of America Constitution, that they 

were as foolish as one who would seek that right out of 

China. because all the Courts are set up to administer 

to the Rogues theifs and Mofia Type thugs and to help 

them acheive the lawless rights to enslave the American 

People and make them all a paying part to support these 

criminal activities, through the taxing system and the 

Federal Reserve Banks in America. 

THEREFORE I ROMAN G. WENINGER AND I, MARY MADELEINE 

WENINGER DO NOT WISH TO BE A PART OF THE NEW DEMOCERY 

AND THE COMMUNIST MANTOFESTO BY KARL MARX and observed 

by expert observers to be worse than Stalin ever was. 

(Note exhibit enclosed) 

We refuse to submit any money for the upkeep and 

the expense to support the communist activity in the 

United States." 

Reply Brief at 5-6. The courts have uniformly rejected such 

arguments as these as patently frivolous, and have done so for a 

long period of time in an unbroken string of decisions. Our 

latest decision on this point, in which many of the authorities 

are collected, is United States v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746 (10th Cir. 

1989). See also Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 

1985); United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1986); 

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986); Sullivan v. 

United States, 788 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1986); United States v. 

Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986); Biermann v. Commissioner, 

769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 

517 (7th Cir. 1984). 

Additionally, the government is correct in its assertion that 

the Weningers' attempt to bar the collection of unpaid taxes by 

the sale of property upon which a lien has attached, is barred by 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1051 Document: 01019973965 Date Filed: 09/21/1989 Page: 4 
the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 742l(a). See Lowrie v. 

United States, 824 F.2d 827 (10th Cir. 1987); Marvel v. United 

States, 548 F.2d 295 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 967 

(1977). None of the exceptions to that Act apply to the circumstances of this case. The Weningers' arguments that they are not 

subject to taxes as citizens of Colorado, and that the United 

States consists only of the District of Columbia are, as we have 

already stated, frivolous. They provide no basis for an argument 

that under no circumstances could the government prevail on its 

claim. See Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 737 

(1974); Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 

6-7 (1962); Marvel v. United States, 548 F.2d at 297. The 

Weningers have had ample opportunity to contest the assessment of 

the taxes in question in the United States Tax Court, or by 

bringing a refund suit pursuant to section 7422 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a}(l). 

The United States has also moved for sanctions on appeal, and 

the Weningers have had an opportunity to respond in their reply 

brief. That response is a reassertion of the arguments outlined 

above. As we noted in Mullen v. Household Bank-Federal Savings 

Bank, 867 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Stafford v. 

Commissioner, 805 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1986)): 

"Courts have the inherent power to impose a variety of 

sanctions on ••. litigants .•. in order to regulate 

their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter 

frivolous filings. See,~, Roadway Express, Inc. v. 

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 .•. (1980); Link v. Wabash 

R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 ... (1962); Whitney v. Cook, 

99 U.S. (9 Otto.) 607 •.• (1878). In addition, Fed. 

R. App. P. 38 and 28 u.s.c. § 1912 provide that a court 

of appeals may award just damages and single or double 

costs if the court 'determine[s] that an appeal is 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1051 Document: 01019973965 Date Filed: 09/21/1989 Page: 5 
frivolous' or brought for purposes of delay. This court 

has imposed attorney's fee and double costs for the 

taking of frivolous appeals in other contexts. See, 

~, United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, 464 

( 10th Cir. 1980)." 

While the Weningers may sincerely believe the views which 

they espouse, that is not the point. The courts have rejected the 

arguments advanced by the Weningers so many times that their 

attempt uselessly to burden the system with the arguments yet 

again cannot go unsanctioned. In light of the Weningers' legally 

frivolous appeal, we hold that an award of damages and double 

costs is justified. 

The government asks us to levy a flat $1,500 sanction. 

However, we think the district court is in a better position to 

evaluate the degree of the Weningers' capacity and culpability 

and, based upon that evaluation, to determine the amount of 

sanctions to be awarded for taking a legally frivolous appeal. 

"The district court may 'look to the principles that have evolved 

in the interpretation of Rule 11' in assessing the amount of the 

sanction awarded pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1912." 

at 588. 

Mullen v. Household Bank-Federal Savings Bank, 867 F.2d 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and the case 

is REMANDED to the district court to determine the amount of 

sanctions to be awarded for taking a legally frivolous appeal. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-1051 Document: 01019973965 Date Filed: 09/21/1989 Page: 6