Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03011/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pat Kettler
Not Party
United States of America
Appellee
Alma L. Van Skiver
Appellant
Raymond J. Van Skiver
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

United Btatos 0@1,rt ot Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JVN O 11991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PAT KETTLER, Register of Deeds, 

Sedgwick County, Kansas, 

Defendant, 

and 

RAYMOND J. VAN SKIVER and ALMA 

L. VAN SKIVER, 

Defendant-counterclaimants-Appellants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3011 

(D. Kansas) 

(D.C. No. 89-1598) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 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: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 1 
Raymond Van Skiver appeals from an order of the district 

court invalidating various notices he and Alma Van Skiver filed 

with the Register of Deeds for Sedgwick County, Kansas, and 

enjoining the van Skivers from filing such documents in the future 

and from filing lawsuits against the United States without prior 

leave of the court. 

The Van Skivers do not want to pay federal taxes. They allege, among other things, that they are not subject to or within 

the jurisdiction of the United States. In a supplemental filing 

in this court entitled "Motion for Judicial Review, Motion for 

Relief from Judgment," the Van Skivers embellish their argument 

that they live within the territorial limits of the State of 

Kansas and attempt to apply sections of the Uniform Commercial 

Code to justify their actions. We grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dispose of this appeal on the merits. 

The Van Skivers appear to be sincere in their beliefs. That 

is not the point. Their view of the Constitution and laws has 

been rejected repeatedly by the courts, both in cases relating 

directly to them, and in other cases. See, for example, our 

opinions in Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 

1990), and Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1990). 

As we said in Lonsdale: 

As the cited cases, as well as many others, have 

made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded 

to by the [defendants] are completely lacking in legal 

merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals ("free 

born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual 

common law 'de jure' citizens of a state, etc.") are not 

"persons" subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue 

code; (2) the authority of the United States is confined 

to the District of Columbia; (3) the income tax is a 

direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 2 
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 

S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 

s.ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), is authority for that 

and other arguments against the government's power to 

impose income taxes on individuals; (4) the Sixteenth 

Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or 

applies only to corporations; (5) wages are not income; 

(6) the income tax is voluntary; [and,] (7) no statutory 

authority exists for imposing an income tax on 

individuals .... 

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d at 1448. In the face of these 

numerous judicial announcements and explanations, Mr. Van Skiver's 

present appeal with its rehash of meritless arguments is 

frivolous. The order of the district court is affirmed in all 

respects for the reasons, and upon the authorities stated in, the 

district court's patient and thorough memorandum order dated 

December 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached hereto and 

incorporated into this decision. The Motion for Judicial Review 

and Motion for Relief from Judgment are accepted as a supplemental 

brief. To the extent they are not disposed of by this opinion 

they are denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 3 
,, 

!! 1, 

,, 

I 

I 

i 

·i ;, 

I 

I 

,I 

,! 

i! 

•I 

FILED 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

[- ! ~ ·;· :- i . ', . • • ~- I ,', ; '. s As 

Ee 13 

I\;. -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

Vs. Case No. 89-1598-C 

RAYMOND J. AND ALMA VAN SKIVER; 

AND PAT KETTLER, Register of Deeds, 

Sedgwick County, Kansas, 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

IO 31 AH '90 

• •' I ' ~ I • , .. ~ \,.1 ,7 

This matter comes before the court upon the United 

:1 ii States' motion for summary judgment. The Government seeks :1 

., 

. i ., 

!i 

an injunction to permanently enjoin Raymond J. and Alma L . 

Van Skiver (Van Skivers) from filing any lawsuits against 

any agency or employee of the United States concerning 

internal revenue laws without prior leave of the court. 

The Government also seeks an order invalidating various 

documents filed by the Van Skivers with the Register of 

Deeds, as well as a permanent i~junction enjoining the Van 

Skivers from filing any similar documents with the Register 

of Deeds.. The Government also seeks costs of this s 11i t, 

including attorney's fees. 

7' -

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 4 
: I 

! 

! 

I 

I 

( 

The Van Skivers' response is not,a model of 

clarity. The Van Skivers apparently challenge the power of 

the United States to sue individuals. The Van Skivers also 

appear to challenge the power of this court to enter an 

order which would affect any individual. The Van Skivers 

also appear to assert the argument that declaring the 

documents they have filed with the Register of Deeds void 

in some way "amounts to a 1st Amendment Right violation, 

Book-Burning!" 

Facts 

:I Over the past nine years, the Van Skivers have 

, ! brought suit against the federal government in federal 

court on six occasions. A brief chronology of the Van 

Skivers' dealings with the I.R.S. and the federal courts 

best illustrates the Van Skivers' history: 

1981: 

, I 

1983: 

Van Skiver v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 81-

1032. Van Skivers seek declaratory relief and an 

injunction against the assessment of taxes. The 

premise of their argument was that because the 

dollar is no longer backed by silver, they had not 

made "money" since 1965, only green paper. They 

also declared that the income tax scheme and 

collection process was arbitrary and 

unconstitutional. Judge Theis dismissed the 

complaint as frivolous and without merit. 

On March 1, 1983, Raymond Van Skiver signed and 

mailed the Internal Revenue Service a document 

titled "Public Offi~e Money Certificate." The 

document, which is similar in appearance to a 

check, is payable in the amount of $197.54 to the 

United States for delinquent federal income taxes. 

The apparent imp::cation from this document is 

that Van Skivers' worthless check is the 

equivalent of a federal reserve note. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 5 
!1 

,. 

I 

jt 

I 

! 

! 

!i 

ii 

., 

!I 

' i ii 

!i 

;f 

ti 

i' ,I 

: 

!I 

·i 

1984: 

1985: 

1986: 

Van Skiver v. Treasure(sic) of the UniJed States, et -al., Case No. 8 3-

1101. In this case the Van Skivers sued the 

Secretary of the Treasury, the United States 

Attorney General, and several Internal Revenue 

Service employees. The Van Skivers claimed that 

the 16th Amendment was unconstitutional, that 

income tax laws were vague and ambiguous, that 

income tax withholding is improper, that their tax 

debts were never assessed, and that they were 

denied a jury trial. This court dismissed the 

complaint as frivolous and without merit. 

On July 19, 1984, the Van Skivers signed and 

mailed documents to the Social Security 

Administration entitled "Notice of Revocation of 

Power." The documents purported to revoke the Van 

Skivers social security number. The apparent 

purpose of this document is premised on the idea 

that without a social security number there is no 

"contract" between the United States and the Van 

Skivers under which they can be compelled to pay 

income taxes. 

On May 17, 1985, the Van Skivers mailed documents 

to the I.R.S. demanding that the I.R.S. "withdraw" 

certain notices of deficiency. The document 

begins with statement: 

"DO NOT DISREGARD ANY PART OR PORTION OF THIS 

LETTER!!! READ AND UNDERSTAND EVERY WORD!!! 

The document basically accused I.R.S.' employees 

of extortion and threatened I.R.S. employees with 

criminal and civil liability. 

on April 29, 1986, the Van Skivers filed a lawsuit 

captioned Van Skiver v. Clarence King, et al., Case No. 8 6-

1368-T. The complaint was brought as "an action 

AT LAW to bring Defendants to justice ... " The 

Van Skivers alleged that they were "FREE and 

Independent Natural Born [free born] Citizens 

" The Van Skivers also argued that because they 

had not entered any contract with the federal 

government, the fed~ral government could have no 

claim against them. 

On June 2, 1986, the Van Skivers filed a document 

titled "CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE." In part, that 

document stated: 

WARNING: This Court was "created" by Plaintiffs 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 6 
i 

I 

I 

i 

'I 

11 :! 

1! 

11 

'I 

: I 

Ii 

!I 

: { 

I i , , 

I 

·I 

'I 

( ( 

"Action At Law" and until the Common Law Struck 

Jury of Twelve (12)" of "Plaintiff's" own "Peers" 

be assembled .•. ONLY the Plaintiffs shall have 

STANDING within "their" Court. Plaintiff's will 

not grant any "creature of law" "leave of their 

Court" to inflict "equity" jurisdiction ... " 

On June 6, 1986, the Van Skivers filed a document 

entitled "JUDICIAL NOTICE." 

[A]n Imposter, John B. Wooley, having NO STANDING 

UNDER THE LAW •.. came "disguised" "under a 

color of law" to assume an "equity" jurisdiction 

where Said "equity" is BARRED ... to enter upon 

THE RECORD an "order of equity" .•• be VALID 

evidence of Mr. Wooley's "intent" to "step out of 

office" to commit an UN-lawful TRESPASS upon 

Plaintiff's SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT to their AT LAW 

COURT. 

On July 22, 1986, Judge Theis dismissed Van 

Skivers' complaint in Case No. 86-1368-T. 

On November 5, 1986, the Van Skivers filed a 

lawsuit titled Van Skiver v. United States, et al, Case No ." 

86-1882-C. In that case the Van Skivers brought 

suit against the United States, the Secretary of 

the Treasury, the District Director of the I.R. S ., 

as well as several other federal and state 

government employees. The "Preliminary Statement" 

stated: 

This is a class action for declaratory and 

injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from 

seizing and/or liening properties of the NONTAXPAYER .•• to declare that NON-TAXPAYERS, in 

Plaintiff's class, are entitled to "DUE PROCESS" . 

. . and should have been and must be informed as 

to exactly how the code of a de facto internal 

revenue service, as a "creature of law", applies 

to NON-TAXPAYERS; while acting within the bounds 

of their Natural Rights; 

In Exhibit "C" the Van Skivers directed the United 

States Attorney for the District of Kansas to 

issue warrants of arrest for certain Internal 

Revenue Service employees. 

On January 23, 1987, this court dismissed the Van 

Skivers' complaint in Case No. 86-1882-C. The 

court denied the United States' motion for costs. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 7 
1, 

!I 

! I ,, 

!! 

i i 

•: 

ii 

'I 

11 

'.i 

., 

!I 

!i 

1987: 

1988 

1989: 

/ 

\ ( 

The court stated, however, "being aware that 

plaintiffs have filed a similar action [in) the 

past, will not hesitate to grant such a motion in 

the future should plaintiffs raise identical 

issues in a subsequent suit." 

In January of 1987, the Van Skivers filed a 

lawsuit titled Van Skiver v. United States, Case No. 8 7-

1040-K. 

Judge Kelly noted that the Van Skivers' action was 

similar to Case No. 86-1882-C. 

On January 30, 1987, Judge Kelly dismissed the 

complaint, concluding that "the contents of 

plaintiff's claims are wholly frivolous on their 

face and not deserving of response by way of 

answers from any of the defendants." Costs were 

assessed to the Van Skivers. 

On October 15, 1987, Raymond Van Skiver signed and 

filed with the Register of Deeds for Sedgwick 

County a "Notice of Release of Federal Tax Lien by 

Automatic Action of Law," and other "Notices." 

One of the notices filed by Raymond Van Skiver is 

titled "Notice to President Reagan of the 

Commission of Treason. 111 

On October 15, 1987, Raymond Van Skiver signed and 

filed with the Register of Deeds of Sedgwick 

County a "Notice of Release of IRS Seizure by 

Automatic Action of Law," and other "Notices." 

On January 26, 1988, Raymond Van Skiver signed and 

filed with the Register of Deeds for Sedgwick 

County a "Notice & Nullification of Alleged 

Quitclaim Deeds by Automatic Action of Law," and 

other "Notices." 

On August 25, 1989, the Van Skivers filed a 

lawsuit titled Van Skiver v. UniLed States, Case No. 89-

1470-C. The complaint alleged a wrongful levy 

claim, an unauthorized disclosure claim, and a 

quiet title claim. On January 31, 1990, this 

court dismissed the Vankskivers' wrongful levy 

Each of the notices filed by the Vanskivers advance 

untenable interpretations of the law. The notices 

apparently pertain to property sold by the I.R.S. pursuant 

to 26 u.s.c. § 6335 and quitclaim deeds issued pursuant to 

26 u.s.c. § 6338. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 8 
I ' , I 

i i 

. ; 

( 

claim and dismissed in part the ~nauthorized 

disclosure claim. 

On July 16, 1990, this court granted summary 

judgment in favor of the United States on the 

remaining claims. 

On November 28, 1990, this court denied the Van 

Skivers' motion to reconsider. 

Notices filed with the register of deeds. 

As noted above, the Van Skivers have filed 

documents constituting various "notices" with the Sedgwick 

County Register of Deeds. The Government seeks an order 

declaring those records null and void and expunging those 

documents from the Register of Deeds records. Those 

"notices" apparently tend to cloud the title of the 

property. The Government also seeks an injunction 

enjoining the Van Skivers from filing similar documents 

with the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds. 2 

The Van Skivers apparently only challenge the 

court's ability to issue such an order; they do not appear 

to challenge the facts that are alleged by the Government. 3 

Because the Van Skivers do not appear to contest whether or 

not such an order is warranted in this case, the issue 

turns on whether this court has the authority to issue such 

2 The Register of Deeds does not challenge the 

court's authority to declare the "notices" invalid. 

3 The Vanskivers do challenge the Government's 

ability to bring a suit against individuals as well as the 

court's jurisdiction over individuals. These arguments are 

discussed below. 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 9 
I 

I 

I 

I 

ii 

,, 

!! 

1j 

( 

an order. 

Generally, an injunction is appropriate when there 

exists no adequate remedy at law. Title 26 U.S.C. § 

7402(a) authorizes district courts to issue injunctive and 

other relief to enforce internal revenue laws. The power 

given to the district court "encompasses a broad range of 

powers necessary to compel compliance with tax laws." 

United Stm.es v. Ernst & Whinny, 735 F.2d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 

1984). The power to invalidate the "notices" filed by the 

Van Skivers and to enjoin them from filing similar 

"notices" in the future appears to fall within the 

:l authority granted to this court. See United Stm.es v. Kaun, 633 ' 1 

.. 

F.Supp. 406, 408-409 (E.D. Wis. 1986). 

:i The ability of the federal court to declare 

:l documents filed with the state register of deeds invalid is 'I 

I 

not unprecedented. In United Stm.es v. Hart, 545 F. Supp. 4 70 (D. 

N.Dakota 1982), the United States and three employees of 

the I.R.S. brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive 

relief arising out of documents which had been recorded by 

the register of deeds and indexed against the real estate 

holdings of I.R.S. employees. In granting the plaintiffs' 

motion for summary judgment, the district court declared 

the lien documents void and of no force or effect. 545 

F.Snpp. at 475. 

The court concludes that the "notices" filed by 

the Van Skivers on the property at issue are null and void. 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 10 
( ( 

The following named documents: 

1. "Notice of Release of Federal Tax Lien by 

Automatic Action of Law," dated 10-14-87 and 

filed of record on 10-15-87 in the office of the 

Sedgwick County Register of Deeds at Film 925, 

Page 1422, Document No. 9 12522; 

2. "Notice of Release of IRS Seizure by 

Automatic Action of Law," dated 10-14-87 and 

filed of record on 10-15-87 in the Office of the 

Sedgwick County Register of Deeds at Film 925, 

Page 1411, Document No. 9 12521; 

3. "Notice & Nullification of Alleged Quitclaim 

Deeds by Automatic Action of Law," dated 1-26-88 

in the office of the Sedgwick County Register of 

Deeds at Film 944, Page 1403, Document No. 9 

28503; 

are declared null and void and shall have no legal effect 

' : whatsoever. '. ! 

: i 

,, 

,t 

! 

·' 

. I 

11 

:i 

The real property described as follows: 

Lots 1-12, inclusive, Block B, Cedar Downs 3rd 

Addition to Sedgwick County, Kansas; and Lots 3-

23, inclusive, Block C, Cedar Downs 3rd Addition 

to Sedgwick County, Kansas; and The W 330 Ft of 

the E 680 ft of the 660 ft of the SEl/4, Sec. 1, 

Twp. 27s, R 2 West of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick 

County, Kansas 

is hereby relieved of and discharged from the effect, if 

any, of the filing of the documents described in the 

preceding paragraph. 

The court, having concluded that it has the 

authority to issue injunctive relief, deems the issuance of 

an injunction appropriate. The Government should no longer 

be required to defend its right to property it has 

rightfully seized. Raymond J. and Alma Van Skiver are 

permanently enjoined from filing or attempting to file any 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 11 
:, 

Ii 

;r 

Ii 

' ' 

' i j ,, 

' I 

!! 

( 

additional "notices" or any other similar.document 

affecting the above described property. Violation of this 

injunction by Raymond J. or Alma Van Skiver will constitute 

contempt. 

Enjoining the Van Skivers from filing future claims against the United States or its 

agents. 

"[T]he right of access to the courts is neither 

absolute nor unconditional, ... and there is no 

constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute 

an action that is frivolous or malicious." Tripati v. Beaman, 

878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A 

district court has the authority "to enjoin litigants who 

abuse the court system by harassing their opponents. Id. 

at 352. The Supreme court recently noted: 

Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, 

no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires 

some portion of the institution's limited 

resources. A part of the Court's responsibility 

is to see that these resources are allocated in a 

way that promotes the interests of justice. 

In re McDonald, 4 8 9 U. S . __ , __ , __ S . Ct . __ , 10 3 L. Ed. 2 d 

158, 164 (1989). 

"Litigiousness alone will not support an 

injunction restricting filing activities .... However, 

injunctions are proper where the litigant's abusive and 

lengthy history is properly set forth." Tripati, 878 F.2d at 

353 (citations omitted). Some of the factors relevant in 

determining whether a litigant's future access to the 

9 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 12 
!! 

' I !i 

ii 

II 

ii 

· I !: 

; ; ,, 

I 

,; 

( 

courts should be restricted include: (1)~ the litigant's 

history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed 

vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the 

litigant's motive in pursuing litigation, e.g. does the 

litigant have an objective good faith expectation of 

prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by 

counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless 

expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden 

on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other 

sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other 

'. I parties. Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd 

:I 

: i 

tl Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1099 (1987). "Ultimately, 

1: 

i i 

I 

the question the courts must answer is whether a litigant 

who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to 

continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other 

parties. " Id. 

Any restrictions imposed by the district court 

must be carefully tailored to the relevant circumstances 

with the goal of curbing the particular abusive behavior. 

TripaJi, 878 F.2d at 352. Before an order restricting access 

is instituted, the litigant must be afforded notice and an 

opportunity to oppose it. 

In Bullard v. Home NaJwnal Bank of Arkansas City, Case No. 89-

1199-C (D. Kan. 1989), this court directed the plaintiff to 

show cause why the court should not enter an order imposing 

several conditions or restrictions upon future filings of 

10 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 13 
' 

ii ,, 

,1 

:! 

!i 

'i ;1 

: I 

·I 

. I 

, I 

-: ., 

l! 

( 

suits in federal court. Bullard responded by filing more 

documents "utterly lacking in merit and substance." This 

court entered an order prohibiting Bullard from filing any 

future law suits in the United States District of Kansas 

without leave of this court. 

Restricting an individual's access to federal 

court to bring challenges against the I.R.S. or the 

internal revenue laws is not unprecedented in the Tenth 

circuit. In ljamsv.Bryan, 79-2 U.S.T.C. 1 9629 (D. Kan. 

1979), Judge Rogers recounted the plaintiff's long history 

of filing absurd or incomprehensible documents. Judge 

Rogers referred to one document filed by the plaintiff as 

invoking "the 'stream of consciousness' principle of human 

perception and proceeds to use that principle as an 

organizational guide." The court granted injunctive relief 

and commented: 

The requested remedy is extraordinary indeed, for 

access to courts is an important and fundamental 

right. But as evidenced in the cases cited by 

defendant, when that right is so abused that the 

only result of repeated lawsuits filed by a pro 

se plaintiff is the harassment of government 

officials in pursuit of their lawful duties, 

extraordinary action may be necessary. 

More recently, in Christensen v. Ward, 916 F. 2d 1462, 1469 (10th 

Cir. 1990), the court of app~als issued an order to show 

cause why sanctions against an in~ividual who repeatedly 

challenged the federal government's ability to assess and 

collect taxes should not be imposed. After considering 

11 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 14 
ij !, 

'· 

I'. 

:i 

( 

Christensen's response to the order to show cause, the 

court of appeals imposed the sanction of double costs, 

prohibited that individual from filing the same or similar 

allegations in the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah, and required a contribution of $500 to 

the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Tenth Circuit as a limited contribution to the United 

States for the cost and expenses of his cause of action. 

Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 59 

U.S.L.W. 3405 (1990). 

In addition to the chronological history set out 

above, the Van Skivers' penchant for presenting frivolous, 

often nonsensical arguments to the court is demonstrated by 

the documents filed in this case. In paragraph #78 of the 

Van Skivers' "ANSWER & COUNTERCLAIM," they state: 

Van Skiver DENIES the plaintiff's complaint & 

argument, as unlike the counsel for the 

plaintiff, defendant Van Skiver has a 

Constitutionally secured right (above at 10. part 

a; & at 1. part a) to file even blatantly 

frivolous actions caused by lay ignorance of all 

the intricacies of legal procedure: and as many 

times as he feels it necessary in order to 

protect himself, his family, & his property from 

the deprivations of alleged officers operating 

outside of the law & office in outlawry. 

The Van Skivers' response to the Government's motion for 

summary judgment is another example of their legal 

analysis. The following are quotes from their response: 

1. Plaintiff filed it "Civil" action to enjoin 

Defendant's 1st Amendment Right to make 

"frivolous pleading" which amount to no more than 

12 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 15 
ii 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

, I 

l 

!i 

II 

, • 

ii 

! j 

( 

a "Redress of Grievances" prooly placed. 

6. And to the adverse, Article III, Section 2, 

fails to mention that the judicial Powers shall 

extend to Controversies between the United States 

and Citizens. "It is the law that is under the 

jurisdiction of the federal Court, not the 

individual!" Chisholmv.Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall) 

418, 475 (1793). Therefore, individuals stand 

absolved of the judicial Power of the United 

States. 

7. Additionally, Resolutions of the Congress can 

only equate to "jurisdictions" as are, in fact, 

delegated to the Untied States -- all others are 

reserved to the States, or to the people 

respectively. Amendment 9 and 10. 

8. Whereupon, Plaintiff seeks to make "Null and 

Void" a Kansas State Governmental Record titled 

"Nullification of Alleged Quit Claim Deed", 

without first proving that the contents thereon 

are, in fact interfering in with the revenue laws 

of the United States, or that Defendants reside 

with the exclusive jurisdiction of the United 

States Congress. To do so amounts to a 1st 

Amendment Right violation, Book - Burning! 

These arguments are wholly without merit. See United 

Stales v. Fahey, 614 F.2d 691 (10th Cir. 1980) (taxpayers' 

argument that the United States is without authority to 

bring civil actions against citizens is frivolous). It is 

patently absurd to even suggest that federal courts have 

jurisdiction only over the "law" and not individuals. Van 

Skivers' argument that they are not individuals subject to 

internal revenue laws or the power of the court is equally 

preposterous. See Lonsdale v. United Srates, __ F. 2d __ , __ ( 10th 

Cir. 1990) (collects arguments attacking the assessment or 

collection of taxes that completely lack legal merit). 

13 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 16 
. , 

f i 

I 

I 

( 

On November 15, 1990, the Van Sk~vers' filed a 

supplemental pleading in which they attempt to apply 

commercial law concepts to the issues of this case. (An 

identical pleading was filed on that same day in Van Skiver v. 

United Stales, Case No. 89-1470-C, another case then pending 

before this court.) In that document, the Van Skivers cite 

• J the Uniform Commercial Code, which generally deals with the 

I 

i 

I 

: · ; 

: 

sale of goods. The Van Skivers focus on§ 2-302, which 

pertains to "unconscionability." Although the pleading was 

:i filed out of time, the court has reviewed that document. 

Ii The crux of the Van Skivers' argument appears to turn on 

the Government's "unconscionable act" of issuing a Social 

Security number to an "under-aged-youth." The convoluted, 

"stream of consciousness" arguments raised by the Van 

'j 

· ) 

Skivers in the supplemental pleading are virtually 

unintelligible, frivolous, misapply the law, or do not 

address issues relevant to this case. A copy of that 

pleading is attached to this order. 

It is apparent from the numerous documents filed 

by the Van Skivers that they have access to the Internal 

Revenue Code, federal and regional reporters and treatises. 

Unfortunately, the unique, and often unintelligible 

interpretations of the law have required the Government, 

this court and other courts in this district to spend 

several hours wading through the myriad of documents filed 

by the Van Skivers. The Van Skivers also have demonstrated 

14 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 17 
,, 

I 

,: 

i i 

: i 

:i 

' 

. I 

·: 

' I 

( I ' ' ' 

a penchant for revisiting, albeit in somewhat different 

forms, arguments previously dismissed by the courts. 

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the Van Skivers 

are unwilling to accept, or for that matter even 

acknowledge, unchallenged and well-established precedent in 

direct conflict with the arguments they wish to advance. 

While the Van Skivers' perseverance cannot be denied, their 

continual, frivolous harassment of Government employees and 

waste of the court's resources rehashing the same arguments 

must end. 

Over the past nine years the Van Skivers have 

persisted in bringing frivolous suits and harassing I.R.S. 

employees with unenforceable threats of civil and criminal 

sanctions. Obviously, filing fee costs nor the threat of 

or imposition of costs have not imposed a sufficient 

obstacle to the litigious Van Skivers. The Van Skivers are 

apparently undaunted by the amount of time, energy, and 

resources necessary to prosecute or defend a lawsuit. 

In order to protect the Government from 

unnecessary harassment and to preserve the resources of the 

court, the court proposes to enter the following order: 

1. The defendant, Raymond J. and Alma Van Skiver, 

individually or in unison, are precluded from filing any 

new actions in the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas against the United States, any agency of 

the United States, or any officer or employee of the United 

15 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 18 
ii 

' ! 

,

!1 , 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I. i i li 

I 

:i 

I i 

ll ., 

! 

·: 

;i 

' I 

ij 

:t 

. ' 

I 

' i 

( ( 

States, that contain the same or similar arguments or 

allegations as set forth in their answer and other 

pleadings in the case at bar (including any direct or 

indirect challenge to the previous court proceedings or 

judgments), without obtaining leave of this court. The 

requirement of leave of the court is deemed to be a 

condition precedent to the commencement of any legal action 

against the United States or its agents brought by the Van 

Skivers in this court. The Van Skivers' failure to seek 

leave constitutes grounds for the immediate dismissal of 

the action. 

2. In seeking the court's leave, the Van Skivers 

must comply with the following requirements: 

(a) The Van Skivers must file a "Motion Pursuant 

to Court Order Seeking Leave to File" and 

attach thereto a copy of their proposed 

complaint. 

(b) As an exhibit, the Van Skivers must attach a 

declaration under penalty of perjury prepared 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a sworn 

affidavit certifying that (1) their claims 

are not claims that have been previously 

asserted and/or involve issues previously 

litigated and resolved; (2) that their claims 

are not frivolous or made in bad faith. 

(c) As a second exhibit to that motion, the Van 

16 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 19 
,, 

• I ,, 

,, 

, l 

!I 

. I 

'1 

i i 

. i 

:; 

:! 

( 

Skivers, will attach a copy~of this order 

filed today. 

(d) As a third exhibit to that motion, the Van 

Skivers must identify and list: (1) the 

full caption of each and every suit which has 

been previously filed by them or on their 

behalf in any court against each and every 

defendant named in the suit that they wish to 

file, and (2) the full caption of each and 

every suit which they have currently pending. 

(e) As a fourth exhibit to that motion, the Van 

Skivers must provide a copy of each complaint 

filed in the suits identified in (d) (1) 

above. 

3. If and when leave is granted to file their 

proposed complaint, a copy of this order will be attached 

to their complaint and served on the defendants. 

The court retains the authority to modify this 

injunction as circumstances warrant. 

The notice and opportunity requirement set forth 

in the Tripati decision does not necessitate an in-person 

hearing before the district court. 878 F.2d at 354. The 

Van Skivers are hereby given twenty days from the filing 

date of this order to file with this court their written 

reasons opposing the above proposed restrictions on their 

ability to bring suit against the United States or its 

17 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 20 
: 

i 

I 

,, 

I'I , 

ii 

ii 

i' .I 

'I 

: ! 

·' !! 

;1 

,, 

:: 1) 

agents. The Government may also file its,respective 

position within this same time period. 

Van Skivers' counterclaim. 

On January 18, 1990, the Van Skivers filed a 

document titled "ANSWER & COUNTERCLAIM." In that twentyeight page document, the Van Skivers advance several 

arguments challenging the constitutionality of the 

Government's requested relief. The Van Skivers also 

asserted a "counterclaim" against the Government. The 

Government, in a two paragraph response, denied "any 

statements contained in defendants' answer and counterclaim 

... that can be construed as a counterclaim II The 

Government requested that the counterclaim be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

The court has reviewed the "ANSWER & COUNTERCLAIM" 

filed by the Van Skivers. The substance of the Van 

Skivers' "counterclaim" appears to only request denial of 

the Government's claims and an award of costs, including 

attorney's fees, in their favor. Therefore, the Van 

Skivers' "counterclaim" is disposed of by the fact that the 

Government is entitled to summary judgment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the "notices" filed 

by the Van Skivers ("Notice of Release of Federal Tax Lien 

by Automatic Action of Law," Document No. 9 12522; "Notice 

of Release of IRS Seizure by Automatic Action of Law," 

Document No . 9 12521; "Notice & Nu l lification of Alleged 

18 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 21 
,, 

Ii 

ij 

., 

· I 

,, 11 

;I 

·1 I. 

II 

' I 

I 

I! ,, 

I 

,: 

,, 

: ! 

' I !1 

,, 

! f 1: 

! ' 

( ( 

Quitclaim Deeds by Automatic Action of Law," Document No. 9 

28503) are declared null and void. The real property, as 

described above, is relieved of and discharged from the 

effect, if any, of those "notices." Raymond J. and Alma 

Van Skiver are permanently enjoined from filing or 

attempting to file any additional "notices" or any other 

similar document affecting the above described property. 

The Government's request for costs, including 

attorney's fees, is denied. In the event that the Van 

Skivers unnecessarily harass the Government in the future, 

the court will not hesitate to award costs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Van Skivers' 

"counterclaim" is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Raymond J. and Alma 

Van Skiver and the Government are hereby provided twenty 

days from the filing date of this order to submit their 

positions on the proposed order restricting the Van 

Skivers' ability to file future lawsuits against the Uni ted 

States or its agents in federal court only upon obtaining 

leave of the court. '¢-. 

Dated this /3 day of~~.,~ 

1990, at Wichita, Kansas. 

Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Judge 

19 

Appellate Case: 91-3011 Document: 010110118065 Date Filed: 06/03/1991 Page: 22