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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 9, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN S. WILLIAMSON; NANCY L.

WILLIAMSON; GARRETT JAMES

WILLIAMSON; DAVID ANDREW

WILLIAMSON; JOHN GREGORY

WILLIAMSON; DEBORAH KRUHM,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 07-2017

(D.C. No. CIV-04-885 BB/WDS)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, MURPHY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

The United States brought suit in federal court to reduce the federal income

tax assessments of John S. and Nancy L. Williamson to judgment and to foreclose

federal tax liens on two parcels of land owned either by John S. and Nancy L.
The Williamsons’ sons, appellants John G. Williamson, David A. 1

Williamson, and Garrett J. Williamson, along with John S. Williamson’s sister,

appellant Deborah Kruhm, were joined as defendants on the ground that they

might claim an interest in the properties in issue. 

-2-

Williamson, by their sons, Garrett, David and John G., or by John S.

Williamson’s sister, Deborah Kruhm (collectively hereafter “the Williamsons”).1

The district court dismissed the Williamsons’ counterclaims and entered partial

summary judgment in favor of the United States on the unpaid assessments and

liens against one of the parcels. After a two-day trial to the court in which the

court determined that the Williamson sons held title to the real property as

nominees of their parents, or, alternatively, that the property had been

fraudulently conveyed, the court entered judgment foreclosing the liens on the

other parcel. The district court also imposed sanctions against the Williamsons

under Rule 11. The Williamsons filed a timely notice of appeal, and the United

States has filed a motion for sanctions in this court to which the Williamsons have

replied.

Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of

summary judgment do novo, applying the same standard as that relied on by the

district court. Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1225

(10th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine

issues as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). As for the findings at trial, we review the court’s
-3-

findings of fact for clear error, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), and its conclusions of law de

novo, Gledhill v. State Bank (In re Gledhill), 164 F.3d 1338, 1340 (10th Cir.

1999). We review the district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions for an

abuse of discretion. Masunaga v. Stoltenberg (In re Rex Montis Silver Co.),

87 F.3d 435, 439 (10th Cir. 1996).

After applying the above standards of review, we find no error in the

decisions of the district court. We therefore affirm all of the various orders on

appeal as well as the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated

by that court. 

The Williamsons’ “Notice of Motion and Appellants’ Motion for

Preliminary Injunction” and all other outstanding “notices” and motions

heretofore filed by the Williamsons are DENIED. 

The United States moves for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Rule 38

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, arguing that the instant appeal is

frivolous. The Williamsons’ response to the motion for sanctions simply rehashes

the discredited arguments in their opening brief, including the assertions that they

are not “subjects” of the federal government because New Mexico does not

“belong” to the United States, that no statute at large creates specific liability for

income taxes, that the income tax is unconstitutional, that the orders of the district

court are invalid because they lack the seal of the court and the signature of the

clerk, and that the case was never properly commenced. 
The filing restrictions were imposed after the Williamsons filed their notice 2

of appeal in this case.

-4-

The United States requests sanctions in the amount of $8,000, declaring

under penalty of perjury that it expends an average of $11,000 in attorney salaries

and other costs to defend a frivolous tax appeal. The United States further notes

that a previous penalty of $1,500 did not deter the Williamsons from filing the

present appeal. We agree that the instant action is a frivolous appeal deserving

penalty and order the Williamsons, jointly and severally, to pay the lump sum of

$8,000 to the United States. 

We remind John S. Williamson and Nancy L. Williamson that the filing

restrictions imposed by this court in Williamson v. Sena, No. 06-2103, 2007 WL

1219426, at *2 (10th Cir. April 26, 2007), are still in effect and will be enforced. 

2

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge