1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) ROBERT SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1529 (ESH) ) UNITED STATES, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 17, 2009, the Court dismissed the amended pro se complaint filed by plaintiffs Robert Scott and Linda Casoria-Sc ott [Dkt. No. 13] for lack of s ubject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon wh ich relief could be granted. See Scott v. United States , No. 07- CV-1529, 2009 WL 1027550, at *7 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2009) . The amended complaint, apparently “premised upon plaintiffs’ belief that income tax payments are ‘voluntary’ and that the government’s imposition of penalties [upon plai ntiffs] for non-payment is ‘illegal,’” id. at *3 n.5 (quoting plaintiffs’ Statement of Facts), consisted of boilerplate recitations similar to those employed by the myriad of other tax protestors w ho have filed suit in this Court. On April 27, 2009, the government moved for an award of up to $10,000 in penalties against each plaintiff under 26 U.S.C. § 6673, contending that the am ended complaint was both “frivolous” and “groundless.” 26 U.S.C. § 6673(b)(1). [ See Dkt. No. 23.] Plaintiffs have not opposed the government’s motion. 1 The Court finds that the amended complain t was frivolous and groundless. It was a

1 Pursuant to LCvR 7(b), the Court can trea t this motion as con ceded since no opposition was filed within the prescribed time. The C ourt will nonetheless addre ss the merits of this motion.2 boilerplate pleading filed without concern for the law, the facts, or the redundant expenditure of judicial resources. Many of its legal premises had already be en uniformly rejected by many judges on this Court, such that “any reasonable po ssibility of petitioner’s success on the merits was squarely foreclosed by long-settled case law.” Jenkins v. Comm’r , 483 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2007); see Scott , 2009 WL 1027550, at *4-*5. Many of th e amended complaint’s factual allegations were either impermissibly conclusory or “flatly contradict ed” by plaintiffs’ own exhibits and statement of facts. See Scott , 2009 WL 1027550, at *5-*7. And perhaps most egregiously, the amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2009, only a few weeks after an essentially identical complaint was dismisse d in its entirety on December 23, 2008 by Judge Bates in Marsoun v. United States, 591 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2008). See Scott , 2009 WL 1027550, at *1 (noting identical nature of complaints). For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States’ motion for award of penalty [Dkt. # 23] is GRANTED; ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Scott is requir ed to pay to the United States, on or before July 6, 2009, a penalty under 26 U. S.C. § 6673(b)(1) in the amount of $1,500; ORDERED that plaintiff Linda Casoria-Scott is required to pay to the United States, on or before July 6, 2009, a penalty under 26 U.S. C. § 6673(b)(1) in the amount of $1,500; and3 ORDERED that the Clerk shall distribute conformed copies of this order to the parties and representatives of th e parties listed below. SO ORDERED.

/s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge DATE: May 20, 2009

COPIES TO:
YONATAN GELBLUM Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 227, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Email: Yonatan.Gelblum@usdoj.gov
ROBERT SCOTT LINDA CASORIA-SCOTT Plaintiffs pro se 1796 Augusta Drive West Mobile, AL 36695