UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT F. LAIN, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

and 

AMELIA LAIN; SEPTEMBER LIBERTY 

TRUST, 

 Defendants. 

------------------------------ 

DOUGLAS J. CARPA, Trustee, 

 Movant. 

No. 19-8014 

(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00113-ABJ) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 30, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Robert F. Lain, proceeding pro se,1

 appeals from the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the United States. Our jurisdiction arises under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

The government filed suit against Mr. Lain to reduce to judgment federal 

income tax assessments for tax years 1995, 1996, and 1998 through 2005 and to 

foreclose federal tax liens through a forced sale of real property. Mr. Lain and the 

government filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 

In his response to the government’s summary-judgment motion, Mr. Lain 

admitted that he stopped filing federal income tax returns and paying income taxes 

because he believed “that he was not under the legislative jurisdiction of Congress.” 

R., Vol. 2 at 117 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court rejected 

Mr. Lain’s argument that he was a non-taxpayer not subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States as “patently frivolous and contrary to established Tenth Circuit 

precedent.” Id. at 159 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court noted that 

“Mr. Lain admitted that he received payment for his services and did not file tax 

returns” and that he had “present[ed] no argument to suggest that the 

[Internal Revenue Service] miscalculated his tax liability.” Id. at 161. 

The district court denied Mr. Lain’s motion and granted the government’s 

motion. It concluded that Mr. Lain was indebted to the government in the amount of 

 1

 We liberally construe Mr. Lain’s pro se briefs, but we do not assume the role 

of his advocate. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 

(10th Cir. 2005). 
3 

$1,775,060.06 for his federal income tax liabilities; the government had valid tax 

liens attaching to all of Mr. Lain’s property rights; September Liberty Trust was 

Mr. Lain’s nominee with respect to the real property at 3 Chapel Road, Big Piney, 

Wyoming (“the subject property”); and the government’s tax liens encumbering the 

subject property should be foreclosed and the property sold.2

 

Mr. Lain appeals from the district court’s judgment. He contends the district 

court erred in granting summary judgment to the United States because: (1) “While 

the trial court had jurisdiction under the Code section cited, absence [sic] the citing 

of the implementing regulation and the elements required to be shown to establish 

that Mr. Lain was subject to that law and its enforcement regulation, and that his 

income was in fact taxable pursuant to the enforcement regulation, the case should 

have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted”; 

(2) the court failed to “defer to the regulation in assuming its jurisdiction”; (3) “the 

District Court is a Territorial Court not a Wyoming State Court and plaintiff failed to 

allege how Mr. Lain was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”; the court 

ignored evidence that his “case file was a fraudulent construction”; and the court 

ignored the fact that the Tax Court found he “was liable for [Federal income tax], but 

the plaintiff alleged in the original complaint that Mr. Lain was liable for [federal 

 2

 The court determined that the government must hand over the other 

fifty percent of the proceeds from the foreclosure sale to Mr. Lain’s wife, Amelia 

Lain. The government initially filed a cross-appeal to challenge that determination, 

but it later filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its cross-appeal, which this court 

granted. 
4 

income tax].” Aplt. Opening Br. at 11 (emphases added) (brackets in original). 

Mr. Lain also contends there was fraud on the court in his district court proceedings. 

“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable 

inferences and resolving all factual disputes in favor of the non-moving party.” Birch 

v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we 

conclude Mr. Lain has failed to show that the district court committed any reversible 

error in ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment and we reject his 

unsubstantiated assertions of fraud on the court.3

 We therefore affirm the district 

court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in its thorough and 

well-reasoned order disposing of the summary-judgment motions dated February 5, 

2019. 

Entered for the Court 

Jerome A. Holmes 

Circuit Judge 

 3

 In his opening brief, Mr. Lain also makes passing references to the district 

court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend his counterclaim and its denial in part 

of his motion to compel. But Mr. Lain failed to adequately develop any argument as 

to how the district court abused its discretion in ruling on those motions. We 

therefore conclude he has waived any challenge to those motions. See Adler v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately 

briefed in the opening brief are waived.”).