UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES M. SIMONES, individually and as 

Trustee of the Ancient of Days Trust, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

and 

JO ANN HARTMAN STOCKTON, as 

Trustee of the Ancient of Days Trust; 

BROOKY STOCKTON, as Trustee of the 

Ancient of Days Trust; ADELINA 

MONNET, 

 Defendants. 

No. 21-2110 

(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00795-PJK-SCY) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 27, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-2110 Document: 010110689938 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 1
2 

James M. Simones, pro se, appeals the district court’s summary judgment 

order in favor of the United States that reduced to judgment unpaid federal income 

tax and penalty assessments and foreclosed tax liens on three parcels of real 

property.1

 The order also directed the post-judgment sale of the properties and how 

the proceeds should be disbursed.2

 We liberally construe Mr. Simones’s pro se brief 

and his filings below, but we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 

525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, we affirm. 

On appeal, Mr. Simones does not challenge the correctness of the summary 

judgment order; instead, he contends the district court erred in denying his motion to 

dismiss, which was premised on arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and he 

was not subject to the federal income tax laws. More specifically, Mr. Simones 

maintains that: (1) “the district court is not a judicial court . . . ordained and 

1

 In addition to Mr. Simones, who was sued individually and as a trustee of the 

Ancient of Days Trust (Trust), the Government also named as defendants Jo Ann 

Hartman Stockton and Brooky Stockton, two trustees of the Trust, and Adelina 

Monnet, an individual who claimed an interest in one of the three parcels of real 

property. Only Mr. Simones filed a notice of appeal. See R., Vol. 2 at 490-91. 

Additionally, this court denied Mr. Simones’s pro se motion to add the Stocktons and 

Monnet as parties to the appeal. 

2

 After Mr. Simones filed his notice of appeal, he filed a motion to set aside 

the summary judgment order. The district court characterized this motion as 

requesting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60 and denied it. Because 

Mr. Simones did not file an amended notice of appeal, the order denying his motion 

to set aside the summary judgment order is not before this court on appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). 

Appellate Case: 21-2110 Document: 010110689938 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 2
3 

established by Congress under Article III of the Constitution,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 

10-11; (2) he discharged his federal income tax obligations when he filed, served, 

and/or recorded: (a) a “Declaration of Revocation of Election to pay the Federal 

income tax,” id. at 13; (b) an “Expatriation Act Document,” id. at 14; and (c) various 

“Offer[s] of Tender,” id. at 14-18; (3) the court lacked “jurisdiction in Torrance 

County New Mexico to deprive an American National of his private property,” due to 

a flaw in the judge’s oath of office, which omitted the requirement “of any duty of 

fidelity to the Constitution[,]” id. at 20, 22; and (4) as an American National living 

outside Washington, D.C., he can elect to forgo paying federal income taxes.3

 The 

district court rejected these frivolous arguments, and so do we. 

We review de novo issues of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Angle v. United

States, 996 F.2d 252, 253 (10th Cir. 1993). First, the district court correctly 

acknowledged that “federal district courts have original jurisdiction over ‘any civil 

action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue,’” R., Vol. 2 

at 29 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1340), “as well as ‘all civil actions, suits or proceedings 

commenced by the United States,’” id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1345). “Moreover, [the 

3

 Mr. Simones raises a fifth issue on appeal—whether he was denied due 

process. This argument incorrectly assumes this civil case was a criminal proceeding, 

where the government would be required to file formal charges and Mr. Simones 

would be entitled to a jury trial where he could “face his accuser(s).” Aplt. Opening 

Br. at 27. Mr. Simones, however, did not advance this argument in the district court, 

so it is forfeited. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (10th 

Cir. 2011). We have discretion to consider forfeited arguments under plain-error 

review. Id. at 1128. But Mr. Simones has not argued that plain-error review applies, 

so we will consider the argument waived. Id. at 1130-31. 

Appellate Case: 21-2110 Document: 010110689938 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 3
4 

federal district] court has jurisdiction to issue orders and render judgments ‘as may 

be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.’” Id.

(quoting 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a)). 

Second, we agree with the district court that 

the government has authority to bring this suit against [Mr. Simones] in 

order to recover the alleged . . . unpaid tax liabilities. When a person is 

liable to pay a tax and refuses to pay after demand, the government can 

impose a lien “upon all property and rights to property . . . belonging to 

such person.” 

Id. (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 6321). 

 This court has previously addressed similar arguments to those made by 

Mr. Simones, including: (1) “the federal government’s power to tax wages or to tax 

individuals at all”; (2) whether “the authority of the United States is confined to the 

District of Columbia”; and (3) whether “the income tax is voluntary.” Lonsdale v. 

United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). In each instance, we concluded 

these arguments to be “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous[.]” 

Id. at 1448. See also United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) 

(declining to consider “hackneyed tax protestor refrain[s]” concerning the district 

court’s lack of jurisdiction). “An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious, or 

the appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Ford v. Pryor, 

552 F.3d 1174, 1180 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, as in 

those cases, there is “no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and 

copious citation of precedent [because] to do so might suggest that these arguments 

have some colorable merit.” Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); 

Appellate Case: 21-2110 Document: 010110689938 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 4
5 

see also United States v. Gutierrez, 773 F. App’x 467, 468 n.2 (10th Cir. 2019); 

Jacobsen v. Comm’r, 551 F. App’x 950, 952 (10th Cir. 2014); Vandagriff v. Comm’r, 

486 F. App’x 722, 724 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Wankel, 475 F. App’x 273, 

276 (10th Cir. 2012).4

 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Veronica S. Rossman 

Circuit Judge 

4

 Although not precedential, we find the reasoning of the unpublished 

decisions cited in this opinion instructive. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (“Unpublished 

decisions are not precedential, but may be cited for their persuasive value.”); see also

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Appellate Case: 21-2110 Document: 010110689938 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 5