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 appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve 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: 12 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-j udgment sale of the properties and how the proceeds shoul d 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 ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. On appeal, Mr. Simones does not challe nge the correctness of the summary judgment order; instead, he c ontends the district court e rred 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 ta x laws. More specifically, Mr. Simones maintains that: (1) “the dist rict court is not a judicial court . . . ordained and

1 In addition to Mr. Simones, who was su ed individually and as a trustee of the Ancient of Days Trust (Trust), the Gove rnment also named as defendants Jo Ann Hartman Stockton and Brooky Stockton, two trustees of the Trust, and Adelina Monnet, an individual who claimed an intere st in one of the th ree parcels of real property. Only Mr. Simones filed a notice of appeal. See R., Vol. 2 at 490-91. Additionally, this court denied Mr. Simone s’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 distri ct 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 noti ce 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: 23 established by Congress under Ar ticle III of the Constituti on,” 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 Re vocation 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 lack ed “jurisdiction in Torrance County New Mexico to depriv e an American National of his private property,” due to a flaw in the judge’s oath of office, wh ich 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 fri volous 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 Ci r. 1993). First, the di strict court correctly acknowledged that “federal di strict courts have original jurisdiction over ‘any civil action arising under any Act of Congress pr oviding 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. § 134 5). “Moreover, [the

3 Mr. Simones raises a fi fth issue on appeal—whether he was denied due process. This argument incorre ctly 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 tr ial where he could “face his ac cuser(s).” Aplt. Opening Br. at 27. Mr. Simones, however, did not a dvance 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 discre tion to consider forfeited arguments under plain-error review. Id. at 1128. But Mr. Simones has not argue d 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: 34 federal district] court has ju risdiction 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 th e district court that the government has authority to brin g this suit against [Mr. Simones] in order to recover the alleged . . . unpa id tax liabilities. When a person is liable to pay a tax and refuses to pa y 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 addresse d similar arguments to those made by Mr. Simones, including: (1) “the federal government’s pow er to tax wages or to tax individuals at all”; (2 ) whether “the authority of the Un ited States is confined to the District of Columbia”; and (3) whet her “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 “comple tely 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 prot estor 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 erro r are wholly without merit.” Ford v. Pryor , 552 F.3d 1174, 1180 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation ma rks omitted). Here, as in those cases, there is “no n eed to refute thes e 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: 45 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 dist rict court is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Veronica S. Rossman Circuit Judge

4 Although not precedential, we fi nd 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