Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Mathis v. United States, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodger and Jeanette Mathis filed a lawsuit in state court challenging two federal tax liens filed against them by IRS employees. The United States removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the United States had sovereign immunity and the Mathises could only challenge the tax liens through the statutory administrative and judicial processes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating that the Mathises provided no valid legal arguments and their claims had no merit under established case law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Mathis v. United States, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views4 pages
    Rodger and Jeanette Mathis filed a lawsuit in state court challenging two federal tax liens filed against them by IRS employees. The United States removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the United States had sovereign immunity and the Mathises could only challenge the tax liens through the statutory administrative and judicial processes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating that the Mathises provided no valid legal arguments and their claims had no merit under established case law.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-8070

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rodger and Jeanette Mathis filed a lawsuit in state court challenging two federal tax liens filed against them by IRS employees. The United States removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the United States had sovereign immunity and the Mathises could only challenge the tax liens through the statutory administrative and judicial processes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating that the Mathises provided no valid legal arguments and their claims had no merit under established case law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    38 views4 pages

    Mathis v. United States, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodger and Jeanette Mathis filed a lawsuit in state court challenging two federal tax liens filed against them by IRS employees. The United States removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the United States had sovereign immunity and the Mathises could only challenge the tax liens through the statutory administrative and judicial processes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating that the Mathises provided no valid legal arguments and their claims had no merit under established case law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    MAR 28 2003

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    RODGER E. MATHIS; JEANETTE


    MATHIS,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    No. 02-8070
    (D.C. No. 02-CV-55-B)
    (D. Wyoming)

    Defendant - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
    This is a pro se appeal from the district courts order denying the petition
    of Rodger E. and Jeanette D. Mathis to vacate a judgment in favor of the United
    States and to remand the case to state court. We exercise jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.

    At the parties request, the case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral
    argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order
    and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the
    case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
    cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    After IRS employees filed two federal tax liens on behalf of the United
    States against Rodger and Jeanette Mathis in the Crook County, Wyoming, clerks
    office, the Mathises filed an action in Wyoming state court. The complaint
    challenged (1) the scope of authority of the Lienor; (2) whether the persons
    signing the federal liens had authority to sign the liens; (3) the legality of the
    underlying tax assessments; (4) the validity of the liens; (5) the legal effect of the
    tax liens; (6) whether the liens should be canceled of record; (7) and whether a
    writ of execution should issue against the lienor under Florida law. (1 R. Doc. 2
    at 2.) Also in the complaint is a criminal portion asking the court to determine
    (1) whether the lienor committed fraud by filing the lien; (2) the identity of the
    participants in and extent of such fraud; (3) whether the lienor is subject to
    prosecution; (4) whether subpoenas or arrest warrants should be issued for
    criminal prosecution; (5) whether a writ of quo warranto was necessary to
    complete the prosecution, and (6) for prosecution of the crimes. (1 id. at 3.)
    Defendant timely removed the case to federal district court, and a motion to
    remand back to state court was denied. Following a determination that the United
    States was the proper defendant, the district court dismissed the complaint for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity. In its
    order, the court thoroughly analyzed why the Mathises did not have a cognizable
    claim, explaining that the Mathises could challenge the federal tax liens only
    -2-

    through the statutorily-prescribed administrative and judicial avenues. (2 id. Doc.


    37.)
    On appeal, the Mathises advance no cogent reason or legal authority
    supporting reversal. Instead, they present to us a petition giving the court
    notice that any assumption or presumption of their involuntary use of federal
    reserve notes, the commercial banking system or the bankruptcy of the United
    States had been rejected, as was any assumption that they are taxpayers, citizens
    or residents of either the state of Wyoming or the United States. (Pet. for
    Declaratory Relief at 1.) What really appellants seek of us is unclear, and they
    appear to request:
    specific citations of law enacted by the United States Congress which
    imposed an income tax upon the Petitioners and the Petitioners [sic]
    property . . . [,] establish[ed] the scope of office and authority of the
    Lienor/s to impose and collect a tax from the Petitioners, . . . [and]
    the specific contract . . . entered into by the Petitioners that waived
    their status as sovereigns . . . and subjected them to the lienors . . .
    authority and to the rules . . . of the United States Department of
    Treasurys Internal Revenue Service.
    (Id. at 67.) Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990),
    and Crain v. Commr, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), compel dismissal.
    We have carefully reviewed the record, the parties briefs, and the
    applicable law. For substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in

    -3-

    its June 25, 2002, order, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Petition for
    Declaratory Relief is DENIED.
    The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    ENTERED FOR THE COURT


    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge

    -4-

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy