His Quash Gets Squashed

[The Observer]

Not sure why this is being released either so late or again, but it is good for a laugh.

CHARLES PHILLIP MAXWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
AND/OR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.

Release Date: APRIL 23, 2008


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

Judge Echols

MEMORANDUM

On January 25, 2008, Petitioner Charles Phillip Maxwell ("Maxwell" or "Petitioner") filed a Petition to Quash Summons (Docket Entry No. 1) issued by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS" or "Government") to Maxwell's father-in-law Oscar Mason ("Mason"). Maxwell then filed a "Motion for Judicial Notice and Recognition of Charles Phillip Maxwell's Status in Law and Right Protected Thereby" (Docket Entry No. 5), followed by a "Motion for Judicial Notice and Approval (Docket Entry No. 9). 1

Defendants IRS and United States have filed a "Response to Plaintiff's Petition to Quash Summons and Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice and Recognition" (Docket Entry No. 10). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a "Motion to Delay Court Rulings Till Discovery is Complete" (Docket Entry No. 17).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is Maxwell's second case in this Court seeking to quash summonses issued by the IRS. In the first case, Maxwell v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., Case No. 3:07-MC-0190, Maxwell moved to quash an earlier IRS summons issued to Mason relating to the IRS's investigation of Maxwell's tax liability for the tax years 1996 through 2006. The motion to quash summons was amended to include a request that the Court also quash an IRS summons which had been served on attorney Robert Notestine III, also relating to Maxwell's tax liability. The IRS withdrew the summonses at issue in that case and notified the Court and Maxwell that it intended to re-serve the summonses to address a service of process issue raised by Maxwell. Given that development, the Court denied Maxwell's petition as moot, and dismissed the lawsuit.

The present case relates to the IRS summons that was re-served on Mason on January 7, 2008. Maxwell seeks to quash not only that summons but also "all other similar summonses unknown by petitioner." (Docket Entry No. 1 at 1.)

II. ANALYSIS

Maxwell raises a variety of meritless arguments in support of his petition to quash. For example, Maxwell claims he was not provided notice of the summons on Mason, until Mason told him of the service. Leaving aside that 26 U.S.C. section 7603 does not require notice of civil summonses to be served on third-party record keepers, Boyd v. United States, 87 Fed. Appx. 481, 484 (6 Cir. 2003) (Docket Entry No. 1 at 2), the record indicates that a copy of the summons was sent by certified mail to Maxwell at his last known address, but returned with the notation on the envelope "refused." (Docket Entry No. 11 paragraphs 5-6).

Maxwell also argues that the summons is not identified on its face as a summons of a summoning authority such as the Secretary of the Treasury or the Treasury of the United States, nor is it signed by a "delegate authority." (Docket Entry No. 1 at 2). However, the summons contains the seal of the Internal Revenue Service next to the word "SUMMONS" in bold, large-font type. The summons also indicates it is from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue and is duly signed by Revenue Agent Ernest G. Schultz and the approving officer, Group Manager Janet Cunningham.

Petitioner also claims the summons does not state he is the one being investigated. However, there is no doubt but that the summons relates to Maxwell's taxes because the summons states it is "In the matter of Charles Maxwell, also known as Phillip Maxwell" and gives Maxwell's Social Security number (which Maxwell claims he has "renounced").

Aside from these and other frivolous arguments relating to the form of the summons, Maxwell raises substantive arguments in the numerous filings he has made with the Court. The Government asserts that most of these arguments have been rejected by countless courts, including the suggestion that, as a freeborn citizen of a state, Petitioner is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or IRS, see, United States v. Hilegeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7 Cir. 1993); that Petitioner does not have to pay taxes because he is not a resident of the District of Columbia, see, United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6 Cir. 1994); that Federal Reserve Notes are not legal tender, see, Jones v. United States, 688 F.2d 17, 18 (6 Cir. 1982); that Petitioner is not subject to income tax because he has renounced his Social Security number, see, United States v. Tervort, 2007 WL 4326509 at *3 (E.D. Ca. 2007); that federal income taxes constitute an impermissible taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, see, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916); and that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax, see, United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 Cir. 1990).

In reply, Maxwell argues most of the Government's arguments themselves are "frivolous" because his "pleading did not make or mention ANY of these arguments; and Nowhere, can any of these arguments be found or mentioned therein[.]" (Docket Entry No. 18.) The basis for this assertion by Maxwell is not clear to the Court because if he did not make such arguments in his "pleadings," the other filings he has made certainly make the arguments, or at least imply that is what he is arguing.

For example, Maxwell claims he did not argue that because he is a freeborn citizen of a sovereign state he is not subject to federal income tax, yet repeatedly throughout his filings Maxwell makes clear that he is one of the "Sovereign Body" of the State of Tennessee (or "Republic state of Tennessee"), with the implication being that this makes him different from a citizen of the United States who unquestionably would be subject to federal taxes. (See e.g., Docket Entry Nos. 1 at 2; 5 at 1; and 6 at 2, 3, & 5). 2 Maxwell also claims he is not arguing Federal Reserve Notes are not legal tender, yet makes the point that his use of Federal Reserve Notes was "forced" on him, that his use of such notes does not impose any obligation with respect to taxes, and that property purchased by such notes by him is payment "of" debt and not "for debt." (Docket Entry No. 5 at 5). Maxwell further claims he is not arguing that as a non-resident of the District of Columbia he is not required to pay taxes, yet for otherwise inexplicable reasons he repeatedly asserts that he is not a resident of the District of Columbia. (See e.g., Docket Entry No. 6-2 at 2). Maxwell additionally claims he is not arguing he is not subject to taxes because he does not have a Social Security number, yet states that he has renounced his Social Security number and other personal identifying numbers, with the implication being that this somehow exempts him from taxes. (See e.g., Docket Entry Nos. 6 at 6, 9; 6-3 at 17-18). Maxwell asserts he is not arguing that the Fifth and Sixteenth Amendments do not allow the assessment of taxes, yet argues that "nsofar as it concerns me, the 16 amendment of 1913 confers no new powers of taxation, but only ensures that the tax measured by income shall not be taken out of the indirect class into a direct class" (Docket Entry No. 6 at 8 n.5) and that his "rights" and "status in law, are guaranteed and protected against their deprivation by the United States Govt without due process of law by express constitutional mention, including the 5 Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States[.]" (Docket Entry No. 6 at 10).

Regardless, the Court has considered all of Maxwell's arguments and finds no basis for quashing the summons issued in this case. The authority of the IRS to issue summons on persons or documents which may be relevant to a tax investigation is provided for in 26 U.S.C. section 7602:

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of
any return, making a return where none has been made,
determining the liability of any person for any internal
revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity
of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect
of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such
liability, the Secretary is authorized . . . [t]o
summon . . . any other person the Secretary may deem
proper, to appear before the Secretary at a time
and place named in the summons and to produce such
books, papers, records, or other data . . . as may
be relevant or material to such inquiry.

26 U.S.C. section 7602(a)(2). In order to have an IRS summons enforced, the government must show that: (1) the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose; (2) the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose; (3) the information sought is not already within the IRS's possession; and (4) the administrative steps required in 26 U.S.C. section 7603 have been followed. See, United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). "'The requisite showing is generally made by the submission of the affidavit of the agent who issued the summons and who is seeking enforcement.'" Wagenknecht v. United States, 22 Fed. Appx. 482, 483-484 (6 Cir. 2001)(citation omitted). Once the government has made this showing, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to demonstrate it would be an abuse of the court's process to enforce the summons. See id.; Kondik v. United States, 81 F.3d 655, 656 (6th Cir.1996). "Such an abuse would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation." Powell, 379 U.S. at 58.

In this case, the Government has submitted the Declaration of Revenue Agent Schultz which indicates a legitimate investigation is being conducted; the inquiry is for a relevant purpose; the evidence is not in the IRS's possession; and the administrative steps required by statute have been followed. This is sufficient to meet the requirement of Powell. See, Wagenknecht, 22 Fed. Appx. at 484.

Petitioner has made no showing of an improper purpose or lack of good faith that would suggest enforcement of the summons would be an abuse of process. However, Petitioner has filed a Motion in which he seeks to "delay court rulings" until "discovery is complete" (Docket Entry No. 17).

Proceedings relating to the "enforcement of an IRS summons are intended to be summary in nature." United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 729, 736 (6 Cir. 2006). Therefore, "'as a general rule, discovery is available in summons enforcement proceedings only in extraordinary situations.'" Stofefels v. Hegarty, 2008 WL 598280 at *2 (10 Cir. 2008)(citation omitted). A district court has "abundant discretion" in deciding whether to allow discovery in a summons enforcement proceeding and such discovery is permitted only where petitioner "makes a preliminary demonstration of abuse" of process. Conner v. United States, 436 F.3d 676, 682 (4 Cir. 2006)(collecting cases).

Maxwell has made no such showing in this case. He merely claims that "respondents' pleadings are largely vague, incomplete, and immaterial and false meanderings which any intended gravamen can be understood by discovery wherein petitioner can determine the necessity for any additional opposition thereto[.]" (Docket Entry No. 17 at 1). The Court finds no basis for allowing discovery in this action. The Government pleadings are clear, the summons has been issued for a lawful purpose, and Maxwell presents absolutely nothing which would suggest the Government has engaged in abuse of process in relation to the summons served on Mason.

In response to the Motion to Quash, the Government requests that the Court sanction Maxwell for his frivolous arguments and filings, noting that Maxwell has filed over ninety-pages worth of motions and arguments. In a Sur-Reply filed in opposition to Plaintiff's Petition to Quash (Docket Entry No. 22), the Government also notes that in his "Memorandum of Law, Facts and Points of Authority" attached to his Reply (Docket Entry No. 18), Maxwell excerpts verbatim an article entitled "Uncertainties of the Income Tax" by "Larry Becraft, attorney" and points out that Mr. Becraft has been sanctioned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the "patent absurdity and frivolity" of his position regarding the validity of federal income tax. See, United States v. Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9 Cir. 1989).

A district court has inherent authority to sanction litigants who abuse the judicial process, see, Red Carpet Studios v. Sater, 465 F.3d 642, 645 (6 Cir. 2006), including tax protestors who assert frivolous claims, Vonderheide v. United States, 1999 WL 220134 at *2 (6 Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, the Court will not impose sanctions in this case. While this is the second case filed by Maxwell relating to summonses involving the investigation into his potential tax liability, it is the first time the Court has been required to address substantive arguments raised by Maxwell.

This Court's refusal to award sanctions in this case must not be misunderstood by Maxwell. The Court will consider any future requests for sanctions in a different light should Maxwell choose to challenge the enforcement of an IRS summons by raising the same or similar frivolous and meritless arguments.

III. CONCLUSION

On the basis of the foregoing, Maxwell's "Petition to Quash Summons" (Docket Entry No. 1) will be denied, as will his "Motion for Judicial Notice and Recognition of Charles Phillip Maxwell's Status in Law and Rights Protected Thereby" (Docket Entry No. 5). Maxwell's "Motion for Judicial Notice and Approval" (Docket Entry No. 9) will be granted only insofar as he is requesting the Court to consider filings which were inadvertently filed in this case in response to filings that the Government made in the earlier enforcement action. Maxwell's "Motion to Delay Court Rulings Till Discovery is Complete" (Docket Entry No. 17) will be denied. The Government's request for sanctions contained in their "Response to Plaintiff's Petition to Quash Summons and Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice and Recognition" (Docket Entry No. 10) will be denied. This case will be dismissed with prejudice.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

Robert L. Echols
United States District Judge

FOOTNOTES:


/1/ This last Motion requests the Court to consider filings inadvertently made by Maxwell in this case relating to arguments raised by the IRS in an earlier enforcement action. Insofar as Maxwell is asking the Court to consider those filings in the context of this case, the Motion will be granted. In doing so, the Court does not take "judicial notice" of those filings, or otherwise "approve" those filings.

/2/ In fact, Maxwell has filed a "Motion for Judicial Notice and Recognition of Charles Phillip Maxwell's Status in Law and Rights Protected Thereby" (Docket Entry No. 5) in which he requests the Court to notice and recognize his "status in law" as a "free Citizen" and "as one of the People of the Sovereign Body Politic of the State . . . of Tennessee." (Id. at 1). The issue of whether Maxwell is a free citizen of the State of Tennessee is irrelevant to the issue of whether the summons should be enforced in this action and accordingly, his "Motion for Judicial Notice and Recognition" will be denied.

[LPC]

A slightly newer decision from the same case, imposing sanctions and threatening more sanctions if the nutjob doesn't stop filing crap.

Charles Phillip Maxwell v. IRS et al., 2010 TNT 150-22, No. 3:09-cv-00308 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Tenn. 5/19/2009)

CHARLES PHILLIP MAXWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND/OR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND/OR
EARNEST G. SCHULTZ,
Respondents.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

Judge Echols

ORDER

After Petitioner filed three consecutive and frivolous "Petitions to Quash Summons" the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") had issued in an effort to determine Petitioner's tax liability, this Court entered an Order and Memorandum (Docket Entry Nos. 39 & 40) granting respondents' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 15) this case and taking under advisement the request for sanctions which was filed as a part of that Motion. Petitioner was provided ten days from the date of entry of the Order within which to show cause, in writing, as to why sanctions should not be imposed. The Court also ruled that after the request for sanctions was resolved, this case would be dismissed with prejudice.

Petitioner has now filed a "Motion to Vacate Judgment: And Petitioner's Show Cause" (Docket Entry No. 42) to which Respondents have responded (Docket Entry No. 43) and Petitioner has replied (Docket Entry No. 44). Although the title of that filing suggests that Petitioner will cogently explain why sanctions should not be imposed, the filing does no such thing other than to argue that "no law exists imposing any liability to pay the tax" and arguing that his filings are not sanctionable "when neither defendants or this court on their behalf can or did produce or cite any such law or fact and merely contort and distort disturbingly and falsely to sidestep that fact." (Id. at 4-5) . Petitioner also repeats that which he has said in the past, such as there are no laws which impose tax liability on him and/or allow the investigation being conducted by the IRS (Id. at 1-2 & 3); there are no laws which impose income tax liability on citizens (Id. at 2); while there are laws, such as the Sixteenth Amendment, which provide a tax on income, none impose any liability to pay such taxes (Id.); if he is liable for any taxes, it must be based upon some "unalleged secret fact or circumstance of liability outside of law or in lieu thereof" (Id.); and the mere fact that the summonses contain the seal of the IRS or an agent's signature do not make them valid. (Id. at 3). Such arguments have been rejected by this Court in Petitioner's cases and repeatedly rejected by courts in other cases. Moreover, this Court specifically warned petitioner "that merely raising arguments about why he believes he is somehow exempt from the tax laws of the United States will be insufficient to avoid the imposition of sanctions against him." (Docket Entry No. 39 at 7). He ignored that warning.

In addition to repeating baseless arguments, Petitioner claims the ten days he was provided to show cause was "oppressive, absurd and void" because that period of time was insufficient for him "to unravel the plethora of 'errors' to put it kindly" (Docket Entry No. 42 at 2). He also claims this Court's rulings are "lawless, void of no force and effect" and contain "complete and immaterial falsehoods." (Id.). He further asserts the undersigned has failed to produce or cite appropriate law, "proffers . . . complete falsehood[s]," has neglected the duty "to report the federal felony of [Agent] Schultz," and "misuse[d] the judicial process." He also claims that "defendants' representative" has a "warped reprobate mind and seared conscience." (Id. at 2-5). Such ad hominem attacks on the Court, its rulings, the undersigned, and the Respondents are inappropriate and do nothing to persuade the Court that sanctions should not be imposed for Petitioner's willful and repeated misuse of the judicial process in making frivolous arguments in an effort to quash lawful summonses.

"A district court has the inherent power to sanction a party when that party exhibits bad faith, including the party's refusal to comply with the court's orders." Dell, Inc. v. Elles, 2008 WL 4613978 at *2 (6th Cir. 2008). "These powers come not from rule or statute but from 'the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.'" Stalley v. Methodist Healthcare, 517 F.3d 911, 920 (6th Cir. 2008)(quoting, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). While the power to sanction must be used with "restraint and discretion," a court "should not shrink from exercising it when sanctions are justified by the circumstances." Id.

In this case, the Court finds sanctions to be appropriate. Petitioner has repeatedly raised arguments which have been unanimously rejected by the courts. If he was not aware of the law before he filed his first Petition to Quash, he certainly should have become aware after the Court entered an Order dismissing his Petition to Quash in Case No. 3:08-mc-0025 on April 23, 2008. The accompanying Memorandum explained the law. It also denied the Government's request for sanctions, but, in doing so, the Court made clear that if Petitioner persisted in pursuing baseless arguments in an effort to impede the issuance of summonses relating to the IRS's investigation of his potential tax liability, the Court would consider imposing sanctions. Specifically, after reviewing case law surrounding sanctions, the Court wrote that the "refusal to award sanctions in this case must not be misunderstood by Maxwell" and that "the Court will consider any future requests for sanctions in a different light should Maxwell choose to challenge the enforcement of an IRS summons by raising the same or similar frivolous and meritless arguments." (Case No. 08-mc-0025, Docket Entry No. 24 at 7). Nevertheless, less than ten days later, on May 2, 2008, Petitioner filed the Petition to Quash in this case and yet another Petition to Quash on March 12, 2009 in Case No. 3:09-mc-00046, both of which are replete with meritless contentions. Further, his present Motion to Vacate is but another baseless attempt to misuse the Court in an effort to delay the enforcement of what this Court has determined to be a lawfully issued summons.

Having fully considered the matter, the Court determines that the appropriate sanction in this case should be $1,500.00. In doing so, the Court notes that courts have generally imposed sanctions of $1,000.00 or more in cases involving frivolous petitions to quash IRS summonses, see, Kish v. United States, 1996 WL 196730 at *5 (W.D. Mich. 1996)(collecting cases, but only imposing $250.00 sanction because litigant was not deemed to be vexatious), and the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly imposed sanctions of $2,000.00 to $4,000.00 in appeals involving what it characterizes as "so-called 'tax protester' cases." See, Raft v. Comm'r., 147 Fed. Appx. 458, 462 (6th Cir. 2005)(collecting cases). The Court finds that the $1,500.00 sanction, coupled with the possibility that the Court will prohibit Petitioner from filing any more Petitions to Quash Summons or other filings involving related tax matters in this Court until the imposed sanction has been paid in full, may be a sufficient deterrent to Petitioner and others from making frivolous attempts to impede the enforcement of a lawful IRS summons. See, United States v. Regan, 2000 WL 915118 at *2 (7th Cir. 2000)(indicating that court should first impose monetary sanctions for frivolous filings and, if the litigant does not pay within the time provided, prohibit the filing of future cases until the sanction has been paid in full); Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 2000)(affirming injunction against pro se litigant from filing any further lawsuits involving tax matters until all previously-imposed sanctions had been paid in full and directing clerk not to accept any more filings).

Accordingly, the Court hereby enters the following rulings:

(1) Petitioner's "Motion to Vacate Judgment: And Petitioner's Show Cause" (Docket Entry No. 42) is hereby DENIED;

(2) Respondents' request for sanctions contained in their Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 15) is hereby GRANTED and the Court imposes SANCTIONS against Petitioner in the amount of $1,500.00 payable to the Clerk of the United States District Court for deposit into the United States Treasury. Such PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE IN FULL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of entry of this Order;

(4) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to accept and deposit into the United States Treasury the payment by Petitioner in the amount of $1,500.00;

(5) Petitioner is CAUTIONED that the failure to comply with the terms of this Order and remit payment as required may result in contempt proceedings; and

(6) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Entry of this Order on the docket shall constitute entry of a final judgment in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and 79(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Robert L. Echols
United States District Judge

[LPC]

A slightly newer decision from the same case, imposing sanctions and threatening more sanctions if the nutjob doesn't stop filing crap.

Well, he kept filing crap, and the court didn't impose any additional sanctions. As you'll see from the docket below, the thing finally ended (just a few months ago) with a whimper rather than a bang.

06/03/2009 47 "MOTION for New Trial or Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment" re 45 Order Dismissing Case, by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (tmw) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
06/03/2009 48 "Post Case MOTION for Sanction Against Respondent(s)," by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (tmw) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
06/05/2009 49 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Internal Revenue Service, UNITED STATES, Earnest G. Shultz. (Wildasin, Mark) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/05/2009 50 RESPONSE in Opposition re 47 MOTION to Vacate 45 Order Dismissing Case, filed by Internal Revenue Service, UNITED STATES, Earnest G. Shultz. (Wildasin, Mark) Modified text on 6/8/2009 (tmw). (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/05/2009 51 NOTICE entitled, "Petitioner's Amendment to Petitioner's Motion for New Trial or Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment to Correct Clerical Error," by Charles Phillip Maxwell re 47 MOTION to Vacate 45 Order Dismissing Case. (tmw) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/19/2009 52 REPLY to 49 Response to 48 MOTION for Sanctions, filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (tmw) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/19/2009 53 REPLY to 50 Response to 47 MOTION to Vacate 45 Order Dismissing Case, filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (tmw) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
06/24/2009 54 ORDER: Accordingly, Petitioner's "Motion for New Trial or Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment" 47 is hereby DENIED. Petitioner's "Post Case Motion for Sanction Against Respondent(s)" 48 is also DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 6/24/09. (reg & cert mail to pet) (tmw) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
07/01/2009 55 Certified Mail Return Receipt Card received this date as to DE #54 mailed to Charles Phillip Maxwell, signed for by (illegible) on 6/30/09. (tmw) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
07/09/2009 56 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 54 Order and 45 Order Dismissing Case [Note: 45 was the 5/19/2009 order imposing sanctions] by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/09/2009 57 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/09/2009 58 AFFIDAVIT of Charles Phillip Maxwell re 56 Notice of Appeal by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
09/17/2009 59 ORDER: 57 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 9/17/09. (cc: pltf by reg and cert mail, 6CCA via email) (km) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
09/17/2009 60 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT re 59 Order. (km) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
09/30/2009 61 Return Receipt Card returned this date as to DE No. 59, sent to Charles Maxwell, signature of recipient not legible, on 9/25/09(km) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
10/28/2009 62 ORDER of USCA as to 56 Notice of Appeal filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell that the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(km) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
11/12/2009 63 ORDER: Petitioner shall personally appear in this Court on Friday, 12/11/09, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of Court for failure to comply with the Court's Order of 5/19/09, 45. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 11/12/09. (reg & cert mail to pltf) (tmw) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
11/13/2009 64 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT re 63 Order to Show Cause. (tmw) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
11/23/2009 65 Certified Mail Return Receipt Card received this date as to DE #63 mailed to Charles Phillip Maxwell, signed for by (illegible) on 11/20/09. (tmw) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
11/24/2009 66 ORDER of USCA as to 56 Notice of Appeal filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell: Upon consideration of the appellant's motion to reinstate the case, And it appearing that the default which led to dismissal of the appeal has been cured, It is ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is GRANTED. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(km) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
11/30/2009 67 NOTICE from Supreme Court of the United States that the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on 9/22/09 and placed on the docket 11/24/09 as No. 09-7713 (km) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
12/02/2009 68 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa S. Rivera on behalf of UNITED STATES (Rivera, Lisa) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/03/2009 Bar status for attorney Lisa S. Rivera, TN verified as active this date. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 69 MOTION TO DISCLOSE by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 70 MOTION TO DISCLOSE by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 71 MOTION for Judicial Notice and Show Cause Hearing by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 72 DEMAND for Trial by Jury or Jury Determination for Contempt proceedings against Plaintiff by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 73 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 74 RESPONSE filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell re 63 Order to Show Cause. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/03/2009 75 AFFIDAVIT in support of Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis re 45 Order, by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
12/08/2009 76 RESPONSE in Opposition re 71 MOTION filed by UNITED STATES. (Rivera, Lisa) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/10/2009 77 MOTION for Stay of Execution pending appeal by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (km) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
12/11/2009 78 REPLY filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell 76 Response in Opposition to Motion 71 . (km) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
12/11/2009 79 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Robert Echols: Show Cause Hearing held on 12/11/2009. (Court Reporter Dorothy Stiles.) (km) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
12/17/2009 80 NOTICE by UNITED STATES re 79 Show Cause Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Answer by Special Appearance, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Motion Hearing Transcript, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Real Estate Appraisal Card, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Current Real Estate Listing)(Rivera, Lisa) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
12/18/2009 81 ORDER denying as moot 69 Motion to Disclose; denying 70 Motion to Disclose; denying 71 Motion for Judicial Notice and Show Cause Hearing; denying 73 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 77 Motion to Stay of Execution Pending Appeal. At the 12/11/09 hearing, the Court provided Petitioner with a Financial Affidavit which Petitioner shall COMPLETE AND SUBMIT TO THE COURT UNDER SEAL within ten (10) days of the hearing. Petitioner shall complete the form and ANSWER EACH INQUIRY FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY. If Plaintiff fails to complete the Affidavit and submit the same to the Court within the period provided, fails to answer any questions, or is evasive in his answers in any way, the Court will deem Petitioner able to pay the sanction in full and will set the matter for a further show cause hearing to enforce compliance with this Court's May 19, 2009 Order. During the same ten day period, the Government may submit whatever information it desires which relates to Petitioner's ability or inability to pay the sanction which has been imposed. Finally, as Petitioner was informed at the December 11, 2009 hearing, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED NOT TO MAKE ANY FURTHER FILINGS OR INSTITUTE ANY FURTHER ACTIONS in this Court and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further filings or actions filed by Mr. Maxwell, until either the sanction of $1,500 has been paid in full, or until further Order from this Court which specifically lifts the ban on making new filings or filing new actions. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 12/18/09. (xc: pltf by regular & certified mail) (cc: intake department, pro se law clerks) (af) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
12/18/2009 82 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT re 81 Order. (af) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
12/21/2009 83 Sealed Document filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell. (ab) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
12/22/2009 84 Transcript filed for date of 12/11/09, before Judge Echols. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Dorothy Stiles, Telephone number: 615.330.1764 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              615.330.1764      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, E-Mail Address: dorothy_stiles@tnmd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Intent to Request Transcript Redaction due 1/4/2010. Redaction Request due 1/15/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/25/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/25/2010. (tmw) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
01/12/2010 85 Certified Mail Returned as Unclaimed. 81 Order sent to Charles Phillip Maxwell. (tmw) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
01/15/2010 86 NOTICE from Supreme Court of the United States that the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied (km) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
04/19/2010 87 INFORMATION COPY and JUDGMENT of USCA as to 56 Notice of Appeal filed by Charles Phillip Maxwell; this cause is dismissed for want of prosecution. (No mandate to issue) (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(ab) Modified text on 5/5/2010 (ab). (Entered: 04/19/2010)

[.]

Stand small, ignorant, sanctioned, utterly defeated, cowardly warrior.

But only when you can take time out from hiding from your mailman.

[LPC]

And, on 10/6/2009, Maxwell filed another petition to quash an IRS summons, which petition was dismissed (with prejudice) just last week, on 7/31/2010, so he hasn't yet had time to move to vacate, etc., or appeal. Charles Phillip Maxwell v. United States, No. 3:09-cv-00940 (U.S.D.C. Tenn. 7/31/2010).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES PHILLIP MAXWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES; and, in their defacto
and or individual capacities INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, and EARNEST G.
SCHULTZ,
Respondents.

No. 3:09-0940
Judge Echols

ORDER

This is the latest in a series of cases Petitioner Charles Phillip Maxwell has filed in this Court seeking to quash or stay summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Four previous cases have been dismissed on the merits because Maxwell asserted frivolous and often-rejected arguments in support of his Petitions to Quash. Another case was dismissed as moot after the IRS withdrew the summons at issue.

In Maxwell v. IRS et al., Case No. 3:09-CV-308, this Court entered an Order imposing sanctions against Maxwell in the amount of $1,500 because his requests to quash summonses issued by the IRS were without merit and he “repeatedly raised arguments which have been unanimously rejected by the courts,” even after being informed that his arguments were frivolous. (Case No. 3:09-CV-308, Docket Entry No. 45 at 3-5). After a hearing in the case, the Court entered an Order on December 18, 2009, which stated: “Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED NOT TO MAKE ANY FURTHER FILINGS OR INSTITUTE ANY FURTHER ACTIONS in this Court and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further filings or actions filed by Mr. Maxwell, until either the sanction of $1,500 has been paid in full, or until further Order from this Court which specifically lifts the ban on making new filings or filing new actions.” (Id., Docket Entry No. 81 at 4, capitalization in original). The present case and the pending motions in it were filed before December 18, 2009, and so they do not run afoul of the Order prohibiting filings by Maxwell. However, as in his prior cases, Maxwell has not carried his burden of establishing a valid defense to the summonses at issue and, accordingly, the Government has filed a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition to Quash or Stay Summons (Docket Entry No. 8 ).

In its filings, the Government has established that, for legitimate reasons, it is conducting an investigation into Maxwell’s federal tax liability for the years 1996 through 2006 and that, to properly investigate Maxwell’s potential tax liability, it is necessary for the IRS to obtain testimony and to examine the books, records, papers, and other information sought by the summonses. 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a). For those reasons, and also for the reasons explained in this Court’s prior opinions related to Maxwell’s repeated efforts to quash summonses related to the same investigation, (see, Case No. 3:08-MC-00025, Docket Entry No. 24; Case No. 3:09-CV-308, Docket Entry Nos. 39, 45; & Case No. 3:09-CV-0045, Docket Entry No. 16), Maxwell’s present Petition to Quash or Stay Summons is without merit.

Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

(1) The Government’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition to Quash or Stay Summons (Docket Entry No. 8 ) is hereby GRANTED;

(2) Maxwell’s Conditional Motion to Dismiss or Non-Suit Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction Docket Entry No. 19)[FN 1] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT;

(3) Maxwell’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) and related Motion to Alter or Amend Court Order (Docket Entry No. 21) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT;

(4) Maxwell’s Motion For Judicial Notice And Show Cause Hearing As To Why Mark H. Wildasin Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court [FN 2] (Docket Entry No. 15) is hereby DENIED; and

(4) [sic] This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).

It is so ORDERED.

ROBERT L. ECHOLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[Footnotes]
1 Petitioner claims he filed this Motion “to avoid further . . . punishment.” (Id. at 2).
2 This Motion raises the wholly unsupported assertion that Mr. Wildasin, the Assistant United
States Attorney representing the Government in this case, is not authorized to practice law in this Court.

[Cathulhu]

Isn't this guy a loser who works for his father-in-law? Or that's what it appears in the first part. Career plan: marry boss's daughter, suck up for money, cheat on your taxes.

[The Observer]

Well, it's obvious why this guy kept filing again and again like the TP version of the Eveready Rabbit - the court didn't follow through on its threat to his wallet:

The Court finds that the $1,500.00 sanction, coupled with the possibility that the Court will prohibit Petitioner from filing any more Petitions to Quash Summons or other filings involving related tax matters in this Court until the imposed sanction has been paid in full, may be a sufficient deterrent to Petitioner and others from making frivolous attempts to impede the enforcement of a lawful IRS summons.

Imagine what would have happened if David Van Pelt had to pay $1,500 every time he wanted to file his meaningless gibberish.

[bmielke]

Imagine what would have happened if David Van Pelt had to pay $1,500 every time he wanted to file his meaningless gibberish.

Thats what bonded promisary notes are for.

[Gregg]

Imagine what would have happened if David Van Pelt had to pay $1,500 every time he wanted to file his meaningless gibberish.

Thats what bonded promisary notes are for.

No worries, just take it out of the $20 Billion he got in his other case

[grixit]

It's an inspiration to small children everywhere-- it is possible to hold your breath until you turn blue and keep repeating "are we there yet?" at the same time.

[LPC]

That's the same order I posted yesterday.

It looks like Tax Analysts got hold of the order issued on 7/31, which they published today, but decided first to dig up and publish the two previous orders, and to publish them in chronological order.

I'm not sure why they chose to string it out over three days, though. Did they think there was some suspense?

[The Observer]

Mea culpa. The redundant post has been excised.

I'm not sure why they chose to string it out over three days, though. Did they think there was some suspense?

Perhaps they were just getting tired of the usual hum-drum TP case heading towards frivpen eventuality. Instead, they decided to give it the History Channel treatment, stagger the story out over three days, and see how much interest it generated. Maybe next time they will figure out a way to include commentaries of little-known legal historians from obscure law schools and then work in the obligatory sensational link/reference to Adolf Hitler.

[Gregg]

Dr. Zawi Hawass tracks down low rent tax protestors and an intern pees in a Federal Courtroom (from laughter) in the new History Channel Series, Chasing Dummies

[grixit]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hawass were to come on tv and announce the discovery of a written transcript about tax evasion in pre classical Egypt.

BYW: I think that man has just about the coolest job ever. He can never order his tombstone because the way things have been going, he could live to be 110, confined to a hospital bed and still find something amazing in a batch of photographs brought to him from the field.

[Gregg]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hawass were to come on tv and announce the discovery of a written transcript about tax evasion in pre classical Egypt.

BYW: I think that man has just about the coolest job ever. He can never order his tombstone because the way things have been going, he could live to be 110, confined to a hospital bed and still find something amazing in a batch of photographs brought to him from the field.

I used to like him, even given that he was kind of a Bobby Knight kind of guy....but have you seen his new "show". He comes across really bad, just a total a-hole and the show is terribly scripted, they got actors to play the "interns" etc...it's a real joke, the kind of stuff I've come to expect from the people who brought us Pawn Stars, Ancient Aliens and UFO Quest....

[The Observer]

And Wikipedia has these comments:

In January 2009, Hawass wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that "The concept of killing women, children and elderly people... seems to run in the blood of the Jews of Palestine" and that "the only thing that the Jews have learned from history is methods of tyranny and torment - so much so that they have become artists in this field." He explained that he was not referring to the Jews' "[original] faith" but rather "the faith that they forged and contaminated with their poison, which is aimed against all of mankind."[16]

In an interview on Egyptian television in April 2009, Hawass stated that "although Jews are few in number, they control the entire world" and commented on the "control they have" of the American economy and the media.[17][18][19] He later clarified that he was using rhetoric to explain political fragmentation among the Arabs and that he does not believe in a "Jewish conspiracy to control the world".[20]
.
.
.
In March 2010 Hawass canceled the official re-opening of the restored historic Maimonides Synagogue in Cairo. In his email cancellation message issued in Arabic he described the Jewish dedication ceremony on March 7, which included dancing and serving wine, as "provocation to the feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims in Egypt and around the world...”. In an English-language statement issued a few hours later the remarks about "drinking and dancing" were removed.[23] Hawass said that the decision was made at "a time when Muslim holy sites in occupied Palestine face assaults from Israeli occupation forces and settlers..."[23][24] He later also said that canceling the ceremony was a "strong slap in the face" to "the Zionist enemy".[25]

[Gregg]

Hawass said that the decision was made at "a time when Muslim holy sites in occupied Palestine face assaults from Israeli occupation forces and settlers..."

Well, 99.9% of the world has never heard of this, but can you imagine what the reaction would be if the Isreali's closed the Dome of the Rock?

[grixit]

Sad. Just goes to show that having a cool job has nothing to do with one's character.

[The Operative]

Well, I guess I can still respect him as a great Egyptologist. However, if everything posted here is true, concerning every other topic, I have no respect for Hawass.

[Gregg]

I even doubt his reputation as an Egyptologist. I had always assumed he was kind of a supervisor, he sat in his office and ran the whole thing, did all the TV shows atools and once in a while he went out and looked at the work. I suspect that's mostly true, he has 36,000 employees. But when you watch this show, he looks like he;s at least sloppy or reckless. They find a mummy and go grab a shovel, paintbrush and open that puppy up! I have always thought that in real archeology they were a little bit more careful than I would be with something I found in the garage. By way of his position most of the work that anyone else in the country does is credited to him.
He also has a policy that reminds me of unions, in that X amount of work has to be done by the natives, which I can sympathize with, his ministry is a great big jobs program for unskilled labor.
Bottom line is I think by US standards a little digging would find a lot of corruption, but it's not the US. The Museums are kind of chintzy, too. Priceless exhibits setting on cardboard posters and 3x5 cards in cases that look like they got them when someone remodeled a K Mart....