Slow Learners

[LPC]

I'm talking about the judges here, not the plaintiff. How could these judges let this nut file what seems to be the same lawsuit over and over again against employees of the IRS without ever imposing any sanctions?

From the most recent opinion (with some links added to previous opinions):

This action follows on from at least six prior complaints brought by Nicholson making frivolous allegations against the United States, the IRS, and employees of the IRS. See Winfred F. Nicholson v. United States, Civ. No. WMN-02-3214, (D. Md.) aff'd 140 Fed. Appx. 469 (4th Cir. 2005); Winfred F. Nicholson v United States, et. al.. Civ No. WMN-99-2179 (D. Md.), aff'd 230 F.3d 1353 (4th Cir. 2000); cert. Denied, 523 U.S. 1022 (2001); Winfred F. Nicholson v. United States, et. al.. Civ. No. WMN-99-3813, (D.Md.) aff'd 230 F.3d 1353 {4th Cir. 2000), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1022 (2001); Winfred Nicholson v. Johnson, et. al.. Civil No. WMN-95-1044, (D. Md.) aff'd, 77 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 1996); Winfred Nicholson v. Johnson, et al.. Civil No. WMN-95-1044, (D. Md.) aff'd, 77 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 1996); Winfred F. Nicholson v. United States and Jerry Crain, Civ. No. WMN-95-3758 (D. Md.); Winfred F. Nicholson v. Grace Jaecksch, Civ. No. JHY-87-766, 679 F. Supp. 518 (D. Md. 1987).

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)(e). Plaintiff claims that the Internal Revenue Service wrongfully issued levies to collect his income tax liabilities for the years 1991, 1992, 1996, 1997, and that the federal income statutes are unconstitutional. He seeks an injunction directing the release of tax levies, a return of amounts levied, compensation for harm, damages of $250,000, and costs.

Winfred F. Nicholson v. Theresa Daniels, No. 1:10-cv-168 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Va. 7/12/2010) (motion to dismiss granted for lack of proper service against the defendant in her individual capacity, failure to state a claim against the defendant in her official capacity, lack of jurisdiction for failing to have paid all of the assessments at issue and exhaust administrative remedies, lack of jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act, and lack of jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act), aff'd No. 10-1877 (4th Cir. 12/22/2010) (per curiam).

[.]

So, 7 (perhaps more) idiotic filings to date.

After the 8th idiotic filing, they'll warn him again (assuming he's been previously warned,) but really, really, really sternly. Lots of finger-wagging.

After the 9th idiotic filing, they'll impose a $1,000 sanction and warn him yet again.
After the 10th idiotic filing, they'll impose a $5,000 sanction and warn him yet again.
After the 11th idiotic filing, they'll impose a $10,000 sanction and warn him yet again.

After the 12th idiotic filing, they'll impose a $25,000 sanction and instruct the clerk not to accept any further filings without court approval.

Yes, it's wonderful that pro se morons get a lot of leeway as they pursue their due process rights with magic words, but after all of these years one would think that appellate judges would have learned a thing or two about really, really dragged-out incrementalism.

Were I on the appellate bench (yes, I know, a truly scary thought,) I'd follow simple rules:

1) Make great sport in the harshest possible terms (damn judicial temperment) of the frivolous arguments so as to make it clear to all of those out there who are "studying" the law what the results of fantasy are, impose a $5K sanction and warn the litigant that further frivolity will cost him or her $15K next time.

2) When next time rolls around, as it likely will, whack him or her summarily with $15K and warn about the $25K that will be imposed for a repeat.

3) When the repeat happens, impose the $25K and bar all unapproved filings.

4) Lobby Congress for as long as it takes to pass an increase in the maximum sanction that can be imposed to something like $250K, indexed to inflation.

It might discourage some, it probably wouldn't discourage many, but at least court calendars would be more than slightly less clogged up with total BS, saving the taxpayers a non-trivial amount of money.

[wserra]

Were I on the appellate bench

[.]

Have you been conducting surreptitious surveillance?

Long live Frank Easterbrook.

[The Observer]

The real solution is to not allow the TP to file any more paperwork until they pay off their original frivpen first.

[.]

Well, yeah, except that the ACLU et al would be all over you for denial of due process.

Give the idiots all the due process they can stand, to a fault.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This one should have been put on the vexatious litigant list a long time ago.

[jcolvin2]

More than 6 years later, Winfred Nicholson is returned to vexatious litigant status:

Case 1:17-cv-00807-TSE-MSN Document 5 Filed 07/24/17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
WINFRED NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff,
v ..
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY,
Defendant

Case No.l:17cv807

AMENDED ORDER
Plaintiff, a serial pro se filer, unilaterally declares, without citing any legal or factual authority that he is a ''non-taxpayer-' and therefore he is not required to pay federal taxes. He sues the Department of Treasury ~ and specifically the Internal Revenue Service, to recover any taxes levied against him, asserting that said taxes were assessed in violation of law.

Plaintiff essentially claims he is exempt from federal taxation. This claim is as frivolous today as it was when he previously raised it multiple times before other federal courts. Therefore, plaintiff's claims in this case must meet the same fate as the other claims he bas raised over the past fifteen years: dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

But simple dismissal is not enough here. Plaintiff has now filed at least seven frivolous cases and has wasted the valuable time of various United States district and circuit courts. Enough is enough. Thus, the Court exercises its inherent authority to place defendant under a filing injunction for the next two (2) years.2 For the next two (2) years, plaintiff may not file any civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the validity of the federal tax code or its application to plaintiff and the Clerk of Court shall not accept any such case absent prior screening and approval from a judge in this district.3 If plaintiff disobeys this Order and files another frivolous action, he will be sanctioned in the amount of $1,000.00 and may be subject to arrest for contempt of court.

Accordingly,

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's case is DISMJSSED p~1l8Dt to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

It is further ORDERED that all pending, motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

It is further ORDERED that plaintiff is enjoined from filing any civil action challenging the validity of the federal tax code or its application to plaintiff in this district, and the Clerk shall not accept any such case absent prior screening and approval from a United States Magistrate or District Judge.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at his address of record and to place this matter among the ended causes.

July 24,2017
Alexandria, Virginia

T. S. Ellis, III
United States District Judge


1) In his 2010 decision dismissing similar claims brought by plaintiff, Judge Hilton collected at least six other cases where plaintiff's claims were dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 191 S(c). See Nicholson v. Daniels,. Civ. No. 1:1O-cv-168, D.E. 20 (E.D.. Va. July 12, 2010) aff'd Nicholson v. Daniels, 405 F. App'x 801 (4th Cir. 2010).

2) Support Sys. Intl, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 18S. 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding there is ample judicial authority to stop vexatious litigants from repeatedly filing frivolous claims, including imposing monetary
sanctions and enjoining the litigant(s) from filing new cases).

3) The effect of the filing ban shall be stayed until Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m." at which time plaintiff may appear and challenge the imposition of the filing ban. If plaintiff docs not appear and the Court does not modify this Order, the filing injunction shall take effect on Monday, August 23, 2017.

[Arthur Rubin]

Case 1:17-cv-00807-TSE-MSN Document 5 Filed 07/24/17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
WINFRED NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff,
v ..
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY,
Defendant

3) The effect of the filing ban shall be stayed until Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m." at which time plaintiff may appear and challenge the imposition of the filing ban. If plaintiff docs not appear and the Court does not modify this Order, the filing injunction shall take effect on Monday, August 23, 2017.

One of those dates is wrong. It looks as if the "23" should be a "28". (Don't you just hate scanners.)

[jcolvin2]

One of those dates is wrong. It looks as if the "23" should be a "28". (Don't you just hate scanners.)

August 28, 2017. The fault began with the Adobe OCR program and was compounded by my inattention to detail. Thanks for catching it.

[SquatloosianTroll]

[Moderator: The Observer] - Link removed due to poster spamming irrelevant link across the site, without any explanation of how this link impacts or comments on the thread.