The Cost for TPs to Pursue Frivolous Appeals Increases in the CA7

[jcolvin2]

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/r ... 595718:S:0

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 19-2121

PAMELA E. VEAL-HILL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States Tax Court
No. 1517-17 — Richard T. Morrison, Judge.
____________________
DECIDED OCTOBER 14, 2020
____________________
Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. This court is no stranger to frivolous tax appeals. In 1986 we set $1,500 as the presumptive sanction for a frivolous tax appeal. Coleman v. Comm'r, 791 F.2d 68, 73 (7th Cir. 1986). Coleman involved groundless claims by two tax protestors; we established the $1,500 penalty as an
approximation of the cost of the government attorneys’ wasted time in lieu of inviting proof of actual attorneys’ fees. Id. Ten years later inflation prompted us to raise that sanction to $2,000. Cohn v. Comm'r, 101 F.3d 486, 487 (7th Cir. 1996). Another decade passed, and we adjusted the sanction for a frivolous tax appeal to $4,000, this time to reflect both further inflation and additional data on the actual expenses the government incurred litigating a frivolous appeal. Szopa v. United States, 460 F.3d 884, 887 (7th Cir. 2006).

Since then we have left the sanction at $4,000. But as we observed in Cohn, any rule stated in a fixed dollar amount must be adjusted from time to time. 101 F.3d at 487; see also United States v. Boliaux, 915 F.3d 493, 497 (7th Cir. 2019). The time has come yet again. The Consumer Price Index has increased roughly 25% since we decided Szopa, so the price of a frivolous tax appeal should rise in tow. We therefore impose a $5,000 sanction for this frivolous tax appeal to be paid in accordance with, and for the reasons stated in, the accompanying order.

[wserra]

The Circuit imposed that sanction ($5,000) on the lawyers. The order is per curiam; however, Easterbrook was on the panel, and I gotta believe he wrote it:

The briefs, signed by both attorneys, were “practically devoid of coherent legal argument and primarily focuse[d] on irrelevant topics like biblical ethics and the life story of one of the attorneys” . . . He believes we found his filings incoherent for lack of context in that he omitted his medical history from his life story and glossed over the Ninth Commandment during his lesson on biblical ethics. . . . Williams’s response [to the OSC the Circuit had issued earlier - WS] is as rambling as his briefs and does not convince us to withhold sanctions. Though he says he plans to stop practicing law soon, it is readily apparent that his law practice should have ended before this case and he is not presently fit to represent clients in court. . . . Williams is a member of the Illinois bar, so we also request that the Clerk of the Court forward a copy of our two orders in this case to the Illinois Attorney Registry and Disciplinary Commission to take any action it deems appropriate. Johnson is a member of the Indiana bar, so we ask that the Clerk also forward a copy of the orders to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for it to do the same.

I don't think they were amused.

[Foggy]

I know an attorney here in Raleigh who is simply incapable of speaking in coherent paragraphs. She lets loose these insane disjointed illogical rambles, and it's painful to have to listen to her. She's constantly running for statewide political office and seems to be a bit frustrated that nobody supports her and nobody donates to her and she repeatedly has to drop out of whatever race she thought she should have won. She's beyond ditzy. I have no idea how people like that manage to finish law school and pass the bar exam.

[wserra]

I have no idea how people like that manage to finish law school

Hollywood Upstairs, or wherever Orly Taitz went.

and pass the bar exam.

Colorado.

[jcolvin2]

The presumptive sanction was developed for TPs, but - as the court noted in its order - can also justly be applied to attorneys who "glossed over the Ninth Commandment during [their] lesson on biblical ethics."

For the reasons explained in the opinion issued today in this case, that presumptive penalty is currently $5,000. Although this system was developed for (usually pro se) tax protestors who try the same tired schemes to escape the very concept of taxation, the attorney-filed briefs here were just as much a misuse of the court’s and the government’s time as any tax protestor’s theories.

[jcolvin2]

I know an attorney here in Raleigh who is simply incapable of speaking in coherent paragraphs. She lets loose these insane disjointed illogical rambles, and it's painful to have to listen to her. She's constantly running for statewide political office and seems to be a bit frustrated that nobody supports her and nobody donates to her and she repeatedly has to drop out of whatever race she thought she should have won. She's beyond ditzy. I have no idea how people like that manage to finish law school and pass the bar exam.

Hello, Foggy. I haven't run into you on Quatloos before. Glad to know you are not above slumming it on occasion.

[Dr. Caligari]

Welcome to Quaatlos, Foggy. Grog is served on the fo'c'sle daily at 8 bells.