Writ of Prohibition

[LPC]

The Court of Appeals of Washington state gave this nonsense the drubbing it deserved, but imposed sanctions of only $1,000.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

RONALD J. DAVENPORT, )
Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and WILLIAM WAIGHT,

Respondents.

No. 26409-2-III
Division Three

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Korsmo, J. -- Appellant Ronald Davenport attempted to sue Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent William Waight in the Spokane County Superior Court in an effort to halt agency action to collect federal taxes owing from 1995. The trial court dismissed the action and Mr. Davenport appealed. We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that this appeal is frivolous. We affirm the dismissal and impose sanctions.

FACTS

Mr. Davenport filed a self-styled "Petition for Common Law Writ of Prohibition" in the Spokane County Superior Court asking the court to stop Mr. Waight from attempting to collect taxes owed the federal government. He claimed to be a "sovereign" over whom the federal government had no jurisdiction. The court promptly denied the writ and dismissed the action since it had no jurisdiction over federal agencies and statutes. It ordered the filing fee returned to Mr. Davenport. He then appealed to this court.

The Department of Justice responded to the appeal and sought an order renaming the case to make the United States government a party instead of its employee, Mr. Waight.[1] Mr. Davenport argues here that he is a "sovereign" to whom the state courts owe a duty to issue the writ to prohibit collection efforts. The IRS contends that this state court has no jurisdiction over the matter and Mr. Davenport's actions are frivolous.

ANALYSIS

Direct Appeal. This action is barred by sovereign immunity. "The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 85 L. Ed. 1058, 61 S. Ct. 767 (1941); accord, United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 25 L. Ed. 194 (1878). A suit against an employee of the federal government is a suit against the government and is similarly subject to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58, 10 L. Ed. 2d 191, 83 S. Ct. 1052 (1963).

The federal government has not consented to be sued over tax matters. In fact, it has enacted a statute prohibiting lawsuits over tax matters. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) provides in part that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained by any court by any person."[2] This provision precludes actions to enjoin or otherwise stop the tax collection efforts. Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 738-739, 40 L. Ed. 2d 496, 94 S. Ct. 2038 (1974).

Accordingly, the trial court correctly recognized that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed writ and properly dismissed the action.

Sanctions. Respondent United States seeks sanctions of $3,000 for defending against this action. An appellate court can sanction a party for filing a frivolous appeal or using the appellate process for delay. RAP 18.9. "An appeal is frivolous if there are no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of reversal." Fay v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 115 Wn.2d 194, 200-201, 796 P.2d 412 (1990).

We agree that this action is frivolous under the noted standard. It has long been recognized that efforts of people to exempt themselves from taxation by declaring themselves to be "sovereigns" or the like[3] are utterly devoid of merit. A long line of cases has declared such actions frivolous. E.g., United States v. Hanson, 2 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Sileven, 985 F.2d 962, 970 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986); McNair v. Eggers, 788 F.2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir. 1986). Equally well settled is the fact that the United States has not consented to be sued in state courts. Finally, even if there were such entities as the individual "sovereigns" Mr. Davenport claims to be, he has not attempted to explain why his "consent" to state court jurisdiction also operates as consent for the United States to appear in state court. He has no authority to speak for the federal government or bind it to appear in actions in state court.

This action was utterly frivolous. Mr. Davenport continued the case even after the trial court ordered his money refunded. There was no chance of a differing outcome on appeal. While the $3,000 sought by respondent is reasonable, we exercise our discretion in this matter and award $1,000 to the United States.

The order of dismissal is affirmed. Mr. Davenport shall pay respondent United States $1,000 for bringing a frivolous action.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________
Korsmo, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________
Kulik, A.C.J.

______________________________
Sweeney, J.

Footnotes:

1 The government sought to have the United States listed as respondent instead of its agency, the Internal Revenue Service. Our Commissioner changed the caption to "United States, Internal Revenue Service, and William Waight" as respondents. While the government still contends that the only proper party is the United States, it did not seek to modify the Commissioner's Ruling and we will leave the caption as ordered.

2 This statute is the law of the land. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, provides in part that "the laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."

3 For more information about "sovereignty" theory, see generally, J. Jahns and P. Loginsky, Freemen: Armageddon's Prophets of Hate and Terror, at 26-27, 33 (3d ed. June 1999).

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I thought I was going to see an Order prohibiting a TP from drinking more Kool Aid.

On a more serious note, does the Federal Government ever collect on these sanctions?

[fortinbras]

The date of this decision was January 15, 2009.

[notorial dissent]

So the old nonsense writ ploy didn’t work any better this time that it ever has.

[Doktor Avalanche]

So the old nonsense writ ploy didn’t work any better this time that it ever has.

You'd think with all that horsesh*t piled up in the room there just had to be a pony in there somewhere.

[Randall]

If a person (and I use the term loosely) is a sovereign who does not recognize the authority of any government, what is the point of filing anything in any court anywhere? Whatever the ruling would be, it would not be binding on the petitioner nor anyone else as the court's authority is not recognized.

[Doktor Avalanche]

If a person (and I use the term loosely) is a sovereign who does not recognize the authority of any government, what is the point of filing anything in any court anywhere? Whatever the ruling would be, it would not be binding on the petitioner nor anyone else as the court's authority is not recognized.

Randall, Randall, Randall...

We've shown you the training films, we've made you sit through hours upon hours of the indoctrination courses and yet you insist on applying frivolous things like logic and common sense?

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by going to the slammer for his sovereignty. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard go to the slammer for his.

Men (and ladies), all this stuff you've heard about Quatloos not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Quatloosians, traditionally, love to fight. All real Quatloosians love the sting of battle.

When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Quatloosians love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Quatloosians play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Quatloosians have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Quatloosians.

Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating.

Now, we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit, and the best men (and women) in the world. You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. By God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards. We're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy sovereign bastards by the bushel.

Now, some of you boys (and girls), I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken-out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Sovereigns are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.

Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. Let the sovereign do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything -- except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're gonna kick him in the ass. We're gonna kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose!

Now, there's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you, "What did you do in the great Quatloosian/Sovereign War?" -- you won't have to say, "Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana."

Alright now you sons-of-bitches, you know how I feel.



Oh, I will be proud

to lead you wonderful guys

into battle anytime,

anywhere.

[Randall]

Randall, Randall, Randall...

We've shown you the training films, we've made you sit through hours upon hours of the indoctrination courses and yet you insist on applying frivolous things like logic and common sense?

I was busy carving melon helmets when those films were shown.