United States v. MacDonald, 10th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. MacDonald, 10th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsFILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 8, 2016
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW W. MACDONALD;
SANDRA L. SHOEMAKER,
No. 16-1090
(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02153-CMA)
(D. Colo.)
Defendants - Appellants,
and
HOPE ALLIANCE; PEACE
AWARENESS FELLOWSHIP;
STATE OF COLORADO,
Defendants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellants appeal the district courts entry of a default judgment against
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
them in this federal tax case. Appellants were served with the summons and
complaint on October 2, 2015, but they did not appear or file a responsive
pleading in the district court. Accordingly, on November 5, 2015, the United
States moved for entry of default against Appellant. The clerk of the court
entered default on November 6.
On December 8, 2015well outside of the twenty-one-day period for them
to file a responsive pleading under Rule 12(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil
ProcedureAppellants each filed a document entitled petition for abatement in
which they argued that they were de jure private citizen[s] privately dwelling
within the nation Colorado (republic) and thus were not subject to the authority
of the United States. (R. at 186, 191.) The district court concluded that
Appellants had asserted only frivolous tax protester arguments and failed to
articulate a meaningful defense to the motion for default judgment. The court
therefore entered final judgment in favor of the United States.
On appeal, Appellants raise a hodgepodge of different
argumentschallenges to the authority of the I.R.S., the government attorneys
involved in this case, and the district court; attacks on the courts jurisdiction;
arguments regarding the legality of the tax code and the validity of a tax
assessment certified by an administrative technician; a contention that Appellants
were unable to personally verify the district judges credentials or have a literal
day in court because at least one appellant do[es] not possess a United States
-2-
de facto government identification and therefore was not allowed to enter past
the security counter at the courthouse (Br. at 4); and so forth. Most of these
arguments were not raised below, and none of them has any legal merit.
The district courts judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-
