Charles and Teresa Brodman - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
                    All litigants, especially members of the bar who                  
               have received training in law and professional                         
               responsibility, are expected to read the cases cited                   
               for the Court, to assure that those cases remain                       
               current, and to advance only those legal arguments that                
               are warranted by existing law, by nonfrivolous argument                
               for its extension, modification, or reversal, or by the                
               establishment of new law.  See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.                  
               11(b)(2); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th                
               Cir. 1986) (“The purpose of sections 6673 and 6702,                    
               like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38 and of sec. 1927                   
               [of 28 U.S.C.], is to induce litigants to conform their                
               behavior to the governing rules regardless of their                    
               subjective beliefs.  Groundless litigation diverts the                 
               time and energies of judges from more serious claims;                  
               it imposes needless costs on other litigants.  Once the                
               legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers                  
               must move on to other things.  They cannot endlessly                   
               rehear stale arguments.”).                                             
               Mr. Jewett asserted, when the case was submitted, that he is           
          proceeding in good faith.  His failure to consult or address the            
          established law renders his assertion untenable.  Unlike counsel            
          in Takaba v. Commissioner, supra, and in Edwards v. Commissioner,           
          T.C. Memo. 2003-149, however, he did not extend these proceedings           
          by meaningless motions and other delays.  (Perhaps that is why              
          respondent did not request a penalty in this case.)  Determining            
          the amount of excessive costs in this case would require further            
          proceedings and would add to the delays already caused by the               
          frivolous arguments asserted by petitioners and Mr. Jewett.                 
          Other grounds for sanctions might also be considered.  Cf.                  
          Matthews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-577, affd. without                
          published opinion 106 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 1996); Leach v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-215.  See generally Chambers v.               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011