- 13 -
further recited that it had admonished J.O. and Joey to comply
with the applicable law and court orders and recommended that
they consult with qualified legal counsel; that J.O. and Joey
requested additional time to assemble records and have the
opportunity to consult with legal counsel; that, instead, J.O.
and Joey had filed documents that:
are the type that have been previously rejected by the
Courts as groundless, not requiring response and
sanctionable. See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d
1440, 1447-48 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v.
Montgomery, 778 F.2d 22, 225 (5th Cir. 1985); Crain v.
C.I.R., 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). * * * [J.O.
and Joey] are again admonished that they will be held
to comply with applicable laws and questions concerning
their rights and obligations should be directed to
qualified legal counsel. The Court will not permit
valuable judicial resources to be wasted and government
process delayed dealing with frivolous filings.
On July 12, 2002, J.O. and Joey appeared before the revenue
agent. They made frivolous arguments and asserted that they
would not answer questions because of their Fifth Amendment
privilege. At a hearing on July 19, 2002, J.O. testified:
the activity of the trust, the documents that the
Internal Revenue Service–-various things of that sort
have been my creations, my son has followed his
father’s advice apparently to his great sorrow. I take
full responsibility for any of the documents, the
trusts. He has a limited knowledge of–-he’s read it
all, but he’s a very good worker. He manages and runs
the business. * * *
On July 26, 2002, the District Court held J.O. and Joey in
contempt of court. The District Court ordered that Joey be taken
into custody and held pending compliance with the District
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011