United States v. Trowbridge

• Decision Date: 30 August 2018
• Docket Number: MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. 4:17-MC-01557
• Citation: 393 F.Supp.3d 603
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. John Parks TROWBRIDGE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

393 F.Supp.3d 603

UNITED STATES of America

v.John Parks TROWBRIDGE

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION NO. 4:17-MC-01557

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed August 30, 2018

Entered August 31, 2018

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KEITH P. ELLISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a motion for contempt (Doc. No. 43) filed by Petitioner United States of America, as well as a subsequent notice to withdraw the motion for contempt (Doc. No. 59). Also before the Court are several motions styled as motions for disclosure to show authority or motions to dismiss filed by the Respondent, John Parks Trowbridge (Docs. Nos. 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49). On August 3, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in this case, recommending that Petitioner's notice to withdraw its motion for contempt should be granted, while the motion for contempt filed by Petitioner along with all of the various motions by Respondent be denied as either moot or denied as a nullity. (Doc. No. 62.) The Respondent filed his objections on August 6 (Doc. No. 63).

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of portions of the R & R relevant to the Respondent's objections. However, the Court agrees with the conclusions, and the reasoning, of the R & R. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R and:

GRANTS Petitioner's notice of withdraw of its motion for contempt (Doc. No. 59) and

DENIES as moot the motion for contempt (Doc. No. 43).

DENIES as moot Respondent's Motion for disclosure of taxing statute (Doc. No. 23).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Amended Motion for disclosure of taxing statute (Doc. No. 24).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Demand for constitutional authority that gives the Court jurisdiction (Doc. No. 29).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Motion for constitutional authority (Doc. No. 30).

DENIES as moot Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 31).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 32).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the basis of fraud, failure to state a claim, and unclean hands (Doc. No. 36).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing (Doc. No. 41).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Request for Dismissal (Doc. No. 42).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Objection to any Further Business in this Alleged Action in Equity (Doc. No. 45).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Objection for Substitution of Real Party in Interest (Doc. No. 48).

DENIES as a nullity Respondent's Demand for disclosure of the nature and cause of this action (Doc. No. 49).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Dena Hanovice Palermo, United States Magistrate Judge

On July 17, 2018, the Court held a show cause hearing on Petitioner United States of America's ("Petitioner" or "IRS") motion for sanctions. ECF No. 25, motion for contempt, ECF No. 43, and motion to dismiss, ECF No. 60.¹ In addition to Petitioner's motions, currently pending before the Court are various motions the Respondent John Parks Trowbridge ("Respondent" or "Trowbridge") filed, styled as motions for disclosure to show authority or motions to dismiss.²

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner United States of America through the IRS filed a petition to enforce a summons for Trowbridge to appear, testify, and produce documents so that his tax liability for the years 2011 to 2014 could be calculated. ECF No. 1 at 2. This Court issued an Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 2. Despite this Court's order, Trowbridge failed to appear at the show cause hearing. Pet'r's Opp'n to Resp't's Am. Mot. for Disclosure of the Taxing Statute at 2, ECF No. 25. After the hearing, the Court issued an order compelling Trowbridge to comply with the IRS's summons and appear for an interview on October 2, 2017. ECF No. 11.

Trowbridge filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(4), seeking relief from the Court's order compelling compliance with the IRS summons and challenging the Court's jurisdiction to issue the order. ECF No. 12. The Court construed the motion as a motion to reconsider, and denied it on the basis that it lacked legal and factual support. ECF No. 13.

On October 2, 2017, Trowbridge appeared at the IRS's office to meet with Revenue Agent Kendria Bruno and Special Counsel Lewis Booth. ECF No. 15 at 4–5. During questioning, Trowbridge repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment, answering certain questions but refusing to answer others. Id. at 51–62. Trowbridge refused to produce any documents for the same reason he refused to answer questions, which brought the interview to an end. Id. at 62–63.

After the interview, Trowbridge filed a motion, seeking immunity against potential self-incrimination. ECF No. 14. The Court denied his request, concluding that Trowbridge's refusal to answer questions and to produce the summoned documents was not justified based on the IRS's representations of the civil nature of its inquiry. ECF No. 22 at 6. In its order, the Court recounted Trowbridge's litigation history with the government, challenging in prior matters, as he does here, the IRS's authority to impose taxes on him. This Court warned Trowbridge at that time to comply with the order to avoid future sanctions. Id.³

Instead of adhering to the warning and complying with the Court's order compelling him to cooperate with the IRS's summons, Trowbridge inundated this Court's docket with a litany of filings that either challenged the IRS's authority to issue the summons or the Court's authority over this case, in addition to demanding disclosure of the statutory basis on which the IRS would rely to determine his tax liability. As he did in his earliest filings in this case, he complains about the IRS's failure to identify any particular statute that makes him liable for taxes. See, e.g. , ECF No. 24. He eventually contends that the IRS is a private entity, is making a contractual claim, and the IRS (holding itself out as a government entity) has no authority to act. See, e.g. , ECF Nos. 32, 36, 41, 49. In addition, Trowbridge contends this court does not have authority or jurisdiction over this matter. ECF Nos. 29, 30. Each of his "motions" contains a slightly different twist, but the arguments are the same.

As the Court recognized in its previous order, the "patent frivolousness of these and other arguments has brought Trowbridge consistent defeat—as well as sanctions, oftentimes—in previous disputes." ECF No. 22 at 2 (citing United States v. Trowbridge , 591 F. App'x 298 (5th Cir. 2015) ; Trowbridge v. C.I.R. , 378 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2004) ; United States v. Trowbridge , 251 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2001) ). Respondent has not filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order enforcing the summons.

The IRS filed a motion for contempt in May 2018, asserting that despite its efforts since May 2017 to obtain Respondent's tax information for 2011 through 2014, and this Court's order compelling compliance with the IRS's summons, it had not obtained the information. ECF No. 43.⁴ Respondent opposed the motion. ECF No. 47. This Court issued another Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 50, and heard arguments on this motion at the July 17 show cause hearing. The day before the hearing, Trowbridge produced some documents to the IRS and filed a notice of his compliance. ECF No. 51. Both parties appeared at the July 17 hearing, and the Court ordered them to confer in person. Show Cause Hr'g Tr. (July 17, 2018) 3:22-5:6, 9:11-24, ECF No. 54. Trowbridge complied with the testimonial portion of the summons, and substantially complied with the documentary portion. Id. at 10:20-11:4; see also ECF No. 51. The parties jointly agreed that Trowbridge would produce either in person or by mail six remaining categories of documents to the IRS agent by July 25, 2018, and Petitioner would notify the Court whether Trowbridge fully complied with the summons. ECF No. 54 at 10:20-11:4. The Court entered an order to that effect. ECF No. 52. On August 1, 2018, Petitioner notified the Court that Respondent fully complied with the summons, ECF No. 58, withdrew its motion for contempt, ECF No. 59, and filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice in light of Respondent's compliance, ECF No. 60.

Having considered the motions, responses, applicable law, and the arguments presented during the show cause hearing, the Court concludes that the Petitioner's motion for sanctions should be granted. In addition, since the IRS withdraws its motion for contempt, and filed a motion to dismiss based on Respondent's compliance, the Court recommends that the IRS's motion to dismiss should be granted. Finally, the Court recommends that all of Respondent's motions should be denied as nullities.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Respondent's Filings Are Frivolous.

While the IRS ultimately obtained the relief it originally sought, it took over a year to secure compliance with the summons. Furthermore, it was on the receiving end of Trowbridge's "motion" practice. Trowbridge is a medical doctor, but despite his strongly held belief that he does not have to file tax returns, he has chosen not to hire counsel to represent him in these ongoing tax disputes. Show Cause Hr'g Tr. (July 17, 2018) 12:10-20, ECF No. 54. Instead, he represents himself.

Although the Court must liberally construe a pro se litigant's filings in his favor, and his papers are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," United States v. Davis , 629 F. App'x 613, 618 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam)); accord Hawbecker v. Hall , 88 F. Supp. 3d 723, 726 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) ), a pro se litigant is not "exempt ... from compliance with the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law," Thorn v. McGary , 684 F. App'x 430, 433 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Birl...