TPs keep pursuing suit against IRS employee

[The Observer]

As typical, these TPs won't take "no" for an answer...

JEANETTE UEDA COLLIER; STEPHEN CARROLL COLLIER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DENNIS L. PARIZEK; ET AL.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Release Date: JUNE 11, 2007


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

D.C. No. CV-04-00206-JKS(A)

MEMORANDUM/*/

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
James K. Singleton, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 5, 2007/**/

Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Jeanette Ueda Collier and Stephen Carroll Collier appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their action for injunctive relief, alleging that employees of the Internal Revenue Service and Mr. Collier's employer instituted improper levy actions against them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291. After de novo review, Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1990), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Colliers' action because it is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. See 26 U.S.C. section 7421(a). The Colliers offer no basis for concluding that their claims against the government's levy actions fall into the judicial exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. See Elias, 908 F.2d at 525 (requiring taxpayer to demonstrate that government cannot ultimately prevail on the merits and that taxpayer will suffer irreparable injury without injunctive relief).

Because Mr. Collier's claims against his employer are based on withholding actions it took pursuant to mandatory legal duties, the district court also properly dismissed those claims. See 26 U.S.C. section 6332 (requiring party in possession of property subject to levy to surrender such property); see also Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that suit against employer for withholding taxes is barred by Anti-Injunction Act).

The Colliers' remaining contentions lack merit.

Because the arguments raised in the Colliers' appeal are frivolous, we grant the government's motion for sanctions, and we award sanctions in the amount of $ 4,000. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Grimes v. Comm'r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). For the same reason, we grant Appellee General Communications, Inc.'s motion for sanctions in the amount of $ 2,776.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

/*/ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/**/ The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[.]

It's a victory. Their frivolity only cost them $6,776.

[LPC]

This is the SECOND ruling by the 9th Circuit against Stephen Collier, because on 3/27/2006 it entered an almost identical order affirming an almost identical decision by the district court in an almost identical action against IRS employees. The 9th Circuit docket number is 04-35571 and the DC docket number is CV-03-00251 (Alaska).

And Dennis Parizek may be the most-often sued person in the IRS, because his name appears on most notices generated by the Ogden office, including notices of frivolous return penalties.

[The Observer]

And Dennis Parizek may be the most-often sued person in the IRS, because his name appears on most notices generated by the Ogden office, including notices of frivolous return penalties.

He was designated by Conspiracy Central to be Lead Spear Catcher for the IRS.

[webhick]

And Dennis Parizek may be the most-often sued person in the IRS, because his name appears on most notices generated by the Ogden office, including notices of frivolous return penalties.

He was designated by Conspiracy Central to be Lead Spear Catcher for the IRS.

And he was my Secret Santa last year. Who frickin' gives Midol for Christmas? WHO?!

[.]

Dennis Parizek may be the most-often sued person in the IRS

Someone should send this guy a Q mug or a Christmas card or something.

I mean, the endless stream of process servers showing up at his door to serve soon-to-be-dismissed lawsuits has to get a bit old.

[Demosthenes]

Someone should send this guy a Q mug or a Christmas card or something.

My guess is he doesn't open boxes from unknown senders...

[Imalawman]

Someone should send this guy a Q mug or a Christmas card or something.

My guess is he doesn't open boxes from unknown senders...

But I'm sure someone does. I get some really odd packages from TPs, my brave secretary opens them all without blinking. One time, a letter shut down the office for 3 hours while the hazmat team was called. Fortunately, it was nothing harmful.

Most of the time if they're addressed correctly, they're safe. You'd be surprised how TP's lack the ability to properly address a package/envelope.

[Demosthenes]

I definitely won't be sending a mug to his home. The TPs have been plastering his home address (complete with mapquest instructions) all over the internet.

[Imalawman]

I definitely won't be sending a mug to his home. The TPs have been plastering his home address (complete with mapquest instructions) all over the internet.

And TPs wonder why a lot of us remain anonymous on here... Maybe if they weren't such an angry little bunch, they'd find the world a little more hospitable.