Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David G. PFLUM, Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
David G. Pflum, proceeding pro se 1 , appeals the judgment entered against him after a jury convicted him of tax evasion and attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 & 7212(a). He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and to pay more than $8 million in restitution. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Mr. Pflum contends he is not obligated to pay taxes to the federal government. In his brief to this court, he states:
The essence of this case is this Court’s (1) dereliction of its duty to know, understand, and declare the law with respect to the controlling definition of the meaning of the word “United States,” as legislated by Congress 26 U.S.C 7701(a)(9) and 28 U.S.C. 3002(15), and the United States Constitution. Article III Sect. 2, (2) denigration of Pflum for exclusive reliance on and usage of said controlling definition and meanings of all of Pflum’s filings, (3) insistence that the Court, a court of general jurisdiction has authority to hear and decide cases in geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for courts of special jurisdiction; specifically Pottawatomie County, Kansas.
Aplt. Br. 9-10 [sic throughout].
We have reviewed Mr. Pflum’s brief and found no reasoned support for these arguments, which we conclude are utterly meritless. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Such tax-protestor arguments have long been held to be lacking in legal merit and frivolous.”); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (listing tax-protestor arguments that courts have found “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous”).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and all pending motions, including Mr. Pflum’s motions to dismiss and to release, are denied as moot.
FOOTNOTES
1. We liberally construe Mr. Pflum’s pro se pleadings. See Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 2013).
Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-3130
Decided: March 02, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)