## Facts

- Edward D. Christensen, proceeding pro se, repeatedly challenged federal income tax assessment and collection, asserting the tax system was unconstitutional and refusing to file returns or pay taxes.
- He had been held civilly liable for unpaid taxes and criminally liable for failure to file returns; after continued nonpayment, the IRS seized assets and pursued collection.
- Christensen filed multiple suits against numerous federal and state officials (including judges, prosecutors, and IRS personnel), alleging constitutional violations arising from tax enforcement and prior court proceedings.
- His filings recycled theories previously rejected in prior civil and criminal cases and in multiple earlier appeals, including claims that tax return requirements violated the Fourth and Thirteenth Amendments and that courts lacked jurisdiction absent a “federal enclave.”
- The district court dismissed two related civil actions in detailed opinions rejecting these claims; the Tenth Circuit later affirmed the dismissals and ordered Christensen to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for frivolous litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether Christensen’s appeals, which reiterated previously rejected tax-protest arguments and attacked the legitimacy of courts and tax enforcement, were frivolous and abusive.
2. What monetary sanctions and prospective filing restrictions an appellate court may impose to deter repetitive, meritless litigation.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit held Christensen’s appeals were frivolous and part of a repetitive, abusive pattern of litigation.
- The court awarded double costs in favor of the United States.
- The court ordered Christensen to pay $500 to the clerk as a contribution toward costs and expenses caused by the litigation.
- The court enjoined Christensen from filing further complaints in the District of Utah or appeals in the Tenth Circuit containing the same or similar allegations, including direct or indirect challenges to prior proceedings or judgments.
- The court barred Christensen from pursuing further civil appeals in the Tenth Circuit until he proved compliance with the sanctions imposed in this case and in a prior sanctions matter involving him.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court of appeals may impose sanctions, including double costs and monetary payments, for frivolous appeals.
- Courts may impose prospective filing injunctions against litigants who persist in filing repetitive actions that reassert claims already finally rejected.
- Filing restrictions may condition future access to appellate review on proof of compliance with prior sanctions orders, particularly where warnings and earlier sanctions have failed to deter abusive conduct.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit responded to a long pattern of meritless tax-protest litigation by imposing double costs, a monetary sanction, and strict filing restrictions, including a conditional bar on future civil appeals until prior sanctions were satisfied.


Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1990)