United States of Am. & Robert Ackerman, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. v. Leonhard Wodtke, 543 F.2d 43 (8th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
United States of Am. & Robert Ackerman, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. v. Leonhard Wodtke, 543 F.2d 43 (8th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 44 cited at this page2 citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America and Robert Ackerman, Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Appellees,
v.
Leonhard WODTKE, Appellant
76-1792.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 12, 1976.
Published opinion
543 F.2d 43
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6728
Leonhard Wodtke, pro se., Evan L. Hultman, U. S. Atty. and Kieth Van Doren, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, for appellees.
Lay, Heaney, Ross.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before the court on an expedited basis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826(b) and the rules of this court relating to expedited appeals.

On September 8, 1976, appellant Leon-hard Wodtke was adjudicated in civil contempt for failure to obey an order of the district court, entered June 15,1976, requiring him to appear before the Internal Revenue Service and produce certain documents. Wodtke claims that the order of contempt, which was a separate proceeding apart from the summons enforcement proceeding, was entered in violation of his fourth and fifth amendment rights. Appellant also claims that the Internal Revenue Code and the Federal Reserve System are unconstitutional.

The appellant’s fourth and fifth amendment claims were rejected by the district court in its June 15 order enforcing the summons. The appellant took no appeal from this judgment, notwithstanding notice of his right to do so, and the order is now nonappealable. Since the order of June 15 is a final order, the claims litigated therein, including appellant’s fourth and fifth amendment claims, are barred by res judicata. See Daly v. United States, 393 F.2d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 1968); United States v. Peter, 479 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); United States v. Secor, 476 F.2d 766, 770 (2d Cir. 1973). The court below had jurisdiction to enter the contempt order, 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b), and no claim is made that the appellant was not given procedural due process.

The remaining contentions are frivolous.

We affirm pursuant to Local Rule 9(a).