Editing Frivolous litigation (section)

==US Federal statutes and rules of court penalizing frivolous litigation==
In the [[United States Tax Court]], frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 under {{uscsub|26|6673|a|1}}. Similarly, section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] and the [[U.S. Courts of Appeals]] may impose penalties in which the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."<ref>See paragraph (4) of subsection (c) of {{usc|26|7482}}.</ref> A common example, as shown below, is an argument based on [[tax protestor]] claims.

In a noncriminal case in a [[U.S. District Court]], a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".<ref>Rule 11(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.</ref> Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.<ref>Rule 11(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.</ref>

In one case, the Seventh Circuit Court issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".<ref>''United States v. Patridge'', 507 F.3d 1092, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,806 (7th Cir. 2007), ''cert. denied'', 552 U.S. 1280, 128 S.Ct. 1721 (2008).</ref> A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.<ref>Rule 9011(b)(2) and Rule 9011(c), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.</ref>

The [[U.S. Congress]] has enacted section 1912 of Title 28 of the U.S.C. providing that in the U.S. Supreme Court and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages.<ref>See {{usc|28|1912}}.</ref>

Litigants who represent themselves (''[[in forma pauperis]]'' and ''[[pro se]]'') sometimes make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of [[prison]]ers to bring baseless lawsuits led to passage of the [[Prison Litigation Reform Act]] of 1995, which limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions without payment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chen|first=Cindy|date=Winter 2004|title=The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Doing Away with More Than Just Crunchy Peanut Butter|url=https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1272&context=lawreview|journal=St. John's Law Review|volume=78|access-date=2019-03-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190110183924/https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=1272&context=lawreview|archive-date=2019-01-10}}</ref>