arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them”). Indeed, this court has upheld a Fed.R.CivJP. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Mr. Ambort’s refund claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Benson v. United, States, Nos. 94-4182, 95-4061, 1995 WL 674615, at **2 - 3 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 1995). In that case, we specifically stated that “Mr. Am-bort, a United States citizen born in California and living in the United States, is subject to the tax laws” and that his assertion of status as a nonresident alien was frivolous. Id. at *3. Contrary to Ambort’s contentions, the consistent rejection of his frivolous arguments does not equate to a denial of access to the courts. See Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1447 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). And, consequently, Ambort’s refusal to accept
holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that media members had no constitutional right of access to tapes holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts