and therefore subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Fostvedt’s position was (and apparently continues to be) that he was a citizen of the United States of America, not of the United States, and that the Code therefore did not apply to him. Fostvedt Depo. at 8-11 ; Fostvedt v. United States, 978 F.2d 1201, 70 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) ¶ 92-5267, 92-6115 (10th Cir.1992) (declining to impose sanctions for Fostvedt’s position in separate litigation but noting “sanctions may be considered proper” if he attempts to raise the issue again). Fostvedt’s position was and is patently frivolous, see Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir.1990), and could not have given rise to bad faith on the part of Salas. See Fostvedt, 978 F.2d 1201, 70 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) ¶ 92-5267 (<HOLDING>). Fostvedt’s claim regarding the letters of
recognizing that officials failure timely to respond to grievance could be basis for prisoner to show he exhausted available administrative remedies holding no judicial remedy available to fostvedt for irs failure to timely respond to his request for technical advice holding that facts deemed admitted as to one defendant because of his failure to respond to the plaintiffs request for admissions are not binding on a codefendant holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking holding that a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies when his claim is deemed denied because of failure of administrator to respond in a timely manner