With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that he has “forfeited, waived, rejected, declined, and refused to voluntarily accept any and all benefits from the United States”; and that he “objects to the use of Federal Reserve Notes to discharge debts.” Trowbridge also argues that the Tax Court denied him due process by granting the Commissioner’s motion for a protective order against his discovery requests, which consisted of 480 interrogatories, first and second re quests for production of documents, and 545 requests for admissions. Although the Tax Court held that these very same arguments were frivolous and imposed sanctions of $25,000 against Trowbridge, those sanctions did not deter him from pressing the same frivolous arguments on appeal. See Crain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the Tax

A: holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy
B: holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia
C: holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states
D: holding that taxpayers arguments that he is not subject to the jurisdiction taxation nor regulation of the state that the internal revenue service incorporated lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the united states that the tax court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise article iii powers and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven were frivolous
D.