The Denver-based federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a $1,000-per-day sanction against a conservative podcaster who absconded from the courthouse where he was required to sit for a deposition — and instead returned home to record a podcast and insult the judge.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit also concluded Joe Oltmann and his attorney, Randy Corporon, “crossed the line” by making at least one frivolous argument divorced from the facts of the case.

While the panel found Corporon violated the 10th Circuit’s rules, “we decline to initiate or order any disciplinary proceedings against Oltmann’s appellate counsel,” the panel wrote in an unusual unsigned opinion on June 18.

The members of the panel were Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes, Senior Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. and Judge Richard E.N. Federico.

The 10th Circuit’s decision comes days after the plaintiff, Eric Coomer, prevailed in a separate but closely related lawsuit in which Oltmann was a witness. In that case, jurors found the defendant, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, liable for making certain defamatory statements stemming from a narrative that Oltmann originated shortly after the 2020 presidential election.

Coomer, the former director of product security and strategy for voting technology supplier Dominion Voting Systems, has initiated several lawsuits based on a similar sequence of events: Days after the 2020 election, Oltmann claimed he had recently listened in on an “antifa” conference call — a reference to anti-fascist ideology. On the alleged call, an unnamed participant referenced “Eric … the Dominion guy.”

Oltmann claimed “Eric” said, “Don’t worry about the election, (Donald) Trump is not gonna win. I made f-ing sure of that.”

Based upon information he found online, Oltmann concluded Coomer was the one who allegedly made the comments of election rigging. Oltmann repeated his story publicly, even after the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

Coomer filed numerous lawsuits against Oltmann, media figures, Trump’s 2020 campaign and Trump’s lawyers, who amplified Oltmann’s unproven accusations. One set of defendants included Oklahoma podcaster Clayton Thomas “Clay” Clark and his “Thrivetime Show” as defendants. They gave Oltmann a platform to promote his uncorroborated story of the antifa conference call.

As part of the proceedings, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella ordered Oltmann to sit for a deposition and provide documents. Oltmann, however, walked out of the courthouse mid-deposition. Shortly afterward, he began recording a podcast where he called Starnella, who is Hispanic, a “radical left DEI,” which is the abbreviation for “diversity, equity and inclusion.”

In response, Starnella recommended Oltmann be ordered to pay $300 plus the parties’ costs, noting he had a history of noncompliance in other venues. Last September, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez agreed Oltmann had repeatedly ignored court orders across cases and subsequently “boasted about it.” Martínez did not believe a $300 fine would get Oltmann’s “full and complete attention,” so he imposed a $1,000 fine per day until Oltmann complied with Starnella’s orders.

Oltmann moved to appeal Martínez’s imposition of fines to the 10th Circuit, prompting Martínez to put his sanctions order on pause even as he believed Oltmann would be unsuccessful.

Earlier this month, and while the 10th Circuit was considering the sanctions appeal, Oltmann testified under subpoena in Coomer’s jury trial against Lindell. On the witness stand, Oltmann admitted in federal court that he misled a judge about his inability to sit for questioning, claimed he only “briefly” saw one person’s face on the alleged 19-person antifa video call, and accused unnamed individuals of having “wiped” relevant information from the Internet.

In its opinion, the 10th Circuit panel observed Oltmann’s arguments were “challenging to pin down,” but ultimately determined he had failed to raise several points in a timely manner in the trial court. Because the 10th Circuit is generally hostile to the practice of raising arguments for the first time on appeal, the panel declined to consider those.

The panel also addressed Coomer’s own motion for sanctions, which cited an array of alleged falsehoods and frivolous contentions. For example, Coomer’s lawyers accused Corporon, Oltmann’s attorney and a Republican National Committee representative from Colorado, of neglecting to disclose his status as a defendant in another lawsuit by Coomer.

The 10th Circuit panel did not address all of the allegations Coomer raised, but it agreed Oltmann and Corporon had violated at least one of its rules on appeal. Specifically, Corporon claimed Oltmann “effectively operated in a pro se fashion” — meaning not represented by an attorney — after Starnella’s recommendation for sanctions.

The 10th Circuit does allow a pro se litigant to sometimes pursue arguments on appeal even if they failed to raise those arguments in the trial court. But the appellate panel noted Oltmann was, in fact, represented by a lawyer.

“There is sometimes a fine line between zealous advocacy and frivolity or attorney misconduct,” the panel wrote. Under the circuit’s rules, “arguments are grounded in existing law and based upon facts supported by the record. Oltmann’s presentation on appeal crossed this line.”

Because the argument had no merit, the panel ordered Oltmann to pay Coomer’s costs and attorney fees for the appeal. The judges declined to go further and allow Martínez’s sanctions to apply retroactively, nor would the judges initiate attorney misconduct proceedings themselves.

Attorneys for Coomer and Oltmann did not immediately respond to a request for comment, including a question about whether Oltmann’s recent testimony in the Lindell case means his deposition is no longer warranted.

The case is Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC. et al.