United States of America v. Joling et al

Filing 90

ORDER: Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 46 ; Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 48 ; Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 50 ; Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 52 ; Denying Defendants' Motion to Vacate default judgment 59 . Signed on 2/2/10 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (sln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.
STEVEN D. JOLING, KARl JOLING, MYRTLE LANE MOTEL, LLC, RONALD D. JOLING, DOROTHEA J. JOLING, CITIBANK (South Dakota), THE COVENANT FAMILY ALLIANCE Defendants.

Civil No. 08-0638l-HO ORDER

Plaintiff United States of America (USA) filed suit against defendants in order to: (1) reduce to judgment the outstanding

federal tax assessments against defendant Steven Joling and the penalties assessed against defendant Joling for filing frivolous tax returns; (2) to set aside the fraudulent conveyance of real property (subject property) from defendant Joling to defendant 1 - ORDER

The Covenant Family Alliance (CFA), a nominee, alter ego, or transferee of Steven Joling, and (3) to foreclose tax liens against the subject property. When defendants failed to file

responsive pleadings within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff USA filed a motion for entry of default against all named defendants. In response to plaintiff's motion for entry of default, defendants Steven Joling, RonaId D. Joling, Dorothea J. Joling, and Kari Joling filed documents titled SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, or in the alternative: PETITION TO: DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE THIS MATTER", contending (to the extent discernable), that (1) the court does not have venue, and (2) jurisdiction is improper because the court is on land and the action should be adjudicated under adrniralty law. motions to dismiss. Because Steven Joling resides in Oregon and the subject property on which the United States seeks to forec1ose is located in this judicial district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§

Defendants filings are hereby construed as

1391 and

1396, this court is the proper venue for this matter. Furthermore, this court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1345. Defendants motions lack any reference to the record in this matter and instead baldly assert that their motions are "court
§§

7402 and 7403, and 28 U.S.C.

§§

1340 and

2 - ORDER

orders that must be complied with," list legal definitions from Black's Law Dictionary under the heading "Verified Statement of Fact(s),"and recite assorted "tax defier" arguments. Defendants

also argue that Oregon is a "sovereign nation" and demand that the court stipulate to that fact as weIl as prove fifteen other assorted facts. I find the entirety of defendants' motions without merit, including defendants' Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment by Negative Averment [359] which similarly simply poses 41 separate questions to the court rather than make any cognizable legal arguments. Defendants' allegations contained in their various

motions fail to state any recognizable or valid defenses pursuant to federallaws or ru1es and so, defendants' motions to dismiss and to vacate the default judgment are hereby denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, defendants' motions to dismiss [#s 46, 48, 50, 52], and defendants' Motion to Vacate Default

Judgro,nt ['591 "~ED.
DATED this ~ day of February, 2010 .

.Ua~/~.~
d States Distri

3 - ORDER