WILLIAM MePIKE State Bar #95869 MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, Pro Se 108 East John Street Carson City, Nevada 89706 Telephone (559) 841-3366 Facsimile (559) 841-5343 Email: mepike@psnw.com William McPike Attorney for Acacia Corporate Management, LLC Michael Scott Ioane, Pro se UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ACACIA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, LLC MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERI- CA, STEVEN BOOTH, LOUISE, BOOTH, BAKERSFIELD PROPERTIES AND TRUST COMPANY, ALPHA OMEGA TRUST, ALIGNED ENTER- PRISES TRUST, Defendants. | Case No. 1:07-CV-1129 AWI NEW (TAG) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUP- PORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO HOLD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONTEMPT OF THE QUIET TITLE JUDGMENT ORDER GRANTED AND ENTERED IN FA- VOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON SEPTEM- BER 25, 2007. Date: August 30, 2010 Time: 1:30 pm. Ctrm: 2, 2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CA Hon. Anthony W. lishi PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO HOLDTHE UNITED STATES IN CONTEMPT CASE NO, 1:07-CV-1129 AWI NEW (TAG), Page - 1COMES NOW plaintiffs and in support of their Motion To Hold The United States Of America In Con-Tempt Of The Quiet Title Judgment Order Granted And Entered In Favor Of Plaintiffs On September 25, 2007represents as follows: On September 25, 2007 this Court granted judgment to plaintiffs quiet- ing title to certain real property located at 1927 21" Street, Bakersfield, Cali- fornia 93301, APN 003-241-05, 5717 Roundup Way, Bakersfield, California 93306, APN 386-140-08, and 5705 Muirfield Drive, Bakersfield, California 93306, APN 387-180-06, hereinafter “the property” [Document number 10]. It ought to be noted that defendant United States has acquiesced to the same judgment as of September 25, 2007. On June 30, 2010, in utter disregard of the aforementioned Court Order, the United States of America, by and through the Internal Revenue Service, ACS Agent Hoos caused to be filed at the Kern County recorder’s office an alleged notice of federal nominee lien against the property despite the Court's Order quieting title to the property. See, attached Exhibit 1. Given the above stated facts the United States is in contempt of the Court’s Order, of which it was not only aware of, but to which it was a party. Consequently, the United States ought to be held in contempt and further re- quired to withdraw the frivolous notice of nominee lien, and further pay to plaintiffs personally a minimum of $2,000 in damages for such an unlawful act, caused, directly or indirectly by its agents and employees A district court has the inherent power to enforce its orders through civil contempt. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). A finding MOTION TO HOLDTHE UNITED STATES IN CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1:07-CV-1129 AWI NEW (TAG), Page - 2 PLAINTIFFwe wn of civil contempt is proper when a party disobeys a specific and definite court order by failing to take all reasonable steps within his or her power to comply. See Go-Video, Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs, as the moving party, bears the initial burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has violated a specific and definite Order of the Court. See FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the respon- dent to demonstrate why he was unable to comply. See id. (citing Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1992)). At the contempt hearing, the propriety of the underlying Order is not at issue; rather, the question for the Court is whether the defendant has the present ability to obey the Court's Order. See Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 69 (1948). “[A] con- tempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the orig- inal controversy.” Maggio, 333 U.S. at 69. In the instant case there existed no impediment for the United States and its employee, agents, or officers to obey the Court’s Order recognizing that the title to the property had been quieted. It cannot be argued that the Internal Revenue Service was unaware of the Court’s Order quieting title to the proper- ty as the United States was a party to the action Moreover, the United States The United States, and not the individual revenue agent nor the Internal Revenue Service, is the proper party in this action. See, 28 U.S.C. Section 2410(a). See, Moco Inves. v. U.S., 08-1972 3rd Cir. 1-26-2010)( Although Moco named the IRS as a defendant, the United States alone is the proper de- fendant in a suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2410.) PLAINTIFFS* MOTION TO HOLDTHE UNITED STATES IN CONTEMPT. CASE NO, 1:07-CV-1129 AWI NEW (TAG), Page - 3