Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03073/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Elizabeth A. Gardner, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3073-PHX-EHC

ORDER

This action stems from an Order of Permanent Injunction the Court entered on

March 24, 2008. (Doc. 51). The Court found that Defendants engaged in conduct in

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700 by making material statements regarding the tax benefits of

their corporation sole program that they knew or had reason to know were false or

fraudulent and permanently enjoined Defendants under 26 U.S.C. § 7408. (Id.)

The Court ordered Defendants to file a certificate of compliance with the

injunction within twenty (20) days of the order. (Id.) In addition, the Court ordered it

"shall retain jurisdiction over this action for purposes of implementing and enforcing this

Final Judgment." (Id.) On March 26, 2008 Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc.

52.) This case is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

(No. 08-1570.) 

Case 3:05-cv-03073-EHC Document 71 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

On April 10, 2008 Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Permanent

Injunction, (Doc. 56), which the Court denied on April 29, 2008. (Doc. 63.) 

On May 29, 2008 the United States filed a Motion to Hold Defendants in Civil

Contempt. (Doc. 64.) The motion concerned Defendants' alleged failure to comply with

the Court's Order of Permanent Injunction filed on March 24, 2008. (Doc. 51.) On June

3, 2008 Defendants filed a Declaration for Certificate of Compliance. (Doc. 66.) 

Although untimely, Defendants have filed a Certificate of Compliance, stating that

they were in the process of mailing a copy of the injunction to each individual who has

purchased their programs, that they have faxed and sent a list of those who purchased

their program to the United States, and that they were in the process of displaying a copy

of the Court's injunction order at the top of their website. (Doc. 66.) The United States has

not filed any notice in the past two years addressing whether Plaintiffs' Certificate of

Compliance is sufficient. The United States' Motion to Hold Defendants in Civil

Contempt remains pending in this Court without any response by the United States.

On July 21, 2008 Defendant's counsel, Steven D. Keist, filed a Motion and an

Amended Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel. (Docs. 67, 68.) On June 26, 2008 the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit terminated Steven D. Keist from

Defendants appeal. (No. 08-15750, Doc. 15.)

There have been no other replies or motions filed in this Court since July 21, 2008.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Steven D. Keist’s Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel.

(Doc. 68.) 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-03073-EHC Document 71 Filed 09/10/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Defendants in Civil

Contempt, (Doc. 64), is denied without prejudice as moot as Defendants have filed their

Certificate of Compliance. 

DATED this 10th day of September, 2010.

Case 3:05-cv-03073-EHC Document 71 Filed 09/10/10 Page 3 of 3