Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00290-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

V. STEVEN BOOTH and LOUISE )

Q. BOOTH, )

)

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-290 REC/DLB

ORDER STRIKING "NOTICE THAT

THE ORDER/OFFER OF ROBERT E.

COYLE, DATED OCTOBER 13,

2005; (DOC 71) HAS BEEN

REFUSED FOR FRAUD, WITHOUT

DISHONOR AND THE AUTHORIZED

AGENT FOR VINCENT STEVEN

BOOTH ACCEPTS THE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF

ACCEPTANCE/COUNTER OFFER OF

ALL CLAIMS, (DOC 70)." (Doc.

72)

On October 19, 2005, respondent V. Steven Booth filed a

"NOTICE THAT THE ORDER/OFFER OF ROBERT E. COYLE, DATED OCTOBER

13, 2005; (DOC 71) HAS BEEN REFUSED FOR FRAUD, WITHOUT DISHONOR

AND THE AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR VINCENT STEVEN BOOTH ACCEPTS THE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ACCEPTANCE/COUNTER OFFER OF ALL CLAIMS, (DOC

70)." In this pleading, respondent asserts that he, as the

"authorized agent" for himself, "accepts the court's order dated

Case 1:05-cv-00290-LJO -DLB Document 73 Filed 10/24/05 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

2

October 13, 2005 ... as acceptance of the terms of the Notice of

Acceptance dated October 12, 2005. (Doc 70)." In addition,

respondent asserts that he “has been informed that the order

dated October 13, 2005 ... may constitute the practice of law

from the bench, is legally invalid, without merit or effect,

scandalous, an abuse of discretion, an abuse of authority,

constitutes a trespass and may constitutes [sic] an abuse of

process.” 

The court hereby strikes this document and disregards it for

all further proceedings in this action. As stated in the court’s

Order filed on October 14, 2005 striking respondent’s document

docketed as document no. 70, the undersigned, Robert E. Coyle, is

not and never has been a surety for either of the respondents

with regard to any claims made against them by the Internal

Revenue Service or for any other claims against them made by any

other person or entity. Therefore, the October 14, 2005 Order is

not an “acceptance of the terms of the Notice of Acceptance dated

October 12, 2005. (Doc 70)." The undersigned, Robert E. Coyle, 

has no financial obligation or responsibility to respondent for

any claims made against him by any person or entity. Again, the

court concludes that the instant document is legally invalid,

without merit or effect, and constitutes an abuse of process. 

The court advises petitioner that the court has the inherent

power to sanction a litigant appearing before it for abuse of

process by the continued filing of frivolous pleadings, which can

include the payment of a monetary sanction, contempt, or

Case 1:05-cv-00290-LJO -DLB Document 73 Filed 10/24/05 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

3

restrictions on the filing of pleadings. If respondent persists

in filing any more documents asserting or implying that the

undersigned, Robert E. Coyle, stands as a surety for the claims

against respondents by the Internal Revenue Service, the court

will issue an order to show cause why respondent should not be

sanctioned under the court’s inherent power.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00290-LJO -DLB Document 73 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 3