Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02659/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02659-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID PFLUM, PILOT ENTERPRISE, 

LLC, FRIDAY HARBOR WY, LLC, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE 

TAX BOARD, EL DORADO COUNTY, 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CITY OF 

STOCKTON, PLUMAS COUNTY, 

AMIR AHMED,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02659-MCE-CKD

ORDER

Through the present action, the United States seeks to recover more than 

$6.4 million in unpaid tax liabilities from Defendant David Pflum (“Pflum”). Presently 

before the Court is the United States’ Motion to Strike a 56-page document filed by 

Pflum and entitled “Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice of Affidavit of 

Identity.” The United States argues that said document (ECF No. 15) is patently 

frivolous since it “is full of worn out tax protestor arguments that have been routinely 

struck down by numerous courts” and further contains incendiary language specifically 

“meant to harass and disparage the United States and this Court.” See Pl.’s Mot., 

2:17-18; 4: 9-10. As the United States points out, Pflum seeks to define “your Honor” as 

Case 2:15-cv-02659-MCE-CKD Document 23 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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

an “unofficial title referring to a priest and fiduciary of Satan, the Prince of Lies” and “this 

Honorable Court” as a “state sponsored church proselytizing for and administering a 

sham trust . . . for the benefit of men who are fiduciaries and agents of Satan Himself 

. . .” See ECF No. 15, p. 8, ¶¶ 2-3.

Although the United States’ Motion does not specifically delineate the legal 

grounds upon which it rests, the Court construes the Motion as a request to strike from 

any pleading “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). “[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the 

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by 

dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 

697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Examination of the allegations contained in Pflum’s filing shows that it is full of just 

the sort of immaterial, impertinent and scandalous allegations that Rule 12(f) is intended 

to address. Moreover, Pflum has filed no opposition to the United States’ Motion.

Because the United States’ arguments are well taken and unopposed, the United 

States’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.1 The Clerk of Court is therefore 

ordered to strike Pflum’s “Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice and Affidavit 

of Identity” (ECF No. 15) from the court docket for this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016

 1 Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this 

matter submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 23)9g).

Case 2:15-cv-02659-MCE-CKD Document 23 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2