Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05383/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05383-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Legal Services
Defendant
Ear of Malchus
Defendant
William J. Kennedy
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIAM J. KENNEDY, individually and

d/b/a AMERICAN LEGAL SERVICES and

EAR OF MALCHUS,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-05383 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 2, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

Case 3:06-cv-05383-JCS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. On what evidence does Defendant rely, beside his own self-serving declaration, that he

no longer markets a program or arrangement known as a “corporation sole”? What is

Defendant’s response to the multiple declarations of clients and potential clients who

declare under penalty of perjury that they have attended several meetings well into 2006

regarding corporations sole and other programs?

2. It is clear from the record that the “agreement” submitted for review to the IRS was not

a mutual agreement, but rather a promise by Defendant to cease promotion of his tax

evasion plans. However, if Defendant agrees to cease organizing, promoting,

marketing, or selling any plan or arrangement, including his corporation sole program,

why does he contest the Court so ordering? 

3. What is the difference between the corporation sole arrangements and the debt

elimination programs? Is the government seeking to enjoin both?

4. Should the Court adopt its tentative decision and grant a preliminary injunction, what is

the appropriate bond amount?

5. What specific discovery does Defendant wish to obtain should he be granted leave to

conduct discovery prior to issuance of a preliminary injunction?

6. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05383-JCS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2