Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00217-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathryn Louise Jones
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CIV. S-06-0217 FCD GGH PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER FOR SANCTIONS

KATHRYN LOUISE JONES,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On February 1, 2006, the United States filed this action

against defendant Jones to expunge and nullify UCC liens filed by

defendant against government officials. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule No. 72-302(c). On August 2, 2006, the

magistrate judge filed an Amended Order and Findings and

Recommendations (“F&Rs”), recommending that defendant Kathryn

Jones be adjudged in contempt of court and ordering a hearing on

whether defendant should adjudged in criminal contempt of court. 

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 4
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 The facts of this case are taken from the certified

facts submitted by the magistrate judge in the F&Rs, filed

August, 2, 2006. 

2 Jones did file documents which were non-responsive to

the government’s motion, such as a motion to strike and a motion

for more definite statement.

2

This action commenced with the United States’ complaint to

expunge and nullify UCC liens filed by Jones in California and

with the County Recorder, Pima County, Arizona; default judgments

also filed with the County Recorder were sought to be nullified.1

Appearing “on the soil, all rights reserved,” Jones brought a

motion to dismiss the complaint based on such frivolous theories

as “Notice of Counterfeit Securities, Notice of Holder in Due

Course Fraud.”

The motion to dismiss was not properly noticed but was set

for hearing by the court on May 4, 2006 to be heard on June 22,

2006. That order directed Jones to personally appear at the June

22, 2006 hearing. Having invoked the Rule 12 procedure, the

undersigned desired a full explanation of defendant Jones’

motion. In the interim, the government filed a motion for

summary judgment also set for June 22, 2006.

Jones did not file opposition or a non-opposition to the

government’s motion, nor was there an appearance by Jones at

hearing of the motions.2 Accordingly, by order filed June

27, 2006, the court issued an order to show cause requiring Jones

to personally appear on July 20, 2006 to explain why the court

should not certify facts to the district judge and recommend that

Jones be held in contempt of court for failing to obey the May 4,

2006 order. Jones was warned that a finding of contempt might

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 4
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

result in a fine or incarceration or both, and might include an

award of attorney’s fees. Jones was also ordered to file a

response to the order to show cause. Jones was cautioned that

failure to comply with the June 27, 2006 order would result in a

recommendation to the district judge that she be held in contempt

of court. Jones filed a response to the order to show cause

which was unintelligible, and also filed a copy of the order to

show cause with language printed over the top page which states:

This ‘order’ failing to conform with any applicable

published and promulgated law(s) or rule(s) for its

issuance, and manifesting dishonor and violation of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) and (3), F.R.C.P. Rules 53(b), 73(a)

and (b) and 83(1) and (2), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072(a) and

(b), is hereby returned to its maker, ‘Refused for

cause without dishonor and, without recourse to me’

pursuant to U.C.C. § 3-501(b)(3)(ii) nunc pro tunc

‘6/27/06.’

See Response, filed July 12, 2006; Reply, filed July 14, 2006.

This response is typical of the type of language used in Jones’

pleadings.

At hearing on July 20, 2006, before the magistrate judge

attorney Yoshinori Himel appeared for the United States. Kathryn

Jones did not appear at the hearing. At that time, the court

stated its intent to certify facts and recommend contempt to the

district judge.

On September 15, 2006, the court held a hearing on whether

defendant Kathryn Jones should be adjudged in criminal contempt

of court. Attorney Michelle Rodriguez appeared for the United

States. Again, Kathryn Jones failed to appear at the hearing. 

The court considers defendant’s failures to appear at court

hearings a serious violation of the Local Rules of this court. 

See L.R. 78-230. Moreover, her failure to appear despite clear

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

judicial orders to do so evinces a disturbing lack of respect for

this court and its orders, and constitutes grounds for finding

her in criminal contempt of court. See L.R. 11-110; see also

Walsh v. US ex rel White, 338 US 804 (1940).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant is adjudged in criminal contempt of court for

failure to comply with court orders.

2. Defendant shall pay sanctions in the amount of $300.00.

Payment should be in the form of a check made payable

to The Clerk Of The Court. The sum is to be paid

personally by defendant not later than thirty (30) days

from the filing of this Order for Sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 4