Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00258/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00258-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jean Annette Liascos
Defendant
United States of America
Petitioner

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEAN ANNETTE LIASCOS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-258 REC/DLB

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION FOR STAY AND VACATING

ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICED FOR

OCTOBER 3, 2005 

Respondent was ordered to appear on August 22, 2005 and show

cause why she should not be held in civil contempt for her 

failure to comply with the Summons Enforcement Order. Respondent

did not appear on August 22 and did not file any response to the

Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause re Contempt 

specifically provided:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before

Monday, August 8, 2005 the respondents shall

file and serve a written response to the

‘Petition Re: Civil Contempt of Orders filed

May 23-25, 2005.’ Only those issues brought

into controversy by the responsive papers and

supported by declaration will be considered

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 7
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

at the hearing on this Order, and any

uncontested allegation in the Petition Re:

Civil Contempt will be considered admitted. 

Respondents are hereby notified that a

failure to comply with this Order will

subject respondents to possible further

sanctions for contempt of Court.

The court orally ruled on August 22 that respondent is in

contempt of court and directed the United States to lodge a

proposed Order. The United States lodged the proposed Order on

August 30, 2005. 

On August 31, 2005, respondent filed a motion for stay,

noticing the motion for hearing on October 3, 2005. In support

of the motion for stay is filed respondent’s declaration in which

it is averred:

2. On or about October 1, 2004, Internal

Revenue Agent Fred Chynoweth issued and

served IRS Summons to all defendants [sic]

and appellants seeking testimony and

production of certain books, records and

documents, which erroneous believed [sic] was

in the possession of defendants [sic] and

appellants for the years 1998 through 2002.

3. Defendants and Appellants refused for

cause, without dishonor the IRS request for

testimony and informed Fred Chynoweth that

the records and documents requested were not

in the control or possession of defendants

[sic].

4. Defendants [sic] and Appellants asserted

the Fifth Amendment right and have refused

for cause, without dishonor all attempts by

Fred Chynoweth to compel testimony.

5. On May 23, 2005, the Hon. Robert E.

Coyle, United States District Judge, signed

an Order enforcing said summonses.

6. Defendants [sic] and appellants duly and

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 7
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

timely filed Notice of Appeal on June 3,

2005.

6. On August 22, 2005, the said Judge Coyle

conducted a show cause hearing on the Order

enforcing said summonses. The court

concluded that all defendants [sic] and

appellants failed to appear at said hearing

and were therefore held in contempt by the

court. To date, no order has been filed on

the contempt finding as to each defendant

[sic] and appellant.

7. Good cause exists for the issuance of a

stay of all proceedings in the court below

because if the order of contempt issued below

is not stayed by this Honorable Court, the

issues raised in Defendants’ [sic] and

Appellants’ appeal will be rendered moot.

As is discussed in the court’s Order finding respondent to

be in civil contempt and imposing coercive sanctions as a result

of civil contempt, the fact that respondents filed an appeal to

the Ninth Circuit of the Summons Enforcement Order does not

excuse the failure to comply with the Summons Enforcement Orders

in the absence of a stay pending appeal. These legal principles

and case law supporting them were all set forth in the United

States’ petition for the order to show cause why respondent

should not be found in civil contempt. And as noted, the Order

to Show Cause re Civil Contempt specifically directed respondent

to file any opposition to the Order to Show Cause re Civil

Contempt by a date certain. Respondent filed nothing and did not

appear at the August 22 hearing.

Respondent is seeking a stay pending appeal of both the

Summons Enforcement Orders and the oral order issued on August

22, 2005 finding respondent in civil contempt. 

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

The Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the Summons

Enforcement Order states that the issues for appeal are:

1) Whether the District Court had

jurisdiction to issue the Order dated May 23,

2005, the entire record considered.

2) Whether the enforcement of the summons is

a violation of the Respondent/Appellants 5th

amendment privilege.

3) Whether the court can force the Authorized

Agent to testify on behalf of the respondent,

since the respondent is an artificial entity.

In deciding whether to issue a stay of the Summons

Enforcement Orders pending appeal, the court considers the

following factors:

(1) whether the applicant has made a strong

showing that he is likely to succeed on the

merits; (2) whether the applicant will be

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3)

whether the issuance of the stay will

substantially injure other parties interested

in the proceeding; and (4) where the public

interest lies.

United States v. Fitzgerald, 884 F.Supp. 376, 377 (D.Idaho 1995).

In the instant motion for stay, respondent has made no

showing, much less a strong showing, of likelihood of success on

the merits of the issues raised in the notice of appeal. In

fact, respondent does not discuss the merits of the issues at

all, merely relying on the assertion that the appeal will be

rendered moot if the stay is not issued. Furthermore, none of

the issues asserted in the notice of appeal have arguable merit. 

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(a) and

7604 to issue the summons enforcement orders. Respondent’s 

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

claim that enforcement of the IRS summonses will violate her 

rights under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination

cannot be raised on appeal because respondent has not appeared

before the IRS in compliance with the summons and then raised the

privilege with respect to the questions asked or documents

sought. See See United States v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 555

(9 Cir. 1984) (respondent cannot invoke privilege in appeal of th

summons enforcement order, but must wait until he appears before

the IRS and raises the privilege with respect to questions asked

or documents sought). Respondent’s contention that respondent 

is an “artificial entity” of which respondent is the “Authorized

Agent” who cannot be compelled to testify against the “artificial

entity” is unsupported by any legal authority of which this court

is aware.

There is no showing that respondent will be irreparably

injured if a stay pending the appeal of the Summons Enforcement

Order is denied. The Summons Enforcement Order provided that the

validity of any claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege to

questions asked or documents sought would be determined by the

Magistrate Judge during the summons enforcement hearing. Once

those rulings were made, respondent can appeal those rulings to

the district court and from there to the Ninth Circuit. 

Furthermore, the petitioner will be substantially injured by

delay in enforcement of the IRS summons as will the public

interest in the timely and efficiently collection of taxes and

the resolution of litigation involving enforcement of the federal

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

tax laws.

The court also denies respondent’s motion for stay pending

appeal to the extent that the motion is directed to the oral

order finding respondents in contempt made from the bench on

August 22, 2005 and the written Order finding respondent to be in

contempt and imposing coercive sanctions. While an order for

contempt is final and appealable, see United States v. Hallahan,

768 F.2d 754, 755 (9 Cir. 1985), the court looks to the same th

factors in determining whether or not to issue a stay of a

contempt order as described above. These factors do not weigh in

favor of a stay of any contempt order pending appeal. As noted,

respondent’s challenges to the legality of the Summons

Enforcement Order are without merit at this juncture. While

respondent will be injured by the contempt orders because

respondent will be incarcerated and will be required to pay a

compensatory fine, respondent can purge the contempt by complying

with the Summons Enforcement Order and by paying the fine. In

addition, upon compliance with the Summons Enforcement Order and

valid claims of the Fifth Amendment privilege, respondent will be

able to appeal any rulings concerning the privilege and can seek

a stay pending appeal at that time. Therefore, the potential

injury because of the contempt order is not irreparable. 

Finally, as stated above, the petitioner will be substantially

injured by delay in enforcement of the IRS summons as will the

public interest in the timely and efficiently collection of taxes

and the resolution of litigation involving enforcement of the

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

federal tax laws.

Respondent has noticed the motion for stay pending appeal

for hearing on October 3, 2005. Because respondent has not

shown that respondent is entitled to a stay, the motions to stay

is denied without oral argument. Furthermore, respondent was

given the opportunity to file any responses or oppositions to the

Order to Show Cause re Civil Contempt. Respondent failed to do

so either in a pleading filed with the court or orally at the

hearing on August 22, 2005. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Respondent’s motion for stay pending appeal is denied.

2. Oral argument set for October 3, 2005 is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00258-REC-DLB Document 47 Filed 09/06/05 Page 7 of 7