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

William McPike State Bar #95869 257 East Bellevue Road, # 188 Atwater, CA 95301 (559) 841-3366 Email: mcpike@psnw.com Attorney for Acacia Corporate Management, LLC Michael Scott Ioane, & Mariposa Holding Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States, Plaintiff, v. Vincent Steven Booth, Louise Q. Booth, Michael Scott Ioane, Acacia Corporate Management, LLC. and Mariposa Holdings, Inc., DEFENDANTS Mariposa Holdings, Inc. and Acacia Corporate Management, LLC., and Michael Scott Ioane REPLY in support of their MOTION TO DISMISS AND GENERAL OBJECTION Date: May 14, 2012 Time: 1:30 P.M. Judge: Hon Anthony Ishii Case No. 1:09-cv-01689-AWI-GSA

Defendants. Defendants object and reply to Plaintiffs opposition based upon the following: The Plaintiff has failed to provide any competent evidence that this suit against Acacia Corporate Management, LLC, Mariposa Holding Inc., or Michael Ioane has been authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury, 26 U.S.C. Section 7401. The exhibits, which are attached to the declaration of Colin C. Sampson do not declare that they are true and correct copies nor do they in any way indicate that the authorization, (assuming it is even authentic, at all), relate to Acacia Corporate Management, LLC, Mariposa Holding Inc., or Michael Ioane. The foregoing considered defendants object to the declaration of Attorney Colin C. Sampson, as false, misleading and an attempt to improperly sway this courts decision. Next, if plaintiff claims ownership of the Properties is completely intertwined with the dispute between Plaintiffs and the United States. (Opposition, page 4, lines 4 and 5), then Plaintiff knew and failed to motion the court in case number Civ. No. 07-1129 (hereinafter pending action) and show excusable neglect (cause) why the court should disturb the settlement agreement and associated stipulated judgment, by and between Acacia and the Booths F.R.Civil P. 60. There is nothing in the pending action record showing that the
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Page 1

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

Plaintiff filed a counter-claim, or motion or motions for relief from an order or judgment involving the same or identical parties and claims in this action. The United States simply could have counter-claimed as a plaintiff in the pending action rather than commencing an action that runs afoul of the rules involving Defendants quiet title action and the courts order recognizing that complaint is authorized by law (Case 1:07-cv-01129-AWI-GSA Document 35 Filed 10/29/07). There is no exception in this case that the United States would not be subject to the compulsory counter-claim provision of F.R.Civ P 13 to wit: (a) Compulsory Counterclaim. (1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim thatat the time of its servicethe pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Here this action and the earlier pending action arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim in this case, and the pending action does not require another party. There is nothing to suggest in the pending action that the Plaintiff prosecuted the case or complied with any rule involving relief from an order or judgment. Defendants suspect that the United States took an independent action because it must have believed that it was barred from taking a counter claim in the pending action according to rule committee notes to F.R.Civ. P 13. If the action proceeds to judgment without the interposition of a counterclaim as required by subdivision (a) of this rule, the counterclaim is barred. See American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co., 260 U.S. 360 (1922); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. National Electric Signaling Co., 206 Fed. 295 (E.D.N.Y., 1913); Hopkins, Federal Equity Rules (8th ed., 1933), p. 213; Simkins, Federal Practice (1934), p. 663 Thus the Plaintiff in this case, having failed in the pending action to counter claim or make timely motions, also waived and forfeited the quiet title claim against it. Third, the government fails to recognize that neither Acacia Corporate Management, LLC. Mariposa Holding Inc. or Michael Ioane is the taxpayers. Regarding these defendants
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Page 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

and the pending action F.R.Civ. P 13 applies to the government and counter claim is compulsory. Caleshu v. United States, 570 F 2d 711 (8th Cir. 1978; Pfeiffer Co v. United States, 518 F.2d 124, 130 (8th Cir. 1974); Gustin v. United States, 876 F. 2d 485, 480 n.1 (5th Cir. 1989); Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 166 ( 1960), see, also Russell V. United States, 592 F 2d 1069, 1073 ( 9th Cir, 1997). Fourth, Plaintiffs failure to comply with the rules involving amended pleadings in this case is additional grounds for dismissal; see F.R.Civ P 15 and rule 21. Fifth, if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 41(b). This rule does not limit the Defendant(s) from moving to dismiss this action or any claim against them due to Plaintiffs failure to prosecute or to comply with the rules in the pending action, (07-1129). Sixth, the government fails to recognize that the settlement agreement and associated stipulated judgment, in the pending action, is a private agreement between Acacia Corporate Management, L.L.C., and Dr. and Mrs. Booth, which the government has no standing to interfere with or move to disturb. It is a binding stipulation to quite title between Acacia Corporate Management, L.L.C and the Booths, which was entered into in the presence of the court. It was recorded in the Official Records of Kern County Recorders Office and service was made upon the government. The government now claims an interest in the real property through the Booths; however, the Booths have no right title or interest in the real property, with the exception that they may have an ownership interest in the mortgage deeds secured against the real property and not disturbed by the stipulated judgment, in pending action. GENERAL OBJECTION Defendants generally object to each and every claim Plaintiff has made in this case that is irrelevant to actions it was required by rule to take in the pending action. CONCLUSION It is bewildering why the government continues their attempts to secure the real properties subject of the pending action? Acacia Corporate Management, L.L.C., purchased three pieces of real property from Bakersfield Properties and Trust, in December of 2005, for valuable consideration, namely cash, notes and assumptions of the existing deeds of trust seDEFENDANTS REPLY TO GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Page 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 27 28

cured against the real property. Those deeds of trust state on their face that Southern Financial Services, Treble LLC and its assigns are the beneficiaries. See Judicial Notice # 3, filed in Support of this Motion to dismiss. The estimated balance owed on those deeds, as of today, is $800,000. According to the government Southern Financial Services and Treble LLC are the alter egos of Dr. and Mrs. Booth, so ultimately those funds would have been owed to Dr. and Mrs. Booth. How then were Dr. and Mrs. Booth insolvent either at the time of the sale, 2005, or now? The bigger question is why the government continues to fight over the real properties verses issuing levy notices against Southern Financials Services and Treble LLC, (assuming Southern Financial Services is actually the alter ego of Dr. and Mrs. Booth?). In addition to cause set forth in Defendants motion, the Court should grant Defendants current motion because Plaintiff has failed to show their excusable neglect in the pending action that involves the same or identical parties and issues, and follow the rules that mandate the United States in the pending action, not this case. Furthermore, based on the Declarations and Judicial Notice filed in support of the motion to dismiss the court is authorized to proceed on summary judgment. Date: May 8, 2012 Submitted by, /s/William McPike/s/ William McPike, Attorney for Acacia Corporate Man agement, LLC, Mariposa Holding, Inc and Michael Ioane Certificate of Service It is hereby certified that on May 8, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing: 1) Reply to Opposition to Motion to dismiss

With the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: G Patrick Jennings,Trial Attorney Tax Division,US Dept of Justice P.O. Box 683,Ben Franklin Station,Washington, D.C. 20044-0683And Randolf Krbechek 9477 N. Fort Washington Road, Suite 104, Fresno, CA 93730 By:/s/ William McPike /s/ William McPike

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Page 4