1 ACACIA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, LLC 2 MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE 108 East John Street 3 Carson City, Nevada 89706

775-331-1185 4 5 6 7 8 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO

10 ACACIA CORPORATE ) CASE NO. 11 MANAGEMENT, LLC, MICHAEL ) SCOTT IOANE; ) 12 ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: Plaintiffs, ) ACTION TO QUIET TITLE AND FOR 13 ) DAMAGES v. ) 14 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ) 15 STEVEN BOOTH; LOUISE BOOTH; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FOR ALL BAKERSFIELD PROPERTIES AND ) ISSUES TRIABLE BY JURY 16 TRUST COMPANY; ALPHA OMEGA ) TRUST; ALIGNED ENTERPRISES ) 17 TRUST, ) ) 18 Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) 19 _ 20 COMES NOW, the afore-named Plaintiffs and for causes of actions against the 21 Defendants, United States of America; Steven Booth; Louise Booth; Bakersfield 22 Properties and Trust Company; Alpha Omega Trust; Aligned Enterprises Trust alleges 23 as follows: 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
1

1 2

I JURISDICTION

3 Nature of the Action. This is a Civil Action in which plaintiffs seek to quiet title to real property upon which the United States claims a lien. Plaintiffs further seek 4 damages pursuant to 26 U.S.C Sections 7432 and 7433 against the Defendant, United 5 States. 6 7 Jurisdiction -- Sovereign Immunity Waived -- Quiet Title. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action to quiet title to the property herein below 8 described pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1340, 1361, and 2463. The United States has 9 10 consented to be sued in this action by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 2410 and 2463; and, 5 U.S.C. 11 et seq. 701 12 Jurisdiction -- Damages. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 13 action, i.e., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1346, 26 U.S.C. Section 7432 and 14 7433. This court has authority to award damages pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 7432 15 Section 7433, et seq. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies as and 16 required under IRC, Sections 7432 and 7433. 17 Venue. All acts alleged herein transpired within the State of California and the Fresno 18 Internal Revenue Service Campus. The United States is a party Defendant to the action, 19 therefore venue is properly set herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 2410(a). 20 21 22 II

INTRODUCTORY MATTERS Plaintiff ACACIA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, LLC. Plaintiff is a limited liability

company, organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. Plaintiff has and claims, a 23 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
2

95% ownership interest in all the real property which is the subject of this action, 1 identified herein below. Plaintiff executed an assignment of all rights, claims and 2 3 interest regarding the damages in this herein litigation to PLAINTIFF MICHAEL 4 SCOTT IOANE. In part the assignment of claim, judgment and/or debt states: To 5 further facilitate this assignment the Declarant hereby authorizes said assignee to 6 enforce said claim, judgment, default judgment or stipulated agreement, as the case 7 may be in Declarantss name or otherwise at assignees own expense. 8 9 Plaintiff MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE. Plaintiff is a natural individual domiciled in the 10 State of Nevada, who is a member of Acacia Corporate Management, LLC. As such a 11 member plaintiff has an interest in all the real property which is the subject of this 12 action, identified herein below. Plaintiff in addition to being a 5% member of Acacia 13 Corporate Management LLC has and claims, a 5% personal ownership interest in all 14 the real property which is the subject of this action, identified herein below. Further, 15 Plaintiff is the assignee of all rights and interest to the claim(s), judgment and/or debt 16 belonging to Acacia Corporate Management LLC, regarding this litigation and the 17 damages caused by the erroneous nominee liens. 18 Defendant -- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NOTICES OF TAX LIENS. 19 Defendant, United States of America, acting by and through the Internal Revenue 20 Service and its employees, is, and was, at all times material to the allegations of this 21 complaint, acting under color of law, statute, regulation, custom and usage of the United 22 States of America, in attempting to collect the alleged income tax debt of a third party 23 identified as Steven Booth and Louise Booth, from the Plaintiff. Booths alleged tax 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
3

debt is in excess of $2 million dollars for the years 1995 through 1997, inclusive, in the 1 amounts of $590,941.50, $575,251.35, and &842,895.80, respectively; and, the United 2 States via the Internal Revenue Service has filed notices of tax liens therefore allegedly 3 attaching to the real property which is the subject of this action, identified herein below. 4 The Notices of Liens were filed by Michael Hoos, Employee# 77-01385, with the Kern 5 County Recorder in Bakersfield, California. The Internal Revenue office which was 6 responsible for filing the notices of tax liens is located at 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, 7 OH 45202. The United States claims that Plaintiff is the alleged nominee/alter ego of 8 defendants Bakersfield Properties and Trust Company, Aligned Enterprises Trust, 9 10 Steven Booth, and Louise Booth. 11 Defendant -- STEVEN BOOTH, TAXPAYER WHOSE LIABILITY CREATED THE 12 LIEN. Defendant is a natural individual domiciled in the State of California whose 13 address is 5717 Roundup Way, Bakersfield, CA 93306. Defendant has an alleged 14 income tax debt in excess of $2 million dollars for the years 1995 through 1997, 15 inclusive, in the amounts of $590,941.50, 575,251.35, and 842,895.80, respectively. 16 United States claims that Plaintiff is the alleged nominee/alter ego of defendants The 17 Steven Booth; Louise Booth; Bakersfield Properties and Trust Company; and, Aligned 18 Enterprises Trust. 19 Defendant -- LOUISE BOOTH, TAXPAYER WHOSE LIABILITY CREATED THE 20 LIEN. Defendant is a natural individual domiciled in the State of California whose 21 address is 5717 Roundup Way, Bakersfield, CA 93306. Defendant has an alleged 22 income tax debt in excess of $2 million dollars for the years 1995 through 1997, 23 inclusive, in the amounts of $590,941.50, 575,251.35, and 842,895.80, respectively. The 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
4

United States claims that Plaintiff is the alleged nominee/alter ego of defendants Steven 1 Booth; Louise Booth; Bakersfield Properties and Trust Company; and, Aligned 2 Enterprises Trust. 3 4 Defendants BAKERSFIELD PROPERTIES AND TRUST COMPANY; ALPHA OMEGA TRUST; AND, ALIGNED ENTERPRISES TRUST. Defendants are 5 domestic trusts domiciled in the State of Texas whose addresses are 1001 N. Beckley 6 #108-209 Desoto, TX 75117. The United States claims that Bakersfield Properties and 7 Trust Company and Aligned Enterprises Trust are nominees of Steven Booth and Louise 8 Booth. Each of the defendants, i.e., Bakersfield Properties and Trust Company; Alpha 9 10 Omega Trust; And, Aligned Enterprises Trust, claim a lien and/or mortgage interest in 11 property which is the subject matter of this action. The trustee of said trusts is the 12 Rodney Reed. 13 Property Claimed by United States. The property upon which the Defendant, United 14 States, claims a lien and to which this action relates is as follows: 15 21st Street Bakersfield, CA 93301, APN 003-241-05; 5717 Roundup Way 1927 16 Bakersfield, CA 93306, APN 386-140-08; 5705 Muirfield Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306, 17 387-180-06. APN 18 Prior Ownership of Property By Plaintiffs. Until the notices of tax liens filed upon 19 property above described, Plaintiffs were the sole owner of the property, subject to the 20 various mortgages, which is the subject of this action and had all right and title to said 21 property and the right to the full and unfettered use and enjoyment thereof. 22 Force and Effect of Notices of Tax Liens. The alleged tax liens against Plaintiffs and 23 defendants Steven Booth; Louise Booth; Bakersfield Properties and Trust Company; 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
5

Alpha Omega Trust; Aligned Enterprises Trust , remain in full force and effect to date, 1 depriving Plaintiffs of their aforementioned fundamental rights and property, thereby 2 causing Plaintiff loss of income since December 22, 2005 and continuing to date. 3 4 Specific Knowledge of Defendant UNITED STATE'S Agents -- Actions by Plaintiff. Further, Defendant, United States's agents were specifically informed by the Plaintiff 5 that the property which is the subject matter of this action was not subject to lien for the 6 liability Steven and Louise Booth, or any of the other defendants, yet the United States 7 continued with said lien and to date refuses to release said property to Plaintiff. 8 Plaintiff's attorney wrote to Revenue Officer Michael H. Hoos, the agent responsible 9 10 the notices of tax liens on Plaintiff's property. Each time the subject of the for 11 correspondence was to supply Hoos with evidence and information that the property 12 seized did not belong to Steven and Louise Booth, but rather, belonged to plaintiff, 13 indisputably proving that Plaintiff's property could not be seized for BOOTHS alleged 14 income tax liability. Yet Hoos refused to release Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff also 15 caused to be communicated to other IRS agents and DOJ attorneys the wrongful filing 16 the notices of tax liens as complained of herein, but to no avail. In fact, plaintiff and of 17 counsel were threatened with criminal indictment if they proceeded in an attempt to his 18 protect plaintiffs property with any type of litigation. 19 Seizure of Plaintiffs Property to Satisfy Third Party Tax Liability. -- Illegality 20 Thereof. The notices of tax liens upon Plaintiffs property to satisfy the alleged tax 21 liability of a third party is illegal and not within the scope of lawful activities of the 22 United States, the Internal Revenue Service, or its employees. 23 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Plaintiffs have no access to administrative 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
6

remedies, and therefore cannot exhaust same, as Plaintiffs are non-taxpayers in the 1 instant case as no assessment has been made against Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs 2 remedy is available only through 28 U.S.C. Section 2410 since the lien against Plaintiff's 3 property was for a tax assessed against someone other than Plaintiff. However, to the 4 extent Plaintiffs were entitled to administrative remedies, plaintiffs filed form 12277, 5 Application for Withdrawal of Filed 668(y), Notice of Federal Tax Lien, pursuant to 6 I.R.C. Section 6323(j), which was denied. Additionally, plaintiffs filed, form 12153, a 7 request for a collection due process hearing in timely fashion pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 8 Section 6320 which was denied on the basis of 26 CFR 601.6320-1, a final 9 10 administrative determination from Agent Hoos. Plaintiffs have exhausted its 11 administrative remedies to the extent they existed. Plaintiffs have also exhausted all 12 administrative remedies pursuant to IRC Sections 7432 and 7433. 13 14 15 16 COUNT I AS TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES (Defendant United States Failure to Follow Administrative Procedures)

17 Incorporation. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations and averments 18 contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, inclusive, which are incorporated herein, by 19 reference, as though set forth in full, hereafter. 20 Failure to Issue Notice of Deficiency. -- 26 U.S.C. Section 6212. The United States 21 no power/right to lien the property which is the subject of this action since it failed had 22 issue a statutory Notice of Deficiency as required by 26 U.S.C. Section 6212, thereby to 23 depriving Plaintiffs of their right to petition the United States tax court and availing 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
7

itself to administrative remedies available and provided for under 26 U.S.C. Section 1 6213. 2 3 Failure to Provide Collection Due Process Hearing. -- 26 U.S.C. Section 6320. The United States had no power/right to lien the property which is the subject of this action 4 since it failed to provide a hearing pursuant to and as required by 26 U.S.C. Section 5 6320, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their right to petition the United States tax court 6 and availing itself to administrative remedies available and provided for under 26 7 U.S.C. Section 6320 and 6330. 8 9 Failure to Assess Tax and Penalties -- 26 U.S.C. Sections 6203 and 6671. The United 10 States had no power/right to claim a lien against the property, since it failed to formally 11 assess a tax and penalties against Plaintiffs as required by 26 U.S.C. Section 6203 and 12 Treas. Reg. 301.6203-1 and 26 U.S.C. Section 6671 and Treas. Reg. 301.6671-1 for the 13 1995 through 1997, inclusive. years 14 Failure to Timely Assess Tax -- 26 U.S.C. Section 6501(a). The United States had no 15 power/right to file a lien against the property since it failed to formally assess the tax 16 within the time period specified by Internal Revenue Code Section 6501(a). 17 Failure to Issue Notice and Demand -- 26 U.S.C. Section 6303(a). The United States 18 no power/right to file a lien against the property since it failed to issue a statutory had 19 Notice of Assessment and Demand for Payment, and has not to date mailed to Plaintiffs 20Notice and Demand, which was required by Internal Revenue Code Section 6303(a) a 21 26 U.S.C. Section 6671(a) for the years 1995 through 1997, inclusive. and 22 Liens Invalid -- Failure to Comply with Congressionally Mandated Procedures. IRS 23Liens Against Plaintiffs Property for Third Party's Liability. The liens claimed by -24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
8

the United States on the Plaintiffs property described above are without validity, as the 1 United States had no right title, or interest in the Plaintiffs property, and the United 2 States had no right or authority to assert a lien against such property from the plaintiffs 3 for a third partys alleged tax liability. 4 5 COUNT II AS TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES

6 Incorporation. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations and averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by 7 reference as though set forth in full hereafter. 8 Damages. -- 26 U.S.C. Section 7432. Defendant, and its agents, refuse to release the 9 10 alleged lien against Plaintiffs for the tax liability of a third party as hereinabove alleged 11 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 7432. Said failure/refusal is due to the willful and 12 knowingly illegal conduct of the Defendant, and its agents. Wherefore, Plaintiffs are 13 entitled to damages for the actual, direct economic damages sustained by the Plaintiffs, 14 which, but for the actions of the Defendants, and each of them, would not have been 15 sustained by the Plaintiff; plus, the costs of the action incurred herein. 16 COUNT III AS TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES

17 Incorporation. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver the allegations and averments 18 contained in paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by 19 reference as though set forth in full hereafter. 20 Damages. -- 26 U.S.C. Section 7433. Defendants, and each of them, have attempted to 21 collect a tax within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. Section 7433, in reckless and intentional 22 disregard for each and every, all and any provision of Title 26. Wherefore, Plaintiffs 23 entitled to damages from the Defendants, and each of them, in the amount of one are 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
9

million dollars, ($1, 000, 000.00) or the sum of the actual, direct economic damages 1 sustained by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the reckless and/or intentional actions 2 of the officers and /or employees of the Internal Revenue Service, in addition to the 3 costs of this action. 4 5 Mitigation of Damages. Plaintiffs allege that damages cannot be reduced as Plaintiff's reasonable actions, prior to and after the filing of notices of liens could not have 6 reasonably led to reduction of the damages herein alleged. Plaintiffs further allege and 7 contend that its actions after said filing of notices of tax liens would have reasonably 8 mitigated damages except for the unlawful, illegal, and arbitrary actions and decisions 9 10 Defendant, United States, and its agents, wherein they refused to immediately release of 11 Plaintiffs property upon substantive proof that said release should be made as required 12 law. by 13 COUNT IV AS TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES

14 Incorporation. Plaintiffs re-allege and reaver the allegations and averments contained 15 paragraphs 1 through 27, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference as in 16 though set forth in full hereafter. 17 United States had no power/right to lien against the Plaintiffs property because The 18 government cannot collect the tax liability of Steven Booth and/or Louise Booth the 19 a third party, i.e., Plaintiffs, and therefore, the liens filed by the United States on from 20 Plaintiffs property is unlawful and illegal. 21 Supporting Allegations.

22 Incorporation. Plaintiffs re-allege and reaver the allegations and averments contained 23 paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, which are incorporated herein by reference as in 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
10

though set forth in full hereafter. 1 2 Plaintiffs Shall Ultimately Prevail. Plaintiffs allege herein, in support of the above allegations, that it has made and will continue to make a showing of ultimately 3 prevailing on the merits of the case in that the actions of the United States by and 4 through the Internal Revenue Service and its employees, acting under color of law and 5 office, is in violation of the very laws it is bound to uphold, i.e., U.S.C. 26, Internal 6 Revenue Code, Income Tax Regulations, Internal Revenue Service procedures adopted 7 pursuant to statutory law and regulations. 8 9 Procedural Violations by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs herein allege, in support of 10 above allegations, that the Defendant, United States', by and through the Internal the 11 Revenue Service, was in violation of congressionally mandated procedures and 12 procedures adopted by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, when filling 13lien against the Plaintiff's property for the reasons herein above described. a 14 Government Cannot Prevail -- Violation of Due Process -- Anti Injunction Act does 15 Apply. The Plaintiffs herein allege, in support of the above allegations, that the not 16 government cannot prevail in this exceptional case, as a complete and substantive 17 violation of statutory and constitutional procedural and substantive `due process' is 18 occurring, rather then an assessment or collection of a tax for the year(s) stated herein 19 above, therefore, 26 U.S.C. Section 7421 is inapplicable in the instant case. 20 Inapplicability of Anti-Injunction Act. Defendant is precluded from invoking the 21 Anti-Injunction Act for the reasons enumerated above, and insomuch that the said liens 22 made by the Defendant, United States, were illegal from the onset. 23 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
11

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Relief Available. The Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law because money damages cannot compensate Plaintiffs adequately for loss of business 2 reputation, goodwill, and standing in the community. Moreover, said liens serve to 3 deprive Plaintiffs of all property at the same time depriving Plaintiffs of administrative 4 remedies available to persons against whom an assessment has been made. 5 6 Irreparable Harm. The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and harm to its business reputation, goodwill and standing in the community unless injunctive relief is 7 granted. 8 9 Prima Facie Showing. By the facts herein alleged the Plaintiffs have made a prima 10 showing that it will ultimately prevail on the merits of this case. facie 11 Multiplicity. Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of suits, which 12 involve commonly the facts and issues herein set forth. 13 Special and Extraordinary Circumstances -- Plaintiffs Non-Taxpayer -- Deprivation 14 Property Absent Administrative Remedy. Special and extraordinary circumstances of 15 in that the Defendant, United States, have (i) deprived Plaintiffs of administrative, exist 16 constitutional, procedural and regulatory due process of law, as afore-stated, resulting in 17 deprivation of Plaintiffs real & personal property, for a tax liability that is not the 18 Plaintiffs and cannot be attributed to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs property. 19 Special and Extraordinary Circumstance Exception to Anti-Injunction Act. 20 Plaintiffs herein allege that the extraction of monies and property in a guise of a 21 collection of a tax for other than Plaintiffs income tax liability is unconstitutional, and 22 violation of statutory and constitutional `due process' and `equal protection of the in 23 laws.' Due to the facts set forth herein, special and extraordinary circumstances exist, as 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
12

set forth hereinabove, to bring the case within the limited exception to the prohibition of 1 the Anti-Injunction Act. 2 3 Plaintiffs cannot litigate the merits of Defendant's determinations of tax and

penalties by refund suit in the United States District Court or in the United States Court 4 of Claims by reasons of the requirement of Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, (1960), 5 decision on rehearing 357 U.S. 63 (1958), to the effect that a taxpayer must pay the full 6 amount of income tax the government says it owes, for any period before the taxpayer 7 may sue for the refund or any part thereof, and Plaintiffs are wholly unable to comply 8 with such requirement here. Moreover, Plaintiffs as non-taxpayers in the instant case 9 10 no right to the pay and sue for refund remedy under the principles of Economy has 11 Plumbing and Heating Co. Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585. 12 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

13 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the following relief be granted: 14 That the Court declare the Defendant, United States claims on the property (A) 15 described above are of no validity whatever; and, 16 That the Court declare the tax liens against the property which is the subject matter (B) 17 this action are null and void; and, of 18 That the Court declare that Plaintiffs are the owners of the above described (C) 19 properties that Defendant, United States, has no right, title or interest therein; and, 20 That the Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendant to (D) 21 remove and release all liens and enjoin Defendant from collecting on or seeking to 22 enforce by lien, levy, sale or otherwise, the purported assessments of Steven Booth 23 and/or Louise Booth, as against these Plaintiffs; and, 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
13

(E) That the courts declare that the Defendant, United States, was in violation of the 1 statutory procedure re: filing of notices of tax liens against the Plaintiffs property; and, 2 (F) For an Order to Show Cause, if any, why the Defendant should not be enjoined as 3 hereinabove set forth, during the pendency of this action, and; 4 (G) That the court find Defendant, United States of America, acting by and through the 5 Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sections 7432 and 7433; and award 6 Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 or in a sum of actual, direct 7 economic damages sustained by Plaintiff; and, 8 (H) That the court award Plaintiffs costs of this action pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 9 10 and Section 7433; and, 7432 11 Reasonable Attorney's Fees; and, (I) 12 Grant such additional or alternative relief as the court may deem just and proper, the (J) 13 foregoing premises considered. 14 15 _ 16 17 18 _ 19 20 21 Dated: October 12, 2007 22 23 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, _____________________________________ Michael Ioane, Plaintiff, assignee, owner in fee

_____________________________________ Michael Ioane, on behalf of Acacia Corporate Management, LLC, plaintiff, assignor, owner in fee

1 on the following: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; on October 12, 2007 by depositing true and correct copies thereof, enclosed in a sealed 2
envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States mail at 3 Bakersfield, California addressed as follows:

It is hereby certified that the attached document was served

4 Rodney Reed, Trustee For Bakersfield Properties; Alpha Omega trust; 5 Aligned Enterprises trust 1001 N. Beckley, #108-209 6 Desoto, TX 75115 7
Steven and Louise Booth 8 1201 24th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 9 G. 10 Patrick Jennings P.O. Box 683

11 franklin Station Ben 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Complaint 082007/2410 28

Washington, D.C. 20044-0683 Executed on October 12, 2007. By: __________________ Shelly Olson

15