United States of America v. Hymes et al

1 Clerk’s Docket Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS - 1
3:05-CV-0123 RRB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Case 3:05-cv-0123 RRB
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS
Before this Court are Defendants Donald Louis Hymes, Rita
Marina 	Hymes, 	Sunshine 	Trust, 	Rita 	Marina 	Hymes, 	Trustee; 	Charla
Alethea Hymes, and Aurora Trust, Charla Hymes, Trustee, with nearly
identical 	motions 	to 	dismiss. 1 	The 	Government 	first 	moves 	to
strike 	Defendants 	Sunshine 	Trust 	and 	Aurora 	Trust’s 	motions 	to
dismiss because neither Charla Hymes nor Rita Hymes may represent
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD L. HYMES; RITA M.
HYMES; AURORA TRUST, ZENA D.
HYMES AND CHARLA HYMES
TRUSTEES; SUNSHINE TRUST, RITA
M. HYMES, TRUSTEE; ZENA D.
HYMES; CHARLA HYMES; AND
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH,
Defendants.
Case 3:05-cv-00123-SLG Document 43 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 5

2 Clerk’s Docket No. 11
3 Clerk’s Docket No. 13.
4 C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697
(9th Cir. 1987).
5 Id.
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS - 2
3:05-CV-0123 RRB
a 	trust 	in 	federal 	court. 2 	Second, 	the 	Government 	opposes 	the
motions 	to 	dismiss 	as 	being 	without 	merit. 3 	The 	Court 	also 	has
before it the Government’s Supplemental Response and Hymes’ Motion
to Clarify.
The 	Court 	first 	considers 	the 	Government’s 	motion 	to
strike and agrees with the Government that the motions to dismiss
by Defendants Sunshine Trust and Aurora Trust should be stricken.
A 	non-attorney 	may 	represent 	herself, 	but 	that 	privilege 	is
personal to her. 4 	The non-attorney has no authority to appear as
an attorney for others than herself. 5 	Here, Charla Hymes and Rita
Hymes’ 	status 	toward 	the 	trusts 	is 	that 	of 	trustee. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	in 	the 	record 	that 	they 	are 	beneficiaries 	of 	the 	trust.
Thus, while they may each represent themselves individually, they
may not represent the trust pro se.
The Government argues that if the motion is stricken, the
Court 	should 	enter 	a 	default 	judgment 	against 	the 	two 	trusts.
However, 	rather 	than 	impose 	such 	a 	sanction, 	the 	Court 	will 	only
strike the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the two trusts.
Case 3:05-cv-00123-SLG Document 43 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 5

6 26 U.S.C. § 6501(b)(3).
7 Clerk’s Docket No. 6.
8 In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989).
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS - 3
3:05-CV-0123 RRB
Second, the Court considers the arguments presented only
by Donald Hymes. 	First, he argues that, “The ‘taxes’ for the years
1989, 	1990, 	1991, 	1992, 	and 	1993 	are 	past 	the 	statute 	of
limitations for collection purposes.” 	Hymes relies on 26 U.S.C. §
6501(a), 	which 	states 	that 	taxes 	“shall 	be 	assessed 	within 	three
years 	after 	the 	return 	was 	filed 	(whether 	or 	not 	such 	return 	was
filed 	on 	or 	after 	the 	date 	prescribed.” 	However, 	26 	U.S.C. 	§
6501(b)(3) states that, “the execution of a return by the Secretary
pursuant to the authority conferred by such section shall not start
the 	running 	of 	the 	period 	of 	limitations 	on 	assessment 	and
collection.” 6 	Here, 	the 	Internal 	Revenue 	Service 	(“IRS”) 	filed
substitutes 	for 	returns 	for 	Hymes, 	and 	Hymes 	did 	not 	file 	any
returns himself for the years at issue. 	Thus, § 6501(b)(3) applies
and the execution of the returns by the Secretary did not start the
running of the period of limitations. 	Therefore, the Government is
not barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing its action.
Donald 	Hymes 	also 	argues 	that 	the 	United 	States 	has 	no
taxing 	authority 	over 	the 	Defendants. 7 	This 	argument 	is 	without
merit. 8
Case 3:05-cv-00123-SLG Document 43 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 5

9 Clerk’s Docket Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
10 Id.
11 Id.
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS - 4
3:05-CV-0123 RRB
Third, all of the Defendants argue that the Court lacks
both 	personal 	and 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction. 	The 	Defendants
argue 	that 	the 	“United 	States 	of 	America 	has 	no 	constitutionally
granted powers” and that the “United States of America has alleged
no 	offense.”9 	However, 	the 	United 	States 	of 	America 	does 	have
constitutionally-granted powers and has properly alleged offenses
against the Defendants. 	The Court does not recognize a distinction
between the “United States of America” and the “United States.”
Fourth, all of the Defendants argue that the Government
included innocent parties in its Complaint. 10 	However, all parties
are properly before the Court. 	It is not enough for Defendants to
conclusorily state that there are no legal or justifiable causes to
include the various defendants in this action.
Fifth, all of the Defendants argue that their due process
rights are violated by the Government’s Complaint. 11 	However, the
Government 	is 	not 	required 	at 	this 	stage 	in 	the 	litigation 	to
submit all of its evidence or present sworn affidavits justifying
why 	each 	defendant 	is 	named 	in 	the 	Complaint. 	Thus, 	the
Government’s failure to meet each of the Defendants’ demands is not
a violation of their due process rights.
Case 3:05-cv-00123-SLG Document 43 Filed 01/12/06 Page 4 of 5

12 Id.
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS - 5
3:05-CV-0123 RRB
Finally, all of the Defendants appear to argue that their
rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Amendments
were 	violated. 12 	However, 	they 	provide 	no 	support 	for 	their
arguments and the Court is also not aware of any support.
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	herein, 	Defendants’ 	motions 	are
DENIED 	(Clerk’s 	Docket 	No.s 	6, 	7, 	8, 	9, 	10) 	and 	the 	Government’s
Motion to Strike (Clerk’s Docket No. 11) is GRANTED. 	Hymes’ Motion
to Clarify is DENIED because it concerns the tax forms applicable
to him and is without relevance to the Motions to Dismiss or Motion
to Strike.
ENTERED this 12 th day of January, 2006.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:05-cv-00123-SLG Document 43 Filed 01/12/06 Page 5 of 5