RayRen98 - Raymond Renfrow - TNT Showtime Activeboard - TNT Dinar pages 1-105

CM/ECF Mobile - NCED
61 Docket Entries for Case 5:07-cv-00117-FL
03/22/2007 COMPLAINT for Permanent Injunction against Raymond A. Renfrow, filed by UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Civil Summons)(Newman, Thomas)
03/23/2007 Summons Issued as to Raymond A. Renfrow. (Deputy Clerk - LKF, )
04/13/2007 SUMMONS Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Raymond A. Renfrow served
on 3/29/2007, answer due 4/18/2007. (Newman, Thomas)
04/19/2007 MOTION for Entry of Default by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of
Thomas M. Newman# 2 Newman Decl. Exhibit A)(Newman, Thomas)
04/19/2007 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 4 Motion for Entry of Default. There was no proposed order attached
to motion. Please submit a proposed order to proposedorders_nced@nced.uscourts.gov - Thank You.
(Deputy Clerk - DR, )
04/20/2007 MOTIONS 4 MOTION for Entry of Default REFERRED to Clerk. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
04/20/2007 ORDER granting 4 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on
4/20/2007. Cys dist. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
05/03/2007 RESPONSE in Opposition re [4 MOTION for Entry of Default and Order of Default filed by
Raymond A. Renfrow. (Deputy Clerk - LKF, )
05/08/2007 ORDER - This matter comes now before the court upon defendant's Objection to Application for
Entry of Default. Defendant, appearing pro se, urges several grounds for setting aside default entered against
him by the Clerk of Court on 4/20/07. Good cause having been shown, the entry of default against defendant
now is SET ASIDE. Defendant's request for additional time within which to respond to complaint is ALLOWED
IN PART, and defendant shall have TWENTY (20) DAYS from date of entry of this order within which to
respond to the complaint. Signed by Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 5/8/2007. cys dist.(Deputy Clerk - DR, )
05/29/2007 ANSWER to Complaint for Permanent Injunction and other Equitable Relief by Raymond A.
Renfrow.(Deputy Clerk - JA, )
06/20/2007 INITIAL ORDER REGARDING PLANNING & SCHEDULING: Discovery Plan due by
7/25/2007.Signed by Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 6/19/2007. Cys dist. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
07/25/2007 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Raymond A.
Renfrow. (Newman, Thomas)
07/31/2007 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 1/1/2008. Motions due by 2/10/2008. The
Parties have chosen court-hosted settlement as their type of ADR. A final PTC shall be sch two (2) weeks
prior to trial. Bench Trial set for 7/21/2008 10:00 AM in New Bern - Courtroom before Chief Judge Louise
Wood Flanagan. Signed by Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/30/2007. Cys dist. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
11/30/2007 NOTICE of Appearance by Frederick Nicholas Noyes on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(Noyes, Frederick)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Case Number or Last, First

12/12/2007 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
(Noyes, Frederick)
12/27/2007 Motions Submitted: 13 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Deputy Clerk -
LL)
01/02/2008 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Letter to the Court (Noyes, Frederick)
01/03/2008 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Court's Initial Case Management Order, docket entry 11, is modified to permit the parties
until 1/15/08 to file supplemental disclosures, until 2/15/08 to complete discovery, and until 3/15/08 to file all
dispositive motions. All other provisions of the order remain in effect, including but not limited to bench trial
setting for the term beginning 7/21/08. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/2/2008. (Deputy
Clerk - DR, )
01/10/2008 ORDER - This matter comes now before the court pursuant to correspondence of the parties,
dated 1/7/08, requesting court-hosted settlement conference. The court hereby GRANTS this request and the
case is referred for court hosted settlement conference pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1, EDNC, to
Magistrate Judge David W. Daniel, who shall preside at the conference for the purpose of resolving all issues
in dispute. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/10/2008. Cys served. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
01/15/2008 Order Setting Hearing - A court-hosted settlement conference is set for 2/6/2008, beginning at
10:00 AM in the 5th Floor Courtroom of the Raleigh Federal Building before USMJ David W. Daniel. Signed by
USMJ David W. Daniel on 1/15/2008. (Deputy Clerk - JRH )
01/18/2008 MOTION relief from requirement to have official with full settlement authority at settlement
conference by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Noyes, Frederick)
01/18/2008 Memorandum in Support re 19 MOTION relief from requirement to have official with full settlement
authority at settlement conference filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Noyes, Frederick)
01/23/2008 MOTIONS REFERRED: 19 MOTION relief from requirement to have official with full settlement
authority at settlement conference Motions referred to David W. Daniel. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
01/25/2008 ORDER granting 19 Motion to allow its official with full settlement authority to be available by
telephone. The plaintiff shall have trial counsel present and his immediate supervisor and Internal Revenue
Service counsel available by telephone for consultation, if needed, for the conference on 2/6/08. Signed by
USMJ David W. Daniel on 1/24/2008. Cys served electronically. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
02/06/2008 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge USMJ David W. Daniel: Settlement Conference
held on 2/6/2008, in Raleigh. Govt. represented by Attorney Frederick Noyes, Raymond Renfrow not present.
Court issues Order to Show Cause. Show Cause Hearing set for 2/19/08 at 2:00 p.m. in the 5th Floor
Courtroom, Raleigh. Govt. may substitute one of our local AUSAs to stand in or may attend telephonically.
(Court Reporter FTR.) (Deputy Clerk - STP, )
02/06/2008 **STRICKEN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 2/19/2008 02:00 PM in
Raleigh - 5th Floor Courtroom before USMJ David W. Daniel.. Signed by USMJ David W. Daniel on 2/6/08.
(Deputy Clerk - STP, ) Modified on 2/7/2008 to show Stricken See DE #23. (Deputy Clerk - DR, ).
02/07/2008 ORDER - This matter is before the Court with regard to the mediation previously set by the Court
for Wednesday, February 6, 2008 in Raleigh. It now appearing to the Court that the Order setting the
mediation for February 6, 2008, was inadvertently not served on the defendant, the Court will reschedule the
mediation for February 19, 2008 at 2:00pm in the 5th Floor Courtroom of the Raleigh Federal Building. The
defendant is directed to attend in person. The plaintiff may participate by teleconference. The Courts prior
order setting a show cause [DE-22] is hereby STRICKEN based on the apparent inadvertent failure to serve
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

notice of the mediation on the defendant. Signed by USMJ David W. Daniel on 2/7/2008. Cys served. (Deputy
Clerk - DR, )
02/19/2008 Minute Entry for proceedings held before USMJ David W. Daniel: Settlement Conference held on
2/19/2008(5th Floor Courtroom). Present: Pltf - Frederick Noyes( by telephone); Dft - Raymond Renfrow, pro
se; Law Clerk - Melissa Metz. Settlement negotiations started. (Court Reporter FTR.) (Deputy Clerk - SP, )
03/14/2008 MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Noyes, Frederick)
03/14/2008 Memorandum in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D-Part One, # 5 Exhibit D-Part
Two, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, #
13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Text of Proposed Order
Proposed Order) (Noyes, Frederick)
03/19/2008 Rule 56 Letter issued as to Raymond A. Renfrow. (Deputy Clerk - DR, )
04/11/2008 RESPONSE re 27 Rule 56 Letter filed by Raymond A. Renfrow. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)
(Deputy Clerk - JA, )
04/11/2008 REPLY to Response to Motion re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA. (Noyes, Frederick)
04/14/2008 Motions Submitted: 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment submitted to Chief Judge Louise W.
Flanagan for consideration. (Deputy Clerk - CB, )
04/29/2008 MOTIONS REFERRED: 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment - Motions referred to USMJ James E.
Gates. (Deputy Clerk - CB)
05/16/2008 NOTICE of Hearing: Bench Trial set for 7/21/2008 10:00 AM in New Bern - Courtroom before Chief
Judge Louise Wood Flanagan. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/2/2008 10:00 AM in New Bern - Courtroom
before Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan. Cys served. (Attachments: # 1 Final PTC Calendar) (Deputy Clerk
- CB)
06/13/2008 MOTION to Continue by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order) (Noyes, Frederick)
06/16/2008 ORDER - In order to promote the continued efficient administration of justice,in light of the
pendency of the motion for summary judgment and attendant matters, the court CONTINUES the case from
the final pre-trial and trial calendar. After decision, the case will be reset on the docket as appropriate. All
deadlines governing the parties' pre-trial preparations set forth in the court's case management order
accordingly now are stayed. Plaintiff's motion to continue, lodged on the docket at entry no. 31, and opposed
by defendant, is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 06/16/08. Cys served.
(Deputy Clerk - CB)
10/02/2008 NOTICE of Appearance by Shana M. Starnes on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(Starnes, Shana)
10/02/2008 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 33 Notice of Appearance - A Certificate of Service should
accompany this filing. Please file the Certificate of Service using the event code titled as such under the
"Service of Process" heading. Thank you. (Baker, C.)
10/02/2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 33 Notice of Appearance
(Starnes, Shana)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

10/02/2008 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 33 Notice of Appearance, 34 Certificate of Service - Counsel has
not evidenced service of Notice of Appearance upon pro se Defendant, who is not a CM/ECF filer. See
Section F(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual available on the
Court's website. (Baker, C.)
10/02/2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 33 Notice of Appearance
(Starnes, Shana)
01/26/2009 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is RECOMMENDED that the Government's motion for summary judgment
be ALLOWED and that the court issue an injunction. SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS . Signed by U.S.
Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 01/26/09. (Attachments: # 1 M&R Notice). Copies served. (Baker, C.)
02/17/2009 Motions Submitted: 36 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 25 MOTION for Summary
Judgment filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA submitted to Chief Judge Flanagan for consideration.
(Baker, C.)
03/09/2009 ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUCTION granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting
36 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 03/08/09. Copies
served. (Baker, C.)
03/10/2009 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, in accordance with the court's order
entered March 9, 2009, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as there is no dispute of
material fact. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7407, and 7408, to the permanent injunction
against Defendant as more specifically set forth in the court's March 9, 2009 order. Signed by Clerk of Court
on 03/10/09. Copies served. (Baker, C.)
04/24/2009 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Memo and Recommendation; Order and Perm. Injunction; Judgment
served on Raymond Renfrow on April 7, 2009, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Starnes, Shana)
09/15/2009 MOTION for Contempt by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of
Law in Support of United States' Motion for Contempt, # 2 Declaration of Shana M. Starnes, # 3 Exhibit 1 -
Letter dated 08/19/09, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Delivery tracking information (Starnes, Shana) Modified on 10/13/2009 to
correct docket entry text (Baker, C.).
09/17/2009 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 40 Motion for Contempt - Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1, or the
judge's practice preferences on the court's website, counsel must submit a proposed order. The order must be
filed electronically using the event PROPOSED ORDER located in the RESPONSES AND REPLIES
category. (Baker, C.)
09/17/2009 Proposed Order re 40 MOTION United States' Motion for Contempt filed by UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. (Starnes, Shana)
10/13/2009 Motions Submitted: 40 MOTION for Contempt submitted to Chief Judge Flanagan for
consideration. (Baker, C.)
10/23/2009 Declaration re 37 ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Raymond A. Renfrow filed by
Raymond A. Renfrow. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Atkinson, J.)
10/27/2009 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion re 40 United States' Motion for Contempt : Hearing is set in the
case at the United States Courthouse at New Bern, North Carolina on Monday, November 16, 2009, at 3:00
p.m., at which defendant is ORDERED to appear and show cause why he should not now be found in
contempt of court for failure to fully adhere to the court's order dated March 9, 2009. Signed by Chief Judge
Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/26/09. Copies served. (Baker, C.)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

11/05/2009 NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica S. Reimelt on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(Reimelt, Jessica)
11/16/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan: Show Cause
Hearing held on 11/16/2009 in New Bern. Present for Plaintiff - Jessica Reimelt. Pro se Defendant not
present. Court grants plaintiff's 40 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff to submit proposed amended order for
consideration. Attached document for court use only. (Court Reporter Harry Hagopian.) (Baker, C.)
11/18/2009 ORDER granting 40 Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood
Flanagan on 11/18/09. Copies served. (Baker, C.)
12/08/2009 SUMMONS Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Raymond A. Renfrow served
on 11/19/2009, answer due 12/9/2009. (Starnes, Shana)
12/28/2009 Motions Submitted: 47 SEALED MOTION by Defendant Raymond A. Renfrow submitted to Chief
Judge Flanagan for consideration. (Baker, C.)
12/29/2009 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant is relieved now of the court sanctions
and shall pay nothing. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/29/09. Copies served. (Baker, C.)
12/31/2009 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Court Order dated 11/18/2009 served on Raymond A. Renfrow on
12/17/2009 filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Atkinson, J.)
44
45
46
48
49
50

Query Reports Utilities Logout
5:07-cv-00117-FL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Renfrow
Louise Wood Flanagan, presiding
Date filed: 03/22/2007
Date terminated: 03/10/2009
Date of last filing: 12/31/2009
Parties with aliases
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
(Defendant)
PRO SE
dba Ideal Tax Service and First Class Limousine
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
Avoid Raymond Renfrow
PACER
Login:
Raymond Renfrow Client Code:
Description: Aliases
Search
Criteria:
5:07-cv-00117-
FL
Billable
Pages:
1 Cost: 0.10

Query Reports Utilities Logout
5:07-cv-00117-FL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Renfrow
Louise Wood Flanagan, presiding
Date filed: 03/22/2007
Date terminated: 03/10/2009
Date of last filing: 12/31/2009
Filer Raymond A. Renfrow
Doc.
No.
Event Name Filed
6 Response in Opposition to Motion 05/03/2007
8 Answer to Complaint 05/29/2007
10 Discovery Plan 07/25/2007
28 Response 04/11/2008
42 Declaration 10/23/2009
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
Crybaby RayRen98
PACER Login: RayRay Client Code:
Description: Filer List Search Criteria: 5:07-cv-00117-FL
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.10

-1- 2292205.2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 1:07-CV-117(__)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT
) INJUNCTION AND OTHER
RAYMOND A. RENFROW, ) EQUITABLE RELIEF
individually and d/b/a )
IDEAL TAX SERVICES and )
FIRST CLASS LIMOUSINE, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
The plaintiff, the United States of America, complains and alleges against defendant
Raymond A. Renfrow, individually and doing business as Ideal Tax Services and First Class
Limousine, as follows:
1. This is a civil action brought by the United States pursuant to sections 7402(a),
7407, and 7408 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) (“I.R.C.”) to restrain and enjoin
Renfrow and all those in active concert or participation with him from:
a. Acting as a federal tax return preparer or requesting, assisting in, or
directing the preparation and/or filing of federal tax returns for any person
or entity other than himself;
b. Appearing as a representative on behalf of any person or organization
before the Internal Revenue Service;
c. Understating customers’ tax liabilities as penalized by I.R.C. § 6694;
d. Failing to list a tax identification number or to sign tax returns for which
he is a tax-return preparer and other conduct subject to penalty under
Case 5:07-cv-00117-FL Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 20

-2- 2292205.2
I.R.C. § 6695;
e. Engaging in activity subject to penalty under I.R.C. § 6700, including
making, in connection with the organization or sale of any plan or
arrangement, any statement about the securing of any tax benefit that the
defendant knows or has reason to know is false as to any material matter;
f. Engaging in activity subject to penalty under I.R.C. § 6701, including
preparing or assisting in the preparation of a document related to a matter
material to the internal revenue laws that includes a position that he knows
would result in an understatement of another person’s tax liability; and
g. Engaging in any other conduct subject to any penalty under the Internal
Revenue Code or any conduct that interferes with the administration and
enforcement of the internal revenue laws.
Jurisdiction
2. This suit is brought under Sections 7402, 7407, and 7408 of the Internal Revenue
Code (26 U.S.C.) to restrain and enjoin defendant from preparing federal income tax returns for
others, engaging in any activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, 6700 or 6701,
and engaging in conduct that substantially interferes with the proper administration and
3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Sections 1340 and 1345 of Title 28,
United States Code, and I.R.C. §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408.
Defendant
4. Renfrow resides in Elm City, North Carolina within this judicial district.
5. Renfrow conducts business through Ideal Tax Services and First Class
Limousine, which are located in Elm City, North Carolina, within this judicial district.

-3- 2292205.2
Activities of Defendant, Concept Marketing International,
National Trust Services and Trust Educational Services
6. Renfrow, operating under the business names of Ideal Tax Services and First
Class Limousine, prepares and files fraudulent and frivolous federal income tax returns or claims
for refunds for customers. Renfrow generally signs as a paid preparer on the returns he prepares,
but he does not list his own Social Security number but instead lists Employer Identification
Number issued for Ideal Tax Services and First Class Limousine.
7. Renfrow prepares income tax returns primarily for customers of Concept
Marketing International (“CMI”), National Trust Services (“NTS”), and Trust Educational
Services (“TES”).
8. CMI was founded by James E. Aldridge, Jr., in October 1991, as a retail and
direct sales company that primarily operated a multi-level marketing scheme involving the sale
of American Silver Eagle coins.
9. In March, 1993, Renfrow helped Aldridge form a purported trust known as CMI
Trust. Aldridge purportedly transferred his CMI business to the CMI Trust. Renfrow, as the
principal of Ideal Tax Services, acted as a trustee of the CMI Trust along with Aldridge and his
wife, Shirley Aldridge.
10. In 1993, Renfrow formed Ideal Tax Services in order to provide bookkeeping
guidance and tax preparation services for CMI clients. As a CMI sales representative, Renfrow
also promoted and sold to customers CMI’s purported business plan at nationwide seminars.
11. CMI’s business plan contemplates a four-tiered pyramid commission sales
strategy as follows:
a. The first-tier sales representative recruited a customer to purchase $1,000

-4- 2292205.2
worth of silver coins and would receive a $100 commission.
b. Next, the first-tier customer would recruit a second-tier customer to
purchase the silver coins. For this sale, the second-tier salesperson
received a $50 commission and the first-tier salesperson received a $100
commission.
c. This chain of sales extended through two additional tiers. At the third and
fourth tier, the first through third-tier CMI customer, who they called
members, received commissions for any lower-tier sales.
12. CMI representatives, including Renfrow, falsely advised prospective CMI
customers that their purchasing the American Silver Eagle coins would constitute a legitimate
home-based business. This was part of a tax-fraud scheme Renfrow devised and promoted under
which CMI customers could falsely claim to have home-based businesses in order to
fraudulently deduct personal living expenses from their taxable income, including deductions for
such non-deductible items as groceries, furniture, clothing, housekeeping, utilities, and rent.
13. CMI explained its false promise to increase customers’ income while reducing tax
liability in its mission statement, entitled “A Different Economic Reality,” which stated that CMI
has the resources, resolve, and intent to return control of a family’s financial destiny back to the
family, and out of the hands of the employer, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Government.
14. CMI has sponsored numerous promotional seminars, mainly in the Kansas City
area. As part of these seminars, CMI directed customers to purchase American Silver Eagle
coins, and form so-called Unincorporated Business Organizations or business trusts, which CMI
promoters falsely promised to reduce their taxes by 97% or more. In addition to urging

-5- 2292205.2
customers to use sham trusts, CMI instructs customers on how to use sham home-based
businesses to fraudulently deduct personal living expenses from their taxable income, including
non-deductible items such as groceries, furniture, clothing, housekeeping, utilities, and rent.
15. In the mid-1990s, Renfrow and Aldridge formed a series of sham trusts to be used
in connection with the CMI promotion. These trusts were used to promote the sale of a sham-
trust tax-fraud scheme.
16. In January of 1994, Renfrow helped Aldridge establish the Aldridge Family Trust
(“AFT”) and the Liberty Commerce Group Trust (“LCGT”). AFT was both the grantor and
beneficiary of the LCGT trust. Aldridge and his wife Shirley were the trustees of LCGT.
17. Renfrow and Aldridge created LCGT to market and distribute sham-trust
packages consisting of a multi-tiered web of sham trusts, designed to purportedly receive
customers’ income and purportedly hold title to customers’ assets and pay their expenses, while
purporting to exempt their income and assets from taxation.
18. LCGT contracted with a sham-trust promoter called National Trust Services
(“NTS”), which was created by Leroy E. Fritts and Roderick Prescott, to have NTS sell its sham-
trust scheme to LCGT and CMI customers. Renfrow, as CMI’s principal income tax preparer,
also prepared fraudulent federal income tax returns for NTS customers based on the NTS sham-
trust tax-fraud scheme. By 2002, Renfrow was preparing false and fraudulent income tax returns
for CMI, NTS, and TES customers.
19. NTS and TES salespersons instructed customers to create at least two so-called
“complex” trusts generally consisting of a sham business trust and a sham family trust. NTS and
TES representatives further advised customers to purportedly transfer their businesses and

-6- 2292205.2
business assets into the business trust.
20. Thereafter, the business continued to operate as it did before, except that: (1) the
business trust would pay rent to either the family trust or a “holding” trust for the purported use
of equipment or office space and then take a tax deduction for the rent paid as a “business
expense”; (2) the business trust distributed any net income to the family trust; and (3) the family
trust purported to reduce its federal income tax liability by 97% by deducting non-deductible
personal expenses, including personal household expenses.
21. Prescott directed many TES and TES customers who purchased TES and NTS
sham trusts to have their federal income tax returns prepared by Samuel Fung. As part of the
tax-fraud scheme, Fung prepared income tax returns that falsely understated his customers’
income tax liabilities by deducting personal expenses that customers purportedly assigned to the
sham TES and NTS trusts.
22. On June 2, 2003, a federal court permanently enjoined Prescott from selling the
sham-trust tax-fraud scheme, individually and through TES, Case No. 03:02-cv-692-L-JFS (S.D.
Cal.). The injunction order is available at www.usdoj.gov/tax/prtax/txdv03332.htm.
23. While the injunction suit against Prescott was pending, Renfrow purchased his
own series of sham trusts from TES in 2002 and 2003. This included the Renfrow Family
Foundation Trust, Renfrow Group Trust, and the Renfrow Family Trust. In keeping with
Prescott’s sham-trust tax-fraud scheme, Renfrow named himself and his wife as both the
beneficiary and trustee of each trust.
24. On February 11, 2004, a federal court permanently enjoined Fung from preparing
income tax returns and representing that customers can deduct personal expenses on their trusts’

-7- 2292205.2
federal income tax returns. Case No. 03-cv-3123 (D. Ore. 2003). The injunction order is
available at www.usdoj.gov/tax/prtax/txdv04081.htm.
25. Thereafter, on April 12, 2005, Fritts and Prescott were indicted in the Northern
District of California for tax evasion, under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and conspiracy to defraud the
United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371 for their role in the TES and NTS tax-fraud schemes.
26. The CMI entities and directors have faced similar law-enforcement actions. On
January 23, 2004, Aldridge, CMI and Liberty Commerce Group Trust were ordered by the State
of Missouri to cease and desist offering or selling notes or evidences of indebtedness in CMI,
Liberty Commerce Group Trust, and Continental Fiduciary Management.
27. On June 27, 2006, James and Shirley Aldridge were indicted for filing false
income tax returns and aiding and abetting others to file false tax returns.
28. On information and belief, Renfrow is aware of the injunctions issued against
Fung and Prescott. Nevertheless he continues to sell sham trusts and prepare fraudulent federal
income tax returns based on the fraudulent methods described above.
29. On August 11, 2004, IRS agents interviewed Renfrow and advised him that he
was being investigated in connection with possible conduct subject to penalty under IRC
§§ 6700 and 6701 and possible improper conduct in preparing tax returns for customers. During
this meeting, Renfrow asserted the frivolous argument that the Constitution does not require
individuals to file income tax returns and he referred to himself as a “tax protester.”
30. Following Renfrow’s meeting with the IRS, Renfrow has continued to prepare
false income tax returns based on the tax-fraud schemes promoted by NTS and TES, while
working with CMI.

-8- 2292205.2
31. Renfrow continues to promote the same tax-fraud schemes sold by NTS and TES,
at CMI seminars that he has arranged nationwide in 2006 and 2007.
Renfrow’s Fraudulent Trust Promotion and Return Preparation
32. From about 1994 through 2002 Renfrow sold a “Complex Trust System” package
through his affiliation with NTS and TES. Renfrow has also prepared false and fraudulent
federal income tax returns for NTS and TES customers who have used the complex-trust
scheme.
33. The typical “Complex Trust Package” sold by NTS, TES, and CMI calls for an
individual to create a family trust, a business trust, and a private charitable trust, all of which are
shams. NTS and TES representatives promoting this trust arrangement, including Renfrow,
advised customers to transfer their businesses into the business trust, and to transfer personal
property into the family trusts.
34. In each instance, the trust instruments provided as part of the Complex Trust
System names the individual customer as the grantor and trustee of the trusts. In many cases,
Renfrow is also named as the trustee of the trusts he has sold to customers of NTS, TES, and
CMI.
35. The individual customer, as grantor or trustee, continues to have complete control
over the assets that were purportedly transferred to the trusts. In addition, the customer who
purchased the Complex Trust System is usually the signatory on the bank accounts opened in the
various trusts’ names, thereby giving the individual control over any funds purportedly
belonging to the trusts.
36. As CMI’s tax advisor, Renfrow directs customers to conduct their purported CMI

-9- 2292205.2
businesses through the business trusts. Renfrow prepares business trust returns for customers
based on this fraudulent method, which includes improper deductions for the customers cell
phone use, CMI meeting fees, and the cost of the silver coins purchased from CMI as purported
business expenses.
37. Next, Renfrow prepares trust tax returns that falsely purport to distribute the net
income of the business trust to the customer’s family trust in an attempt to prevent the business
trust from incurring any federal income tax liability.
38. The Complex Trust System then calls for the customer, as the trustee of the
family trust, to sign a resolution designating his or her personal residence as the “trust
headquarters.” Thereafter, under Renfrow’s sham-trust scheme, the family trust improperly
deducts — as purported business expenses — all expenses associated with the maintenance and
operation of the “trust headquarters.” These include the customer’s personal expenses such as
insurance on the house, utilities, home repairs, and homeowner’s association fees.
39. The effect of complex-trust tax-fraud scheme is that participants live in the same
residence and operate the same business as they did before participating in the program. Under
the program, participants’ living expenses are paid from the participants’ earnings just as they
were before creating the trusts. The trusts are shams because participants receive the full benefit
of, and have full control over, all trust funds. The only substantive change in the participants’
regular business and lifestyle activities is the purported benefit of no taxation.
40. The trusts used by Renfrow’s customers are operated for the benefit of the owner,
are devoid of economic substance and are shams for federal tax purposes. The program
constitutes an improper assignment of income and a fraudulent transfer of assets.

-10- 2292205.2
41. For example, Renfrow prepared the 2002 and 2003 federal trust income tax
returns for the purported trusts of a customer in Raytown, Missouri. In furtherance of the
scheme, Renfrow prepared federal trust returns (Forms 1041) for the business trust that both
reported income paid from CMI. On the business trust returns, Renfrow reported distributions of
the net income to the family trust. On the Forms 1041 for the family trust for the same year,
Renfrow deducted the Raytown, Missouri customer’s personal living expenses on the return,
including expenses paid to maintain the trust “headquarters,” which was the customer’s home.
42. Renfrow knew or had reason to know this trust arrangement was a sham.
Renfrow’s Participation in the
Concept Marketing International Tax-Fraud Scheme
43. Renfrow is the Regional Sales Director and a trustee of the CMI trust. In 2000,
Renfrow, individually and through his business, Ideal Tax Services, agreed to provide tax
preparation and training courses for CMI customers.
44. As part of that agreement, Renfrow has conducted monthly “Income Tax Boot
Camps” throughout the country in 2006 and 2007, to promote tax-fraud schemes.
45. At these seminars, Renfrow instructs customers on the use of a sham home-based
business to deduct personal living expenses from the customer’s taxable income, including
among other things, groceries, furniture, clothing, housekeeping, utilities, and rent. Renfrow
promotes a tax-fraud schemes that use multiple sham Schedule C businesses for the ostensible
purpose of legal tax savings.
46. As part of the scheme, Renfrow and CMI sell to customers American Silver Eagle
coins, and falsely advise customers that purchasing the coins from CMI constitutes a bona fide
business for the participant.

-11- 2292205.2
47. Renfrow falsely advises customers that they can legally deduct the cost of the
coins purchased from CMI as part of their fictitious business, even though CMI’s promotional
materials state that the coins are held for investment by the customers.
48. Renfrow also prepares income tax returns for CMI participants that fraudulently
deduct their personal expenses as fictitious CMI business expenses.
49. The non-deductible personal expenses Renfrow deducts as business expenses on
customers’ federal income tax returns include, inter alia, (1) the cost of the silver coins, which
Renfrow falsely and fraudulently reports as “CMI association dues” on customers’ income tax
returns, (2) driving expenses, (3) the cost of attending CMI meetings, and (4) personal expenses
related to the customers’ homes.
50. The CMI businesses Renfrow reports on customers’ income tax returns are shams
for federal income tax purposes. Renfrow’s customers’ fictitious businesses are operated for the
sole purpose of falsely deducting personal expenses or the cost of purchasing CMI products as
purported legitimate businesses. The only substantive change in the participants’ regular
business and lifestyle activities is the purported benefit of no taxation.
51. Thus far, the IRS has examined more than sixty false and fraudulent income tax
returns Renfrow has prepared for CMI customers. All of the federal income tax returns
examined by the IRS include expenses for “CMI association dues” on Schedule C forms. The
purported “association dues” are, in fact, the cost of the American Eagle Coins that the CMI
customers bought.
52. Not one of the federal income tax returns that Renfrow has prepared for CMI
customers that has been examined by the IRS is accurate.

-12- 2292205.2
53. Renfrow failed to list his name, or a trade name, as preparer on some of the
income tax returns he has prepared for customers.
Defendant’s Knowledge of the Falsity
of the Tax Benefits of His Tax-Fraud Schemes
54. Renfrow knows that the positions he is asserting on his customers’ income tax
returns are contrary to law because he has referred to himself as a “tax protester.”
55. Renfrow knows or has reason to know the federal income tax returns he prepares
for NTS and TES customers fraudulently reduced their reported tax liabilities.
56. Renfrow knows or has reason to know the federal income tax returns he prepares
for NTS and TES customers fraudulently reduced their reported income tax liabilities because he
knows that Roderick Prescott and Samuel Fung were enjoined from selling the TES and NTS
sham-trust schemes.
57. Renfrow knows or has reason to know that the CMI tax-fraud scheme is illegal.
58. Renfrow knows or has reason to know that trust misuse and preparer fraud scams
are identified in the IRS’s annual consumer alert of tax scams that taxpayers should avoid.
59. Renfrow is also aware that his customers have been the subject of IRS audits
because the income tax returns he prepares for them contain false information.
Harm to the Public
60. The tax-fraud schemes that Renfrow promotes and markets harm the government
by fraudulently reducing customers’ reported tax liabilities.
61. The Internal Revenue Service is harmed because it must dedicate scarce resources
to detecting and examining inaccurate returns filed by defendant’s customers, to preparing
substitute returns for customers failing to file tax returns, and to attempting to recover unpaid

-13- 2292205.2
taxes.
62. Thus far, the IRS has identified over sixty federal individual income tax returns
and fifty federal trust returns that Renfrow has prepared for customers that have resulted in a tax
loss exceeding $347,640.
63. Since 2001, Renfrow has prepared 993 individual income tax returns for
customers. The potential tax loss from Renfrow’s conduct based on the returns examined could
exceed $2,907,792.
64. The United States is also harmed because the IRS is forced to devote its limited
resources to identifying defendant’s customers and recovering any erroneous refunds that are
issued. Given these limited resources, identifying and recovering all revenues lost from
defendant’s preparation of false and fraudulent returns may be impossible.
65. For Renfrow’s customers that the IRS has identified, the IRS must review and
respond to correspondence, request that they file correct returns, assess penalties, and audit them
to determine the correct tax liability. This effort is required for each return filed.
66. In addition to the harm caused by his preparation of tax returns that understate his
customers’ tax liabilities, Renfrow’s activities undermine public confidence in the administration
of the federal tax system and incite noncompliance with the internal revenue laws.
67. Defendant’s customers have been harmed because they have paid defendant fees to
prepare tax returns that understate their correct federal income tax liabilities. Customers who
receive erroneous refunds then must pay back the taxes plus interest. Regardless of whether the
IRS issues a refund, customers may have to pay penalties and some customers could also face
criminal prosecution.

-14- 2292205.2
68. The IRS estimates that during 2001 the difference between the amount of taxes
paid by U.S.-taxpayers, and the amount that should have been paid, equaled $345 billion. See
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154496,00.html. Tax-fraud schemes such as those
promoted by defendant contribute to the under-reporting of taxes estimated in the report.
69. Despite notice from the IRS of this investigation in 2004, Renfrow and CMI
continue to promote their tax-fraud schemes and false and fraudulent return preparation services
and have schedule monthly seminars promoting their tax-fraud schemes in 2007. Defendant’s
background and extensive involvement in these elaborate tax-fraud schemes indicate that the
misconduct described in this complaint or other similar misconduct is likely to recur unless he is
permanently enjoined.
Count I: Injunction under I.R.C. § 7407 for violation of I.R.C. §§ 6694 and 6695
70. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 69.
71. Section 7407 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes a district court to enjoin an
income tax preparer from:
a. engaging in conduct subject to penalty under I.R.C. § 6694 (which penalizes a tax
return preparer who prepares or submits a return that contains an unrealistic
position);
b. engaging in conduct subject to penalty under I.R.C. § 6695 (which penalizes a tax
return preparer who fails to sign a return as a paid preparer or to furnish an
identifying number on the return or to keep a list of customers or copies of tax
returns and turn over the list or copies to the IRS upon request); or

-15- 2292205.2
c. engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct that substantially interferes
with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws,
if the court finds that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such conduct.
Additionally, if the court finds that a preparer has continually or repeatedly engaged in such
conduct, and the court finds that a narrower injunction (i.e., prohibiting only that specific
enumerated conduct) would not be sufficient to prevent that person’s interference with the proper
administration of the internal revenue laws, the court may enjoin the person from further acting as
a federal income tax return preparer.
72. Defendant has prepared at least 993 federal income tax returns that included false
or fraudulent deductions for his customers’ non-deductible personal expenses and their fictitious
CMI businesses. In so doing, he understated his customers’ federal tax liabilities and asserted
positions which he knew or reasonably should have known were unrealistic under I.R.C. § 6694.
73. On some of these returns, defendant failed to list his name or a trade name as
preparer, subjecting him to penalty under I.R.C. § 6695.
74. Defendant’s actions, as described above, are subject to penalty under I.R.C.
§ 7407(b)(1)(A) and (D), and are, thus, subject to being enjoined under I.R.C. § 7407.
75. If he is not enjoined, defendant is likely to continue to prepare and file tax returns
that include false or fraudulent deductions and the use of sham trusts as a device to evade the
proper payment of tax.
Count II: Injunction under I.R.C. § 7408 for violation of I.R.C. §§ 6700 and 6701
76. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 75.

-16- 2292205.2
77. I.R.C. § 7408 authorizes a court to enjoin persons engaging in any conduct subject
to penalty under I.R.C. § 6701 from engaging in such conduct or any conduct subject to penalty
under the Internal Revenue Code if the court finds that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent
the recurrence of such conduct.
78. Section 6700 imposes a penalty on any person who organizes or participates in the
sale of a plan or arrangement and in so doing makes a statement with respect to the allowability of
any deduction or credit, the excludability of any income, or the securing of any tax benefit by
participating in the plan or arrangement which that person knows or has reason to know is false or
fraudulent as to any material matter.
79. I.R.C. § 6701 imposes a penalty on any person who prepares or assists in the
preparation of a return, affidavit, or other document that the person knows or has reason to
believe will be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue
laws, and that the person knows would result in an understatement of tax liability.
80. Defendant prepares false and fraudulent individual and trust income tax returns,
trust documents, individual income tax returns, and other documents that he files for his
customers. Renfrow knows or has reason to believe, that the returns he prepared would be used
in connection with material matters arising under the internal revenue laws.
81. Defendant knows that the returns and other documents he prepares will result in
understatements of his customers’ tax liabilities because he knowingly deducts his customers’
personal expenses on trust returns, false and fraudulently deducts the cost of coins purchased as
part of his customers fictitious businesses, and prepares other documents that inflate expenses
report on his customers’ federal income tax returns.

-17- 2292205.2
82. Renfrow sells and organizes tax-fraud schemes that falsely promised tax benefits
to customers.
83. Renfrow knew or had reason to know that these statements were false or
fraudulent statements within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.
84. If he is not enjoined, Renfrow is likely to continue to organize and sell tax-
fraud schemes.
Count III: Injunction under I.R.C. § 7402(a) for unlawful
interference with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws
85. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 84.
86. Section 7402 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes a court to issue orders of
injunction as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.
87. Defendant, through his actions as described above, has engaged in conduct that
substantially interferes with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.
88. The federal income tax returns that defendant prepared for his customers
improperly and illegally understated his customers’ federal income tax liabilities.
89. If defendant is not enjoined from engaging in fraudulent and deceptive conduct,
such as preparing false or fraudulent tax returns, the United States will suffer irreparable injury
from revenue losses caused by defendant.
90. While the United States will suffer irreparable injury if he is not enjoined,
defendant will not be harmed by being compelled to obey the law.
91. The public interest would be advanced by enjoining defendant because an
injunction, backed by the Court’s contempt powers if needed, will stop his illegal conduct and the

-18- 2292205.2
harm the conduct is causing to the United States Treasury.
92. If defendant is not enjoined, he is likely to continue to interfere with the
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, the United States of America, respectfully prays as follows:
A. That the Court find that Raymond A. Renfrow, individually or doing business as
Ideal Tax Services or First Class Limousine, has continually and repeatedly engaged in conduct
subject to penalty under I.R.C. §§ 6694 and 6695 and has continually and repeatedly engaged in
other fraudulent or deceptive conduct substantially interfering with the administration of the tax
laws, and that a narrow injunction prohibiting only this specific misconduct would be insufficient;
B. That the Court find that Raymond A. Renfrow, individually or doing business as
Ideal Tax Services or First Class Limousine, has engaged in conduct subject to penalty under
I.R.C. §§ 6700 and 6701 and that injunctive relief under I.R.C. § 7408 is appropriate to prevent a
recurrence of that conduct;
C. That the Court find that Raymond A. Renfrow, individually or doing business as
Ideal Tax Services or First Class Limousine, has engaged in conduct that interferes with the
enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the
recurrence of that conduct pursuant to the Court’s inherent equity powers and IRC § 7402(a);
D. That the Court, pursuant to IRC §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408, enter a permanent
injunction prohibiting Raymond A. Renfrow, individually or doing business as Ideal Tax Services
or First Class Limousine, and all those in active concert or participation with him from:
(1) Acting as a federal tax return preparer or requesting, assisting in, or
directing the preparation and/or filing of federal tax returns for any person
or entity other than himself;

-19- 2292205.2
(2) Appearing as a representative on behalf of any person or organization
before the Internal Revenue Service;
(3) Understating customers’ tax liabilities as penalized by IRC § 6694;
(4) Failing to list a tax identification number or to sign tax returns for which he
is a tax-return preparer and other conduct subject to penalty under IRC
§ 6695;
(5) Engaging in activity subject to penalty under IRC § 6701, including
preparing or assisting in the preparation of a document related to a matter
material to the internal revenue laws that includes a position that he knows
would result in an understatement of another person’s tax liability;
(6) Organizing, promoting, marketing, or selling any tax shelter, plan or
arrangement that advises or assists customers to attempt to violate the
internal revenue laws or unlawfully evade the assessment or collection of
their federal tax liabilities, including by means of Pure Trust and
sovereignty programs;
(7) Falsely representing that customers may continue to control and receive
beneficial enjoyment from assets irrevocably transferred to a trust without
regard to the grantor trust rules of IRC §§ 673 through 677;
(8) The false representation that customers’ personal residences can be
transferred to a trust for the purpose of claiming personal expenses in order
to reduce their federal tax liability;
(9) The false representation that the purchasing or American Silver Coins is a
deductible business expense; and
(10) Engaging in any other conduct subject to any penalty under the Internal
Revenue Code or any conduct that interferes with the administration and
E. That the Court, pursuant to IRC §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408, enter an injunction
requiring Raymond A. Renfrow within fifteen days to contact by United States Mail and, if an e-
mail address is known, by e-mail, all persons for whom he and those in active concert with him
prepared a federal tax return to inform them of the Court’s findings concerning the falsity of his
prior representations and enclose a copy of the permanent injunction against him;

-20- 2292205.2
F. That the Court, pursuant to IRC §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408, enter an injunction
requiring Raymond A. Renfrow to produce to counsel for the United States within fifteen days a
list that identifies by name, social security number, address, e-mail address, and telephone
number and tax period(s) all persons for whom he prepared federal tax returns or claims for
refund since January 1, 2001;
G. That the Court retain jurisdiction over Raymond A. Renfrow, individually or doing
business as Ideal Tax Services or First Class Limousine, and over this action for the purpose of
enforcing any permanent injunction entered against defendant;
H. That the United States be entitled to conduct discovery for the purpose of
monitoring defendant’s compliance with the terms of any permanent injunction entered against
him; and
I. That this Court grant the United States such other and further relief, including
costs, as is just and equitable.
DATED this 22nd
day of March 2007.
FRED D. WHITNEY
United States Attorney
/s/Thomas M. Newman____
THOMAS M. NEWMAN
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
United States Department of Justice
Post Office Box 7238
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-9926
Fax: (202) 514-6770

JS 44 (Rev. 11/04) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
United States of America Raymond A. Renfrow, individually and d/b/a Ideal Tax Service and
First Class Limousine
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Wilson
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Thomas M. Newman, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, P.O. Box 7238,
Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC 20044
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
x 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 610 Agriculture 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 400 State Reapportionment
120 Marine 310 Airplane 362 Personal Injury - 620 Other Food & Drug 423 Withdrawal 410 Antitrust
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 430 Banks and Banking
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 450 Commerce
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS 460 Deportation
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander 368 Asbestos Personal 640 R.R. & Truck 820 Copyrights 470 Racketeer Influenced and
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product 650 Airline Regs. 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 660 Occupational 840 Trademark 480 Consumer Credit
Student Loans 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 490 Cable/Sat TV
(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product 370 Other Fraud 690 Other 810 Selective Service
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 380 Other Personal 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act 862 Black Lung (923) 875 Customer Challenge
190 Other Contract Product Liability 385 Property Damage 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Product Liability 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 892 Economic Stabilization Act
210 Land Condemnation 441 Voting 510 Motions to Vacate 790 Other Labor Litigation x 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 442 Employment Sentence 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 894 Energy Allocation Act
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act 871 IRS—Third Party 895 Freedom of Information
240 Torts to Land Accommodations 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
245 Tort Product Liability 444 Welfare 535 Death Penalty 900Appeal of Fee Determination
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other Under Equal Access
Employment 550 Civil Rights to Justice
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 555 Prison Condition 950 Constitutionality of
Other State Statutes
440 Other Civil Rights
V. ORIGIN
Transferred from
another district
(specify)
Appeal to District
Judge from
Magistrate
Judgment
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 6 Multidistrict
Litigation
7
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7407, & 7408
Brief description of cause:
Suit for permanent injunction
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
DEMAND $ none CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes x No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
March 22, 2007 /s/Thomas M. Newman
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/04)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use
of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint
filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only
the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving
both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time
of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases,
the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment)”.
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one
of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box
1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the
different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section
for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient
to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select
the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition
for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box
is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers
and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

AO 440 (Rev. 8/01) Summons in a Civil Action
District of
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
V.
CASE NUMBER:
TO: (Name and address of Defendant)
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (name and address)
an answer to the complaint which is served on you with this summons, within days after service
of this summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be filed with the
Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.
CLERK DATE
(By) DEPUTY CLERK
EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RAYMOND A. RENFROW, individually and d/b/a
IDEAL TAX SERVICE and FIRST CLASS LIMO.
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
Thomas M. Newman
United States Department of Justice Tax Division
P.O. Box 7238, Ben Franklin Station

AO 440 (Rev. 8/01) Summons in a Civil Action
RETURN OF SERVICE
Service of the Summons and complaint was made by me(1)
DATE
NAME OF SERVER (PRINT) TITLE
Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service
G Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served:
G Left copies thereof at the defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein.
Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:
G Returned unexecuted:
G Other (specify):
STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES
TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL
DECLARATION OF SERVER
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information
contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.
Executed on
Date Signature of Server
Address of Server
(1) As to who may serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
$0.00

Case 5:07-cv-00117-FL Document 2 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 2

WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
RAYMOND A. RENFROW, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY THOMAS M. NEWMAN
1. I am over 18 years of age and am competent to testify to the facts stated below.
2. I am the attorney for the United States in the above-captioned action.
3. A summons and copy of the complaint for the above-captioned case were served
personally on defendant Raymond A. Renfrow on March 29, 2007.
4. Renfrow was required to serve and file an answer in this matter on or before April 18,
2007. (Docket No. 3.)
5. Upon information and belief, Raymond A. Renfow is not incompetent or an infant.
6. I consulted the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center Servicemembers’ Civil
Relief Act database at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/home, and entered in its search
parameters the Social Security number of Raymond A. Renfow along with his name as it is listed
in the complaint. The database did not possess any information indicating that Raymond A.

-2-
Renfow is currently on active duty in the United States military. Copies of the database report
for Raymond A. Renfow is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 19th day of April, 2007.
/s/ Thomas M. Newman________
THOMAS M. NEWMAN
U.S. Department of Justice
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-9926
Fax: (202)514-6770
Email: thomas.m.newman@usdoj.gov

Upon searching the information data banks of the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center, based
on the information that you provided, the above is the current status of the individual as to all branches
of the Military.
The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) is an organization of the Department of Defense that
maintains the Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) database which is the
official source of data on eligibility for military medical care and other eligibility systems.
The Department of Defense strongly supports the enforcement of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
[50 USCS Appx. #167;#167; 501 et seq] (SCRA) (formerly the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of
1940). DMDC has issued hundreds of thousands of "does not possess any information indicating that the
individual is currently on active duty" responses, and has experienced a small error rate. In the event the
individual referenced above, or any family member, friend, or representative asserts in any manner that
the individual is on active duty, or is otherwise entitled to the protections of the SCRA, you are strongly
encouraged to obtain further verification of the person's active duty status by contacting that person's
Military Service via the "defenselink.mil" URL provided below. If you have evidence the person is on
active-duty and you fail to obtain this additional Military Service verification, provisions of the SCRA
may be invoked against you.
If you obtain further information about the person ( e.g., an SSN, improved accuracy of DOB, a middle
name), you can submit your request again at this Web site and we will provide a new certificate for that
query.
This response reflects current active duty status only. For historical information, please contact the
Military Service SCRA points-of-contact.
See: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/PC09SLDR.html
WARNING: This certificate was provided based on a name and Social Security number (SSN) provided
Department of Defense Manpower Data Center APR-19-2007 07:12:11
Military Status Report
Pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
Last Name First/Middle Begin Date Active Duty Status Service/Agency
RENFROW Raymond Based on the information you have furnished, the DMDC does not
possess any information indicating that the individual is currently on
active duty.
________________________________
Mary M. Snavely-Dixon, Director
Department of Defense - Manpower Data Center
1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22209-2593
Page 1 of 2Request for Military Status
4/19/2007https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/scra.prc_Select
Exhibit A

by the requester. Providing an erroneous name or SSN will cause an erroneous certificate to be provided.
Report ID:CJAPZWWEPQQ
Page 2 of 2Request for Military Status
4/19/2007https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/scra.prc_Select

1
Newman Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) UNITED STATES APPLICATION
) FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
Plaintiff, the United States of America, moves for entry of default by the Clerk of this
Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) against defendant Raymond A. Renfrow based on his failure to
answer or otherwise plead in response to the United States’ claims against him.
Renfrow was personally served with a complaint and summons on March 29, 2007.
(Docket No. 3.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1), Renfrow was required to answer by April
18, 2007, but he has failed to respond or otherwise plead in this matter.1
Id.
Therefore, the Clerk should enter default against Renfrow pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

657440.1
FRED D. WHITNEY
/s/Thomas M. Newman
THOMAS M. NEWMAN
Telephone: (202) 616-9926
Fax: (202)514-6770
Email: thomas.m.newman@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the UNITED STATES’ APPLICATION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER has been made upon the following
by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 19th
day of April, 2007:
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
/s/Thomas M. Newman_____________
THOMAS M. NEWMAN

2607191.1
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) PARTIES’ JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
I. Joint Report and Plan.
1. Nature and Complexity of the case. The United States is seeking a permanent
injunction to bar the defendant, Raymond Renfrow, from allegedly promoting an abusive tax
program; namely, his and abusive trust program and preparing income tax returns that under
report his customers income. The United States is also seeking an injunction requiring Renfreow
to produce his customer list and to notify his customers of the results of this suit. The United
States is not seeking monetary relief.
As alleged in the complaint, the United States contends that Renfrow makes erroneous
statements regarding the tax benefits of his complex trust program that he knows or has reason to
know are false or fraudulent. The United States contends that Renfrow advises and assists
customers to form a complex trusts, transfer assets and income to that entity, and falsely or
fraudulently personal expenses as business expenses.

2607191.1
Renfrow denies making the false claims alleged in the complaint.
Neither party contends that this case is particularly complex.
a. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and
I.R.C. §§ 7402(a) and 7408. Both parties believe that no additional parties need to be served.
b. The only issue is whether the United States is entitled to a permanent
injunction under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407 and 7408 for engaging in conduct subject to penalty under
26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, 6700, 6701, and an injunction under 26 U.S.C. §7402 for interfering
with the administration of the income tax laws.
c. Neither party is seeking damages.
2. Specific information regarding the Parties’ Plan for Discovery:
a. Discovery will be conducted on defendants’ trust promotion, preparation of
income tax returns, and return preparation seminars.
b. Discovery will not be conducted in phases.
c. Discovery will be limited to 25 interrogatories, 25 requests for production, 50
Requests for Admissions, and 6 depositions.
d. Discovery deadline: January 10, 2008.
e. No discovery related problems are expected at this time.
3. Proposed discovery deadlines:
a. Disclosure of expert reports: September 15, 2007.
b. Joining additional parties: August 31, 2007. The parties agree that all parties
have been served, and no additional parties are necessary.
c. Amended pleading: August 31, 2007.

2607191.1
d. Motion deadlines:
(1) Dispositive motions: January 31, 2008.
(2) non-dispositive (including motions in limine) March 15, 2008.
e. Pre-trial conference April 7, 2008.
f. Trial Date: April 28, 2008. The United States contends that the trial in this
case would take no longer than two days. Renfrow believes that the trial would take five days.
4. The parties do not believe formal ADR should be used in this case. The parties will
however attempt to resolve the case without ADR intervention. Notwithstanding, the parties
believe that a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge would be
appropriate. The parties agree the settlement should be set on or about February 18, 2008, after
dispositive motion are due.
5. Whether all parties will consent to assignment of the case to a magistrate judge to
conduct all further proceedings including trial:
The United States consents to assignment of the case to a magistrate judge to
conduct all further proceedings including trial. Defendant does not consent to assignment of the
case to a magistrate judge for further proceedings.
6. Neither party requests that a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) conference be held in this matter.

WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL
The United States of America hereby gives notice that trial attorney Thomas M. Newman
is withdrawing from this case as counsel of record. Trial attorney Frederick N. Noyes is
substituting and appearing as counsel on behalf of the United States. All notice and copies of
pleadings, papers, and other materials should be directed to and served upon Mr. Noyes.
GEORGE E.B. HOLDING
s/ Frederick N. Noyes
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Post Office Box 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Facsimile: (202) 514-6770
Email: Frederick.N.Noyes@usdoj.gov

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing WITHDRAWAL OF
COUNSEL AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL has been made
by U.S. Mail to the defendant this 30th day of November, 2007, at:
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
s/ Frederick N. Noyes
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Facsimile: (202) 514-6770

WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) UNITED STATES’ MOTION
) TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
RAYMOND A. RENFROW, ) DEADLINE
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
Plaintiff, the United States of America, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, moves for an extension of the discovery schedule to allow more time for the
parties to complete discovery. This federal tax case involves complicated sham trusts and the
nationwide promotion of illegal tax schemes. The additional time is needed because the
plaintiff’s original counsel of record has left the Tax Division of the Department of Justice. The
undersigned trial attorney entered his appearance in this matter on November 30, 2007, and
requires additional time to familiarize himself with the case and the administrative files. In
addition, relevant witnesses are located in multiple states and the winter holidays have
complicated scheduling of depositions.
The deadline for completing discovery is currently January 10, 2008. The United States
requests that the Court extend the deadline two months until March 10, 2008, extend the
deadline for filing supplemental disclosures from December 3, 2007, to January 29, 2008, and to
extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions from February 10, 2008, to April 10, 2008. No

other deadlines in the case management order need be extended.
Counsel for the United States spoke with the pro se defendant, Raymond A. Renfrow, by
telephone, on December 12, 2007, concerning the possibility of a 30 day extension of the
deadlines for completing discovery and filing dispositive motions. Defendant stated he had no
opinion on the motion. Counsel for the United States later attempted to contact the defendant
again concerning a 60 day extension of the deadline, but this time was unable to reach him.
Accordingly, the United States moves for an extension of the discovery schedule to allow
more time for the completion of discovery, until March 10, 2008. A proposed order is attached.
Dated: December 12, 2007
GEORGE E. B. HOLDING
/s/ Frederick N. Noyes
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Facsimile: (202) 514-6770

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing UNITED STATES’ MOTION
TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE has been made upon the following by depositing a
copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 12th
day of December, 2007:
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
_/s/ Frederick N. Noyes________
FREDERICK N. NOYES

Tax Division
Please reply to: Civil Trial Section, Central Region
Facsimile No. (202) 514-6770 P.O. Box 7238
Trial Attorney: Frederick N. Noyes Ben Franklin Station
Attorney’s Direct Line: (202) 305-3083 Washington, D.C. 20044
RTM:SGH:Noyes
5-54-3078
CMN2006105392 January 2, 2008
BY ECF and US MAIL
United States District Court Clerk’s Office
Attn: Donna Rudd, Case Manager
413 Middle Street
New Bern, NC 28560
Re: United States of America v. Raymond A. Renfrow
Case No. 5:07-cv-117 (FL) (E.D.N.C.)
Dear Ms. Rudd,
As required by the Case Management Order entered on July 30, 2007, the United States
conferred with Raymond A. Renfrow and submits the following three dates of mutual
availability for a court-hosted settlement conference before a U.S. Magistrate Judge: January 16,
2008; February 6, 2008; February 13, 2008.
Mr. Renfrow agreed to these dates in a telephone conversation on December 12, 2007.
Counsel for the United States mailed to Mr. Renfrow a joint letter to the Court listing the above
dates and requesting his signature. As of today, the letter has not been returned. In order to meet
the Court’s deadline, this letter is submitted without the signature of Mr. Renfrow.
The United States has filed a motion to extend the discovery period. Should that motion
be granted by the Court, the above dates would be prior to the completion of discovery, and the
Court may wish the parties to submit new dates. The United States does not object to attending a
settlement conference prior to the close of discovery.
Sincerely,
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Trial Attorney
United States Justice Department, Tax Division
P.O. Box 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Attorney for the Plaintiff

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing LETTER TO THE COURT has been
made upon the following by United States mail this 2nd
day of January, 2008:
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Facsimile: (202) 514-6770

WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULE 101:1'S
REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL WITH FULL SETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY AT THE COURT HOSTED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Plaintiff, the United States of America moves the Court for relief from Local Rule 101:1's
requirement that “a representative of a corporate or governmental agency with full settlement
authority” attend Court Hosted Settlement Conferences.
On January 15, 2008, this Court ordered a court-hosted settlement conference to take
place February 6, 2008 at the Raleigh Federal Building before United States Magistrate Judge
David W. Daniel. (Docket No. 18). The United States is able and willing to participate in such a
conference, and believes it can participate productively in the settlement conference with its trial
attorney in attendance and his immediate supervisor and Internal Revenue Service counsel
available by telephone for consultation if needed. The United States is an unusual litigant, and
this procedure has worked well for it in the past to participate meaningfully in settlement

conferences even when it would be unfeasible to have an official with full settlement authority
physically present.
A memorandum of law in support of this motion is attached.
Dated: January 18, 2008.
GEORGE E.B. HOLDING
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Facsimile: (202) 514-6770

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing UNITED STATES’
MOTIONTION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 101:1 FOR RELIEF FROM THE
OBLIGATION TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL WITH FULL SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY
PRESENT AT THE COURT HOSTED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE has been made upon
the following by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 18th day of
January, 2008:
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
FREDERICK N. NOYES

WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:07-CV-117(FL)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES’ MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM LOCAL RULE 101:1'S REQUIREMENT
TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL WITH FULL SETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY AT COURT HOSTED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Plaintiff, the United States of America, moves for relief from Local Rule 101:1's
requirement that “a representative of a corporate or governmental agency with full settlement
authority” attend the court hosted settlement conference scheduled for February 6, 2008 before
United States Magistrate Judge David W. Daniel. (Docket No. 18.) While LR 101:1 authorizes
the Magistrate Judge, upon written application, to “allow a party or representative having full
settlement authority to be telephonically available” in lieu of being physically present, this too
presents extraordinary hardship for the United States in this case. The United States requests
that it be allowed to proceed with its trial attorney present at the settlement conference, and two
officials with combined full settlement authority to be telephonically available.

-2-
Under 26 U.S.C. § 7122, settlement authority for this case rests with the Attorney
General or his delegate. Cases handled by the Department of Justice Tax Division may be
settled by delegates of the Attorney General only in accordance with regulations published in 28
C.F.R. Part O, Subpart Y, Appendix, as amended in 60 Fed. Reg. 31244 (June 14,
1995)(“settlement regulations”).
Justice Department regulations confining settlement authority to selected officers and
officials are valid and binding. See White v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 639 F. Supp. 82,
88-90 (M.D. Pa. 1986), aff’d, 815 F.2d 697 (3rd
Cir. 1987); Bohlen v. United States, 623 F. Supp.
595 (C.D. Ill. 1985). See generally, United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951);
Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447 (9th
Cir. 1986).
In this civil action, the United States is seeking injunctive relief only. While the
government’s trial attorney, Frederick N. Noyes, is the person most familiar with the case, and
will be at the court-hosted settlement conference, Mr. Noyes has no settlement authority. His
role is to make a recommendation to the senior officials who have the authority to compromise
this case. Full settlement authority - the authority to accept or reject offers over the objection of
the Internal Revenue Service - will rest with the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division,
Nathan Hochman. Nathan Hochman was appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. He is expected to be sworn in as Assistant Attorney General on January 22, 2008.
The position of Assistant Attorney General is among the highest in the Justice
Department. The position entails wide-ranging responsibilities involving litigation throughout
the United States. The importance and scope of the Assistant Attorney General’s responsibilities

-3-
make it infeasible for him to attend or be available by telephone for settlement conferences
throughout the United States in all cases for which he may have the final settlement authority.
Congress was aware of the problems inherent in requiring the personal attendance of high
government officials with final or full settlement authority when it drafted the Judicial
Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5093 (1990). The legislative
history reveals that Congress believed district courts should “account for:”
the unique situation of the Department of Justice. The Department does not
delegate broad authority to all trial counsel, but instead reserves that
authority to senior officials in the United States Attorneys’ Offices or in the
litigating divisions in Washington. Clearly the Department cannot
realistically send officials with full settlement authority to each settlement
conference.
H.R. Rep. No. 101-732, 101st
Cong., 2d Sess. 16-17; S. Rep. No. 101-426, 101st
Cong. 2d Sess.
59 (emphasis added). See also In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898 (5th
Cir. 1993).
The Advisory Committee Notes on the amendment to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, effective December 1, 1993, provide that,
[p]articularly in litigation in which governmental agencies or large amounts
of money are involved, there may be no one with on-the-spot settlement
authority, and the most that should be expected is access to a person who
would have a major role in submitting a recommendation to the body or
board with ultimate decision-making responsibility. The selection of the
appropriate representative should ordinarily be left to the party and its
counsel.
Even if the only responsibility of the relevant officials here was reviewing settlements
(which is not the case), it is a physical impossibility for them to participate in any meaningful
manner in every case where their approval may potentially be required. Of greater significance
is the fact that if they were required to participate in such conferences on a regular basis, their
ability to supervise all other aspects of litigation would be seriously compromised.

-4-
Government counsel is aware of only one appellate decision on point with the situation
presented here. In re Stone, 986 F.3d 898 (5th
Cir. 1993). In Stone, the Fifth Circuit held that a
federal district court has inherent power to manage its own docket, including the authority to
“require a party to have a representative with full settlement authority present – or at least
reasonably and promptly accessible – at pretrial conferences.” Id. at 903. Even then, however,
according to the Fifth Circuit, such power should be used sparingly with regard to the United
States - the United States, the court observed, is in a “special category” in a number of respects,
including its “need for centralized decision making” and the additional fact that the United States
is party to “a far greater number of cases on a national basis than even the most litigious private
entity.” Id. at 904. The Stone court concluded that it was an abuse of discretion for the district
court to routinely enter an order requiring a Government official with final authority to attend a
conference. The court of appeals emphasized that the district court should consider less drastic
steps before entering such an order. The Fifth Circuit then stated that only when the district
court’s
reasonable efforts to conduct an informed settlement discussion in a
particular case are thwarted because the government official with settlement
authority will not communicate with government counsel or the court in a
timely manner, the court, as a last resort can require the appropriate official
with full settlement authority to attend a pretrial conference.
Id. at 905 (emphasis added).
The settlement conference desired by the parties and the Court can lead to settlement
without the attendance of the person with ultimate settlement authority. The Department of
Justice trial attorney who will attend the settlement conference, Frederick Noyes, has primary
responsibility for handling this case. He is most familiar with the relevant facts and law, and is

-5-
the person who will try the case if trial becomes necessary. He therefore is the person most
familiar with the considerations relevant to settlement.
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 515 through 519, trial attorneys are authorized to represent the
United States in this lawsuit, and may negotiate settlement offers which the trial attorneys are
willing to recommend to the Justice Department official having settlement authority. In
exercising their settlement authority, the appropriate Department officials generally accord
substantial weight to the trial attorneys’ recommendations, since the recommendations will be
based on the trial attorneys’ knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions.
Prior to the Court Hosted Settlement Conference, the trial attorney will discuss the range of
settlement offers that he would be willing to recommend to his superiors and the Internal
Revenue Service.
In addition, the United States will have Seth Heald, Section Chief for the Tax Division’s
Civil Trial Section, Central Region, and the Internal Revenue Service counsel assigned to the
case, Amy Seals, available for telephone consultation. If Mr. Heald and the Internal Revenue
Service are in agreement, they have the combined authority to reject or approve settlement
agreements in this case without the need for further review. Only in the event of disagreement
between them would an offer need to be submitted to the Tax Division’s Office of Review and
the Assistant Attorney General for approval or rejection.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests relief from Local Rule 101:1's
requirement that it have an official with full settlement authority present at the court-hosted
settlement conference schedule for February 6, 2008, and requests instead that it be allowed to

-6-
proceed with its trial attorney present at the conference and two officials with combined full
settlement authority available for consultation by telephone.
Dated: January 18, 2008.
GEORGE E.B. HOLDING
FREDERICK N. NOYES
Telephone: (202) 305-3083
Facsimile: (202) 514-6770

-7-
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM RULE 101:1's
REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL WITH FULL SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY
PRESENT AT THE COURT HOSTED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE has been made upon
the following by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 18th day of
January, 2008:
Raymond A. Renfrow
309 E. Nash Street
Elm City, NC 27822
FREDERICK N. NOYES

RayRen98 - Raymond Renfrow - TNT Showtime Activeboard - TNT Dinar pages 1-105

RayRen98 - Raymond Renfrow - TNT Showtime Activeboard - TNT Dinar pages 1-105

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to RayRen98 - Raymond Renfrow - TNT Showtime Activeboard - TNT Dinar pages 1-105

Similar to RayRen98 - Raymond Renfrow - TNT Showtime Activeboard - TNT Dinar pages 1-105 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (8)

RayRen98 - Raymond Renfrow - TNT Showtime Activeboard - TNT Dinar pages 1-105