United States of America v. Majhor

Motion to Strike Answer.

D. Or.June 3, 2010

Page 1- Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer United States of America v. Janet Davis Majhor; 10-cv-544-ST DWIGHT C. HOLTON, OSB #09054 United States Attorney District of Oregon SCOTT E. ASPHAUG, OSB #83367 Assistant United States Attorney scott.asphaug@usdoj.gov United States Attorney’s Office 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 Telephone: (503) 727-1000 Facsimile: (503) 727-1117 Attorneys for United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JANET DAVIS MAJHOR, aka Janet Davis Majhor, and Janet-Davis: Majhor, Defendant. Case No. 10-CV-544-ST PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER I. LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to LR 7.1, I have not discussed this motion with Ms. Majhor. Her whereabouts are unknown at this time. Case 3:10-cv-00544-MO Document 13 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#: 141 Page 2- Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer United States of America v. Janet Davis Majhor; 10-cv-544-ST II. MOTION The United States, by and through Dwight C. Holton, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, and Scott Asphaug, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, hereby moves to strike that portion of the defendant’s Answer that purports to deny the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the United States moves to strike the following statements from the defendant’s answer: 1. “Comes now Janet Majhor, American, Secured Party Creditor, Third Party Plaintiff in interest, by special visitation and not appearing generally, before this court seeking a remedy in Admiralty as is provided by ‘The Saving to the Suitors Clause’ at USC 28 - 1333(1). I am standing in my unlimited commercial liability as a Secured Party Creditor and request that the officers of this court do the same.” III. ARGUMENT Despite the defendant’s assertions to the contrary, the Court has jurisdiction over the defendant. It is well established that district courts “have original jurisdiction.... of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 811 (9th Cir. 2008). The injunction requested under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 falls within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, giving the Court jurisdiction over the defendant. The defendant’s apparent defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction is legally insufficient and lacks any evidentiary support. Furthermore, allowing this frivolous defense to stand would lead to unnecessary litigation and confuse the issues in the case. Case 3:10-cv-00544-MO Document 13 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#: 142 Page 3- Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer United States of America v. Janet Davis Majhor; 10-cv-544-ST For these reasons, the United States moves to strike the jurisdictional defense from the defendant’s answer. Dated this 3rd day of June, 2010. Respectfully submitted, DWIGHT C. HOLTON United States Attorney District of Oregon /s/ Scott Asphaug SCOTT ASPHAUG Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff Case 3:10-cv-00544-MO Document 13 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#: 143