From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Standring

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Mar 15, 2006
Case Number: 1:04cv730 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2006)

Summary

enjoining defendant from promoting tax evasion scheme touting the decoding of Individual Master Files as a method to evade tax

Summary of this case from United States v. Howe

Opinion

Case Number: 1:04cv730.

March 15, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hogan. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on October 19, 2005 Report and Recommendations (Doc. 45). Subsequently, the defendant filed objections to such Report and Recommendations (Doc. 48).

The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Recommendations should be adopted.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 45). The Government's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. The Court enters the following Order in this matter:

A. Under 26 USC Section 7408, a preliminary injunction is entered prohibiting defendant Standring, individually and doing business as VIP Sales, and his representatives, agents, servants, employees, joint venturers, business partners, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, from directly or indirectly promoting, marketing, or selling the FOIA Generator and IMF decoding service, or similar false and fraudulent schemes and from providing services to Standring's customers. Defendant is also enjoined under Section 7408 from engaging in any conduct that is subject to any penalty under the Internal Revenue Code.
B. Defendant Standring must contact by mail (and also by email, if an address is known) within 14 days of the entry of this Order all persons who have purchased the FOIA Generator and IMF decoding service and inform them of the Court's findings concerning the falsity of Standring's representations and attach a copy of the preliminary injunction against Standring and his associates and related entities. Defendant Standring must file a sworn certificate of compliance with this portion of the Order, within 18 days of the date of this Order.
C. Defendant Standring must contact by mail (and also by email, if an address is known) within 14 days of the entry of this Order all persons who advertise for sale or sell the FOIA Generator and IMF decoding service and inform them of the Court's findings concerning the falsity of Standring's representations and attach a copy of the preliminary injunction against Standring and his associates and related entities. Defendant Standring must file a sworn certificate of compliance with this portion of the Order, within 18 days of the date of this Order.
D. Defendant Standring must produce to the United States within 14 days of the entry of this Order any records in his possession, custody, or control, identifying the persons who have purchased the FOIA Generator and IMF decoding service.
E. Defendant Standring and his representative, agents, servants, employees, joint venturers, business partners, and those persons in active concert or participation with him are enjoined from misrepresenting any of the terms of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Standring

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Mar 15, 2006
Case Number: 1:04cv730 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2006)

enjoining defendant from promoting tax evasion scheme touting the decoding of Individual Master Files as a method to evade tax

Summary of this case from United States v. Howe
Case details for

U.S. v. Standring

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s) v. RICHARD W. STANDRING Defendant(s)

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Mar 15, 2006

Citations

Case Number: 1:04cv730 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2006)

Citing Cases

Weimer v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

This same core rationale has been applied multiple times in this District. See, e.g., Hinkle v. Norfolk…

U.S. v. Kukhahn

As someone who claims to have done extensive research on the subject, Ms. Kukhahn is or has reason to be…