From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Jerry

United States District Court, D. Maryland
Jul 29, 2005
Civil Action No. DKC 2004-2725 (D. Md. Jul. 29, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. DKC 2004-2725.

July 29, 2005


ORDER ADJUDICATING RESPONDENT DAVID R. JERRY, JR. IN CONTEMPT AND DIRECTING HIM TO PAY THE BANK TO OBTAIN THE RECORDS


On August 23, 2004, the Government filed a Petition to Enforce IRS Summons against Respondent, David R. Jerry, Jr. An order to show cause was issued September 7, 2004, with a hearing set for October 25, 2004. Respondent was properly served, but no written response was received. After the hearing on October 25, 2004 the court entered an Order Enforcing Internal Revenue Summons. When Respondent failed to appear for a hearing or to produce the required documents, the Government sought to have Respondent adjudicated in contempt. The court issued a Show Cause Order directing Respondent to respond. On March 18, 2005, Respondent filed a response, and a hearing was held on March 21, 2005. At the hearing, the court found.

A Respondent had received a copy of the court's order dated October 25, 2004, enforcing the IRS summons and requiring him to appear before IRS Agent Barker, or another authorized officer of the IRS, at the time and place designated, to be sworn, to give testimony and to produce for examination and copying the records sought in the subpoena (other than those already produced).

B. Agent Barker designated the time and place for Respondent to appear and comply;

C. On January 4, 2005, Respondent failed to appear or to produce any records.

D. Respondent was served with a copy of the Order to Show Cause

E. The court found Mr. Jerry to be in contempt and ordered him to produce the records, including any foreign bank records The court specifically instructed Respondent that he might have to request copies of the records from Leadenhall Bank and Trust of the Bahamas, if he did not physically possess them himself. Respondent was advised to do everything he could to produce the records.

F. On May 9, 2005, the court held another hearing, and learned that Respondent had met with Agent Barker on April 18, 2005, but had failed to produce the foreign bank account records Respondent was again admonished that he has an obligation to follow through with efforts to obtain the records, including paying any fees that might be assessed by Leadenhall to obtain them.

G. On June 13, 2005, the court held another hearing and was advised that Respondent, who was then in the hospital, had not produced the records, that there was a balance of $258 due on the credit card issued by Leadenhall and that the Bank would not supply records until that balance was paid. As of that time, Respondent refused to pay the balance due.

H. The court issued an order dated June 13, 2005, directing

Jerry to appear in court and to provide copies of any letter or other documents he receives from Leadenhall, forewarning him that failure to bring his account current with Leadenhall or otherwise to pay any fees necessary to obtain the records, might constitute additional acts of contempt

I. The hearing was rescheduled due to Respondent's medical problems, but was finally held on July 28, 2005.

J. Respondent has not brought his account current or otherwise obtained the records from Leadenhall.

Accordingly, it is this 29th day of July, 2005, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:

1. The motion of the IRS to adjudicate Respondent in contempt (paper 14) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;

2. Respondent is held in contempt of court;

3. Respondent has thirty days, i.e., until August 29, 2005 to purge himself of the contempt by paying the balance due and any fees necessary to obtain the foreign bank account records from Leadenhall;

4. Respondent is to request the records by use of a letter to be provided by the IRS;

5. If Respondent fails to purge himself of the contempt, shall be fined $25 per day until he does purge himself of contempt, or until further Order of Court;

6. If Respondent still fails to purge himself of the contempt by imposition of the fine, Respondent is forewarned that incarceration may be imposed as a sanction to coerce compliance;

7. Petitioner is to notify the court whether Respondent purges himself of the contempt by August 29, 2005; and

8. The clerk will transmit copies of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, and to Respondent.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Jerry

United States District Court, D. Maryland
Jul 29, 2005
Civil Action No. DKC 2004-2725 (D. Md. Jul. 29, 2005)
Case details for

U.S. v. Jerry

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID R. JERRY, JR

Court:United States District Court, D. Maryland

Date published: Jul 29, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. DKC 2004-2725 (D. Md. Jul. 29, 2005)