Court filing — No. 4:19-cv-00432 (Dkt. 23)

Summary

A pro se Response and Request to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Default Judgments filed February 22, 2022 as Document 23 in United States of America v. Ryan K. Jones and Tarah F. Jones, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00432, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The defendants state that any failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(1) was not willful. They state that they did not learn of the court's order to file initial disclosures until they received the motion for default judgment on Monday, February 14th, because the plaintiff sent it to the wrong address. The response is 11 pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 4–10 of 11 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 4:19-cv-00432-TDD-JFJ Document 23 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/22/22 Page 1 of 11

[illegible]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of Oklahoma FEB 22 2022

Mark C. McCartt, Clerk

United States of America U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00432-JED-JFJ
)

Ryan K. Jones and Tarah F. Jones )
Defendant )

RESPONSE AND REQUEST TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS RYAN JONES AND TARAH JONES

COMES now the defendants, Ryan Jones and Tarah Jones, pro se, and respectfully
requests the court deny plaintiffs motion for sanctions and default judgments against
defendants Ryan Jones and Tarah Jones for the following reasons:

1. Defendants have not acted in a willful manner if defendants have failed to comply with
Rule 26(a)(1) in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

2. Defendants were not aware of the court order to file initial disclosures by December
23rd, 2022 until Monday, February 14th when defendants received the Motion for
Default judgment. Plaintiff sent said motion to the wrong address. Plaintiff should have
already had Defendants new address based on previous court filings. Defendant has
also now emailed Plaintiff the correct address for future correspondence as
confirmation.

3. Defendants believe responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests were properly sent on
April 2nd, 2021. Defendants have been unaware of any further requests.

4. Defendant Ryan Jones’ responses to plaintiff's discovery requests were not “frivolous”,
Mail ✓   No Cert Svc   No Orig Svc
C/J   C/MJ   C/Ret'd   No Env
No Cpy's   No Env/Cpy's ✓   O/J   O/MJ
Case 4:19-cv-00432-TDD-JFJ Document 23 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/22/22 Page 2 of 11

as plaintiff contends. For example, Interrogatory 1 states “If you contend IRS
calculations were incorrect...”. Plaintiff is asking for defendant's position on the
question. Defendant gave an honest position. “Contend” is defined as “an assertion as
a position in an argument”. Perhaps plaintiff did not like or agree with defendant's
assertion, but it remains Defendant’s assertion and is a valid response to the
interrogatories.

5. One of the defendant Ryan Jones’ Answer to the original petition is that the statute of
limitations for any assessments made for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003
expired on September 10th, 2018. Plaintiff filed the petition almost 11-months after the
10-year statute of limitations for collection expired. (See Addendum “A”). A default
judgment against defendants under the circumstances would be a grievous injustice.

6. Defendants cannot presently afford to hire an attorney on this matter. The pandemic
over the last two years has decimated Defendant Ryan Jones’ business and defendant is
currently working 65 - 70 hours per week to keep the business running. Defendants are
not voluntarily representing themselves. It is out of financial necessity.

7. Plaintiff is the wealthiest, most powerful entity the world has ever known, and has at it’s
disposal virtually unlimited funds and resources to bring this action against its own
citizens. Furthermore, multiple representatives for Plaintiff all have law degrees and
multiple years of experience necessary for navigating complex and often confusing
litigation rules. This is the definition of an unfair advantage. If the court grants
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, it would be a grievous injustice against

defendants considering the circumstances.
Case 4:19-cv-00432-TDD-JFJ Document 23 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/22/22 Page 3 of 11

8. Plaintiff filed assessments against defendant Ryan Jones for the years 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003. Plaintiff filed the assessments on September 10th, 2008. Plaintiff then
had an additional 10 years to collect on the assessments involved in this litigation.
Despite the unfathomable resources at Plaintiff's disposal to collect on assessments
within the lawful time frame, plaintiff still missed the statute of limitations deadline by
almost 11-months. A default judgment against defendants would be infinitely more
detrimental to defendants than defendants unknowingly missing a disclosure date by 6-
weeks is detrimental to Plaintiffs.

9. As of the date of this motion, defendants have also not received initial disclosure from
plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, defendants humbly request the court to deny
plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Default Judgment, and are willing to comply with

any of plaintiff's requests or required filings.

Dated February 18th, 2022

Defendant Ryan Jones

Defendant Tarah Jones

Addendum A attached.

cc: Julian Lee by email.

Ryan Jones was instructed by Court Clerk’s office to send by mail and this motion was sent on
February 18th, 2022 to the following:

Court Clerk of Northern District of Oklahoma
333 West Fourth St., Room 411
Tulsa, OK 74103


File and source

File

23.pdf

Size

1,093,940 bytes

SHA-256

8e2a25b79962781ebd16edeaab5a696abda9ac59fe0261e8c2d86c42051728c7

Our copy

23.pdf

Original

No public link identified.