- 4 -
3. The Respondent’s objection goes to the manage-
ment of the Trust, its internal affairs, concerns about
its administration, the declaration of rights and the
determinations of matters involving the trustee. As
the Respondent concedes that these are “Arizona Trusts”
[sic] * * *, this issue falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the superior court here in the State of
Arizona. See A.R.S. � 14-7201. At this point, this
court is without jurisdiction to determine whether
* * * [Mr. Chisum] is the duly authorized Trustee. The
Petitioner need not remind the Court of the conse-
quences of taking any action over which subject matter
is completely lacking.
4. Any objection the Respondent or Respondent’s
counsel has in this area must be taken up in the Supe-
rior Court here in Arizona, assuming of course the
Respondent or Respondent’s counsel has standing. The
irony is of course, if Respondent or Respondent’s
counsel does take the matter up with the Superior
Court, where the Respondent will have the burden of
proof, and if the Superior Court finds that the Trusts
are [sic] valid, then the Respondent will be barred by
res judicata from asserting the sham trust claim that
forms the basis for his deficiency determination.
5. * * * In essence the factual claims raised by
the Motion to Dismiss are inextricably intertwined with
the facts going to the merits of the Commissioner’s
sham trust claim at issue in this case. If the Trusts
are [sic] valid, then Mr. Chisum, under Arizona Law,
will be presumed to be the duly authorized trustee,
whether it is as a Trustee of a resulting trust, con-
structive trust or expressed [sic] trust. Therefore,
the only course available to this Court is to defer
consideration of the jurisdictional claims to the trial
on the merits. Farr v. United States, 990 F.2d 451,
* * * [454] n.1 (9th Cir., 1993). Careau Group v.
United Farm Workers [of Am.], 940 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th
Cir. 1991). See also Rosales v. United States, 824
F.2d 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A * * * [district]
court may hear evidence and make findings of fact
necessary to rule on the subject matter jurisdiction
question prior to trial, if the jurisdictional facts
are not intertwined with the merits.”)(Emphasis added)
The Court held a hearing on respondent’s motion. At that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011