USA v. Eskel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Civil No. 19-cv-745-JD
Opinion No. 2019 DNH 176
Joseph R. Eskel, Carel M. Eskel
a/k/a Carol M. Eskel, Bon Accord,
and Town of Danville
O R D E R
The United States filed a complaint against Joseph and
Carol Eskel, Bon Accord, and the Town of Danville to reduce to
judgment unpaid federal tax liabilities owed by the Eskels and
to enforce federal tax liens against property that is held by
the Town of Danville.1 The Eskels, proceeding pro se, filed a
“Notice of Motion to Show Cause.” The United States has filed
its response.2
In the document attached to the Eskels’ motion, which is
titled “Verified Show Cause Denial of Jurisdiction,” the Eskels
challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to
decide the claims brought against them and the court’s personal
1 Carol Eskel appears to spell her name as “Carol” rather
than “Carel”.
2 The Eskels designate themselves as proceeding “pro per”
rather than “pro se.” There appears to be no difference in the
terms for purposes of this case. See, e.g., Bey v. Reed, 2019
WL 2515464, at *1, n.3 (D. Colo. June 18, 2019). Either term
means that the Eskels are representing themselves. Id.
Case 1:19-cv-00745-JD Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 6

2
jurisdiction over them. The United States demonstrates in its
response that both subject matter jurisdiction and personal
jurisdiction exist in this case. The Eskels did not file a
reply to the United States’s response.
Background
In the complaint, the United States alleges that the Eskels
reside in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. The United States
also alleges that a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury
has made assessments against Joseph Eskel for income taxes,
penalties, and interest, along with civil penalties and
interest, for more than $10,000,000.00 that accrued for tax
periods from 2004 through 2007. The specific dates and amounts
are provided in the complaint.
Further, the United States alleges that Joseph Eskel
previously paid income taxes and earned income from his business
for the tax years 2004 through 2007. Eskel purchased illegal
tax promotion tools that represent that taxpayers can remove
themselves from the federal tax system. He also participated in
a frivolous tax refund scheme, failed to cooperate with the
Internal Revenue Service’s examination of his federal tax
liability, and filed other frivolous paperwork. He has refused
to pay his tax liabilities to the United States.
Case 1:19-cv-00745-JD Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 6

3
With respect to Carol Eskel, the United States alleges that
a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury made assessments
against her for civil penalties and interest for the tax years
of 2003 through 2007. She also has refused to pay her
liabilities, which totaled $35,667.48 as of March of 2019.
The Eskels and Bon Accord filed an answer to the complaint.
The Eskels each identify as “Priority Creditor, a Lawful Person,
Land and Soil Jurisdiction” in Danville, “New-Hampshire State.”
Doc. no. 10, at *1. In response to the claims against them, the
Eskels state: “You have made a mistake, so we claim ‘exemption’
under your ‘2012 version’ of Title 50, section 7, Subsection c
and e. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act:” and list twenty
items. Id., at *3-*4. They also assert, among other things,
that they are not United States citizens and instead are “living
Souls and not a dead entity written in all upper-case letters on
a piece of paper or bond paper being claimed as a vessel owned
by another living or dead entity.” Id. at *4.
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In support of their motion, the Eskels provide a variety of
unsupported theories about the source and existence of the
jurisdiction of courts. Despite those theories, the Eskels
provide no legal basis to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
Case 1:19-cv-00745-JD Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 6

4
The United States explains that under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a)
this court has jurisdiction to issue orders and render judgments
as may be necessary to enforce the internal revenue laws. 26
U.S.C. § 7403 provides that the United States Attorney General
or his delegate may have a civil action filed in a district
court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United
States for payment of tax liabilities. In addition, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 provides that subject matter jurisdiction exists in
federal district courts over all civil actions arising under the
laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1340 provides subject
matter jurisdiction in federal district courts for civil actions
“arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal
revenue.” And, if any more were needed, 28 U.S.C. § 1344
provides that federal district courts have jurisdiction over
civil actions brought by the United States.
Therefore, the court is satisfied that it has subject
matter jurisdiction over this case.
II. Personal Jurisdiction
The Eskels also purport to challenge the court’s personal
jurisdiction over them. They may be attempting to allege
citizenship in an entity other than New Hampshire. The United
States, however, demonstrates that personal jurisdiction exists
Case 1:19-cv-00745-JD Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 Page 4 of 6

5
because the Eskels were served with the summons and complaint in
this case at their residence in Danville, New Hampshire.
“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1), service of process
establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant ‘who is
subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction
in the state where the district court is located,’ or ‘when
authorized by federal statute.’” Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
v. ATS Specialized, Inc., No. CV 17-12301-NMG, 2019 WL 1276124,
at *15 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2019). Under New Hampshire law, the
superior courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions except
those that must be brought in the listed special courts, which
do not apply here. RSA 491:7. Process must be served at the
defendant’s abode. RSA 510:2.
The Eskels live in New Hampshire and were served at their
residence in Danville New Hampshire. Because they are New
Hampshire residents, their personal jurisdiction challenge does
not implicate the issue of the constitutional requirements of
due process. Cf. Conroy v. Dow Chem. Co., Civil No. 18-cv-641-
LM, 2018 WL 5849464, at *2 (D.N.H. Nov. 8, 2018). The Eskels
have not shown any reason why this court lacks personal
jurisdiction over them.
Case 1:19-cv-00745-JD Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 Page 5 of 6

6
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Eskels’ motion challenging
subject matter and personal jurisdiction (document no. 12) is
denied.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
October 2, 2019
cc: Bon Accord, pro se
Philip L. Bednar, Esq.
Carel M. Eskel, pro se
Joseph R. Eskel, pro se
William S. Gannon, Esq.
Case 1:19-cv-00745-JD Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 Page 6 of 6