DISTRICT COURT DENIES MOTION TO DISMISS.

                 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[2] The Rempels take exception to the plaintiff filing a single opposition to their separate motions. Inasmuch as the Rempels' separate motions are identical save for their individual names, the court perceives no good reason why a single opposition addressing both motions should not be received and considered.

[3] The thrust of the Rempels' motions is that plaintiff's complaint is one in admiralty and that the court's admiralty rules and pleading requirements have not been complied with.

[4] Plaintiff's claims are not brought under the admiralty or maritime laws of the United States. They are brought pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. None of plaintiff's claims is one in rem nor for the forfeiture of any property. This is not a maritime case. Admiralty rules and procedures do not apply in this case.

[5] The Rempels contend that plaintiff is attempting to deny them their rights to due process. That contention is totally unsupported by the Rempels, who are indeed getting the process due them in the consideration of the plaintiff's complaint.

[6] Finally, the Rempels make an incomprehensible argument that plaintiff is disguising purported tax matters "under the artifice of the Internal Revenue Service without disclosing that these are taxes of the revenue and custom laws of the ATF of which the man Dietrich Rempel is not associated."² The court supposes that this is a variation of the Rempels' earlier arguments that the Internal Revenue Code cannot be enforced without implementing regulations. The court again rejects this argument.

[7] Beyond the foregoing, the Rempels' reply memoranda discuss a substantial number of other matters. By rule, reply memoranda are "restricted to rebuttal of factual and legal arguments raised in the opposition. D. Ak. L. R. 7.1(b). For this reason the court declines to address new matters raised for the first time in the Rempels' replies.

[8] The motions to dismiss of Dietrich and Mary Rempel are denied.

[9] DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 15th day of August, 2001.

                                   H. Russel Holland, Judge

[11] By its order of July 5, 2001,² the court decided the Rempels' motion for imposition of sanctions for disclosure violations. The court denied the motion for sanctions, but required plaintiff to verify the completeness of document disclosure made by the plaintiff and required that the plaintiff disclose the identity of certain persons if that had not already been done. The court said nothing about disclosing addresses and phone numbers in its subject order.

[12] The Government contends that the instant motion is in substance an impermissible second and untimely motion for reconsideration of the court's July 5 order. Not so. The new motion deals with the Government's response to that order which was filed by the Government on July 23, 2001.³

[13] The Rempels contend that there must be other documents which the Government has not disclosed and that the Government has failed to disclose the addresses and phone numbers of the persons identified in the Government's response to the July 5 order. As to the first proposition, the court is satisfied that the Government has made the necessary inquiries and that there are not other documents which should be produced in response to the July 5 order. With respect to disclosure of the addresses and phone numbers, the Government has (by its opposition to the instant motion) provided the Rempels with the business address and telephone number of the persons in question. Nothing further is required.

[14] The renewed motion for sanctions is denied.

[15] DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 15th day of August, 2001.

                                   H. Russel Holland, Judge

² Clerk's Docket No. 151.

³ Clerk's Docket No. 160.