Anti-Defamation League Online Homepage    ADL Home |  Militia Watch Dog Archive Home |  Law Enforcement |  Search |  About |  Contribute

 

Militia Watchdog Graphic

Last Updated, August 29, 1999

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

Part Three

By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP


rule
rule

   Pretending to be a citizen of a "sovereign state":   Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para  50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dism (5th Cir 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 98 USTC para  50157; US v. George (9th Cir unpub 10/27/97) 127 F3d 1107(t); US v. Lorenzo (9th Cir 1993) 995 F2d 1448; US v. Ferrel (9th Cir unpub 2/21/91); US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224; ("argues that the only court having jurisdiction over him is a Common Law Court because he is a South Dakota Republic man")  US v. Schiefen (D SD 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff’d 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074;  Gravitt v. US (ED Mich unpub 11/4/97);  Jamroz v. Panuthos (7th Cir unpub 11/20/97); US v. G.D. Bell (ED Cal unpub 4/30/97) 79 AFTR2d 2784 recons.den 27 F.Supp.2d 1191; Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff’d (9th Cir 1997) 122 F3d 1069; US v. Hilgeford (9th Cir 1993) 7 F3d 1340 ("The defendant in this case apparently holds a sincere belief that he is a citizen of the mythical Indiana State Republic and for that reason is an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of the federal courts.  This belief is, of course, incorrect."); Isaacson v. US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 74 AFTR2d 6354; Theron Tucker v.  USA & IRS (EDNY unpub 7/6/98) 82 AFTR2d 5796, 98 USTC para 50576; In re Greatwood [v. US, IRS] (Bankr.App, 9th Cir 1996) 194 Bankr.Rptr 637, 77 AFTR2d 1583 affd (9th Cir 1997 120 F3d 268(t) ("I deny I was a US citizen ...  I deny that the people of Nevada have granted authority to any official or branch of govt of the State of Nevada to enter into any US federally connected scheme so as to require the people of Nevada to pay a tax..."  Held that his attempt to declare bankruptcy to evade his ten years of unpaid taxes was in bad faith and petition dismissed);   Dunham v. CIR (2/9/98) TC Memo 1998-52 (calling himself "a domiciled inhabitant of an American State" whose "tax home was within an American Union State"); Fox v. CIR (2/1/93) TC Memo 1993-37 summ.judg. granted (2/26/96) TC Memo 1996-79; Sochia v.  US (5th Cir 1994) 23 F3d 941 cert.den 513 US 1153; Harrell v.  CIR (6/15/98) TC Memo 1998-207; M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98)  82 AFTR2d 6174; US v. Moore (10th Cir unpub 3/24/94) 21 F3d 1122(t), 73 AFTR2d 1656 (with an "oath of allegiance to the Oklahoma Republic"); Nieman v. CIR (11/17/93) TC Memo 1993-533; Secora v. US (D Neb unpub 4/18/97) 79 AFTR2d 2686; ("citizens of the sovereign California Republic") A.K. Nicholson v.  US (ED CA unpub 4/15/98); (claimed that IRS and federal court do not have any authority with "the Republic of Pennsylvania") US [& Argir] v. R.P. Carr (ED Penn unpub 1/28/99);  ("inhabitants of the California republic not the corporate State of California") Brandt v. CIR (9/7/93) TC Memo 1993-411; similarly (claiming to be citizens of the California Republic and not US citizens) Cochrane v. CIR (8/7/96) 107 Tax Ct 18; ditto Carter v. Rubin (ND Calif unpub 12/28/95) 77 AFTR2d 1291 ("These assertions are based on fundamental misconceptions of the established relationship of the citizen to the US govt under the Federal Constitution.  It the the govt which decides for the people, not an individual who decides for himself, when a person shall be tax exempt, accusations of perjury notwithstanding.  Likewise, it is the govt which decides for the people, not the individual who decides for himself, when a person is in fact a citizen of the US."); ditto Martinez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (9th Cir unpub 7/22/94) 29 F3d 633(t), 74 AFTR2d 5553; ditto (argued that because his drug operations took place in the "jurisdiction of the State Republics" that he was not subject to federal laws or court) US v. Wacker (10th Cir unpub 3/31/99); ditto US v. T.M. King (6th Cir unpub 12/2/94) 42 F3d 1389(t) ("The first 15 pages of King's pro se brief are devoted, inter alia, to his contentions that his is a 'jus sanguinis Citizen/Principle of the California Republic" ... supported by a long list of irrelevant, obscure case citations, definitions, and Latin maxims. ... The Sixth Circuit has ... unequivocally reaffirmed that such an argument has no force, is contrary to 75 years of reported decisions and may properly be characterized as silly or frivolous.  This claim is unavailing to King."); ditto D.C. Roberts v. Motion Picture Pension Plan (9th Cir unpub 2/1/95) 46 F3d 1144(t) cert.den 514 US 1120;  similarly ("state citizen of Illinois, not state of Illinois" and "not a US citizen") Wesselman v. CIR (2/28/96) TC Memo 1996-85; ("not citizens of the US but rather Free citizens of the Republic of Minnesota, and consequently not subject to taxation.") US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193;  ("citizen of the Sovereign Republican States of the Continental States United") Verbeck v.  CIR (9th Cir unpub 11/3/95) 70 F3d 122(t), 76 AFTR2d 7452, 96 USTC para 50064 cert.den 519 US 854; ("sovereign citizens of the State of Maryland") Blackstone v.  IRS (D.Md unpub 9/30/98); ("Private Missouri Citizen ... a Citizen of the Missouri Republic" -- "this declaration filled with pseudo-legal mish-mash and arcane phrases making no sense" - moreover, having appealed to this particular court now contended that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal) City of Kansas City v. Hayward (Mo.App 1997) 954 SW2d 399; ("not a US citizen nor US person nor US individual [but instead ] that he is a sovereign Indiana citizen") D.R. Andrews v. CIR (9/2/98) TC Memo 1998-316; similarly K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253;  Snyder v. District Court of Stafford County (D Kan unpub 4/8/96) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 9/27/96) 98 F3d 1350(t); US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para  50465 ("Updegrave contends that ... Pennsylvania, the state in which he admittedly resides, is a 'sovereign' entity.  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution of the US, including the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI, and the 14th Amendment thereto.  Thus Pennsylvania is clearly not a sovereign entity. .... Accordingly, the laws of the United States, including the FRCP, are valid and enforceable within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."); Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct unpub 6/3/94) 634 NE2d 1375(t) ("Richey resides in Gibson County, Indiana, and has lived in Indiana since birth.  His claim to exemption, though, rests in part on the stunning proposition that ... he lives in a foreign country.... Although there are times when the denizens of the nation's capitol seem separated by a wide gulf from those who sent them there, Richey's entire appeal sails straight through that gulf and on to terra incognita.");  US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff’d (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; ("claims that as a natural born citizen of Montana he is a nonresident alien" and not subject to taxation) US v. L.T. Hanson (9th Cir 1993) 2 F3d 942;  US v. Sloan (7th 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; ("a Free judicial Power Citizen of Indiana") State v.  Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; LaRue v. US (CD IL 1997) 959 F.Supp 957 aff'd (7th Cir 1997) 124 F3d 204(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096 (claiming that Illinois is not a "state" as defined in the IRC but is instead "a member of the union"); same person in LaRue v. US (CD IL 1997) 959 F.Supp 959, 81 AFTR2d 810, 37 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1184 ("Plaintiffs argue that they are exempt from federal income tax because they are non-resident aliens, yet they concede that they are residents of the state of Illinois.  Plaintiffs' claim to be non-resident aliens is absurd on its face and is absolutely without legal merit."); US v. Price (5th Cir 1986) 798 F2d 111; Palmer v. CIR (10/9/97) TC Memo 1997-462; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Valldejuli v. US (SD Fla unpub 12/20/96) 78 AFTR2d 7492; Stoecklin v. CIR (11th Cir 1989) 865 F2d 1221; US v. Knudson (D Neb 1997) 959 F.Supp 1180; US v. Moore (ND Okl unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6277, 93 USTC para 50653 aff’d (10th Cir 1994) 21 F3d 1122(t), 73 AFTR2d 1656; Hirsh v. CIR (4/21/97) TC Memo 1997-184; (denying that Oklahoma City is part of the US) A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; (similarly for Utah) Christensen v. Ward (10th Cir 1990) 916 F2d 1462 cert.den 498 US 999; Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; (for purpose of evading Social Security tax) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B; Harvard v. Pontesso (6th Cir unpub 8/8/97) 121 F3d 708(t); Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous (WD Okl 1996) 933 F.Supp 1028; B. Jackson v. CIR (10/1/91) TC Memo 1991-498 aff'd (9th Cir unpub 4/7/93); R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; In re Weatherley (Bankr. E.D. Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427; Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; Ex parte Bowers (Tex.App 1994) 886 SW2d 346; LaRue v. US (7th Cir unpub 9/8/97) 124 F3d 204(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096; US v. Verlin (D Kan 1997) 979 F.Supp 1334; State v. French (1994) 77 Haw 222, 883 P2d 644; Fostvedt v. US (10th Cir 1992) 978 F2d 1201 cert.den 507 US 988; ("We have held before that this belief is simply wrong.") US v. Ross (7th Cir unpub 4/13/95) 52 F3d 329(t); McQuatters v.  CIR (3/2/98) TC Memo 1998-88;  State v. McNeil (Mont.Supm  9/17/98);   (claiming to be "a citizen of the United States of America" but not a "citizen of the United States"!) Fostvedt v. US (D. Colo 1993) 824 F.Supp 978 aff'd 16 F3d 416; ditto(!)  In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254 (denying he is a citizen of the US nor of the State of Fla but claiming to be "a Free, White, Male, American national Citizen, Citizen of the USA, Florida state Republic Citizen, and a Common Law Citizen");  ("appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress.  This argument is completely without merit.") US v.  R.J. McDonald (9th Cir unpub 10/4/90) 919 F2d 146(t) cert.den 499 US 928; (disbarred lawyer claiming immunity to law as the citizen of the Sovereign Republic of Idaho, currently seeking asylum in the Republic of Colorado) US v. Jagim (8th Cir 1992) 978 F2d 1032 cert.den (Ziebarth v. US) 508 US 952; Ball v. US (D. Ore unpub 8/24/93) 72 AFTR2d 5958, 93 USTC para 50665 sanctions added (D. Ore unpub 10/5/93) 72 AFTR2d 6442; (thereby denies being subject to federal law) Green v. Winkler (SD Fla unpub 12/5/96) 78 AFTR2d 7630; Albers v. IRS (D. Neb unpub 2/15/96) 77 AFTR2d 1234, 96 USTC para 50197 aff'd 105 F3d 662 cert.den 520 US 1221; Wilson v. US (WD No.Car unpub 5/23/96) 77 AFTR2d 2489; (fighting extradition to Michigan "from Texas, a foreign state") Capaldi v.  Pontesso (6th Cir 1998) 135 F3d 1122; (thereby claiming that a fed court has jurisdiction because of a diversity of nationalities and that the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to the US govt because foreign to this sovereign state) Shrock v. US (7th Cir unpub 7/22/96) 92 F3d 1187(t), 78 AFTR2d 5792; Nishitani v. Baker (Haw. Intermed.App 1996) 82 Haw 281, 921 P2d 1182 ("Kingdom of Hawaii"); ditto ("Nation of Hawaii") US v. Kanahele (D Haw 1995) 951 F.Supp 921;  (tried to pretend that the US govt is "foreign" and therefore not immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 1602 et seq) Isaacson v.  US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 35 F3d 571(t), 74 AFTR2d 6354; McLaren v. United States Incorporated (DDC 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 48 ("the Republic of Texas"); relying on mention of compact states in 26 USC 297 for claiming to be a citizen of something other than the US refuted, that section allows the 9th Circuit to lend judges to the Pacific Trust Territories and does not refer to the 50 states of the Union.  Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para  50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); ditto (arguing that a "citizen of the US" means only a citizen of a "compact state" and not someone susceptible to taxation)  Nieman v. CIR (11/17/93) TC Memo 1993-533; denied being a US person or individual and submitted affidavit to IRS that he does not reside "in the state".  D.R. Andrews v. CIR (9/2/98) TC Memo 1998-316; ditto US v.  Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253; (tried to excuse failing to file tax returns for several years on pretext it "would require him to commit perjury because he is not an 'US individual'.") Koar v.  US (SDNY unpub 9/2/97) 80 AFTR2d 6797 rept adopted (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748; ("Now Richey stretches the bounds of both lucidity and judicial tolerance past their breaking point by claiming that the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 US 64, stands for the proposition that the States of the Union are mere private corporations governed by provisions of the UCC.  True enough, Erie makes difficult reading for first year law students, but even a cursory reading by a lay person reveals that the UCC is entirely unrelated to the case.  And even given that the concepts in the decision might seem totally alien to Richey, surely a man who has done the legal research Richey has should know that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute did not promulgate the first official text of the UCC until September 1951, thirteen years after the Erie decision. ... Moreover the court is not amused by the notion that Indiana is a mere private corporation governed by the UCC." Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375  

rule
rule

   Pretending to be a diplomat:   Landers v. US (1997) 39 Fed.Claims 297 (Montana Freemen ranch); US v. Fox (ND Tex 1991) 766 F.Supp 569 ("Elohim’s Kingdom of Israel"); Tanner v. Heise (D Ida 1987) 672 F.Supp 1356 rev in part on other grounds (9th Cir 1989) 879 F2d 572 ("Kingdom of God"); ditto Cauvel v. CIR (10/10/89) TC Memo 1989-547; State v. Crisman (1992) 123 Ida 277, 846 P2d 928 ("Kingdom of Yahweh"); ditto M.W. Irving v. State (Tex.App unpub 1/13/99); US v.Charczenko (6th Cir unpub 1/9/95) cert.den 514 US 1122 ("Kingdom of Israel"); State v. Davis (Mo.App 1988) 745 SW2d 249 ("Davis told [the policeman] that he did not have a license, and did not need one because he was 'an ambassador of God and had immunity'... Diplomatic immunity cannot be asserted unilaterally.  Such status exists only when there is recognition of another state's sovereignty by the US Dept of State."); State v. Joos (Mo.App 1987) 735 SW2d 776 ("ambassador from the Citizens for the Kingdom of Christ"); (defendant in child rape case claimed to be "an Ambassador with the Embassy of Heaven", and refused to either have a lawyer or present his own defense pro se) State v. Carrico (Wash.App 7/6/98) revw denied 137 Wash.2d 1005(t), 972 P2d 466(t);  State v. Svee (unpub 1/12/88) 143 Wisc.2d 892(t), 421 NW2d 117(t) ("ambassador of the Supreme Law Giver"); US v. Lumumba (2d Cir 1984) 741 F2d 12 ("Republic of New Afrika");  State v. Yoder (Ohio App unpub 6/7/95) ("Embassy for Jesus the Christ"); Nishitani v. Baker (Haw. Intermed.App 1996) 82 Haw 281, 921 P2d 1182 ("Kingdom of Hawaii"); ditto  State v. French (1994) 77 Haw 222, 883 P2d 644; McLaren v. United States Incorporated (DDC 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 48 ("the Republic of Texas"); (apparently self-proclaimed "ambassador", acting pro se as plaintiff, is not permitted to throw a tantrum in court, scream at the judge, and storm out of the proceeding, and may be punished for contempt, including dismissal of his lawsuit) Peker, Abi Ambassador v. Fader (SDNY 1997) 965 F.Supp 454;  many militia-types claim to be "sui juris" and even attach that to their signatures but the term itself does not imply any special immunity or privilege (rather it simply suggests a responsible adult) Cotton v. Brow (Wyo.Supm 1995) 903 P2d 530;  {NOTE: With regard to real and phony claims of diplomatic privilege, the courts regard the special status applicable only to those who have been recognized by the executive branch of the federal govt, in accordance with the Constitution, Art. II sec.3, and to that end the courts will rely entirely on the US State Dept's word on this.  Sullivan v. State of Sao Paulo (EDNY 1941) 36 F.Supp 503 aff'd 122 F2d 355; The Gul Djemal (SDNY 1921) 296 Fed 563; Sevilla v. Elizade (1940) 72 US App DC 108, 112 F2d 29; People v. Doe (1979) 101 Misc.2d 789, 421 NYS2d 1015; this requires being a diplomat to the US and not to another country; US ex rel Casanova v. Fitzpatrick (SDNY 1963) 214 F.Supp 425; Carbone v. Carbone (1924) 123 Misc. 656, 206 NYS 40;   and the courts will rely exclusively on the State Dept's recognition even in the face of well-known events which would tend to indicate otherwise, US v. Ortega (EDPenn 1825) 27 Fed.Cas. 359 nr.15971 aff'd 24 US (11 Wheat) 467; Republic of China v. Pang-Tsu (DDC 1951) 101 F.Supp 646 modif. 91 US App DC 324, 210 F2d 195 cert.denied 345 US 925; US ex rel Casanova v. Fitzpatrick (SDNY 1963) 214 F.Supp 425.   Ordinarily the US govt insists that a diplomatic office be located within the boundaries of the city of Washington, DC, to be recognized as a embassy; US v. Kostadinov (2d Cir 1984) 734 F2d 905 cert.denied 474 US 1085.  The burden of proof is on the person claiming diplomatic privileges; Nishitani v. Baker (1996) 82 Haw. 218, 921 P2d 1182; US v. Noriega (SD Fla 1990) 746 F.Supp 1506.  When a real diplomat is arrested, the proper procedure is for his country's ambassador or other high official to communicate with the US State Dept to request that the State Dept intercede.  Trost v. Tompkins (DC Mun.App 1945) 44 A2d 226 Vulcan Iron Works Inc. v. Polish American Machinery Corp (SDNY 1979) 479 F.Supp 1060; US v. Melekh (SDNY 1960) 190 F.Supp 67; and a reading of court cases involving real diplomats shows that they consistently appeared in court with or through bona fide American lawyers and they and their lawyers behaved themselves in court.  It is a criminal offense, under 18 USC sec. 915, to pretend to be a diplomat, especially to try to obtain the privileges of a diplomat, and this law applies even to people pretending to be ambassadors of a non-existent country; US v. Charczenko (6th Cir unpub 1/9/95) 47 F2d 1170(t) cert.denied 514 US 1122.  Even with real diplomats, the privileges cease if the the diplomat's country is at war with the US; Ex part Colonna (1942) 314 US 510; Pfizer Inc. v. Govt of India (1978) 434 US 308; so someone claiming to be a Prisoner of War while pretending to be a diplomat has pretty much cancelled out his own claim for diplomatic privileges.}

rule
rule

   Cannot compel judge’s  recusal by filing bogus lawsuit against him:  Spremo v. Babchik (1992) 155 Misc.2d 796, 589 NYS2d 1019; Jones v. City of Buffalo (WDNY 1994) 867 F.Supp 1155; Eismann v. Miller (1980) 101 Ida 692, 619 P2d 1145; US v. Studley (9th Cir 1985) 783 F2d 934 (nor by threatening to sue judge); similarly In re Hipp, Inc. (5th Cir 1993) 5 F3d 109;  Hanson v. Goodwin (WD Wash 1977) 432 F.Supp 853 app.dism (9th Cir unpub 1977) (enjoined from suing any judge or federal officer again); (judge not recused because of previous harebrained lawsuits or bogus liens)  State v. Cella (Mo.App 1998) 976 SW2d 543 (but, in Cella's case, a conviction for tampering with a judge overturned because a local rule allows one pre-emptory recusal motion); In re Nowak (Bankr. ND IL 1992) 143 Bankr.Rptr 154 (judge not disqualified because of previous harebrained lawsuit by this perp who included this judge among, literally, thousands of defendants); (nor by filing bogus liens against judge; punished for contempt) People v.  Smeathers (1998) 297 IL App.3d 711, 698 NE2d 181; "A judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him.  Such an easy method for obtaining disqualification should not be encouraged or allowed." Ronwin v. State Bar of Ariz. (9th Cir 1981) 686 F2d 692 at 701 rev'd on other grounds 466 US 558; ditto Landi v. Ticor Title Insur. Co. (9th Cir unpub 5/18/89) 875 F2d 318(t);   (filed an affidavit to disqualify the presiding judge and "all other" judges) In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254;(perp already a defendant in a state criminal case filed a lawsuit in federal court against all the judges - and their wives, prosecutors, and jurors in his case  plus 1000 unnamed persons - who were apparently identified one by one as any new judges or lawyers entered the case, claiming that each of them conspired against him, and gave notice of a lis pendens against the property of all of them and then trying to remove the case to federal court.  Instead the federal judge enjoined any such pleadings, refused to recuse himself when the perp added his name to this suit, and the state judges held likewise)  Filan v. Martin (1984) 38 Wash.App 91, 684 P2d 769;  (perp filed suits against all judges of the US Tax Court but this ploy would not prevent one of them from presiding in his current case) Cupp v. CIR (10/14/75) 65 Tax Ct 68 aff'd (3d Cir 1977) 559 F2d 1207 [ -- this is an application of the "rule of necessity", that if all the available or appropriate judges are equally "interested" then the case may proceed with one of those judges presiding; see T. McKevitt, The Rule of Necessity, 24 Hoftra Law Rev. 817 (1996)];  (tried to oust judge from his pending trial for threatening federal officers by filing suit against judge) US v.  Nagy (SDNY 19/98) 19 F.Supp.2d 139; (not even mailing a threatening letter to the judge will compel recusal) Hunter v.  US Parole Commission (9th Cir unpub 10/22/90) 917 F2d 27(t); ditto (sending judge a "Notice" that he is guilty of war crimes and "you will be sought out, arrested and imprisoned, to be brought before an international criminal tribunal to answer for your participation in crimes of apartheid and genocide....  There will be no appeal.  Judgment will be final.") US v. Kanahele (D Haw 1995) 951 F.Supp 921; (threatening to try to have the judge excommunicated from his church) US v.  Cooley (D Kan 1992) 787 F.Supp 977 vacated on other grounds (10th Cir 1993) 1 F3d 985;  (claimed that district ct judge was "an agent of the IRS and of the US Attorneys" and that if he "refuse to follow the dictates of these organizations" he would lose his judgeship) Hatcher v.  CIR (SD Ga unpub 11/20/89); (filing pleadings that say "It seems as if the Hebrew/Commercial Law judge in this case had misunderstood our intentions ... If you cannot provide the actual law  that would require payment and do not change your opinion ... we will deem it an admission of your bias and anti-Christian prejudice against American Christians" would be struck by the judge as scandalous and if interpreted as a request for recusal then the request would be denied) In re Cobb (Bankr. MD Fla 1998) 216 Bankr.Rptr 676; (filed papers trying to forbid the federal court from docketing the case and claiming that it should be judged according to "the traditional Orthodox Hebrew/Jewish commercial Code") Lindsay v. Mid-Continent Federal Savings & Loan Assn (D Kan unpub 4/24/95); simnilarly (crank who files bogus lien against IRS employees alleged authority from "Hebrew/Jewish commercial code") US v. Haggert (D Me unpub 2.12.96) 77 AFTR2d 1309  

rule
rule

   Accusing judge of "constructive treason" or other form of treason:   US v. Schiefen (8th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 638 (convicted for threatening to kill a judge); (no such thing as "constructive treason" in US law; e.g. Shortridge v.  Macon [D NC 1867] 22 Fed.Cas p. 20,  nr.2812) Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997) 974 F.Supp 1411; Schneider v. Schlaefer (ED Wisc 1997) 975 F.Supp 1160; Bradford v. McClellan (WD No.Car unpub 11/18/97) 81 AFTR2d 979; In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394; (suing federal judges, IRS agents, US Attorneys, etc., because of fringe on courtroom flag) Dulisse v. Twardowski (ED Penn unpub 7/16/98); ditto because of flag, Ch.H. Cass v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (MDNC unpub 10/1/98) 82 AFTR2d 6967; ditto because of flag, Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99); (threatening to sue a judge or to add a judge to a lawsuit) R. Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98); (trying to sue in tort the IRS and several individual IRS employees but mixing torts with a number of crimes, such as perjury and "duress", as the basis for his damage claims) R. Miller v. Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96); (tried to sue a federal judge, federal prosecutor and several IRS agents, and their wives, but the court dismissed the cases against the judge and prosecutor because of absolute immunity and the cases against the IRS employees because of qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases against the wives on its own initiative because  there seemed no reason for including them in the lawsuit.) Rylander v. Wilkens (ED Calif  unpub 12/13/79) 80 USTC para 9141, 45 AFTR2d 890;  declaring war on the US as part of pleadings: In re Leroy Schweitzer (DC Cir unpub 12/17/92); US v. Trowbridge (D Ida unpub 9/13/93) aff’d (9th Cir 1994) 43 F3d 1480(t); US v. Gamble (ND IL unpub 12/3/96); (accused all Congressmen who voted for tax laws of "treason by supporting the enemy of the US, the anti-American IRS") DeJulis v. Alexander (D Wyo 1975) 393 F.Supp 823; ("She accuses the trial court of, among other things, a conspiracy to commit treason.  There is no way to review this argument.  There is no way to understand this argument. More importantly, there is no way that this argument related to the proceedings in the trial court which are ostensibly the subject of this appeal.") City of Kansas City v. Hayward (Mo.App 1997) 954 SW2d 399; filing in court a document containing this and similar accusations against the judge, expecting the judge and others to read this, punished as a contempt of court.  State v. L. L. Russell (Ohio App unpub 3/10/98); (such a filing by a prison inmate resulted in Rule 11 fine of $2500 with instructions to the prison to deduct this from his inmate account, and he was not permitted to file anything at all in court until it was paid, and would not be allowed to commence any new lawsuit except by first putting up a thousand dollar cash bond to cover potential fines) US v. Barker (SD Ga 1998) 182 FRD 661; (filing such accusations, in the form of a "notice and demand" and a "citizen's arrest warrant" purporting to authorize the arrest of the judge, in the case even after this judge had recused himself and been replaced by another judge, is a criminal attempt to impede or injure a federal officer and to obstruct justice and will earn a two year prison sentence) US v.  Fulbright (9th Cir 1997) 105 F3d 443 cert.den 520 US 1236; actually making a "citizen's arrest" of an IRS agent prosecuted and convicted (with 3 yrs of prison) under 18 USC 111 as assaulting, intimidating or interfering with federal officer in performance of duties.  US v.  Pazsint (9th Cir 1983) 703 F2d 420 aff'd after remand (9th Cir 1984) 728 F2d 411; -- and this law is applicable even if the federal officer is assaulted while attempting to make an arrest which might be illegal.  US v.  Heliczer (2d Cir 1967) 373 F2d 241 cert.den 388 US 917, and US v.  Young (10th Cir 1980) 614 F2d 243; similarly can be convicted for "terroristic threatening" of  law enforcement officers coming to arrest perp even though their arrest warrant might have some real or imagined defect.  In re DeReimer (Del.  Super  unpub 12/3/93);  evidently when the govt was much annoyed with a particularly obnoxious crank they successfully prosecuted him for "assaulting" a federal officer under 18 USC 111 when he (merely) elbowed her aside rudely.  US v. Somerstedt (9th Cir 1984) 752 F2d 1494 cert.den 474 US 851;  suing to have a federal judge impeached.  Demos v.  US (9th Cir unpub 12/13/90) 927 F2d 608(t);  filing bogus liens against two IRS agents and the wife of an IRS agent and filing in court so-called "Citizens Warrants for Citizens Arrests" against IRS agents and a judge and several other federal officers sentenced to 15 months in prison for conspiracy to interfere with the administration of the tax laws.  US v.  Gunwall (10th Cir unpub 8/12/98) 156 F3d 1245(t), 82 AFTR2d 5868 cert.den (Moore v.  US) _US_, 119 S.Ct 563; and conviction upheld (for both injuring federal officers and for obstruction of tax laws) US v. Boos [& Gunwall] (10th Cir unpub 1/14/99) 166 F3d 1222(t), 83 AFTR2d 584 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 1795;  calling the local police to come arrest men "pretending to be police" who were in fact known to be bona fide IRS investigators prosecuted as filing a false police report and under federal law as obstructing the admin of the laws, 18 USC 1505.  US v. R.L. Price (9th Cir 1991) 951 F2d 1028;  having accused a judge or juror of treason and threatened (or at least hinted) at having that person "executed", the perp may be held without bail for the sake of the public safety.  US v.  Ippolito (MD Fla 1996) 930 F.Supp 581; (nitwit appealed her dismissed lawsuit on the grounds that the trial court had committed "treason" by granting the opposition's motion to dismiss which effectively denied her "right to speak out, accuse, and complain just like a rich person is able to do."  "She equates the trial court's granting of the ... motion and the overruling of her motion ... with overthrowing the government which is perhaps further than we would go, even if we held that the trial court erred.") Corbit v.  Denley (Alab.Supm 1989) 541 So.2d 475 cert.den 492 US 923; (sent the judge who had ordered foreclosure on his unpaid mortgage a letter accusing him of being a "foreign agent" and guilty of treason and specifying that "treason by law is punishable by the death penalty"; convicted of obstructing justice and threatening a federal officer and sentenced to 4 yrs prison and a hefty fine) US v. Schiefen (8th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 638; (even where the message was ambiguous, crank prosecuted and convicted for threatening an FBI agent who declined to investigate his particular enemies when he left a voicemail message that "The silver bullets are coming.") US v.  Fulmer (1st Cir 1997) 108 F3d 1486; (convicted for threatening judges with letters like "Now drop all charges or God will drop you" and "Boom! may go your house if you do not listen to my wise words" or "You either be merciful or you'll be dead" - the same perp was suspected but not convicted of actually bombing the homes of two state judges, and a federal conviction for threatening letters sent during his bombing trial seemed the most satisfying result) US v. Bellrichard (8th Cir 1993) 994 F2d 1318 cert.den 510 US 928; and a nearly incoherent letter to a panel of judges which included comments such as "two American Jewish rich persons will be armed robbed" and "a lot of Jewish people will become dealt with" was successfully prosecuted as threatening a judge under 18 USC 115.  US v.  Malik (2d Cir 1994) 16 F3d 45, and what is more, the mere mailing of a threatening letter was regarded as a crime of violence so that this same person could be denied virtually all social privileges while in prison.  Malik v.  Kindt (10 Cir unpub 2/3/97) 107 F3d 21(t); perp sent IRS agents who were handling his audit a series of nitwit documents including a Non-Statutory Abatement, some UCC-style Demand letters threatening a suit for one million dollars to be paid in pure silver, a "true bill" demanding that one million, and finally a summons from Our One Supreme Court,  - perp was given the very severe punishments reserved for "terrorists".  US v. J.V. Wells (4th Cir 1998) 163 F3d 889; [similarly, in the sentencing of a militia member who had plotted to blow up an FBI building, the sentencing enhancement provided for the involvement of more than 50 firearms was applicable when more than 50 explosive devices were involved in the plot. US v. Looker (4th Cir unpub 12/31/98) 168 F3d 484(t) cert.den (5/3/99) _US_, 119 S.Ct 1586];  phoning IRS offices repeatedly with demands that if he wasn't satisfied today "it's going to be a massacre", that they might as well vacate the premises, that the IRS employee's "life expectancy would be zip", that the IRS would need a flower fund, and that "it might not be a good idea to continue coming to work there", sentenced to 3 yrs of prison for interstate transmission of threatening communications (18 USC 875) (in this case the defendant was found to possess explosives) US v.  Darby (4th Cir 1994) 37 F3d 1059 cert.den 514 US 1097; similarly threatening on phone that "building will go boom" US v.  Whiffen (1st cir 1997) 121 F3d 18; telling another govt employee (a Congressman's assistant) that if the perp had to be interviewed by an IRS agent (1) he would bring a gun to the IRS building and (2) the newspapers "might" report someone getting shot there, successfully prosecuted as two counts of obstructing the admin of law (even though threats were conditional), 18 USC 1505.  US v. R.L. Price (9th Cir 1991) 951 F2d 1028; threatening an IRS agent that if he came to the perp's property I will "blow him to pieces" and "I'm gonna waste you" successfully prosecuted for both obstructing the admin of the laws under 18 USC 1505 and impeding the IRS under 26 USC 7212.  US v.  Ratcliff (5th Cir 1986) 806 F2d 1253; similarly US v.  Varani (6th Cir 1970) 435 F2d 758; similarly (sending IRS agents involved in his case Notices of Bills Due, demanding payment of large sums, filing almost 200 phony form 1099s against IRS employees, sending one IRS employee a letter that he "was going to rearrange your face" and another a letter saying "I am coming after you and the other IRS scumbags... This is known as treason and you all will pay the price")  US v. Winchell (10th Cir 1997) 129 F3d 1093;  taking an unauthorized close up photo of an IRS agent, especially with the comment "so I can show it around and say This is the guy", convicted as intimidation of a federal employee under 18 USC 111 and obstructing the tax laws under 26 USC 7212.  US v. Sciolino (2d Cir 1974) 505 F2d 586; the subject of a tax audit very deliberately showing to the IRS agent that his keeps a handgun, esp with the comment that "there is no telling what he might not do if backed into a corner", even if remarks are vague or ambiguous, held to be intimidation of a federal employee under 18 USC 111 and obstruction of the tax laws under 26 USC 7212.  US v. Sciolino (2d Cir 1974) 505 F2d 586; threats against govt employees are not protected by the First Amendment nor do they require an overt act to obtain a conviction.  US v.  Varani (6th Cir 1970) 435 F2d 758;  a prison inmate sending judges letters from prison telling them "You are hereby given this Aryan Order of our movement to resign your Government office now, if you do not wish to face treason charges and death for serving this US ZOG [Zionist Occupation Govt] American Government!  You are given this chance now to save yourself by obeying this direct Aryan order!"  was convicted of sending threatening letters, under 18 USC sec.  876, and sentenced to an additional twenty years of prison.  US v.  Daughenbaugh (5th Cir 1995) 49 F3d 171; and a prisoner who sent three black judges a letter calling itself "the message of death to all" blacks and Jews "who do not submit to our Aryan Supreme Race.  ... All found to be members of [African-American or Jewish organizations] will be executed without question" was nailed for four additional years.  US v.  Turner (5th Cir 1992) 960 F2d 461;  a prisoner who sent a threatening letter to a judge about a pending case was convicted of both sending a threat thru the mail and of obstruction of justice, the fact that he is obviously locked up and cannot get out to make good on his threat personally will not help him,  and, moreover,  a prisoner who sends or arranges for the sending of threatening letters can rightfully be tossed into solitary confinement.  US v.  Chatman (4th Cir 1978) 584 F2d 1358; a letter sent to other judges that a particular judge "is your problem and if continued to be mine he will be executed as a warning to others as enemies of the Constitution and Nation ...  You has better nullify and countermand any of his demented orders or he will be nullified" similarly sufficient for five years of prison, fact that this threat (like most threats) is conditional does not mitigate the offense nor is the court required to put a mitigating spin on the words.  US v.  Schneider (7th Cir 1990) 910 F2d 1569;  it is not even necessary that the defendant be the author of the threats so long as he deposited the threat in the mail system, and depositing it in a prison's mail system that eventually leads to the US postal system is sufficient.  US v.  Bloom (1st Cir 1987) 834 F2d 16; the announcement (by any means) of any sort of threat to shoot or otherwise kill IRS or law enforcement agents is sufficient grounds to for a judge to issue a search warrant to look for contraband weapons (especially if the crank is a convicted felon who is not allowed to own guns).  US v.  Condo (9th Cir 1985) 782 F2d 1502;  and a letter to the IRS threatening that any IRS attempt to levy property "will be resisted by any force necessary and that any IRS employee who attempts such ... seizures does so at his ... peril", justifies the IRS agents entering the property with their guns drawn.  Beideman v. IRS (D Del unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6188; where the perp was known to have threatened IRS agents, the court deliberately sent the federal marshals a warning of this when ordering his property to be seized.  US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; similarly Pyne v. Meese (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 392, 218 Cal.Rptr 87; approaching a car containing a scofflaw who is known to have previously carried a  weapon and to have resisted or threatened the police it is permissible for the police to search the vehicle for a weapon. State v. Joos (Mo.App 1998) 966 SW2d 349;   that the documents and threats made to govt employees involve demands so outrageous and absurd that they are unbelievable is not a defense to the prosecution for threatening or corruptly influencing a govt employee.  US v. J.V. Wells (4th Cir 1998) 163 F3d 889; ditto US v. Winchell (10th Cir 1997) 129 F3d 1093; sued a judge, prosecutor and IRS agents for, among other things, "desubito", a rarely used bit of Spanish jargon which means to bark and snap like a dog. Rylander v. Wilkens (ED Calif  unpub 12/13/79) 80 USTC para 9141, 45 AFTR2d 890  

rule
rule

   Accusing or suing judge (or other public official) for "perjury of oath" :   Haskins v. Wilbert (D Kan unpub 11/5/97)(not a valid cause of action; "The allegation of perjury of oath, referring to 18 USC 1621 [perjured testimony] is nonsensical.  The statute is a criminal statute, not a basis for civil liability. .... The claim of perjury of oath fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.");  Jamroz v. Panuthos (7th Cir unpub 11/20/97); similarly Goode v. Foster (D. Kan unpub 10/21/96); Forrest-Wendland v. Van Patten (D Kan unpub 10/6/97) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 3/25/98); Burnison v. Macias (D Kan unpub 6/11/97) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 12/8/97) 131 F3d 151(t); US v. Anderson (ND IL unpub 9/25/98); Ch.H. Cass v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (MDNC unpub 10/1/98) 82 AFTR2d 6967;  R. Jones v. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 2/4/97); Dulisse v. Twardowski (ED Penn unpub 7/16/98);  Simon v. Thalken (D Neb unpub 7/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6281 app.dismissed (D Neb unpub 7/27/97); Rodrock v. Foulston (10th Cir unpub 6/12/98) 98 Colo. JCAR 3155; ("unintelligible allegations") DiLouie v. Padova (ED Penn unpub 3/18/98); ("Statutes which require state or federal officials to take oaths of office do not create a private cause of action for acting contrary to the Constitution.") Simon v. Northern Farms (D.Kan unpub 8/26/97) aff'd (10th Cir unpub  2/18/98) 139 F3d 912(t);     ("Kansas law  regarding oaths of office does not create any private cause of action") Van Skiver v.  Hill (D Kan unpub 7/30/97) recons.den (D Kan unpub 8/11/97); ("Insofar as the claims for 'perjury of oath' are concerned, 18 USC 1621, which the plaintiff cites to support his claims, is a criminal statute...  It does not authorize a plaintiff to bring a claim for damages against an official who violates an oath....") Karlin v.  Shoemaker (D Kan unpub 7/31/97) 80 AFTR2d 6237 aff'd Karlin v. Marten (10th Cir unpub 7/16/98) 153 F3d 727(t), 82 AFTR2d 5318, 98 USTC para 50564; (when suing for a tax refund, demanded that the judge provide him with a copy of the oath he had taken - altho the text would appear in 28 USC sec. 453 - in order to make sure that the judge was neither a Mason nor a Jew, in which case he wanted the judge to recuse himself) Lang v. Dieleuterio (D NJ unpub 2/17/99); crank sued a large group of named persons, some judges, the entire US govt, the American Medical Assn, the District of Columbia, his home state of Idaho, hundreds of unnamed persons, accusing them of a large assortment of crimes and demanding copies of the oaths of office taken by several of the defendants and also by the President, the Chief Justice, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and other high officials, saying they were "required to file in the record" these oaths, but the court held there was no such requirement; further, the oaths of federal judges are kept in their personnel records in the Administrative Office of the US Courts and presumably, as part of their personnel folders [and thereby exempt from FOIA discovery, 5 USC sec. 552(b)(6)], are considered non-public. Miller v. Johnson (DDC 1982) 541 F.Supp 1165  

rule
rule

(Threatening judge with suit and default judgment from a make-believe court) State v. Cella (Mo.App 7/7/98) 976 SW2d 543 (but, in Cella's case, a conviction for tampering with a judge overturned because local rules allow one pre-emptory recusal motion); (threatened to sue judge for not declaring 16th Amendment invalid and failed to show up for tax fraud trial; "this Court will not be intimidated by petitioner's scare tactics nor deterred from carrying out its constitutionally mandated duties.")  R.L. Keys v. CIR (9/26/85) 50 TC Memo 1985-507 & P.O. Keys v. CIR (9/26/85) TC Memo 1985-508; In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394;  Bradford v. McClellan (WD No.Car unpub 11/18/97) 81 AFTR2d 979; Christensen v. Ward (10th Cir 1990) 916 F2d 1462 cert.den 498 US 999 (govt attys included in judicial immunity); (judicial immunity spreads outward to include necessary court staff and other public employees such as sheriffs, policemen, referees, appointed receivers, and court clerks) Wickstrom v. Ebert (ED Wis 1984) 585 F.Supp 924 and Wickstrom v.  Ebert (ED Wis 1984) 101 FRD 26;  (defense lawyers, altho not on govt payroll, similarly entitled to immunity)  US v. Poole (CD IL 1996) 916 F.Supp 861; Poole v.  Baker (CD IL 1994) 874 F.Supp 222; Sullivan v.  US (7th Cir 1994) 21 F3d 198; (sued judge and sheriff for "signing papers" and "conspiring" to enforce valid laws) Stafford v. Goff (D. Colo 1985) 609 F.Supp 820; similarly Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake (ND NY 1997) 954 F.Supp 527; (similarly, State Atty-Gen absolutely immune from a civil rights suit arising from his advising other state officials that perp's activities were illegal or invalid) Wickstrom v. Ebert (ED Wis 1984) 585 F.Supp 924; (suing to set aside principle of judicial immunity) Landesberg v. Legislative & Judicial Branches of Govt (SDNY unpub 8/19/97); US v. Poole (CD IL 1996) 916 F.Supp 861;

 (Suing the judge and prosecutors who convicted him as breach of contract on the pretext that their various federal oaths to defend the Constitution were contracts) Poole v. Baker (CD IL 1994) 874 F.Supp 222; Rylander v. Wilkens (ED Calif unpub 12/13/79) 45 AFTR2d 890, 80 USTC para 9141; Wilk v.  Federal Govt of the USA (SDNY unpub 11/8/93); US v. Anderson (ND IL unpub 9/25/98);  (suing judges because he lost a previous lawsuit and suing govt lawyers who defended judges by pleading judicial immunity) Holway v.  Rehnquist (4th Cir unpub 3/1/89) 870 F2d 655(t); (tried to argue that judicial immunity is only available to "common law proceedings" and not to other kinds of court cases) Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1995) 900 SW2d 370; (Rule 11 sanctions appropriate in cases of cranks trying to sue judges and other officials entitled to judicial immunity) McAfee v.  Fifth Circuit Judges (5th Cir 1989) 884 F2d 221; ditto Mullen v.  Galati (8th Cir 1988) 843 F2d 293; ditto Samuel v.  Michaud (D Ida 1996) 980 F.Supp 1381; ditto In re Busby (MD Fla unpub 10/2/98) 82 AFTR2d 6924 (sued bankruptcy judge and in discovery requested that judge "admit that you have committed acts of war against Terry-Eugene: Busby" and "Admit that you have committed acts of  treason against the united [sic] States" and "admit that you are currently blaspheming God"; defendants filed for protective order and court imposed several sanctions)); (tried to sue Presidents Bush and Clinton for treason, the ADL for laundering money, and the entire federal judiciary for running an enormous narcotics distribution organization; part of the suit dismissed immiediately with a modest - $500 - penalty under Rule 11 but with instructions that the plaintiff could file no more lawsuits until this fine was paid and if it were not paid within 30 days the entire suit would be dismissed) Sato v. Plunkett (ND IL 1994) 154 FRD 189;   (tried to sue govt attorneys for defending IRS employees on the pretext that the IRS is not a govt agency therefore the legal representation was unauthorized) Salman v.  Jameson (D Nev unpub 4/14/97) 97 USTC para 50452, 79 AFTR2d 2667; (tried to sue prosecutor for "perjury of oath" or for "chilling effect doctrine" or for professional malpractice for successfully prosecuting three traffic cases against perp) Haskins v. Wilbert (D Kan unpub 11/5/97); similarly Gipson v. Callahan (WD Tex 1997) 18 F>Supp.2d 662; (similarly suing IRS employees for malice and legal malpractice) R. Miller v. Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96); (similarly suing the IRS employees associated with the tax lien against his property with defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and "ridicule by family") Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89);(tried to sue US govt, specifically the IRS and DOJ, for treason) M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98)  82 AFTR2d 6174;  (an attempt to evade sovereign immunity by suing govt officers and employees individually by name will not work) Skala v.  Johnson (WD NC unpub 8/14/98);  (similarly suing all the judges, prosecutors, private attorneys and police involved in a series of child support hearings; "we are left with utterly no idea from reading" his complaint of the particular wrongful acts) Rodrock v. Foulston (10th Cir unpub 6/12/98) 98 Colo. JCAR 3155; (suing judge and US Attorney and IRS employees for their successful case against him) Karlin v. Marten (10th Cir unpub 7/16/98) 82 AFTR2d 5318, 98 USTC para 50564;  (suing judge and making harebrained accusations against judge is sufficient grounds to increase the sentence for a relatively minor felony) State v. Bohardt (Wis.App unpub 6/11/96) 203 Wis.2d 272 (t), 551 NW2d 871(t); (suing because at a court-authorized conference the court-appointed trustee "talked over and interrupted" his tirades and harangues and "is therefore guilty of obstruction of justice and civil conspiracy") In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394; (sued for $130G in punitive damages as well as tax refund on the pretext that the IRS's rejection of her claim to be totally immune from taxation, as "a Free Regnatrix National Continental US Citizen, Legitime Immunis Person", caused emotional distress and mental anguish) Curry-Bey v. US (Fed Claims Ct unpub 6/22/95) 76 AFTR2d 5148, 95 USTC para 50604;  (tried to pretend that the US govt is "foreign" and therefore not immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 1602 et seq) Isaacson v.  US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 35 F3d 571(t), 74 AFTR2d 6354; (threatened to sue the court clerk and others if they didn't address all their mail and paperwork to a very strange and long description of him with his name interrupted by a colon and his street address without a zip code) In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; ("Litigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil rights suits.") Haskins v. Wilbert (D Kan unpub 11/5/97); (an attempt to sue fed govt officials under the Civil Rights Acts will fail, 42 USC 1983 & 1985 apply to violations of right under color "of state law", not of federal law) Skala v. Johnson (WD NC unpub 8/14/98);  perp prosecuted for attempting to obstruct the operations of the IRS by filing fictitious arrest warrants against IRS employees, impersonating a govt employee (namely a staff member of the Congressional banking committee), and threatening and brutally assaulting a county registrar. US v. Ries (9th Cir unpub 1/22/97) 106 F3d 410(t) cert.den 521 US 1126 (Ries was sentenced to more than 7 yrs for hiring the goon, the goon himself got 22 yrs); (pretending to be working on behalf of a govt agency, as part of a scheme to pass funny money, was evidence of wrongful intent and justified a longer prison sentence) US v. Switzer et al (9th Cir unpub 10/5/98); (pretending to be a govt official in order to get out of a traffic ticket will foreseeably cause the police to waste time investigating that pretense, therefore govt was justified in having no sense of humor about prosecuting perp for impersonation of a federal officer) US v. Gilbert (8th Cir 1998) 143 F3d 397 (and generally, see essay, Criminal liability for false personation during stop for traffic infraction, 26 ALR5th 378 (1995); (similarly pretending to be a public official successfully prosecuted for impersonation even though there was no bona fide office with that title, namely clerk and judge of a non-existent town; sentenced to 18 months in prison) State v.  Wickstrom (1984) 118 Wis.2d 339, 348 NW2d 183, habeas corpus denied Wickstrom v.  Schardt (7th Cir 1986) 798 F2d 268 ("No man is an island, John Donee wrote.  Likewise, no man is a municipality.  James Wickstrom discovered this in a most unpleasant manner.");  twice phoning a federal employee at her home and obsessively faxing her at her office with threats to file nuisance liens prosecuted under 18 USC 111 as assault, intimidation or interference with a federal employee.  US v. Holdsworth (D Colo 1998) 990 F.Supp 1274 (but, in Holdsworth case, conviction on another count, namely disorderly conduct in a govt building, overturned because the applicable reg depends on physical presence inside the govt building);   [State laws against stalking, intimidation or harassing phone calls can be used to prosecute obsessive faxing. Commonwealth v. Hendrickson (1999) 555 Pa 277, 724 A2d 315; Phelps v. Hamilton (1997) 122 F3d 1309];  similarly threatening phone calls to Dept of Interior Fish & Wildlife office.  US v.  Bridges (5th Cir 1977) 551 F2d 651.  If a crank has become obnoxious enough the govt will go to the trouble of convicting him of "assaulting" a federal officer under 18 USC 111 when he (merely) elbowed her aside rudely in a courthouse hallway.  US v. Somerstedt (9th Cir 1984) 752 F2d 1494 cert.den 474 US 851; similarly US v.  Burk (8th Cir 1990) 912 F2d 225;  smashing into the IRS tow truck convicted not only for assaulting federal employee and using a deadly weapon in a crime of violence.  US v.  Hutton (9th Cir unpub 2/18/97) 108 F3d 339(t); ditto US v.  Pletz (9th Cir unpub 9/21/88) 859 F2d 924(t) (held that the tow truck driver, because hired by contract with the IRS, was a "federal employee" for the purpose of this section);  similarly vandalizing the car of IRS agents.  US v.  Burk (8th Cir 1990) 912 F2d 225; similarly chasing an IRS agent who had just served a summons, attempting to run her over with his car, then chasing her car with his on the highway.  US v.  Plummer (6th Cir 1986) 789 F2d 435 (also held, not a criminal assault if the perp's behavior would have been legitimate against a non-govt person and the perp was unaware of the govt status, but once the govt employee has identified herself there is no such excuse); similarly brandishing a gun at IRS agents, even though it was never pointed directly at them, and threatening to call the Posse Comitatus.  US v.  Streich (7th Cir 1985) 759 F2d 579 cert.den 474 US 860 (held that perp's professed excuse that he used gun only because he felt himself in physical danger was negated by evidence that he was an adherent of a tax evasion organization); ditto US v.  Przybla (9th Cir 1984) 737 F2d 828 cert.den 471 US 1099; calling a crowd of buddies to come armed to threaten IRS agents gets whole crowd convicted not only for usual assault and obstruction but also for conspiracy and firearms offenses.  US v.  Afflerback (10th Cir 1985) 754 F2d 866 cert.den 472 US 1029; 

  scofflaw stopped by traffic cop in uniform refused to produce his (non-existent) license or proof of insurance and instead tried to insist that cop first fill out his "Public Servant's Questionnaire" (PSQ), convicted of obstructing a police officer. City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986) 224 Mont 84, 730 P2d 371 cert.den 481 US 1020; the same sort of PSQ was held an improper attempt at discovery, and could not be used during litigation under the Fed Rules of Civil Procedure ( the PSQ included questions about govt employee's Social Security Numbers,  home phone numbers and addresses, and details about spouses - all explicitly beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, even though two versions of the PSQ on the internet refer to the FOIA as their source of authority).  US v.  Scott (ND Ind unpub 2/4/98) 81 AFTR2d 1076 judgmt entered (ND Ind unpub 10/8/98) and his subsequent attempt to appeal on the grounds that the court should have compelled the govt employees to answer his PSQs was fined heavily as "frivolous squared". US v. Scott (7th Cir unpub 6/23/99); not an acceptable alternative to a Freedom of Information or Privacy Act request, and could not sue fed govt employees for not filling out his PSQ. Murdock v.  Kay (ED Mich unpub 7/23/96) 96 USTC para 50517, 78 AFTR2d 6117 aff'd 124 F3d 198(t), 97 USTC para 50776, 80 AFTR2d 6485; ditto ("Plaintiff cited no authority supporting his right to have these questionnaires completed, and we are aware of none.") Allen v.  Cantrell (D Kan unpub 12/27/78) 79 USTC para 9171, 43 AFTR2d 710; similarly (presented traffic cop with a "Notice to arresting officer with Miranda warning") State v.  Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953.

rule
rule

rule

Militia Watchdog Militia Watchdog Graphic Table of Contents
Mark Pitcavage E-Mail