Sovereign Citizen Movement - Legal Status of Theories

Legal Status of Theories

Variations of the argument that an individual is "sovereign" have been rejected by the courts, especially in tax cases such as Johnson v. Commissioner (Phyllis Johnson's argument—that she was not subject to the federal income tax because she was an "individual sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the Court), Wikoff v. Commissioner (argument by Austin Wikoff—that he was not subject to the federal income tax because he was an "individual sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the Court), United States v. Hart (Douglas Hart's argument—in response to lawsuit against him for filing false lien notices against IRS personnel, that the U.S. District Court had no jurisdiction over him because he was a "sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit), Young v. Internal Revenue Serv. (Jerry Young's argument—that the Internal Revenue Code did not pertain to him because he was a "sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the U.S. District Court), and Stoecklin v. Commissioner (Kenneth Stoecklin's argument—that he was a "freeborn and sovereign" person and was therefore not subject to the income tax laws—was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Court imposed $3,000 penalty on Stoecklin for filing frivolous appeal).

In Risner v. Commissioner, Gregg Risner's argument—that he was not subject to federal income tax because he was a "Self-governing Free Born Sovereign Citizen"—was rejected by the Court as being a "frivolous protest" of the tax laws. See also Maxwell v. Snow (Lawrence Maxwell's arguments—that he was not subject to U.S. federal law because he was a "sovereign citizen of the Union State of Texas", that the United States was not a republican form of government and therefore must be abolished as unconstitutional, that the Secretary of the Treasury's jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia, and that he was not a citizen of the United States—were rejected by the Court as being frivolous), and Rowe v. Internal Revenue Serv. (Heather Rowe's argument—that she was not subject to federal income tax because she was not a "party to any social compact or contract", because the IRS had no jurisdiction over her or her property, because she was "not found within the territorial limited jurisdiction of the US", because she was a "sovereign Citizen of the State of Maine", and because she was "not a U.S. Citizen as described in 26 U.S.C. 865(g)(1)(A)..."—was rejected by the Court and was ruled to be "frivolous").

Other tax cases include Heitman v. Idaho State Tax Commission, Cobin v. Commissioner (John Cobin's arguments—that he had the ability to opt out of liability for federal income tax because he was white, that he was a "sovereign citizen of Oregon", that he was a "non-resident alien of the United States", and that his sovereign status made his body real property—were rejected by the Court and were ruled to be "frivolous tax-protester type arguments"), Glavin v. United States (John Glavin's argument—that he was not subject to an Internal Revenue Service summons because, as a sovereign citizen, he was not a citizen of the United States—was rejected by the Court), and United States v. Greenstreet (Gale Greenstreet's arguments — that he was of "Freeman Character" and "of the White Preamble Citizenship and not one of the 14th Amendment legislated enfranchised De Facto colored races", that he was a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas", and that he was a sovereign, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court — were ruled to be "entirely frivolous"),. In view of such cases, the Internal Revenue Service has added "free born" or "sovereign" citizenship to its list of frivolous claims that may result in a $5,000 penalty when used as the basis for an inaccurate tax return.

Similarly, in a case in which an individual named Andrew Schneider was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for making a threat by mail, Schneider argued that he was a free, sovereign citizen and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as having "no conceivable validity in American law."

In a criminal case in 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington noted:

Defendant is apparently a member of a group loosely styled “sovereign citizens.” The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant’s peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names has some sort of legal effect. For example, Defendant writes that “the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America . . . are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing “United States,” he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it’s the same country.

Second, sovereign citizens, like Mr. Leaming, love grandiose legalese. “COMES NOW, Kenneth Wayne, born free to the family Leaming, constituent to The People of the State of Washington constituted 1878 and admitted to the union 22 February 1889 by Act of Congress, a Man, “State of Body” competent to be a witness and having First Hand Knowledge of The FACTS . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 1.)

Third, Defendant evinces, like all sovereign citizens, a belief that the federal government is not real and that he does not have to follow the law. Thus, Defendant argues that as a result of the “REGISTERED FACTS,” the “states of body, persons, actors and other parties perpetuating the above captioned transaction(s) are engaged . . . in acts of TREASON, and if unknowingly as victims of TREASON and FRAUD . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.)

The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe......

Defendant Kenneth Wayne Leaming was found guilty of three counts of retaliating against a Federal judge or law enforcement officer by a false claim, one count of concealing a person from arrest, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.