Subpart 2.2 - Challenging Personal Jurisdiction
A. The "Sovereign" vs. the "Corporate" Citizen
Though the precise contours of their philosophy differ among the various groups, almost all antigovernment movements adhere to a theory of a "sovereign" citizen. Essentially, they believe that our nation is made up of two types of people: those who are sovereign citizens by virtue of Article IV of the Constitution, and those who are "corporate" or "14th Amendment" citizens by virtue of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The arguments put forth by these groups are generally incoherent, legally, and vary greatly among different groups and different speakers within those groups. They all rely on snippets of 19th Century court opinions taken out of context, definitions from obsolete legal dictionaries and treatises, and misplaced interpretations of original intent. One of the more cogent - in the sense that it is readily followed - arguments is that there were no United States citizens prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. All Americans were merely citizens of their own state and owed no allegiance to the federal government. As a result of that amendment, however, Congress created a new type of citizen - one who now enjoyed privileges conferred by the federal government and in turn answered to that government.
One of the ramifications of this belief is the dependent belief that, unless one specifically renounces his federal citizenship,[4] he is not the type of citizen originally contemplated by the Constitution. And, in their view, the Constitution requires all federal office holders to be the original or sovereign type of citizen, a state citizen rather than a United States citizen. As a result, all federal officers are holding office illegally and their laws and rules are thus constitutionally suspect. If the complaint, then, is that the federal government is suspect and thus so is its hold over these believers, it is unclear exactly why the state courts are correspondingly without authority. The explanations for that diverge widely. Essentially, members of these movements believe that they are able to renounce their federal citizenship by "quieting title" and by repudiating any possible "contractual" link to the government - such things as licenses, paying taxes, etc. They appear to just bootstrap their claims against the states onto the federal argument, and when they quiet title and become sovereign, all government's jurisdiction over them dissolves - except for the common law court to whose authority they have acquiesced.
Followers of these beliefs will typically attempt two types of argument in the state courts. Both go to the court's lack of jurisdiction, but for different reasons. The first is that they are sovereign and thus not answerable to state courts. They often support this contention by attempting to avail themselves of the "non resident alien" status described in Title 8 of the United States Code.[5] This argument will be made in conjunction with some variation of the discussion above. The second tactic will be to proclaim that they simply are not a "person" for purposes of whatever statute they are being charged or sued under - almost always a losing argument that is nonetheless very popular with tax protest groups.
B. Typical Responses to the Personal Jurisdiction Issue
Courts' responses to both of the usual arguments have been swift and decisive. These arguments have repeatedly lost at the appellate level. At the trial level, the court may respond in one of several ways, much like the flag issue in the preceding section.
1. Note the Objection and Move On - This appears to be the approach that most courts follow. As with any confrontation with members of these movements, arguments are interminable. Suffice to say that our system and its rules have established that: a) these people are not "sovereign" in any special sense,[6] and b) they are certainly "persons" within the meaning of whatever statute is at issue - especially provisions of the United States Tax Code. Most courts that have dealt frequently with these movements have heard these arguments before and merely note an objection and move on over that objection. Note, however, that courts may wish to determine as a matter of policy how to handle these objections in light of the fact that an overruled objection will most likely lead to an appeal - frivolous or not. Certainly, courts do not wish to encourage frivolous appeals, and it is likely that the penal apparatus for filing such appeals can and does discourage them on this ground.
2. Use of the Contempt Power - It is not entirely clear whether courts are using the contempt power in response to these personal jurisdiction arguments. It is quite evident that contempt is frequently used in accordance with the tactics these groups present, for they are often disagreeable, disruptive and disorderly. When stuck on this point in court, the court may feel compelled to use contempt to bring the party in line with acceptable behavior and decorum. However, a few caveats. First, it is not entirely clear that the court can censure an individual merely for uttering the objection based upon their view of the court's jurisdiction. The remedy for that failing is simply that they lose the argument as a matter of law. To censure them for the content of their speech, without more, is provocative and likely to lead to further argument and even retaliatory civil rights suits. There are a few ways in which the contempt power can be used in response to this tactic, however. First, where the argument over jurisdiction involves the party becoming disruptive or disorderly, as does happen, it is clear that contempt after warning is an acceptable response. Second, where the party lodges an objection that is noted by the court and asked to move on, but continues to argue the point, contempt is likely an acceptable response. In this instance, the censure is a result of the party's unacceptable behavior, rather than the content of his or her speech.
3. Engaging the Party in Argument - Judge Sudderth tells of a Texas judge who apparently bought the party's sovereignty argument and granted sovereign status to several litigants. The judge was rebuked by a conduct commission and subsequently resigned.[7] That is perhaps the extreme example of the danger of engaging in this argument with the litigants who come into your courtroom. Some judges, however, apparently cannot resist the urge to either "put these people in their place" or to emerge victorious in debate. Be forewarned that engaging them on these dogmatic issues may lead to several negative consequences. First, there exists the possibility that engagement will lead to the appearance of personal animus or prejudice, particularly any engagement beyond noting an objection and moving forward. Second, engaging in rhetorical debate with members of these groups amounts to granting to them the affirmation they seek and affirming that their points merit debate in a court of law. Third, engagement takes time and resources, and to spend these on debate plays right into one of the purposes behind the tactic to begin with.
C. Additional Authority
The following cases present additional discussion pertaining to "sovereignty":
Federal Courts
· Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D.Ind. 1984) (tax protester - district court calls sovereignty claim "preposterous").
· United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (tax protester case - calling argument "frivolous"),
· United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500-501 (7th Cir. 1991) (tax protester case - noting that "strange" argument had repeatedly been rejected in the courts).
· United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (tax protester case - rejecting contention that defendants are "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota" and thus not subject to federal income taxation).
· Valldejuli v. Social Security Administration, 75 A.F.T.R2d 95-607
· (N.D.Fla. 1994)(social security number protester - district court finds sovereign argument "meritless").
State Courts
· Uphoff v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 411 N.W.2d 428 (Wis. App.1987) (noting that appellant's "sovereign status" provides her no immunity from tax laws). This is an unpublished opinion. The fact that the court uses the term "appellant's sovereign status" is dangerous, for it is just the type of language these groups grasp and spin in order to legitimize their beliefs. The statement might have been better phrased "appellant's, claim of sovereign status.
· State v. French, 883 P.2d 644, 653 (Haw. App. 1994) (using Black's Law Dictionary to define "person" as "a human being," and denying petitioner's challenge to traffic law).