U.S. v. DUTSON

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. CIV 04-2585-PHX-EHC.

Judges

Earl Hamblin Carroll

Acts

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — District Courts; Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction And Venue — Internal Revenue; Customs Duties
Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — District Courts; Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction And Venue — United States As Plaintiff
Internal Revenue Code — Procedure And Administration — Judicial Proceedings — Civil Actions By The United States — Jurisdiction Of District Courts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On November 18, 2004, the United States of America filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and other relief against Tony S. Dutson and Micaela R. Dutson, citing federal jurisdiction statutes and Internal Revenue Code provisions. Service of process was completed in early December 2004. The Defendants filed multiple documents in response, including various "Acceptance of Fiduciary" statements and financing statements, which appeared to assert unconventional claims involving trusts, secured parties, and commercial liens.

Defendant Tony Stewart Dutson filed a motion styled as a "Petition in the Nature of a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Petition in the Nature of a Motion for Settlement and Closure of the Escrow," asserting secured claims against the Defendants and requesting dismissal or additional time to exhaust administrative remedies. Hearings were held and motions were filed seeking enlargement of time or dismissal. Defendants also submitted multiple notices and demands to the Court, which were described as legally frivolous and unintelligible.

The Court addressed these filings and motions through a series of orders, including denial of Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for enlargement of time, and set a pretrial conference for March 31, 2005.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Defendants as claimed in their motions to dismiss.
Whether the Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the case based on alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The validity and enforceability of Defendants’ asserted claims, liens, and notices against the Court, the United States, and its attorneys.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

Defendants asserted themselves as secured parties and fiduciaries, claiming priority secured interests against themselves and others.
They contended the United States is a legal fiction and that they are actual beings with rights under Creator’s law superior to the Court’s authority.
They requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and sought additional time to exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding.
Defendants submitted various notices demanding settlement and closure of escrow, and challenged the Court’s jurisdiction and authority.

Government's Arguments

The Government opposed the motions to dismiss and motions for enlargement of time, maintaining jurisdiction and the validity of the case.
Government counsel characterized the Defendants’ filings as legally frivolous, unintelligible, void, and without legal force or effect.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir. 1985)	Supporting the characterization of certain filings as frivolous and without legal effect.	The Court cited this case to reinforce that the Defendants' filings are legally frivolous and unenforceable.
26 U.S.C. § 7402	Federal tax enforcement authority and injunction powers.	Referenced as statutory authority underlying the Government’s complaint and the Court’s jurisdiction.
Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons, Co., 476 U.S. 1183 (1986)	Legal precedent related to jurisdiction and enforcement of court orders.	Used to support the Court’s rejection of Defendants’ claims and motions.
United States v. Thomas, 819 F.Supp. 927, 928 (D. Colo. 1993)	Rejection of frivolous filings and claims against the United States.	Applied to confirm the Defendants’ filings have no legal force or effect.
United States v. Van Dyke, 568 F.Supp. 820 (D. Or. 1983)	Authority to dismiss baseless claims and liens against government entities.	Supported the Court’s order declaring Defendants’ claims and liens void and unenforceable.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the Defendants’ filings and motions, finding them to be generally unintelligible, legally frivolous, and void of legal effect. The Court noted that the Defendants’ claims and liens against the Court, the United States, and government attorneys were nullities and unenforceable. The Court relied on established precedent and statutory authority to reject the motions to dismiss and motions for enlargement of time, emphasizing that the Defendants’ filings could not impede the judicial process or the enforcement of the Government’s complaint.

The Court further clarified procedural requirements, including the necessity of Certificates of Service and joint signatures on filings by both Defendants. The Court set a pretrial conference to advance the case toward resolution.

Holding and Implications

The Court DENIED the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Enlargement of Time, and rejected all other motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants.

The Court ordered that any claims or liens asserted by Defendants against the Court, the United States, or its attorneys are void and unenforceable. The direct effect is that the case will proceed on the Government’s complaint, and the Defendants’ attempts to delay or dismiss the case on jurisdictional or other grounds are unsuccessful. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms existing principles regarding frivolous filings and the Court’s jurisdiction in such matters.

Show full summary ...

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Tony S. Dutson and Micaela R. Dutson, Defendants.

ORDER

EARL CARROLL, Senior District Judge

On November 18, 2004, the United States of America (Government) filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and for other Relief, naming Tony S. Dutson, and Micaela R. Dutson, as Defendants and citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and §§ 7402(a) and 7408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.) ("Code"). (Dkt. 1).

Returns of Service for both Defendants were filed December 4, 2004. (Dkts. 10 and 11).

On December 10, 2004 (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) Defendants filed various materials, titled:

Dkt. 2 — Acceptance of Fiduciary, purporting to accept "Martin M. Shoemaker" ..to be the fiduciary for the Tony S. Dutson trust #543-74-3715, a U.S. minister/resident residing in the State of Arizona . . .". Attached, amongst other items, is a copy of the summons and complaint, with the handwritten signature of Defendant Tony S. Dutson, and "Accepted for value front and back and returned in settlement and closure of this accounting December 7, 2004" and below the signature "EIN #543743715." The "EIN" etc is identified as his exemption ". . . to settle the above-referenced account," with a "credit to the Order of the Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service in the amount: $500,000.00."

The trial attorney Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, who filed the complaint.

Also attached is a "UCC Financing Statement" and a "Certificate of Protest" for the Governments refusal "to perform on foreign bill of exchange #150003 mailed from Arizona to Oregon, valued at $30,000.00, dated 07/29/04, and submitted by Tony Stewart Dutson, for settlement of account/case # 543-74-3715."

Dkt. 3, the same material filed in Dkt. 2;

Dkt. 4, the same material filed in Dkt. 2, and accepting "John Ashcroft," as "Fiduciary," including an "Indemnity Bond" in the sum of $5,000,000.00 . . . through his #encryption #543743715."

Dkt. 5, "Acceptance of Fiduciary for Martin M. Shoemaker," as "Fiduciary" signed by Micaela Renee Dutson, general trustee for Micaela R. Dutson "#307-50-9656."

Dkt. 6, is the same material filed in Dkt. 4, and signed by Micaela Renee Dutson, for John Ashcroft, as "Fiduciary."

Dkt. 7, is a rescript of Dkt. 5, but naming "Mark W. Everson" as "Fiduciary."

Dkt. 8 purports to be a "registered acceptance of presentment dated December 7, 2004, Account #543-74-3715; Case #CV'04 2585 PHX EHC." Defendant is identified as a "secured party/creditor."

On December 22, 2004, Defendant Tony Stewart Dutson, naming himself as "Libellant," filed a Motion (Dkt. 12) captioned as follows:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Case # CV'04 2585 PHX EHC Plaintiff, ) v ) PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A TONY S. DUTSON AND MICAELA R DUTSON ) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK Defendant. ) OF JURISDICTION AND ) PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A ) MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT AND ) CLOSURE OF THE ESCROW ) Tony-Stewart: Dutson, and Micaela-Renee: ) Dutson, secured parties, Real Parties In ) Interest, Lien Holders on the Vessel, The ) Principal Injured Third Party Interveners, ) Libellants, ) ) vs. ) ) Paul Charlton, United States Attorney, ) Martin M. Shoemaker, Esquire #001340, ) Marilyn Page, Internal Revenue Agent ) #91-06702, Michael Seal, IRS Group Manager, ) Amy Blaster, Special Agent, Craige Walker, ) Special Agent, Mark W. Everson, IRS ) Commissioner, US VESSELS, JOHN DOES and ) JANE DOES 1-100, Jointly and Severally, ) Libellees. )

On December 27, 2004, Defendant's Motion (Dkt. 12) was set for hearing January 10, 2005 and reset for January 18, 2005. (Dkt. 15).

On January 5, 2005, Defendant Tony Stewart Dutson; identified himself as:

. . . being a living flesh and blood actual man, non-legal fiction, creditor and secured party, injured party Libellant, hereinafter referred to as `Libellant', state the following: Libellant is the agent for Tony Dutson, also known as TONY STEWART DUTSON 543-74-3715, a non-living entity, Stramineous homo, commercial Strawman, artificial entity, legal fiction, US VESSEL.

The Motion asserts, amongst other matters, that:

Libellant holds a priority secured claim against TONY S. DUTSON and MICAELA R. DUTSON.

The Motion asserts that an additional sixty days is required for Libellant "to exhaust all [of his] administrative remedies prior to continuation of Case No. CV'04 2585 PHX EHC" and that otherwise the "law requires said case be dismissed."

The Motion was heard January 18, 2005. Defendants appeared personally. Government counsel appeared telephonically. The Court granted Defendants ten days from January 18, 2005, to file an answer or written response pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 17).

On January 27, 2005, Defendant filed a "Motion for Enlargement of Time under F.R.C.P. 6(b) or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss," (Dkt. 19) with the same caption as Dkt. 12.

On January 27, 2005, Defendants filed a 14 page "Petition in the Nature of a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Petition in the Nature of a Motion for Settlement and Closure of the Escrow." (Dkt. 20).

An "Affidavit" of Defendant was filed January 27, 2005 (Dkt. 21), alleging, amongst other matters:

The United States of America is a fiction (corporation), and Libellants are visitors in a court of fiction and make only a restricted appearance; Libellants are actual beings of the Creator, and are of the Creator's likeness of character; that the Creator's law and truth proceed from the Holy Scriptures which are truth and are not inferior to the world of corrupted fiction that has no righteousness in it, and which is manipulated by Libellees, et al., claiming immunity for Libellees' acts to intentionally create confusion, fraud, scienter acts and continuous torts.

On February 4, 2005, the Government filed a "Response to Dutsons' Petition on the Notice of Motion to Dismiss" (Dkt. 22) and a "Response to Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time." (Dkt. 23).

Under date of January 26, 2005, Defendant mailed to the Court a copy of "Notice of International Commercial Claim within the Admiralty ab initio". The Notice named this Court as a "Libellee," along with "Martin M. Shoemaker, dba Esquire #001340, U.S. Department of Justice" and "Paul Charlton, dba United States Attorney."

The Notice provided that "Libellee Earl H. Carroll is charged with distributing copies to mail to all other named Libellees."

Under date of February 8, 2005, Defendants mailed to the Court a copy of a "Notice of Fault-Opportunity to Cure," with copies to be distributed by the Court.

Under date of February 14, 2005, Defendants mailed to the Court a copy of a "Notice of Default" with copies to be mailed by the Court.

Under date of February 19, 2005, Defendants mailed to the Court a copy of a "First Notice of Demand and Settlement for Closing of Escrow"; again with copies to be mailed by the Court.

Under date of February 24, 2005, Defendants mailed to the Court a copy of a "Second Notice of Demand and Settlement for Closing of the Escrow" and charging the Court "with distributing copies to all other above named Libellees."

Dkt. 24, filed February 10, 2005, was addressed to the Clerk, enclosing the following:

1. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DUTSONS' PETITION IN THE NATURE OF MOTION TO DISMISS, ETC., with its accompanying envelope, accepted for value and for consideration, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8, and returned;

2. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DUTSONS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME, accepted for value and for consideration, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8, and returned; and

3. Certificate of Service

Please file the above listed documents into the case number listed above, and send the second copy to the judge.

Under date of March 1, 2005, Defendants mailed to the Court a copy of a Certificate of Service and a copy of a "Contractual and Final Notice of Demand and Settlement for Closing of the Escrow" and charging this Court "with distributing copies to all other named Libellees."

Defendants are advised that neither the Clerk nor this Court have any obligation to serve copies of matters submitted for filing in a proceeding.

It would serve no useful purpose to attempt to otherwise summarize the materials filed by Defendants. Suffice it to say that they threaten various actions and/or penalties, against the Court (U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll) or government attorneys and are generally unintelligible, legally frivolous, void, and a nullity. The have no legal force or effect and are unenforceable. See: Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir. 1985); See also 26 U.S.C. § 7402; Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons, Co., 476 U.S. 1183 (1986); United States v. Thomas, 819 F.Supp. 927 928 (D. Colo. 1993); United States v. Van Dyke, 568 F.Supp. 820 (D. Or. 1983).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court file in this docket (left side) the documents mailed to this Court for distribution by the Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Defendants seek to assert a claim or lien against this Court (U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll), the United States, or any attorneys or agency of the United States, such claim or lien is a nullity, void, and of no force or effect and unenforceable;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail copies of this Order to Defendants; Paul Charlton, U.S. Attorney; and Martin M. Shoemaker, Attorney for Plaintiff;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 19, 20) and Motion for Enlargement of Time (Dkt. 19) and all other Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any matters filed in this case which do not include a Certificate of Service on the other party shall not be docketed by the Clerk;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all matters filed on behalf of both Defendants shall be signed by both Defendants;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a pretrial conference for the31^st day of March, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., with Defendants and counsel for the Government to be personally present.