United States v. Newby

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C18-5978RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 PERCY F NEWBY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Percy Newby’s Motion to Dismiss on 15 Subject Matter [Dkt. # 73]. Newby argues that the United States has not established that this 16 Court has subject matter jurisdiction because it has not alleged or proved that it had a contract 17 with Newby. The case involves the United States’ efforts to reduce to judgment federal income 18 tax assessments, and to foreclose tax liens on property owned by Newby or his various defendant 19 entities. Put another, to reduce Newby’s income tax obligations to judgment, and to collect them. 20 Newby’s current motion is a re-hash of the same or similar “sovereign citizen” arguments 21 he has already made in motions attacking the Court’s personal jurisdiction over him, and which 22 the court has previously rejected. See Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 31, 36, 41, 45, 67 and 72. 23 24 1 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and under 2 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Newby’s 68-point argument to the contrary is based on (or is at least 3 similar to) a list of “roundly rejected” “sovereign citizen” arguments which, as the Government 4 pointed out, is accessible on the IRS’s website. See also Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 5 1440 10th Cir. 1990); Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

6 Newby’s Motion is frivolous, and it is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 19th day of December, 2019. 9 A 10 Ronald B. Leighton 11 United States District Judge

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24