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 DENYING MOTION TO 10 v. DISMISS 11 PERCY F NEWBY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Newby’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack 15 of in personam Jurisdiction [Dkt. # 83]. Newby reiterates his claim that he has never entered into 16 a contract with the United States or the IRS. He reiterates his claim that he is a resident of the 17 Republic of Washington, but not a citizen of the United States. 18 These are “sovereign citizen” arguments often made by those claiming the Internal 19 Revenue Code does not apply to them. They have been roundly and consistently rejected, in this 20 Court and everywhere else, and no such argument has ever been successfully employed to avoid 21 income tax obligations. See Internal Revenue Service, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments 22 (Mar. 21, 2019), https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-taxarguments- 23 introduction. There is no need to waste time soberly addressing each frivolous argument. See 24 1 Londsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (listing a series of “rejected tax 2 protester arguments”); Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (no need to 3 refute frivolous arguments with “somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent”). 4 The Court has also rejected these arguments in this case, and the government correctly 5 points out that the determination that this Court does have jurisdiction over Newby and his

6 various entities is the law of the case. 7 Newby’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated this 31st day of January, 2020. 10 A 11 Ronald B. Leighton 12 United States District Judge

13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24