BARBER v. BAY COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE JAIL FACILITY (2020)

William Brandon Barber appeals the trial court's order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus. In the petition, Mr. Barber asserts that the defendant named in his criminal cases is a name he has now trademarked and incorporated. He claims the separation between “the living breathing human being[ ]” and his trademarked incorporated name deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction over him. This argument is the spawn of sovereign citizen legal theories. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2017) (explaining the origins of the movement).

Mr. Barber's preposterous argument is an abuse of the courts. This sovereign citizen theory has no basis in the law, and parties that make it are in danger of court sanctions. To our knowledge, no court in this country has ever found sovereign citizen arguments to have any merit. See United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘securedparty creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.”). The trial court was correct in rejecting these claims.

Affirmed.

Long, J.

Lewis and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.