"Attornatus Privatus" Speaks for His Own "Court of Record"

[LPC]

Difficult to classify some of the gibberish, which sometimes looks like sovereign citizen gibberish and sometimes like a simple OID scam with a flavor of pure trusts.

But it's a dismissal without prejudice. Victory!

James A. Williams Trust et al. v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-00753 (Ct. of Fed. Cl. 12/29/2011)

JAMES A. WILLIAMS TRUST AND JAMES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Filed: December 29, 2011

ORDER

On November 1, 2010, James Williams filed a mammoth and meandering document apparently intended to be his complaint.[1] This complaint, and the various other documents submitted by him, have as their basis a number of bizarre theories entertained by Mr. Williams. One is that since a "court of record" may be established by the sovereign, Resp. to Judge Wolski's Order Issued Feb. 11, 2011 at 9-11, March 14, 2011 ("March 14 Filing"), and Mr. Williams is "one of the People as contemplated in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution" who have retained sovereignty, Mr. Williams is the sovereign who gets to decide how the "court of record" functions. See Compl. at 3-5, 7, 10-12, 58; March 14 Filing at 11. Mister Williams also puts himself forward as the "attornatus privatus" that speaks for the "court of record" and pronounces its judgments. Compl. at 57-58. Under this novel system, Mr. Williams has submitted several orders purportedly issued on behalf of the "court of record" granting him judgment in this case, as well as entering other judicial determinations. See Compl. at 52-62. In his view, it seems the role of a judge on the Court of Federal Claims is simply that of a "magistrate" that effectuates these judgments without exercising any discretion.[2] March 14 Filing at 11.

On February 16, 2011, defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") or, in the alternative, for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted, under RCFC 12(b)(6). Presumably by way of response, Mr. Williams filed on February 25, 2011, a Motion to Strike the government's motion under RCFC 12(f), and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under RCFC 12(c). Defendant filed its response, and Mr. Williams has been allowed to file various papers relating to the motions. Having determined that oral argument is unnecessary, the Court now GRANTS defendant's Motion to Dismiss and DENIES all of Mr. Williams's pending motions.[3]

The theory of Mr. Williams's case is no less exotic than his other theories. It seems that he believes that by creating a trust for his benefit, and then depositing the trust's assets with various financial institutions (three Canadian banks and the Canadian Revenue Agency), he has created liabilities which may be recovered by filing U.S. tax returns. Compl. at 74-79. He appears to equate the money he has on deposit with these institutions with amounts withheld to pay U.S. taxes. Accordingly, for tax years 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009, on behalf of the trust, Mr. Williams submitted a Form 1041 which showed interest income of some amount, withheld income of the same amount, no other income, and a refund amount equal to the amount allegedly withheld. Compl. at 101-04. In addition, Mr. Williams filed supporting documents prepared by him, including Forms 1099-OID, showing previously unreported withheld income being held in escrow by the three financial institutions and the Canada Revenue Agency. Compl. at 42-43, 126c-132f.[4] The IRS rejected each of these filings as frivolous. Compl. at 34-36, 174-85; Mot. to Dismiss at 6, A-1 to A-2.

In order for a tax refund claim to fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of our Court, a taxpayer must first "duly file" a valid claim for refund with the IRS. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). While an income tax return can count as a claim for refund, see 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-3(a), as plaintiff points out, see Compl. at 84, a return that is frivolous does not qualify as a valid return. See Kehmeier v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 442, 444-45 (2010); Gregoline v. United States, 2011 WL 1798080, at * 5-6 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 11, 2011); Hamzik v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 766, 767-68 (2005). Therefore, a taxpayer who has filed a frivolous return has not met the jurisdictional requirement of § 7422 and cannot maintain a suit in our Court.

The tax refund claims submitted by Mr. Williams on behalf of his trust were clearly frivolous, and rightfully rejected as such. A taxpayer, or the beneficiary/fiduciary of one, cannot simply generate a claim to purported tax refunds by creating his own documents alleging that money was withheld for the payment of U.S. taxes, and then asking for these amounts back. The returns submitted by Mr. Williams appear to have no relation to any money actually withheld by any institution as payment of U.S. taxes owed by the trust. He cannot invoke our jurisdiction on the basis that such incredible documents have been rejected by the IRS.[5]

Moreover, the Court notes that pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6702(c), the IRS is required to maintain and periodically update a list of positions that are considered frivolous. The tax returns filed by Mr. Williams are covered by at least one of these categories. Chiefly, Mr. Williams's returns fall into the category of returns where the amount of withheld income "is obviously false because it exceeds the taxpayer's income as reported on the return or is disproportionately high in comparison with the income reported on the return." Frivolous Positions, Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, 611 (IRS April 26, 2010).

Since the IRS correctly rejected Mr. Williams's returns as frivolous, he has not properly filed a valid claim for refund with the IRS, and his dispute is not within our Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, as stated above, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Court hereby DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case. The Court notes that Mr. Williams has yet to pay the filing fee for this case. The Clerk shall reject for filing all documents submitted by Mr. Williams in the future (with the exception of any notice of appeal), for this or any other case, until the filing fee has been paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Victor J. Wolski
Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 The Court notes that Mr. Williams did not pay the filing fee at that time or at any time since, and has not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

2 Some of Mr. Williams's other theories are that Americans lost the ability "to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything" on June 5, 1933, see March 14 Filing at 5, and that at the time of a person's birth an artificial person is created with the same name as the newborn (though in all capital letters) and that title to this artificial person (which is the birth certificate) passes to the government. Compl. at 152-55.

3 The Motion to Strike and a separate motion for sanctions under RCFC 11 are baseless and inappropriate, and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is moot given the lack of jurisdiction over Mr. Williams's claims.

4 Mister Williams does not always use consecutive or consistent pagination, For convenience, the Court will use the page numbers given by Mr. Williams.

5 Under RCFC 83.1(a)(3), Mr. Williams may not represent the interests of the trust in a pro se capacity, in any event.

END OF FOOTNOTES

[notorial dissent]

You just know it isn't going to end well when the court starts out with "...filed a mammoth and meandering document..." and "...have as their basis a number of bizarre theories...". I really like the "attornatus privatus", must be a new subspecies of whackadoo.

[Pottapaug1938]

You just know it isn't going to end well when the court starts out with "...filed a mammoth and meandering document..." and "...have as their basis a number of bizarre theories...". I really like the "attornatus privatus", must be a new subspecies of whackadoo.

"Attornatus Privatus" sounds like the invention of a ten-cent mind which is trying to appear Very Intelligent by using ten-dollar words.

[ashlynne39]

I'm really loving the new moniker "attornatus privatus." It just has that special ring and is much more official than just "private attorney." I'm hoping this catches on among the sovereign crowd.

I'm also loving this part:

This complaint, and the various other documents submitted by him, have as their basis a number of bizarre theories entertained by Mr. Williams. One is that since a "court of record" may be established by the sovereign, Resp. to Judge Wolski's Order Issued Feb. 11, 2011 at 9-11, March 14, 2011 ("March 14 Filing"), and Mr. Williams is "one of the People as contemplated in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution" who have retained sovereignty, Mr. Williams is the sovereign who gets to decide how the "court of record" functions. See Compl. at 3-5, 7, 10-12, 58; March 14 Filing at 11. Mister Williams also puts himself forward as the "attornatus privatus" that speaks for the "court of record" and pronounces its judgments. Compl. at 57-58. Under this novel system, Mr. Williams has submitted several orders purportedly issued on behalf of the "court of record" granting him judgment in this case, as well as entering other judicial determinations. See Compl. at 52-62. In his view, it seems the role of a judge on the Court of Federal Claims is simply that of a "magistrate" that effectuates these judgments without exercising any discretion.[2] March 14 Filing at 11.

When you're an attornatus privatus, not only do you get to file suit but you get to enter judgments as well. Of course that sort of begs the question of why to even file suit in the first place. Why not just enter a bunch of judgments and save time and a tree.

[LPC]

"Attornatus Privatus" sounds like the invention of a ten-cent mind which is trying to appear Very Intelligent by using ten-dollar words.

The self-taught ignorati often claim that the word "attorney" is from an old French word meaning "to twist." (It's not, but that's another issue for another day.)

The "natus" ending sounds like a past participle in Latin.

So the phrase sounds to me like he's had his private parts twisted.

(Edited to add: Sort of like "castratus privatus," but not quite as permanent.)

[fortinbras]

It turns out that James A. Williams has had this case bounce up in a couple of previous Federal Claims decisions (also unpublished). On Feb 9, 2011, the Federal Claims Court tossed a couple of his motions because he was asking for things that the Federal Claims Court cannot do and because he filed a defective certificate of service; however, he showed enough signs of life to keep his case from being dismissed summarily. The Court noted that, since one of the plaintiffs was a trust, Mr. Williams - even as the founder and sole trustee or beneficiary - could not, as an amateur, represent the trust in court, the trust must be represented by a bona fide lawyer. The court said his pleadings "all suffer to varying degrees from the unusual theory held by Mr. Williams that he himself has conjured a court of record and that we [the Court of Federal Claims] merely serve the ministerial function of executing his court's decrees."

Two days later, on Feb 11, 2011, the Court noted that Williams had sent copies of documents previously received by the Court, which just bogged down the files. Additionally he was still filing motions for things that were unrecognized by the court, and he was filing them wrong (he was trying to file them via fax), he also provided two computer CDs supposedly loaded with paperwork but the court didn't work things that way. Williams had sent the court two envelopes he had received (unrelated to the lawsuit) from Buckingham Palace and called attention to the fact that the sender, at Buckingham Palace, had not attached a zip code to Williams' address, which Williams thought was proof of something significant. Also, instead of paying the $350 filing fee in the usual way, Williams had sent the court "a $300 Million 'Private Indemnity Bond', a $10 Million 'International Irrevocable Letter of Credit', and a 'UNCITRAL International Secured Note in the amount of $1000 USD." The Court refused to accept these and insisted on payment of $350 to maintain his case.

[LaVidaRoja]

"UNCITRAL" Isn't that something you take to promote regularity? In his case, it appears to have promoted more of the end product of his digestive system.

[fortinbras]

UNCITRAL : United Nations Commission on International TRAde Law.
Cooked up a form for multinational negotiable instruments.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCITRAL

[notorial dissent]

"Attornatus Privatus" sounds like the invention of a ten-cent mind which is trying to appear Very Intelligent by using ten-dollar words.

I think you are being much too generous, but definitely have the right idea. It always seems that the less a person knows about the law the more inclined they are to throw in all sorts of pseudo latin and big words they don't understand to show much they don't know.

[fortinbras]

Not at all sure that this is the same person, but ... in the 1994 Bob Schulz lawsuit, We The People Foundation, et al. v. US, filed in the federal district court in DC, one of the hundreds of the co-plaintiffs (the list went for 31 pages) was a James A. Williams of Sitka, Alaska.

There is also a James Andrew Williams who brought suits against two different Canadian banks in the Ontario courts in 2009, both of which were tossed because his amateurish pleadings did not articulate a cause of action.

[ashlynne39]

"Attornatus Privatus" sounds like the invention of a ten-cent mind which is trying to appear Very Intelligent by using ten-dollar words.

I think you are being much too generous, but definitely have the right idea. It always seems that the less a person knows about the law the more inclined they are to throw in all sorts of pseudo latin and big words they don't understand to show much they don't know.

It sounds like a character from Gladiator or Sparticus Blood and Sand. All I know is that its a really cool title that unfortunately only the crazy can wear.

[grixit]

"What is this 'Attornatus Privatus'"?

"It's a joke name, Sir. Like 'Biggus Dickus'"

"Oh. Very well then, stwike him woughly and thwow him to the gwound!"

[Paul]

It always seems that the less a person knows about the law the more inclined they are to throw in all sorts of pseudo latin and big words they don't understand to show much they don't know.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[The Observer]

JAMES A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.

Release Date: DECEMBER 18, 2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 10-CV-753, Judge Victor J. Wolski.

Decided: December 18, 2013

JAMES A. WILLIAMS, of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pro se.

CURTIS C. PETT, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were KATHRYN KENEALLY, Assistant Attorney General, and ROBERT W. METZLER, Attorney.

Before DYK, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Williams appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set out below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2010, Mr. Williams filed a document in the Claims Court, which he apparently intended to be a complaint against the United States, seeking $ 1,138,303 in tax refunds based on tax returns Mr. Williams filed as trustee of the James A. Williams Trust. The government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On December 29, 2011, the Claims Court granted the government's motion and entered final judgment dismissing Mr. Williams's complaint. James A. Williams Trust v. United States, Case No. 10-753T, 2011 WL 6888650 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 29, 2011).

The Claims Court relied on 26 U.S.C. section 7422(a), which provides that "[n]o suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax . . . until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof." The court found that the "tax refund claims submitted [to the United States] by Mr. Williams on behalf of his trust were clearly frivolous" and that the returns did not, therefore, constitute valid claims for a refund. James A. Williams Trust, 2011 WL 6888650, at *2. The Claims Court accordingly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Id.

On February 28, 2012, the Claims Court received a document titled "Notice of Petition for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus," which it docketed as Mr. Williams's notice of appeal. The cover page of the petition that was attached to the notice bears a stamp indicating that the Federal Circuit's clerk received it on February 23, 2012. The government moved to dismiss Mr. Williams's appeal on the ground that, because Mr. Williams's notice of appeal was received by the Claims Court one day past the 60-day deadline, see 28 U.S.C. section 2107(b), 2522; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), it must be considered untimely. This court denied the government's motion to dismiss, "without prejudice to the parties addressing the jurisdictional issue to the merits panel." Williams v. United States, Case No. 2012-5070, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2013). In its brief on the merits, the government continues to assert lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is "'mandatory and jurisdictional,'" Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982)), we must dismiss an untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, however, the appeal is timely. The document filed in the Claims Court as Mr. Williams's notice of appeal was first received by this court on February 23, 2013, before the February 27, 2013 deadline, and was apparently forwarded to the Claims Court in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(d). Under that rule, we deem the document to have been timely filed in the Claims Court on February 23, 2013. Fed. R. App. P. 4(d); 28 U.S.C. section 2522. There is no dispute that the document is effective as a notice of appeal, as it sufficiently identifies the party taking the appeal, the judgment being appealed, and the court to which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) ("[T]he notice afforded by a document, not the litigant's motivation in filing it, determines the document's sufficiency as a notice of appeal. If a document filed within the time specified by Rule 4 gives the notice required by Rule 3, it is effective as a notice of appeal.").

As to the merits of the appeal, we review de novo the Claims Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The "jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is limited by the Internal Revenue Code, including 26 U.S.C. section 7422," and thus whether the Claims Court "has jurisdiction over these refund claims depends on whether the taxpayer['s] submissions to the [Internal Revenue Service] constitute a claim for refund." Id. at 1332-33. In order to constitute valid claims for refund, Mr. Williams's returns had to comply with various regulations promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, including the requirement that the returns be non-frivolous. Id.; 26 C.F.R. section 301.6402-2(b)(1) ("The claim must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis thereof. . . . A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit."). To be valid, a return must evince "'an honest and reasonable intent to supply the information required by the tax code.'" Waltner, 679 F.3d at 1334 (quoting United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 835 (7th Cir. 1980)).

We agree with the Claims Court that the tax returns on which Mr. Williams bases his suit are frivolous. Each return states a dollar figure on the line for interest income, then repeats that number on the lines for total income, taxable income, federal income tax withheld, total payments, overpayment, and amount to be refunded, while listing zeros for deductions, taxes, estimated tax penalty, and tax due. Mr. Williams's assertions of substantial income and zero tax liability do not indicate "'an honest and reasonable intent to supply the information required by the tax code.'" Id. Moreover, his assertions that the entire amount of his income was withheld each year place the returns in the category of returns the IRS considers "'obviously false because . . . [withheld income] is disproportionately high in comparison with the income reported on the return.'" James A. Williams Trust, 2011 WL 6888650, at *2 (quoting I.R.S. Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B 609, 611 (Apr. 26, 2010)).

Because we agree that Mr. Williams's returns were frivolous, we affirm the Claims Court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Williams's case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of Mr. Williams's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

No costs.

AFFIRMED

[grixit]

No penalty: Victory!