WILLIAM BRANDON BARBER
v.
BAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE JAIL FACILITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sovereign citizen legal theories asserting that an incorporated name is separate from a person for jurisdiction purposes have no basis in law and do not deprive courts of personal jurisdiction.
[1] Sovereign citizen legal theories asserting that incorporation of a name or distinction between a person's real and corporate identity deprive courts of personal jurisdict…
[2] No court has recognized sovereign citizen arguments as having validity, and individuals cannot escape judicial jurisdiction by claiming separation between their living id…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a 'sovereign citizen,' a 'secured-party creditor,' or a 'flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.”
Citation to United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011), explaining that jurisdiction is not defeated by such arguments.
William Brandon Barber filed a habeas corpus petition claiming he had trademarked and incorporated a name identical to the defendant's name in his cri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
LONG, J.
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 ‘secured-party 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.
LEWIS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________