U.S. District Court
District of Alaska (Juneau)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-00011-TMB

Epperly v. Obama et al
Assigned to: Timothy M. Burgess

Case in other court:
Superior Court SOA 1st Judicial District at Juneau, 1JU-12-00694 CI


Cause: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

Date Filed: 07/27/2012
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant


07/27/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Gail Fenumiai, Barack Hussein Obama, II, Nancy Pelosi, Mead Treadwell from State of Alaska 1st Judicial District at Juneau, case number 1JU-12-694-CI. (Attachments: # 1 State Petition for Writ of Mandamus)(TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

07/27/2012 2 Civil Cover Sheet. (TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

07/27/2012 3 ORDER to Petitioner Subsequent to Removal: Service list due within 10 days. State Court documents due within 20 days. (TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

07/31/2012 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth M. Bakalar on behalf of Gail Fenumiai, Mead Treadwell (Bakalar, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

U.S. District Court
District of Alaska (Juneau)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-00011-TMB

Epperly v. Obama et al
Assigned to: Timothy M. Burgess

Case in other court:
Superior Court SOA 1st Judicial District at Juneau, 1JU-12-00694 CI


Cause: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

Date Filed: 07/27/2012
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

08/01/2012 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer/Response to Petition by Barack Hussein Obama, II. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wilson, Edward) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

08/01/2012 6 NOTICE OF FILING STATE COURT SERVICE LIST by Barack Hussein Obama, II (Wilson, Edward) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

08/01/2012 7 NOTICE Objection to Court Order with Jurisdictional Challenge by Gordon Warren Epperly re 3 Order to Petitioner Subsequent to Removal (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/02/2012)

08/03/2012 8 First MOTION to Dismiss Case as Frivolous MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF by Gail Fenumiai, Mead Treadwell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bakalar, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012 9 NOTICE of Response to Petitioner's Objection to Removal by Barack Hussein Obama, II re 7 Notice (Other) (Wilson, Edward) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/06/2012 10 NOTICE of Missing Pages of Document Filing by Gordon Warren Epperly re 7 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Page 3 of 11, # 2 NEF Dkt #7)(PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/06/2012 11 NOTICE of Receipt of "Motions" and Other Papers by Gordon Warren Epperly (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/06/2012 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gordon Warren Epperly re 11 Notice (Other) (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/08/2012 13 MOTION to Remand (Jurisdiction Challenge) by Gordon Warren Epperly.(RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/08/2012 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 13 MOTION to Remand (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

Plaintiff’s statements regarding race, gender, citizenship, and criminal conduct are repugnant and absurd; and as explained more fully below, plaintiff lacks standing and this court has no jurisdiction over his claims. Further, plaintiff’s claims are not ripe and he fails to allege any plausible, non-speculative factual allegation to support them. Fortunately—or perhaps unfortunately—there is a wealth of case law supporting the division’s position: the current presidency has been besieged by litigation of exactly this nature. And federal courts have universally dismissed allegations similar or identical to plaintiff’s, in some cases sanctioning litigants for wasting the courts’ time in adjudicating them. Accordingly, this Court should grant the division’s motion to dismiss.

4 “Petition” at 7, 9. As explained below, these claims should be dismissed for lack of standing, jurisdiction, and ripeness, and because they violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 governing the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
5 Alaska Stat. §§ 44.19.010; 44.19.020.

The court characterized Ms. Taitz’s claims as “quixotic” and starkly refused “to go tilting at windmills with her.”34

As noted above, this Court may also sua sponte dismiss a case “when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”36 As the foregoing authority shows, if ever such a case existed, this is it.

The “facts” in plaintiff’s pleadings are simply unsubstantiated and wholly discredited conspiracy theories regarding President Obama’s ineligibility to hold office, arising in the sort of case that “would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do.”48 Plaintiff’s remaining “facts” consist of his bewildering interpretations of the United States Constitution and state law, and a description of various documents plaintiff sent to the defendants. In short, to the extent the pleadings contain any facts at all, none is plausible or non-speculative.

And in Rhodes v. McDonald, plaintiff’s attorney Orly Taitz, who was representing a military officer refusing to obey President Obama’s deployment orders on the theory that the President was improperly occupying office, was fined under Rule 11 for “enter[ing] the thicket of legal frivolity” in prosecuting those claims.53 The Rhodes court roundly condemned Ms. Taitz’s professional conduct, characterizing her attacks on the President’s heritage and loyalty to the country as “good rhetoric to fuel the ‘birther agenda,’ but [] unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of the Court.”
54 In fining Ms. Taitz $20,000, the court cited “evidence of counsel’s attempt to use the federal courts for the improper purpose of advancing her anti-Obama ‘birther agenda.’”55
Thus, claims nearly identical to plaintiff’s have been found frivolous and to have squandered judicial resources to a sanctionable degree. Accordingly, Rule 11 presents an additional basis for dismissal.

The first Woman to be appointed into a "Pubic Office" of the United States Department
of Law was "Janet Wood Reno." Ms. Reno was appointed into Office by former
President, Bill Clinton, on February 11, 1993, and confirmed on March 11, 1993. As no
one questioned the appointment, the trespass upon the U.S. Constitution escalated with
[President] Barack Obama appointing the first Woman to the Office of U.S. Attorney,
Barbara L. McQuade with her term as U.S. Attorney starting on January 4, 2010.
[President] Barack Obama has appointed several Woman into the "Office"
of "US. Attorney" without any Constitutional authority. What took place within the
U.S. Constitution in the year of 1993 that allow former President, Bill Clinton, to appoint
Woman to Offices of the United States government? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING -
What was unconstitutional before the year of 1993 is unconstitutional today.

I've not read all of Epperly's "challenge to jurisdiction" yet, but he continues his lunacy...

I actually followed a lot of Epperly's argument. It was at least somewhat level-headed, if wrong-headed; certainly more cogent than anything Taitz has ever written.

That is, up to page 12 or so, when I ran into the astonishing fact that Epperly is so ignorant he doesn't know that male pronouns were used by default until relatively recently, and could indicate both genders. It didn't literally refer only to males at all, and this forms the basis of pages of Epperly's motion.

What a imbessle. What a ultra-maroon.

That guy is never going to get laid with that attitude.

...the Political Privileges to hold Pubic Offices of the United States...

That guy is never going to get laid with that attitude.

Let go my balls!

U.S. District Court
District of Alaska (Juneau)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-00011-TMB

Epperly v. Obama et al
Assigned to: Timothy M. Burgess

Case in other court:
Superior Court SOA 1st Judicial District at Juneau, 1JU-12-00694 CI


Cause: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

Date Filed: 07/27/2012
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

08/08/2012 13 MOTION to Remand (Jurisdiction Challenge) by Gordon Warren Epperly.(RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/08/2012 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 13 MOTION to Remand (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/09/2012 15, INITIAL ORDER TO SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 8/9/12. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/10/2012 16 NOTICE of Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney's Response to Petitioner's "Objection and Removal" by Gordon Warren Epperly re 9 Notice (Other) (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

Docket Update...

...The mismatch has now landed him in a US Court and he seems to be unprepared for litigating at that level walking upright and utilizing opposable thumbs.

08/21/2012 21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION to Remand filed by Barack Hussein Obama, II. (Wilson, Edward) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

To his previous claims regarding jurisdiction, Petitioner’s motion adds a “challenge [to] the U.S. Constitutional authority of Karen L. Loeffler to exercise the Office of U.S. Attorney.” As his sole support for this claim – and his broader misconception that all “individuals who are not white Citizens . . . elected or appointed” in the government are “usurpers of office,” Petitioner presents only a rambling, irrelevant historical opus purporting to interpret the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. Petitioner has been previously sanctioned for making similar arguments in other cases. See Epperly v. United States, 980 F.2d 737 (Table) (9th Cir. 1992).

Petitioner has been previously sanctioned for making similar arguments in other cases. See Epperly v. United States, 980 F.2d 737 (Table) (9th Cir. 1992).

On November 2, 1990, Appellants Gordon, Esther, Niels, and Bobbi Epperly (“Epperlys”), appearing pro se, filed an amended complaint asserting various claims including: (1) that several unidentified employees of the United States Government have “trespassed” on their real property located in Alaska by arbitrarily classifying such land as “wetlands”, and that such classification constitutes a taking of property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) that Appellants are entitled to a refund of all federal income taxes paid given that they are “American Inhabitants” who possess sovereign powers and immunities and are thus “nonresident aliens” as defined by the tax code; and (3) that IRS employee number 2981806539 violated their constitutional rights under Article Four as well as the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments by mailing Gordon Epperly a letter stating that he had been assessed $500 for filing a frivolous tax return.[FN1]

[...]

The Epperlys next argue that since they are “American Inhabitants” who possess sovereign powers and immunities, they are properly classified under the tax code as “nonresident aliens” and are not subject to taxation by the federal government. Such an argument is frivolous. See United States v. Cheek, 882 F.2d 1263, 1269, n. 2 (7th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (rejecting argument that defendant was not a “Fourteenth Amendment citizen” but rather a white male Christian with inherent and inalienable rights); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir.1986) (rejecting argument that a person is not a federal taxpayer because he or she is an absolute, free-born, natural individual).

[...]

The Epperlys also seek declaratory relief to the effect that the Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified. See E.R. p. 13 (Amended Complaint, p. 11). Such relief involves the evaluation of a political question which cannot be addressed by the courts. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1440-41 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987); see also United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986); Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the Epperlys' request for declaratory judgment was properly dismissed by the district court.

[...]

The United States requests sanctions in the amount of $2,500 against the Epperlys for bringing this appeal. Because the Epperlys' arguments on appeal are entirely without merit, we grant the United States' request and impose sanctions in the sum of $2,500. See Fed.R.App.P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1912; and Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir.1988).


FN1: In addition to damages for violation of their constitutional rights, in their amended complaint Appellants “demand” that the United States prosecute Employee Number 2981806539 for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) (tampering with a witness, victim, or informant), 18 U.S.C. § 872 (extortion), 18 U.S.C. § 912 (false personation), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1017, 1018 (fraud and false statements), 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1717 (nonmailable letters and writings), and, if Appellants are determined to be “Fourteenth Amendment citizens,” 18 U.S.C. § 242 (civil rights). See E.R. p. 12 (Amended Complaint, p. 10). Such demands are patently frivolous and were properly dismissed by the district court.

I doubt the Epperlys ever paid the sanctions.

... unless the court referred the debt to the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service, which would allow the couples's tax refunds to be grabbed for offset. See 31 CFR sec. 285.2.

Well yeah, but if they are American inhabitants not subject to taxation, where's the tax refund coming from?

I kinda like the approach taken with Orly Taitz: slap a lien on their house and start foreclosing.