United States of America v. Bigley et al

Filing 127

ORDER denying 123 and 124 Defendant Michael A. Bigley's Requests to Take Judicial Notice. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 12/18/15. (EJA)

WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL A. BIGLEY; CAROLYN E.
)
BIGLEY; ROBERT B. KELSO; RAEOLA D. )
KELSO; and ISA MINISTRIES,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)

No. 2:14-cv-0729-HRH

ORDER
Motion to Take Judicial Notice1
Defendant Michael Bigley moves the court to take judicial notice pursuant to
Rule 201, Federal Rules of Evidence. The motions are opposed by the plaintiff,2 and
defendant Michael Bigley has replied.3 A hearing has been requested on the motions.
The request for a hearing is denied.
Mr. Bigley makes a two-level challenge to this court’s jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7403. Michael Bigley’s motions to take judicial notice in substance seek a
determination from this court that the United States District Court for the District of

1

Docket Nos. 123 and 124.

2

Docket No. 125.

3

Docket No. 126.

Order – Motion to Take Judicial Notice

-1-

Arizona is not an Article III court and that Title 26 of the United States Code has not
been enacted into positive law. Mr. Bigley’s arguments are based upon acts of Congress,
not the specific facts of this case.
The instant motions are procedurally deficient. Michael Bigley is not seeking
judicial notice of “adjudicative” facts; rather, he raises questions as to “legislative” facts.
Rule 201(a), Federal Rules of Evidence, provides: “[t]his rule governs judicial notice of
an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.”
Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular
case. Legislative facts, on the other hand, are those which
have relevance to legal reasoning and the law-making
process, whether in the formulation of a legal principle or
ruling by a judge or court or in the enactment of a legislative
body.
Fed. R. Evid. 201 advisory committee note 1972. The court does not resolve issues as to
legislative facts on motion to take judicial notice.
With respect to the substance of Bigley’s motions, the court has already ruled that
“[t]he United States District Court for the District of Arizona is an Article III court[.]”4
Michael Bigley’s motions to take judicial notice5 are denied.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 18th day of December, 2015.

/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge

4

Order at 3 (Apr. 24, 2015), Docket No. 78.

5

Docket Nos. 123 and 124.

Order – Motion to Take Judicial Notice

-2-