WILLIAMS v. USA

Filing 27

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6); and directing the Clerk to reject all filings from plaintiff in the future (with the exception of a notice of appeal) for this or any other case, until the filing fee has been paid . Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski. (dls) Copy to parties.

'..14

' l. | :\:'
ii'
". tl 's

t., ''., '.

llntbe @nite! $tsteg @ourt ot:felersl @lsimg
No. l0-7537
(Filed December 29, 2011)
NOT FOR PUBLICATIO\

't * * *,t

1.

* * * * {' r',i * * * * * :l * * *,fi * *

*

and
wILLIAMs, *

JAMES A. wILLIAMS TRUST
JAMEs

,f

Plaintiffs.

FILE.D
lEi'

2

I

2011

FH;tafriJEJ^?fi.

*

V.

THE UNITED STATES,
*
*
!t * * * r*,t,* * * *,1' * * + + + + +,1.,i * *,i
t( *

Defendant.

ORDER
On November l, 2010, James Williams filed a mammoth and meandering document
apparently intended to be his complaint. This complaint, and the various other documents
submitted by him, havc as their basis a number of bizarre theories entertained by Mr. Williams.
One is that since a "court ofrecord" may be established by the sovereign, Resp. to Judge
Wolski's Order Issued Feb. 11, 2011 at 9-1 1, March 14, 201 I ("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. at3-5,7,10-12, 58; March l4 Filing at 11. Mister Williams also
puts himself forward as the "attomatus privatus" tha! speaks for the "court ofrecord" and
pronounces its judgments. Compl. at 57-58. Under this novel system, Mr. Williams has
submitted several orders purportedly issued on behalfofthe "court ofrecord" granting him
judgment in this case, as well as entering other judicial determinations. ,See Compl. aI 52-62. ln
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.' March l4
Filins at 1 1.

'

I

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 informa 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, 7933, 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 newbom (though in all

On February 16,2011, defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to
Dismiss") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule l2(bXl) of the Rules of the United
States Court of Federal Claims ('RCFC') or, in the altemative, for failure to state claim upon
which relief may be granted, under RCFC 12(bX6). Presumably by way ofresponse, Mr.
Williams filed on February 25,2011, a Motion to Strike the govemment'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 urmecessary, the Court now GRANTS defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and DENIES all of Mr. Williams's pending motions.l
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 retums. Compl. at74-79. 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 behalfofthe trust,
Mr. Williams submitted a Form l04l 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 aI42-43,
126c-132f." The IRS rejected each ofthese filings as frivolous. Compl. at 34-36, 174-85; Mot.
to Dismiss at 6, A-l to A-2.
In order for a tax refund claim to fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction ofour Court, a
taxpayer must first "duly file" a valid claim for refund with the IRS. 26 U.S.C. $ 7 422(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 retum that is frivolous does not qualifu as a valid retum. See
Kehmeier v. United States,95 Fed. Cl. 442,444-45 (2010); Gregoline v. United States, 201I 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 retum has not met the jurisdictional
requirement of $ 7 422 and cannot maintain a suit in our Court.
capital letters) and that title to this artificial person (which is the birth certificate) passes to the
govemment. Compl. at 152-55.

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

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

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
retums 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.'
Moreover, the Court notes that pursuant to 26 U.S.C. $ 6702(c), the IRS is required to
maintain and periodically update a list ofpositions that are considered frivolous. The tax retums
filed by Mr. Williams are covered by at least one of these categories. Chiefly, Mr. Williams's
returns fall into the category of retums where the amount of withheld income "is obviously false
because it exceeds the taxpayer's income as reported on the retum or is disproportionately high
in comparison with the income reported on the retum." Frivolous Positions, Notice 2010-33,
2010-17 I.R.B. 609, 611 (RS April 26, 2010).
Since the IRS correctly rejected Mr. Williams's returns as frivolous, he has not properly
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 liling fec 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 lee has been paid.

filed

a

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

se