SELANDER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
ORDER denying Motion for Clarification of "Order to Reclassify" and "Reinstatement of Case Filings" - Mr. Selander's objections to the Order are DENIED and OVERRULED. This magistrate judge had and has authority to issue the Order. The Order is confirmed and the reclassification of this case and reassignment of judges stands. The Petition is, and has been, construed as his complaint in his civil action. Mr. Selander has not paid the civil filing fee as ordered. He shall pay the usual civil filing fee, less the miscellaneous filing fee he has already paid, no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 15, 2014 or risk dismissal of his case. Mr. Selander is hereby ORDERED to not submit any more filings in the miscellaneous cause, No. 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL. All filings hereinafter shall be made only in the civil cause, No. 1:13-cv-2060-RLY-DKL. Further filings in the miscellaneous case risk sanctions for contempt of court, including dismissal of the civil cause and additional penalties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/4/2014. Copy Mailed. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA,
DONALD STEPHEN SELANDER,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
) CAUSE NO. 1:13-cv-2060-RLY-DKL
) CAUSE NO. 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL
ENTRY and ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of “Order to Reclassify” and
“Reinstatement of Case Filings” [doc. 4 in Cause no. 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL]
Ordering payment of filing fee
On December 19, 2013, the plaintiff, Donald Stephen Selander, filed a document
titled Petition for Declaratory Enforcement of Administrative Judgment [doc. 1, in both Causes]
(“Petition”). The clerk of the Court opened a case under a miscellaneous number, 1:13-mc134-WTL-DKL, probably because the title of the document referenced enforcement of a
On December 30, 2013, after reviewing the content of the Petition and
determining that Mr. Selander does not seek to enforce a judgment entered by a court but
seeks to establish claims against the Internal Revenue Service, this magistrate judge
ordered the clerk to reclassify the case from the miscellaneous to the civil docket, randomly
reassign judges on the civil docket, and transfer all filings that had been made under the
miscellaneous number to the civil number. Order to Clerk to Reclassify Case [doc. 3 in both
cases] (“Order”). The Order also ordered that “[a]ll future filings must be made under the
new ‘cv’ case number” and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee applicable to complaints
in civil cases, with credit for the miscellaneous filing fee, by January 31, 2014. On January
22, 2014, Mr. Selander filed the present motion, Motion for Clarification of “Order to
Reclassify” and “Reinstatement of Case Filings” [doc. 4 in 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL] (“Motion”).
By way of the Motion, he objects to the reclassification and the obligation to pay a civil-case
Mr. Selander contends that, while no judgment has been entered by a court, an
“Administrative Judgment is in place and is in full force by law.” (Brief in Support of Motion
for Clarification of “Order to Reclassify” and “Reinstatement of Case Filings” [doc. 4-1 in 1:13mc-134-WTL-DKL] (“Brief”) at p. 5.) He also objects that magistrate judges, as adjuncts of
the district court, “cannot deal with matters requiring judicial determination in income tax
cases as per 28 U.S.C. § 2201, involving private rights of Americans inside the 50 states and
outside of federal territorial jurisdiction.” (Id. at p. 7.) Finally, he contends that the
miscellaneous assignment and filing fee were correct because “all Courts are defined under
FRCP under Rule 4(j) as a Foreign State as defined under 28 USC 1602-1611 FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN IMNMNUNITY [sic] ACT.” (Id.) He requests:
that this case be remanded to the properly authorized judiciary, sitting in an
Article III Constitutional capacity, created under authority usually of the
Constitution and which are the only courts that can hold admiralty
jurisdiction that can be exercised inside the States. They are also the only
courts that may deal with matters requiring judicial determination, involving
private rights of Americans or constitutional rights.
A fair reading of the Petition reveals that Mr. Selander alleges the following. An
“original contract” between himself and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is invalid.
Petition ¶ 5. To settle the dispute between them, Mr. Selander, following a procedure under
the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, sent an offer to the IRS. Id.¶¶ 5 and 7. The IRS
did not respond. The IRS had an obligation to respond and its silence constituted
acceptance of the terms of Mr. Selander’s offer, the result being that he and the IRS then
had a new contract. Id. ¶¶ 7 and 9. Mr. Selander then sent, or caused to be sent, a series
of communications to the IRS,1 to none of which the IRS responded. Id. ¶¶ 9-17. The IRS’s
silences again constituted acceptances of the offers and terms of the communications, to the
effect that “a contractual relationship had been established between the Affiant, Donald
Stephen Selander and Respondent, Internal Revenue Service”. Id. ¶ 13 By its agreement
to the contract, the IRS agreed to pay to Mr. Selander the amount of $364,543.22, and agreed
to other terms. Id. ¶ 11. The IRS’s agreement was “in accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act of 1946.” Id.
Mr. Selander prays for (1) a declaration that the IRS has agreed that he is a nontaxpayer; (2) and injunction ordering the IRS to (a) acknowledge in writing to Mr.
Seldander that the IRS’s “ledger books have been set-off, settled and closed and that all
These communications were titled “Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure,” “Affidavit of
Notice of Default,” “Affidavit of True Bill of Commerce,” “Verified Declaration in the Nature of an
Affidavit,” “Notice of Dishonor,” “Conditional Acceptance,” “Affidavit of ‘True Bill of Commerce’,”
“Notice / Fault in Dishonor and Opportunity to Cure,” “Notice / Default and Consent to Judgment,”
“Truth Affidavit and Notice of Non-Response,” “Certificate of Dishonor,” and “Notice of Administrative
Judgment” and are all found in the exhibits attached to the Petition [docs. 1-1 through 1-4].
outstanding debts are zeroed out”; (b) “[i]nsert a blocking series” in his “Master Tax Files
. . . indicating a non-taxpayer status by having no filing requirement, or not required to file
income taxes with no outstanding tax liabilities;” and (3) judgment against the IRS in the
amount of $364,543.22, representing “[a]ll outstanding balances” as agreed by the parties.
Petition at p. 7.
Mr. Selander’s objections to the Order are DENIED and OVERRULED. Because he
alleges that an agreement or contract between him and the IRS exists that settles a dispute
between them and provides, in part, for the payment of money to him, and he seeks to
enforce that agreement by way of this action, it appears at the present time that he pleads
a civil action, not a miscellaneous action to enforce a judgment. This magistrate judge had
and has authority to issue the Order. The Order is confirmed and the reclassification of this
case and reassignment of judges stands. The Petition is, and has been, construed as his
complaint in his civil action.
Mr. Selander has not paid the civil filing fee as ordered. He shall pay the usual civil
filing fee, less the miscellaneous filing fee he has already paid, no later than 4:00 p.m. on
March 15, 2014 or risk dismissal of his case.
Mr. Selander is hereby ORDERED to not submit any more filings in the
miscellaneous cause, No. 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL. All filings hereinafter shall be made
only in the civil cause, No. 1:13-cv-2060-RLY-DKL. Further filings in the miscellaneous
case risk sanctions for contempt of court, including dismissal of the civil cause and
SO ORDERED this date: 03/04/2014
Denise K. LaRue
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Donald Stephen Selander
14555 Gooseberry Drive
Fishers, Indiana 46038
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?