UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. REILLY et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 7 Motion Challenging Lack of Jurisdiction. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Defendants' responsive pleading is due within 14 days of Defendants' receipt of this Order, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 12/16/2016. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDWIN F. REILLY II, KIMBERLY REILLY,
and PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-196
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant Edwin Reilly’s “Challenge to a Lack of
Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 7). Although Edwin Reilly cites a surfeit of authority in his brief in
support of his “Challenge” (ECF No. 8), he fails to explain under which provision of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure his filing is made. Nevertheless, the Court will construe Edwin
Reilly’s Challenge as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)-(2). For the reasons that follow, Edwin Reilly’s
motion to dismiss is DENIED.
I.

Background
On July 24, 2015, the United States initiated this action against Edwin F. Reilly II and

Kimberly Reilly to collect allegedly unpaid federal income-tax liabilities. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) The
Government seeks to reduce to judgment the tax assessments made against Reilly 1 for the years
1999 through 2009. (Id. ¶ 1.) As of July 1, 2015, those tax assessments amounted to $331,868.

1

The Court will refer to Defendant Edwin F. Reilly as “Reilly” throughout this Memorandum Opinion.

(Id. ¶ 12.) The Government seeks also to foreclose on federal-tax liens and sell two parcels of
property—namely property located at 101-03 Walnut Street, Altoona, PA 16601 and 1427 First
Street, Altoona, PA 16601. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 13-24.)
On December 7, 2015, Reilly filed a “Challenge to a Lack of Jurisdiction” (ECF No 7).
The Government filed an opposition to Reilly’s Challenge (ECF No. 9) and Reilly filed a
response to the Government’s opposition (ECF No. 10).
II.

Discussion
Reilly’s brief is mostly incoherent, but the gist of his argument seems to be that this

Court should dismiss the Complaint against him because he is not a citizen of the United States,
but “a Citizen of a State.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Reilly elaborates on this argument somewhat in his
reply brief, where he appears to argue that jurisdiction is lacking because he has not consented
to the laws of the federal government. (See ECF No. 10 at 11.)
Although Reilly cites a wealth of legal authority, his argument has no basis in law. He
repeatedly cites the United States Constitution, but appears to have overlooked the Fourteenth
Amendment, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside.”

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment establishes simultaneous state and federal

citizenship. And contrary to Reilly’s assertion, it is immaterial whether a person consents to
federal law; the “[l]aws of the United States apply to all persons within its border.” United
States v. James, 328 F.3d 953, 954 (7th Cir. 2003)
Reilly’s argument is not a novel one; other litigants have argued that they are not
citizens of the United States, but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and therefore not subject

-2-

to federal taxation. Courts have uniformly rejected this argument. See, e.g., United States v.
Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) (rejecting “shop worn” argument that defendant is a
citizen of the “Indiana State Republic” and therefore beyond federal jurisdiction); United States
v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (rejecting defendants’ argument that they were “not
citizens of the United States, but rather ‘Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota’ and,
consequently, not subject to taxation”); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)
(labeling defendant’s argument that “he cannot be punished under the tax laws of the United
States because he is a citizen of the sovereign state (the ‘Republic’) of Idaho” as “completely
without merit” and “patently frivolous”); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991)
(rejecting defendant’s argument that federal tax laws did not apply to him because he was a
“freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a ‘master’—not ‘servant’—of
his government”); United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987) (finding defendant’s
argument that he was not an “individual” located within the jurisdiction of the United States to
be “utterly without merit”); O’Driscoll v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 91-2074, 1991 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (“despite [taxpayer’s] linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of
both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes”). And the list goes on.
There is no indication that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case,
and Reilly has offered no serious argument to the contrary.

Federal district courts have

jurisdiction over cases seeking to reduce tax assessments to judgment and foreclose on federal
tax liens. 28 U.S.C. § 1340; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402-03. Thus, because this is a federal tax-collection
and foreclosure case, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

-3-

Furthermore, there is no indication that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Reilly.

Reilly has not alleged any facts that would cast doubt over this Court’s personal

jurisdiction over him. Moreover, the Government’s Complaint alleges that Reilly resides and
owns property within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This suggests Reilly is domiciled in
Pennsylvania, which would give this Court personal jurisdiction over Reilly pursuant to 42
Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5301(a)(1)(ii). And even if Reilly was not domiciled in Pennsylvania, his
ownership of property in Pennsylvania would give this Court personal jurisdiction over Reilly
pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5322(a)(5).
Thus, this Court has both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over Reilly.
III.

Conclusion
Edwin Reilly’s “Challenge to a Lack of Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.

corresponding Order follows.

-4-

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-196

)

Plaintiff,

)

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)

)

~

)

EDWIN F. REILLY II, KIMBERLY REILLY,
and PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE,

)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)
ORDER

NOW, this 16th day of December 2016, upon consideration of Defendant Edwin Reilly's
"Challenge to a Lack of Jurisdiction" (ECF No. 7) and for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant
Edwin Reilly's "Challenge to a Lack of Jurisdiction" (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Defendants'
responsive pleading is due within 14 days of Defendants' receipt of this Order.
BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE