In re: Brian Kelly Haynes

Filing 3

ORDER that this case is DISMISSED. The clerk of court is directed to close the file. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/23/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re: BRIAN KELLY HAYNES,

OPINION and ORDER

Plaintiff,

13-cv-479-bbc

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Brian Kelly Haynes has filed a virtually unintelligible document he titles
“Affidavit of Fact/Truth,” larded with discussion of various “sovereign citizen” theories as
well as a Wisconsin state child support case concerning his child. He does not sign the
document himself, instead filing a second document he titles “Letter of Consent,” in which
he states that he consents to having Jessica Nicole Perry file all legal documents on his
behalf. However, she does not state that she is a lawyer.
There are several problems with this filing. First, as a non-lawyer, Perry may not
represent plaintiff in the federal courts, Navin v. Park Ridge School District 64, 270 F.3d
1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 2001), and thus cannot file documents on plaintiff’s behalf.
Even if the document were properly signed, it is unclear why plaintiff has filed it. He
does not name any party as defendant, and his filing is quite difficult to understand. To the
extent that he may disagree with the judgment or contempt orders filed in the state court
case, this court cannot review that decision; the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is the proper
place for an appeal of the decisions in that case. To the extent that he is attempting to assert
sovereign citizen theories regarding either himself or his child, such claims have been rejected

1

repeatedly by the courts. E.g., United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir.
1993) (argument that individual is sovereign citizen of state who is not subject to
jurisdiction of United States and not subject to federal taxing authority is "shopworn" and
frivolous).
Because there is no reason to believe that plaintiff has stated any claims that can be
heard in this court, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. The clerk of court is
directed to close the file.
Entered this 23d day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2