Herrington, Karl v. Williams, Louis

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissing this case. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/15/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KARL EDWARD HERRINGTON,
Petitioner,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
16-cv-451-wmc
LOUIS WILLIAMS II,
Respondent.

Karl Edward Herrington has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Herrington is currently serving a federal sentence after being convicted of
multiple counts of fraud and attempting to interfere with the administration of internal
revenue laws. See United States v. Herrington, No. 2:11-cr-20315 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2011).
He argues that he should be released because the federal government has authority only over a
fictional person called the “strawman” and accounts controlled by the “strawman,” and not
over his own live person.
Herrington’s arguments derive from “redemptionist” and “sovereign citizen” theories
that have been rejected repeatedly by the courts as frivolous and a waste of court resources.
See, e.g., United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that sovereign
citizen-type theories should be “rejected summarily”); Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n. 4
(3d Cir. 2008) (explaining sovereign citizen theory of the “strawman”); Charlotte v. Hanson,
433 Fed. Appx. 660, 661 (10th Cir. 2011) (rejecting the sovereign citizen theory as having no
conceivable validity in American law) (citation omitted); Branton v. Columbia Cty., No.
1:15-CV-00005 DNH/TW, 2015 WL 3397949, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May 26, 2015) (same);
Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13–CV–760 (MAD/DEP), 2014 WL 3670609, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.

1

2014) (providing detailed explanation of the “redemptionist” strawman theory and rejecting
it); McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201, 210 (D. Conn. 2010) (same). Such
patently frivolous arguments do not support any claim that Herrington is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Accordingly, his petition will be denied without further analysis.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Karl Edward Herrington’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.

Entered this 15th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2