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)

Download PDF
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

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?