Opinion
16-cv-451-wmc
05-15-2017
KARL EDWARD HERRINGTON, Petitioner, v. LOUIS WILLIAMS II, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
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. 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