United States v. Arnold W. Hilgeford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the argument that an individual is a sovereign citizen of a state who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not subject to federal taxing authority is \shop worn\ and frivolous
• rejecting the “shop worn” argument that a defendant is a sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court
• rejecting the “shop worn” argument that a defendant is a sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court
• rejecting the “shop worn” argument that a defendant is a sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court
• rejecting the “shop worn” argument that a defendant is a sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court
• rejecting the ‘shop worn’ argument that a defendant is a sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).