United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION AND CONTINUING JURY TRIAL
WADDOUPS United States District Judge.
Louis DeLynn Hansen was indicted for violations of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7201 (Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax) and 26 U.S.C.
§ 7212(a) (Impeding Internal Revenue Laws). (Dkt. No.
1.) At a hearing on January 9, 2017, the court granted Dr.
Hansen's request to represent himself with standby
counsel. The court also rejected Dr. Hansen's challenge
to the court's jurisdiction during the hearing.
(See Dkt. No. 36.)
Hansen objects to the court's ruling rejecting his
jurisdictional challenges, (Dkt. No. 39), and has filed
another opposition to the court's jurisdiction in this
case, (Dkt. No. 40). The government has responded. (Dkt. No.
41.) Dr. Hansen has also filed a “Notice of
Default.” (Dkt. No. 51.)
filings, Dr. Hansen reiterates his objection to the
court's jurisdiction over this matter, stating “I
am not a U.S. citizen . . . I'm an American State
National.” (Dkt. No. 29, p. 3.) He argues that the
court has not established jurisdiction “on the record,
” (id.), and protests that he did not consent
to the court's jurisdiction, (see Dkt No. 40, p.
2). Dr. Hansen states that he has “abandoned” his
U.S. citizenship and “revoked his election to pay
federal income taxes, effective July 1, 2004, nunc pro
tunc.” (Id. at 3-4.) He believes that no
United States District Court has authority to enter judgments
against him. (Id. at 5.)
court will construe Dr. Hansen's filings as a motion to
reconsider the court's prior ruling rejecting his
jurisdictional challenges. See United States v.
Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014)
(“Motions to reconsider are proper in criminal cases
even though the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not
specifically provide for them.”). “A motion to
reconsider may be granted when the court has misapprehended
the facts, a party's position, or the law.”
Id. Although a motion to reconsider “should
not be used to revisit issues already addressed, ” the
court will address Dr. Hansen's request for
reconsideration due to the unique circumstances this case
presents, including Dr. Hansen's self-representation and
the serious consequences Dr. Hansen faces if convicted of the
offenses charged in the Indictment. See Id. at
539-40 (noting a district court has discretion to reconsider
a prior ruling).
court concludes it has not misapprehended the facts, Dr.
Hansen's position, or the law in this case. First,
federal district courts have original jurisdiction over
“all offenses against the laws of the United
States” under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, including offenses
under Title 26. United States v. Masat, 948 F.2d
923, 934 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Collins,
920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990). Moreover, Article I,
section 8 of the United States Constitution “empowers
Congress to create, define and punish crimes, irrespective of
where they are committed, ” and the Sixteenth Amendment
“also empowers Congress to create and provide for the
administration of an income tax.” Collins, 920
F.2d at 629. Here, the Indictment clearly charges two
offenses under Title 26--specifically, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
and 7212(a)--and Dr. Hansen was properly served and summoned
to defend against these charges, (see Dkt. Nos. 2, 3
& 4; Collins, 920 F.2d at 629 (finding
“the statute under which defendant was charged and
convicted, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, plainly falls within [the
federal court's] authority”)). This court has both
subject matter jurisdiction over these offenses and personal
jurisdiction over Dr. Hansen to try him for these charges.
See Masat, 948 F.2d at 934 (finding district court
had subject matter jurisdiction to try tax evasion charges
and personal jurisdiction over criminal defendant appearing
before it); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320,
1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting “[a] federal district
court has personal jurisdiction to try any defendant brought
before it on a federal indictment charging a violation of
Hansen's argument that he has repudiated his citizenship
and any obligation to pay federal income tax does not affect
the validity of this prosecution by federal authorities. As
the Tenth Circuit has explained, “[e]fforts to argue
that federal jurisdiction does not encompass prosecutions for
federal tax evasion have been rejected as either
‘silly' or ‘frivolous' by a myriad of
courts throughout the nation.” Collins, 920
F.2d at 629. The Collins court found the
defendant's contention that he “was not an
‘individual' under the Internal Revenue Code . . .
frivolous.” Id. Other courts have similarly
rejected jurisdictional challenges like Dr. Hansen's.
See United States v. Moore, 21 F.3d 1122, at *2
(10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision) (rejecting
defendant's arguments that “there is no
‘contract' granting jurisdiction” and that he
is a “‘nonresident' of the
‘U.S.'” because he is citizen of Oklahoma and
therefore the federal income tax does not apply to him);
United States v. Novotny, 968 F.2d 22, at *2 (10th
Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision) (rejecting challenge
to district court's jurisdiction to convict defendant of
federal offense because defendant claimed to be a “free
citizen”); Masat, 948 F.2d at 934 (finding
defendant's argument that federal court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him because he was a “non-citizen,
” “non-resident, ” and
“freeman” frivolous); United States v.
Schmitt, 784 F.2d 880, 882 (8th Cir. 1986) (finding
defendants' arguments that the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over them because they were "Natural
Freemen" and not a "juristic identity . . .
the court DENIES Dr. Hansen's request
for reconsideration of its prior ruling rejecting his
jurisdictional challenges and his Notice of Default, (Dkt.
Nos. 39, 40 & 51). The court finds that it has
jurisdiction over the subject matter at issue, as well as the
the jury trial on this matter was reset by notice of the
court to June 9, 2017, (Dkt. No. 47). Counsel for the United
States indicated they have a conflict with that trial date
and moved the court to continue the trial. Defendant and
standby counsel did not object to the continuance. For good
cause appearing, the court continued the three-day Jury Trial
to July 7, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. and set a Final Pretrial
Conference for June 30, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. The court found
that the ends of justice served by such a continuance
outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendant
in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
The court noted the failure to grant such a continuance would
result in a trial conflict for the United States and would
also deny Dr. Hansen the reasonable time necessary for
effective and adequate preparation for this complex matter.
Accordingly, the court excluded the time between June 23,
and the new trial date of July 7, 2017 from speedy trial
computation for good cause.
 The court had excluded all time under
the Speedy Trial Act from January 9, 2017 through June 23,
2017 by prior orders of the court. (See ...