Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-mc-80001/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-mc-80001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY DOMINICK,

Petitioner

Case No. 20-mc-80001-DMR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

AS FRIVOLOUS

Petitioner Anthony Dominick, Jr. filed this miscellaneous case on January 6, 2020, 

apparently seeking a declaration of sovereign citizenship. [Docket No. 1 (“Petition”).] Under a 

sovereign citizen theory, U.S. citizenship is contractual and therefore optional. Bryant v. 

Washington Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 (W.D. Va. 2007), aff’d, 282 F. App’x 260 (4th 

Cir. 2008); Vazquez v. California Highway Patrol, No. 15-cv-330 YGR, 2015 WL 1743275, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (stating that sovereign citizens “generally contend that most if not all of 

the state and federal government, statutory structure, and legal system is invalid or illegitimate, or 

at least that individuals can essentially opt out of the rules of society through convoluted legalistic 

loopholes”).

A belief of some sovereign citizens is that “the U.S. government created individual treasury 

accounts for each U.S. citizen in the 1930s . . . .” United States v. Singleton, No. 03-CR-175, 2004 

WL 1102322, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2004). The purpose of the trust accounts is apparently to 

“pledge [U.S. citizens] and their property . . . as security for the national debt in exchange for the 

benefits of citizenship.” Bryant, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 758. The theory holds that an individual may 

revoke the citizenship contract imposed upon them at birth and thus regain the profits of their 

individual federal trust accounts. See id. The current petition appears to request such relief, since 

Mr. Dominick attached to his complaint a form entitled a Notice of Claim for Return of Property 

Case 3:20-mc-80001-WHO Document 2 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

addressed to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. 

Federal courts have unanimously held that sovereign citizen arguments are meritless. See 

United States v. Coleman, 871 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing cases), Bryant, 524 F. Supp. 2d 

at 758 (“The foundation of [a sovereign citizenship] claim is equal parts revisionist legal history and 

conspiracy theory.”); Vazquez, 2015 WL 1743275, at *2 (“As far as the undersigned is aware, no 

court to consider [sovereign citizen] arguments has found any merit in them whatsoever.”); Gravatt 

v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 279, 288 (2011) (“It strains all logic and reason to believe that the 

trust fund alleged by plaintiff actually exists.”). Mr. Dominick does not cite any authority 

supporting the existence of the alleged trust account or the ability of this court to order such relief. 

Accordingly, the court orders Mr. Dominick to respond in writing and explain why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. Any response is due no later 

than February 18, 2020. If Mr. Dominick does not file a timely response, his case may be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute. The court refers Mr. Dominick to the section “Representing Yourself” on 

the Court’s website, located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants, as well as the Court’s Legal 

Help Centers for unrepresented parties. In San Francisco, the Legal Help Center is located on the 

15th Floor, Room 2796, of the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. 

In Oakland, the Legal Help Center is located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the United States 

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2020 

______________________________________

 DONNA M. RYU 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:20-mc-80001-WHO Document 2 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2