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

ORDER 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ERIC MICHAEL MILTON,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

No. C05-5756RBL

ORDER DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2255

This matter is before the court on the Petition of Eric Michael Milton for relief from his sentence

under 28 U.S.C. §2255. 

A prisoner in custody pursuant to a judgment and sentence imposed by the federal court, who

claims the right to be released on the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution

or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the

sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may

move the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Mr. Milton’s Petition uses a standard United States District Court form, and includes a number of

Appendices. The Petition does not state the crime with which Mr. Milton was charged, or to which he

plead guilty; instead, he claims that “the corporate fiction DEBTOR ENTITY ERIC MICHAEL MILTON

©) can not commit an offense.” The Petition alleges that “18 U.S.C. §2, 2113(a)(d) [sic] is

Case 3:05-cv-05756-RBL Document 3 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 1 of 3

Milton v. United States of America Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
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

1

Mr. Milton’s materials contain references to U.S. Attorney Bruce Miyake, and to a sentencing date

of January 28, 2005. It is thus apparent that Mr. Milton’s Petition refers to his 96 month sentence for pleading

guilty to attempted armed bank robbery and armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2113, in Cause No.

CR04-5265RBL. [See Dkt. # 46 in that case.] 

2

Mr. Milton was represented by counsel, Zenon Olbertz, during the underlying case. 

ORDER 2

unconstitutional,” but offers no coherent theory or argument supporting that conclusion.1 Mr. Milton

claims that his guilty plea was “blackmailed under force, threat, deceipt and coercion, a sham,” but

nowhere describes or provides any facts or argument supporting this allegation. 

Mr. Milton additionally claims that he, the “secured party creditor” has “never been sentenced

because the plaintiff cannot interface with a natural man, nor any government agency.” In the portion of the

form seeking information about whether he appealed the sentence, he states that “Secured party creditor

Eric Michael of the Milton family and natural man was denied council2 because I am not a corporate

fiction.” 

In the substantive body of the form, Mr. Milton alleges four grounds for his Petition: First, he

claims that the plaintiff United States was in contempt of court for suing in a fictitious capacity, because it

does not exist. Second, he claims that he, as a natural man conceived from a womb, is not the defendant

because the government cannot interface with a natural man, only corporate fictions. He therefore claims

he has been “kidnapped” and “held captive” under “fraudulent documents.” Third, he claims that he “never

formed a social compact contract called the Untied States” and therefore is not “a party to [the United

States Constitution].” Finally, Mr. Milton “challenges the in personam jurisdiction of this court.” 

Offered in support of the Petition are a number of what appear to be “fill in the blank” form

documents almost exclusively attacking the authority of the United States as a legal entity to impose or

enforce any laws or penalties. Ironically, these arguments are based primarily on the United States

Constitution and early Opinions of the United States Supreme Court. These largely incoherent briefs and

authorities are patently without merit, and are frivolous. Similar efforts have been raised in other courts

Case 3:05-cv-05756-RBL Document 3 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER 3

and to this court’s knowledge none of these arguments has ever succeeded. See, for example, United

States v. Hanson, 2 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 1993) (argument that “natural born citizen of Montana” exempt from

tax laws held “utterly meritless.”); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1985) (same); United

States v. Masat, 948 F.2d 923 (5th Cir 1991) (rejecting as frivolous defendant’s contention that the district

court lacked personal jurisdiction because defendant was a “freeman.”). There are many other similarly

emphatic rejections of these sorts of arguments from various courts around the country. 

The Petition in this case [Dkt. # 1] is wholly without factual or legal merit, and is frivolous. It is

therefore DENIED. 

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05756-RBL Document 3 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 3 of 3