# (hailNAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DARRIN LELAND REBER,

Petitioner,

v. PETER BLUDWORTH,

Respondent. OP 21-0210

I 

# D 1 8 2021'

ORDER nwood Court ,onnta na



### Self-represented Petitioner Darrin Leland Reber has filed a verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the jurisdiction of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. Reber raises eighteen claims and concludes that he is illegally and unlawfully incarcerated. Reber also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and states that the Attomey General shall file a response due to his Motion. On July 11, 2017, the Missoula County District Court revoked Reber's 2014 sentence for the conviction of criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and imposed a five-year unsuspended commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC)(Cause No. DC 14-189)(sentence upon revocation). Reber received two other sentences on that day. The District Court sentenced Reber for two separate counts ofcriminal possession ofdangerous drugs with intent to distribute to the DOC for twenty years with fifteen years suspended (Cause Nos. DC 16-548 and 17-202) (2017 sentences). A11 sentences were to run concurrently. Reber did not appeal his sentence upon revocation,but through counsel,he appealed the 2017 sentences. We consolidated his appeals upon his counsel's motion. State v. Reber, Order (Mont. Sept. 18, 2018)(No.DA 17-0578 consolidated under DA 17-0577). His counsel moved to withdraw representation, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. Ca., 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), filing a supporting brief. Reber filed 05/18/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0210an eighty-seven-page response. We allowed his appeal to proceed, only later to dismiss it

with prejudice for failure to file his opening brief after being given additional time and directed to do so. State v. Reber,No.DA 17-0577 Order (Mont. May 8,2019). In 2020,Reber sought to appeal the 2017 sentences by filing two verified Petitions for an Out-of-Time Appeal, seeking to exhaust his remedies. We explained that he had exhausted his appeal remedies with this Court for those sentences. Reber cannot seek another appeal ofthe same underlying cases a year and halflater with this Court. These May 8,2019 Orders were final. M.R.App. P. 19(2). "Under the doctrine oflaw ofthe case,a prior decision ofthis Court resolving a particular issue between the same parties in the same case is binding and cannot be relitigated." State v. Gilder, 2001 MT 121, ¶ 9, 305 MOnt. 362, 28 P.3d 488 (citation omitted). While this Court did not decide any issues, we decided that his appeal should be dismissed because Reber chose not to prosecute his appeal. We have applied the doctrines of law of the case and res judicata, meaning something that has already been adjudicated, to support this Court's practice "generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided[t Gilder, 

## ill¶ 9, 11 (citation omitted). Reber has provided no legal authority to circumvent res judicata and cannot now have a "second bite' ofthe same apple. State v. Reber,No.DA 20-0598, Order,at 1-2 (Mont.Dec. 29, 2020).
As a threshold matter concerning his instant Petition, Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, such as a motion for summary judgment under M.R. Civ.P. 56,do not apply

_ to original proceedings in this Court. See M.R. Civ. P. 1 (these rules are limited in scope to district court proceedings). Reber mentions a 12(b)(6)motion in his instant Petition; M. R. Civ.P. 12(b)(6) does not apply here either. We also point out that Reber's citations to federal case law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)are unavailing and do not advance his arguments. Lastly,the Attorney General would only respond to a petition, such as Reber's, upon this Court's order, directing it to do so. M.R.App.P. 14(7)(a). Under the statute for habeas corpus relief, "every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained ofliberty within this state may prosecute a writ ofhabeas corpus to inquire into the cause ofimprisonment or restraint and,ifillegal,to be delivered from the imprisonment
or restraint." Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. 2Reber requests dismissal ofthe charges and dismissal with extreme prejudice ofthe

cases in the Missoula County District Court. He lists eighteen claims:(1)invocation ofhis natural rights under the supreme law ofthe land;(2)his status as "a man ofGOD,a living soul, natural born, of flesh and blood," etc.; (3) the State of Montana has no standing because it is not a living man or woman;(4)fraud vitiates all, including contracts;(5)fraud committed by the court and "de facto government"; (6) "man and living soul upon the LAND";(7)"right ofself-determination";(8)"Sui Juris" status;(9)"NOT a PERSON"or U.S. CITIZEN;(10)"natural,free born Sovereign,without subjects";(11)"exercise Right ofAvoidance% (12)"no valid contracr because offraud;(13)no crime because no injury to "another soul";(14)"NOTICE'of"' Net Retentions'";(15)Fourth Judicial District is a "FOREIGN STATE";(16)"NOTICE' that his affidavit must be challenged within 21 days "point by point"; (17)demand that his three case are dismissed; and (18)no affording of his rights during the criminal process. Reber has raised the same or similar claims in both the Missoula County District Court and this Court. Reber's appellate counsel pointed out in the Anders brief that the only potential viable claim on appeal was the District Court's denial ofReber's January 31, 2017 Demand and Dismissal, asserting twelve grounds for relief in his motions. These twelve grounds were summarized as:(1)alleging that no complaining party existed;(2)the State ofMontana lacks standing;(3)the District Court is acting as an administrative officer; (4)the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed;(5)all statutes are bills of attainder, banned by the U.S. Constitution; (6) the statutes for Reber's offenses are unconstitutional; (7) the District Court has a conflict of interest because it is employed by the State of Montana judicial branch, violating Reber's due process rights; (8) lack ofjurisdiction to proceed; (9)Reber is a state citizen and his rights cannot be impaired by legislative or judicial acts; (10)jurisdiction must be plead; (11)insufficient pleading existed to determine a contract; and (12)the District Court Judge did not comply with 5 U.S.C. § 3331 law. His counsel concluded that his grounds were not based in law or fact and that his appeal should not proceed.

### We conclude that Reber's criminal cases have already been decided and that they

need not be reopened. Gilder, ¶ 11. Reber is not entitled to dismissal ofthe charges or dismissal ofthese three criminal cases. We point out that his claims are beyond the scope ofa petition for habeas corpus relief, and we do not need to address "point by point"
. his claims. Moreover,he is precluded from challenging his convictions and sentences because he has exhausted the remedy of appeal. The companion habeas corpus statute precludes Reber'sPetition from proceeding here. "The writ ofhabeas corpus is not available to attack the validity ofthe conviction or sentence ofa person who has been adjudged guilty ofan offense in a court of record and has exhausted the remedy of appeal." Section 46-22- 101(2), MCA.-Reber appealed the 2017 sentences, raising the same or similar claims throughout all his proceedings. Even though he did not appeal his 2014 sentence upon revocation, he is precluded from challenging it now through habeas corpus. Reber has not demonstrated that he is illegally incarcerated. His sentences are facially valid. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. Reber's claims lack merit, and he cannot attempt to relitigate such claims through this remedy. Section 46-22-101(2),MCA;Gilder, 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Reber's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Darrin Leland Reber personally. DATED this 16 day ofMay,2021.

4 

### ChiefJustice5