Court Opinion

ID: 9376686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 16:06:35.449944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.407436
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Huelsman, 2023-Ohio-649.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                       MIAMI COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                      :
                                                    :
       Appellee                                     :   C.A. No. 2022-CA-21
                                                    :
 v.                                                 :   Trial Court Case No. 2022 TRD 03920
                                                    :
 EDWARD B. HUELSMAN                                 :   (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
                                                    :
       Appellant                                    :
                                                    :

                                               ...........

                                               OPINION

                                      Rendered on March 3, 2023

                                               ...........

JONATHAN B. FREEMAN, Attorney for Appellee, City of Tipp City

EDWARD B. HUELSMAN, Appellant, Pro Se

                                              .............

WELBAUM, P.J.

        {¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the pro se appeal of Defendant-Appellant,

Edward B. Huelsman, from his conviction on a charge of driving without a license, a first-

degree misdemeanor.           Huelsman has submitted a brief that fails to conform in any

fashion with App.R. 16(A) and, in fact, appears to be in the nature of a civil complaint
                                                                                         -2-

brought against the prosecutor. From what we can glean from the brief, Huelsman

appears to be contending that the trial court lacked personal and subject matter

jurisdiction over him because he is a sovereign citizen and is not subject to the laws of

Ohio.

        {¶ 2} For the reasons discussed below, Huelsman’s arguments are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

                           I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

        {¶ 3} On June 6, 2022, Officer Phillip Osting of the Tipp City, Ohio Police

Department filed a Uniform Traffic Ticket (complaint) in Miami County Municipal Court,

charging Huelsman with driving under suspension, a violation of R.C. 4510.11. On June

8, 2022, Huelsman filed an answer, stating that “I choose not to contract with you.” This

was written on a copy of the traffic ticket and bore the following notarized signature,

“UCC1-207 Edward B Huelsman.”

        {¶ 4} At the arraignment on June 14, 2022, Huelsman pled not guilty and was given

an own recognizance bond. The case was assigned for a pretrial conference to be held

on July 14, 2022, and was then scheduled for trial on August 11, 2022. On August 9,

2022, Huelsman filed a Demand for a Verified Complaint of Injured Party or Motion to

Quash Defective Citation for Lack of Jurisdiction, if Verified Complaint is Not Timely Filed

(“Demand”). The gist of the Demand was that the Uniform Traffic Ticket filed in court

was insufficient to constitute a verified complaint, which Huelsman alleged must be filed.

In a separate document, Huelsman announced his renunciation of citizenship in the
                                                                                         -3-

United States and its “government, a corporation.”       Act of Expatriation and Oath of

Allegiance (Aug. 9. 2022), p. 1.

       {¶ 5} On August 10, 2022, the State responded to Huelsman’s Demand, noting

that the court had jurisdiction over the offense, which was committed in Miami County.

The State further stressed that courts had rejected “sovereign citizen” defenses as

frivolous, and that Traf.R. 3(A) designated the Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket as the

complaint and summons, meaning no verification was required. The trial court denied

Huelsman’s motion on August 11, 2022, and also tried the case on that date.

       {¶ 6} The court found Huelsman guilty of driving under suspension, imposed a fine

of $25 and costs, and sentenced Huelsman to 10 days in jail. On August 15, 2022,

Huelsman filed what he called a “motion for appeal,” which we construe as a notice of

appeal.   We note that Huelsman failed to provide a copy of the trial transcript for

purposes of this appeal.

                                      II. Discussion

       {¶ 7} As noted, Huelsman’s brief failed to comply with App.R. 16(A), which

contains various requirements for briefs, including: “(3) A statement of the assignments

of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error

is reflected”; “(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the

assignments of error to which each issue relates”; “(6) A statement of facts relevant to the

assignments of error presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in

accordance with division (D) of this rule”; and “(7) An argument containing the contentions
                                                                                            -4-

of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the

reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts

of the record on which appellant relies.” Where an appellant fails to comply with these

requirements, App.R. 12(A)(2) allows us to disregard a party’s assignments of error.

E.g., State v. Mize, 2022-Ohio-3163, 195 N.E.3d 574, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.).

        {¶ 8} Of course, here, Huelsman has not even asserted an assignment of error; he

has filed what appears to be a complaint against the State. In responding to Huelsman’s

brief, the State interprets the brief as raising the issue that as a sovereign citizen,

Huelsman is beyond the State’s jurisdiction, both personally and in terms of subject matter

jurisdiction. We agree, and even if we were to consider Huelsman’s arguments, they are

without merit.

        {¶ 9} We have rejected similar arguments on numerous occasions. In Village of

St. Paris v. Galluzzo, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2014-CA-4, 2014-Ohio-3260, we noted

that:

                 Generally, all Ohio courts have jurisdiction over violations of Ohio law

        occurring in Ohio. See R.C. 2901.11(A). More to the point, municipal

        courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses.

                 Pursuant to R.C.1901.20, “The municipal court has jurisdiction of the

        violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory

        * * * and of the violation of any misdemeanor committed within the limits of

        its territory.”

Id. at ¶ 11.
                                                                                          -5-

       {¶ 10} Under R.C. 1901.02(B), “The Miami county municipal court has jurisdiction

within Miami county and within the part of the municipal corporation of Bradford that is

located in Darke county.” The traffic violation involved in this case occurred in Tipp City,

which is located within Miami County. See R.C. 1901.021(F)(“[a]t least one of the judges

of the Miami county municipal court shall sit within the municipal corporations of Troy,

Piqua, and Tipp City, and the judges may sit in other incorporated areas of Miami county”).

       {¶ 11} The violation involved here was of R.C. 4510.11(A), which prohibits persons

whose drivers’ licenses have been suspended from operating “any motor vehicle upon

the public roads and highways or upon any public or private property used by the public

for purposes of vehicular travel or parking within this state during the period of suspension

* * *.” This is a misdemeanor of the first degree, over which the municipal court has

jurisdiction. See R.C. 4510.11(D)(1) and R.C. 1901.20. Thus, the trial court had subject

matter jurisdiction over this case.

       {¶ 12} In the trial court, Huelsman argued that the traffic ticket issued to him and

filed in court was defective because it was not a “verified complaint.” This was a frivolous

argument, as “[i]n traffic cases, the complaint and summons shall be the ‘Ohio Uniform

Traffic Ticket’ * * *.”   Traf.R. 3(A). This is what was filed here. Furthermore, the

authority Huelsman cited as authority for a “verified complaint” was taken from California

law, which obviously does not apply here. See Demand, p. 2-3, citing Cal. Penal Code

740 and 853.9.

       {¶ 13} As to personal jurisdiction, Huelsman did not argue in the trial court that he

was not properly served with a copy of the citation. Instead, his argument was based on
                                                                                           -6-

the lack of a verified complaint. Tangentially, he did renounce his citizenship.

       {¶ 14} On appeal, Huelsman appears to raise his rights as a sovereign citizen

(while not using that term specifically) by referring to himself as a “State American

National/Man of Flesh” and claiming, “It has been established by the United States

Supreme Court[,] Licensing and Registration of a ‘Private American State National,’

‘Ohioan’ has never been required and the Courts [sic] and State practices of enforcement

is [sic] a violation of the Organic United States of America and rights of the ‘People.’ ”

Appellant’s Brief at p. 4.

       {¶ 15} Again, we “have previously described an argument made on these grounds

as ‘wholly frivolous.’ ” Galluzzo, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2014-CA-29, 2015-Ohio-3385,

at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Few, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25969, 2015-Ohio-2292, ¶ 6. In

Few, we remarked that: “[a]s noted by the Southern District of Ohio in DuBose v. Kasich,

S.D. Ohio No. 2:11-CV-00071, 2013 WL 164506 (Jan. 15, 2013), *3, ‘sovereign citizen

theories * * * involve the alleged corporate status of Ohio and the United States; the

relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and admiralty jurisdiction;

and the effect of capitalizing the letters of his name. Plaintiff ultimately maintains that he

does not have a contract with either Ohio or the United States and, therefore, does not

have to follow government laws. * * * [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such

theories are meritless and worthy of little discussion.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 6.

       {¶ 16} Accordingly, there is no merit to Huelsman’s arguments, and the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

                                      .............
                                   -7-

EPLEY, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.