Court Opinion

ID: 9907781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 23:01:52.180687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:33.660682
License: Public Domain

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.
      Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
      303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
      corrections@akcourts.gov.

               THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

 JEFFREY HOUT,                                     )
                                                   )   Supreme Court No. S-18511
                        Appellant,                 )
                                                   )   Superior Court No. 3AN-21-08659 CI
       v.                                          )
                                                   )   OPINION
 STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF                        )
 THE GOVERNOR, AND MICHAEL                         )
 DUNLEAVY, IN AN OFFICIAL                          )   No. 7673 – November 17, 2023
 CAPACITY,                                         )
                                                   )
                        Appellees.                 )
                                                   )

              Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
              Judicial District, Anchorage, Thomas A. Matthews, Judge.

              Appearances: Jeffrey Hout, pro se, Wasilla, Appellant.
              Thomas C. Mooney-Myers, Assistant Attorney General,
              Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau,
              for Appellees.

              Before:     Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices.
              [Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Justice, not
              participating.]

              PATE, Justice.

      INTRODUCTION
              An inmate sued Governor Michael Dunleavy for failing to provide him
with proof of various bonds, oaths, and licenses. The inmate also alleged that certain
people involved in his criminal trial had practiced law without valid licenses. The
superior court dismissed the lawsuit because it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. The inmate appealed. We affirm the superior court’s judgment.
      FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
             After Jeffrey Hout was convicted of a 2010 kidnapping and murder, he
was sentenced to 104 years’ imprisonment.1 Hout sent a letter to Governor Dunleavy
in August 2021 demanding proof that the Governor was licensed to practice law in
Alaska, had obtained various official surety bonds, and had taken his oath of office.
After Governor Dunleavy did not respond, Hout filed a Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC) Financing Statement with the Alaska UCC Central File System Office,2 seeking
to secure a purported debt of $250 million in gold dollars owed to him by Governor
Dunleavy and the State of Alaska.
             Hout then filed a complaint in the superior court, alleging that the State of
Alaska and Governor Dunleavy had committed fraud against him. Hout also alleged
that his criminal conviction was invalid and that he should be released from prison
because government officials involved in his criminal case, including the judge, had
engaged in the practice of law without valid licenses.
             The State moved to dismiss Hout’s complaint with prejudice under Alaska
Civil Rule 12(b)(6). Hout failed to respond. The superior court granted the State’s
motion to dismiss. Hout now appeals the court’s order dismissing his complaint and
asks us to “release [him] from prison due to [f]raud and [o]bstruction of [j]ustice by the
State of Alaska.”

      1
            See Hout v. State, No. A-11212, 2015 WL 5000552, at *1 (Alaska App.
Aug. 19, 2015) (affirming sentencing decision).
      2
             See generally Ranes & Shine, LLC v. MacDonald Miller Alaska, Inc., 355
P.3d 503, 511 (Alaska 2015) (explaining that “[a] UCC financing statement is intended
to provide notice to the world of a secured party’s interest in specific collateral”).
                                           -2-                                      7673
      STANDARD OF REVIEW
             “We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Alaska Civil Rule
12(b)(6), ‘deeming all facts in the complaint true and provable.’ ”3
      DISCUSSION
             The content and style of Hout’s claims and arguments in this case are
consistent with the expressed belief system of a group that has come to be known as
“sovereign citizens.”4 For example, Hout signed his complaint as “Hout: Jeffery TM
©” and he asserts that he is “a sui juris and Sovereign.” “Courts across the country
have universally rejected these types of ‘sovereign citizen’ claims, dismissing them as
‘misguided,’ ‘completely without merit,’ and having ‘no conceivable validity in
American law.’ ”5 Hout’s claims and arguments in this case are similarly flawed.
             We have jurisdiction to decide this case. Hout asserts that he “does NOT
consent to Superior/Supreme Courts [sic] decisions in opposition of ANY, and ALL

      3
            Pruitt v. Off. of Lieutenant Governor, 498 P.3d 591, 597 (Alaska 2021)
(quoting Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., 6 P.3d 250, 253 (Alaska 2000)).
      4
              See Caesar Kalinowski IV, A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen
Movement, 80 MONT. L. REV. 153, 154-55 (2019) (“Most often, Sovereign Citizens
contest the United States’ jurisdiction over them as federal defendants because they
have not consented to that jurisdiction. In pursuing their ‘rights,’ Sovereign Citizens
engage in ‘paper terrorism,’ which includes the filing of false liens against government
officials and a multitude of other civil claims based on abstract violations of the
Uniform Commercial Code (‘UCC’).” (footnotes omitted)); Charles E. Loeser, From
Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: The Sovereign Citizen Threat, 93 N.C. L. REV. 1106,
1126 (2015) (“Anyone can file a lien under the [UCC], and sovereign citizens tend to
file liens against the homes and land of public officials who participated in or were
complicit in their legal proceedings. The monetary amount of these liens tends to have
no basis in reality and instead is usually in preposterous amounts like $5.1 million or
$100 billion.” (footnotes omitted)).
      5
             Bourdon v. State, 370 P.3d 1116, 1117 (Alaska App. 2016) (footnotes
omitted).
                                          -3-                                      7673
claims presented.”6 He asserts that we lack the authority to deny his claims, including
his fraud claim and his purported $250 million lien against Governor Dunleavy. Hout’s
argument is premised on the misguided notion that Alaska’s laws do not apply to him
unless and until he provides personal consent to be governed by our laws. This
argument is nonsense7 and antithetical to our form of constitutional democracy.8
             Our government derives its powers from Alaska citizens who, as a
collective whole, have provided “consent of the governed” by ratifying the Alaska
Constitution. 9 “Article IV, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution grants the legislature
authority to prescribe the jurisdiction of courts within the state.”10 The legislature has

      6
             Emphasis in original.
      7
              Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 604 (D. Md. 2005)
(explaining that defendants “are mistaken if they think they cannot be prosecuted
without their consent or signatures. If this were the case, it is hard to imagine that any
indicted defendant would ‘consent’ to any proceedings against him, and the entire
federal criminal code would be pointless” (footnotes omitted)).
      8
              See, e.g., Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2432 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J.,
concurring) (“In our system of government, as this Court has often stated, no one is
above the law.”); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 30 (1866) (“Our system knows no
authority beyond or above the law.”); cf. Aspen Expl. Corp. v. Sheffield, 739 P.2d 150,
157 n.14 (Alaska 1987) (explaining that the common law historically held public
officials and private individuals to same standard for purposes of tort liability, rooted
in “common law principle that ‘no man is above the law’ ” (quoting A.V. DICEY, THE
LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 193 (10th ed. 1959))).
      9
             Ernest Gruening, Governor of the Territory of Alaska, delivered the
keynote address to the Alaska Constitutional Convention, explaining the delegates’
authority was derived from the people of Alaska. 6 Proceedings of the Alaska
Constitutional Convention App. III at 1 (November 9, 1955) (“We meet to validate the
most basic of American principles, the principle of ‘government by consent of the
governed.’ ”); see also THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 2 (U.S. 1776)
(“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed . . . .”).
      10
             Bourdon, 370 P.3d at 1118 (footnotes omitted).
                                           -4-                                      7673
authorized the superior court to exercise original jurisdiction over all civil matters, and
the superior court’s jurisdiction extends over the whole of Alaska.11 The legislature has
likewise authorized us to exercise “final appellate jurisdiction in all actions and
proceedings” that begin in the district or superior courts.12 We exercise that jurisdiction
today to affirm the court’s dismissal of Hout’s claims.
              On the merits, Hout alleges that Governor Dunleavy and the State have
failed to comply with statutes and constitutional provisions dealing with three
categories of government activities. First, he cites official bonding statutes.13 Second,
he cites the oath of office statutes and a corresponding provision of the Alaska
Constitution.14 Third, he cites Alaska’s law-licensing statute.15 Hout alleges that
Governor Dunleavy committed fraud by not providing proof of compliance with these
three categories of statutes within three days of Hout’s written demand for such proof.
Hout also alleges that “every member and party” who participated in his criminal case

       11
              AS 22.10.020(a)-(b) (noting some actions within original jurisdiction of
superior court must be filed in district court, rather than superior court); see also Alaska
Const. art. IV, § 3.
       12
              AS 22.05.010(a); see also Alaska Const. art. IV, § 2.
       13
             AS 39.15.010-.100 (providing for form, amount, and conditions of official
surety bonds); see also AS 39.05.050 (“The principal executive officer of each
department and subordinate officials shall furnish corporate surety bonds in the instance
and amount required by law or determined by the governor upon recommendation of
the commissioner of administration. The state shall pay the cost of the bond. The
attorney general shall approve the form of the bond.”).
       14
               AS 39.05.040 (providing principal executive officers must take, sign, and
file oath of office as required by Alaska Constitution); AS 39.05.045 (providing public
employees must take and sign oath of office as required by statute); Alaska Const. art.
XII, § 5 (providing public officers must swear to support and defend United States
Constitution and Alaska Constitution).
       15
              AS 08.08.210 (providing person engaging in practice of law in Alaska
must be licensed and active member of Alaska Bar and Alaska Bar Rules shall define
“practice of law”).
                                            -5-                                       7673
did “NOT hold or possess a valid ‘License’ issued by the ‘only’ state government
agency that issue’s [sic] or, should issue said prerequisited [sic] AS 08.08.210(d)
license.”16 The superior court interpreted this argument as a claim “that [Hout’s]
conviction was an improper violation of his civil rights.”
              Hout’s fraud claim is without merit. In a complaint alleging fraud, “the
circumstances constituting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity.”17 However, the
primary allegation underpinning Hout’s fraud claim — that Governor Dunleavy was
legally obligated to provide him with proof of oaths, licenses, and bonds — is
essentially a “legal conclusion . . . ‘style[d] [as an] assertion[] of fact.’ ”18 The superior
court acknowledged it was undisputed that no government official or employee had
provided Hout with proof of a license, oath, or bond. Accepting this fact as true, the
court correctly held that Hout was not entitled to such proof because “there is no legal
basis upon which a criminal defendant is entitled to such bonds and oaths.” We affirm
the court’s summary dismissal of Hout’s fraud claim.
              The superior court was also correct to dismiss Hout’s civil rights claim
seeking release from prison on the ground that certain officials who participated in his
criminal trial were practicing law without valid licenses. The court explained that
Hout’s civil rights claim is “underpinned by the assertion that the State of Alaska does
not have authority to license attorneys.”          Although we “liberally construe[]” the
allegations in a complaint and “treat all factual allegations as true” when deciding

       16
            Emphasis in original. Hout included this allegation in a petition for leave
to amend his complaint. The State and the superior court treated Hout’s petition to
amend as part of his complaint, and we do the same.
       17
              Alaska R. Civ. P. 9(b).
       18
             Forrer v. State, 471 P.3d 569, 585 (Alaska 2020) (first and fourth
alteration added); id. at 585 n.160 (rejecting legal conclusions styled as factual
assertions when considering motion to dismiss, including allegation that statutory
bonding requirements created obligation to pay for oil and tax credits).
                                             -6-                                        7673
whether a complaint states a cognizable claim for relief,19 bare legal conclusions like
Hout’s assertion that the State of Alaska lacks the authority to license attorneys are not
entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth.20 Even assuming, without deciding,
that Hout’s complaint states a claim that at least one official involved in his criminal
trial was practicing law without a license and that his conviction therefore violated his
civil rights, the superior court was correct to dismiss Hout’s complaint asserting those
claims.
             The proper vehicle for Hout’s claim seeking release from prison would be
an application for post-conviction relief.21 Subject to limited exceptions not at issue
here,22 a person convicted of a criminal offense is entitled to make only one such
application, and any subsequent application must be dismissed.23 Hout had already
applied once for post-conviction relief from his 2010 conviction before filing this
complaint, meaning it would have been futile for the superior court to convert his civil

      19
             Larson v. State, Dept. of Corr., 284 P.3d 1, 6 (Alaska 2012).
      20
              See Dworkin v. First Nat’l Bank of Fairbanks, 444 P.2d 777, 779 (Alaska
1968) (stating although well pleaded allegations in a complaint are deemed admitted
for the purpose of deciding a motion to dismiss, “unwarranted factual inferences and
conclusions of law are not considered admitted in resolving the merits of such
motions”). Hout’s assertion about the State of Alaska’s authority to license attorneys
is, of course, mistaken. The legislature has provided by statute that the Alaska Bar
Rules shall define the “practice of law” and specified the requirements for practicing
law in the state, including active membership in the Alaska Bar. AS 08.08.210; see
also Alaska Bar. R. 15(b) (defining the practice of law).
      21
              See AS 12.72.010; Alaska R. Crim. P. 35.1(a); McDonald v. State, Dep’t
of Corr., Alaska Parole Bd., 519 P.3d 345, 351 (Alaska 2022).
      22
             See, e.g., Grinols v. State, 74 P.3d 889, 895 (Alaska 2003) (allowing
second petition based on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); cf. Hall v. State,
446 P.3d 373, 378 (Alaska App. 2019) (holding subsequent petitions based on newly
discovered evidence do not qualify as “second or successive” petitions under AS
12.72.020(b)(2)).
      23
             AS 12.72.020(6).
                                           -7-                                      7673
claim into an application for post-conviction relief.24 The court would thus have been
correct to dismiss Hout’s civil rights claim even if his complaint had alleged defects in
his trial that would otherwise entitle him to post-conviction relief.
      CONCLUSION
             We AFFIRM the superior court’s judgment.

      24
              Cf. McDonald, 519 P.3d at 351 (affirming dismissal where conversion
into an application for post-conviction relief would have been futile because the time to
file such an application had expired).
                                           -8-                                     7673