“ This means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted.”
How later courts described this case
- “ This means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted.”
- “The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause generally immunizes the Federal Government from state laws that directly regulate or discriminate against it.”
- the language of the FOIA excluding “the courts of the United States” also excludes the entire judicial branch
- “FOIA thus applies only to ‘agenc[ies],’ which the APA expressly defines to exclude ‘the courts of the United States.’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and analysis
of this court the document set forth below. This document has been entered electronically in
the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
ey Ptr
John P. Gustafson
Dated: January 31 2024 United States Bankruptcy Judge
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re: ) Case No. 23-31785
)
Tara D. Wallace ) Chapter 7
)
Debtor. ) JUDGE JOHN P. GUSTAFSON
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING OFFICIAL U.S.
BONDING/SURETY
This case comes before the court on a document [Doc. #55] captioned: “World Citizens of The
Solar Monmatia,” with a subheading of “Official U.S. Bonding/Surety Request” (herein after “Request’’).
This document, purports to be a Freedom of Information Act Request, but it is made under “D.C.
Code §§2-532, and/or localized equivalent there of.”
The Request seeks information documenting certain bonding information in six bullet points, all
of which are circled by the person requesting the information, Chapter 7 Debtor Tara D. Wallace.
Debtor’s Request purports to inform the court that the person making the request is ““Sui Generis,”
as it alleges all “citizens” and “residents” [quotated in the original document] that are under my
jurisdiction. The document then states: “thus denial of Sui Generis for this information is the same as
denying your ‘Citizens’/’Nationals’ of this information.”
There are two certifications checked above the signature. “The information above is true, correct,
and accurate to the best of my knowledge; I am competent, qualified, and authorized to be making and
filing these statements; I am competent to handle my affairs (AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH).” The second
certification states: “I am no PERSON (e.g. statutory person, trust, corporation, public official) but a
private non-lienable natural sentient being dweller, Sui Generis, at an on at The Common Law, from birth
(AFFIDAVIT OF CORPORATE DENIAL).”
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Debtor’s Request is gibberish dressed up in legalese.
Debtor’s Request must be denied for several reasons. First, it seeks relief under the laws of the
District of Columbia “and or localized equivalent there of.” This would appear to be – at best – a request
made under state law to a federal government entity, the United States Bankruptcy Court.
Under Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Supremacy Clause: “This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. See, United States v. Washington, 596
U.S. 832, 935, 495 U.S. 423, 142 S.Ct. 1976, 1982, 213 L.Ed.2d 336 (2022)(“The Constitution’s
Supremacy Clause generally immunizes the Federal Government from state laws that directly regulate or
discriminate against it.”).
Accordingly, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and the related doctrines of sovereign
immunity, and intergovernmental immunity, all serve to immunize the Federal Government from state
laws that directly regulate or discriminate against it.
Further, it should be noted that there is a federal Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter “FOIA”).
5 U.S.C. §552. However, while the FOIA applies to any government “Agency” the statute’s definition
of Agency specifically “does not include” (B) “the courts of the United States.” Id. at §551(1)(B), see
also, Eli v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 878 F.3d 392, 397 (1st Cir. 2017)(“FOIA thus applies
only to ‘agenc[ies],’ which the APA expressly defines to exclude ‘the courts of the United States.’); United
2
States v. Casas, 376 F.3d 20, 22 (1st Cir.2004)(“The judicial branch is exempt from the [FOIA]”); Mayo
v. U.S. Government Printing Office, 9 F.3d 1450, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993)(the language of the FOIA excluding
“the courts of the United States” also excludes the entire judicial branch); Lewis v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
867 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 n.5 (D. D.C. 2011)(“Furthermore, neither the federal courts nor state courts are
subject to the FOIA.” citing 5 U.S.C. §551(1)(B)).
This presents an additional reason why Debtor’s Request should be denied. Not only are states
not able to legislate away federal sovereign immunity, the fact that there is federal legislation – the FIOA
– that specifically excludes courts from its requirements, prevents state law from having any effect under
the doctrine of “preemption.” Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 584 U.S. 453, 471, 138 S.Ct.
1461, 1476, 200 L.Ed.2d 854 (2018)(“ This means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law
prevails and state law is preempted.”). Because Congress has created legislation, the federal FOIA, and
determined that it should exclude courts from its provisions, states cannot legislate beyond the boundaries
set by Congress. Further, the explicit statutory exclusion of “the courts of the United States” from the
federal FOIA clearly shows that there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity in this area. U.S. v.
Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 9, 133 S.Ct. 12, 16, 184 L.Ed.2d 317 (2012)(“Sovereign immunity shields the United
States from suit absent a consent to be sued that is ‘unequivocally expressed.’”)
Accordingly, there is no legal authority for Debtor’s Request requiring information from the court.
The Request is also apparently based on a misapprehension of fact. U.S. Judges and the persons
working for the Clerks’ Offices of the United States Courts are not bonded. The trustees who are
appointed in Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases, like the case Debtor filed, are bonded.1 However, since at least
the 1986 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, which expanded the U.S. Trustee Program, Chapter 7
trustees are selected and overseen by the Office of the United States Trustee, a component of the U.S.
Department of Justice. Bonding requirements for trustees, and records of those bonds, are not maintained
by the Bankruptcy Courts, except to the extent any such information is filed on its public dockets.
To paraphrase United States Magistrate Judge Yarbrough in dealing with a World Citizens of the
Solar Monmatia complaint, the filing here “contains no law supporting this proposition, and I am not
aware of any.” Grimes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 4347266 at *2, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
1/ It is unclear why any information about the Chapter 7 Trustee’s bond would be sought, as this was a no asset case. See,
Chapter 7 Trustee’s Report of No Distribution. [Doc. #42].
3
134366 at *5 (D.N.M. July 29, 2020).
Accordingly, the Request will be, and is hereby, Denied.
# # #
4