United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Maria Riezinger, representing herself, has filed a Complaint
in which she names herself as a plaintiff twice - once as a
“lawful fiduciary, ” and once as a “lawful
person.” Ms. Riezinger names “William P.
Barr, U.S. Attorney General, et alia” and
“Charles Rettig, IRS Commissioner, et alia” as
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction …;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
in the alternative or different types of
short and plain statement of any claim showing that she is
entitled to relief, has been asserted by Ms. Riezinger.
The plaintiff is responsible for establishing this
Court's jurisdiction over the case.
is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a
decree[.]” As explained by the United States Supreme
Court, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.” That is, the United States
Constitution or a federal statute must generally be at issue
to establish this Court's jurisdiction. It is Ms.
Riezinger's burden, as the plaintiff, to show that this
Court has jurisdiction to hear her claims.
Riezinger claims “international admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction” in this case. But, in her Complaint, she
states no facts involving admiralty or maritime law. Nor does
she provide facts which would otherwise provide this Court
with jurisdiction. “If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.”
The Court must Dismiss Frivolous Lawsuits.
Riezinger's narrative is hard to understand, difficult to
read, and covers allegations dating back to the American
Civil War. Nothing in the Complaint indicates that Ms.
Riezinger has, or will have, a claim for relief over which
this Court has jurisdiction.
instance, Ms. Riezinger asserts that she is a
“Fiduciary for the United States [and] has declared
status as a Foreign sovereign and as an American State
National …” She claims that “the existence
of the Plaintiff Federation of the States pre-dates the
American Civil War [and that] Plaintiffs were never
Combatants in The American Civil War [but] have suffered
Protective Custody and Occupation by their own Armed Forces
ever since.” Plaintiff wants the return of property
seized during the Civil War, which she claims is currently
being held by the Attorney General and the IRS
Commissioner. She also claims to have been
“misidentified as [a] United States Citizen or [a]
Citizen of the United States and unconscionably taxed as a
result.” Ms. Riezinger claims that her
“actions are supported by existing law and commercial
contracts and treaties including all three
constitutions” and she seeks arbitration.
to her Complaint are photocopies of coins, as “proof of
National and International Bond …” and a
“Declaration of American National Standing …
Proof of Bonding Capacity, ” with “Declarations
of Private Bankers, ” ...