Riezinger v. Barr

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Anna 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.”^[1] Ms. Riezinger names “William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, et alia” and “Charles Rettig, IRS Commissioner, et alia” as the defendants.^[2]

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint include:

(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 relief.^[3]

         No short and plain statement of any claim showing that she is entitled to relief, has been asserted by Ms. Riezinger.

         1. The plaintiff is responsible for establishing this Court's jurisdiction over the case.

         Jurisdiction is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a decree[.]”^[4] 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.”^[5] 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.^[6]

         Ms. Riezinger claims “international admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”^[7] 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.^[8] “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”^[9]

         2. The Court must Dismiss Frivolous Lawsuits.

         Ms. 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.

         For 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 …”^[10] 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.”^[11] 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.^[12] 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.”^[13] Ms. Riezinger claims that her “actions are supported by existing law and commercial contracts and treaties including all three constitutions” and she seeks arbitration.^[14]

         Attached to her Complaint are photocopies of coins, as “proof of National and International Bond …”^[15] and a “Declaration of American National Standing … Proof of Bonding Capacity, ” with “Declarations of Private Bankers, ” ...