USA v. Silver

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERGEY VICTOR SILVER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cr-00048-RRB
ORDER RE: NOTICES
Mr. Silver, 	a criminal defendant 	serving 	his sentence, 	has filed three
“notices” as a self-represented prisoner. The Court has accepted these filings and
docketed them. The Government has not responded.
I. 	Filings at Dockets 67, 68, and 69.
On September 14, 2020, Mr. Silver filed a document titled “Re: Conditional
Acceptance for Value (CAFV) – Private Independent Administrative Process –
Article 1 Redress of Grievance Under the Nineth Amendment Reservation for the
Resolution and Equitable Settlement under Necessity. 	In the Nature of Request
for Proof of Claim/Discovery.”1 This document is addressed to Ralph R. Beistline,
D.B.A. United States District Court, District of Alaska “or current chief judge
hereinafter Respondent.”2 	The document states that Mr. Silver is “in receipt of
1 Docket 67.
2 Id. at 1.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 2 of 18
judgment” and agrees “to abide by the stipulations thereof upon your providing
PROOF OF CLAIMS in the Nature of the Discovery.”3 Mr. Silver further states that
he is seeking proof of claim regarding his charging documents and “a True and
Correct copy of your Oath of Office, surety, performance bond and/or blanket bond
with the name and address of the insurer, the bond number, public and private
pledges or otherwise to indemnify the undersigned.” 	Mr. Silver then enumerates
47 demands of “PROOF OF CLAIM” including, but not limited to: 	citizenship,
jurisdiction, the governing status or alleged corporate structure of the State of
Alaska and the United States of America, the solvency and alleged bankruptcies
of the State of Alaska and the federal government, oaths of office of judicial officers
and prosecutors, the existence of a de jure constitution, that the bar association is
a British foreign entity, and the use of commercial paper in relation to personhood.4
The final pages are labeled “CAVEAT,” which asserts that this Court has
“dealt with a Corporate Entity and not the filed Secured Party/Creditor (natural
man) . . . 	. No Sanction(s) can be imposed upon this Secured Party.” 	Mr. Silver
further states:
Should you fail to provide the requested PROOF OF
CLAIM, you would fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, and you will have stipulated to all the
facts as they operate in favor upon the undersigned, i.e.
that the Undersigned is not a signatory, not party to the
3 Id. at 1.
4 See id.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 3 of 18
social compact (Constitution) of the State of Alaska and
said Constitution does not operate upon the Undersigned
and that the Judge and Prosecutor for the United States
District Court, District of Alaska under CAN, committed
constitutional 	impermissible 	application 	of 	the
statute(s)/laws in CAN, and you also agree that injury
was done to the Undersigned, via Misapplication of the
Statute(s), 	Malicious 	Prosecution, 	Conspiracy, 	libel,
slander, and Fraud, and you agree that the Undersigned
is due damages via tort.5
Mr. Silver further states that the Respondent (this Court):
must reply within Thirty (30) DAYS, providing PROOF OF
CLAIM both to the Undersigned and to the Third-Party
witness’s addresses below, and should you go into fault,
you will be given THREE (3) DAYS to cure fault of non-
response. If you fail to cure your fault, you will be found
in default and will have established your default and
dishonor 	of 	this 	counter-offer 	to 	the 	original 	offer
indictment in the record.6
Mr. Silver signs this document “with EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THOSE RIGHTS,
in compliance with UCC § 1-308.”7
On October 26, 2020, Mr. Silver filed a document titled “Notice of Fault and
Opportunity to Cure And Contest Acceptance.”8 	This document is addressed to
5 Id. at 12.
6 Id. at 13.
7 Id. at 14.
8 Docket 68.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 4 of 18
the Court and states that “you failed to perform by providing the requested and
necessary PROOFS OF CLAIM (Discovery)”; “[a]s the Respondent, you are now
at fault”; and “you are in agreement and have stipulated to the terms of the
undersigned’s dated presentment through your dishonor should you fail to Cure by
providing requested necessary PROOF OF CLAIM.”9 	This filing that should the
Respondent (this Court) fail to “cure” within three days of postmark a “FINAL
NOTICE/RES JUDICATA will establish the fact in the record.”10 	The filing states
that 	this 	is 	pursuant 	to 	“Article 	1 	Redress 	and 	Grievance 	Under 	the 	Ninth
Amendment, 	Uniform 	Commercial 	Code, 	State 	Statute, 	Case 	Law 	and
otherwise.”11
Lastly on December 9, 2020, Mr. Silver filed a document titled “Final Notice
of Default Res Judicata.”12 In this document, Mr. Silver enumerates a “Statement
of Fact” in which “Respondent failed to provide any evidence of an investigation
being 	initiated” 	an 	“is 	now 	in 	DEFAULT, 	admits 	total 	acceptance, 	and 	Full
Agreement to all of the facts contained within the CAFV via Respondents silent
9 Id. at 1.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Docket 69.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 5 of 18
acquiescence.”13 	The document states that “the CAFV is now STARE DECISIS
and may NOT be controverted in any future administrative, civil, judicial, or
commercial process” and “is now the ‘TESTIMONY’ of Respondent.”14 	The
document proceeds to enumerate 34 statements to the effect that the U.S.
Constitution and federal and state laws do not apply to Mr. Silver, because he is a
“flesh and blood man”; the State of Alaska and the federal government are
corporate entities without sovereignty, the bar association is a British foreign entity,
and that the judgment in his case is void.15 	In regards to his criminal judgment,
Mr. Silver states that “the Judgment for CAN, was in fact ‘COMMERCIAL PAPER’
that was deposited into a bank and/or converted into a depositable item for the
commercial benefit of the Judge and Prosecutor, Court, COUNTY THE STATE OF
ALASKA, THE UNITED STATES, and/or the World Bank.”16 	Further, Mr. Silver
asserts his judgment “was ‘VOID’ from its inception and that the Declarant should
be immediately released of all implications, and may proceed with applicable
remedy of choice.”17
13 Id.
14 Id. at 2.
15 Id. at 2–5.
16 Id. at 4.
17 Id. at 5.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 5 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 6 of 18
In brief summary, Mr. Silver has filed a series of three documents in which
he labels this Court as the Respondent, demands to be provided with proof of his
statements/accusations, and now asserts that his criminal judgment is void.
Approximately four years prior to these filing, Mr. Silver pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2), Sexual Exploitation of a Child-Possession of Child
Pornography, and was sentenced to 66 months imprisonment, in addition to a
period of supervised release, treatment recommendations, and fines.18 Currently,
he is incarcerated at Moshannon Valley Correctional Institution.19
II. 	Discussion of Theories and Claims
Mr. Silver’s filings assert an assortment of theories and claims associated
with the Sovereign Citizen movement. 	While many various sub-groups and
ideologies may fall under the Sovereign Citizen umbrella, the overarching unifying
principle is the belief that “even though they physically reside in this country, they
are 	separate 	or 	‘sovereign’ 	from 	the 	United 	States.”20 	The 	most 	common
Sovereign Citizen interpretations of the U.S. Constitution are attempts to challenge
18 Docket 65.
19 Id.; Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/, last accessed
December 29, 2020.
20 Recent Sovereign Citizen Extremist Targeting of Law Enforcement Highlights Potential
for Violence During Traffic Stops, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (June 1,
2012).
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 6 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 7 of 18
the United States’ jurisdiction to either punish or tax it citizens.21 	These theories
on government, jurisdiction, and the law have no factual or legal basis in U.S.
history, the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court, the
United States Code, state or local law, or any function of the American rule of law.
The Court provides this order to Mr. Silver so he may understand a variety of the
“claims” he has raised, why he is not entitled to relief, and to caution him regarding
future risks associated with the Sovereign Citizen Movement.
A. 	Personhood
A U.S. citizen cannot separate the “natural person” from an “artificial” person
or entity from oneself. 	The “Sovereign Citizen” ideology attempts to create the
idea of natural personhood versus artificial personhood by relying on pre-civil war
case law and the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.22 	The
“Sovereign 	Citizen” 	movement 	erroneously 	interprets 	the 	U.S. 	Constitution,
Declaration of Independence, and pre-civil war case law to advance a fictious idea
of dual “personhood.”23 This is not legally possible, enforceable, or supported by
any cogent interpretation of American law. 	This concept of personhood is an
incorrect assertion of citizenship, individual rights, and how a person may be
21 Caesar Kalinowski IV, A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, 80 Mont.
L. Rev. 153, 165 (2019).
22 Id. at 158–62.
23 Id.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 7 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 8 of 18
subject to jurisdiction of state and federal courts. 	Through this flawed concept of
dual personhood, a “Sovereign Citizen” attempts to reject the jurisdiction of state
and federal governments. 	However, any individual who is a citizen, takes an
action, and/or resides in the United States is subject to federal jurisdiction and any
applicable state jurisdiction. No asserted separation or division of personhood can
exempt a person from federal or state jurisdiction.
B. 	The Role of Federal District Courts
Mr. Silver’s documents attempt to compel a federal district court in a variety
of actions, including initiating an investigation, providing discovery, oaths, and
“evidence.” 	A federal district court is a trial court.24 	A federal district court
adjudicates and resolves dispute between parties involving federal laws passed by
Congress, or state law disputes between parties from different states or nations.
Generally, a trial court does not engage in investigations or produce evidence.25
A presiding judge is tasked with interpreting the law and, depending on the case,
either may weigh and decide facts, or preside over a jury tasked with making
factual 	findings. 	Fundamentally, 	the 	actions 	demanded 	by 	Mr. 	Silver 	are
inappropriate requests to a federal district court.
24 1 Stat. 73; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
25 Fed. R. Evid. 102, 103, 104, 105; see generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1369 (defining and
clarifying the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts in civil matters).
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 8 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 9 of 18
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska is an Article III
Court.26 	This Court is not an administrative court or Article I legislative court.27
The judges and lawyers who practice in this Court, as well as every other federal
district 	court, 	must 	be 	professionally 	certified 	by 	a 	bar 	association. 	A 	bar
association is an organization of members of the legal profession.28 In the United
States, each state bar association is tasked with licensing attorneys, the oversight
of legal ethics, and may sanction attorneys for poor practice or take action against
individuals engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.29 	The “BAR Theory” or
often referenced as the “British Accredited Registry” is a conspiracy theory alleging
that there is a secret bar association of lawyers who work for the British monarchy,
or that as bar association members all lawyers and judges are loyal to foreign or
British interests.30 	This theory has been traced to an anonymously authored
26 	U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2 (“The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States . . . .”); 28 U.S.C.
§ 81A (The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska is an Article III court.).
27 	Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 106 (1982)
(Justice White dissenting) (““Constitutional courts exercise the judicial power described
in Art. III of the Constitution; legislative courts do not and cannot.”). 	An example of an
Article I legislative court is the Court of Veterans Appeals created by 102 Stat. 4105, 38
U.S.C. § 4051.
28 “Bar association,” BLACK ’S LAW DICTIONARY , (11 th ed. 2019).
29 “State bar association,” BLACK ’S LAW DICTIONARY , (11 th ed. 2019).
30 	Dan MacGuill, Does the ‘bar’ in ‘Bar Exam’ Denote a Secret Lawyers’ Conspiracy?,
SNOPES (Jan. 23, 2018), https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/british-accredited-registry-
bar/.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 9 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 10 of 18
essay, “Hiding Behind the Bar,” which circulates in tax protestor and “Sovereign
Citizen” groups. Fact checking services have disproven the essay and have stated
that “almost every part of this is factually inaccurate.”31 The United States District
Court for the District Court of Alaska, its judicial officers, and the attorneys
practicing before it, are all in good standing in the American legal profession.
Moreover, all federal judges must partake and abide by the oath as established by
28 U.S.C. § 453.32
The Court did, and continues to, have proper subject matter jurisdiction over
Mr. Silver as a criminal defendant accused, convicted, and sentenced for violating
federal criminal law.33 	Congress may form and create federal criminal law,
because of the Commerce Clause powers of Congress as established by the U.S.
Constitution.34 These federal criminal laws are passed by Congress and enforced
by the Executive Branch—which includes the Department of Justice and the U.S.
31 Id.
32 	Each justice or judge must take this oath before executing their duties as a federal
judicial officer: 	“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
[judicial office] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
33 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 5.
34 	U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl.3; see also United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
(where the Supreme Court overturned a federal criminal law, because Congress had
exceeded the power to regulate as granted by the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution).
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 10 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 11 of 18
Attorney’s Office.35 	This gives the U.S. Attorney’s Office standing to prosecute
violations of federal law. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, as part of the Department of
Justice and part of the Executive Branch of the federal government, sought an
indictment from a grand jury and then filed the indictment with this Court, which is
part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government.36 The Judicial Branch, which
includes the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, interprets federal
law passed by Congress and enforced by the Executive.37 Thus, all of Mr. Silver’s
claims, challenges, or theories regarding this Court’s actions or its jurisdiction are
without merit.
C. 	The Redemption Theory
While not explicitly stated, Mr. Silver’s notices appear to advance positions
similar to the Sovereign Citizen “belief” known as the “Redemption Scheme” or
“Redemption Theory.” Broadly, the Redemption Theory is based on the idea that
when the U.S. Government discontinued the gold standard “it pledged the future
earnings of its citizens and U.S. Citizens themselves as collateral to support the
value of its currency.”38 	In some ideological groups, the Redemption Theory
35 28 U.S.C. § 515.
36 Dockets 1, 2.
37 Fed. R. Crim. P. 1.
38 Caesar Kalinowski IV, A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, 80 Mont.
L. Rev. 153, 165 (2019).
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 11 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 12 of 18
includes the false belief that the United States went bankrupt and uses “its citizens
as collateral in trade agreements with foreign nations.”39 	Sovereign Citizens
believe that the United States Treasury establishes an account for each citizen at
birth, and this creates two identities—the corporate or “strawman” attached to the
account and the “natural” or “common-law” man.40 Under the Redemption Theory,
by “removing oneself as surety” the individual can control “the strawman” of
personhood and access these monies directly from the Treasury Department.41
Importantly, participants in the Redemption Theory risk destroying important
identification and financial records and being victims of fraud. 	The Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and the U.S. Department of Treasury have warned
individuals not to participate in these schemes, because there is “no substance in
law or finance” and may put individuals at risk of identity theft.42 	Furthermore,
39 	Loeser, Charles E., From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: 	The Sovereigncitizen
Theory, 93 N.C. L. Rev. 1106, 1120 (2015).
40 Id. at 1121.
41 Id.
42 See Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Debt Elimination Fraud: Fraudulent Debt
Elimination 	Schemes, 	UNITED 	STATES 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	TREASURY,
https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/alerts/2007/alert-2007-55.html (explaining that one
of the fraudulent processes purported to eliminate debt is the “use of a nonexistent ‘trust
account’ supposedly held in a person’s name at the United States Department of the
Treasury or some other part of the federal government.” 	Other fraudulent processes
include substituting or claiming subrogation of a debt instrument issued by a government
or company, made payable by the U.S. Treasury to the individual, notices that the contract
or obligation in question is illegal, or that the creditor does not have authority to collect
the debt.).
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 12 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 13 of 18
individuals may be at risk of criminal prosecution for the creation and presentation
of documents in violation of federal law,43 and “regardless of how such instruments
or documents are titled or whether they appear authentic, they are worthless, have
no legal validity, and are not payable through the United States Treasury, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, or any other federal or
state agency.”44
U.S. Treasury bonds are issued to raise money for the U.S. Government to
spend on activities budgeted for and approved by Congress.45 U.S. Citizens and
individuals 	are 	not 	used 	as 	equity 	or 	surety 	for 	bonds 	issued 	by 	the 	U.S.
Treasury.46
D. 	Incorrect and Irrelevant Law
Mr. Silver’s documents cite to incorrect, inapplicable, or irrelevant statutes
and regulations. The Court will not address every falsehood made in the “notices,”
43 	See Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Fictitious Financial Instruments:
Worthless Sight Drafts, Bills of Exchange, Due Bills and Redemption Certificates,
UNITED 	STATES 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	TREASURY, 	https://www.occ.gov/news-
issuances/alerts/2003/alert-2003-7.html.
44 See Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Illegal Financial Activity: Fictitious Debt
Elimination 	Schemes, 	UNITED 	STATES 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	TREASURY,
https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/alerts/2003/alert-2003-12.html.
45 	Government 	Bond, 	I NVESTOPEDIA (December 	4, 	2019), 	https://www.investopedia
.com/terms/g/government-bond.asp.
46 See, generally, Id.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 13 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 14 of 18
but addresses these major issues to highlight the grave misleading statements
made within the document at Docket 67, and the subsequent filings at Dockets 68
and 69.
a. 	The United States Constitution
The United States Constitution established the national, three-branch form
of 	government. 	The 	United 	States 	Constitution 	is 	the 	ultimate 	authority 	in
American law.47 	The federal government came into existence in 1779, after the
United States Constitution was ratified in 1778.48 	The United States Constitution
subsequently has been amended in accordance with Article V.49 	A “de jure
Constitution” does not exist.
b. 	Title 18 of the United States Code
Title 18 of the United States Code contains the federal criminal statutes and
do not provide private causes of actions to citizens, or support any of the assertions
made in this “notice.”
47 	Constitution 	of 	the 	United 	States: 	Primary 	Documents 	in 	American 	History,
Introduction, 	L IBRARY 	OF 	CONGRESS , 	(last 	accessed 	Jan. 	5, 	2020),
https://guides.loc.gov/constitution.
48 Id.
49 	National Archives, Constitutional Amendment Process, https://www.archives.gov/
federal-register/constitution (last accessed Dec. 30, 2020).
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 14 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 15 of 18
c. 	27 CFR § 72.11
27 CFR § 72.11 is a federal regulation promulgated by the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of the Treasury. 	This section
provides defines terms used in Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
regulations.50 It does not state or establish that all federal crimes are commercial
and therefore dischargeable under commercial law. 	Regulations promulgated by
federal agencies do not supersede laws passed by Congress and codified in the
United States Code.
d. 	The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a “comprehensive set of laws
governing all commercial transactions in the United States,” including the sales of
goods, negotiable instruments, and secured transactions.51 	The UCC “is not a
federal law, but a uniformly adopted state law.”52 	All 50 states have adopted a
version of the UCC in order to make commercial activities more predictable and
facilitate interstate commerce, though many states have adopted or executed
50 27 CFR § 72.11
51 	Uniform Commercial Code, Summary, UNIFORM LAW COMMISSION (last accessed
Jan. 5, 	2020), https://www.uniformlaws.org/acts/ucc; 	see 	also 	“Uniform 	Commercial
Code,” BLACK ’S LAW DICTIONARY , 11th Edition (2019).
52 Id.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 15 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 16 of 18
variations of the original legal scholarship.53 	The UCC in no way supersedes,
influences, alters, or subsumes the jurisdictional authority of Congress’s legislative
authority, the executive branch’s role of enforcement of those laws, or this Court’s
adjudicatory power.
III. 	Caution from the Court Re: The Sovereign Citizen Movement
Mr. Silver is currently serving a term of imprisonment for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2), Sexual Exploitation of a Child-Possession of Child
Pornography.54 	Upon release, Mr. Silver’s Conditions of Supervision will include
that he: “shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall
not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to
do so by the probation officer” in addition to “the defendant shall not commit
another federal, state or local crime.”55
The Sovereign Citizen movement has been flagged by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation as a domestic terrorist threat.56 	Though the movement is highly
individualized, and many members are law-abiding and non-violent, the core
53 U.C.C. § 1-103 (2001).
54 Docket 65.
55 Id. at 3.
56 	FBI Counterterrorism Analysis Section, Sovereign Citizens: 	A Growing Domestic
Threat to Law Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation (September 1, 2011),
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat
-to-law-enforcement.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 16 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 17 of 18
tenant is the same: “The Government operates outside of its jurisdiction. Because
of this belief, [Sovereign Citizens] do not recognize federal, state, or local laws,
policies, or regulations.”57 Due to this core rejection of the rule of law, “Sovereign
Citizens” and their associates are often encouraged to engage in legal infractions
ranging from false or obscured license plates to financial fraud, tax evasion,
weapons violations, and even killing law enforcement officers and civilians.58
Because Mr. Silver will be under the conditions of his supervised release in
the future, the Court cautions Mr. Silver to take heed as to his associations with
this movement. 	He may be knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraudulent
schemes, and/or associating with individuals who may be putting his own liberty at
risk through their own independent actions. 	The Court encourages Mr. Silver to
continue to be successful in his period of incarceration, on his re-entry back into
the community, and to be aware of his associations and engagement in this
movement, which may be detrimental to his freedom.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Court will take no further action regarding the documents at
Dockets 67, 68, and 69. 	They are not in the form of motions, and
moreover, are deemed legally frivolous as they are unsupported in
57 Id.
58 Id.
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 17 of 18

3:15-cr-00048-RRB, USA v. Silver.
Order Re: Notices
Page 18 of 18
relevant, applicable law. 	Because these documents attempt to use
the public record to support patently false claims of law and fact,
Dockets 67, 68, and 69 are hereby STRICKEN from the record in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 1.1(b)(9)(A).
2. 	Mr. Silver is discouraged from filing any similar notices and claims in
the future.
3. 	Mr. Silver is cautioned that the filings he has submitted to the Court
feature ideology recognizable 	as part of the “Sovereign Citizen”
movement. 	The Court further cautions 	Mr. Silver to thoroughly
consider his associations or actions taken as part of this movement,
as 	it 	may 	put 	him 	at 	risk 	of 	violating 	his 	future 	Conditions 	of
Supervision.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 5th day of January, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:15-cr-00048-RRB Document 70 Filed 01/06/21 Page 18 of 18