Riezinger et al v. Barr et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00127-TMB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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
1 Docket 1 at 1.
2 Id.
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Case 3:19-cv-00127-TMB Document 6 Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 5

3:19-cv-00127-TMB, Riezinger v. Barr, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 5
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
4 Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
5 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations
omitted).
6 K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We
‘presume[ ] that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing
the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at
377).
7 Docket 1 at 2; see also id. at 9-10 (“Notice that explicit provision has been made for this
action by the United States Congress which includes (1) ‘the sole remedy and relief’
provided by Title 50 Appendix 7(c) and (e) for ‘persons’; and (2) the June 18, 1934
Amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act waiving all normal statutes of limitation
with respect to claims against ‘war profits’, and (3) the 1934 Bankruptcy Act and (4) The
Bills of Lading Act … as originally enacted, and (5) the Suits in Admiralty Act … as
originally enacted, and (6) The Admiralty Extension Act … and (7) The Public Vessels Act
… as originally enacted, and (8) The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act … as originally
enacted, and (9) The False Claims Act … as originally enacted and (10) The Lanham Act
Case 3:19-cv-00127-TMB Document 6 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2 of 5

3:19-cv-00127-TMB, Riezinger v. Barr, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 5
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
… and (11) the Admiralty, Maritime, and Prize Cases … and (12) the Special Maritime
and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States … and (13) The Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act … as originally enacted, are indicative but not exhaustive recitations.”).
8 See id. at 9-10.
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,
526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“Subject-matter limitations on federal jurisdiction . . . keep the
federal courts within the bounds the Constitution and Congress have prescribed.
Accordingly, subject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own
initiative even at the highest level.”) (citing Rule 12(h)(3)) (additional citations omitted);
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995) (“The federal courts are under an
independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction[.]”) (citation omitted); Washington
Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] jurisdictional
defect . . . may be raised at any time during the proceedings, including on appeal.”)
(citations omitted).
10 Docket 1 at 4.
Case 3:19-cv-00127-TMB Document 6 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 5

3:19-cv-00127-TMB, Riezinger v. Barr, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 5
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,” including what
appear to be individual coats of arms for each of the declarants.16
“[A] complaint ... is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in 	fact.”17 	And 	“[f]actual 	frivolousness 	includes 	allegations 	that 	are 	clearly
11 Id.
12 Id. at 5-7.
13 Id. at 11-12.
14 Id. at 15.
15 Docket 1-1.
16 Docket 1-2.
17 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774,
775 (9th Cir. 1996); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Case 3:19-cv-00127-TMB Document 6 Filed 07/16/19 Page 4 of 5

3:19-cv-00127-TMB, Riezinger v. Barr, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 5
baseless, 	fanciful, 	fantastic, 	or 	delusional.”18 	Ms. 	Riezinger’s 	complaint, 	as
demonstrated by the examples provided above, is plainly frivolous.
Even “where the filing fee has been paid[,] [d]istrict courts have the authority
to dismiss complaints founded on ‘wholly fanciful’ factual allegations for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction” sua sponte.19 	Because Ms. Riezinger’s allegations in
this case are clearly frivolous, and they fail to indicate that this Court has any
jurisdiction over the matter,20 the case will be dismissed without leave to amend.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for lack of jurisdiction and as
frivolous.
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment accordingly.
DATED this 16th day of July, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
United States District Judge
18 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, supra).
19 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 & n. 6 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).
20 See, e.g. Salman v. State of Nevada Com’n on Judicial Discipline, 104 F.Supp.2d 1262,
1266 (D. Nev. 2000) (“Plaintiff's argument that the gold fringe around an American flag in
a 	courtroom 	designates 	admiralty 	jurisdiction 	is 	one 	of 	several 	wholly 	frivolous
arguments.”); Felix v. Arizona Dept. of Health Services, 606 F.Supp. 634, 636 (D. Ariz.
1985) (“The plaintiffs' contention that their complaint falls within the Court’s admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction is totally baseless. The plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to the
return of their original birth certificates held by the State of Arizona does not even arguably
have a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity, which relationship is the
touchstone in determining whether admiralty jurisdiction exists.”) (citation omitted).
Case 3:19-cv-00127-TMB Document 6 Filed 07/16/19 Page 5 of 5