USA v. Grabber

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ERIC DONALD GRABBER,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:13-cr-00002-RRB
ORDER RE: NOTICE AT DOCKET 120
On October 18, 2022, Mr. Grabber filed a set of documents in a criminal
case. 	A copy of these documents was mailed to the Court’s chambers. 	The
above-captioned case is a long-closed criminal action. 	The Court discharged
Mr. Grabber from Supervised Release on September 1, 2021.1
At Docket 120, Mr. Grabber submits (1) a notice addressed to the Court and
to the Clerk of Court; (2) Standard Forms 28, 24, 25, and 25A from the General
Services Administration of the U.S. Government; (3) Optional Form 91 from the
General Services Administration of the U.S. Government; (4) Form 1040-V from
the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S. Department of Treasury; (5) a “certificate”
that appears to be a falsely created document purported to be from the U.S.
Department of State and signed by Former Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo;
(6) a “certificate of office” allegedly from the State of Indiana that likely also has
1 Docket 119.
Case 4:13-cr-00002-RRB Document 121 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 4

4:13-cr-00002-RRB, USA v. Grabber.
Order Re: Notice at Docket 120.
Page 2 of 4
fraudulent signatures of state government officials; and (7) a color copy of
Mr. Grabber’s birth certificate.2 The “Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal[,]
Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent” alleges that the U.S. District Court
for the District Court of Alaska “sold bond and/or securities” with Mr. Grabber’s
legal name and social security number. 	The notice alleges the bonds “authorize
[the Court] to 	order the 	release 	of the 	defendant/surety from prison and/or
conditions of release.”3 	Further, the letter appears to conflate standard financial
terms, federal criminal procedure, and principles of contract and property law into
either a demand letter or purported “Private Settlement Agreement Judgment.”4
While most of this notice is largely incomprehensible, either legally or in
general written form, the following “relief” is demanded: 	“1) RECALL all the
bonds/securities which were previously sold in my name and social security
number, and refund these monies to me; 2) Obtain your funding through the bonds
enclosed; 3) Send a statement of account showing a zero (0) balance, and check
for all bond monies previously received on this account, to the above mail location;
4) Release the defendant/surety from confinement and all conditions of supervised
2 Docket 120
3 Docket 120 at 1.
4 See Docket 120 at 2.
Case 4:13-cr-00002-RRB Document 121 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 4

4:13-cr-00002-RRB, USA v. Grabber.
Order Re: Notice at Docket 120.
Page 3 of 4
release, immediately.”5 	The notice also portends that “default” will constitute a
“confession to securities fraud, tax fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and false
imprisonment” and a fee of $50,000,000.00.6
This is the third “notice” using Sovereign Citizen theories delivered to the
Court. 	In the Court’s prior Order at Docket 113, the Court explained in detail to
Mr. Grabber how the functions of these theories were falsely premised on ill-
conceived constructions of inapplicable law or falsehoods of government actions,
financial products, or what types of relief may be available from a federal district
court. With this notice, the Court finds this to be a new or reconstituted form of the
Redemption Scheme, previously explained at Docket 113.
This is a closed criminal action. 	Mr. Grabber is neither subject to physical
confinement with the Bureau of Prisons, nor Supervised Release.7 As Mr. Grabber
no longer remains under the custodial jurisdiction of this Court, the Court declines
to address this newly presented form of the Redemption Scheme.8 	Mr. Grabber
may reference the Court’s Order at Docket at 113 for more information.
5 Docket 120 at 3.
6 Docket 120 at 4.
7 Docket 118.
8 Caesar Kalinowski IV, A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, 80 Mont. L.
Rev. 153, 165 (2019).
Case 4:13-cr-00002-RRB Document 121 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 4

4:13-cr-00002-RRB, USA v. Grabber.
Order Re: Notice at Docket 120.
Page 4 of 4
For clarity, a federal district court only has the jurisdiction and powers
bestowed to it by the U.S. Constitution and Congress.9 	A federal district court
cannot issue financial bonds or other financial instruments. No financial accounts
in Mr. Grabber’s name or his social security number exist within the control of the
Court. 	Lastly, the Court cannot release him from confinement or supervised
release, because he is not subject to either of these liberty restrictions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. No further action will be taken to the “Notice” at Docket 120.
2. This criminal case is closed. The Court will not accept further filings from
Mr. Grabber as a self-represented defendant in the above-captioned
case. 	Additionally, 	mailings 	to 	chambers 	constitute 	inappropriate
correspondence and will not be given a response.
3. The Court continues to caution Mr. Grabber as to the “Sovereign Citizen”
movement which has been largely rejected through the country.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 24th day of October, 2022.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
9 U.S. Const. Art. III.
Case 4:13-cr-00002-RRB Document 121 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 4