State v. Evitt

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT
                         STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                      

State of North Dakota,                                                   Plaintiff

      v.

Dean RW Evitt, a/k/a RW Dean Evitt,                       Defendant and Appellant


                                     No. 20240077

Appeal from the District Court of Divide County, Northwest Judicial District, the
Honorable Robin A. Schmidt, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Dean RW Evitt, a/k/a RW Dean Evitt, self-represented, Tioga, ND, defendant and
appellant; submitted on brief.
                                       State v. Evitt
                                       No. 20240077

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Dean RW Evitt appeals from a criminal judgment for hunting without a license and
violating a proclamation issued by the governor. He raises various arguments premised on
a theory that he is a citizen of his own sovereign country. We affirm the judgment
concluding his arguments are without merit.

                                              I
[¶2] The State alleged Evitt illegally hunted ducks in violation of N.D.C.C. § 20.1-03-
03 (requiring a license to hunt) and N.D.C.C. § 20.1-08-01 (making violation of a
proclamation issued by the governor a class B misdemeanor). Evitt moved to dismiss
arguing, among other grounds, the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is
a “State National” of his own country. The court denied his motion, and the case proceeded
to a jury trial. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts. The court entered judgment,
and Evitt timely appealed. The State filed a brief that was rejected by the Clerk’s office for
failure to comply with the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. The State did not
refile a corrected brief.

                                              II
[¶3] Evitt argues he is a “living man,” who is “the Beneficiary and not the trustee” and a
“State National” in “his country, the Republic of North Dakota.” As such, he asserts the
district court lacked jurisdiction; the State could not serve him with any papers; the State
violated his inherent right to hunt for subsistence; he was denied his due process right to
be tried by a jury of his peers (other “State Nationals”); there was no victim in this case so
there can be no crime; and North Dakota “is not a constitutional state of the union.”

[¶4] The arguments Evitt advances are typical of those claiming to be “sovereign
citizens.” See United States v. Sterling, 

 (11th Cir. 2013) (describing the
beliefs of “sovereign citizens”). Generally speaking, adherents to this set of ideas attempt
to differentiate between “natural” and “artificial” persons, the latter supposedly being a
“legal fiction” created by an unwitting contract individuals have entered into with the
federal government by accepting benefits or otherwise consenting via official documents.
Caesar Kalinowski, A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, 

, 156-162 (2019). Adherents claim to have divested themselves of their “artificial”


                                              1
personhood. 

. Having done so, they contend they “can deny the court’s
jurisdiction over the physical person present.” 

 They also claim they can reclaim funds
being held by the federal government in secret trust accounts associated with their artificial
person. 

. The sovereign citizen defense “has no conceivable validity in American
law.” United States v. Schneider, 

 (7th Cir. 1990); see also United
States v. Benabe, 

 (7th Cir. 2011) (“These theories should be rejected
summarily, however they are presented.”); United States v. Garringer, No. 15-11349, 

, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016) (“Courts have summarily rejected their legal
theories as frivolous.”).

[¶5] Regardless of Evitt’s purported citizenship or nationality, hunting without a license
and violating a governor’s proclamation are crimes in North Dakota that the State has
authority to prosecute and the district courts have jurisdiction to redress. Under the
Constitution and laws of North Dakota, “the district courts have jurisdiction over all
criminal offenses committed within their respective judicial districts.” State v. Lee, 

, 

; N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8 (providing district courts with
“original jurisdiction of all causes, except as otherwise provided by law”); N.D.C.C. § 27-
05-06(1) (providing district courts with jurisdiction “within their respective judicial
districts for the redress of all wrongs committed against the laws of this state affecting
persons or property”). Ownership and title to wildlife located in North Dakota is vested in
the State. N.D.C.C. § 20.1-01-03. It is a crime to hunt wildlife in North Dakota without a
license or to violate a wildlife conservation proclamation. See N.D.C.C. §§ 20.1-03-03 and
20.1-08-01. State law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce North Dakota’s
wildlife conservations laws. N.D.C.C. § 20.1-01-04. These laws apply to Evitt as they
apply to others.

                                             III
[¶6]   The criminal judgment is affirmed.

[¶7]   Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
       Daniel J. Crothers
       Lisa Fair McEvers
       Jerod E. Tufte
       Douglas A. Bahr




                                              2