A recent Ninth Circuit decision has once again reinforced the judicial system’s intolerance for sovereign citizen arguments. In Lopez v. Ramsey et al., Case No. 24-6946, a self-proclaimed “stateless person” attempted to overturn his criminal conviction and evade restitution payments by arguing that the federal government lacked jurisdiction over him. His legal theories, combined with a staggering $3 billion damages demand, failed —leading to a swift dismissal by both the district court and the appellate court.
At the heart of this case was Stephen Bernard Lopez, an individual convicted of fraud who previously pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud in United States v. Lopez, Case No. 13-cr-00183-JSW. According to the 2013 federal indictment, Lopez defrauded multiple investors by soliciting loans under false pretenses. He claimed that Lighthorse had ownership in valuable business entities and used overvalued or entirely fabricated assets to lure investors into providing funds. Lopez made false promises of repayment, leading investors to believe their money was secure when, in reality, it was being misused.
The 2014 superseding indictment added charges of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, alleging that Lopez created forged promissory notes and attempted to pressure a witness—identified as “JB.O.”—to sign a false affidavit. Prosecutors argued that this was part of a broader scheme to cover up his financial crimes and mislead the court.
He had been sentenced to 24 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay $1.3 million in restitution to his victims. Instead of complying with the court’s orders, Lopez embarked on a years-long campaign of legal obstruction. By 2021, federal authorities discovered that he had inherited $1.6 million and failed to report or use any of it to pay restitution. The U.S. government initiated enforcement actions, including requesting an accounting of his funds and seeking a writ of execution to recover money owed to victims.
In Lopez’s latest complaint, he identified himself as a “living flesh and blood man” and a “transient foreigner without legal domicile,” insisting that he was “outside any/all jurisdiction of the federal government.” He argued that because he did not consent to being governed, the court lacked authority to prosecute him in the first place. In his lawsuit, he sought not only to vacate his conviction but also to have all restitution nullified and his property returned—on top of demanding $3 billion in damages.
His allegations went beyond challenging jurisdiction. He claimed that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White had conspired with federal prosecutors to violate his due process rights. He also insisted that his debts had been “discharged” because he had provided the court with so-called “bonds” from a U.K.-based entity called Global Solutions Limited Company, supposedly controlled by an individual named “Sir Gary Lee Defluiter.” This scheme is popular among sovereign citizen adherents and relies on the debunked belief that secret government accounts exist to cover personal debts. Courts have consistently rejected such theories as fraudulent and legally meaningless.
Unsurprisingly, the district court dismissed Lopez’s lawsuit, citing judicial immunity for Judge White and prosecutorial immunity for the government attorneys involved. The court also ruled that Lopez’s sovereign citizen claims were wholly frivolous, noting that courts have consistently rejected such arguments as baseless nonsense. The Ninth Circuit agreed, upholding the dismissal and denying Lopez any opportunity to amend his complaint. The court referred to past rulings, including United States v. Studley in which the Ninth Circuit rejected similar sovereign citizen arguments as “patently frivolous.”
This case serves as yet another example of how sovereign citizen rhetoric may sound compelling to its followers but holds no weight in actual courtrooms. Judges across the country have repeatedly dismissed claims like Lopez’s, recognizing them for what they are: a desperate attempt to escape legal responsibility through pseudo-legal gibberish.
Citation: Lopez v. Ramsey et al., No. 24-6946, (9th Cir. 2025).