The case of United States v. Scott Lee Huss (1:25-cr-20087, S.D. Fla., decided April 28, 2025, with further motions on June 11, 2025) provides a real-world example of sovereign citizen arguments clashing with federal prosecution. Scott Lee Huss was indicted on February 27, 2025, for ten counts, including:
- Six counts of wire fraud: Allegedly submitting fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief loans (EIDL and PPP) from July 2020 to March 2021, misrepresenting revenue and employees for four companies (Leadecom LLC, Apex Marketing Inc., Supremo Sociedad Anonima, LLC, and Temple of the Tao, Inc.).
- Two counts of mail fraud: Mailing fictitious checks ($120,000 and $190,564) in 2023 to service luxury car loans (a Lamborghini Urus and a Maybach).
- One count of money laundering: Transferring $15,000 of criminally derived funds between company accounts.
- One count of impersonating a foreign diplomat: Aiding his romantic partner, C.M., in claiming diplomatic immunity during a traffic stop involving fake diplomatic plates.
On April 14, 2025, a pretrial detention hearing resulted in Huss’s detention, as the court found him a serious flight risk and a threat to obstruct justice. Evidence included:
-
- Flight Risk: Huss evaded arrest by traveling to Dallas under a false name, spent time in Dubai (a non-extradition country), and possessed multiple international passports. He falsely claimed non-U.S. citizenship, contradicted by records.
- Obstruction: Huss made improper contacts with prosecutors, marshals, and judges, attempting to unseal case documents, suggesting a belief that U.S. laws do not apply to him.
- The court noted his extravagant lifestyle, ambiguous financial status, and weak local ties, concluding no conditions could ensure his appearance or prevent interference.
On June 11, 2025, the Government filed a motion in limine to streamline the trial by excluding Huss’s sovereign citizen theories, among other requests. The motion argued:
- Exclude Sovereign Citizen Theories: Huss’s claims of being a “third party intervenor,” “Scott the Subrogee,” or operating under admiralty/common law jurisdiction are irrelevant to the charges (wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and impersonation). These arguments risk confusing the jury about who is on trial and could improperly suggest mental health issues, absent any diagnosis. The motion cites United States v. Anderson to argue that legally insufficient defenses should not burden juries.
- Exclude Other Companies’ Finances: Evidence about Huss’s other companies (e.g., IGenius, IFunded) is irrelevant, as the charges focus on four specific companies’ fraudulent claims.
- Require Question-and-Answer Testimony: If Huss testifies pro se, he must use a question-and-answer format to allow objections to irrelevant or prejudicial statements, per Federal Rule of Evidence 611 and cases like United States v. William Gross.
- Prohibit Sentencing Arguments: Huss should not mention potential penalties, as this could appeal to jury sympathy, violating Eleventh Circuit jury instructions.
The case of United States v. Scott Lee Huss illustrates the tension between sovereign citizen tactics and the federal legal system. For those considering sovereign citizen strategies, this case serves as a cautionary tale: while the ideology may appeal to those distrustful of government, its legal efficacy remains unproven, often leading to severe consequences.