In the case of United States v. Ryan Gregory Bracken, the defendant faced multiple charges, including five counts of stalking and one count of interstate communication of threats, as outlined in a six-count superseding indictment filed on August 21, 2024. Bracken, who has represented himself sui juris, a term he prefers over pro se, filed several pretrial motions, most of which reflect arguments commonly associated with the sovereign citizen movement.
Bracken’s motions included attempts to dismiss his charges and claims that the proceedings were a “sham” conducted under “color of law.” These arguments heavily relied on sovereign citizen beliefs, such as demands for the court and the prosecution to produce records like a recorded oath of office, FinCEN documents, and even the judge’s 1099 tax form. Bracken argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, making a series of irrelevant demands, such as requesting proof of his citizenship, IRS records, and even information about the court’s supposed DUN & Bradstreet number.
The court dismissed these claims as frivolous and irrelevant to the charges Bracken faced. The judge emphasized that such arguments were without merit and had no bearing on the criminal proceedings. Similar to previous motions filed by Bracken, these arguments were based on misunderstandings of legal principles often propagated by sovereign citizens.
Bracken also attempted to limit the terminology used in court, seeking to prohibit terms such as “sovereign citizen,” “person,” “Mr.,” and “human” during the trial. He argued that these terms did not apply to him and requested that the court and the government respect his preferences. While the court acknowledged Bracken’s request to be addressed by his surname without the title “Mr.,” it declined to impose his other linguistic preferences on the legal proceedings.
Bracken’s defense is rooted in sovereign citizen ideology. He claimed that his statements, which led to his charges, were protected speech. However, the court pointed out that true threats of violence are not protected by the Constitution and that the jury would ultimately decide whether Bracken’s speech crossed the line into unprotected threats.
Thus far, the court methodically rejected Bracken’s sovereign citizen claims while ensuring that his procedural rights, including discovery and defense preparation, were upheld. The trial was set to proceed, with the court denying most of Bracken’s pretrial motions.