In a recent ruling, the court denied Karl P. Scheufler’s motion for a default judgment against David J. Mitchell and Vincent Blythe. Scheufler, who identified himself in sovereign citizen terms—highlighting trust and religious claims intertwined with legal rights—alleged that the defendants improperly claimed ownership and officer status in his company, Intelenet Communications, without legitimate contracts. This dispute followed prior state court litigation where Mitchell and Blythe argued they held shares and management roles, which Scheufler contested as fraudulent and religiously discriminatory.
Scheufler’s complaint was marked by extensive, complex, and sovereign citizen-style language, which included references to religious rights, DNA trust res, and U.S. criminal statutes that do not establish private rights of action. The court found that the complaint was insufficiently grounded in legal theory, lacked clear jurisdictional basis, and failed to establish that the defendants acted under the color of state law—a requirement for civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Additionally, the court noted that most claims cited criminal statutes inapplicable for private lawsuits.
Further, Scheufler’s allegations of cyber-attacks by Blythe under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) were noted but did not meet the necessary threshold for damages. The court also recognized potential defenses, such as statute of limitations issues and preclusion under doctrines like Rooker-Feldman and New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine.
Ultimately, the court denied the motion without prejudice, allowing Scheufler 30 days to amend his complaint if he could address the highlighted deficiencies. This case reflects the challenges courts face when dealing with filings influenced by sovereign citizen beliefs, which often invoke unconventional legal interpretations and complex, archaic language.