Frater I*I recently sent me a copy of Mike Parsons’ latest pro se lawsuit filed September 8, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division at Memphis. [Parsons doc 1 908 2020]
It is a lonely day for Michael Wayne Parsons when the only ones who take the time to read his dried up civil lawsuits are Frater I*I and Tracking the Leopard Meroz.
Rudy Davis’ prison ministry used to feature the jailhouse phone calls of Mike Parsons on his LoneStar 1776 YouTube channel, as a self-proclaimed “innocent”, (yet “guilty as hell”), American political prisoner.
Those were the good ol’ days, when Rudy Davis would rant against Robert Baty’s Facebook group, Kent Hovind’s Worst Nightmare!, calling us devils and hyenas from hell.
In recent months, the Bureau of Prisons has cut off Rudy Davis from communicating with certain inmates. However, he still continues to publish jailhouse phone calls from Mike Parsons’ wife, Pat, who was “sentenced to sixty months in federal prison for aiding and abetting solicitation to commit kidnapping”, as explained in this December 12, 2017, United States Attorney’s Office, Western District of Tennessee press release.
Mike Parsons has titled his latest complaint as, “By Special Appearance Only & By Right, Ambassador Mike Parsons-A Live Man Tsilhqot’in Nation, Country of Chilcotin All Rights Reserved vs. United States of America, Corporation, U. S. Department of Justice, Corporation, U. S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Corporation, Federal Correctional Institute in Memphis, Et Cetera, Et. al.”
As you can see in my title for this article, I have shortened this to All Rights Reserved vs. Et Cetera, which captures the essence of the Sovereign Citizen legal reasoning of the plaintiff.
Despite previous court rulings that overturned Parsons’ claim that he had diplomatic immunity on the basis of his fake ambassador credentials, he still demands to be referred to as Ambassador Mike Parsons-A Live Man, Tsilqot’in Nation, Country of Chilcotin.
Jurisdiction: The Absurd interpretation of Sovereign Citizen legal reasoning
According to an August 1, 2019, Montana Law Review article, A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, by Caesar Kalinowski IV, Sovereign Citizens maintain a distinction between the identification of what they call a “legally fictitious person” and that of a “natural person”.
On page 158, under Jurisdiction, the author says, “In short, Sovereign Citizens believe that the ‘U. S. citizen, is a legal fiction that has been created by the federal government, via the social security application, and is a corporate employee of the United States by virtue of being a U. S. citizen.’ This artificial person alone ‘is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and of the state government and subject to the corporate income tax.’ Accordingly, only by consenting to a Fourteenth Amendment-based federal citizenship is an individual governed by the United States Government. Additionally, if an individual ‘renounces’ his or her federal citizenship and divests the ‘legally fictitious person’ through a series of complex steps, then the government has no power over the ‘Natural Person’. ”
Michael Wayne Parsons has stated under oath that he is not a citizen of the United States of America. But proof that the government has power over his natural person is the simple fact that Parsons now lives in a federal penitentiary.
Michael Wayne Parsons insults his mother by claiming he is not the fictional person shown on his birth certificate
Parsons claims to be an ambassador for an (unrecognized) nation that he has never resided in. It appears the only time he ever desired to move to the Chilcotin nation was when he was fleeing the law in the United States.
According to his birth certificate, Michael Wayne Parsons was born in Memphis, Tennessee, on May 5, 1961, as noted on page 15 of Document 11-9 (2/11/2020) In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson re: State of Tennessee vs. Michael Wayne Parsons. As an aside, Document 11-9 is an interesting read for anyone who wants to see how the Court overturns sovereign citizen legal arguments.
The September 8, 2020, Injunction lawsuit, in Document 3, shows that the Court has shortened the title of Parson’s Injunction lawsuit to MIKE PARSONS a/k/a MICHAEL WAYNE PARSONS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. Document 3 directs the plaintiff “to comply with 28 U. S. C. §1915(A)(1)-(2) or pay the $400 civil filing fee”. In addition, the Court reminds the plaintiff of the stark reality of his identity and location by addressing him as “Mike Parsons, a/k/a/Michael Wayne Parsons, Bureau of Prisons register number 30237-047, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Memphis, Tennessee“. [Parsons doc 3 910 2020]
Why Parsons wants an immediate restraining order that circumvents notification to defendants and/or holding a hearing
Parsons explains the goal of his lawsuit, saying, “this emergency petition for a temporary restraining order and injunction baring the defendants, who’s[sic] employee includes Mr. Boykin from threatening or attempting to commit any act of injecting me with any vaccine or chemical or any other contraindicated form of test to prevent further injury to me is necessary. Failure to provide this relief for an immediate restraining order will result in irreparable injury and time simply does not permit notification to defendants and or holding a hearing. (Fed R. civil p.65).”
He adds, “Efforts seeking an administrative remedy have been delayed now for over a year and a review of write-up and responses to my grievances reveals application of policy that does not exist in an attempt to cover up the assault on me…”.
I have confidence that United States District Judge Mark S. Norris will properly address all of the issues which Michael Parsons lays out in his lawsuit.
The Backstory on why Michael Wayne Parsons is a Felon
Tracking the Leopard Meroz has at least 6 articles referencing Mike Parsons; four of those contain relevant legal documentation and commentary on sovereign citizen legal theories:
Going back 14 years, we see the beginning of Mike Parsons’ troubled interactions with government authorities. Parsons had been a candidate for the office of Tipton County Executive in the August 3, 2006, general election; but having lost, he filed a lawsuit on August 14, 2006, to contest the election results. This complaint was ultimately dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, among other things. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court decision, which Joseph H. Walker, as Chancellor in Tipton County, Tennessee had presided over.
For Parsons’ version of events, see his website, MikeParsons.org.
Years later, we see Judge Walker’s name reappear in the news, when Mike Parsons’ wife was arrested for conspiring with Suzanne Holland, a self-appointed Chief Justice of the Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilhqot’in Nation in Canada, for a kidnapping plot of that Tipton County judge, as well as a Nebraska sheriff.
About a year after the election dispute, an incident occurred on September 24, 2007, which set a bizarre series of events in motion. It began when some of Mike Parsons’ wolf-hybrids escaped, and Barry Laxton, who was mowing the neighboring property, responded by shooting one of the wolf-hybrids. This incident unfortunately escalated; consequently, a jury later convicted Parsons of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of burglary of a vehicle, and two counts of theft under $500. According to the Appeals court opinion for the State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Parsons, “the effective sentence was seven years on the felony convictions.”
On February 11, 2014, wreg.com published an article by Ashley Crockett, explaining that Mike Parsons had been arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm, after his property was searched due to a complaint by PETA for possible animal abuse. However, Parsons’ 70 wolf-hybrids, roosters, horses, rabbits, cats, turkeys, and chickens were found to be healthy, fed, and with adequate shelter. The downside for Mike Parsons was that investigators discovered a “Remington 700 .308 rifle with scope, a loaded Smith and Wesson 357 revolver, magazines for an AR-15, over 850 rounds of ammunition for various calibers of weapons including .22, .308 and 357 and a bayonet for an AR-15.” He claimed they belonged to his wife. (What housewife doesn’t keep a spare AR-15 bayonet in the kitchen knife drawer?)
In January of 2017, we read in a U. S. Court of Appeals Opinion on United States of America vs. Michael Wayne Parsons, that “Parsons absconded while on pretrial release awaiting trial on Tennessee charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm. A warrant was issued in Tennessee for his failure to appear. On January 11, 2017, Parsons piloted a small plane to the Arapahoe Airport located in Furnas County, Nebraska. It appears that Parsons was en route to the Tsilhqot’in Nation in Canada. On March 22, 2017, officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched the plane pursuant to a warrant and discovered an AR-15 style rifle, three fully loaded 30 round magazines and additional ammunition.”
In December of 2018, Michael Wayne Parsons, age 57, was sentenced to 84 months in prison, for being a felon in possession of a firearm, to be followed by three years of supervised release.
So now, both Michael Wayne Parsons and his wife, Pat, sit incarcerated in federal prison cells, when once they enjoyed freedom on a lovely Tennessee farm with numerous animals. Both are professionals and able to provide for a comfortable life. All that was destroyed by the hubris of Parsons, who thought that by a strange form of legal magic, the U. S. government cannot claim jurisdiction over him.
Discipline Hearing Officer Report- U. S. Department of Justice-Federal Bureau of Prisons
Michael Parsons filed Document 1-2 ( pages 5-7) in his Injunction lawsuit, displaying a three page Discipline Hearing Officer Report for an incident on August 20, 2019, involving Parsons’ refusal to provide a DNA sample, and refusing an Order. The Hearing was held on January 16, 2020, via video conference. [With regard to “refusing an order from staff”, “The DHO determined Section 11 of the incident report does not support Code 307, Refusing An Order, and has both expunged and removed it from the Summary of Charges”.]
Under Section VI. Sanction or Action Taken, six actions were taken in response to the refusal of Parsons to provide a DNA sample.
It is logical that there can be no exceptions to the DNA sample rule in a prison environment, because to do so would create discontent among other prisoners that might endanger the staff and other inmates.[Bureau of Prisons DNA procedures]
FraterI*I has uploaded several Parsons’ court audios; in one, the Judge orders Parsons to submit to a DNA sample procedure
For those who have not heard Michael Parsons’ spoken testimony in a court room, I recommend listening to the court audios uploaded on the FraterI*I Youtube channel.
By way of illustration, here is a short audio (19.35 minutes) of a Parsons’ court hearing on December 18, 2017, and, uploaded April 8, 2018, on the Frater I*I YouTube channel titled, Michael W. Parsons, SovCit of the Pop-A-Squat nation in court, pt 1.
A short excerpt of the audio court hearing on December 17, 2018
The Judge begins this Hearing, saying, “We’re on the record. We’re on the record in case number 4:17 CR 3038, United States of America vs. Michael Wayne Parsons. Counsel, please enter your appearance.”
Counsel: Good afternoon Your Honor, Jan Sharp, Assistant United States Attorney, appearing on behalf of the United States.
And John Vanderslice, on behalf of Mr. Parsons.
Court: Are you Michael Wayne Parsons?
Michael Wayne Parsons: Are we on the record?
Court: Yes we are.
Parsons: Good morning, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Let the record show that I was just brought in here by force, against my will, and officer directly behind me assaulted me, threw me to the ground, drugged me in here. I’ve got broken ribs, broken arm, multiple injuries from previous assaults, and I just sustained another one by this gentleman behind me. I want that to be on the record, first of all. Also the, the fictitious person in the birth certificate have been surrendered to the court.
Court: Please stay seated. You must stay seated.
Parsons: Birth certificate there. Let the record show that by special appearance Ambassador Parsons of the Chilcotin nation, country of the Chilcotin, the beneficiary, I’m here and I reserve all of my rights without prejudice UCC 1-308 the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations and the Montevideo convention having already surrendered the fictitious person and birth certificate into the well of this Court. This court lacks jurisdiction and I have no business with this court. Am I free to go?
Parsons: I will instruct you as the Trustee to dispose of the charge, pay off any debts, and compensate me for the damages.
Court: Are you Michael Wayne Parsons?
Parsons: I am NOT the fictitious person that you seek. You’re seeking, according to this affidavit, a corporate entity, Michael Wayne Parsons. I am NOT that person. I’m not the fiduciary, surety, or trustee for that corporate entity or trust.
Parsons: I’m a live man. This Court is not an Article 3 court. As an ambassador of another country according to the Constitution, Article 3 section 2, all matters pertaining to ambassadors, the original jurisdiction and sole jurisdiction is with the article 3 section 2 Supreme Court. This is not that. This court lacks jurisdiction.
Court: All right. Are you saying you are not Michael Wayne Parsons?
Parsons: I am not the person in the indictment. That is a fictitious person.
Court: What is your name? what is your name?
Parsons: I am Ambassador Parsons of the Chilcotin nation, country of the Chilcotin. I am not the person, the fictitious person that is in this indictment. That is not me..
Court: All right, now ambassador Parsons what is your first name?
Parsons: I’m referred to as Ambassador Parsons for the record.
Court: All right.
Parsons: I do not consent to this forum. I do not, I do not understand this forum. This gentleman just approached me in moments earlier and I tried to ask questions. He could not answer any of the questions.
Court: All right. What I’m going to do is first of all, we’ll have to have an identity hearing. And interestingly, my understanding is that you have refused to be processed by the marshals which would include your DNA, and your fingerprints. You are hereby ordered to submit to processing by the marshals. They will go ahead and do that even if it’s necessary to do it involuntarily.
Parsons: I would like to be heard on that matter. I don’t consent to that under the United States Supreme Court ruling under title 42 2000 BB, the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, it is against my religious objections. I do not do TB shots or I do not do any unknown foreign substances into my body and they’re trying to force a TB test upon me as a violation of United States Code and Supreme Court rulings that say that if I’m not symptomatic, they can’t force me against my will. I’ve never done TB tests. I don’t consent to those now. It is against my rights as a human being given to me by my Creator not to give up my DNA which is in violation of the fifth amendment also, and it’s in violation of the Universal Supreme Court Act of the Chilcotin nation. I am not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court does not have jurisdiction over me.
Court: The Court does have jurisdiction over you. You are hereby ordered and the marshals are hereby ordered to process you, which would include the DNA and would include the fingerprinting and any other matters and photographing, I assume.
Parsons: I do not consent to this.
Court: It doesn’t make any difference.
Parsons: I do not consent to this offer. I do not accept your offer.
Court: It is not an offer. It’s an Order.
Parsons: An Order is an offer….
Document 3 for Parsons’ latest lawsuit is stated as an ORDER to pay the civil filing fee or fill out an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Judge, in footnote 2, noted that “Even a voluntary dismissal by Plaintiff will not eliminate the obligation to pay the filing fee.”
We await the outcome of whether Document 3 will be viewed as an Order or as an Offer in the lawsuit I have termed, All Rights Reserved vs. Et Cetera.