A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving what appears to be a sovereign citizen — the plaintiff sought pure gold as payment for any violation — ruling that the plaintiff’s “subjective ignorance” of the debt is not an indication that the defendant did anything wrong.
The background: The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant seeking payment of $512.54 on an account he claimed to know nothing about. Instead of disputing the debt in the usual way, the plaintiff sent a series of unusual documents: a “cease and desist order,” a “no contact contract,” and a “request for validation” demanding payment of 100 ounces of pure gold for every alleged violation.
- Each document was signed only by the plaintiff and included language asserting ownership over his name as a form of “copyrighted property.”
- After the defendant apparently stopped contacting him, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the FDCPA, copyright infringement, breach of contract, and identity fraud under Maryland law. He claimed the defendant’s letter harmed his credit score and caused emotional distress, seeking over $4,500 in damages.
The ruling: Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the case in its entirety, calling the plaintiff’s claims implausible. The court first ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege the debt was a “consumer debt,” which is required under the FDCPA, and provided no facts suggesting that the defendant engaged in deceptive or unlawful behavior.
- As the opinion noted, the plaintiff’s “subjective ignorance of the debt is not a basis from which the Court can plausibly infer that the defendants engaged in ‘fraudulent’ behavior.”
- Judge Boardman also rejected the plaintiff’s copyright claim, explaining that “a person’s name is not subject to copyright protection,” and noted that the “sovereign citizen” theory underlying the argument “has been widely rejected” by federal courts.
- The breach of contract claim failed because the supposed “contract” was signed only by the plaintiff, not the defendant, and the identity fraud claim was dismissed with prejudice because Maryland’s criminal statute does not create a private right of action.
