Can a Minnesota sheriff serve documents purporting to be issued by a 'common law court' or 'superior county court of the Minnesota state Republic' that is not established by the Minnesota or U.S. Constitution?

Plain-English summary

The Todd County Sheriff served on Todd County Attorney Charles Rasmussen a packet of documents purporting to give notice of proceedings in a "superior county court" of the "Minnesota state Republic" and a federal district court with "Common Law venue." The documents bore captions like "country of Minnesota" and were styled as a "Motion to Show Cause," an "Affidavit of Fact," and "Non-Statutory Abatement." Rasmussen was concerned that the sheriff's office was being used to serve documents that were not actually legitimate court process. He asked AG Humphrey whether the sheriff was authorized to perform such service.

Assistant AG Peter Ackerberg, signing for AG Humphrey, said no.

The reasoning was simple and definitive.

Section 387.03 requires lawful authority. Minn. Stat. § 387.03 requires a sheriff to "execute all processes, writs, precepts, and orders issued or made by lawful authority and to the sheriff delivered." Two limits in the statute matter here: (1) it covers processes, writs, precepts, and orders (not arbitrary documents); and (2) the documents must come from "lawful authority."

Common-law courts have no lawful authority. Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution vests "the judicial power of the state" in a supreme court, a court of appeals if established by the legislature, a district court, and such other courts as the legislature may establish. No "superior county court" or court with "common law venue" is established by the Constitution or by statute. Article III of the U.S. Constitution vests federal judicial power in the U.S. Supreme Court and any inferior federal courts Congress may establish. Congress has not established a federal "common law court." Federal and state courts uniformly treat purported common-law courts as legal nullities: United States v. Morse (8th Cir. 1994) (unpublished slip op.) ("bogus"), United States v. Greenstreet (N.D. Tex. 1996) ("mythical"), Kaltenbach v. Marchive (La. Ct. App. 1994) (not a judgment of any state, federal or foreign court), Scotka v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 1993) (attempt to "usurp judicial authority").

So a common-law court is not "lawful authority" within § 387.03, and the sheriff is not required (or even authorized) to deliver documents purporting to come from one.

The public-purpose problem. Using sheriff resources to serve illegitimate documents also runs into Minn. Const. art. X, § 1: taxes are levied for public purposes only. City of Pipestone v. Madsen (Minn. 1970) construed "public purpose" to mean "activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government." Serving documents from non-existent courts serves no public purpose; it is not directly related to a government function.

One footnote caveat. The opinion noted in a footnote that some such documents may fall within Minn. Stat. § 609.51 (1994), which imposes a misdemeanor penalty on a person who "[s]ends or delivers to another any document which simulates a summons, complaint, or court process with intent thereby to induce payment of a claim." The AG expressed no opinion on whether the particular Todd County documents violated § 609.51, but the existence of that criminal statute reinforces the seriousness of the practice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The sheriff service-of-process statute (Minn. Stat. § 387.03) and the false-process criminal statute (§ 609.51) have been amended since 1996, but the constitutional anchors (Minn. Const. art. VI; U.S. Const. art. III) and the unbroken line of cases rejecting common-law-court legitimacy remain robust. The sovereign citizen movement has continued to use similar tactics, and law-enforcement guidance often references this 1996 opinion or its equivalents.

Historical context: what the AG concluded

The opinion is one of several Minnesota and federal authorities addressing the sovereign citizen / common-law court phenomenon. The reasoning has three parts that together close every avenue by which a sheriff might be obligated to serve such filings.

Source of judicial power is constitutional. Both the Minnesota and federal constitutions enumerate the courts that exist. The Minnesota Constitution names the Supreme Court and the district courts; the legislature is authorized to establish the Court of Appeals and other courts. No constitutional or statutory provision authorizes a "superior county court of the Minnesota state Republic" or a federal "Common Law Court." Courts that are not constitutionally or statutorily created have no legitimate judicial authority.

Sheriff's duty under § 387.03 is conditioned on lawful authority. The statute is not a general "serve any document presented" obligation. It says the sheriff executes processes "issued or made by lawful authority and to the sheriff delivered." Both conditions matter. The "lawful authority" condition is the gatekeeper. If the issuer of a document is not a lawful authority, the sheriff has no duty (and no permission) to serve it.

Public-purpose constraint on resource use. Even if a sheriff were not strictly forbidden by § 387.03 from serving the document, the use of public resources to do so would violate the public-purpose requirement of Minn. Const. art. X, § 1. The Pipestone v. Madsen formulation requires a benefit to the community linked to a government function. Serving illegitimate documents fails both prongs: it does not benefit the community, and it is not connected to any government function (because the issuing "court" is itself not a government function).

Federal precedent. The 1996 cases cited (Morse, Greenstreet, Kaltenbach, Scotka) reflect the consistent treatment of common-law courts by every court that has considered them. The unpublished 8th Circuit slip opinion in Morse rejected a defendant's argument that purported transfer of his case to a "common law court" justified his failure to surrender for sentencing. Greenstreet called the "Common Law Court" for the Republic of Texas "mythical." Kaltenbach refused to recognize a purported "United States Common Law Court" judgment. Scotka called such filings an attempt to usurp judicial authority.

The criminal-statute backstop. The footnote citing Minn. Stat. § 609.51 highlights that filing fake court process with intent to induce payment of a claim is itself criminal. The AG opinion deals with the sheriff's role; § 609.51 deals with the filer's conduct. Together they create a framework where sheriffs refuse to serve and prosecutors can pursue the filers.

Practical effect. A sheriff receiving documents from a purported "common law court" or "superior county court of the state Republic" should refuse to serve them. The sheriff can document the receipt, return the documents to the filer or retain them for evidentiary purposes, and refer the matter to the county attorney for assessment under § 609.51 if the documents appear designed to coerce payment or compliance.

Common questions

Q: I'm a county sheriff. Someone brought me documents from a "common law grand jury." Can I just refuse to serve them?
A: Under the 1996 opinion, yes. Minn. Stat. § 387.03 only obligates the sheriff to serve process issued by lawful authority. A "common law grand jury" is not a lawful authority. Refusing service is the correct response. Document the encounter and refer to the county attorney if needed.

Q: What if the document is styled as something that looks legitimate, like a "summons" or "subpoena"?
A: The substance controls, not the label. If the issuing body is not a constitutionally or statutorily established court, the document is not lawful process regardless of how it is captioned. Look at the issuer, not the title of the document.

Q: Can the sheriff face civil liability for refusing to serve a document from a "common law court"?
A: The 1996 opinion treats refusal as required (not optional), and federal/state courts have been unanimous in dismissing claims based on common-law-court process. A sheriff who refuses service consistent with this opinion is performing the statutory duty correctly.

Q: What about Minn. Stat. § 609.51 — when is filing a fake document a crime?
A: Section 609.51 imposes misdemeanor liability on a person who sends or delivers a document that "simulates a summons, complaint, or court process with intent thereby to induce payment of a claim." If the documents appear designed to extract money or property compliance, § 609.51 likely applies. The AG opinion did not opine on the specific Todd County documents.

Q: I received a "common law court" filing addressed to me as a private citizen. Should I respond?
A: AG opinions deal with sheriff conduct, not citizen conduct. Consult a private attorney. As a general matter, courts treat common-law court filings as legal nullities, but ignoring the filing without legal advice is not always the right approach when the documents may also be referenced in real litigation or used to harass you.

Background and statutory framework

The Minnesota and federal constitutions create the framework of legitimate courts. Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution: judicial power in the supreme court, court of appeals (when established), district court, and other courts the legislature creates. Article III of the U.S. Constitution: judicial power in the supreme court and inferior federal courts Congress establishes. There is no constitutional or statutory authority for "common law courts" or "courts of the state Republic" or similar bodies.

Sheriffs are constitutional county officers in Minnesota, with statutory duties defined principally in Minn. Stat. ch. 387. Section 387.03 enumerates the sheriff's process duties. The "lawful authority" limitation is express and dispositive.

The sovereign citizen and common-law court movement emerged in the 1970s and 1980s and gained visibility in the 1990s. Common tactics included filing liens against public officials, issuing fake court orders, and presenting documents to sheriffs for service. Law enforcement responses have evolved over time; the 1996 AG opinion was one of many such guidance documents issued by state AGs across the country during that period. The unanimous judicial response has been to reject the movement's legal theories.

Minn. Stat. § 609.51, the false-process crime, is one of several statutes used to prosecute people who file or serve fake court documents. Other tools include criminal contempt, harassment statutes, and federal anti-paper-terrorism statutes.

Hubert H. Humphrey III was Minnesota AG from 1983 through January 1999. Peter M. Ackerberg signed as Assistant AG. The opinion bore the file note PMA:fq.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:
- Minn. Const. art. VI, § 1 (state judicial power)
- Minn. Const. art. X, § 1 (taxes levied for public purposes)
- U.S. Const. art. III, § 1 (federal judicial power)

Statutes:
- Minn. Stat. § 387.03 (1994) (sheriff service-of-process duties)
- Minn. Stat. § 550.136, subd. 9 (earnings disclosure form service)
- Minn. Stat. § 550.143, subd. 2 (1994) (execution disclosure form service)
- Minn. Stat. § 609.51 (1994) (simulating court process; misdemeanor)

Cases:
- City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn. 357, 178 N.W.2d 594 (1970) (public purpose doctrine)
- United States v. Morse, No. 93-3548 (8th Cir. Apr. 12, 1994) (unpublished) (common-law court "bogus")
- United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996) ("mythical common law court")
- Kaltenbach v. Marchive, 635 So.2d 701 (La. Ct. App. 1994) (common-law judgment not recognized)
- Scotka v. State, 856 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993) (attempt to usurp judicial authority)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/390a21-19961105.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

SHERIFFS: SERVICE OF PROCESS: Sheriff is not authorized to serve documents pertaining to proceedings in purported "courts" not established by law. Minn. Const. art. VI § 1; Minn. Stat. § 387.03 (1994).

390a-21
November 5, 1996

Charles G. Rasmussen
Todd County Attorney
Todd County Courthouse
Long Prairie, MN 56347

Dear Mr. Rasmussen:

In your memorandum to Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III, you present substantially the following:

FACTS

The Todd County Sheriff "served" on you documents that purport to notify you of proceedings in a "superior county court" of the "Minnesota state Republic" and/or a federal district court with "Common Law venue." [Footnote 1: The punctuation appearing in the original documents is followed here. Copies of relevant portions of the documents are attached to this opinion.] One of the documents bears a "Common Law Case" number and includes "country of Minnesota" in its caption. The documents purport to be a "Motion to Show Cause," an "Affidavit of Fact," and "Non-Statutory Abatement." You express concern that the resources of the Sheriff's Office are improperly used for unauthorized purposes when "serving" these and similar documents.

You ask substantially the following question:

QUESTION

Is a Sheriff authorized to "serve" documents that purport on their face to give notice of proceedings in "courts" that are not established by law?

OPINION

We answer this question in the negative.

A sheriff is required to "execute all processes, writs, precepts, and orders issued or made by lawful authority and to the sheriff delivered ...." Minn. Stat. § 387.03 (1994). I am not aware of any statutory or case law authority providing for service of motions, affidavits or "Non-Statutory Abatement" by the sheriff. [Footnote 2: The sheriff is required to serve specific documents, not relevant here, that contain an "affirmation." See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 550.136, subd. 9 (service of earnings disclosure form containing affirmation) and 550.143, subd. 2 (1994) (service of execution disclosure form containing affirmation). The phrase "non-statutory abatement" does not appear in any Minnesota statute or reported court decision.] Furthermore, the documents enclosed with your letter cannot be said to be issued by "lawful authority."

"Common law" courts lack lawful authority. The only state judicial authority in Minnesota is the authority vested in courts by Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution. Article VI vests the state's judicial power in a supreme court, a court of appeals if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts that may be established by the legislature. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 1. There is no provision for a "superior county court" with "common law venue" in the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Legislature has not created a "common law" court. Furthermore, the only recognized federal judicial authority is the judicial power created by Article III of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in a supreme court and any inferior courts Congress may establish. There is no federal "common law court" created by the United States Constitution or by Congress.

Thus, a purported "Common Law Court of the United States of America" has been characterized as "bogus." See United States v. Morse, No. 93-3548, unpublished slip op. at 1 (8th Cir., Apr. 12, 1994) (rejecting argument that failure to surrender to serve sentence was justified by defendant's purported transfer of case to common law court). See also United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224, 229 (N.D. Tex. 1996) ("mythical common law court" purporting to be "Common Law Court" for the Republic of Texas "does not exist"); Kaltenbach v. Marchive, 635 So.2d 701 (La. Ct. App. 1994) (purported judgment of "United States Common Law Court of the United States of America" not a judgment of any state, federal or foreign court); Scotka v. State, 856 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993) (characterizing "Common Law Court of the United States of America Default Judgment" as "attempt[] to usurp judicial authority").

A "common-law court" is not a "lawful authority" under section 387.03 and, therefore, the sheriff is not required to deliver documents purporting to be issued by it. [Footnote 3: There may be circumstances when documents similar to those delivered to you fall within Minn. Stat. § 609.51 (1994), which imposes a misdemeanor penalty on any person who "[s]ends or delivers to another any document which simulates a summons, complaint, or court process with intent thereby to induce payment of a claim ...." We express no opinion regarding the application of section 609.51 to the particular documents delivered to you.]

Furthermore, the sheriff's delivery of such documents violates the requirement of Minn. Const. art. X, § 1 that taxes be "levied and collected for public purposes." This provision means that "public funds derived from taxation may be spent only for a public purpose ...." City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn. 357, 364, 178 N.W.2d 594, 598 (1970). "Public purpose" is generally construed to mean "activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government." Id. (citation omitted). The so-called common law courts serve no duly authorized public purpose and are not directly related to a government function. Therefore, public funds may not be used to perform services on their behalf.

Very truly yours,

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III
Attorney General

PETER M. ACKERBERG
Assistant Attorney General
(612) 282-5717

PMA:fq