Memorandum decision and order denying Pedersen motion to dismiss — No. 2:20-cv-00279 (Dkt. 56)

Summary

A Memorandum Decision and Order in United States of America v. My Doctor Suggests LLC, GP Silver LLC and Gordon Pedersen, Case No. 2:20-cv-00279-DBB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, filed February 19, 2021 as Document 56 and signed by District Judge David Barlow. It denies pro se Defendant Gordon Pedersen's motion to dismiss at ECF No. 41. The order notes that the government sued under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 over silver products sold with claims of protection against and treatment for COVID-19, that My Doctor Suggests agreed to a Stipulated Consent Order and Final Judgment, and that GP Silver failed to appear. It rejects Pedersen's arguments based on claimed American National or sovereign citizen status as frivolous.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Memorandum decision and order denying Pedersen motion to dismiss — No. 2:20-cv-00279 (Dkt. 56).” Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-decision-and-order-denying-pedersen-motion-to-dismiss-no-2-49043e6d86/, SHA-256 8ad10845f3cabc65a9bc3b704134cf961b5cadf71c292303eef539e7de46d15f.

Full text

Case 2:20-cv-00279-DBB-CMR Document 56 Filed 02/19/21 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING [41] DEFENDANT
GORDON PEDERSEN’S MOTION TO
v. DISMISS

MY DOCTOR SUGGESTS LLC (d/b/a
My Health Supplier), a Utah corporation,
GP SILVER LLC, a Utah corporation and Case No. 2:20-cv-00279-DBB
GORDON PEDERSEN, an individual,
District Judge David Barlow
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on pro se Defendant Gordon Pedersen’s “Notice of Special

Appearance Move the Court to Dismiss this Action for Lack of any Jurisdiction and/or Remove

this Case to a Constitutional Court” 1 (Motion to Dismiss). Because Pedersen’s Motion to

Dismiss is without merit, the court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

The government sued Defendants seeking a temporary restraining order based on

Defendants’ alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 2 The government

alleges Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by “executing a scheme or

artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent

representation with the intent to defraud” using “the United States mails and/or private or

1
ECF No. 41, filed June 16, 2020.
2
See Complaint, ECF No. 1, filed on April 27, 2020.
Case 2:20-cv-00279-DBB-CMR Document 56 Filed 02/19/21 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5

commercial interstate carrier” 3 and “wire, radio or television communication in interstate

commerce.” 4 The alleged scheme or artifice relates to Defendants promoting and selling silver

products “based on fraudulent claims of protection against, and treatment for, COVID-19, in the

midst of a worldwide pandemic.” 5 The government and Defendant My Doctor Suggests agreed

to a Stipulated Consent Order and Final Judgment. 6 Defendant My Doctor Suggests is thus not

subject to this ruling on Pedersen’s Motion to Dismiss.

The court has entered a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 7

Defendant GP Silver has failed to appear in this matter. Defendant Pedersen has moved the court

to dismiss with prejudice the action against him for “lack of any evidence of a proven contract on

the public record” and for “lack of any evidence proven on the public court record of ‘subject

matter’ or ‘personam’ jurisdiction.” 8

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 9 However, it is not the district court’s

prerogative to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” 10

3
Complaint at ¶ 30; see 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
4
Complaint at ¶ 31; see 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
5
Complaint at ¶ 11.
6
ECF No. 49, filed June 26, 2020.
7
See Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, ECF
No. 8, filed April 28, 2020; Preliminary Injunction Against GP Silver LLC and Gordon Pedersen, ECF No. 24, filed
May 12, 2020.
8
Motion to Dismiss at 1.
9
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
10
Id.

2
Case 2:20-cv-00279-DBB-CMR Document 56 Filed 02/19/21 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) when the complaint, standing alone, is

legally insufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 11 Each cause of action must

be supported by enough sufficient, well-pleaded facts to be plausible on its face. 12 In reviewing a

complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, factual allegations are accepted as true and

reasonable inferences are drawn in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. 13 However, “assertions

devoid of factual allegations” that are nothing more than “conclusory” or “formulaic recitation”

of the law are disregarded. 14

DISCUSSION

Pedersen’s lengthy motion is not grounded in relevant law and facts. The motion is

discursive, but appears to center on two arguments. First, it appears that Pedersen’s argument

about lack of evidence of a proven contract on the public record relates to his position that the

federal government can only regulate alcohol, tobacco, and firearms with respect to American

Nationals. 15 He contends that he has not received notice of any violation regarding any of these

three substances and thus the government has not provided “verifiable evidence on the public

court record” of any violation. 16 He relatedly contends that the government “has not entered any

alleged contract into the public court record” that proves that Pedersen, as an American State

National, contracted to be identified as Gordon Pedersen. 17 Second, Pedersen avers that he is an

11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999).
12
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
13
GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997).
14
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009).
15
Motion to Dismiss at 2.
16
Id. at 2–3.
17
Id. at 9.

3
Case 2:20-cv-00279-DBB-CMR Document 56 Filed 02/19/21 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5

American National and as such is exempt from this court’s jurisdiction. 18 Despite Pedersen’s

averment that he has not claimed to be a sovereign citizen, 19 he later refers to himself as a

Sovereign American Citizen 20 when alleging that this court is misusing his name. 21 Thus, for

purposes of Pedersen’s Motion to Dismiss, this court does not differentiate between “American

National,” “American State National,” and “Sovereign American Citizen.”

Both of Pedersen’s arguments and all his various contentions center around his claimed

status as an American National. He asserts that as an American National the government does

not have jurisdiction over him. 22 That an individual rejects being defined as a United States

citizen does not excuse that individual from the jurisdiction of the United States courts. “[A]n

individual’s belief that [their] status as a ‘sovereign citizen’ puts [them] beyond the jurisdiction

of the courts ‘has no conceivable validity in American law.’” 23 Theories about lack of

jurisdiction based on sovereign citizenry should be rejected summarily. 24 These types of

jurisdictional arguments are “patently frivolous.” 25 Both of Pedersen’s arguments are

jurisdictional arguments arising out of his claimed American National status. They are thus

without merit.

18
Motion to Dismiss at 16.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 20.
21
Id.
22
See, e.g., id. at 18.
23
Charlotte v. Hansen, 433 Fed Appx. 660, 661 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (quoting United States v. Schneider,
910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990)).
24
See United States v. Sellors, 572 Fed. Appx. 628, 632 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished).
25
See id.

4
Case 2:20-cv-00279-DBB-CMR Document 56 Filed 02/19/21 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5

In sum, the motion to dismiss is frivolous. It is not supported by facts and law that raise

any colorable issue about jurisdiction in this case, much less one that could result in the dismissal

of the Complaint.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Gordon Pedersen’s Motion to Dismiss is without merit. Thus the court

DENIES the Motion to Dismiss.

Signed February 19, 2021.

BY THE COURT

________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge

File and source

File: 56-memorandum-decision-and-order-denying-pedersen-motion-to-dis.pdf
Size: 235,785 bytes
SHA-256: 8ad10845f3cabc65a9bc3b704134cf961b5cadf71c292303eef539e7de46d15f
Our copy: 56-memorandum-decision-and-order-denying-pedersen-motion-to-dis.pdf
Original: www.govinfo.gov