Stevens County v. Each & Every Lot

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STEVENS COUNTY, a political
subdivision and duly organized and
existing County of the State of
Washington,
Respondent,
v.
EACH AND EVERY LOT, TRACT,
PART, PARCEL AND PORTION OF
THE VARIOUS PARCELS OF REAL
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY
FOR DELINQUENT TAX FROM 2019
and OTHER YEARS; AND ALL
PERSONS KNOWN OR UNKNOWN
OR UNKNOWN HAVING OR
CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY RIGHT,
TITLE, HOMESTEAD, ESTATE, LIEN
OR INTEREST THEREIN,
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN THE
FOLLOWING LIST
Appellant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39350-0-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FEARING , J. — Michael Nichols defends a real property tax foreclosure on his
property with predictable sovereign citizen arguments. We reject the arguments and
affirm the superior court’s order of sale in favor of Stevens County on his property. We
grant Stevens County an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs for responding to a
frivolous appeal.
FILED
AUGUST 15, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 39350-0-III
Stevens County v. Each and Every Lot
2
FACTS
Michael Nichols failed to pay taxes on real property he owns in Stevens County.
PROCEDURE
On September 9, 2022, Stevens County initiated a lien foreclosure proceeding
seeking a judgment and decree of foreclosure against various properties on which taxes
were owed throughout the county. The properties included a parcel owned by appellant
Michael Gene Nichols. Instead of answering the complaint, Nichols, on October 24,
2022, filed a document titled “Notice of Interest Commercial Affidavit.” Clerk’s Papers
(CP) 1-28.
During a hearing on October 26, 2022, Michael Nichols argued against Stevens
County’s efforts to obtain a judgment for his delinquent property taxes. He claimed that
he holds a patent covenant from the federal government to him as an heir forever. The
patent excused him from paying taxes.
The superior court ruled that Michael Nichols failed to appropriately answer
Stevens County’s summons and complaint, and the court entered an order of sale, order
of default, and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nichols then seemingly moved
for a stay or continuance of the proceedings, or as he dubbed it, “a petition for a grace
period that you have to give me because I petitioned it.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at
16. The superior court rejected the petition.

No. 39350-0-III
Stevens County v. Each and Every Lot
3
On November 28, 2022, Michael Nichols filed with the superior court a motion for
a stay of sale pending appeal. Because the total amount of taxes owed would be
recoverable by the county with the sale of the property, the superior court granted the stay
pending the outcome of Nichols’ appeal.
PENDING MOTIONS
Gene Nichols demands copies of a “foreign agent registry act form” supposedly
issued by the British Crown to Stevens County’s counsel, the superior court, and others
“acting [on] behalf of a Corporation Stevens County Inc.” Reply Brief at 4. Pursuant to
RAP 18.9(a), Stevens County moves the Court to grant sanctions, attorney fees, and costs
on the basis that Michael Nichols’ appeal is frivolous.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Michael Nichols argues that the superior court, and presumably this
reviewing court, lacked jurisdiction to entertain a lien foreclosure proceeding against his
real property. Nichols also contends that the superior court erred when denying him a
grace period of 21 days. We reject each assignment. We note that the superior court
granted him months of additional time to pay the taxes through a stay of the foreclosure
during the appeal.
Michael Nichols argues the superior court lacked jurisdiction to order the sale of
his property due to the absence of “a Christian (style) name” on the court caption, and
insists the court’s authority only extends to matters that concern corporations and the

No. 39350-0-III
Stevens County v. Each and Every Lot
4
contracts between them. Because he is a “human/creators,” Nichols also maintains that
he is not subject to the Revised Code of Washington.
Michael Nichols adheres to the sovereign citizen philosophy. He forwards to this
court no law that would preclude a tax foreclosure on his property.
Sovereign citizens are “a loosely affiliated group who believe that the state and
federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to
regulate their behavior.” United States v. Ulloa, 511 F. App’x 105, 106 n.1 (2d Cir.
2013). As one court explained:
Those who affiliate with “Sovereign Citizenship” believe in a
particular interpretation of the common law and believe they are not subject
to governmental statutes, proceedings, or jurisdictions. They believe the
individual, a “flesh and blood” man [denoted in lowercase letters], is
separate from a legally fictious commercial entity imposed upon them by
issuance of a birth certificate and other official documents (as governmental
documents usually denote names in all capital letters). Through this
fictitious entity, they believe, the United States government perpetuates
fraud, making the individual a “creditor” of the fictious entity.
People v. Anderson, 2020 COA 56, 465 P.3d 98, 101, n.4 (2020). One commentator
wrote:
The point to remember is that, whatever circuitous and illogical
route they take to get there—there is no point in trying to find a consistency
or a rational pattern in the beliefs—sovereign citizens reject the current
federal, state, and local governments and consider themselves outside their
authority.
Michael Crowell, A Quick Guide to Sovereign Citizens, at 3, Admin. Just. Bull. (UNC
Sch. of Gov’t, Chapel Hill, N.C.), Nov. 2015. Our nation’s courts do not adhere to the

No. 39350-0-III
Stevens County v. Each and Every Lot
5
philosophy. People v. Brown, 2022 IL App (2d) 210077-U, ¶ 26, appeal denied, 201
N.E.3d 579 (Ill. 2023); United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983); United
States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Simonson, 563
F. App’x 514 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hardin, 489 F. App’x 984, 986 (8th Cir.
2012); Wright v. Jackson, 502 F. App’x 339, 340 (4th Cir. 2013); Shepherd v. Payne, No.
4:20-CV-844-KGB-BD, 2020 WL 8513838, at *1 (E.D. Ark. July 22, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 4:20-cv-00844-KGB, 2021 WL 536521 (E.D. Ark. Feb.
12, 2021).
The State seeks sanctions in the form of attorney fees and costs against Michael
Nichols for having to respond to a lengthy brief that accuses the superior court, the
Stevens County assessor, Stevens County treasurer, and a Stevens County deputy
prosecuting attorney of many devious acts, including postal fraud, intimidation, and
violations of the Washington State Constitution. Nichols’ appeal is frivolous. It “cannot
be supported by any rational argument on the law or facts.” Yurtis v. Phipps, 143 Wn.
App. 680, 697, 181 P.3d 849 (2008). Under RAP 18.9(a), we award Stevens County
reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the superior court’s order of sale and grant Stevens County’s motion for
attorney fees and costs. We deny Michael Nichols’ demand for copies of the “Foreign

No. 39350-0-III
Stevens County v. Each and Every Lot
6
Agent Registry Act form” supposedly associated with Stevens County’s counsel, others
acting on behalf of Stevens County, and the superior court.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
______________________________
Pennell, J.