Roy Derksen v. State of Wisconsin, No. 23-3194 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 10, 2024 * Decided May 10, 2024 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge No. 23-3194 ROY C. DERKSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 23-C-0997 STATE OF WISCONSIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Lynn Adelman, Judge. ORDER A traffic stop resulted in Roy Derksen’s arrest by deputy sheriffs in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. He was detained and then charged with fleeing from an officer, WIS. STAT. § 346.04, and resisting an officer, WIS. STAT. § 946.41. The prosecution remains ongoing—Derksen’s frivolous attempt to “remove” the criminal prosecution to We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). * No. 23-3194 Page 2 federal court having been rebuffed. See Wisconsin v. Derksen, No. 23-C-1125 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2023). Meanwhile, Derksen sued the State of Wisconsin and various state and local entities in federal court, asserting that enforcing Wisconsin’s “quasi administrative law” against him is unconstitutional because Wisconsin is “a fictional entity of unrevealed status, and no proof of lawful existence and authority, and unproven standing to sue.” The court dismissed Derksen’s complaint because his claims are based on a frivolous theory of sovereign citizenship. See United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011). And it was obviously correct to do so. We have repeatedly rejected variations of claims like Derksen’s that states are not legal entities and United States citizens are not bound by state law (or vice versa). See Bey v. Indiana, 847 F.3d 559, 560 (7th Cir. 2017). Derksen has 14 days to show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions, including an order to pay the appellees’ fees and costs. See FED. R. APP. P. 38. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
