United States v. Beane (TV1), 3:17-cr-00082

Government filed a motion in limine to prohibit defendants from presenting evidence or argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction or that the United States is a defaulted/foreclosed entity.
The motion was the only motion in limine; defendants were given time to respond. Tucci‑Jarraf filed two responses (one marked‑up refiled copy and a substantive brief); Beane did not respond.
Defendants have repeatedly submitted UCC filings and marked court documents asserting sovereign‑citizen/tax‑protester jurisdictional theories; the Court previously rejected similar filings as frivolous.
The government argued such evidence is irrelevant, misleading, confusing, and would cause undue delay; it urged exclusion under Rules 401, 402, and 403.
The Court reviewed relevance and Rule 403 precedent, noted prior rulings finding jurisdiction established, and characterized the defendants’ jurisdictional claims as meritless and frivolous.
The Court granted the motion and barred any evidence, testimony, or argument at trial on: (1) subject‑matter jurisdiction; (2) the United States as defaulted/foreclosed/impaired; and (3) the U.S. government’s authority to prosecute these offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of jurisdictional evidence	Such evidence is irrelevant and should be excluded under Rules 401–402 because the Court already has jurisdiction	Court lacks verified authority; prosecution is void ab initio; filings challenging jurisdiction should be admitted to negate intent	Excluded — court already determined it has jurisdiction; jurisdictional evidence is irrelevant
Rule 403 balancing of UCC/marked documents	Admission would confuse/mislead jurors, waste time, and be cumulative; probative value minimal	Admission necessary to show lack of intent / challenge authority	Excluded — probative value substantially outweighed by danger of confusion and delay
Sufficiency of defendants’ responses to motion	Prior similar filings are frivolous; defendants failed to present substantive legal basis	Tucci‑Jarraf asserted lack of verified signatures/seals and refiled marked documents as responses	Court found responses unpersuasive and previously addressed; marked‑up filings do not raise substantive arguments
Evidence of government conspiracy or misconduct	Not relevant to charged offenses absent suppression or similar motion; would distract jury	Defendants allege government officials conspired against them; seek to introduce to negate intent	Excluded as irrelevant to charged offenses at trial absent a proper basis; not covered by motion to preclude legitimate intent evidence

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (motions in limine should exclude only clearly inadmissible evidence)
Yannott v. United States, 42 F.3d 999 (6th Cir. 1994) (district court’s preliminary rulings on evidentiary issues are discretionary)
Mundt v. United States, 29 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 1994) (sovereign‑citizen jurisdictional challenges are frivolous)
Collins v. United States, 799 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2015) (Sixth Circuit applies an extremely liberal relevancy standard)
LaVictor v. United States, 848 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2017) (district courts have broad discretion under Rule 403)
Poulsen v. United States, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011) (evidence excluded under Rule 403 if it would encourage decision on an improper basis)