A former St. John couple who had pleaded guilty to lying in order to get back more than $1 million in tax returns now want to take back their pleas.
George and Barbara Gasich, who now live in Florida and have rejected the role of the federal government, pleaded guilty last fall just before they were set to go on trial to one count each of false tax refund claims.
At the time of the guilty pleas, the couple also agreed to accept legal representation after representing themselves since they were charged in 2014.
However, the couple has filed a number of court filings within the past few weeks in which they again assert that the U.S. District Court in Hammond has no jurisdiction over them because they do not live in Washington, D.C.
Their attorneys had also filed requests to withdraw from the case, saying that communication between them and their clients had broken down.
According to court records, the defendants told U.S. District Judge Philip Simon during a hearing Tuesday to discuss the issue of their attorneys that they want to withdraw their guilty pleas and again represent themselves.
Simon approved the request for the attorneys to withdraw and gave federal attorneys until Feb. 17 to respond to the couple’s request to withdraw their guilty pleas. He has not changed their sentencing hearing set for March 25. Barbara Gasich declined to comment on the issue at this time.
The Gasichs have the support of a Texas man, Michael Joseph Kearns, who is known for filing briefs in other federal cases, including Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, in support of the sovereign citizen movement that the Gasichs claim to adhere to. Kearns submitted an amicus filing in their case on Tuesday, arguing that the United States of America is still under the control of Great Britain and that anyone who declares themselves to be “a people of the United States” is no longer subject to the federal government outside of Washington, D.C.
However, Simon, who has previously dismissed the Gasichs’ arguments over jurisdiction, rejected the filing, noting that it adds nothing new to the case.
“Instead, he regurgitates the Gasichs’ oft-repeated theory that I have no personal jurisdiction over them,” Simon said. “They certainly do not need his help in making that argument, one which they have asserted at every conceivable turn….”
