A federal judge has dismissed an Eagle County woman’s complaint against the law enforcement officials who are prosecuting her for numerous charges of forgery, cybercrime and sending fake tax documents to judges.

Although Adrienne Avril Perer called it a “false assumption” that she was an adherent of the anti-government “sovereign citizen” movement, she nevertheless sued District Attorney Heidi McCollum using sovereign citizen language to claim Colorado has no authority over her. She even called the state itself a “fictitious entity.”

Sovereign citizens believe they are not subject to the laws and regulations of an allegedly-illegitimate government, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has labeled the movement domestic terrorism. Sovereign citizen tactics include making claims that they have law enforcement authority, and harassing entities with so-called self-executing contracts.

According to an investigator’s statement in support of an arrest warrant, which Perer included in her federal lawsuit, then-Eagle County Court Judge Rachel J. Olguin–Fresquez received forms in the mail from the Internal Revenue Service in which the “lender,” Perer, demanded the judge pay $3 million. The county court notified the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, which allegedly considered Perer’s actions a “fraudulent misuse of IRS forms and harassment of a judge.”

At the time, Perer, of Avon, was the subject of another local prosecution in which a sheriff’s deputy pulled her over for having a fake license plate on her vehicle. Olguin-Fresquez was presiding over that case. An ensuing investigation into the IRS letter revealed a second traffic stop of Perer for her fictitious license plate, in which the officer involved said to an investigator that Perer was well known to Avon police for her opposition to COVID-19 masking requirements.

The officer also allegedly received an IRS letter from Perer, as did Avon’s police chief, who believed Perer was making a “mockery of the government.”

Prosecutors later charged Perer with 29 offenses in connection with her harassing IRS letters. While the case was pending, Perer allegedly sent more IRS forms to the county court demanding $150,000.

“Of course, these documents are fraudulent,” wrote Assistant District Attorney Joseph R. Kirwan. “It is clear that the defendant’s actions to this point has been to retaliate against members of the bench, prosecution, court staff, and law enforcement who dare to challenge her belief that she is above the law.”

Perer then filed a lawsuit in federal court in November, writing “overreach, no authority no jurisdiction” on the documents from her criminal case. She alleged she was a “living woman” – a sovereign citizen phrase – and that defendants McCollum and Kirwan were retaliating against her for her “good faith effort to report a taxable event/events to the IRS.”

She asked to be immediately released from all judicially-approved warrants and bonds against her and also requested $22 million. Perer further filed a motion for an injunction, claiming it was a self-executing contract and demanding to be added to the “Do not stop / Do not detain” list.

Before the defendants could respond, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty analyzed Perer’s allegations and determined there was nothing for the federal courts to act upon. Under longstanding legal doctrine, federal judges cannot hear challenges to state court rulings.

“The better forum for plaintiff to raise her challenges is within that state criminal court case itself, and then to appeal to the appropriate state appellate court any decisions with which she disagrees,” Hegarty wrote on Dec. 2. Further, he noted that prosecutors have immunity for actions they take in pursuing cases.

As for Perer’s request to be included on the “Do not detain” list, Hegarty had no clue what list she was talking about.

Perer did not object to Hegarty’s recommendation and on Jan. 5, U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez adopted his analysis and dismissed the case.

In an email to Colorado Politics, Perer reiterated that labeling her a sovereign citizen was “total libel” and “nonsensical jargon.”

“Either one is a citizen (slave) or they are sovereign (free),” she added.

Court records indicate her criminal case is still pending. At Perer’s most recent hearing last year, the records note that “party failed to appear.”

The case is Perer v. McCollum et al.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with a statement from Adrienne Perer.