Can you sue yourself?

Does not make sense. If he is the same person, he still has the assets and they are still liable to be handed over for any other lawsuit. More likely he is suing his company, thus transferring money from the liable company to hmself the person?

Or he was hoping to establish a precedent for damages at a low number?


A fairly famous “almost” for self-suit lists is Carter v. Carter Coal Co., which went to the Supreme Court despite being the next thing to a ‘manufactured’ suit. Without researching out the gory details:

Messrs. Carter Sr. and Jr. owned and operated Carter Coal Co. in the 1930s. IIRC Carter Sr. was majority stockholder and Chairman, while Jr. ran day-to-day operations and held some shares. As a business, they were subject to one of the New Deal laws – one that Carter Sr. believed unconstitutional.

So the Carters caused Carter Coal Co. to comply with the statute, including paying in some taxes. Then Carter Sr. sued the company he was majority owner of, and ran along with his son, praying the court to enjoin it from complying with an unconstitutional law.

It was, of course, a strategem for challenging the constitutionality of the New Deal law. But the courts accepted it as a valid “case or controversy.”

Speak for yourself

SAINT CAD (corporate entity) v. Saint Cad (sovereign citizen), StCad(Freeman on the land), Saint Cad (not bound by Courts of Contract), et al

Sounds plausible to me if the guy hurt himself in a way where the Corp is arguably responsible. Amounts received on account of a physical injury are generally excluded from income and should generally be deductible by the payor.

Only if you’re now a zombie.

Isn’t there also a requirement that lawsuits have to be adversarial, that is there needs to be an actual disagreement that can only be resolved by the court?

I was once involved in a case in which a man was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by his wife, who caused a collision that killed her and seriously injured him. In order to collect the insurance proceeds, he sued his wife’s estate; he was also her sole heir and the estate’s representative.

Isn’t this what happens whenever someone sues their HOA (or vice versa)?

Wouldn’t the lawyer representing someone suing himself have a conflict of interests?

That’s easily fixed: you hire a different lawyer in each capacity.

But isn’t it an ethical breach for the plaintiff’s attorney to speak to the defendant without the defendant’s attorney present? If so, how could the plaintiff’s attorney discuss confidential strategy matters with his client without also tipping off the defense?

How about a case of split personality disorder? Here’s this person who has two identities within himself. Now one personality, say Joe is angry with the other one, say Mark for burning his house down or something serious like that. So Joe now wants to sue Mark.
Now note, they are two completely different personalities who have their own identity and names and characteristics, etc etc. The only glitch is that they share a body!
I’m pretty sure no constitution on this planet specifically establishes a link between a personality and a body… it just assumes that an “individual” is one body with one personality.
Using this argument, I think you could be able to make a case against the yourself in the sense: The same “biological human body” is filing suit against itself.

John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival fame was sued by Fantasy Records and its boss Saul Zaentz who claimed that Fogerty’s 1985 song Old Man Down the Road was plagiarised from Run Through the Jungle. Fogerty had written that song while with CCR and then sold the rights to his old material to Fantasy.

There is a whole class of litigation called first party claims which theoretically consists of lawsuits against oneself. In practice, however, you’re really suing your insurance company (you can’t file a first party action if you’re not insured) and the insurer is generally the named defendant.

That’s pretty much it. Mr. Lodi came up with the idea that by transferring the rights to the proceeds of a fictional trust from himself to himself he could avoid paying wealth and property taxes. Since the trust didn’t exist, there was no cause of action for the court to consider; they can’t rule on a hypothetical issue.


Well, the US has a black president. Bet you didn’t see that coming.

That’s just a single data point - historically speaking, the percentage of things that can happen has always been between 10 and 15 per cent. I mean, sure, it’s not like we’re back in the 18th century when only about 5 per cent of things could happen, but we also clearly left the 1980s (during which almost 20 per cent of things could actually happen) behind us. I think the OP is wildly overstated.

I might have to steal that whole paragraph for future use.