IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASCORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §§vs. § NO. 2:08-CR-001§CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III. §§§UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §§vs. § NO. 2:07-MC-075§CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III. §§§DAVID SIBLEY, §§Plaintiff, §vs. § NO. 2:07-CV-258§CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III, §§Defendant. §

ORDER

On February 1, 2008, the Court held a criminal contempt hearing in the above-styled action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court holds the Defendant, CharlesEdward Lincoln, in criminal contempt and sentences him to time served.

Factual and Procedural Background.

During the February 1, 2008 criminal contempt hearing, the following facts weretestified to, proffered, or otherwise admitted to the record. These facts are not in dispute.

2Defense counsel represented to the Court that Defendant Lincoln was “not challengingany of the facts of this case.”

(2/1/08 Hearing at 1:52:48-1:53:32.)

The Notice of Removal.

On May 16, 2007, David Sibley filed suit against Defendant Lincoln in the 94thJudicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas. (D.E. (258) 1, Ex. A.)

On June 5,2007, Defendant Lincoln removed the action from state court to this Court, alleging thatfederal subject matter jurisdiction existed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), diversity of citizenship.

(D.E. (258) 1.)

Specifically, Defendant Lincoln claimed that Mr. Sibley, thePlaintiff, was a citizen of Texas and that he, Defendant Lincoln, was a citizen of Florida.(Id.)On June 11, 2006, the Court remanded the action to state court. (D.E. (258) 6.)The Court found that Defendant Lincoln had not met his burden of proving that theamount in controversy exceeded $75,000. (Id.)

The Motion for Sanctions.

On June 25, 2007, Mr. Sibley filed a motion for sanctions against DefendantLincoln in this Court. (D.E. (258) 9.) Mr. Sibley argued that sanctions were warrantedbecause Defendant Lincoln had misrepresented his citizenship to the Court in his notice

Defense counsel did assert a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a motion for sanctionsfiled in a case

after

that case had been remanded to state court. (2/1/08 Hearing at 1:52:48-1:53:32.) TheCourt, however, had already ruled on this issue, determining that its did have jurisdiction to hear suchmotion. (D.E. (258) 25.) The Court, thus, declined to revisit this issue during the February 1, 2008hearing.

As used in this order, “D.E. (258)” refers to docket entries in Sibley v. Lincoln, 2:07-cv-258,“D.E. (75)” refers to docket entries in United States v. Lincoln, 2:07-mc-0075, and “D.E (1)” refers todocket entries in United States v. Lincoln, 2:08-cr-001.

For purposes of Sibley v. Lincoln, 2:07-cv-258, Defendant Lincoln proceeded

pro se

. DefendantLincoln is a former attorney who was disbarred from the practice of law for falsely representing his socialsecurity number. See Charles Edward Lincoln, Case No. 01-C-04695-AIN, Case No. 02-J-11673-AIN (Ca.State Bar Court June 18, 2003).

3of removal. (Id.) Specifically, Mr. Sibley argued that Defendant Lincoln was not acitizen of Florida, but was, in fact, a citizen of Texas. (Id.) Mr. Sibley attached to hismotion a June 8, 2007 pleading, filed by Defendant Lincoln in the Southern District of Florida, listing Defendant Lincoln’s address as 6102 Valleyview Drive, Lago Vista,Texas. (Id., Ex. A.)A PACER search revealed that, in the months preceding the litigation betweenMr. Sibley and Defendant Lincoln, Defendant Lincoln represented to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Florida that he was a citizen of

Texas

forpurposes of maintaining federal subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1332(a)(1), in that forum. See Lincoln v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A.,

et al.

, 0:07-cv-60273-WPD (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2007).

4, 5

In his complaint, filed February 27, 2007,Defendant Lincoln stated:The undersigned Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln wishes to maintainFederal Jurisdiction over his issues in this case, because it is simply easierfor a “foreigner” (a resident of

Texas

) to maintain an action in FederalCourt than State Court in a “foreign” state . . .(D.E. (60273) 1, ¶ 3 (emphasis added).) Defendant Lincoln listed as his address “6102Valleyview Drive, Lago Vista, Texas, 78645.” (Id. at 10.) He maintained this addressthrough the litigation, filing several documents, including this address in the signature

As used in this order, “D.E. (60273)” refers to docket entries in Lincoln v. Washington MutualBank, N.A.,

et al.

, 0:07-cv-60273-WPD (S.D. Fla.).

The Court did not review this case on the record during the February 1, 2008 hearing. The Court,however, takes judicial notice of this case at this time. Taylor v. Charter Medical Corp., 162 F.3d 827,830-831 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that a court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court toestablish the fact of such document, provided that the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of matters asserted therein). The Court does not take judicial notice of this case to demonstrate the truth of thematters asserted therein,

i.e.

, that Defendant Lincoln was a citizen of Texas; rather, the Court takes judicialnotice of this case to demonstrate that Defendant Lincoln represented different citizenship to differentfederal courts at the same time for purposes of maintaining federal subject matter jurisdiction in bothforums.