Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bey v. United States

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

September 29, 2016

THIRPLUS TINO MOOSE BEY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER & OPINION

          JOE BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge

         The matter before the Court is Petitioner, Thirplus Tino Moose Bey's, “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's Request for Writ (Doc. 1) is denied and Petitioner is warned that the filing of future habeas petitions asserting similar “sovereign citizen” arguments will result in sanctions by the Court.

         Background

         Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank robbery (Count 1), armed bank robbery with forcible restraint (Count 2), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (Count 5). Petitioner was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to a total of 420 months of incarceration.[1] Under the terms of the plea agreement, Moose waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, and the waiver was upheld on direct appeal.

         On August 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Moose v. United States, No. 16-cv-01296-JES (C.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2016). The petition raised several challenges to the jurisdiction of the United States to indict, sentence, or imprison him; all of the challenges were based on his status as a “Private Aboriginal Indigenous Moorish American National . . . of sentient capacity . . . .” Id. On August 19, 2016, the court denied Petitioner's frivolous petition, because the laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders. Id. (citing United States v. Phillips, 326 F. App'x 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that district courts have jurisdiction over defendants brought on charges of violations of federal law and rejecting “sovereign citizen” arguments as frivolous)).

         On September 15, 2016, less than a month after the court rejected Petitioner's § 2241 claim, Petitioner filed an “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Petitioner's filing is nearly impossible to comprehend, because it consists of strings of nonsensical quotations and unconnected assertions. A few excerpts will illustrate this issue. For example, Petitioner claims that he:

“stands squarely affirmed and bound to The Moorish Holy Temple of Science/Moorish Science Temple of America Divine Constitution and By-Laws, and Zodiac Constitution (Nature's Law) with all due and respect to the United States Republic of North America (Amexem).” (Doc. 1 at 2).

         He claims to be:

“an Aboriginal, Indigenous Moor Inhabitant of Northwest Amexem near Illinois Republic created by the Several States of America . . . .” (Id. at 4).

         Additionally, he claims that:

“If there is no proper jurisdiction or venue, then no lawful or legal trial can be held, therefore, all rights revert back to the People (Self-government with Sovereign Authority). This is where Certificate AA222141 clearly proves its purpose. When government officials superseded their jurisdiction, or deny lawful due process, redress, recourse and remedy, “At Law”, then they are criminals, and are traitors to the Constitution . . . .” (Id. at 5).

         The Petition continues in this manner for 9 pages, while an additional affidavit provides another 5 pages of similar ramblings. Amidst the nonsensical ramble, it appears that the Petitioner believes that there was no jurisdiction over him when he was arrested, nor that there was jurisdiction over him when he pleaded and was sentenced in the Western District of Missouri. (Doc. 1-1 at 2-3). Petitioner believes this because he believes that the “Governor of Missouri Republic must consent to cession of jurisdiction” before the federal government could have jurisdiction. Id. This type of argument is frequently known as a “sovereign citizen” argument.[2]

         Legal Standard

         Pro se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Ambrose v. Roeckeman, 749 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2014). However, a court must still decide ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.