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

October 25, 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.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's Request for Writ (Doc. 1) is denied. Furthermore, Petitioner is sanctioned $500 for filing another frivolous habeas petition against this Court's previous warning.

         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, Petitioner 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. Again, Petitioner made frivolous “sovereign citizen” claims.[2] Again, the Court denied Petitioner's claims. Additionally, the Court warned Petitioner that making future “sovereign citizen” claims would result in the type of sanctions imposed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315 (7th Cir. 1997). Moose v. United States, No. 16-cv-01347 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2016).

         Nineteen days after receiving his warning from the Court, on October 17, 2016, Petitioner filed this current habeas corpus Petition. Again, his Petition consists of “sovereign citizen” ramblings that are nonsensical and contain no legal merit. Again he claims that there was no jurisdiction over him during his arrest, sentencing, or confinement because he believes that the “Governor of Missouri Republic must consent to cession of jurisdiction.” (Doc 1 at 6).

         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 whether a petition adequately presents the legal and factual basis for a claim. Id.

         A petitioner may seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 2254, or 2255, depending on the circumstances. Petitioner has filed his petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, but does not specify the type of relief he seeks. This Court, in its discretion, applies the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts to all cases that purport to be brought under Chapter 153 of Title 28 of the United States Code that are not explicitly brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, R 1(b); see also Poe v. United States, 468 F.3d 473, 477 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2006); Hudson v. Helman, 948 F.Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (holding Rule 4 takes precedence over 28 U.S.C. § 2243's deadlines and gives a court discretion to set deadlines). This includes Rule 4, which requires that the Court “promptly examine” the Petition, and dismiss it if it “plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court has examined the Petition and determined Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

         Analysis

         By claiming he is a “sovereign citizen, ” the Petitioner has provided no legal claims on which to proceed for a habeas petition and his petition must be denied. For at least 25 years, courts have summarily rejected claims by sovereign citizens. See United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases that reject the “sovereign citizen” argument as frivolous).

         The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has instructed district courts to “summarily reject” the “worn argument that a defendant is sovereign.” Moose, No. 16-cv-01296-JES (citing Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767). Petitioner insists that the courts had no jurisdiction over him because the Governor of Missouri did not give consent or cessation to the United States Government. (Doc. 1-1 at 19). However, it has been clearly established that the laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders and this includes the Petitioner. Phillips, 326 F.App'x at 400. See also Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767 (announcing that regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (explaining ...


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.