United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
ORDER & OPINION
BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Thirplus Moose's
Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 15). For
the reasons that follow, Petitioner's motion is denied.
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. 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.
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)).
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.
Compl., Moose v. United States, No. 16-cv-01347
(C.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2016). Again, Petitioner made frivolous
“sovereign citizen” claims, which primarily consisted
of random legal quotations without explanation or legal
argument. See id. The Court deciphered from the
quotations that Petitioner's main argument was that there
was no jurisdiction over the land where petitioner was
arrested. Id. at 7. Specifically, Petitioner argued
that the government did not have jurisdiction over the land
where he was arrested because the Governor of Missouri did
not cede jurisdiction to the federal government pursuant to
40 U.S.C. § 3112. Id. at 12.
the Court denied Petitioner's claims. The Court explained
that the laws of the United States apply to all persons
within its borders, including Petitioner. Op.,
Moose, No. 16-cv-01347, at 5 (citing United
States v. Phillips, 326 F. App'x 400 (7th Cir.
2009)). The Court explained that it considered these types of
claims to be “sovereign citizen” arguments and
that they have no merit. Id. Furthermore, 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, No. 16-cv-01347, at 5.
October 17, 2016, just nineteen days after receiving his
warning from the Court, Petitioner filed another habeas
corpus Petition. (Doc. 1). Again, Petitioner brought forth
the same claims that he had brought the two previous times.
Id. at 1. Petitioner claimed again that there was no
jurisdiction over the land where he was arrested because the
Governor of Missouri did not cede jurisdiction to the federal
government pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 3112. Id.
This was identical to the argument the Court had previously
rejected and that the Court had warned Petitioner from making
the Court rejected the argument. (Doc. 2 at 4). Because
Petitioner chose to ignore the Court's warning and file
another habeas petition, which brought forth the same
frivolous arguments that had already been rejected twice, the
Court sanctioned Petitioner with the same sanctions imposed
by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
Alexander, 121 F.3d at 315. (Doc. 2 at 5).
November 7th, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 4). Petitioner argued that he did not file another
“sovereign citizen” petition; rather, he only
argued that there was no jurisdiction over the lands where he
was arrested pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 3112 because the
Governor of Missouri had not ceded jurisdiction of that land.
Id. at 1.
Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration,
because Petitioner was not arguing that the Court had made a
manifest error of law or fact. (Doc. 5 at 3-5). Nor was
Petitioner arguing that there was newly discovered evidence.
Id. Rather, Petitioner was making the same argument
that the Court had rejected three previous times and that the
Court had warned Petitioner against making again.
Id. The Court explained, again, that 40 U.S.C.
§ 3112 was not the applicable statute, because §
3112 establishes the law for creating federal land and
plaintiff was not arrested on federal land. Id.
Therefore, the Court rejected Petitioner's Motion for
November 18, 2016, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc.
6). Petitioner is appealing the Court's decision in its
rejection of his Petition for Habeas Corpus. Id.
Petitioner is also appealing the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration and the sanctions the Court imposed.
December 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to
Appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 15).