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.

Moose v. Krueger

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

December 21, 2016

THIRPLUS MOOSE, Petitioner,
v.
J.E. KRUEGER, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER & OPINION

          JOE BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge

         This 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.

         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. 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. Compl., Moose v. United States, No. 16-cv-01347 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2016). Again, Petitioner made frivolous “sovereign citizen”[1] 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.

         Again, 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.

         On 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 again.

         Again, 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).

         On 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.

         The 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 reconsideration. Id.

         On 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. Id.

         On December 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 15).

         Legal ...


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.