Prater v. USA et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing 1 --petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Carel A. Prater; directing the Clerk to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 2/11/2015. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

CASE NO. 8:15-cv-69-T-23TBM

CAREL A. PRATER
/

ORDER
Prater is imprisoned for 336 months and owes $440,069.12 in restitution based
on his convictions for one count of interfering with the administration of the internal
revenue laws of the United States, one count of aiding or assisting in the filing of a
false tax return, two counts of failing to file a tax return, four counts of criminal
contempt, and three counts of making a false declaration before a grand jury. United
States v. Carl A. Prater, 8:08-cr-425-T-23TGW. The convictions and sentences were
affirmed in 2011 (Doc. 250) and a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied in 2012.
(Doc. 254) Prater’s request for an extension of time to file a motion to vacate under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied. (Docs. 273 and 276) As a consequence, the one-year
limitation expired in 2013 without a timely motion under Section 2255.
Prater files a “Petition for Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. 1)
Prater is imprisoned for not paying his taxes and for convincing others either to file a
fraudulent tax return or to not pay their taxes. As explained in his petition (Doc. 1
at 8), Prater believes that he is immune from federal law:

I have never been a Federal United States citizen under the
14th Amendment or Title 8 I.N.A., I have always been a
sovereign American in accordance with the declaration of
independence and the American constitution and domiciled
within one of the State Republics without the Federal United
States. I do not earn any Federal wages or pay and I have not
committed any offense or crime against the Federal United
States nor any party. However I have been subjected to
persecution under fraudulent pretense and claim of having
committed some inapplicable to me Federal Statutory or
Internal Revenue Service offense, and by force subjected to
some mock trial proceedings in a Kangaroo court where no
lawful procedure was exercised, and where I was not under any
contractual obligation to any party purportedly bringing the
complaint. The entire scenario has been a parody of judicial
procedure in a kangaroo court engaged in a collusive joinder for
monetary incentives, and has resulted in my false
imprisonment. In order to accommodate the unlawful charade
of judicial procedure the Officers of the Title 28 Tribunal failed
to abide by or comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure 1 through 8, or the federal rules of civil procedure 1
through 17, as to do so would have ab initio estopped the
fraudulent proceedings against Affiant, thus they avoided every
procedural requirement necessary to obtain jurisdiction over
Affiant, as the legitimate Federal United States can only
execute legal action on behalf of the United States not some
Third Party independent Agency, to wit, THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE and under Statutes thereof which do not
apply to Affiant.

Although he seeks a writ of habeas corpus, Prater specifically disclaims invoking
jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2255 (Doc. 1 at 27):
Furthermore because Affiant is not A Federal Citizen,
Resident, Employee, Contractor, Subject or Franchise, nor a
licensed and registered corporation engaged in Public
Commerce, (thus not regulable under Federal Commercial
regulatory statutes or its Article I authority to regulate
commerce), and because I do not partake in any
Congressionally or Federal Administratively created right or
privilege, and am not under any contractual obligation to the
legitimate Federal United States, or THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA INC. or any Agency thereof, I am not subject
-2-

to the Public Rights or Public Policy Doctrines thereof nor the
corrupt and convoluted summary Due Process procedures
thereof governed by Title 5, [A.P.A]. Thus I hereby do not
exercise some administratively created right or remedy under
Non Positive law provisions of Title 28 USC § 2255 or 2241
(Federal Public Policy Administrative Civil Remedy), which
has never applied to me in absence of some legitimate
contractual obligation or proof positive that I am a Federal
United States citizen, neither of which exist.

Instead, Prater attempts to invoke appellate jurisdiction (Doc 1 at 24):*
This FEDERAL Court has explicit appellate jurisdiction and
jurisdiction to entertain and grant writs of Habeas Corpus to
address unconstitutional custody and restraint, 28 USC
§ 2241(a) “Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the
Supreme Court” also 28 USC § 1651(a) “The Supreme Court
may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its
jurisdiction, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
In considering § 14 of the 1789 Judiciary Act, now 28 USC
§ 1651(a) this court recognized that the original writ of habeas
corpus issue from the United States Supreme Court as part of
its appellate jurisdiction. EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 8 U.S. (4
CRANCH) 75, 94-95. EX PARTE YERGER 75 U.S. @ 98-99,
EX PARTE LANGE 85 U.S. (18 WALL) 163-166.

A basic principle of federal jurisdiction is “that federal courts have only such
jurisdiction as Congress, by statute, has conferred upon them[, and this principle] is
as valid with regard to the federal court’s jurisdiction to grant petitions for writ of
habeas corpus as it is with regard to any other action . . . .” 16A Federal Procedure:
Lawyers Edition § 41:12 (Thomson/West 2007). Prater was sentenced in this district
court. A district court has no appellate jurisdiction over itself. A district court’s

*

Prater’s “petition” is apparently the same “petition” that the Supreme Court summarily
denied. In re Carel A. Prater, No. 13-10236 denied, June 16, 2014. Prater appears to have redacted
the word “Supreme” throughout the present “petition” and has handwritten the word “FEDERAL”
into the typewritten paper.
-3-

jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to the grant of authority
authorized by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2255, the statutory provisions
Prater specifically disclaims. As a consequence, Prater fails to properly invoke
federal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the “Petition for Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Doc. 1)
is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The clerk must close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 11, 2015.

-4-