Moose v. Krueger

Filing 4

ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 09/28/2016. For the reasons stated above, the Petition 1 is DENIED. Petitioner is warned that the filing of future habeas claims based on "sovereign citizen" arguments could subject petitioner to sanctions. The Clerk is requested to mail plaintiff a copy of this order. CASE TERMINATED. See full written Order & Opinion. (JS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 29 September, 2016 10:33:20 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
THIRPLUS TINO MOOSE BEY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01347-JBM

ORDER & OPINION
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

Petitioner received a 60 month sentence on Count 1 to be served concurrently with Counts 2 and 5.
Petitioner received a 300 month sentence on Count 2 to be served consecutively with Count 5.
Petitioner received a 120 month sentence on Count 5 to be served consecutively with Count 2. This
equals a total of 420 months of incarceration.
1

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).
2

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 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

For more information about “sovereign citizen” arguments, see J.M. Berger, Without Prejudice: What
Sovereign
Citizens
Believe,
GW:
Program
on
Extremism
(2016),
available
at:
https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Occasional%20Paper_Berger.pdf.
2

3

Habeas Corpus under § 2242. Section 2242 is an informative statute: it informs
individuals of the requirements for filing a petition for habeas relief. It does not
provide any relief by itself.
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 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.
There are no legal claims because for at least 25 years the 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).

4

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 that “sovereign citizen” arguments have “no conceivable validity in
American law). Therefore, the Petitioner was under the jurisdiction of the United
States and his “sovereign citizen” arguments fail.
The Court would like to note that Petitioner filed the current petition less than
one month after Judge Shadid rejected Petitioner’s “sovereign citizen” claims in his §
2241 petition. Judge Shadid informed Petitioner that “sovereign citizen” arguments
were frivolous and had no merit in American law. Moose, No. 16-cv-01296-JES. After
being informed that his claims were frivolous and meritless, Petitioner filed the
present petition with the same frivolous, meritless claims. Thus, the instant Petition
is not merely frivolous but an abuse of the Court’s time and resources. Petitioner may
believe that he is not subject to federal jurisdiction because he is “a direct descendant
of the Moroccans and born in America . . . and [is] the true possessor of the present
Moroccan Empire.” (Doc. 1 at 3). However, that belief does not make it true and it

5

will not give his claims of “sovereign citizenship” merit. Furthermore, the Court
refuses to allow Petitioner to waste court resources by filing meritless “sovereign
citizen” claims.
The Petitioner is hereby WARNED: any further habeas petitions alleging
“sovereign citizen” claims that petitioner files in this Court may be subject
to the type of sanction imposed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315 (7th Cir. 1997), where the Court warned
that if the petitioner filed any further habeas petitions, he would be fined $500, face
a Mack order requiring that his fine be paid before any other civil litigation be filed,
and any habeas action will be summarily dismissed thirty days after filing unless
otherwise ordered by the court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED. Petitioner is
warned that the filing of future habeas claims based on “sovereign citizen” arguments
could subject petitioner to sanctions. The Clerk is requested to mail plaintiff a copy
of this order.
CASE TERMINATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Entered this _28th_ day of September, 2016.

s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
6