Warren v. USA et al

Filing 8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jack Wade Warren is SANCTIONED with a $1,500 fine, to be paid before any other civil litigation will be filed. This fine is in addition to any other filing fees owed to this District. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return all civil pleadings unfiled until the sanction is paid, and all habeas corpus filings will be summarily dismissed thirty days after filing, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Documents submitted in connection with an appeal are excluded from the sanction. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/5/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JACK WADE WARREN,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16−cv–0390−SMY

ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Petitioner Jack Wade Warren is an inmate currently housed at the United States
Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. He filed this “Bill in Equity: Petition for Specific Performance”
regarding “property” being held by the respondent government officials in a “trust/estate. . . for
commercial purpose.” (Doc. 1). The property at issue is Jack Wade Warren himself, and the
trust/estate was supposedly created by the judgments entered in multiple federal criminal cases
against Warren.
Warren is currently incarcerated as a result of judgments entered against him in Texas
(No. 4:83-cr-138-A-1 (N.D. Tex.)) and Florida (Nos. 95-cr-209 & 95-cr-1153 (M.D. Fla.)).
Although Warren is using the language of contract law, he is actually requesting release from his
current imprisonment. Previously, the Court determined that the Petition was best characterized
as a habeas corpus action. (Doc. 5). After reviewing the merits, the Court also determined that
the Petition was completely frivolous and must be dismissed. (Doc. 5). The Court further
determined that in light of the obvious frivolity of Warren’s position, sanctions may be
warranted. (Doc. 5). Warren was ordered to show cause by June 1, 2016 why his case should
not be dismissed with prejudice and a $1,500 fine imposed with a filing ban until the sanction is
1

paid. (Doc. 5, p. 5). The Court cited Warren’s history of filing vexatious and frivolous cases in
this Court, and noted that Warren has been sanctioned twice before.
Warren filed a Response to the Order on May 26, 2016. (Doc. 6). That same day, he also
filed a Notice of Rescission. (Doc. 7). In his Response, Warren states that he did not intend to
file a frivolous, harassing, and/or vexatious action in the above referenced case. (Doc. 6, p. 1).
He further states that “he was exercising what he perceived as a legal right in good faith and with
clean hands. “ (Doc. 6, p. 1-2). He also alleges these facts are within his own realm of
knowledge, and the Court has no evidence in the record that Warren intended the filing to be
frivolous, harassing or vexatious. (Doc. 6, p. 1-2). Specifically, no other person has testified
that Warren intended to file frivolous, harassing, or vexatious pleadings. (Doc. 6, p. 2). Warren
goes on to direct the Court’s attention to a 1907 Treatise on Suits in Chancery, by Henry Richard
Gibson and Black’s Law Dictionary by Bryan Garner and to discuss verification, maxims, and
equity. (Doc. 6, p. 2-3). He then translates Latin footnotes for several pages. None of Warren’s
citations have any relevance to the issues at hand.
Warren’s “Notice of Recission/Request for Forgiveness” purports to “rescind” the “Bill
in Equity, Petition for Specific Performance.” (Doc. 7, p. 1). It goes on to state that the Petition
“is hereby rescinded, made null and void, and is to be of no further force and/or effect.” (Doc. 7,
p. 1). Petitioner also states that he made an “inadvertent mistake” and that “every effort will be
made to avoid such mistakes” going forward. (Doc. 7, p. 1). He then alleges that the law library
and legal advice he receives at the institution are “inadequate” and “atrocious.” (Doc. 7, p. 1).
ANALYSIS
Warren has sworn that the Petition was a mistake, perhaps caused by inadequate legal
advice, and that he is sorry for filing it. He has argued that the Court has no evidence as to his

2

state of mind other than his own sworn testimony, and therefore, must find his testimony
credible. While it is true that the Court has not held hearing on this matter in order to observe
Warren and judge his credibility, nor gathered evidence from others tending to refute Warren’s
statements, the Court is free to consider the inconsistency between Warren’s sentiments and the
manner in which he has expressed them. Warren appears to be part of the sentient sovereign
movement, which some have called “paper terrorists.” A hallmark of the movement is the
consistent filing of frivolous actions based on deliberate mis-readings of contractual law,
admiralty law, and other areas.
Here, although Warren professes regret, his Response and “Notice of Rescission” are still
drafted according to sentient sovereign principles.

Warren uses “offer” and “acceptance”

language, which is totally irrelevant in the habeas context. (Doc. 6). In lieu of filing a notice of
voluntary dismissal, which is what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate, Warren has
filed a “Notice of Rescission,” another term borrowed from contract law. And although he
places the blame on his frivolous filings on an inadequate law library, no law library would
contain tomes recommending sentient sovereign tactics because they are not based on valid legal
principles.

The Court finds Warren’s continued use of sentient sovereign legal tactics

inconsistent with his statements that he did not intend to file frivolous, harassing, and or
vexatious filings.
The Court therefore finds that Warren has not adequately shown cause. Warren will
therefore be sanctioned once again with a fine and a filing ban.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jack Wade Warren is SANCTIONED with a $1,500
fine, to be paid before any other civil litigation will be filed. This fine is in addition to any other
filing fees owed to this District. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return all civil pleadings

3

unfiled until the sanction is paid, and all habeas corpus filings will be summarily dismissed thirty
days after filing, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Documents submitted in connection
with an appeal are excluded from the sanction.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Date: August 5, 2016
/s/ STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

4