Smith-Bey v. Wolfe

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/30/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 11/30/15)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CI IARLES ARNELL SMITH-BEY.
A Moorish American National, natural person
in full life. in propria persona. sui juris.
permanent representative of: Moorish Divine
National Movement
Petitioner,

•
*
*
*
*

v.
WARDEN JOHN WOLFE
Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO. GJH-15-3448

•
*****
MEMORANDUM

On November 12,2015, Charles Amell Smith-Bey, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus.

I

This Petition represents the eighth federal habeas corpus action filed on behalf of or by

Smith-Bey in the past eight months. Smith-Bey claims that he is being held in custody of John
Wolfe. the Warden at the Maryland Correctional Institution in Jessup and holds himself out as a
"Permanent Representative of the Moorish Divine. National Movement:'

He seeks release from

Maryland confInement arguing that he was kidnapped. human traf11cked and committed to prison
under the "artitlcial" and fictitious person of "CHARLES ARNELL SMITH." He again attacks his
2014 conviction and sentence imposed in the Circuit Court for Charles County.'

ECF No.1.

The Petition is dated November 5. 2015.
2

The state court docket shows that Smith-Bey was rcpresented by counsel in his criminal
proceeding. Arier a jury trial before Judge Robert C. Nalley. Charlcs Amell Smith was convicted of seconddegree physical child abuse in the Circuit Court for Charlcs County. Maryland. On March 27, 2014. he was
sentenced to a five-year term. State v. Smith, Case Numbcr 08K I000792 (Circuit Court for Charles County).
On July 1.2015. the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied Smith-Bey's application for leave to appeal.
See hup:! /casesearc h.courts.state. md.us/casesearch.

Accompanying

the Writ is Smith-Bey's

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

ECF NO.2. Because he appears indigent the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Fom1a Pauperis shall be
granted.
Atlording
deprivcd

his sel1~represented Petition a generous construction,

of his right to his "proper

National.

free national

Hc raiscs a general challengc

he submitted

an affidavit

Maryland dcmanding
or evidcnce

proofofharm

namc" and nationality

to the jurisdiction
thc jurisdiction

as a Moorish-American

of the State of Maryland and asscrts that
of thc Circuit Court for Charles

from the alleged victim.

of proof was cver produced

entry ofdefaultjudgmcnl.
provisions

challcnging

Smith-Bey claims that he was

by "Administrative

Smith-Bcy

argues that as no rcbuttal

Officcr" Nalley,] hc is entitled to the

[d. at 1'1'.8-9. He citcs to violations of various treatics and constitutional

in support of his Writ.

[d. at p. 10. Because Smith-Bey sceks rclief from a statc court

judgment. the Petition is construed as petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.c.
Smith-Hey's
See Smilh-Bey

I'.

Civil Action No. GJH-15-1 067 (D. Md.); Smith-Bey

his conviction

2254.

(D. Md.); Smilh-Bey

v. Wolfe. el aI.,

v. Wo(fe. el al., Civil Action No. GJH- 15-1336

v. Wo(fe. el aI., Civil Action No. GJI 1-15-1654 (D. Md.); Smilh-Bey v. Wolfe. el

al.. Civil Action No. GJH-15- I 915 (D. Md.); Smilh-Bey
2606 (D. Md.):

!i

previous Writs raising identical or similar claims wcre dismissed by this Court.

Wo(fe. el al., Civil Action No. GJH-15-764

(D. Md.); Smith-Bey

County,

Thc Court has cautioned

Smith-Bey

on grounds of his Moorish-American

v. Wo(fe, el al., Civil Action No. GJII- 15-

that any further Petitions raising a challenge to
defense would bc decided on thc mcrits.

[d. at

Plainly, Smith-Bcy is referring to Charles County Circuil Court Judge Robert Nalley.
,
On October 19.2015. Smith-Bey filed a 28 U.S.c. !i 2241 Petition. again raising a challenge
to his confinement based upon his Charles County conviction. His request to voluntarily withdraw the Petition
was granted on November 13. 2015. See Smith-Bey v. Wolfe. Civil Action No. GJH-15-3179 (D. Md.).

2

ECF NO.3.
Courts have repeatedly
laws and jurisdietion

rejected the position that Moorish

of a defendant

prosecutions.")"

are not subjeet to the

of the United States, either by heritage or treaty. See. e.g., United Stales v.

While, 480 Fed. Appx. 193, 194 (4th Cir.
heritage

Nationals

eonstitutes

Reliefcannot

2012) (per curiam)

a key ingredient

be granted on that basis.

to a district
6

("'Neither the citizenship
court's jurisdiction

nor the

in criminal

To the extent that Smith-Bey has raised any

cognizable claims. those claims cannot proceed at this time because they have not been fully addressed by
the state courts.7

The law is clear that Moorish Americans. like all citizens of the United States, are subject to
the laws of the jurisdiction in which they reside. See. e.g .. Bey v. Jamaica Really. No. 12-CV-1241 (EN V),
2012 WL 1634161. * I n. I (E.O. N.Y. May 9. 20 12)(citing Bey v. Am. Tax Funding. No. II-CV--<i458, 20 12
WL 1495368. at *6 (W.O. N. Y. Apr. 27, 2012); see also Bey v. Cily o/Rochester. 2012 WL 1565636, at *8
(W.o. N. Y. Apr. 30. 20 12)(citing EI-Bey v. North Carolina. NO.5: II-CV-0423FL. 2012 WL 368374, at *2
(E.D. .c. Jan.9. 2012) (unpublished) ("[A]ny claim based on the contention that litigams are not subject to the
laws of North Carolina because of their alleged Moorish nationality and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of
1787 is frivolous."). recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 368369 (E.O. N.C. Feb. 3, 2012) (unpublished); Bey
\'. American Tax Funding. No. II-CV--<i458(CJS), 2012 WL 1498368, at *6 (W.O. N.Y. Apr. 27. 2012)
("[Plaintiffs'] purported status as a Moorish-American citizen does not enable him to violate state and federal
13\\'S without

consequence) .

•

Smith-Bey's ground. relating to his prosecution under the name of"CHARLES ARNELL
SMITH." sounds as a Oesh-and-blood. sovereign man defense claim. These types of challenges have been
repeatedly rejected by the courts. See United Stales v. Mitchell. 405 F.Supp.2d 602,603-06 (D. Md. 2005).
Further. on November 24. 2015. the Court received Smith-Bey's "Motion to Amend
Pleading:' ECF NO.4. He cites to an old treaty between Morocco and the United States. provisions of the
United States Constitution and a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision which refers to the rule describing the
federal courts' power to make federal common law when there is a lederallawmaking power to do so and a
strong federal interest in a nationally unifonn rule. For the Iirst time. Smith-Bey seemingly raises the claim
that he was not legally convicted in state court as" a mystery person aftixed the acronym A.K. A. with a name
that appears simi lar to that of Petitioners. with the name, identity, and status of the defendant party in the case
which also happens to be similar to the name, identity and status that the Petitioner was falsely branded with by
the prison guards:' ECF NO.4. The Motion to Amend shall be granted.

3

Habeas corpus relief will be denied.
certificate

of appealability

denial of a constitutional
demonstrating
claims

When a district court dismisses

may issue "only if the applicant
right."

28 U.S.c.

*

2253(c)(2).

has made a substantial
A prisoner

satisfies

showing

of the

this standard

by

,.that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional

debatable

or wrong"

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that "the issues presented
encouragement

a habeas petition, a

to proceed further.'"

were 'adequate

Slack v.
to deserve

Miller-el v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting

8ar4iJot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983). Smith-Bey does not satisfy this standard, and the
Court declines to issue a certificate
For the aforementioned
denied and dismissed.

of appealability.

reasons,

Smith-Hey's

Petition

A separate Order follows reflecting

for writ of habeas corpus shall be

the rulings entered herein.8

&/A--GEORGE JARROD HAZEL
United States District Judge

8
The Petition was accompanied by a Motion for Summary Judgment "on the claim [raised] in
my petition," ECI' NO.3. Smith-Bey seeks the entry of judgment, citing to undisputed "material facts." In
light of Smith- Bey's claims and the Court's findings as to the merits of his Petition, the Motion shall be denied

4