FRIEND v. SCHATZMAN
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 03/24/2015. The Petition fails as a matter of law on its face. RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Docket Entry 1 be dismissed.(Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JONATHAN LAVON FRIEND,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM T. SCHATZMAN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:15CV231
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, filed
a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, together with the $5.00 filing fee. For the reasons that
follow, the Court should dismiss the Petition.
BACKGROUND
According to the Petition, on December 9, 2014, a jury
convicted Petitioner of felony possession of cocaine in violation
of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(d)(2),1 resulting in a sentence of 8 to
19
months
imprisonment.
(Docket
Entry
1,
§§
2,
3,
5,
6.)
Petitioner filed certain motions with the North Carolina Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court, but reports that these courts have not
yet ruled on his filings.
1
(Id., § 9.)
The record does not reflect
The Petition actually lists the statute as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-93(d)(2),
but no subsection (d)(2) appears in § 90-93.
Further, § 90-95(d)(2) covers
possession of cocaine the arrest warrant that Petitioner attaches as an exhibit
to his Petition references that statute.
that Petitioner then sought any further review in the state courts
before bringing his Petition in this Court.2
DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, states:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct
the clerk to notify the petitioner.
For the reasons set out below, the Petition plainly states no claim
for relief.
Petitioner raises four claims for relief in the Petition:
1) he is being unlawfully held in violation of the “Peace Treaty of
1787” (Docket Entry 1, § 12 Ground One(a)); 2) his statute of
conviction does not meet the requirement of the North Carolina
Constitution that it contain an “enacting clause”(id. § 12, Ground
Two(a)); 3) Petitioner is neither “a 14th Amendment citizen nor an
Artificial Person” and the jurisdiction of the officer who arrested
him did not extend to international law because the officer was an
“Employee of a Private Corporation”
(id. § 12, Ground Three(a));
and 4) Petitioner suffered injury because he did not have an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him given that
he did not hurt another person or their property and the State
cannot be an injured party to a crime (id. § 12, Ground Four(a)).
2
Petitioner’s claims thus appear unexhausted.
However, given the
frivolous nature of Petitioner’s claims, as discussed below, and the fact that
the Court informed Petitioner in three prior cases that the same or similar
claims were frivolous, see Friend v. Schatzman, No. 1:15CV175 (M.D.N.C), Friend
El v. Forsyth County Detention Center, No. 1:15CV44 (M.D.N.C.), Friend El v.
Perdue, No. 1:12CV405 (M.D.N.C.), the Court should address his claims rather than
dismiss the case for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
-2-
Attachments to the Petition indicate or allege that Petitioner
is a member of the “United Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu’ur Nation”
and
not
a
United
States
citizen,
that
certain
forms
or
capitalizations of the name “Jonathan Laron Friend” are artificial
or corporate entities or straw men against whom there is no civil
or criminal liability, and that Petitioner is not subject to the
legal jurisdiction of federal, state, or local governments.
He
also repeats his contentions that the State cannot be the injured
party in a crime, that the officer who arrested him, who he
identifies as a member of the Winston-Salem Police Department,
works for a private corporation, and that the criminal offense
charged makes no mention of the enacting clause in the North
Carolina
Constitution.
The
attachments
frequently
cite
to
commercial law and statutes for support.
The Petition and attachments contain numerous logical, legal,
and
factual
fallacies.
However,
the
Court
needs
only
to
specifically address a few points to determine that the Petition
should be dismissed under Rule 4.
North Carolina, having ratified
the United States Constitution in 1790, is one of the States of the
United States of America. Cross v. Harrison, 57 U.S. 164, 170, 200
(1853).
It is also a separate sovereign with the power to
prosecute crimes in its territory.
U.S. 187, 194 (1959).
Abbate v. United States, 359
Possession of cocaine is a crime under the
statutes of the State of North Carolina.
95.
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-
In fact, it is a felony under North Carolina law.
Jones, 358 N.C. 473, 598 S.E.2d 125 (2004).
-3-
State v.
North Carolina relied
on this statute to prosecute and convict Petitioner and the
Petition
raises
no
colorable
challenge
jurisdiction under this statute.
to
North
Carolina’s
Finally, officers employed by
cities in North Carolina have the duty to enforce both city
ordinances and state criminal laws.
State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149,
155-56, 141 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1965).
Put simply, Petitioner cannot
legally possess cocaine in Winston Salem, North Carolina, officers
of the Winston-Salem Police Department can arrest him if he does,
and he can thereafter be prosecuted and convicted by the State of
North Carolina. Petitioner’s citizenship, peace treaties, the lack
of an injured person, the common law, and commercial law are all
irrelevant and Petitioner’s claims based on these matters are
meritless.
CONCLUSION
The Petition fails as a matter of law on its face.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Docket Entry 1
be dismissed.
This, the 24th day of March, 2015.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?