http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/mitchell12192005.pdf

Revolting Judges  http://www.sji.gov/

Fearful of a growing backlash from the public against arbitrary, prejudiced, and even malicious judgments that are protected by judicial immunity, judges have banded together under government sponsorship to devise means of defending themselves from aggrieved and increasingly militant pro-se litigants.

Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges

JUNE WISNIEWSKI     http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/revoltingjudges_03a.htm

The Anti-Government Movement Handbook [PDF] is a training manual for judges and court staff against pro-se litigants, published in 1999 by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.

Each state has an SJI repository for all publications put out by the organizations they have funded. For example, the repository in Nevada is at NJC in Reno. In New Jersey, the SJI repository is at the New Jersey State Library in Trenton.

You can check out these training manuals with a New Jersey library card. You can also find out where your SJI repository is by looking it up on the Internet at http://www.statejustice.org

, by calling SJI at 703-684-6100, or by writing to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

SJI is funded by Congress with your tax dollars. If you don’t like the courses and materials they are funding, you can write to your senator or congressman, or directly to SJI and ask them to stop funding these materials. SJI gets very few letters from the public, and I’m sure they would love to hear from you. When you get to their Web site, read and download the newsletters. Most of their new grants are in their newsletters.

The National Center for State Courts is an umbrella organization for several judges’ organizations such as the National College of Probate judges (NCPJ), AJA, CCJ, COSCA, ICM and others. I have been a member of NCPJ since 1996 and have attended four judges’ conferences. The most controversial and harmful material against the public is coming from NJC and NCSC materials, two agencies that compete with each other for SJI and federal government funding.

http://truthspress.wordpress.com/here-it-is-jeanetteremember-the-pujo-committee/

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/mitchell12192005.pdf

1The defendants have raised other objections that have been noted by the court, including a

challenge to the ability of their court-appointed lawyers to represent them. This memorandum,

however, only concerns the court’s jurisdiction.

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

WILLIE MITCHELL, SHELTON

HARRIS, SHELLY WAYNE

MARTIN, and SHAWN GARDNER

*

*

*

****

Criminal No. AMD 04-0029

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

The four defendants in this case, Willie Mitchell, Shelton Harris, Shelly Wayne

Martin, and Shawn Gardner, have moved to dismiss all charges against them based on a lack

of jurisdiction. Their individual but identical written pro se motions, the substance of which

have been reiterated orally numerous times during in-court proceedings, are hereby DENIED

for the reasons stated herein.1

I.

The defendants have been indicted by a properly constituted grand jury, and they are,

indisputably, subject to the jurisdiction of this court. In particular, the grand jury has accused

Mitchell, Harris, Martin, and Gardner of having participated in a criminal racketeering

enterprise that began in the mid-1990s and continued up to their arrests in 2004. The group

2Each defendant, in a pro se filing described as “Affidavit of Status and Notice of Dismissal

of Charges Attached to as Incorporated Herein,” states the following: “Your Affiant challenges the

subject matter jurisdiction of the Court for lack of verified complaint and lack of Verified complaint

Sworn under oath, and the fact that he does NOT understand any of the charges.”

3This assertion comes from another pro se filing called “Refusal for Fraud.”

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -2-

is alleged to have sustained itself through armed robberies, drug trafficking, and the

establishment of a music production company called Shake Down Entertainment, Ltd. Each

of the defendants is alleged to have willfully participated in one or more of five murders in

and around Baltimore. If convicted on the capital counts, Mitchell, Harris and Gardner will

face the possibility of the death penalty.

II.

The defendants’ challenge to jurisdiction is unusual-- if not bizarre. The defendants

claim that the court does not have jurisdiction “for lack of verified complaint.”2 They also

state that the court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Res and lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the Rem.”3 The motions, dated November 8, 2005, are supported by sources

of law that are not ordinarily associated with challenges to criminal jurisdiction, including

the Uniform Commercial Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A.

The exact theory relied on by the defendants is difficult to ascertain, but it seems to

be related to their common statements insisting that, “I do not consent. I did not sign

anything. And I do not understand the attached documents [the front page of the Second

4The defendants’ protestations echo the sentiments included in the following excerpt from

an essay found on an Internet website:

There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the

difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will

explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created

by the government. In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower

case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural

person . . . . On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH

SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

See http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/AffTruth.html

 (visited December 16,

2005).

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -3-

Superceding Indictment].” The defendants also persistently claim that they are not properly

identified in the caption of the indictments because their names are printed in all capital

letters, thereby failing to properly represent them as “flesh and blood” men.4

These arguments are patently without merit. Perhaps they would even be humorous--

were the stakes not so high. To begin with, the U.C.C. has no bearing on criminal subject

matter jurisdiction. In crossing out the front page of their indictments, the defendants cite

“U.C.C. 3.501.” The court takes this to mean U.C.C. § 3-501. This section of the Uniform

Commercial Code, however, pertains to presentment of negotiable instruments. It is

unfathomable how such a provision has any relevance in a criminal proceeding.

The defendants also cite Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Again, this has nothing to do with the instant case. Although the rule does pertain to courts

dismissing actions for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, the rule applies only to civil

actions. This is a criminal action.

5 The defendants also state that they “do not understand” the proceedings. The court does not,

however, take this to mean that the defendants lack an understanding of the charges, or that they are

arguing they are incompetent to stand trial. To the contrary, before they launched their recent,

misguided attack on the court’s jurisdiction, each defendant cooperated fully with their counsel

through several pre-trial motions hearings and never suggested that they lacked understanding of

the charges, the potential penalties, or the very gravity of this case.

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -4-

Furthermore, the defendants, who, prior to November 8, 2005, acted with appropriate

dignity at all times while in court and cooperated fully with their counsel, apparently

recognizing the authority of this court, are mistaken if they think they cannot be prosecuted

without their consent or signatures.5 If this were the case, it is hard to imagine that any

indicted defendant would “consent” to any proceedings against him, and the entire federal

criminal code would be pointless. The court can only speculate as to the motivations behind

the defendants’ recent actions, but it seems that the defendants are confusing criminal

procedure with the requirement in civil cases that the defendant be properly served with

process.

Finally, the use of capital letters in the caption of an indictment is irrelevant to the

issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The government attorneys and the court have addressed

the defendants, both in court and on paper, in a proper manner that clearly identifies them.

“It makes no sense to rest a jurisdictional distinction upon the use of all upper case letters

or a mixture of upper and lower case letters. The federal courts abandoned this level of

formalism long ago.” United States v. Singleton, 2004 WL 1102322, *3 (N.D. Ill., May 7,

2004)(denying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on argument, in part, that

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -5-

defendant was “a flesh and blood man”).

B.

Although unique by conventional legal standards, the defendants arguments are not

new. Increasingly, they have been asserted in criminal cases pending in this district, and have

been summarily rejected. Similar challenges have been advanced in other districts as well,

but the results have been the same. In Singleton, for example, the defendant argued first that

the capitalization of his name referred not to a flesh and blood man, but to a treasury account

the government had set up for each citizen in the 1930s. Id. at *2. Second, the defendant

argued that Congress had illegally adjourned without a quorum in 1861, thereby invalidating

every law passed since then. Id. The court rejected these assertions. See also United States

v. Secretary of Kansas, 2003 WL 22472226 (D. Kan., Oct. 30, 2003) (criminal defendant

who filed a lien against property owned by a federal judge sought dismissal of injunctive

action filed by the United States on the ground, in part, that he was a “flesh and blood man

with a soul”).

These assertions are equally unimpressive as invoked in the instant case. This court

clearly has jurisdiction over the defendants and over the criminal charges contained in the

indictment. By statute, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the

courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231.

The defendants are all charged with crimes that were established by acts of Congress,

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -6-

including racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841.

They were indicted by a properly assembled federal grand jury. Now they must stand trial

in federal court.

III.

It is not likely that the defendants in this case, charged with, but presumed innocent

of, involvement in the urban violence that all too commonly attends the modern drug trade,

know of the origins of their in-court tirades and irrational written objections based on

“jurisdiction.” But courts have encountered these claims before, namely, in the antics and

writings of extremists who wish to dissociate themselves from the social compact

undergirding this nation’s democratic institutions, including the independent judicial branch

of government. See THE ANTI-GOVERNMENT MOVEMENT GUIDEBOOK, National Center for

S t a t e C o u r t s ( 1 9 9 9 ) , d o w n l o a d a b l e a t

http://www.ticketslayer.com/beta_ts_2/anti-gov_handbook.pdf and by purchase from the

National Center for State Courts at http://library.ncsc.dni.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe. There, the

authors have described activities and arguments made by others not unlike those employed

by the defendants in this case:

Though the precise contours of their philosophy differ among the

various groups, almost all antigovernment movements adhere to a theory of

a “sovereign” citizen. Essentially, they believe that our nation is made up of

two types of people: those who are sovereign citizens by virtue of Article IV

of the Constitution, and those who are “corporate” or “14th Amendment”

citizens by virtue of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The arguments

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -7-

put forth by these groups are generally incoherent, legally, and vary greatly

among different groups and different speakers within those groups. They all

rely on snippets of 19th Century court opinions taken out of context,

definitions from obsolete legal dictionaries and treatises, and misplaced

interpretations of original intent. One of the more cogent- in the sense that it

is readily followed-arguments is that there were no United States citizens prior

to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. All Americans were merely citizens

of their own state and owed no allegiance to the federal government. As a

result of that amendment, however, Congress created a new type of citizenone

who now enjoyed privileges conferred by the federal government and in

turn answered to that government.

One of the ramifications of this belief is the dependent belief that,

unless one specifically renounces his federal citizenship, he is not the type of

citizen originally contemplated by the Constitution. And, in their view, the

Constitution requires all federal office holders to be the original or sovereign

type of citizen, a state citizen rather than a United States citizen. As a result,

all federal officers are holding office illegally and their laws and rules are thus

constitutionally suspect.

Id. at 51. It is truly ironic that four African-American defendants here apparently rely on an

ideology derived from a famously discredited notion: the illegitimacy of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

The NCSC monograph further describes some of the ideas behind jurisdictional

challenges to the proper exercise of judicial authority as follows:

Members of the anti-government movement will often attempt to avoid

conferral of jurisdiction onto a court by refusing to identify themselves or

denying that they are the person named in a warrant or summons. This refusal

may come from any one of or even several of the following bases. Often, antigovernment

adherents will refuse to come forward simply to waste time, or out

of a more general refusal to recognize or submit to the court's jurisdiction.

Some parts of the anti-government movement however, will refuse to come

forward on the ground that their name is misspelled, or even because their

name is in all capital letters. This particular objection comes from a number

6Indeed, the defendants’ repeated assertions that they lack confidence that their appointed

counsel can adequately represent them is especially misguided. The court has appointed two highly

competent and experienced attorneys for each defendant, as required in capital cases by federal law.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3005. It would be especially tragic if, in the end, one or more of these young men

were to receive a death sentence, in part, because he acted willfully to thwart the very efforts of his

(continued...)

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -8-

of “sources”. Some believe that the spelling (or misspelling, or use of all

capital letters) of their name is a sign of the movement toward “one world

government.” Others believe that all capital letters denotes a corporation, and

that answering as a corporation subjects them to the illegitimate laws of the

American judicial system. Some believe that all capital letters denotes “the

Mark of the Beast,” or that it is a denotation of a “war name.”

Finally, some members of the movement believe that they only “own”

their first and middle names, and that their last name reveals their family. They

use their middle name in place of a last name, or go by their first and middle

name from the family of their last name. Attached to this particular issue may

be a desire to be referred to as “Sir” or “Sovereign,” because of a belief that

this title more effectively conveys their status as a “sovereign citizen.” It is the

belief of members of the movement that they can file a document renouncing

their citizenship to become a nation subject only to their own local commonlaw,

and not subject to the law of their state or the federal government.

Another ground for a follower’s refusal to identify himself may be his refusal

to recognize himself as a “person.” This particular objection comes from what

appears to be a somewhat mystical distinction between a “person” and a

“human being” according to the anti-government movement’s philosophy.

Id. at 63.

Bizarre and misguided contentions by defendants in criminal cases have never proven

effective and they will not prove effective in this capital case. Defendants are urged here, as

they have been urged viva voce in open court, and in the strongest possible terms, to desist

from their disruptive behavior and resume cooperation with their counsel, who want

desperately to save their lives.6

6(...continued)

lawyers to obtain a not guilty verdict and/or to save his life even if he is convicted. If the defendants

continue on the course they have now chosen, of continued disruptive behavior in the courtroom

(which will require their removal from the courtroom during pre-trial and trial proceedings) and

of continued attacks on their lawyers and refusals to cooperate with counsel, the possibility of such

an outcome will grow increasingly more likely. Surely, no matter what they may feel about this case,

their own families and loved ones cannot possibly desire such a result.

U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000) -9-

IV.

For the reasons set forth above, the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction are this 19th day of December, 2005, DENIED.

THE CLERK SHALL MAIL A COPY OF THIS MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER TO ALL COUNSEL AND TO EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS, PRO

SE.

ANDRE M. DAVIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

=========================Lawmakers dispute corruption survey resultsBy CHARISSA M. LUCIAugust 21, 2011, 4:29pm

MANILA, Philippines -- House leaders Sunday shrugged off an online survey claiming that Congress and judiciary fell short in addressing corruption in the government.

House Majority Leader and Mandaluyong City Rep. Neptali Gonzales branded the survey of under the Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project (PPTRP) as misleading, saying the overwhelming majority of respondents do not understand how Congress works.

In the survey of 176 respondents conducted from June to August, 90 percent of the respondents were dissatisfied with the performance of the Legislative and the Judiciary in addressing the corruption in the bureaucracy. Only 10 percent believe that lawmakers were doing a good job.

“I think that respondents surveyed fail to understand the role of Congress in the fight against corruption. While we can investigate, it is always in aid of legislation and while we can recommend the filing of criminal and/or administrative complaint against any official as a result of such investigation, at the end of the day, it’s the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the government that is tasked to prove it and for the judiciary to decide on it,” Gonzales said.

The survey polled students, activists, civil servants, lawyers, journalists, accountants and professionals from major cities and provinces nationwide.

The survey also showed that about 60 percent of respondents believe that the Aquino administration failed to put in place an "ideal strategy" to build transparency and accountability.

House Assistant Majority Leader and Citizens Battle Against Corruption (Cibac) Rep. Sherwin Tugna disputed the survey results, saying that the Aquino government is implementing initiatives that would gradually stamp out bureaucratic corruption.

He cited the “non-existence of an unprogrammed fund” in the proposed P1.816-trillion budget for 2012 “that was existent during the past administration.”

“This has been done through the zero-based budgeting of P-Noy. Meaning, nothing is stated in the budget without a corresponding detail where it will be spent. Now, there are no discretionary funds on the part of Cabinet members and lesser prone to corruption,” the party-list lawmaker said.

Explaining the principle of zero-based budgeting, he said before the 2012 budget is submitted to Congress, each and every item is assessed, scrutinized, and particularized to prevent the inclusion of an item with an amount that is unprogrammed.

“This has effectively prevented department secretaries from having almost the discretion as to how and where these funds will be used,” he said.

He even noted that there has been reduction in corruption in the judiciary following the increased awareness against corruption.

“Judges are now more fearful of the repercussions of corruption because of the increased vigilance of litigants to report corrupt judges to our Ombudsman,” the party-list lawmaker said.

The PPTRP survey also showed that 80 percent of the respondents took note of the major roles being played by Congress and the judiciary in stamping out corruption.

The survey seeks to measure the public perception on the roles of government, civil society, media, and other sectors in promoting transparency and accountability in the government.

Among those institutions behind the PPTRP are the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Center for Community Journalism and Development, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and MindaNews.

The PPTRP has been funded by the United States Agency for International Development and the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative.http://mb.com.ph/node/331515/lawmaker