United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a series of motions and other
filings submitted by Defendant Jasaun Mattice, as well as
some responsive motions filed by the United States.
Motion for Bond. (ECF #26).
motion is DENIED. When determining, under the Bail Reform
Act, the Court must consider whether any conditions or
combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure
the appearance of the person as required and the safety of
the community. S. Rep. No. 98-225, U.S. Code & Admin.
News at p. 3196; Accord, e.g., United States v.
Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). In
making this decision, the Court considers factors including
the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the
weight of the evidence against the defendant, and the
defendant's criminal history. The government's brief
in opposition to the motion for release (ECF #27)
specifically sets forth the reasons which support this
Court's determination that bond is not appropriate in
Government's Motion to Preclude Defendant from Using
"Hybrid" Representation and Motion to Strike. (ECF
#35). ' This motion is GRANTED. Any filings made by the
Defendant on &pro se basis prior to the approval
of his request to represent himself are, hereby, stricken.
Defendant has a right to be represented by counsel or to
proceed pro se, but may not proceed simultaneously pro se and
by counsel. See, e.g., Hall v. Dorsey, 534 F.Supp.
507, 508 (E.D. Pa. 1982). Defendant's request for
self-representation was granted on March 31, 2017. (ECF #36).
Prior to this date, Defendant was represented by counsel.
Therefore, no pro se filings submitted prior to
March 31, 2017 should have been or should be considered by
Motion to Dismiss Indictment. (ECF #37).
motion is DENIED. Mr. Mattice argues in his motion that the
indictment should be dismissed because his right to a speedy
trial has been violated. Although more than 70 days passed
between the filing of the first indictment and the filing of
this motion, most of the days were excludable under 18 U.S.C.
§3161(h), based on filings and requests made on behalf
of the Defendant. The non-excludable days do not exceed the
70 day window under Mr. Mattice's right to a speedy
trial. Further, the Defendant through his counsel requested
several continuances of the trial date, and the Court has
found that the ends of justice served by the delays in this
case outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant
in a speedy trial. (See, e.g., ECF #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 37, 38, 56, 57, 68, 73, 76, 90,
91, 94, 96).
Application to proceed on Appeal without prepaying fees or
costs. (ECF #39).
application is DENIED as moot. The Court of Appeals dismissed
this appeal on June 14, 2017, rendering the fee issue moot.
Motion to Strike "Notice of Issue of Foreign Law and
Complaint. (ECF #43).
motion is GRANTED. This motion was filed in response to Mr.
Mattice* s Notice of Issue of Foreign Law in which he claims
not to be subject to the laws and rules of the United States
because he is not a citizen and claims to be "Moor,
" entitled to "Free Passage and Immunity when in
the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." (ECF
#42). The "Moorish Nation" is not a recognized
sovereign state and persons claiming to be Moor are not
immune from the laws and rules imposed by the United States.
See, e.g., Clay v. Missouri, 2014 WL 260097, at *3
(E.D. Mo. Jan. 23, 2014); Bey v. Genano, NO.
PWG-16-2800, 2017 WL 1315530, slip op. At 4 (D. Md. Apr. 10,
2017). Further, no individual can bestow sovereign immunity
on themselves. Nathan v. Mehan, 2013 WL 5776301, at
*2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 25, 2013). Finally, even if Mr. Mattice
were not a United States citizen, he would be required to
conform to the laws of the United States while residing in
the United States. See, e.g., Leonard v. Eley, 151
F.2d 409 (10th cir. 1945). Mr. Mattice is subject
to the laws of the United States and no issue of foreign law
is applicable to his case.
Motion to Dismiss Indictment (ECF #56).
motion is DENIED. In this motion to dismiss, Mr. Mattice
alleges that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the
Complaint, that the indictment failed to charge him as a
"'person5 within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
1344, 513, 1028, " that he is not part of the class of
persons to whom the statute applies, and that the grand jury
indictment violated his due process rights. Defendant was
charged with offenses under Title 18 of the United States
Code. Sections 513, 1344, and 1028 of Title 18 apply to
"whoever" violates the prohibitions set forth
therein. "Whoever" is an all inclusive term that
includes any person who might engage in activities that
violate those statutes. Therefore, if the Government is able
to prove that the Defendant violated these statutes, the
Defendant would be a person to whom the statute applies. The
establishment of the offenses prohibited under Title 18 are
justified by the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution. United States v. Lopez,514 U.S. 549,
558-9 (1995). The crimes Defendant has been accused of,
including defrauding financial institutions that have banks
throughout the country, identity theft, are activities that
might substantially affect interstate commerce. Further, the
grand jury process in this met constitutional requirements.
United States Cons. Amend V. The processes Defendant claims
were lacking are required processes in a criminal trial, but
do not apply to grand jury proceedings. Grand juries may
initiate an investigation without a prior showing of probable
cause, because it ...