United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
OPINION and ORDER
MAURICE B. COHILL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Defendant Hondo Amun El (indicted name Mario T. Herring) was named as a Defendant in a three-count Indictment filed February 19, 2013, charging him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 472. Defendant is representing himself in this matter. His appointed stand-by counsel is Steven Townsend, Esquire.
Presently before the Court are Defendant's eight pleadings titled as follows: "Affidavit of Verity (Writ of Coram non Judice)" (ECF No. 41); "Affidavit of Verity [:] Writ of Discovery" (ECF No. 43); "Affidavit of Truth (Notice of Default Judgment)" (ECF No. 44); "Affidavit of Truth (Motion for Summary Judgment)" (ECF No. 45); "Affidavit of Fact [:] Rebuttal to the Slanderer Objections to Opinion and Order Filed 10/11/13" (ECF No. 46); "Affidavit of Fact (Motion to Suppress) (ECF No. 47); "Affidavit of Fact [:] Request for Extension for Pre-Trial Motions and Evidence-in-Chief that respondent intends to use at trial" (ECF No. 48); and "Affidavit of Fact [:] Demand for Release of Seized Property & Addendum to Motion to Suppress evidence-in-chief" (ECF No. 49). We will refer to these pleadings collectively as motions. The government has filed an omnibus response to the motions opposing all but the request for extension of time to file pretrial motions. ECF No. 53.
I. Summary of Motions
Our review of Defendant's pleadings shows that he continues to assert challenges to the jurisdiction of this court. First, he challenges the jurisdiction of the Court itself based on his reading of several parts of the Constitution under Article I and Article II, with an emphasis on Article 2, section 2, clause 2. He also relies on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This challenge to the jurisdiction of the court is directly based on Defendant's assertion that I have not been properly appointed as a Judge, have failed to produce a "Delegation Order of Authority" (also referred to by Defendant as a "Delegation of Authority Order"), and failed to produce a proper Oath of Office. Related to these challenges are Defendant's request for discovery of the "Delegation Order of Authority" and Oath of Office, and Defendant's related request that I recuse in this case.
Defendant also challenges the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter of this case based on the assertion that there is no injured party here and therefore no crime can exist in the absence of an injured party.
In addition, Defendant challenges jurisdiction based upon his assertion that he is not a United States citizen; that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money under the Constitution; and the failure to effect proper service of the summons and/or complaint.
Defendant also requests dismissal of this action claiming that the statute he is alleged to have violated, 18 U.S.C. 472, is unconstitutional.
Somewhat related to his constitutional challenge to the statute (but also apparently related to his primary jurisdictional challenges) is an assertion that this case is not in the proper venue and therefore he seeks either a transfer or a remand of the case to State Court, where he implies that jurisdiction over any case that might be alleged against him, may be proper.
In his motion to suppress, he argues that there is a multiplicity of charges against him possibly resulting in a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. He also seeks to suppress evidence seized during the investigation of this case. He further requests that the testimony of, and evidence from, Senteria Nightengale, who was indicted at Criminal No. 13-41 and charged with conspiracy to pass counterfeit money, be excluded. Defendant also seeks the release of property seized in this case. Finally, he requests an extension of time to file pretrial motions, and also seeks discovery of evidence intended to be used at trial.
Before turning to the potentially non-frivolous arguments, we briefly address some of Defendant's other challenges.
A. Miscellaneous Challenges
With respect to Defendant's Constitutional jurisdictional challenge based on the assertion that the Judge has not been properly appointed, has failed to produce a "Delegation Order of Authority", and failed to produce a proper Oath of Office, we have already explained that this Court properly has jurisdiction over this case and the assigned Judge is competent to preside over this case. We will proceed on that basis and deny as frivolous Defendant's challenges to jurisdiction on the above bases.
We also summarily deny Defendant's request to transfer or remand this case to State Court; his claim that jurisdiction is not proper because he is not a United States citizen; and his claim that the government failed to effect proper service of the summons and/or complaint. Regarding service, it appears that Defendant is referring to a civil action. To the extent he is not we note that he also requests a copy of the Indictment in this case. The record reflects that the Indictment was attempted to be delivered directly to Defendant, but he refused to accept it. Therefore the prosecutor delivered a copy of the Indictment to the Federal Public Defender who initially appeared in this case, as ...