Preview:

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

The 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)

1

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

Each 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."
3

2

This assertion comes from another pro se filing called "Refusal for Fraud." -2-

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

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.

Download United States of America v. Willie Mitchell, Shelton Harris, Shelly Wayne Martin

Maryland Law