United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
CARLTON W. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are defendant Julio Armando Brunet's renewed
motion to dismiss, Docket No. 22, his ore tenus
motion for transcripts, and his motion requesting educational
material. Docket No. 38. Each will be addressed in turn.
motion to dismiss, Brunet argues that this federal
prosecution constitutes a violation of his rights under the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and several
Constitutional amendments. In contending that he is a human
over which this court lacks jurisdiction, he references a
“security agreement, ” the UCC, and other
sovereign citizen-type claims.
Court previously ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear this
criminal case. See Te x t -Only Order of June 12,
2018. Nothing has changed in the interim. Brunet's
“reliance on the UCC or a so-called ‘sovereign
citizen' theory that he is exempt from prosecution and
beyond the jurisdiction of the state or federal courts is
frivolous. The same or similar arguments have been repeatedly
rejected by other courts and are rejected by this
Court.” Berman v. Stephens, No. 4:14-CV-860-A,
2015 WL 3622694, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2015) (collecting
cases); see also United States v. Goodrich,
No. 09-00353-10-CR-W-ODS, 2012 WL 7660134, at *3 (W.D. Mo.
Feb. 10, 2012) (denying motions to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction). As one court explained:
This Court's jurisdiction over Mr. Delatorre remains
valid whether his name is written in all capital letters or a
mix of capital and lower case letters, or whether he
identifies himself as: a “real flesh and blood man, in
his private capacity, ” a “sovereign secured
party creditor;” a debtor; the “authorized
representative of the corporate fiction-entity/debtor
identified, as Fernando Delatorre, ” or “third
party intervenor on behalf of Defendant/Debtor Fernando
Delatorre.” Mr. Delatorre's Uniform Commercial Code
(“UCC”), copyright, and trademark filings do not
change this fact. The Defendants charged in this case are not
fictional creations, but individual citizens of the United
States subject to its valid and enforceable laws.
United States v. Delatorre, No. 03-CR-90, 2008 WL
312647, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2008). For these reasons,
the motion to dismiss is denied.
has also requested transcripts of certain hearings. The last
time the Court granted his request, see Docket No.
19, Brunet used quotes from it to file a motion rehashing his
sovereign citizen arguments. See Docket No. 22 at
10-11, 15-16, 18. The Court does not see how additional
transcripts will assist Brunet in his defense. Accordingly,
his motion is denied.
Brunet also asks this Court to provide him with trial videos
because he has never seen a court trial and has no knowledge
of trial court procedure. Docket No. 38. Watching the videos,
he contends, will allow him to do two things: (1) better
understand proper courtroom etiquette and (2) prepare him for
request is denied. “The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
of our Constitution guarantee that a person brought to trial
in any state or federal court must be afforded the right to
the assistance of counsel before he can be validly convicted
and punished by imprisonment.” Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975). The Court has met
its obligation. It sought to appoint experienced counsel who
knows proper courtroom etiquette and trial procedure. Brunet
has rejected that counsel. While the Court respects
Brunet's decision to represent himself, it has no duty
now to provide litigants, indigent or otherwise, with access
to trial videos.
to appointing experienced counsel to represent him, the Court
has provided the next best help for Brunet. It has appointed
him stand-by counsel to assist him when called upon. See
Wood v. Quarterman, 491 F.3d 196, 201 (5th Cir. 2007).
He may choose to call upon counsel, if he wishes. Or, he may
continue to represent himself and not seek input from
counsel. He has chosen this path. Brunet, however, is
reminded that the Court “may terminate [his] right to
self-representation where [he] fails to abide by courtroom
rules and/or engages in obstructionist conduct.”
 “‘Sovereign citizen'
is a catchall phrase referring to a variety of
anti-government individuals and groups who share some common
beliefs and behaviors. . . . [A]ll sovereign citizens,
whether tied to an organization or not, adhere to a view that
the existing American governmental structure, including the
courts and law enforcement, is illegitimate and that they,
the sovereign citizens, retain an individual common law
identity exempting them from the authority of those
fraudulent government institutions. . . . They speak an odd
quasi-legal language and believe that by not capitalizing
names and by writing in red and using certain catch phrases
they can avoid any liability in our judicial system. . . . At
their most harmless, sovereign citizens are cranks who talk
what seems like gibberish to cops and magistrates and judges
and then become law abiding when they face real legal
trouble. At a different level, they ...