Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00078-CV
02-07-2018
IN RE GREGORY WALLACE-EL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Proceeding pro se, Gregory Wallace-El has filed a civil pleading in this Court. Although this pleading is unclear, it appears that relator's contentions concern a previous petition for writ of mandamus filed in this Court, see generally In re Wallace, No. 13-18-00055-CV, 2018 WL 526894, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 23, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), which he refers to as a "bill of attainder." Wallace denominates this new pleading as an "Affidavit of Fact—Writ of Discovery." We construe this as an original proceeding. Through this pleading, Wallace demands that we provide him with a "Certified Delegation of Authority Order" regarding this Court. Relator asserts that if we fail to provide this document within ten days, "this Affidavit of Fact—Writ of Discovery shall stand as Law affirming that this court does not have Jurisdiction as per Article II, Section II of the United States Constitution." Relator further demands "a copy of the 'Oath of Office,' Oath of Ethics, and Bond Number for all state/government officials, employees, Judges, prosecutors, agents, clerks, and anyone who has touched or is anyway involved with this case per Article VI of the United States Republic Constitution and Article XI of the Constitution of the state of Connecticut." Relator asserts that it is "obligatory upon the Officers of the 347th District Court and the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas to terminate this matter and return any finances that were submitted under threat, duress and coercion . . . ." He further suggests that "[a]ll officers and parties involved be sanctioned for their violations against the law and the rights of the people." Relator appears to have filed this as a member of "The Moorish National Republic, The Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World, Aboriginal and Indigenous Natural Peoples of North America."
Relator's pleadings fail to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements applicable to a petition for writ of mandamus. See, e.g., In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52 (governing original proceedings). Further, to the extent that relator attempts to invoke relief based on his status as a member of the Moorish National Republic, courts do not recognize such allegations. See, e.g., El Ameen Bey v. Stumpf, 825 F. Supp. 2d 537, 556 (D.N.J. 2011) (rejecting claims of adherents of Moorish or sovereign citizenship political movements); Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc. v. New Jersey, 790 F.Supp. 2d 241, 271-72 (D.N.J. 2011) (rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the Treaty of Morocco divested the court of jurisdiction); Pitt-Bey v. D.C., 942 A.2d 1132, 1136 (D.C. 2008) (rejecting the argument that an appellant convicted of disobeying the lawful order of a police officer had "immunity from prosecution under the Moroccan-American Treaty of Peace and Friendship, ratified by President Andrew Jackson on January 28, 1837").
See also Abdullah v. Morton, No. 1:16-CV-1292, 2017 WL 2387833, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:16-CV-1292, 2017 WL 2378818 (W.D. Mich. June 1, 2017) ("Irrespective of the other defects in the petition/complaint, plaintiff's contention that he is a Moorish citizen subject to treaty rights between the United States and the Moroccan Empire is patently frivolous and grounds for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction."); Idrissa El ex rel. Brewton v. Beal, No. 1:14-CV-96-FDW, 2014 WL 2812786 at *2 (W.D.N.C. June 23, 2014) ("Plaintiff's claim that his status as a Moorish citizen not subject to the laws of the United States and the States is wholly frivolous."); El Bey v. Centralia Police Dep't, No. 13-CV-313-JPG, 2013 WL 1788514 at *3 (S.D. Ill. April 26, 2013) ("Plaintiff is free to call himself a Moorish American National, or any other description that suits him. However, he is subject to state and federal laws, just like any other person regardless of citizenship. This Court joins the opinions cited above in rejecting Plaintiff's contention that he is not subject to Illinois laws or the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court where, it appears, his misdemeanor prosecution is still pending."); El-Bay v. North Carolina, No. 5:11-CV-00423, 2012 WL 368374, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2012) (explaining that any claim based on the contention that plaintiffs are not subject to the laws of North Carolina because of their alleged Moorish nationality and the Treaty of Morocco is frivolous); Bank of America., N.A. v. Derisme, C.A., No. 096004583S, 2010 WL 626498, at *2 (Conn. Super. Jan. 21, 2010) (rejecting the defendant's claim that she is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the court based on her status as an "Aboriginal Moorish American").
The Court, having examined and fully considered the pleading before us and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We caution relator that any further pleadings must conform with the applicable rules of law and that frivolous pleadings may lead to sanctions. See generally e.g., Tex. R. App. P. 45, 52.11.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 7th day of February, 2018.