To the extent that Mr. Turowski seeks this publicly available information, his motion to inspect grand jury records will be denied as moot. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, No. 11-CR-151A, 2014 WL 9938196, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. June 4, 2014) (denying as moot motion to inspect grand jury minutes “insofar as such documents are available and have been available upon defendant's request to the Clerk's Office”); United States v. Buczek, No. 08-CR-54S, 2009 WL 2230808, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009) (denying as moot motion to inspect grand jury minutes “insofar as such documents are available and have been available upon defendant's request to the Clerk's Office”).
Other courts have interpreted Section 1867(a) as mandating the motion be brought within seven days of indictment. See United States v. Dean, 487 F.3d 840, 849 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Saipov, Case No. 17-CR-722, 2020 WL 915808, at *6-*7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2020); United States v. Nunnally, Case No. 5:05-cr-00045-RS-GRJ, 2011 WL 643443, at *2 (N.D. Fla. 2011); United States v. Buczek, Case No. 08-CR-54S, 2009 WL 2230808, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). But even under that interpretation—which the Court does not adopt—Knight's Motion would be untimely.
However, other courts that have considered the issue have held that motions challenging grand jury selection and composition must be filed within seven days from the date of indictment. See Dean, 487 F.3d at 849 ("Because [defendant] did not try to inspect the grand jury list and jury qualification questionnaires within seven days of his indictment, the date on which he could have discovered if there were grounds for a challenge, he failed to meet the deadline for filing a motion to stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a)"); United States v. Nunnally, No. 5:05-cr-00045-RS-GRJ, 2011 WL 643443, *2 (N.D. Fla. 2011) ("Where a criminal defendant does not attempt to inspect grand jury lists and materials within seven days of his indictment, which is the date on which he could have discovered if there were grounds for a challenge, he fails to meet the deadline for filing a motion to stay under § 1867(a)"); United States v. Buczek, No. 08-CR-54S, 2009 WL 2230808, *1 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Courts throughout the United States have strictly enforced the seven-day limitation period and have held that where the challenge is to a grand jury selection, the seven-day period begins to run from the date of the indictment."). Here, Defendant Saipov has not filed a motion with regard to the selection or composition of the Grand Jury that returned the Indictment.
To the extent that defendant's motions implicate a legal basis, courts have universally rejected such legal arguments. See generally, Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 202 n. 4 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Waalee, No. 04-2178, 133 Fed. Appx. 819, n. 2 (3d Cir. May 17, 2005); United States v. Buczek, 08-CR-54S, (W.D. N.Y. July 24, 2009). 4. Defendant's motion to dismiss under the Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1604 fails, because she is not a "foreign state" entitled to protection under the Act.
rson filed are frivolous and have no legal effect, this Court is not alone. Courts across the country have routinely found documents such as Mr. Peterson's notices to be frivolous and have stricken them from the record. See, e.g., United States v. MacAlpine, No. 1:18-CR-00092-MR-WCM, 2018 WL 6620889, at *5 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2018) (striking document purporting to appoint the United States Attorney as the defendant's trustee/fiduciary as frivolous, describing the document as "of no legal effect" and "nonsensical," and warning the defendant that filings of a similar nature would in the future be summarily stricken from the record and disregarded by the court); United States v. Kleensang, No. 8:12CR56, 2012 WL 1869633, at *1-2 (D. Neb. Apr. 12, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:12CR56, 2012 WL 1869607 (D. Neb. May 22, 2012) (granting motion to strike documents including two titled "Notice of Appointment of Fiduciary Debtor," as frivolous and having no legal basis); see also United States v. Buczek, No. 08-CR-54S, 2009 WL 2230821, at *1-3 (W.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009) (finding several documents filed by the defendant, including notices of trustee appointments, to be "totally incomprehensible," and denying the relief—if any—requested by them). The U.S. Trustee also argues that the challenged filings were all filed for an improper purpose.