OPINION AND ORDER

MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.

Before the court is defendant Michael Albert Focia's pro se motion to dismiss. In his motion, he lists several "notices" to the court, as further laid out below, and "commands this court to dismiss with prejudice." Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 25) at 1-3. For the reasons that follow, Focia's motion to dismiss should be denied.

First, Focia "[n]otices this Court is a publicly traded stock with a Dun-N-Brad Street # and a NCIC Classification for profit" and states that "this Court is a franchise Court created by the United States Government a private for profit corporation as defined in 28 U.S.C. [§] 3002(15)(A)." Id. at 2. Focia has not produced any viable authority that, even if such statements were true, he would be entitled to have the pending criminal charges dismissed. Certainly 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)(A) does not provide such authority, as Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the United States Code, which encompasses §§ 3001-3308, is actually the codified federal debt collection procedure.1 This is wholly irrelevant to the pending criminal charges Focia faces and provides no basis for dismissal.

Next, Focia "[n]otices this Court that it Jurisdiction as defined in 4 U.S.C. [§] 72 is in the erected 50 Federal states aka the several states, aka United States Territories which are mutually exclusive from the states of the Union in the `Code'" and "the 50 Union states are mutually exclusive Jurisdiction in which they have no jurisdiction unless it is conferred on where there is a Corpus Delicti." Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 25) at 2. Again, the statute Focia cites, 4 U.S.C. § 72, does not provide any viable authority that he would be entitled to have the pending criminal charges dismissed. If fact, section 72 states, in its entirety, "All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law." 4 U.S.C. § 72 (emphasis added). In the case of this court, it is "otherwise expressly provided by law," as Congress, in exercising the power reserved to it by Article III, has created "inferior courts," including the United States District Courts for the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 81(b), 132(a). Furthermore, to the extent Focia's motion constitutes some effort to attack or challenge this court's jurisdiction, his argument that he is beyond the reach of this court's jurisdiction was rejected by the magistrate judge at his initial appearance, his objection has been preserved, and, as was conveyed to him at that time, he is free to appeal that matter at the appropriate time.

Additionally, Focia "[n]otices this Court that it operates under 27 C.F.R. [§] 72[2] that all crimes are commercial and that to enforce their statutes their must be a contract in accordance with the Clearfield Doctrine."3 Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 25) at 2. Focia argues that he "has terminated all contracts with the United States Government, including a social security number unlawfully assigned to me" and that he has "lawfully corrected [his] citizenship with a brief to John Kerry, Eric Holder, Luther Strange, & Alabama Secretary of State." Id. Then, Focia "[n]otices this Court I have invoked Section 2 of the Alabama Constitution[4] attained & abolished my form of government guaranteed by Article 4 Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America."5 Id. Again, this is not viable authority to support that Focia is entitled to have the pending criminal charges dismissed, and to the extent he attempts to challenge this court's jurisdiction, his argument has been rejected, and he is free to appeal that matter at the appropriate time.

Finally, Focia "[n]otices this Court" of some of his exhibits to this motion, including his "`affidavit of corporate denial,'" his "`IRS Form 56,'" his "`Declaration of [his] Peaceful Inhabitance and offer of Peace,'" and his "`Mission by Apostille of a Foreign Neutral.'" Id. at 3. None of these exhibits provides a legally sufficient basis for dismissal of the criminal charges pending against him. Focia concludes, "Wherefore the above mentioned reasons Belligerent Claimant commands this court to dismiss with prejudice." Id. As discussed throughout this order, he has not established any legally sufficient grounds for dismissal.

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Michael Albert Focia's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 25) is denied.