Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. SEARS, 6:04-10174-JTM-1. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Kansas Number: infdco20160309g25 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THOMAS MARTEN , District Judge . This matter is before the court on the following filings by defendant: "Bill in Equity" (Dkt. 133), "Motion for Ex Parte Hearing" (Dkt. 134), and "Motion to Seal" (Dkt. 135). In 2004, defendant Bruce Sears was convicted by a jury on three counts relating to armed robbery of a restaurant. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. (Dkt. 61). The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal (Dkt. 94). In 2008, defendant's 2255 motion was denied i
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the following filings by defendant: "Bill in Equity" (Dkt. 133), "Motion for Ex Parte Hearing" (Dkt. 134), and "Motion to Seal" (Dkt. 135).

In 2004, defendant Bruce Sears was convicted by a jury on three counts relating to armed robbery of a restaurant. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. (Dkt. 61). The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal (Dkt. 94). In 2008, defendant's § 2255 motion was denied in the district court (Dkt. 106), and his appeal of that ruling was dismissed in 2010. (Dkt. 129).

Defendant filed his "Bill of Equity" (Dkt. 133) in February of 2016. It names as defendants PIMCO Funds and Susan J. Sherman, and to the extent it is comprehensible, it seems to assert some claim by defendant to a bond or security. The submission is accompanied by a collection of papers characteristic of tax protester filings (e.g., "Affiant, by virtue of his constitutionally protected status of a Private National Citizen of the United States, is as foreign to the present de facto, Emergency War Powers, Roman Civil Law-based, martial due process of the courts of the United States. . . ."). Defendant's motion for hearing (Dkt. 134) makes a claim to the same bond or security referenced in his first filing. Defendant's motion to seal (Dkt. 135) asserts that he is a "private citizen," that the Emergency Banking Relief Act does not apply to him, and "orders the court to show cause why the instant case . . . shouldn't be sealed. . . ."

None of these filings show that the court has jurisdiction to grant any of the relief requested or that defendant is entitled to the requested relief.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2016, that defendant's Bill in Equity (Dkt. 133), Motion for Ex Parte Hearing (Dkt. 134), and Motion to Seal (Dkt. 135) are DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer