OPINION

JEROME B. SIMANDLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant William Oscar Harris' "motion for relief from void judgment" and "motion for preliminary injunction and order to show cause" [Docket Item 570], as well as his "motion for stay" [Docket Item 572.] Defendant asserts that his conviction is void because he "never acceded knowingly or otherwise to the territorial and personal jurisdiction of this Court." He seeks an order enjoining Eric H. Holder, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., and Leann LaRiva "from violating and trampling upon" his civil rights. Defendant also asks that the Court hold in abeyance his motion for relief from judgment and issue an order compelling arbitration between him and above-named individuals. The government opposes Defendant's motion for relief from judgment. [Docket Item 571.] For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Defendant's motions.

The Court has detailed the lengthy history of this complex criminal case in several prior opinions.1 It is sufficient to note that this case involves nine defendants, all American-born, but all alleged members of an organization called the Al Moroccan Empire or Moors, who were charged with conspiracy to produce and pass, and with producing and passing, false and fictitious money orders purporting to be authorized by the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Department of the Treasury in amounts which total more than tenmillion dollars, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy Count 1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 514(a)(2) and 2 (substantive Counts 2-25). On June 7, 2004, the trial commenced as to Defendant Harris and four other defendants, and on July 2, 2004, the jury found Defendant Harris and the other four defendants guilty on all counts.

Following a sentencing hearing on October 22, 2004, this Court sentenced Harris to 188 months of incarceration, five years of supervised release, a fine of $17,500, and restitution of $91,977. [Docket Item 380.] Defendant's period of incarceration was to commence after his confinement for civil contempt. United States v. Harris, 582 F.3d 512, 514 (3d Cir. 2009). The Third Circuit affirmed this Court's judgment of sentence as to Defendant Harris, as well as this Court's denial of his motion to vacate the order of civil contempt. Id. at 513. Harris never filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Defendant's motion for relief from judgment is both procedurally defective and substantively deficient. "Rule 60(b) cannot be used as an independent means to relieve a defendant of a judgment in a criminal case[] because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable to criminal cases." Gray v. United States, 385 F. App'x 160, 162 (3d Cir. 2010). Thus, a district court's refusal to consider a motion for relief from a judgment in a criminal case under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., is proper. Id. Rule 60(b) does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to entertain defendant's challenge to his criminal conviction.

Even if the Court were to construe Defendant's motion for relief from judgment as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241, it lacks merit and must be dismissed.2 It is apparent that Defendant's motion is based on the belief that he and his co-defendants are sovereigns of an empire that predates the United States and that the United States cannot subject them to its criminal laws. This Court has addressed on numerous occasions its jurisdiction over Mr. Harris who was accused of committing federal crimes in this district. It remains a frivolous argument, since Congress has and its Article III judges the power to adjudicate federal criminal offenses alleged by the United States.3 See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 ("The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."); 18 U.S.C. § 3231.4 Accordingly, Defendant's motion for relief from judgment based on lack of jurisdiction is meritless.5

Defendant's motion for stay and to compel arbitration similarly must fail. The Court recognizes that "[a] party to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement is entitled to a stay of federal court proceedings pending arbitration as well as an order compelling such arbitration." Alexander v. Anthony Int'l, L.P., 341 F.3d 256, 263 (3d Cir. 2003). However, Defendant's contention that his frivolous arguments regarding jurisdiction are somehow subject to an arbitration agreement is absurd and legally frivolous. Certainly, he has provided no evidence of any such agreement. The requests for admission in a series of unrelated civil matters, which Defendant appends to his motion for stay, document nothing more than his ongoing efforts to harass government officials through unsupported claims and filings. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant's motion for stay. The accompanying Order will be entered denying these motions.