Black Defendants Invoke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

“Black Defendants Invoke ‘Flesh and Blood Defense’”

I’ll do my best to give a short narrative of a very interesting article in the Washington Monthly entitled “Too Weird for the Wire”. I can’t find an electronic version, but I will continue to search.

Short story:

In crime-ridden Baltimore, the federal government opted to go after some gang operations via RICO laws. Willie Edward Mitchell and Shelton Lee Harris were charged with a slew of crimes, including a string of brutal, execution-style homicides in 2002. The gang these two headed up a drug trafficking operation that recycled its profits into Shake Down Entertainment in hopes of breaking into the rap music industry. Both men are black.

Here is where it gets interesting. When brought before the federal court, the defendants immediately cut the judge off and launched into the “flesh and blood” defense, claiming that (in no particular order):

-defense attorneys, as officers of the court, were part of the conspiracy that gave the federal government its unauthorized power
-they were not subject to the court’s jurisdiction because of the invalidity of the 14th Amendment
-as sovereign individuals, the names on the court papers were mere legal fictions created by the federal government and the indictments weren’t actually for “them”…and they knew this because there is a big government database that has everyone’s names in all CAPITAL LETTERS, which is not, of course, the “real name” of the sovereign individual (no jurisdiction over the “flesh and blood”)
-the court has no constitutional power to command the defendant’s appearance due to the invalidity of the federal government

My summary doesn’t do it justice (going off the top of my head). What is interesting is that this defense - the so-called “flesh and blood” defense - is the creation of the anti-government, white supremacist separatists that claim the federal government is illegitimate and is beholden to Jewish bankers, Satan, etc. Terry Nichols offered the same defense.

In short, these black defendants are invoking a legal defense invented by white supremacists denying the entire bulk of federal law that insured the rights of newly freed slaves and black citizens after the Civil War.

As an additional note, the school of thought is also a fellow traveler with the notion that the legal fiction of “corporate personhood” is an abomination to our law. Also, the article notes that there is at least some perhaps not-so-obvious overlap with white supremacists’ animosity for the federal government in the lore of Ruby Ridge and the Waco invasion and the black community’s conspiracy theories of the intentional creation of the AIDS virus to commit genocide.

I’ll dig further and see if I can get more to post - read the hardcopy at your local public library if you can. An amazing story, in my view, that grabs all kinds of interesting topics.

EDIT: included full title of thread at top

2

That is pretty ironic. Didn’t those goofballs in Montana, the Freemen or whatever, use the same defense.

3

Oh god that’s lulzy. Really, really lulzy.

Could they be making a political statement? Trying to be controversial to have the trial thrown out?

Or are they just crazy?

4

[quote]doogie wrote:

That is pretty ironic. Didn’t those goofballs in Montana, the Freemen or whatever, use the same defense.[/quote]

Yes, that is right, I believe. I am glad you raised this - maybe this will generate some more internet hits on the issue, as I haven’t had much luck.

5

Not surprising at all, really.

Maniacs are maniacs, regardless of race, creed or religion.

If they are guilty of those crimes, let’s hope they are tried and executed swiftly(does Maryland have the death penalty?)

6

Here is a Wikipedia entry on the Sovereign Citizen Movement, which looks to be written by a sympathist:

7

From that same Wikipedia link, a more detailed review:

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?xpicked=4

8

Really? Subscribing to the creed of Nazism is no indicator of whether or not one is more likely to be a maniac?

9

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Maniacs are maniacs, regardless of race, creed or religion.

Really? Subscribing to the creed of Nazism is no indicator of whether or not one is more likely to be a maniac?
[/quote]

You think every single Nazi was mentally unstable?

10

Shelton Harris stood up. �??Good morning your honor,�?? he began. Davis saw where this was going and cut him off. �??I haven�??t recognized you yet, Mr. Harris. You�??ll have time to talk later,�?? he said. �??I accept your offer,�?? Harris replied softly, and sat down.

Quite funny

11

Sounds like the Chewbacka defense. Hopefully Maryland courts call BS on this one.

12

[quote]hedo wrote:
Sounds like the Chewbacka defense. Hopefully Maryland courts call BS on this one.[/quote]

WHY WAS THAT WOOKIE ON ENDOR?

Seriously though, can the court disallow the defense? Or will they be able to push through the trial doing this as the prosecutor objects every 30 seconds?

13

[quote]Magnate wrote:

Seriously though, can the court disallow the defense? Or will they be able to push through the trial doing this as the prosecutor objects every 30 seconds?[/quote]

It’s odd - the court naturally would rule on the claim, but after the court rules on a motion of jurisdiction (which this Flesh and Blood claim really is), then, presumably the defendant respects the court’s decision and moves on accordingly.

Hard to imagine that happening, since the defendants will not concede the court’s decision.

A court can hold the defendant in contempt until the defendant decides he wants to play by the court’s rules - I suspect these maniacs probably don’t care about that either…or perhaps they do, since contempt often means money out of pocket.

14

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A court can hold the defendant in contempt until the defendant decides he wants to play by the court’s rules - I suspect these maniacs probably don’t care about that either…or perhaps they do, since contempt often means money out of pocket.

[/quote]

Then they could just claim that the court is violating their right to a speedy trial, pushing the trial farther back. All this sounds like stalling to me

15

[quote]Magnate wrote:

Then they could just claim that the court is violating their right to a speedy trial, pushing the trial farther back. All this sounds like stalling to me[/quote]

That is exactly what it is. The article notes the care the judge took in dealing with the problem and the prosecutors removing the death penalty from consideration on the basis that they wanted to avoid the inevitable miasma that would occur is such a proceeding.

The problem, naturally, is that if it worked to confound the government for these two to the point they could get the death penalty taken off the table, it can work for others. It may not be a viable defense as to jurisdiction, but it looks like it could enough of a headache to have an effect.