Defendant’s Notice to the Court of Exercising Constitutional Right to Leave Trial Proceedings — United States v. Henson (Dkt. 200, D. Md.)

Summary

Defendant Nichelle Henson's notice to the court of exercising a constitutional right to leave trial proceedings, filed pro se in United States v. Nichelle Henson, Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, filed March 3, 2025 as Document 200. Henson objects to the continuation of the proceedings and states that Henson left the courtroom because of what the notice lists as constitutional violations, beginning with a claimed lack of jurisdiction over what it calls a civil matter. The notice preserves all objections and reserves the right to appeal.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 200 Filed 03/03/25 Pagei1of5

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 UNITED STATES                                  .

                                                *

                                                *

                                                *

         VS.                                    *

 NICHELLE HENSON                                *
                                                *

a, oh seh                                       *

                                                *

                                                       b)   H)

   DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO THE COURT OF EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL

                      RIGHT TO LEAVE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

        COMES NOW, Defendant Nichelle Henson, appearing pro se, and hereby submits this

 formal Notice to the Court to document and preserve the record regarding the Defendant’s

 exercise of constitutional rights in response to ongoing violations of due process, fundamental

 fairness, and the deprivation of rights under color of law.

 I. NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

        Defendant objects to the continuation of these proceedings and has exercised their

 constitutional right to leave the courtroom due to the following violations:

    1. Lack of Jurisdiction — The Court is proceeding over a civil matter disguised as a

        criminal case, violating the Defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth and

        Fourteenth Amendments. The SBA loan agreement at issue is a contractual dispute,

        and the proper venue for adjudication is a civil court, not a criminal proceeding.

      HD
                                           13                                        c
Revd by:_AK

Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 200 Filed 03/03/25 Page 2of5

2. Unlawful Pretrial Conditions & Coercion — The imposition of Pretrial Services
conditions in a civil contractual matter constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion and

a violation of the Defendant’s constitutional rights, including:

o Fourth Amendment — Unlawful search and seizure of the Defendant’s financial
records and loan documents without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial

oversight.

o Fifth Amendment — Deprivation of due process through arbitrary restrictions on
the Defendant’s movement, access to financial institutions, and ability to defend

against the allegations.

o Sixth Amendment — Restrictions that limit the Defendant’s ability to conduct
an effective defense, including movement limitations, financial hardships, and

the denial of fair legal recourse.

3. Violation of Right to Know the Nature & Cause of Accusations — The Defendant has _
been denied fundamental due process by the Court and the prosecution’s failure to
clearly define the charges in a way that reflects a valid criminal offense, as required
by the Sixth Amendment. The government has failed to demonstrate actual harm or

loss, making this a victimless matter improperly prosecuted as a criminal case.

4. Prosecutorial Misconduct & Abuse of Power — The government’s improper conduct

in this case includes:

o Engaging in a selective and retaliatory prosecution despite clear contractual

disputes.

14


Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 200 Filed 03/03/25 Page 3of5

o Knowingly using financial misrepresentations to prosecute a case while

profiting from the sale of SBA loans on the secondary market.

o Proceeding without lawful jurisdiction and continuing prosecution despite clear

indications that this is not a criminal matter.

5. Denial of Defendant’s Right to Fair Proceedings & Self-Defense — The Court has
permitted proceedings to continue in an unconstitutional manner, imposing coercion,
duress, and unjust limitations on the Defendant. Under these circumstances, the
Defendant is entitled to leave the courtroom to avoid further violations of

constitutional protections.

Il. NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Based on the foregoing violations, the Defendant has chosen to exercise their constitutional
right to leave the courtroom in protest of the unlawful deprivation of rights, jurisdictional

violations, and the unjust nature of these proceedings.

The Defendant asserts the following legal rights:

1. Right to be free from unlawful prosecution (Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments).

2. Right to challenge jurisdiction and object to all proceedings (Due Process Clause).

3. Right to fair trial and access to proper legal remedies (Sixth Amendment).

4. Right to be free from coercion, duress, and compelled participation in an

unconstitutional trial.

15


Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 200 Filed 03/03/25 Page4of5
The Defendant’s departure from the courtroom does not constitute an admission of
guilt, contempt of court, nor an attempt to obstruct justice. Instead, this action serves as a

formal objection to the unconstitutional nature of these proceedings.

The Defendant formally requests that the Court acknowledge this Notice on the Record

and take appropriate judicial action to:
1. Declare this case a civil matter and remove it from criminal prosecution.

2. Ordera full forensic audit of the financial transactions related to the Defendant’s

SBA loans.

3. GRANT an immediate stay of proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland (Case No. MJM-21-470) pending appellate review and pending the results of

said audit.

4. DISMISS all charges for lack of jurisdiction, as this is a civil matter, not a criminal

case.

5. DECLARE the Pretrial Services conditions unconstitutional and unenforceable.

6. CERTIFY the jurisdictional question for immediate resolution before proceeding

further.

7. ACCEPT this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the District Court lacks

jurisdiction.

8. Find that the DOJ violated its own prosecutorial guidelines by pursuing criminal
charges where civil remedies were adequate Declare the SBA loan agreement

rescinded, releasing Defendant from any repayment obligations.

16


Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document 200 Filed 03/03/25 Page5of5

9. Declare the Pretrial Services agreement rescinded, releasing Defendant from all

obligations associated with pretrial supervision.

10. Order the SBA and/or its approved lender to cease collection efforts related to the

loan.

11. Declare that any reported delinquency, default, or fraud allegations arising from the

loan be expunged from Defendant’s financial records.

12. Hold that the SBA’s undisclosed sale of loan notes violated TILA and constituted a

breach of contract.

13. Order that Pretrial Services cease all enforcement actions against Defendant.

14. Declare that the government's continued pursuit of these charges despite their own

misrepresentations constitutes an abuse of discretion..

15. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper

It. PRESERVATION OF RECORD & RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

If the Court refuses to dismiss or stay this matter, then the Defendant formally
preserves all objections for the record and reserves the right to challenge jurisdiction, appeal

all rulings, and seek further relief in federal court.

Respectfully submitted,

Nichelle Henson, Pro Se

17

File and source

File

200.pdf

Size

434,209 bytes

SHA-256

0fdaf37bae4723002aeaa5835e700be401349d5889825280daaf6d6e554d04a3

Our copy

200.pdf