Decision and Order — United States v. Brittany L. Herbert and Brandie S. Williams (W.D.N.Y., Dkt. 97)

Summary

A Decision and Order, Document 97 in No. 1:22-cr-00141-WMS-JJM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, filed February 20, 2024, in United States v. Brittany L. Herbert and Brandie S. Williams. It addresses a motion and three notices filed by Defendant Herbert and a government motion to set a trial date. The Court denies Herbert's motion to dismiss and for any other relief in its entirety, directs the Clerk of Court to strike the three notices as irrelevant, and orders both defendants to respond to the government's motion by March 5, 2024. The government may file a reply by March 12, 2024, and a status conference is scheduled for June 11, 2024. The order is dated February 20, 2024 and shows the signature s/William M. Skretny.

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

Full text

       Case 1:22-cr-00141-WMS-JJM Document 97 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 4


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        v.                                                                 DECISION AND ORDER
                                                                                22-CR-141S
BRITTANY L. HERBERT and
BRANDIE S. WILLIAMS,

                                Defendants.

        Before this Court are several motions and notices. Defendant Herbert has filed a

motion and three notices; the government has filed a motion to set a trial date. (Docket

Nos. 92-96.)

        Defendant Herbert is newly representing herself in this matter. 1 On February 7,

2024, this Court issued an order adjourning a previously scheduled status conference to

afford Defendant Herbert additional time to familiarize herself with the discovery

materials, to assess the evidence against her, and to consider whether a pretrial

resolution may be reached. See United States v. Farias, 618 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.

2010) (“A criminal defendant does not simply have the right to represent himself, but

rather has the right to represent himself meaningfully.                  Meaningful representation

requires time to prepare.”). A status conference is now scheduled before this Court on

June 11, 2024, for all parties to report on whether a trial date should be set or whether

pretrial resolutions may be reached.

        Since the issuance of that order, Defendant Herbert has filed documents

containing all the hallmarks of “sovereign citizen” ideology.                As the Second Circuit

recognizes, sovereign citizens seek to clog and delay proceedings by raising numerous


1 Defendant Herbert previously considered representing herself, but ultimately elected to accept assigned
counsel, until his discharge on January 30, 2024. (Docket Nos. 13, 14, 16, 87, 88.)
                                                   1
      Case 1:22-cr-00141-WMS-JJM Document 97 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 4


baseless and frivolous arguments in an effort to avoid criminal or civil liability. See United

States v. McLaughlin, 949 F.3d 780, 781 (2d Cir. 2019) (per curiam); United States v.

Ulloa, 511 F. App’x 105, 106 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (explaining that

“sovereign citizens are a loosely affiliated group who believe that the state and federal

governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate

their behavior”). They typically “believe that they are not subject to government authority

and employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes,

extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings.” Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed.

Cl. 279, 282 (2011). Sovereign citizen beliefs and theories are routinely rejected as

frivolous, irrational, unintelligible, and ungrounded in American law.        See Tyson v.

Clifford, No. 18-CV-1600, 2018 WL 6727538, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2018) (collecting

cases).

       Defendant Herbert has filed a motion that appears to seek dismissal of the

indictment based on a number of sovereign citizen theories. 2 (Docket No. 93.) For

example, she maintains that states cannot regulate the practice of law through licenses;

that she has discharged her criminal liability through the filing of an “International Bill OF

Exchange, Conditional Acceptance, Surety Bond”; and that she did not consent to this

Court’s jurisdiction.   These arguments are all frivolous, and any cognizable relief

requested is denied. See Shih v. Flagstar Bank FSB, 23-CV-3375 (LTS), 2023 WL

3977499, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2023) (rejecting argument that states are not allowed

to issue law licenses as frivolous and “not grounded in law”); United States v. Hakim,


2 This motion is captioned as follows: “NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTION OF TEX ORDER,
CEASE AND DESIST AND DISMISS CASE No.1:22-cr-00141-WMSD-JJM; AND NOTICE OF MOTION
DEMAND REQUEST PROOF OF DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY OF PROSECUTOR Charles Mark Kruly,
Laura A. Higgins. TRIAL ATTORNEY Jennifer Bilinkas AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE; Jeremiah J.
McCarthy and JUDGE: William M. Skretny.”
                                              2
      Case 1:22-cr-00141-WMS-JJM Document 97 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 4


Case No. 1:18-cr-00126, 2018 WL 4791085, at *2 (N.D.Ga. Oct. 4, 2018) (rejecting the

defendant’s attempt to avoid criminal liability by “set[ting] off all accounts”); McLaughlin,

949 F.3d at 781-82 (explaining that a criminal defendant need not consent to jurisdiction).

       Reading Defendant Herbert’s motion broadly, she further appears to argue that

dismissal is required because holding her to attorney standards violates her due process

rights, and because the criminal complaint contains false allegations. It is well settled,

however, that criminal defendants who elect to represent themselves are held to attorney

standards. See, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45

L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975) (“The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity

of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural

and substantive law.”); United States v. Shine, Case #17-CV-28-FPG, 2018 WL 3737877,

at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2018) (requiring sovereign citizen defendant to comply with the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and all court orders). And because Defendant

Herbert has been indicted, the indictment, not the criminal complaint, is the operative

charging instrument. See United States v. Malka, 602 F. Supp. 3d 510, 556-57 (S.D.N.Y.

2022). Defendant Herbert’s request for dismissal on these grounds is therefore also

denied.

       Defendant Herbert’s remaining filings request no relief in the criminal case, but

rather, appear to assert civil counterclaims against the government or new civil actions

against the prosecutors and members of this Court. 3          (Docket Nos. 94-96.)      Civil



3 The three notices are captioned as follows: “5.5 MILLION DOLLAR NOTICE OF CLAIM UNDER THE
TUCKERS ACT 2.4.C. FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS BY HOLDING THE PLAINTIFF’S
PLEADINGS TO A HIGHER STANDARD WHEN ATTORNEYS DON’T HAVE A LICENSE” (Docket No.
94); “NOTICE OF LIABILITY/Mandatory Judicial Notice of Trustee Acknowledgement of Appoint and
Description of Equitable Interest” (Docket No. 95); and NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CONSENT TO
STIPULATION AGREEMENT TO THE FACTS” (Docket No. 96).
                                             3
      Case 1:22-cr-00141-WMS-JJM Document 97 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 4


counterclaims by criminal defendants are not allowed, nor may a criminal defendant begin

a civil action within the confines of a criminal case. See United States v. Hakim, Crim.

No. 1:18-cr-126-MLB-AJB, 2018 WL 6184796, at *8 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 22, 2018) (“The

applicable federal law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow criminal

defendants to file civil counterclaims in criminal cases.”), adopted, Hakim, 2018 WL

4791085. Since these notices are entirely irrelevant to these criminal proceedings, they

will be stricken.

       Finally, the government has moved to set a trial date earlier than at the June 11,

2024 status conference. (Docket No. 92.) Both defendants will be ordered to respond

to the government’s motion as set forth below.


       IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Defendant Herbert’s motion to dismiss and for any

other relief (Docket No. 93) is DENIED in its entirety.

       FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE the notices filed at Docket

Nos. 94-96, since they are irrelevant to these proceedings.

       FURTHER, that both Defendant Herbert and Defendant Williams must respond to

the government’s motion to set a trial date (Docket No. 92) by March 5, 2024. The

government may file a reply by March 12, 2024.

       FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Decision and

Order to Defendant Herbert at her address of record.

       SO ORDERED.

       Dated: February 20, 2024
              Buffalo, New York

                                                            s/William M. Skretny
                                                           WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
                                                          United States District Judge
                                             4


File and source

File

97.pdf

Size

136,938 bytes

SHA-256

4486006adc38c105f25fd9f11c86b97b09af9ced3a1cacdcab685be0dcb6f04a

Our copy

97.pdf

Original

archive.org