Now that a federal magistrate has allowed him to act as his own lawyer in his criminal case, Shawn Rice is back to stirring up mischief in court.
For the rest, visit this page and scroll down to the 2nd bit.He recently filed a 19-page document he called “Supoena Duces Tecum, or in the alternative, Petition to Dismiss with Prejudice in This Matter.”
Thats a great deal of it anyway, he had 15 references it would be interesting to find out if they ever heard of Shawn Rice.EDUCATION
Novus University – Completed Juris Doctor in May 2008 with thesis on Admiralty/Maritime law. Plans to follow with LLM studies. Program advisor/mentor is Jay Thomas PhD. JD. – California.
SHEPPERTON UNIVERSITY – Law School – began program January 2002 completed January 2006. Holds Letter of Law Bachelor (LLB). For list of courses, books covered email a request to simpegideon@yahoo.com Course of study covered partially by Gilbert’s Law Books, audio tapes, elegalines, exams.
PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR - enrolled with PCDI (Professional Career Development Institute) in the Professional Private Investigator Program. Project resumed and working towards completion.
HEBREW - Continuing education in ecclesiastical studies. Learning to read, write and speak Hebrew, ongoing training.
PARALEGAL STUDIES – (June 2000 – October 2001) Completed certified paralegal schooling through [accredited] Kaplan College [since renamed The College of Professional Studies] of Boca Raton, Florida.
INDEPENDENT STUDIES – (May 1994 – to date) hired in excess of 25 mentors to learn various fields of law, business and banking. Method of research is locate data, read authors work, contact author, hire author for independent private schooling and continue to build upon that data from mentor to mentor. Standard rules of intelligence data collection applied.
CONTINUING LEARNING – attended continuing legal education (CLE) by Bryan Garner titled The Winning Brief in San Diego, California, June 5, A.D. 2000.
WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT UNIVERSITY School of Law. Was engaged in first year of a Bar accredited Law School. Stopped in September 1999 to build another business division of Attorneys, Lawyers and Barristers for the International Division of another company.
LAUGHLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. - Private entity structuring training for personal refresher and company employees training on the inter-workings of Corporations and how to integrate the business corporation with Trusts and the International banking arena.
BARRISTER’s INN - Private correspondence law school. January to December 1996. Studied independently, United States Code, Arizona Revised Statutes, American Foundational Documents, some of the Treaties and Uniform agreements between the States and the United States Government, various areas of case law, court procedures, various motions, entities and some applicable case law, American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum, an overview of contracts from the “In a Nutshell” series as well as Emanuel Law Outlines on Contracts, Torts, criminal law, constitutional law, trust law, property law, and some research into international agreements.
WEALTH ACADEMY - A Private training program under UNITED SUPPORT ASSOCIATION which provides a short course on entity structuring and other business concepts through Mr. Wade Cook.
FREE ENTERPRISE SOCIETY training under (now deceased) Andrew J. Galumbos, completed V-50.
Sorry I am new to Quatloos, I have only been checking the site for about a month, and this guy just screams fake to me.Demosthenes wrote:We covered his background in pretty good detail on a prior thread.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3927
He probably left out his having studied the old Classic Comics dealing with U.S. history -- out of modesty so as not to appear overeducated, I'm sure.Pantherphil wrote:How reassuring to learn that Mr. Rice's legal education consists of perusing Gilbert's Notes, Emmanuel's Law Outlines, Am Jur (do you think he got into AmJur 2d), Corpus Juris Secundum, and Contracts in a Nutshell. Cite those sources in a brief to a real court and the judge will laugh at you.
GREGORY A. BROWER
United States Attorney
District of Nevada
ERIC JOHNSON
Chief, Organized Crime Strike Force
GENEVA LEMON
Certified Law Clerk
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 5037
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702)388-6336
Facsimile: (702-388-6418
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
United States of America
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
-oOo-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No: 2:09-CR-00078-JCM-RJJ
) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
) MOTION TO DISMISS
v. )
)
SAMUEL DAVIS, and )
SHAWN RICE, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through counsel of record, opposes
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction. This opposition is made
and based upon the following and all other pleadings and papers on file with the Court.
It is difficult to decipher all of the defendant’s claims. There seems to be an argument
that the criminal indictment failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 17 and
does not identify a real person of interest. However, this is not a civil proceeding. Defendant
has been charged by indictment with violating federal criminal offenses. Exhibit 1 (Crim.
Indictment, March 2009). The indictment the Government has brought against the defendant
complies with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in particular in this instance Rule 7,
concerning nature and content. The Government has and will continue to proceed with this
matter in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Furthermore, within the defendant’s somewhat confused legal analysis, there seems to
be a request to dismiss the criminal action on the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction
because it is a Court of Admiralty. The defendant draws this conclusion based on the idea that
the United States Flag displayed in front of the courthouse is an Admiralty flag. This
assumption is also the basis for the defendant’s demand for the production of documents that
do not exist, and, subsequently, are impossible to produce: i.e., letter(s) of marque and reprisal.
Therefore, this response will address the only clear issue of whether or not it is appropriate for
this court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter.
The United States Constitution, Article III, sections 1 and 2, invest Congress with the
authority to create federal district courts and to give them jurisdiction in the “exact degree and
character which congress may think proper for the public good.” Cary v. Curtis, 44 U.S. 236,
245 (1845). The United States District Court for the District of Nevada is one of those courts
imbued with original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases pertaining to offenses against the
laws created by Congress. 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
The subject-matter before this court does not relate to the violation of any maritime
laws. The defendant is being charged with the violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 (a)(3) and 1956
(h), money laundering and money laundering conspiracy. Exhibit 1 (Crim. Indictment, March
2009). These offenses against the federal law were committed on land in the District of
Nevada and elsewhere. It is nonsensical to believe this court would be exercising jurisdiction
as an Admiralty Court over this matter. Black’s Law Dictionary defines admiralty:
1. A court that exercises jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts,
injuries, or offenses. * The federal courts are so called when exercising the
their admiralty jurisdiction, which is conferred by the U.S. Constitution
(art. III, § 2, cl. 1). (8th ed. 2004).
The defendant asserts that the flag in front of the courthouse is an Admiralty flag. The
U.S. Flag is a codified symbol of this nation. The regulation of the flag including its design can
be found in 4 U.S.C. § 1 et .al. Nowhere in the flag code does it refer to the national symbol as
an Admiralty flag nor is the flag regulated to being a symbol of maritime law. The defendant
has concluded erroneously that the flag in front of this courthouse identifies this court to be
exercising admiralty jurisdiction over this matter. Instead, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution
Art. III, § 2, cl. 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3231, (as this is not a civil action) this court appropriately
has subject-matter jurisdiction over this criminal action.
CONCLUSION
The court is not acting as an admiralty court and has original jurisdiction to hear matters
concerning offenses against the United States. This proceeding is not a civil lawsuit but a
criminal proceeding. The alleged criminal acts are violations of federal law committed within
and outside of the District of Nevada. For the aforementioned reasons, the government
respectfully requests this court to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss and to quash his
subpoena duces tecum.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2009.
GREGORY A. BROWER
United States Attorney
/s/ Eric Johnson
ERIC JOHNSON
Chief, Organized Crime Strike Force
/s/ Geneva Lemon
GENEVA LEMON
Certified Law Clerk
Case 2:09-cr-00078-JCM-RJJ Document 74 Filed 08/28/2009