The Tenth Circuit got a double helping of sovereign citizenry on the 29th. In addition to
Mister Lee-Colon-Hutson, the Tenth reviewed a habeas corpus petition from Stephen Haff. Mister Haff (who at least submits to conventional theories of name punctuation) has an even more pressing demand for justice than Mister Lee-Colon-Hutson, for he has been kidnapped by the so-called "State" of Colorado. As the Tenth Circuit described in its
ruling, Mister Haff is (or at least was) currently in pretrial detention, and makes the following claims:
1. “It is lawfully impossible for the applicant to violate any statute belonging to the state because the applicant is not and has never been a member, subject, and/or affiliated in any way with the state. . . .”
2. “The applicant is not subject to the Denver County and District Courts. . . . Both of these courts are legislatively created (corporate) Article I courts of limited jurisdiction and not constitutional Article III courts of competent jurisdiction. . . .”
3. “The state lacks legal standing to bring and maintain [his criminal] case because the state has not suffered an (1) injury in fact (2) to a legally protected interest. . . .”
4. “Article III. Section 2. Clause 2., of the Constitution for the United States of America, specifically prohibits any state court from exerting jurisdiction over this case. . . .” (emphasis in original)
5. “Although the underlying matter is called a criminal case. The true nature of the proceeding is of a commercial nature and the state and the state courts exerting jurisdiction over it. Are using a quasi form of admiralty-maritime rules to intentionally deceive the applicant. . . .”
The district court refused to even
consider these devastating allegations, spouting platitudes about 'comity' and 'abstention'. And the Tenth Circuit agreed: (Most citations omitted)
Federal courts are generally prohibited from interfering with ongoing state criminal prosecutions. Younger abstention applies when “(1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges.”
Mr. Haff concedes the first two prongs are met. He contends, however, the state proceedings do not provide an adequate forum to present his constitutional claims of error. He points out that the Colorado Supreme Court denied his motion for a stay and his “petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” But there is no indication the Colorado Supreme Court has foreclosed a direct appeal or postconviction relief in the event of a conviction.
We are therefore unpersuaded that the state court proceedings do not “afford [Mr. Haff] an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges.” Phelps,
122 F.3d at 889; see also Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) (noting “ordinarily
a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for
vindication of federal constitutional rights”); Fisher v. Whetsel, 142 F. App’x 337, 339 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“Because [the applicant] may present a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal . . . , he has an adequate state forum in which to adjudicate his federal claims.”). As the district court stated, “The fact that Mr. Haff’s efforts to prevent the State from prosecuting the criminal case against him so far have been unsuccessful does not mean that he has not had, or does not have, an adequate opportunity to present his federal constitutional issues during the state court proceedings.”
In sum, Mr. Haff has not shown “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Tragic, really.
