Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rejuney v. Chesapeake Circuit Court

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

September 26, 2016

PAUL REJUNEY, Petitioner,
v.
CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2254 PETITION)

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Paul Rejuney, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a document entitled ''Amendment." (ECF No. 1.) Given the content of this document, the Court found it appropriate to give Rejuney the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F.App'x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008). The Court sent Rejuney the forms for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and Rejuney returned the form. (ECF No. 3.) Subsequently, Rejuney inundated the Court with various documents, including a "Statement of Facts" (ECF No. 8), motions to dismiss the state charges (ECF Nos. 9, 11), and various letters with titles such as "Notice and Demand" or "Amendment" (see, e.g., ECF Nos. 15, 17-20).

         Because of Rejuney's piecemeal submission of his claims and allegations, by Memorandum Order entered on September 12, 2016, the Court directed the Clerk to mail Rejuney the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition in order to consolidate his claims. (ECF No. 26, at 1.) The Court stated:

Petitioner is DIRECTED to complete and return the form to the Court within eleven (11) days of the date of entry hereof. Petitioner must state the facts that make his detention unlawful. The Court's consideration of Petitioner's grounds for habeas relief shall be limited to the grounds and supporting facts concisely set forth on this standardized form and on any attached pages. Petitioner may not incorporate other documents by reference and the standardized form supplants all other prior filings. The Court will also not consider any future attempts to tack on claims or facts that Petitioner failed to include on the standardized form.

(Id. at 1-2.) The Court also denied Rejuney's three motions to dismiss. (Id. at 2.)

         The Court received Rejuney's standardized form on September 21, 2016 ("§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 29). The Court also received a document entitled "Amendment" from Rejuney. (ECF No. 30.) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts, this Court conducts a preliminary review of Rejuney's § 2254 Petition.[1]

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND REJUNEY'S CLAIMS

         The docket for the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia ("Circuit Court"), shows that Rejuney was convicted of driving while intoxicated, third offense, on June 29, 2010.[2] Rejuney was sentenced to three years of incarceration, with all three years suspended. The Circuit Court placed Rejuney on a period of indefinite supervision. On April 21, 2015, the Circuit Court revoked Rejuney's probation and imposed the original sentence of three years of incarceration, with all but six months suspended.[3] On May 5, 2016, Rejuney's probation was again revoked, and the Circuit Court sentenced him to two years and six months of incarceration, with all but one year suspended.[4] The Court deems this § 2254 Petition to challenge the judgments in the criminal proceedings set forth above.

         In his § 2254 Petition, Rejuney raises the following claims for relief:[5]

Claim One: "Violation of the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Chesapeake Circuit Court is operating outside of its geographical venue of the 10 mile square region of the District of Columbia. The judges and attorneys who are employed by such court are members of the State Bar which is ordained by the foreign banks, operating under foreign titles of nobility. They are acting as foreign agents committing treason against the citizens of the United States." (§ 2254 Pet. 5.)
Claim Two: "The Chesapeake Circuit Court is operating as a statutory court of commerce. The Chesapeake Circuit Court is operating 'under color of law' because it is using another name for its obvious admiralty jurisdiction. The court is fraudulently operating as a statutory court of commerce operating under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S Constitution, therefore the court is sitting ministerially and not judicially, enforcing commercial statutes." (Id. at 7.)
Claim Three: "U.C.C. 1-103.6 commands the court to retain common law rights and remedies. ... [T]he statutes must be construed in harmony with common law which remains in force except where explicitly displaced by the code. U.C.C. 1-103.6 states the code cannot be read to preclude common law, therefore resulting in violation of rights under common law." (Id. at 8.)
Claim Four: "In case No. (s) CR10-654-00, 01, 02 the Chesapeake Circuit Court tried these cases under admiralty jurisdiction which is a civil jurisdiction of compelled performance which has criminal penalties, they call it statutory jurisdiction. ... In Article 1, Sect. 10 the Constitution gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced equity and admiralty. But the Chesapeake Circuit Court is enforcing contracts in statutory jurisdiction. ... The judges and the Commonwealth's Attorneys in these cases against me have committed fraud by actively participating in a scheming conspiracy of untruths and misrepresentations, by deceiving those who entrusted themselves in good faith, while specifically acting in bad faith when such fraud was shown." (ECF No. 29-1, at 1-2.)
Claim Five: "18 U.S.C.S. 241: Conspiracy against rights. ...The Chesapeake Circuit Court and ALL officers of such court pertaining to Case No. (s) CR 10-654-00, 01, 02 are guilty of violating 18 U.S.C.S. 241 by conspiring to intimidate, threaten, and coerce Petitioner causing him to be compelled to perform under duress, therefore affecting my mental capacity. Under the coercion of the court I was compelled to perform under an unlawful agreement made between PAUL REJUNEY ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.