United States v. Rinaldi, 3:18-CR-279
Decision Date | 18 December 2019 |
Docket Number | 3:18-CR-280,3:18-CR-279 |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MICHAEL RINALDI, Defendant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE MARIANI)
Presently before the Court are fifteen pre-trial motions filed by Defendant Michael Rinaldi.
On August 21, 2018, a federal Grand Jury charged Defendants Michael Rinaldi, Dwayne Romail Brown, and Andrew Henry with one count of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. (See 3:18-cr-279, Doc. 37). That same day, the federal grand jury also returned an indictment charging Defendants Michael Rinaldi, Steven Powell, Jessica Caldwell, and George Kokenyei with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. (See 3:18-cr-280, Doc. 1).
The Court thus currently has two criminal actions before it wherein Michael Rinaldi is a named defendant: 3:18-cr-279 and 3:18-cr-280.
On January 16, 2019, at the request of Defendant Rinaldi, the Court held a hearing in accordance with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and United States v. Peppers, 302 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2002), wherein it conducted a colloquy with Defendant Rinaldi, in the presence of his CJA appointed counsel Joseph Blazosek, to determine whether Defendant Rinaldi understood the responsibilities and consequences of self-representation, was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, and would be permitted to represent herself. Following this colloquy, the Court determined that Mr. Rinaldi had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to counsel and understood the ramifications and consequences of proceeding pro se and therefore granted Mr. Rinaldi's request to represent himself. The Court thereafter appointed Attorney Blazosek as stand-by counsel at the request of Defendant.
Since December of 2018, Defendant Rinaldi has filed a number of pro se pretrial motions which are currently pending before this Court, including the following motions which the Court will address herein:1
For the following reasons, the Court will deny each of Defendant's motions.2
Rinaldi's first motion moves to dismiss the indictment on the basis that he "is not the Michael Rinaldi named in the indictment and that the United States District Court does nothave 'in personam' jurisdiction over him." (Doc. 76, at 1; id. at 2). Rinaldi further contends that there is no case or controversy before this Court and that the United States lacks standing to bring this action against him. (Id. at 3-4). In Rinaldi's Reply brief, he clarifies his assertion that he "is not the Michael Rinaldi named in the indictment" by explaining that his "name is not MICHAEL RINALDI" and that "[a]ll capital letters denotes a corporate entity" and he "is not a corporate entity and has not entered into any agreements with the corporate United States." (Doc. 152, at 2).
Each of Rinaldi's assertions are without merit. Similar arguments premised on a defendant's claim that he or she is a "sovereign citizen" have been repeatedly rejected by Courts. In United States v. Young, the Third Circuit rejected Defendant's argument "that the District Court 'lacked jurisdiction to hear, convict, or bring any case in this fraudulently contrived Constructive Trust Case Matter'" where Defendant "generally refer[red] to her status as a foreign sovereign immune from suit." 735 F.App'x 793, 795 (3d Cir. 2018). The Circuit explained that there was "no merit to her challenge he District Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate this criminal action under 18 U.S.C. § 3231." Id. at 795-796 ( ). See also, United States v. Matthews, 2011 WL 183979, *2 (M.D. Pa. 2011) ( ); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (). In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 547 permits each United States attorney, within his district, to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States", 18 U.S.C. § 547(1), therefore granting the United States Attorney the lawful power to bring a criminal indictment against an individual.
In addressing arguments largely identical to those raised by Rinaldi, the Court in United States v. Ellis, undertook an extensive analysis in explaining why each of these arguments were without legal merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial