September 25, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
KARL EUGENE KLICKNER, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
JOSEPH M. HOOD, Senior District Judge.
Defendant Karl Eugene Klickner has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment "Due to Fraud Upon the Court and Grand Jury Pursuant to Fed. [R.] Crim. P. 60(b)(3)" [DE 77]. In his Motion, he calls into question the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over his criminal case and attempts to nullify his convictions by alleging that the jurisdictional statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3231, is unconstitutional. He claims it was never properly enacted into law and engages in an elaborate discussion of the statute's legislative history. Defendant's arguments are unavailing. Other district courts have rejected similar jurisdictional challenges by criminal defendants. See, e.g., United States v. Hoskins, Crim. Action No. 03-44-KKC, 2006 WL 1044269, at *4-5 (E.D.Ky. Apr. 19, 2006); United States v. Casey, Civil Action No. 04-2844-MI/P, Crim. Action No. 02-20308-MI, 2005 WL 2114059, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2005) (rejecting criminal defendant's allegation that 18 U.S.C. § 3231 was not positive law and was not properly enacted by Congress), citing United States v. Charles, Crim. No. 00-20022-01-KHV, Civil No. 02-3100-KHV, 2002 WL 31056548, at *4 (D.Kan. Sept.9, 2002)(rejecting defendant's allegation that Title 18 of the United States Code was never properly enacted into positive law). To the extent that Klickner's claims are even cognizable here, his argument that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over criminal defendants charged with federal offenses does not establish that his conviction is "void ab initio".
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Klickner's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment "Due to Fraud Upon the Court and Grand Jury Pursuant to Fed. [R.] Crim. P. 60(b)(3)" [DE 77] is DENIED.