Defendants have challenged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction multiple 1

times. One filing, captioned “demand to quash as per lack of subject matter

jurisdiction” (Doc. 26), was deemed withdrawn, for failure to file a supporting brief

in accordance with local rules, by an order of court (Doc. 38) dated December 3,

2007. Another filing, captioned “demand to quash for lack of territorial

jurisdiction” (Doc. 44), was, for the same reason, deemed withdrawn and was also

explicitly denied on the merits by an order of the court (Doc. 64) dated February 4,

2008. On March 17, 2008, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants’

subsequent petition for a writ of mandamus, and it held that their position on the

issue of jurisdiction was “patently incorrect.” (See Doc. 75); In re Berrettini, No. 08-

1573, slip op. at 4 (3d Cir. March 11, 2008). Defendants also raised jurisdictional

issues in correspondence to the court, dated June 20, 2008 (Doc. 92), and July 14,

2008 (Doc. 94). With regard to this correspondence, the court ruled that to the

extent that it could be deemed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, such a motion would be denied. (See Doc. 93). The court stated that it

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 4:07-CR-0422

:

v. : (Judge Conner)

:

ALBERT LEO BERRETTINI, JR., :

and MARY ANN BERRETTINI, :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the

“judicial notice and memorandum” (Doc. 302), filed by defendant Albert Leo

Berrettini, and upon further consideration of the “petition for summary judgment

dismissal” (Doc. 286), filed by defendant Mary Ann Berrettini, and it appearing that

defendants wish to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, and it

further appearing that the court has already disposed of this issue on numerous

prior occasions, and the court concluding that it has subject matter jurisdiction 1

Case 4:07-cr-00422-CCC Document 306 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 2
would not “entertain any more jurisdictional challenges by defendants,” (Doc. 93 at

5); nevertheless, defendant Albert Leo Berrettini continued to argue that the court

lacked jurisdiction in proceedings before Judge McClure, and Judge McClure

rejected his argument on the record. (See Doc. 198 at 15-16, 19-20). The court

affirms its prior rulings described above.

 The defendants have preserved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction for

2

appeal; they may present their jurisdictional challenges to the Third Circuit. The

court will not entertain any jurisdictional challenges during trial. Any such

arguments will be summarily rejected, and the defendants may be subject to further

sanctions, including contempt of court. 

over the above-captioned case, see 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (“The district courts of the

United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States,

of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”), it is hereby ORDERED that

the “judicial notice and memorandum” (Doc. 302) and the “petition for summary

judgment dismissal” (Doc. 286) are DENIED insofar as they request that the court

dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cr-00422-CCC Document 306 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2