1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

JEHOADDAN L. WILSON

PRO SE

430 Iron Club Drive

Brentwood, CA 94513

PHONE (916) 217-9662 | FAX (888) 391-5349

EMAIL jehoaddanwilson@ymail.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEHOADDAN L. WILSON,

Defendant

Case No.: CR-17-0028 JST

MOTION TO DISMISS

 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, Defendant Jehoaddan Wilson, Pro Se, who moves to dismiss the 

Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief in the Indictment for failure to state 

a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(B)(v) and Rule 7(C). The Defendant 

request the Indictment to be dismissed with prejudice.

 ALLEGATIONS

The Indictment alleges four causes of action: (i) 18:287 Filing false claims (6 counts); (ii)

18:286 Conspiracy to file false claims; 18:1343 (iii) Wire fraud (6 counts); and (iv) 18:1028A 

Aggravated identity theft (6 counts). Defendant denies all the allege claims in the indictment.

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

 ARGUMENT

1. 18:287 Filing false Claims (6 counts);

A. Burden of proof: Due Process requires the Prosecution to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged, Bunkley 

v. Florida, 538 U.S. 835 (2003); Flore v. White, 528 U.S. 23 (1999).

B. Elements: Under 18 U.S.C. § 287, the Government must establish that the 

defendant: (i) made or presented a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim to a 

department of the United States; (ii) knew such claim was false, fictitious, or 

fraudulent; and (iii) did so with the specific intent to violate the law or with a 

consciousness that what she was doing was wrong.

C. Elements not supported by Indictment:

element (i): The Indictment does not allege that The Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) is a “department” or “agency” of the U.S. Government. 

Paragraph 3, line 1-2 of page two of the Indictment states, “The Internal 

Revenue Service was an agency of the United States within the Department 

of the Treasury..” The IRS was an Agency before President’s Truman 

Reorganization Plan of 1851 which removed the Bureau of the Internal 

Revenue and renamed it The Internal Revenue Service [Title 5 U.S.C. § 1]. 

Furthermore, The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not a department within 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Treasury system is organized into

two major components not two departments. On one hand there are actual 

departments such as the Office of Financial Research (OFR), Tax Policy, 

Public Affairs, and the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) to name of few 

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 3

are within the Departmental Offices component. The Internal Revenue is 

not listed as a department or division within the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Departmental Offices. On the other hand, the second component 

is called the Operating Bureaus. The operating bureaus carry out the 

specific operations assigned to the Departments. The Internal Revenue 

Service is listed as an Operating Bureau, not within any specific department 

of the Treasury nor is the IRS a specific department within the Treasury

[www.home.treasury.gov/about/general-informaion/role-of-the-treasury].

elements (ii) and (iii): The Indictment does not allege that the defendant 

knew of such false claims and did so with specific intent to violate the law 

because the Indictment did not allege that the defendant made or presented

Medicare or Medicaid claims, Social Security claims, Welfare claims or any 

other Federal program claims. The matter in the Indictment alleges a tax

return matter. In 1863 Congress enacted a false claims and statement statute 

“in the wake of a spate of frauds upon the government.” United States v. 

Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 504 (1955). The Section 287 statue is designed to 

“protect the government against those who would cheat or mislead in the 

administration of its programs” United States v. White, 27 F.3d 1531,1535

(11th Cir. 1994)), “and it has been employed to combat fraudulent claims 

filed under numerous Federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.” 

The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733 covers fraud 

involving any federally funded contract or program, with the exception of 

tax fraud. 

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 4

2. 18:286 Conspiracy to file false claims;

A. Burden of proof: Paragraph 1(A) is incorporated and repeats as if fully set 

forth here.

B. Elements: Under 18 U.S.C. § 286, The Fifth Circuit has held that, in order to 

establish a violation of § 286, the Government need only prove: (i) the 

defendant entered into a conspiracy to obtain payment or allowance of a claim 

against a department or agency of the United States; (ii) the claim was false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent; and (iii) the defendant knew at the time that the claim 

was false, fictitious, or fraudulent. United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624, 633

(5th Cir. 1996).

C. Elements not supported by Indictment:

elements (i), (ii), and (iii): Paragraph 1(C) is incorporated and repeated 

as if fully set forth here.

3. 18:1343 Wire fraud (6 counts);

A. Burden of proof: Paragraph 1(A) is incorporated and repeats as if fully set 

forth here.

B. Elements: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the Government needs to prove: (i) that the 

defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to 

defraud another out of money; (ii) the defendant did so with the intent to 

defraud; (iii) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire 

communications would be used; and (iv) that interstate wire communications 

were in fact used (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the 

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 5

District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. Denied, 115 

S. Ct. 2289 (1995).

C. Elements not supported by Indictment:

elements (i), (iii), (iii) and (iv): According to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure rule 7(C)(1), the “Indictment or information” must be a “plain” yet

reasonable, “concise” yet understandable, and true therefor unquestionable 

written statement of important facts establishing the offense charged. The 

Indictment does not allege nor has the Government proven wire fraud because 

it is unclear to what information pertains to the elements of the offense asserted 

against the Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 287 and § 286 pertain to the False Claims 

Act government programs initiated through Departments such as Department 

of Health and Human Services, Department of Social Security, Military or 

Naval services. How can the defendant form a defense with charges asserted 

against Welfare fraud or Medicare fraud? The Indictment is misleading and 

unclear to whether the claims transmitted through electronic communication 

were Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security claims because the False Claims 

Act (FCA) and 18 U.S.C. § 287 and § 286 is designed by Congress to protect 

federal programs of that such and not tax returns. The Indictment failed to meet 

the required plain, concise and definite credentials concluding the Government 

has not alleged wire fraud because the Claims transmitted or connected to § 287 

and § 286 do not connect with tax returns. Due Process test requires a “rational” 

connection to exist. It would be unreasonable to believe the claims asserted 

against the Defendant actually exist.

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 6

4. 18:1028A Aggravated identity theft (6 counts); 

A. Burden of proof: Paragraph 1(A) is incorporated and repeats as if fully set forth 

here. 

B. Elements: Under 18 U.S. C. 1028A the Government needs to prove: (i) 

obtaining the identifying information of another person and (ii) using that 

information during the commission of another crime.

C. Elements not supported by Indictment:

elements (i) and (i): The Indictment has not established a “rational” 

connection between the allegations and “written statement of the essential facts 

constituting the offenses charged” [Fed. R. of Crim. Prod. Rule 7(C)(1)]. To prove 

aggravated identity theft the offense must be during and in relation to any felony 

violation [18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)]. 18 U.S.C. § 287 and § 286 and §1343 are alleged 

offenses listed in the Indictment that lack or fail at a “rational” connection under 

Due Process. In 1970, the Court held in In re Winship that the Due Process Clauses 

of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction 

except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute 

the crime with which [s]he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S.358, 364 (1970). 

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976); Henderson v. Kibble, 431 U.S. 145, 

153 (1977). The offenses charged relate to Welfare fraud of some kind and not tax 

returns.

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 7

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted with 

prejudice and the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief should be dismissed.

Date: February 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jehoaddan L. Wilson

Pro Se

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION TO DISMISS - 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 5, 2021, a true copy of the foregoing MOTION 

TO DISMISS was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which 

will send a notification of such filing to the following:

DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

HALLIE HOFFMAN (CABN 210020)

Chief, Criminal Division

ROBERT DAVID REES (CABN 229441)

ALEXIS J. LOEB (CABN 269895)

Assistant United States Attorney’s Office

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

FAX: (415) 436-7234

Email: robert.rees@usdoj.gov

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 258 Filed 02/05/21 Page 8 of 8