Opinion ID: 223528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disruptions by Delatorre and Benabe

Text: Removal of the accused from his criminal trial will rarely be justified, but it was justified by this record, which we describe in detail to show the judge's efforts to ensure that the trial would be fair for all parties before removing these two defendants from the courtroom. Delatorre played the leading role. He was represented by two attorneys, but on October 16, 2007, he filed the first of more than twenty pro se documents describing himself as Sovereign Secured Party Creditor Fernando Delatorre. In these papers, he challenged the legitimacy of the United States government, its jurisdiction over him, and the validity of the charges brought against him. He claimed to be sovereign and immune from prosecution. Benabe later joined Delatorre in this effort to thwart the proceedings by his own assertions of sovereignty and immunity. On October 17, 2007, the court heard argument on Delatorre's motion to suppress evidence. Delatorre appeared but refused to participate because his attorneys refused to represent me as a flesh-and-blood human being. The next day, giving Delatorre the benefit of the doubt, the court ordered Delatorre to undergo a competency evaluation. At a status hearing held on October 31, 2007, Delatorre referred to himself as a secured party creditor ... third-party intervenor. He claimed that he was not the person named in the indictment because his name was not spelled with all capital letters (as it was in the indictment). He demanded to know of the prosecutor what legal definition exactly, legal definition of the term person are you applying to me for the purposes of these proceedings? At the court's next status hearing, Delatorre repeated his claim that he was a born sovereign flesh-and-blood human being and a secured party creditor. When the court announced that there would be a hearing on the competency evaluation, Delatorre interrupted: I need to address these various issues right here and now. The court stated the hearing was concluded. Undeterred, Delatorre continued: Let the record reflect the Court is not allowing me to address my various issues and is intending to punish me for exercising my rights as a sovereign secured party creditor. The court then ended the hearing. The next hearing of note was on January 11, 2008. Delatorre's attorney introduced himself, and Delatorre broke in: Excuse me, Mr. Kling does not represent me in any way, shape or form.... That is all I have to say for now. Judge Castillo then found Delatorre competent to stand trial and urged him to discuss his case with his court-appointed counsel to prepare for trial. But Delatorre's disruptions continued. He told the court that his attorneys had refused to represent him as a secured party creditor and that the government had refused to respond to his requests about the basis for his prosecution. Looking ahead toward the trial, Judge Castillo advised Delatorre that any outbursts in front of the jury would prejudice him. Delatorre, however, maintained that he continued to challenge what he called the court's subject matter and personam jurisdiction. Judge Castillo then referred to Delatorre's pro se filings and said that his requests would be denied. Delatorre asked if he would receive something in writing, and the judge said that he would issue a minute order. Delatorre asked about the nature and content of the forthcoming order. Judge Castillo told him that while he might be unhappy with the ruling, he could appeal. Delatorre continued his protests. Judge Castillo asked him to be quiet, and Delatorre responded, I'm going to politely honor that request. He did not. Instead, as the judge tried to move on, Delatorre interrupted to ask the court again about his pro se filings. Judge Castillo responded, I think I already asked you, Mr. Delatorre, if there was anything else you wanted to cover. Undeterred, Delatorre continued: DELATORRE: Well I did. You asked me to remain silent though. You asked. You responded that I do so, but I would like to continue to speak, if that would be possible. Can I? COURT: I would ask you to remain silent then because I think I've covered it. DELATORRE: Then I'm going to have to honor that  COURT: Are there any other pro se motions? DELATORRE:  because you have not answered my questions. COURT: No, I'm asking you to remain silent at this point. DELATORRE: And I'm asking you to respond to my questions. Delatorre then continued for several more pages of transcript without interruption, demanding an explanation of the gold fringe on the flag in the courtroom, repeating his jurisdictional objections, and making assertions such as: No one can explain to me why the United States has to operate as a corporation. No one can explain to me that there is, in fact, a distinction between the united 50 union states and the United States federal government. No one can explain to me who's, in fact, bringing this claim or charge against me. By this time, Judge Castillo, the prosecutors, and defense counsel were justifiably concerned about the prospect that Delatorre would disrupt the trial, prejudicing himself and his co-defendants. Judge Castillo asked the prosecutors how they wished to proceed with Delatorre, and several co-defendants then moved for severance. Judge Castillo said at this point that it was becoming increasingly likely that Delatorre would continue in his sovereign-citizen assertions out of turn and in front of the jury. He expressed his reluctance either to remove Delatorre from the courtroom or to bind and gag him at trial. At the next status conference, on January 29, 2008, Delatorre tried to seize the agenda by repeating his jurisdictional challenges. Judge Castillo allowed him to talk and then explained once again that he rejected Delatorre's jurisdictional challenges, and reasonably asked Delatorre whether he could refrain from disrupting the trial. Delatorre refused to answer. After listening to more of Delatorre's ramblings, the court asked once again: My question to you is once we start picking the jury ... will you allow your attorneys to speak for you during the jury selection and trial? Again, Delatorre did not answer. Instead he asserted that his attorneys were refusing to represent him as a flesh-and-blood human being, that his name was spelled incorrectly in the indictment, and that he needed the court to prove that the government had jurisdiction over him. He insisted that he did not consent to the proceedings and that he was a sovereign and thus immune from prosecution. With admirable patience, the court again asked, Are you going to allow Mr. Kling and Mr. Huyck to represent you and stay silent while we select a jury next Wednesday? The judge explained that if you disrupt the jury selection, I'm going to have no choice but to have you removed from the courtroom. Do you understand that? Delatorre's disruptions continued. After warning him once more that the consequences of continuing along these lines will be you being removed from the trial and the trial will proceed without you, Judge Castillo ordered him removed from the courtroom. Delatorre had been the only defendant to appear at the January 29 conference in person; the other defendants (including Benabe) were represented by counsel but were not themselves present, having waived their right to appear. The following day the court issued an opinion rejecting Delatorre's sovereign-citizen theories and recounting the history of his disruptive behavior. The written opinion again warned Delatorre that his continued failure to obey this Court's orders could result in him being barred from the courtroom during jury selection or trial to avoid potential prejudice to his six co-Defendants and to himself. United States v. Delatorre, 2008 WL 312647, at  (N.D.Ill. Jan. 30, 2008). At a status conference hearing on January 31, Judge Castillo asked defense counsel to read the January 30 order and to share it with each of the defendants. With all defendants present, the judge said that before the start of the trial, he would ask each defendant if they intend to speak during the trial without ... court permission. And any defendant who responds in the affirmative will be held at the [Metropolitan Correctional Center] from day one of the trial and will see the trial from a seat at the MCC. I will not allow any defendant to prejudice any of the other defendants on trial before any of the prospective jurors. The judge stated that any further attempts by Mr. Delatorre or any defendant to disrupt this trial will have to be interpreted by me as a willingness on the part of that defendant to watch the trial at the MCC, and I will make arrangements to ensure that that happens. After these warnings at the beginning of the January 31 status conference, defendant Benabe interrupted and began to pursue the same disruptive course that Delatorre had followed. Benabe began to protest the court's jurisdiction by stating that he was a secured-party creditor, third-party intervenor and that he was not the all-capital, corporate fiction person, debtor, straw man named in the indictment. He demanded documented evidence that the court had jurisdiction over him as a born sovereign, flesh-and-blood human being. The trial court referred Benabe to its January 30 opinion and stated that it was a bad sign that Benabe did not want to read the opinion. The court again warned Benabe that before the trial started, I will ask you whether or not you're going to make statements without... court permission during the trial. If you give me no answer or if you say that you will, I will hold you at the MCC while the trial proceeds. When Benabe continued to demand proof that the court had jurisdiction over him, the court ordered him removed from the courtroom. (After his removal, Benabe filed multiple pro se documents on February 4 that echoed his January 31 assertion of sovereign citizenship.) After Benabe's removal from the courtroom, Delatorre joined in again, saying, I'm not a defendant, but I have an unresolved issue that I would like to address. He was also removed at that point. Things came to a head on February 5  the day before jury selection would begin. All defendants were present for another status hearing. True to his word, Judge Castillo inquired whether counsel had received the January 30 opinion, whether defendants had read it, and whether each defendant agreed not to make any statements to the jury without permission. All agreed except Delatorre and Benabe. Benabe refused to answer the court's question. Instead, he erupted with another tirade about illegal prosecution. The court had him removed. When it was his turn, Delatorre said he had not read the opinion. The prosecution provided him with a copy, but Delatorre refused to read it, supposedly because it did not address him by his birth given name. The judge asked him again whether he intended to make statements to jurors without permission. Following Benabe's lead, Delatorre refused to answer. Instead, he proffered a written Affidavit of Truth, the second paragraph of which asserted: That the undersigned Affiant intends to fully cooperate with the Court's proceeding during and throughout the course of trial. The judge accepted a copy of Delatorre's document, and then repeated his question orally. Delatorre's only response was to deflect the court's question by asserting: I've addressed your concerns out of fear of my life and of physical harm in writing. This exchange occurred twice more. Finding that Delatorre had refused several times to confirm that he would not interrupt the jury selection or trial, the court ordered him removed. The court explained that the MCC would provide Delatorre and Benabe with a room with a live video feed from the courtroom, and that they could watch the trial from there if they wished. The court made it clear that Delatorre and Benabe were free to return to the courtroom at any time if they would indicate that they will not speak in front of the prospective jurors or the final jury ... without the permission of this Court, as long as they'll abide by simple courtroom behavior. Counsel for Delatorre objected, asserting that Delatorre had not yet acted up in the presence of jurors and that he should not be removed preemptively. The court's response pointed out the unusual challenges posed by Delatorre's behavior in jury selection for a trial expected to last several months, with a panel of prospective jurors who had been screened already for their ability to serve in such a long trial: Mr. Delatorre ... has disrupted, and the record will reflect that, every single one of the last proceedings. He has interrupted me repeatedly.... You're asking me to get 120 or so prospective jurors who have been carefully selected who will probably go through a snow storm to get here and to taint them with one of his outbursts, and at which point we will have to delay the trial again, while we try and put together a required jury pool. I'm not willing to do that ... and I don't think any defendant should control a federal courtroom to that extent. The judge did not need to add how difficult it would be, and how long it would take, to clear all of the necessary calendars of the court and counsel to reschedule the trial if Delatorre or Benabe were permitted to disrupt jury selection and taint the panel of prospective jurors. On February 6, 2008, the first day of trial, counsel reported that Delatorre and Benabe had both refused to see them that morning, although both were in the lockup in the courthouse. The court reminded counsel that there was a video feed to the MCC in the event that Delatorre or Benabe wanted to watch the trial, and overruled counsel's renewed objection that the defendants had been removed before they were actually disruptive. Jury selection began. The court informed the prospective jurors that Delatorre and Benabe have been excused from attending the trial ... for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the trial. After reminding the prospective jurors of the presumption of innocence, the court inquired whether the absence of Delatorre and Benabe would affect any of them one way or the other. Prospective jurors who indicated that they could not be neutral or had feelings about the issue were excused for cause without objection. As trial progressed, the court repeatedly asked whether Delatorre and Benabe were willing to attend the trial. Delatorre and Benabe refused to communicate with their attorneys, and the trial proceeded without them. Neither defendant watched the live video feed of the trial at the MCC.