Abdussalaam v. The State of Virginia, 7:24-cv-00381

Munir-Ibn Sami: Abdussalaam, an inmate in Virginia, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging false arrest for failure to appear and being held without opportunity for bail.
The petitioner did not specify the date or court of arrest but court records show he had two failure to appear charges in Appomattox General District Court, one dismissed and one resulting in a conviction.
Abdussalaam did not appeal any adverse rulings to higher state courts, as permitted by Virginia law.
He filed a grievance at Amherst County Adult Detention Center but provided no record of outcome or further appeal.
The petition argues multiple constitutional violations, jurisdictional issues, and references sovereign citizen arguments, including consent to statutes, lack of contract, and alleged violations of the Madrid Treaty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether false arrest and lack of bail opportunity warrant federal habeas relief	Claims false arrest, denied bail, multiple constitutional violations.	No federal claim; remedies not exhausted; arguments meritless.	Dismissed—no cognizable federal claim, remedies not exhausted.
Jurisdiction of state courts over petitioner	Argues inferior courts lack authority unless by consent or contract.	State courts have jurisdiction over individuals present.	State jurisdiction upheld; physical presence sufficient.
Requirement for constitutional alignment of statutes	Statutes require individual consent to apply; otherwise violate rights.	Statutes valid, do not require individual consent.	Statutes validly enforced; no constitutional violation shown.
Applicability of sovereign citizen and treaty theories	Invokes sovereign citizen arguments, Madrid Treaty, Ninth Amendment.	Such theories universally rejected; presence confers jurisdiction.	Theories and treaty arguments rejected outright.

Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (habeas relief for bail denial inappropriate until remedies exhausted)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (federal courts may deny unexhausted claims if meritless)
United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569 (7th Cir. 1990) (sovereign citizen arguments consistently rejected)
United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1992) (sovereign citizen arguments have no legal merit)
United States v. White, 480 F. App’x 193 (4th Cir. 2012) (courts have jurisdiction over persons present regardless of citizenship)