Shaker Hts. v. El-Bey
2017 Ohio 929
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Sept. 19, 2015, Shaker Heights police cited Brandon Profit El‑Bey for failing to display a rear Ohio license plate in violation of Shaker Heights Codified Ordinances 1135.09.
- El‑Bey pled not guilty; the municipal court convicted him in Feb. 2016 and imposed fines and costs (total $375).
- On appeal El‑Bey argued (inter alia) that he is a Moorish/National of the "United Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu’ur" and therefore not subject to Ohio or U.S. jurisdiction, had no contract with the State, and was not required to display Ohio plates.
- The appellate court found El‑Bey admitted having an Ohio front plate and an Ohio ID used for practical purposes, undermining his contract/exemption claims.
- The court held municipal ordinance power and municipal‑court jurisdiction apply to individuals committing offenses within city limits and rejected "sovereign citizen/sovereign nation" defenses as meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal court had jurisdiction over El‑Bey | City: municipal court has statutory jurisdiction over ordinance violations within its territory | El‑Bey: he is not subject to Ohio law because he is a Moorish National and has no contract with the State | Court: municipal court had subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction; complaint (traffic ticket) invoked jurisdiction |
| Whether El‑Bey was exempt from local ordinance enforcement by virtue of claimed nationality/sovereignty | City: U.S. does not recognize Moorish Nation; local laws apply to all persons within territory | El‑Bey: Moorish/National status and lack of consent/contract exempts him from Ohio statutes and ordinances | Court: Sovereign‑citizen/nation theories are frivolous; status does not bar prosecution or conviction |
| Whether display of state license plates was mandatory | City: municipal ordinance and state law permit regulation of licensure and registration for public safety | El‑Bey: he has a right to travel and uses Indigenous traveling plates of his Nation; license/registration are not required for his travel | Court: No fundamental right to drive; licensure/registration are reasonable police‑power regulations; display requirement applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir.) (rejecting various sovereign‑citizen theories and noting such theories are meritless)
- United States v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 (2d Cir.) (a self‑declared public minister cannot unilaterally claim sovereign immunity)
- State v. Starnes, 21 Ohio St.2d 38 (Ohio 1970) (operating a motor vehicle is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation)
- Blow v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 83 S.D. 628 (S.D. 1969) (licensure and registration are valid safety regulations)
- State v. Mbodji, 951 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio) (municipal courts are statutory creations with jurisdiction defined by statute)