In the case of Mark A. Hammack, who filed a pro se motion to vacate a judgment, the United States requested the Court to interpret Hammack’s motion as a coram nobis petition and to deny it. The government argues Hammack’s right to challenge his conviction was waived when he signed his plea agreement. Furthermore, his claims fall short of the stringent standards required for coram nobis relief.
Hammack’s legal journey began when he was indicted on charges of tax evasion and obstruction. He later pled guilty to one count of tax evasion, expressly waiving his rights to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction, except in limited circumstances like ineffective assistance of counsel, which he could raise only in specific legal motions. During sentencing, Hammack received a term of incarceration and supervised release, but his subsequent appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Years later, he filed a coram nobis petition, arguing his conviction should be vacated because, among other claims, he was not a U.S. citizen and the court lacked jurisdiction. The court denied this initial petition based on his waiver of collateral attack rights.
In his most recent filing, Hammack again claims the court’s lack of jurisdiction, asserting he is a “native” of Mississippi and not a U.S. citizen. He also raises other sovereign citizen arguments, claiming federal statutes do not bind him and that federal judges lack proper authority due to supposed changes to their oath of office.
The government contends that Hammack’s latest arguments are frivolous, underscoring that his sovereign citizen claims do not meet the exacting standards of coram nobis relief, which is reserved for correcting only fundamental errors in extreme cases. Because Hammack waived his right to challenge his conviction in his plea agreement, and since he fails to meet the requirements for coram nobis relief, the government asks the court to deny his petition. His lack of timely action and failure to demonstrate that no other remedy was available further undermine his case.
The court has been urged to dismiss Hammack’s claims, as they fail to raise any substantial legal grounds and are based largely on sovereign citizen arguments that have no legal standing. TBD at a later date.