The People of the State of New York v. Craig Freeman, Defendant. (2025)

The defendant stands charged, under two different indictments, with various offenses. The defendant has filed several documents with this court, apparently seeking dismissal of the charges. The People oppose dismissal.

The defendant has filed affirmations (entitled "Lawful-Demand For The Fair And Impartial-Investigation In The Furtherance-Of-Justice By The New-York-State: Attorney-General And Staff By The Pursuing Of The New-York-State: Penal-Law: 195:00: Sections: 1 and 2") requesting, in relevant part, that Attorney General Letitia James investigate court officials and the New York County District Attorney. The defendant asserts that these individuals have violated Penal Law § 195.00 and that the District Attorney has engaged in malicious prosecution. The defendant also suggests that the prosecutor has failed to inform him of the nature of the case against him, infringing on his ability to prepare a defense. He also invokes—without explanation—his Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and due process rights.

The defendant has also filed "Affidavit[s]-Of: Specific-Negative-Averment," in which he denies, inter alia, that "Craig-Freeman" exists or is a United States citizen, that the State of New York exists, that he is a "proper[ ]party" to Indictment Numbers 70784/24 and 70768/24, and that the court exists. He further asserts that "parties purporting . . . to have a claim against" him have committed fraud, deprived him of his rights under color of law, and conspired and colluded to do the same.¹

Initially, this court lacks any authority to compel the New York State Attorney General to initiate or undertake investigations. Nor should malicious prosecution, or any other civil claim, be brought before this court, which is a criminal court. In any event, defendant has not alleged any facts whatsoever to support a malicious prosecution claim, or a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. See also Colon v. New York, 60 NY2d 78, 82 (1983) (elements of an action for malicious prosecution are [1] the initiation of a proceeding, [2] its termination favorably to plaintiff, [3] lack of probable cause, and [4] malice) (citations omitted); Kubik v. NY State Dep't of Social Servs., 278 AD2d 644, 646 (3d Dep't 2000) (a claim for conspiracy to violate civil rights "requires a detailed fact pleading"; a complaint containing only "general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand" dismissal) (quotation omitted).

Nor are defendant's suggestions that the indictments fail to provide sufficient notice of the charges against him availing.

Indictment 70784/24 alleges that the defendant, "in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about January 13, 2023, possessed a firearm" (Count 2), and that "in the County of New York and elsewhere, during the period from on or about May 14, 2022, to on or about January 13, 2023, with intent that conduct constituting the crime of CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE SECOND DEGREE be performed, said crime being a class "C" felony, agreed with each other, and with others, to engage in and cause the performance of such conduct." The indictment also alleges overt acts undertaken in furtherance of said conspiracy, including text messages between the defendants regarding 3D printing firearms. These counts are "sufficient . . . to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation." Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 200.50(7)(a).

Indictment Number 70768/24 alleges that the defendant, "in the County of New York and elsewhere, during the period from on or about April 17, 2020, to on or about October 5, 2021, with intent that conduct constituting the crime of GRAND LARCENY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, Penal Law § 155.42, be performed, said crime being a class "B" felony, agreed with [co-defendants], and with others, to engage in and cause the performance of such conduct" (Count 1). The indictment further alleges that the defendant "in the County of New York, during the period from on or about April 17, 2020 to on or about October 5, 2021, stole property from the New York State Department of Labor and the value of the property exceeded one million dollars" (Count 2); and that, "in the County of New York, during the period from on or about April 17, 2020 to on or about October 5, 2021, with the intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a benefit, committed an act relating to their office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of their official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized" (Count 6). These counts were likewise sufficient to satisfy due process. See CPL § 200.50(7)(a).

Finally, the defendant's suggestions that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were violated are insufficiently detailed so as to permit this court's consideration.

Accordingly, the defendant's motions are denied in their entirety.

The foregoing is the decision and order of the court.

Dated: April 21, 2025

New York, New York

Laura A. Ward

Justice of the Supreme Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   It appears that the defendant adheres to "Sovereign Citizen" ideology. See generally United States v. McLaughlin, 949 F.3d 780, 781 n.1 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that sovereign citizens "follow their own set of laws and, accordingly, do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or regulations as legitimate") (quotations and citations omitted).

Laura A. Ward, J.