District court denies Fogle’s motion for judicial notice of FBI letters, laws on communism

Disgraced Subway pitchman Jared Fogle has once again been denied relief from his 15-year prison sentence after a district court judge denied his motion to take judicial notice of certain facts, including correspondence from a former FBI director and congressional laws regarding communism.

Fogle’s motion for judicial notice of facts of record requested a hearing on the facts to be noticed, which were included in six exhibits. The exhibits included: the language of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2); a partial transcript of a discussion on aiding in abetting in United States v. James Nathan Fry, an 8^th Circuit case; a partial transcript of a discussion on statutes of limitations from United States v. Frank Edwin Pate, a 5^th Circuit case; the partial text of 18 U.S.C. 1343; mid-20^th century letters exchanged between former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and former Congressman Karl M. LeCompte; and the text of 50 U.S.C. 841, calling for the Communist Party to be outlawed.

Indiana Southern District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied the motion for judicial notice, calling it a misuse of Federal Rule of Evidence 201. However, she reminded the former spokesman that he has until April 6 to amend a Feb. 26 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which Pratt is treating as a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence.

In the Feb. 26 motion, Fogle alleges that his guilty plea to traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor and distribution and receipt of child pornography was not voluntary because he erroneously pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge. That allegation is in reference to the child porn charge, which includes conspiracy language.

Pratt reminded Fogle in her order denying his motion to take judicial notice that he has until April 6 to supplement to motion to correct sentence “with a complete statement and grounds on which he could and does challenge his conviction and/or sentence,” withdraw the motion or notify the court that the motion already includes a complete statement of his claims and grounds for relief.

If Fogle does not take one of those three actions by the April 6 deadline, his motion will be treated as one under 18 U.S.C. 2255 and the case of Jared S. Fogle v. United States of America, 1:18-cv-00571 will proceed. Fogle was given a similar option last year in the criminal case against him, United States of America v. Jarred S. Fogle, 1:15-cr-00159, in which he challenged the court’s jurisdiction over him.

Specifically, Fogle alleged he was a sovereign citizen not subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Pratt rejected that argument, but gave him until Jan. 12 to file an amended motion for relief under section 2255. Fogle, however, continued to challenge the court’s jurisdiction and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which Pratt treated as a motion for Section 2255 relief and had re-docketed into the instant civil case.