House Joint Resolution was then passed by Congress on June 5, This law was passed to do away with the gold clause in the constitution and in all public and private contracts. In addition, with HJR is when they instituted the Birth Certificates to control the people and have the future American people become the collateral for all the federal governments debts. The holder has the right to the taxes and fines, fees, etc that you pay to the government through judgments, court cases, payroll, income taxes, property taxes, etc.
|Published (Last):||13 March 2011|
|PDF File Size:||1.41 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.77 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
C ; In Forma Pauperis; 28 U. A and Affidavit of Truth Pl. B , accompanying plaintiffs Response, and Defendants Reply Def. Plaintiff, a federal inmate, seeks relief for the alleged breach of an implied-in-fact contract between him and the United States.
For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendants motion to dismiss based upon this courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denies plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
But see Pl. The exhibits accompanying plaintiffs Complaint elaborate upon, to a limited degree, the nature of this action. Plaintiff claims that defendant entered into an implied-in-fact contractual relationship with him by operation of his certificate of live birth issued by the State of Illinois on April 21, , and the United States Constitution.
Utilizing a maritime metaphor throughout his filings, plaintiff refers to himself as a vessel cast into the stream of life by the act of his birth. B 2 Mrs. Johnson on April 21st, [,] did by the act of her water breaking, push out launch a new vessel into the stream of life. By her act of applying for title birth certificate [,] the contract was entered. According to plaintiff, defendant has neither reimbursed any of the costs plaintiff incurred to maintain his vessel nor shared any of the revenue derived therefrom with him.
United States v. Johnson, Fed. Appx , 7th Cir. Attached to plaintiffs Complaint are several exhibits, including: 1 an affidavit in support of matter before the Court of Federal Claims executed on September 11, Ex. Paulson, Jr. As a result, plaintiff claims that defendant knowingly and intentionally defrauded him, Ex. Although plaintiff asserts that his action is grounded in matters which are criminal in nature, plaintiff maintains that he does not wish to see [defendant] prosecuted.
Plaintiff claims entitlement to such relief by virtue of his maritime lien and pursuant to Public Law Pursuant to 28 U. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiants belief that the person is entitled to redress. See 28 U. United States, 72 Fed. Where the party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is a prisoner, the court engages in a two-part inquiry under section First, it reviews plaintiffs financial statement to determine whether he is financially eligible for waiver of the filing fee.
Matthews, 72 Fed. Second, it reviews plaintiffs history of suit in the federal courts to determine whether plaintiff has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court evaluates plaintiffs financial resources in order to determine whether plaintiff satisfies the technical requirements of Section See Matthews, 72 Fed. The threshold for a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is not high. Fiebelkorn v. United States, 77 Fed. In his motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit stating that he is a prisoner at a federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, that he has no assets other than his inmate trust account, and that the nature of his action is based upon his status as an unconstitutionally, illegally, unlawfully detained citizen, and in servitude to the government.
Appended to plaintiffs motion are two computer printouts entitled Inmate Inquiry and Deposits, which indicate plaintiffs inmate account balance as of April and detail plaintiffs account deposit and withdrawal history for the period spanning July through April , respectively. First, although plaintiff signed and dated both documents, neither contains any certification by the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is.
United States, 73 Fed. Second, the two computer printouts document plaintiffs account balance as of April 17, Section a 2 requires that plaintiff furnish an account statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff Although plaintiffs motion does not specifically reference either computer printout attached thereto, the court assumes that plaintiff submitted both in an effort to satisfy the requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis set forth in section In order to comply with the statutory requirements of section a 2 , plaintiff needed to furnish a certified copy of his account information for the period beginning with, not ending in, April The court has no information before it concerning plaintiffs finances for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of plaintiffs Complaint.
Thus, even if plaintiffs computer printouts contained the appropriate certifications, they nonetheless fail to document the appropriate six-month period required under the statute.
Because plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements set forth in section a 2 , the court need not reach the question of whether plaintiffs motion complies with section g. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the court finds that plaintiff submitted insufficient documentation under the statute for the court to grant plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiffs Complaint is, as discussed below, jurisdictionally defective and would be dismissed from this court in any event.
Pro Se Plaintiff The Court of Federal Claims holds pleadings of a pro se plaintiff to less stringent standards than litigants represented by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, U. Courts have strained [their] proper role in adversary proceedings to the limit, searching.
Ruderer v. United States, F. Although plaintiffs pleadings are held to a less stringent standard, such leniency with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements. Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Secy, U. Dept of Labor, F. United States, 59 Fed. Appx Fed. As the Court of Federal Claims stated in Demes v. United States, 52 Fed.
Standard of Review Subject matter jurisdiction is an inflexible matter that must be considered before proceeding to evaluate the merits of a case. Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time by the parties, by the court sua sponte, or on appeal.
Folden v. When considering an RCFC 12 b 1 motion, the burden of establishing the courts subject matter jurisdiction resides with the party seeking to invoke it. McNutt v.
Motors Acceptance Corp. The court consider[s] the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and correct. Reynolds v. United States, 60 F. A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, Reynolds, F. United States, 15 Cl. Where a defendant or the court challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot rely merely on allegations in the complaint, but must instead bring forth relevant, competent proof to establish jurisdiction.
Murphy v. United States, 69 Fed. The court may consider matters outside the pleadings when examining jurisdiction. Cedars-Sinai Med. Watkins, 11 F. If the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it must dismiss the claim. Jentoft v. King, U. The scope of this courts jurisdiction to entertain claims and grant relief depends upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity.
In construing a statute waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, great care must be taken not to expand liability beyond that which was explicitly consented to by Congress.
A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed. Unless Congress consents to a cause of action against the United States, there is no jurisdiction in the Court of Claims more than in any other court to entertain suits against the United States.
Sherwood, U. The Tucker Act, 28 U. Although the Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims for money damages, it itself does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages. Greenlee County, Ariz. The separate source of substantive law must constitute a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an express or implied contract with the United States.
Loveladies Harbor, Inc. United States, 27 F. Cummings v. United States, 17 Cl. Testan, U. Additionally, a plaintiff who seeks redress in the Court of Federal Claims must present a claim for actual, presently due money damages from the United States. Terran v. Secy of HHS, F.
Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible
What is HJR 192?
Public Law 73.10