Smith v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 12/29/2015. (c/m 12/30/2015 nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

Fll.ED

U.S. D1STRfCr CO,,:::T

('ISTf'iI'" t 1"- ;• _. ..."'''1 , ....,
.,:'
.:
;
"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NICOLE M. SMITH,
Plaintiff
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et a!.,
Defendants

•
•
•
•
•
•••

II _,

20i5DEC29

"I'

P1i3:18

Civil Action No. ELH-15-3807

MEMORANDUM
Nicole Smith, plaintiff, filed suit on December 14, 2015, together with the full filing fee.
ECF I. Plaintiff, who is self-represented, has sued a host of defendants: Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;

Rosenberg & Associates,

LLC; Diane S.

Rosenberg; Mark D. Meyer; John A. Ansell, III; Azer Akhtar; Stephanie R. Montgomery;
Kenneth R. Savits; Judge Thomas F. Stansfield; the Circuit Court for Carroll County; Judge
Nancy V. Alquist; and John and Jane Does 1-100. ,Id.1

In her 27.page Complaint, plaintiff

describes herself as a "Free White Woman" (id. at 2), and asserts that her Complaint sounds in
admiralty.

See, e.g., ECF 1, ~~ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. She invokes the Founding Fathers to support her

contention that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint.
A foreclosure proceeding is currently pending in the Circuit Court for Carroll County,
involving plaintiffs

property.

See Rosenberg, et aI., v. Smith, et aI., Circuit Court for Carroll

County, Maryland, Case Number 06C13064836?

As best 1 can determine, the gravamen of the

In the body of the Complaint, plaintiff also seems to include James T. DeWees as a
defendant. See, e.g. ECF I at 2-3.
2

See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry.
Plaintiff previously filed suit in this court
seeking to have the court intervene in her State foreclosure proceedings. See Civil Action No.
JFM-15-3087 (D. Md. 2015). The case was dismissed.

~.

Complaint in this case concerns the foreclosure proceedings pending in a Maryland court;
plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure action was improperly initiated and pursued by the named
defendants.

ECF I.

recording counterfeited

Plaintiff asserts that defendants "have been making false claims and
securities in a public repository and this counterclaim and notice lis

pendens are now in the 'original exclusive cognizance'" of the federal court. ECF I, ~ 1.
Plaintiff defines the State of Maryland as "the fiction, foreign, private, for profit business
corporation masquerading" as a "de facto provider of government services" and claims that the
Circuit Court for Carroll County is "masquerading as a provider of judicial services."

Id. ~ 3.

She also asserts that other defendants, including Carroll County Circuit Court Judge Thomas F.
Stansfield and United States Bankruptcy Judge Nancy V. Alquist, are "unregistered agents of
a ...

'foreign state. '" Id. ~ 10. And, plaintiff makes numerous references to the International

Monetary Fund. See, e,g., ECF I, ~ II.

She also includes allegations about INTERPOL (see,

e.g., ECF I, ~ 17), and asserts that Stansfield, Alquist, and others are INTERPOL agents. Id.
~ 18.
In paragraphs 21 and 23 through 27 of the Complaint, plaintiff asserts:
21. The district court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore has acquired
exclusive original cognizance of this counterclaim for the United States because
this is a federal question - a Constitutional matter involving a Free White Woman
on the land complaining about threatened theft and seizure of private property
contrary to due process of law-Title 18 U.S.c. SS 661 and 1201 respectively and
irregular extradition from the asylum state into the United States custody, treason
- Constitution, Article III S3 and Title 18 U.S.c. S 2381 by Thomas Stansfield,
Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees and each Fiction Libelee and its attorneys
and unidentified subordinates, agents of a foreign principal, creating diversity of
citizenship - Title 28 U.S.C. SS 1331 and 1333 respectively. The presentments,
Case # 06C13064836; NOTICE OF SALE; REPORT OF SALE; NOTICE

Case JFM-15-3087 involved some of the parties named as defendants in this case. For
example, ECF 1-2 in that case reflects that Ms. Smith was involved in a bankruptcy matter
assigned to Judge Alquist.
2

OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE; FINAL ORDER OF RATIFICATION
OF
SALE; ORDER AWARDING POSSESION OF PROPERTY, are arbitrary
and capricious grounded in fraudulent statements of unidentified subordinates
foreign agents clearly serving as the sole authority for the actions by way of
inland seizure of the inherent right to property of Nicole Marie Smith. Speaking
historically, the districts, formed in 1790 for handling the financial obligations of
the United States could not come into existence until after formal expression of
remedy in the 'saving to suitors' clause (1789) quoted above and codified at Title
28 U.S.c. 91333. The law is paraphrased in the Internal Revenue Code:
"Form. The form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (a)
shall be prescribed by the Secretary. Such notice shall be valid
notwithstanding
any other provision of law regarding the form or
content of a notice of lien." Title 26 U.S.C. 96323(F)(3). emphasis added.
[by plaintiff.]

***
23. Law ofthe flag: Man is created in the image of Nature's God and to reduce a
man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to Nature's God and The
Laws of Nature. >See: Declaration ofIndependence.
III
Cause of action
24. Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees and each Fiction
Libelee and its attorneys, foreign agents with malice aforethought and willful
misconduct failed to comply with the mandate of FRCP Rule 4 and further failed
to comply with the Supplemental Rules for certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims Rule E(5)(b) regarding the posting of a bond for double the value of the
claim vessel. Such attempt to acquire a judgment against a Man or Woman on the
land violates the national law required by the Saving to Suitors clause of the First
Judiciary Act.
25. Further, the presentments Case, # 06C13064836; NOTICE OF SALE;
REPORT OF SALE; NOTICE OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE; FINAL
ORDER
OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE;
ORDER
AWARDING
POSSESION
OF PROPERTY,
are arbitrary and capricious grounded in
fraudulent statements of Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees
and each Fiction Libelee and its attorneys. Further, Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V.
Alquist, James T. DeWees and each Fiction Libelee's attorney knew or should
have known that said attorney who initiated Case # 06C13064836, with malice
aforethought, failed to tender the requisite filing fees in a medium of exchange
consistent with the federal injunction and requirement of Article One, Section Ten
of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to tender of obligation in
payment of debt to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of a state tribunal.
3

Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees and each Fiction
Libelee's attorney each failed in their purported sworn duty as alleged "officers of
the court or state" to uphold and defend The Constitutions, a failure of which
constitutes treason to The Constitutions - See Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 6
L.Ed.257.
26. Further violation by Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees
and each Fiction Libelee and its attorneys of the FRCP Rule 4, Article I Section
10 of the Constitution of the United States establishes a pattern, policy and
practice. Thus each subsequent action of Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V. Alquist,
James T. DeWees and each Fiction Libelee and its attorneys as foreign agents
only aid and abet the prior high crimes and misdemeanors of said attorneys for the
Fiction Libelees which are predicate acts of RI.C.O. Thus the entire proceedings
under the commercial vessel/account, Case # 06C13064836; NOTICE OF
SALE; REPORT OF SALE; NOTICE OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE;
FINAL ORDER OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE; ORDER AWARDING
POSSESION OF PROPERTY, are immoral and criminal, clearly serving as the
sole authority for the actions by way of inland seizure of the inherent right to
property of Nicole Marie Smith, a State Citizen of the body politic the State of
Maryland.
27. Thus Thomas Stansfield, Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees and each
Fiction Libelee and its attorneys through said Case # 06C13064836; NOTICE
OF SALE; REPORT OF SALE; NOTICE OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE;
FINAL ORDER OF RATIFICATION
OF SALE; ORDER AWARDING
POSSESION
OF PROPERTY,
have each damaged Nicole Marie Smith,
through theft of private his property and rights to said property, estate, trust, his
good name, and his ability to transfer, sale and freely use same, therefore, this has
caused Nicole Marie Smith to be put into the position of involuntary servitude,
possible homelessness, and peonage against her will and the laws of the United
States of America, of Maryland and the Law of Nations by Thomas Stansfield,
Nancy V. Alquist, James T. DeWees and each Fiction Libelee and its attorneys.
In paragraph 36 of the Complaint, plaintiff states:
36. The recourse sought is immediate exclusive original cognizance of the United
States through the district court and abatement of any and all claims and return
of all property erroneously seized under Case # 06C13064836 from the
beginning and removal of any FRCP - Rule 4 violation Notice of Liens,
Claims and Notices of Sale, Order for Possession, and other fraudulent
documents recorded in the public repository of Carroll County. This case is
repository for evidence for injunctive relief from any future presentments and
theft or seizure actions from any foreign agents or principals. Though the
theft/seizure could be justified by notice and sophistry under the color of law of
municipal structure, the proceedings have obviously been under the pretended
authority of unconscionable contract and the recourse demanded is proper. There
4

is no excuse for the arbitrary and capricious attorney actions - inland seizure of
property - that have confronted good men and women since the Banker's Holiday.
Roosevelt implemented a "voluntary compliance" national debt, upon the States
by Governor's Convention, but utilized the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act to
compel citizens of the United States to comply. The substitution of American
Citizens for the German nationals on this land was against Stoehr v. Wallace,
255 U.S. 239 (1921) where the Court clearly expresses "The Trading with the
Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure ... " - directly
citing the Constitution Article I, 98, clause II. The war on the Great Depression
(I) does not count and (2) would only last the duration of the emergency if it
did ....
Because of the pendency of a related case in another forum, this Court cannot accept
jurisdiction over the claims raised in the Complaint.

To the extent plaintiff seeks to enjoin the

State court proceedings or seeks declaratory relief regarding rights to the property at issue, this
court may not grant "an injunction to stay the proceedings in a State court except as expressly
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,
effectuate its judgments."

28 U.S.C.

9

2283.

Where the Anti-Injunction

or to protect or

Act bars injunctive

relief, issuance of a declaratory judgment that would have the same effect as an injunction is also
unavailable.

See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 73 (1971) (declaratory relief has virtually the

same practical impact as a formal injunction).

Additionally, where equitable relief is sought

regarding property that is already the subject of an ongoing in rem action in another court, the
court controlling the property for purposes of the earlier-filed suit has exclusive jurisdiction over
the property.

See Princess Lida o/Thurn

& Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466 (1939) (the

jurisdiction of the second court must yield to the court where the matter was first pending).
In addition, foreclosure

actions brought under state law do not give rise to federal

question subject matter jurisdiction.

See McNeely v. Moab Tiara Cherokee Kituwah Nation

Chief, 2008 WL 4166328 (W.D.N.C 2008). To the extent plaintiff believes the claims asserted

5

constitute a viable defense to the foreclosure action, they may be raised in the context of the
State case.
Additionally, plaintiff's claims against Judges Stansfield and Alquist may not proceed.
The defense of absolute immunity extends to "officials whose special functions or constitutional
status requires complete protection from suit." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982).
Judges, whether presiding at the state or federal level, are clearly among those officials who are
entitled to such immunity.

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Because it is a benefit to

the public at large, "whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their
functions with independence and without fear of consequences," Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,
554 (1967), absolute immunity is necessary so that judges can perform their functions without
harassment or intimidation.

"Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on

occasion, 'it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration

of

justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon
his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.'"

Mireles v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 (1991) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)).
Moreover, the law is well settled that the doctrine of judicial immunity is applicable to actions
filed under 42 U.S.c.

9

1983. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356.

In determining whether a particular judge is immune, inquiry must be made into whether
the challenged action was 'Judicial" and whether, at the time the challenged action was taken,
the judge had subject matter jurisdiction.

See Stump, 435 U.S. at 356. Unless it can be shown

that a judge acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction," absolute immunity exists even when
the alleged conduct is erroneous, malicious, or in excess of judicial authority. [d. at 356-57.

6

,

.

,

..

Plaintiffs

suit is the type of action that the Pierson Court recognized as necessitating the

doctrine of judicial immunity.

In apparent disagreement with the decisions reached in the State

court and in the bankruptcy court, Smith has turned to this forum to assert allegations of
unconstitutional

acts against the state court judge and the bankruptcy court judge.

immunity precludes plaintiffs

Because

recovery, sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the.

judges is appropriate.
Alternatively, the suit is subject to dismissal because it is completely incomprehensible.
To be sure, pleadings filed by self-represented

litigants must be "liberally construed" and are

"held to less stringent standards than [those filed] by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). However, a federal court may not act as an advocate for a self-represented litigant.

See Brockv. Carroll, 107 FJd 241, 242--43 (4th Cir. 1996); Wellerv. Dep'tofSocial Servs., 901
F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the court cannot "conjure up questions never squarely
presented," or fashion claims for a plaintiff because she is self-represented.

Beaudett v. City of

Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986); see also
MD. v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond, 560 F. App'x 199,203 n.4 (4th Cir. 2014) (rejecting selfrepresented plaintiffs

argument that district court erred in failing to consider an Equal Protection

claim, because plaintiff failed to allege it in the complaint); Telford v. Vandusen, 972 F.2d 342,
at *1 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpub.) (finding district court did not err in ignoring self-represented
plaintiffs

"property damage" claim, because plaintiff made only an "oblique reference to the

property damage in the body of the complaint, [and] it [was] nowhere mentioned in the demand
for judgment").

7

Despite a generous construction of the Complaint, this Court has been unsuccessful in its
attempt to determine the nature of the claims generally or the basis of any particular claims
against those individuals named in the suit.
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs Complaint shall be summarily dismissed.
A separate Order follows.

~-R--.~
Date

Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

8