APPLICATION FOR ORDER

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WE THE PEOPLE,

v.
Case No. 18-mc-51320
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
UNITED STATES FEDERAL JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
UNITED STATES SENATE,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
_______________________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I.
Before the Court is a document the Clerk’s office filed as “DECLARATION of
restoration of the law of the land filed by We the People US Common Law Grand Jury”
and designated it as a miscellaneous action. (ECF No. 1). For the reasons that follow,
the case will be dismissed.
II.
“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,
unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v.
Glenn, et al. 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

When reviewing pro se papers, the court must employ standards less stringent
than if the complaint had been drafted by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972). However, federal pleading standards do not permit pro se litigants to proceed
on pleadings that are not readily comprehensible. Complaints containing “vague and
conclusory allegations” unsupported by material facts are subject to dismissal. Becker
v. Ohio State Legal Servs Ass'n, 19 F. App’x 321, 322 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court is also
not required to supply the litigant with legal theories or to furnish additional factual
allegations—to do so would inappropriately make the court an advocate for the plaintiff.
See Thompson v. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co., No. 99-3728, 2000 WL 302998, at *1 (6th Cir.
2000).
III.
The Court has read the document, which consists of 61 pages. It is virtually
unintelligible. The plaintiff is identified only as “We the People.” The document has an
unreadable signature titled “Jury Foreman Natural Law Tribunal.” Defendants are the
United States Supreme Court, United States Federal Judiciary It states the following as
causes of action: “Concealment of Natural Courts a/k/a/ Court of Law or Court of
Record or common Law Court Tyranny, Subversion, Denial of Due Process, Denial of
Habeas Corpus, Felony Rescue, Stacking & Tainting Petit Grand Juries, Stacking &
Tainting Grand Juries, Aiding & Abetting enemies both foreign and domestic.” As relief,
the plaintiff seeks, among other things, “[t]o impeach and remove ALL judges,” “to
legislate law that the Constitution and Civics are to be taught in elementary and high
school,” “Congress is to repeal all legislation that subjects the People to government
2

authority.” Although the documents references the Constitution, Bill of Rights,
Declaration of Independence, and other official documents, the Court cannot discern a
viable or plausible claim or a proper basis for jurisdiction against any of the named
defendants. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

_
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 9/25/2019
Detroit, Michigan

3