Hamilton v. Burke
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 12/5/12. (TRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ANTOINE LEVILLE HAMILTON,
THERESA COUNTS BURKE,
No. 4:12CV2067 JCH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On November 2, 2012,
petitioner submitted a petition for writ of mandamus and an “Affidavit of Financial
Statement.” Petitioner identifies himself as a sovereign person belonging to the
Moorish National Republic. In his Affidavit of Financial Statement, petitioner stated:
I Affirm, for the Record, that I do not have, or possess, any gold or silver
coins, as prescribed by United States Constitution Law, which is the
lawful money to pay the restricting demands, conditionally commanded
by Employees and Contractors of the Court. The said restrictions
(unconstitutional) are arbitrarily (hindering Due Process) and imposed for
processing these Documents, as stipulated in the United States
Constitution noted above. Therefore, I submit this Writ “In Forma
Pauperis”, being an enjoyment and exercise of my unconditional and
Constitutionally - Secured Rights (and not a feudal - fee - burdened
privilege) to timely and speedily enforce Due Process of Law, as noted
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a person who seeks leave to proceed without
payment of the filing fee must submit “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and
affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.”
On November 6, 2012, the Court directed petitioner to comply with the statute.
The Court sent petitioner a form motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a financial
affidavit, and the Court directed him to fill the forms out and return them to the Court.
The Court warned petitioner that if he failed to comply with the Order that the Court
would dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
Petitioner refused, however, to comply with the Order. Petitioner filed a
document titled “Affidavit of Fact Writ of Error” on November 13, 2012. In the
document, petitioner stated:
For the Record, On the Record, and Let the Record show, I am a Moorish
National Aboriginal, Indigenous Natural Person, and not a nom-de-guerre,
straw man or any other artificial corporate construct as written in all
CAPITAL LETTERS, by the unclean hands of others. I am Sovereign to
this Land and as such, this Administrative Court does not have lawful
jurisdiction to hear, present, or pass judgment in any matter concerning
my affairs under a quasi criminal non sanctioned tribunal of foreign
private law process.
I respectfully, with ‘Good Faith’, and with Honor, demand free
access to the Court by Right, with said access unhindered. By rightful
due process, I submit this ‘Affidavit of Financial Statement’ and
Evidence, and demand that it be processed as it was originally intended
and without tampering by any unauthorized persons.
No federal court has ever recognized the sovereign status of the Moorish
National Republic or its members. See, e.g., Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 WL 1812615
*6 (M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007). Petitioner does not have the authority to bestow
sovereign status upon himself and defy the laws of the United States. E.g., United
States v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1984).
Rule 41(b) gives the Court authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute
or for failure to comply with a Court order. In this action, petitioner has both failed to
prosecute and has failed to comply with a Court order. As a result, the Court will
dismiss this action without further proceedings.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.
Dated this 5th day of December, 2012.
/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?