Lisa Marie Presley v. JP/Politikens HUS et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, GRANTING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE ENTRIES OF DEFAULT and GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS signed by Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. on 2/24/14. All remaining motions are deemed MOOT. (Fowlkes, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LISA MARIE PRESLEY,
a/k/a LisaJohansen,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JP/POLITIKENS HUS,
a Danish Foundation, et al.
Defendants.

No. 13-2191-JTF-cgc

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, GRANTING
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS
Before

the

Court

is

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Recommendation filed on January 6, 2014. (DE #73).
27,

2014,

Plaintiff

filed

her

written

Report

and

On January

objections

to

the

Magistrate’s report and recommendation.1 (DE #81). The Defendants
separately filed responses to Plaintiff’s objections on February
3, 2014 and February 10, 2014.2 (DE #82 and DE #83).
The
Report

Court
and

has

reviewed

Recommendation,

de
the

novo
legal

the

Magistrate

analysis,

Judge’s

Plaintiff’s

objections and Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s objections,

1 Plaintiff’s

objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation should have been filed
within fourteen days of the entry of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation or no later than
January 20, 2014.
2 DE #82 captioned, “Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal and Motion to
Strike” will be treated as Defendants’ Kronofogdemyhndigheten, Svenska Handelsbanken, Carin
Wilklund-Jorgensen, Lennart Christianson, Rikard Backelin, Inger Sodeholm, Annika Hietala,
Marianne Gauffin, Hans Tornqvist, Sigtuna Kommun and Lola Svensson’s Response to Plaintiff’s
Objections. DE #83, captioned “

1

in addition to the entire record.
the

Court

overrules

For the reasons stated below,

Plaintiff’s

objections

and

finds

the

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation should be adopted
and the case dismissed with prejudice.
I.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 28, 2013, Plaintiff, a Swedish resident currently
living in Florida, filed a sixty-two (62) page complaint against
several

organizations,

corporations,

governmental

agencies,

municipalities, and numerous named judges and unnamed individual
residents of Sweden and Denmark, the collective “Defendants.”
Adopting the Magistrate’s proposed findings of fact, Plaintiff
alleges

that

racketeering,

the

Defendants

forgery,

conspired

fraud,

to

obstruction

commit
of

acts

justice

of
and

identity theft, inter alia, against Plaintiff and her family in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §2 and 18 U.S.C. §1962, et seq., and
Article VI of the United States Constitution. (DE #1).
Plaintiff contends the Defendants conspired to confiscate
and

exploit

documentation

that

daughter of Mr. Elvis Presley.”

proved

she

is

the

“rightful

Plaintiff alleges that because

of the Defendants’ conspiracy and their many associated acts of
harassment, i.e. modification of her medical records, initiating
child abuse proceedings, billing her home ten times the average
electricity rate, denying her daughter’s enrollment in public
and home-schooling, she and her children’s health and welfare
2

suffered. Plaintiff ultimately alleges that she has been denied
the right to her genealogy as well as the ability to safely
reside in her homeland, Sweden.3
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter was filed in this court on March 28, 2013. (DE
#1). On July 16, 2013, the matter was referred to the Magistrate
Judge

for

administration,

determination,

or

for

report

and

recommendation of all preliminary and pretrial matters pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Fed. Rule Civ. P. 1.
Plaintiff

filed

Motions

and

Affidavits

for

Entry

(DE #9).
of

Default

against Defendants JP/Politikens HUS, Sigtuna Kommun, Lennart
Christianson,

Kronofogdemyndigheten,

Hans

Ahnberg,

Ralph

Gluckman, Lola Svensson, Varingaskolan, Sigtuna Batklubb,
Inger

Soderholm.4

Defaults

against

On

September

Clerk

entered

Kronofogdemyndigheten,

Defendants

23,

2013,

the

and

Ralph

Gluckman, Hans Ahnberg, Lola Svensson, Varingaskolan, Lennart
Christianson,

Sigtuna

Kommun,

Sigtuna

Batklubb,

and

Inger

Soderholm.5 Accordingly, Plaintiff subsequently filed Motions for
Default Judgments against these same Defendants, as well as,
against those whom the Clerk had denied motions for default,
Annika Hietala, Carin Wiklunc-Jorgensen, Rikard Bakelin, Svenska

3 The Complaint provides that even as a newborn, Plaintiff’s footprints were
duplicative to the alleged footprints of Elvis Presley when he was a newborn and that
despite her Swedish heritage, she speaks “flawless English with a Tennessee accent.”
DE #1, n .8.
4 DE #4, DE #10, DE #13-14, DE #20-22, DE #31- DE #33.
5 DE #35 - DE #43.

3

Handelsbanken,

Marianne

Gauffin,

Hans

Tornqvist,

and

JP/Politikens HUS.6 On October 8, 2013, Kronofogdemyndigheten,
Lennart

Christianson,

Inger

Soderholm,

Lola

Svensson,

and

Sigtuna Kommun filed a Motion to Set Aside Entries of Default.7
(DE #56).
On November 6, 2013, Defendants JP/Politikens HUS and Ulrik
Haagerup,

(the

“JP

Defendants”)

filed

a

Motion

to

Dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b). (DE
#66).8 Plaintiff filed her responses and supplemental responses
to the JP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on December 4, 2013 and
December 9, 2013.

(DE #69 – DE #71).

Based on her proposed findings of fact and determinations,
the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

a

report

and

recommendation

on

January 6, 2014 to: 1) grant JP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and for
insufficient service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and
1332;

2)

set

aside

the

entries

of

default

for

insufficient

service of process against the named Defendants in Denmark and
in

Sweden

(h)(2);

in

accordance

with

Fed.

Rule

Civ.

P.

4(f)(1)

and

and 3) deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgments.

6 DE #44 – DE #54.
7 On November 1, 2013, the Magistrate Judge conducted a telephonic conference
and entered an Order staying, with a few exceptions, any additional filings
until further notice by the Court. DE #64.
8 On the same date, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss the JP Defendants, DE #65,
which was denied without prejudice on January 6, 2014. DE #74 In Plaintiff’s Response
to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff concedes that Dismissal of these Defendants is
appropriate but should be without prejudice. DE #69.

4

Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that because Plaintiff
has failed to sufficiently allege claims for relief under RICO
nor effected service on any of the defendants, that the Court
sua

sponte

dismiss

the

action

in

its

entirety

against

all

defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (DE #73).9
On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of Defendants Annika Hietala, Carin Wklund-Jorgensen,
Rikard

Backelin,

Svenska

Handelsbanken,

Hans Tornqvist. (DE #78).

Marianne

Gauffin

and

On the same date, Plaintiff also

filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (DE #
79).
Plaintiff
report

and

Defendants

filed

written

recommendation
subsequently

on

objections
January

filed

their

27,

to

the

2014,

response

to

Magistrate’s
DE

#81,

and

Plaintiff’s

objections on February 10, 2014. DE #81 and DE #83.10
III. LEGAL STANDARD
After referring a dispositive motion to a Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the district judge must
review de novo a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact
and recommendations in dispositive motions. The rules provide:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy,
any party may serve and file written objections to
such proposed findings and recommendations as provided

9 The Magistrate Judge also lifted the Stay for filing further motions on January 9, 3024. (DE
#75).
10 Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal and Motion to
Strike, DE #82, on February 3, 2014, that the Court has considered in issuing the current ruling.

5

by the rules of court. A judge of the court shall make
a de novo determination of those portions of the
report
or
specified
proposed
findings
or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B) and (C); Fed. Rule Civ. P. 72(b);
Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed. App’x. 308, 311 (6th Cir. 2003).

In

applying the de novo standard, Congress afforded the district
judge

sound

discretion

to

rely

on

proposed findings and determinations.

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.

667, 676, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2412, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980).

The

Court need not conduct a de novo hearing, but must make a de
novo determination based on the record only to matters involving
disputed facts and findings. Mira, 806 F.2d at 637. Also, de
novo review is not required when the objections to the report
and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive or general. Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) provides that a court must dismiss
the action, if it determines at any time that it lacks subject
matter

jurisdiction.

Moir

v.

Greater

Cleveland

Ohio

Reg’l

Transit Auth., 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990). When an issue
of subject matter jurisdiction is raised through a motion to
6

dismiss,

the

plaintiff

jurisdiction.

Id.

In

bears

this

the

case,

burden

the

of

establishing

Magistrate

Judge

has

recommended that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted
because all of the parties are residents of Sweden or Denmark.
Thus, diversity of citizenship is lacking.
To maintain a diversity action, not only must the amount in
controversy exceed $75,000 but the parties must be citizens of
different

states.

correctly

See

denoted

distinguishable.

28

that
As

U.S.C.

§1332(a).

citizenship

such,

more

The

and

factors

Magistrate

residence
are

required

are
to

establish citizenship other than Plaintiff’s mere residence in
Florida,

as

opposed

defendants.

to

Plaintiff

Sweden,
must

the

establish

locale
that

of

the

Florida

various
is

her

domicile and that she is physically present in the state with
the intention of making Florida her permanent home without plans
or desires to move elsewhere.

Deasy v. Louisville & Jefferson

County Metropolitan Sewer Dist. 47 Fed. Appx. 726, 728 (6th Cir.
1973).
Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate’s determination that
diversity

was

lacking.

Plaintiff

claims

she

asserted

U.S.

Citizenship by noting her birthplace was Memphis, Tennessee, and
her “factual allegation” that she is the rightful heir of Mr.

7

Elvis

Presley.11

However,

as

the

Magistrate

Judge

correctly

noted, Plaintiff avers in a complaint filed in another matter
pending before this Court that she is a resident of Sweden.12
Further,

although

Ms.

Presley

is

physically

in

Florida,

she

contends she is only there because of the Defendants’ perceived
actions, which form the basis for the instant lawsuit. Quoting
language in the Complaint:
“Plaintiff is unable to reside in her home in
Sweden as a consequence of the racketeering activity
and threats against her children as described in this
Complaint. Plaintiff has been residing in Florida for
over six months as a result of the racketeering
activity.13
. . . . for the third time, as a result of
defendants’ unlawful activity, has been driven from
her home in Sigtuna after asserting her rightful
station in the United States. Furthermore, to protect
the welfare of Plaintiff’s children threatened by the
racketeering activity of defendants Sigtuna, Svensson,
Ahnberg and Bluckman, Plaintiff cannot return to her
home or to her business. This is extreme malicious
sanctions and retaliations for Plaintiff’s lawsuit and
a severe obstruction of the administration of justice.
Defendant’s unlawful conduct has made it impossible
for Plaintiff to manage profession, business, family
and her life in Sweden as a whole due to the severity
of the sanctions imposed against Plaintiff”.14
The Magistrate correctly concluded that based on her own

11 DE #60, DE #67 and DE #80 n. 6-7.
12 DE #1; Case No. 11- cv-3036-JTF-dkv ; Lisa

Johansen v. Priscilla Presley et al. - The
Complaint in this case indicates that Plaintiff Lisa Johansen (Plaintiff) is a resident of
Sweden. Although included in her Objections, Plaintiff asserts she is a United States citizen,
domiciled in Memphis, Tennessee. DE #80, p. 4.

13 DE #1, n. 1.
14 DE #1, ¶32. The allegations in said paragraph continue that Plaintiff had
to leave Sweden hastily and that her children were enrolled in schools
including public daycare and a private boarding school in Sweden. Also, see
n. 44.

8

admissions,

Plaintiff’s

actual

citizenship

and

domicile

is

Sweden despite her current residence in the state of Florida.
Agreeing with the Magistrate’s report and recommendation,
the

Defendants

reply

that

Plaintiff’s

objections

are

without

merit because: 1) there is no diversity of citizenship; 2) the
Magistrate

did

not

disregard

Plaintiff’s

proposed

Rule

41

dismissals as to the JP Defendants; 3) JP Defendants were never
properly

served;

and

4)

the

Court

lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction because the RICO claim is barred by res judicata
and time-barred by the statute of limitations. The JP Defendants
go one step further requesting that the Court impose Rule 11
sanctions and dismiss the case with prejudice. (DE #81).
However, absent diversity of citizenship, a federal court
may

still

have

jurisdiction

question is raised.

over

the

claims

if

a

federal

Joseph v. Baxter Int’l Inc., 614 F.Supp.2d

868, 871, quoting Caterpiller , Inc. V. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987).
B. Personal Jurisdiction
In order to demonstrate specific personal jurisdiction, a
plaintiff must establish that: 1) defendant purposefully availed
himself of the privilege of acting in the forum or intentionally
caused a consequence in the forum; 2) the cause of action arose
from

defendant’s

defendant

or

activities

consequences

in

the

caused
9

by

forum;
the

and

3)

defendant

acts
have

of
a

substantial enough connection with forum to make the exercise of
jurisdiction reasonable. Cupp v. Alberto Cuvler USA, Inc., 308
F.Supp.2d 873, 877-78 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).
In

her

concluded

report

the

instant matter.

Court

and

recommendation,

lacked

personal

the

Magistrate

jurisdiction

Judge

over

the

Despite Plaintiff’s protracted allegations, the

Court agrees that none of the defendants maintained continuous
and systematic contacts in this forum, nor within the United
States, to render any of them subject to personal jurisdiction
in this Court. Plaintiff alleges in part:
15. At all relevant times, the substantial
part of the unlawful acts and conduct alleged in this
complaint was meant to take effect in the United
States generally and Shelby County specifically and
when relevant to retaliate for and obstruct the
judicial proceedings in the District Court of the
Western District of Tennessee in Johansen v. Presley
et al. 18 U.S.C. §1512 (i); United Nations Convention
on Transnational Organized Crime (“UNCTOC”) article
15. 15
C. RICO Claim
In order to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must
then establish a prima facie case of RICO in order to survive
dismissal with prejudice without the parties having diversity of
citizenship. Lepard v. NBD Bank, 384 F.3d 232, 236 (6th Cir.
2004).

15

As such, the Court will address whether Plaintiff has

DE #1, ¶15.

10

sufficiently plead a RICO claim.
Aside from the procedural impediments that justify adopting
the Magistrate’s report and recommendation and dismissing this
case, Plaintiff has also failed under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
to plead factual matters that are facially plausible to support
her allegations of RICO violations as well as

conspiracy, fraud

and misrepresentation.
In order to prove a RICO violation under 18 USC § 1962, the
Plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of an enterprise
which

affects

commerce;

2)

that

the

defendants

“associated

with” the enterprise; 3) that the defendants participated in the
conduct

of

the

enterprise’s

affairs;

and

4)

that

the

participation was through a pattern of racketeering activity.
U.S. v. Sinito, 723 F.2d 1250, 1250 (6th Cir. 1983).
In Heinrich v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., 668
F.3d 393, 404 (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit elaborated that
in order for a plaintiff to plausibly state a civil claim for
conspiracy

under

the

Racketeer

Influenced

and

Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO), the plaintiff must successfully allege
all of the elements of a RICO violation, as well as, allege the
existence of an illicit agreement to violate the substantive
RICO provision alleged. Id. at 411.
The plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged RICO violations
by

a

showing

that

the

defendants
11

objectively

manifested

an

agreement to participate directly or indirectly in the affairs
of an enterprise through the commission of two or more predicate
crimes. See Henrich, 668 F.3d at 411.

In the instant case,

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that for over twenty (20)
years, she has amassed corroborating evidence of organized crime
and racketeering activities that denied her professed status “that she by birth is the rightful and only person known as Lisa
Marie

Presley.”

rambling

and

“abhorrent,

(DE

#1

¶16).

conclusory

despicable

The

assertions

and

Complaint
that

wrongful

continues

Defendants

actions....

For

with

committed
the

sole

purpose of destroying . . . every aspect of Plaintiff’s life . .
. which included threats of death and kidnapping.”

(DE #1, ¶19-

¶77). However, Plaintiff’s problem is her continued admission
that evidentiary documentation is unavailable. (DE #1, n.13 and
n.22).
Finally,

Plaintiff

objects

that

the

Magistrate

Judge

ignored her claims of mail fraud against the Defendants and only
focused on the RICO claims.

She argues that her RICO claim is

predicated on mail fraud and thus prevents her from having to
establish

reliance

on

defendant’s

misrepresentation

as

an

element or proximate cause of the RICO claim.16
When

pleading

predicate

acts

of

mail

or

wire

fraud,

a

plaintiff must 1) specify the statements that plaintiff contends
16 DE #80, p. 4.

12

were fraudulent; 2) identify the speaker; 3) state where and
when the acts were made, and 4) explain why the statements were
fraudulent.

Heirich, 668 F.3d 393 at 404.

The Court finds

Plaintiff’s objection in this regard also lacks merit based on
the Magistrate Judge’s determination that none of the alleged
activities

comprising

mail

fraud

or

fraudulent

mis-

representation occurred in the state of Tennessee. Nationwide
Mut. Ins. v. Tyg Intern. Ins. Co., Ltd. 91 F.3d 790, 796-97 (6th
Cir. 1996)(existence of a contract with a citizen of a forum
state,

standing

alone,

will

not

suffice

to

confer

personal

jurisdiction over a foreign defendant).
The primary allegations of the RICO and fraud conspiracy
underlying this case involve the publication of “I Lisa Marie.”
Plaintiff continues, at length, regarding how the publishers and
others associated with this project gathered information about
her alleged stolen identity claims.

However, Plaintiff failed

to support with specificity the elements of a mail or wire fraud
claim. Again, she admits she lacks documentation to prove her
claims.
Plaintiff’s claims that the defendants’ actions deny her
rights

to

the

Presley

enterprise

here

in

Tennessee

do

not

establish contact in this forum. The Supreme Court has clarified
that “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences
along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual
13

course

of

dealing

.

.

.

must

be

evaluated

in

determining

whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts
with the forum.”
105

S.Ct.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz,

2174,

International

Shoe

2183,
Co.

88

L.3d.

v.

2d.

State

of

471 U.S. 461, 474,

528

(1985)

Washington,

Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326

quoting,
Office

of

U.S. 310, 316, 66

S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)(holding personal jurisdiction
must be based on something the defendant has done in the forum).
There

have

not

been

the

minimum

contacts

in

this

forum

to

establish personal jurisdiction.
D. Ineffective Service
The Magistrate concluded that by attempting service upon
the

Defendants

by

mail

and

email,

Plaintiff

had

failed

to

properly serve the Defendants in accordance with the provisions
authorized

by

the

Hague

Convention

Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.

for

Service

Abroad

of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)

and (h)(2); Cupp v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc. 308 F.Supp.2d 873,
879 (W.D.Tenn. 2004); Davenport v. HansaWorld, USA, Inc. 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76702, at *U1-2 (S.D. Miss. May 31, 2013).
A

few

courts

within

the

Sixth

Circuit

have

held

that

service upon a defendant by registered United States Mail does
not comply with the Hague Convention. Cupp, 308 F.Supp. at 880.
Similarly,

the

Magistrate

Judge

concluded

that

in

the

same

manner, service by email is ineffective. Plaintiff objected to
14

the Magistrate’s proposed findings, yet confirmed that she has
never attempted service upon Haagerup and merely re-alleged that
Denmark

has

never

expressly

excluded

service

by

mail.17

Although, registered mail may effect service of process under
the Hague Convention as long as the receiving country does not
object, service must still comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
Sibley

v.

Alcan,

Inc.,

400

F.Supp.2d

1051,

1052

(N.D.

Ohio

2005). All of Plaintiff’s certificates/attestations of service
contained in the record indicate that the complaint, supporting
attachments and summonses were sent by email or by first class
mail to the Defendants.18 Moreover, Plaintiff confirms in her
objections that the JP Defendants were never served, “[i]t was
the subsidiary that found the complaint on a public website, and
the editor read about the story in a newspaper.”

19

This does

not qualify as proper service.
The Magistrate correctly concluded that Default Judgments
against

Defendants

Inger

Soderholm,

Kronofogdemyndigheten,

Lennart Christianson, Lola Svensson, Sigtuna Kommun should be
set aside for lack of personal jurisdiction as discussed supra.
(DE #66).
E. Sanctions
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the Court has the inherent

17 DE #4, DE #4-1, and DE #81.
18 DE #6, DE #11, DE #12, DE #15, DE #16, DE #17, DE#19, DE #23, and DE #24.
19 DE #81, p. 5.

15

authority

to

award

litigates

“in

fees

bad

or

issue

faith,

sanctions

vexatiously,

when

or

for

a

party

oppressive

reasons.” First Bank of Marietta v. Harford Underwriters Ins.
Co, 307 F.2d 501, 511 (6th Cir. 2002).

A district court need

not make a finding of harassment in order to conclude that the
suit was filed for improper purpose and in bad faith in order to
support an award for sanctions.
utilize

its

discretion

to

The court is merely required to

fashion

an

appropriate

conduct that abuses the judicial process.
Defendants

request

that

the

remedy

for

Id. at 524.

Court

sanction

Plaintiff

because her pleadings and objections to the Magistrate’s report
and

recommendation

Defendants
Court’s

their

prejudice.

frivolous

that

contend

dismissal

dismiss,

are

because

of

parties

motion

to

and

constitute

Plaintiff

she

had

dismiss

now

bad

contests

voluntarily

should

be

faith.
the

agreed

granted

to

with

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to proffer any

claims indicative of a RICO conspiracy.

More importantly, she

failed to provide any evidence that the Defendants were properly
served

or

that

the

Court

has

subject

matter

or

personal

jurisdiction over this case.
Regardless

how

ill-founded,

menacing

and

harassing,

Plaintiff’s claims may have been to the Defendants, the Court
finds that Plaintiff is under an extreme illusion that she has
been denied the right to practice her profession,
16

personal

identity, and the right to safely live in her homeland.

She

maintains that many foreign officials and entities were engaged
in a conspiracy to deny her identity.

Although the elements of

these claims were not established, the Defendants’ motion for
Rule 11 sanctions is denied.
Spectrum

Reporting

II,

Runfola & Associates, Inc. v.

Inc.

88

F.3d

368,

375

(6th

Cir.

1996)(district courts are not required to explain their reasons
for not ordering sanctions).

Id.

V. CONCLUSION
For

the

Magistrate

reasons

has

set

correctly

forth

above,

concluded

the

that

Court

the

finds

case

must

the
be

dismissed for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12 (b)(1) and 12(b)(4).
the

Court

ADOPTS

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

As such,

Report

and

Recommendation to grant certain Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, DE #66.
adopts

the

Magistrate’s

Report

and

The Court also

Recommendation

to

grant

certain Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the Entry of the Default
Judgments, DE #56, and to deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Default
Judgments, DE #44 - DE #52.

Accordingly, all other pending

motions filed by Plaintiff are rendered MOOT. (DE #8, DE #19, DE
#23,

DE

#29,

DE

#77-

DE

#79.

By

this

ruling,

Defendants’

JP/Politikens HUS and Ulrik Haagerup’s Motion for Leave to File
a Response, DE #68, the Response, DE #81, and Defendants’ Motion
17

to Dismiss, DE #77, are deemed MOOT.

In conclusion, based on

the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, the case is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
Finally, because the Court has ruled that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, any further filings by Plaintiff in this
Court would be futile. Plaintiff is directed not to file any
further documents, motions or notices in this closed case other
than a notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3.20
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 24th day of February, 2014.

s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 Further, the Sixth Circuit has advised that courts are not required to ferret out the strongest
cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants. Not only would that duty be overly burdensome, it
would transform the courts from neutral arbiters of disputes into advocates for a particular
party. While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights of all who come before it,
that responsibility does not encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories they should
pursue. Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F.App’x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 U.S.
461, 132 S.Ct. 461, 181 L.Ed.2d 3200 (2011).

18