UNITED STATES GRAND JURY TRIBUNAL THE PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT et al, No. 2:2019cv00407 - Document 6 (D. Me. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 5 Report and Recommended Decision By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES GRAND JURY TRIBUNAL THE PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY TRIBUNAL THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:19-cv-00407-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On September 6, 2019, a plaintiff entitled “United States Grand Jury (Status: sovereign) Tribunal, the People” filed a lawsuit in this Court against the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives, seeking a declaration of restoration of the law of the land. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On September 12, 2019, the plaintiff filed a supplementary document, entitled “Acts of High Treason.” Supp. Compl. (ECF No. 4). In filing these documents, the plaintiff did not submit the required filing fee. On September 23, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 5). The Magistrate Judge based his recommendation on three grounds: (1) the Plaintiff does not appear to be a legal entity; (2) the Complaint has not been signed by member of the bar of this Court; and (3) the Complaint purports Dockets.Justia.com to assert a criminal action, and the Plaintiff has no authority to initiate a criminal proceeding. Id. at 2-3. Also, the Magistrate Judge observed that the Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or obtain leave of Court to proceed in forma pauperis, and therefore the Plaintiff failed to prosecute the matter. Id. at 3. The Plaintiff’s objections to the recommended decision were due on or before October 7, 2019. The Plaintiff filed no timely objection. The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision, together with the entire record; the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision; and, the Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his recommended decision and determines that no further proceeding is necessary. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the recommended decision (ECF No. 5) of the Magistrate Judge and the Court AFFIRMS the recommended decision without objection. The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Complaint. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 15th day of October, 2019 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
