825 F. Supp. 2d 537
D.N.J.2011Background
- Two docket submissions were filed: Entry 1 (purported civil complaint) and Entry 1-1 (alleged in forma pauperis submission) in a case involving Moorish sovereign-citizen rhetoric.
- Entry 1-1 contained boilerplate Moorish/Marrakush language and asserted constitutional rights in a manner that did not constitute a proper IFP application.
- Entry 1 appeared to assert claims against Wells Fargo Bank employees via a Moorish/sovereign-identity framework, including misplaced “spouse” defendants, and referenced property at 60 Orlando Drive, Sicklerville, NJ.
- The court deemed the IFP request defective and denied it without prejudice, and found the Pleading potentially non-bona fide and/or incomprehensible for merits review.
- The court directed creation of three court-approved IFP forms and stated that the current filings could be stricken or dismissed without prejudice to a proper amended complaint, with strict guidance on proper pleading and representation.
- The opinion discusses prior related Moorish/sovereign-citizen cases (Murakush-Amexem and Marrakush) to frame why these submissions are defective and frivolous for U.S. litigation.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to IFP status | Scafe/Scafe and others assert rights under Moorish sovereignty | submissions are boilerplate, incomprehensible, and not poverty affidavits | IFP denied without prejudice |
| Whether Entry 1-1 and Entry 1 can proceed as filings | Entries seek to initiate relief or register rights | Entries misuse docketing; not bona fide litigation | Entry 1-1 denied without prejudice; Entry 1 stricken or dismissed without prejudice to proper amended pleading |
| Whether the Pleading can withstand merits scrutiny as a complaint | Plaintiffs allege rights arising from treaties and Moorish status | Treaties (Barbary/Morocco) claims are frivolous; insufficient for standing or personal liability | Dismissed without prejudice; cure via valid, concise amended complaint required |
| Whether standing and representation requirements are met | Next friends/associates sue on behalf of others | Need for individual standing and proper representation | Amended complaint must show each plaintiff’s injury and proper representation (pro se or counsel) |
| Whether claims based on Treaty with Morocco are legally cognizable | Treaty-based rights against US actions within US territory | Barbary Treaties do not support such civil-rights claims in US territory | Facially frivolous; such claims should not be asserted in amended pleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir.1988) (barbaric or sovereign-claims lack legal basis; strawman theories rejected)
- Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198 (3d Cir.2008) (sovereign-citizen/‘strawman’ theories rejected; standing and jurisdiction issues central)
- Murakush-Amexem, v. New Jersey, 790 F.Supp.2d 241 (D.N.J.2011) (court’s detailed treatment of Moorish/sovereign-citizen filings and their frivolous nature)