790 F. Supp. 2d 241
D.N.J.2011Background
- Murakush-Amexem filed two related actions in this district alleging broad constitutional and Barbary Treaty-based challenges to state and federal authorities; the court sua sponte examined jurisdiction, standing, and frivolous-litigation concerns.
- Murakush-Amexem signatures used multiple self-styled titles and fictitious juridical entities (e.g., Marrakush/Murakush groups) with an Aboriginal Law Firm as purported counsel; the filings included lengthy, incomprehensible pleadings and self-created documents.
- Colorado registrations showed several Murakush entities sharing an address and common individual behind filings, but the court treated these as not establishing valid, prosecutable entities or counsel.
- Judge Simandle’s Marrakush rulings (2009) had already held that juridical entities cannot appear pro se or proceed IFP, and that standing and Rule 18/20 requirements must be met; these rulings guided the instant matter.
- Murakush-Amexem sought in forma pauperis status and pro bono counsel in this matter, which the court refused, and the complaint was dismissed for lack of proper plaintiff, standing, and failure to conform to procedural rules.
- The court also issued limited preclusion orders to bar future abusive filings by the Murakush Group and to guide Clerk actions for any new submissions against the Barbary Treaty framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Murakush-Amexem proceed IFP or at all in this action? | Murakush-Amexem seeks IFP status to pursue claims. | Entity cannot be pauper; filings are frivolous and noncompliant. | Complaint dismissed; IFP denied with prejudice for the juridical-entity defect. |
| May the juridical entities proceed pro se or obtain counsel in this district? | Entities act as plaintiffs with self-designated counsel. | Juridical entities cannot appear pro se or be represented by non-admitted or unverified counsel. | Pro se filings by juridical entities barred; no valid counsel; dismissal with prejudice of those claims. |
| Do the pleadings satisfy Rules 18 and 20 for joinder and transactional relationships? | Claims relate to various events over years. | Pleadings are unrelated, duplicative, and fail Rule 8/18/20 pleading standards. | Complaint facially fails Rules 18/20; dismissed. |
| Does Murakush-Amexem have jus tertii standing to sue on its own behalf? | Murakush-Amexem represents broader group interests. | Standing lacks proper nexus; claims premised on individual arrests/detentions. | No standing; dismissal of Murakush-Amexem claims with prejudice. |
| Are preclusion orders warranted to address abusive litigation patterns? | Open to future legitimate claims under Barbary Treaty theory. | Pattern of frivolous filings warrants sanctions. | Limited preclusion orders issued to curb abuse; informational docketing across related cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 920 F.2d 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (standing and in forma pauperis principles cited for individuals)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (jus tertii standing; two-prong test)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (jurisdictional and IFP rules for litigants)
- Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2008) (frivolous/abusive litigation; costs and docket resources)
- Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for abusive litigation under framework)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (standing/pleading requirements and access to courts)