Khonsu El v. Indiana State of
1:23-cv-00488
N.D. Ind.
Sep 25, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Hyper Microsystems Incorporated sued Legacy Micro, Inc. for breaching the terms of a secured promissory note related to the purchase of assets from Microsystems. [lines="13-18"].
  2. The Goodwill Note required Legacy to pay a principal of $484,903.58 in 36 monthly installments, starting from August 2017. [lines="46-50"].
  3. Legacy failed to make full payments under the Goodwill Note, leading to the lawsuit, and asserted that there was an oral modification allowing partial payments. [lines="88-100"].
  4. After ceasing full payments in November 2018, Legacy continued to make smaller payments until September 2020. [lines="144-145"].
  5. Microsystems claims under the Goodwill Note amounted to $207,491.89, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. [lines="448-480"].

Issues

  1. Whether an enforceable oral modification of the Goodwill Note was made between Microsystems and Legacy. [lines="230-231"].
  2. Whether Legacy's defense of "unclean hands" could bar Microsystems from recovering damages due to its acceptance of lower payments. [lines="368-370"].
  3. Whether Legacy established a valid claim for an overpayment on a separate Inventory Note that could offset its obligations under the Goodwill Note. [lines="175-176"].

Holdings

  1. The Court ruled that there was no enforceable oral modification of the Goodwill Note due to lack of definite terms and absence of consideration. [lines="362-362"].
  2. The defense of unclean hands was rejected since it only bars equitable remedies and does not affect legal claims for money damages, which Microsystems was pursuing. [lines="405-406"].
  3. Legacy's claim of overpayment on the Inventory Note was not permissible as a setoff against its obligations under the Goodwill Note, leading to the Court granting summary judgment in favor of Microsystems. [lines="484-490"].

OPINION

SELAH KHONSU EL, a/k/a Lamar James Wilson, Sr., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 1:23-CV-488-HAB-SLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

September 25, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

Selah Khonsu El, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint titled as a “Petitioner‘s Complaint Pursuant to 42 USCS §§ 1983 and 1985, Including Mandamus Request for Prohibition.” ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

“Seleh Khonsu El, for Khonsu Selah El, XVBRNH, the proper personam of Khonsu Selah El, 4LYFWE00004 by the Orbis Maxim being Lamar James Wilson, Jr., pro rata, tripartite, per se,” alleges that trust property was illegally seized. ECF 1 at 2. He “contends the invalidity of the holding (after arrest under the name Lamar James Wilson[)], of Khonsu Selah El.” Id. He says the former is an “assumed name certified as property to an ‘enterprise entity set’ of protected vehicles of the Foreign Sovereign and its International Organizations functionality...” Id. He says that “during the course of training, debriefing, and establishment of Enterprise Entity Set [he] was, contrary to state law, accosted by a LaPorte County Indiana Criminal Informant ring which ... deliberately manufactured, by provocation, the profile of criminality breaching the civil and domestic peace as a stipulation to interaction with property held by petitioner and perspectively [sic] other likewise affected, constructively, at this point, conspiring an invasive and obstructive invasion of Sovereign Immunities provided by the FSIA (at § 1603(b))....” Id. at 2-3. He speaks of his “global intermediary status” and an “Interparliamentary union.” Id. at 3. He references “the floor of the House of Houses, Kemetic Crest” as “the administrator of the Treaty Body in accordance to the Orbis Maxim....” Id. He challenges his arrest and seizure “in each form” and requests a mandate “prohibiting the further encroachment by subversives and state officials into the administrative actions of Khonsu Selah El, and the United States of America” because “[b]oth Selah & Lamar have liens instituted accordingly.” Id. at 3.

He asks “for the immediate release of Khonsu Selah El; the surrender of all data and documentation held in any conjunction with or attributed to any possible incrimination or disgrace of Khonsu Selah El by use of ‘Lamar James Wilson, Sr.’ in any state or federally withheld archives, to the House of Anpu within 30 days and sealed the by 22 USCS § 288a(c).” He also seeks monetary damages.

As an initial matter, to the extent the plaintiff is seeking his release from incarceration, “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement . . ..” .

To the extent he is seeking monetary relief, Khonsu El‘s complaint consists of concepts commonly espoused by sovereign citizens. Courts have repeatedly characterized sovereign citizen theories as legally frivolous and having no conceivable validity. See ; (collecting cases). Because Khonsu El‘s complaint is premised on such theories, it is frivolous and fails to state a claim, and he will not be permitted to proceed.

For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint is frivolous and does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SO ORDERED on September 25, 2024.

s/Holly A. Brady

CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Read the detailed case summary