After the Court directed plaintiff to either pay the $350 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in 4:06MC00026 GH, plaintiff paid the $350 filing fee and this case was filed on September 11th.
On September 20th, plaintiff filed three motions: a motion to transfer the docket items from 4:06MC00026 GH before that case was closed or dismissed; a combined motion to expedite the case, for a permanent injunction against the U.S. Department of Transportation's "bar notice" prohibiting him from visiting certain facilities in Washington, D.C., and a motion for temporary injunction against three agencies' proposal for rulemaking on transportation worker's identification and merchant mariner's credentials; and a combined motion for recusal and reimbursement of the filing fee and costs of delivery of service of summons. In support of his recusal request, plaintiff states he has requested a criminal RICO Act investigation into the judicial handling of his case during its 4 years of litigation in the federal courts in Washington, D.C. and, as one of his allegations concerns the coerced payment of filing fees in the Washington, D.C. litigation, the undersigned's denial of his claimed exemption -- under 28 U.S.C. §1916 -- has placed himself as a party to the imminent FBI criminal investigation. He continues that Civil Procedure Rule 4(c)(2) provides for a free delivery of the summons for seafarers and he was forced to ship the eight copies to the defendants at a cost of $181.02. Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned now has a conflict of interest and that the ruling on the fee exemption should be reversed with a refund of the $350 filing fee and reimbursement $181.02 for the delivery of summons.
Plaintiff, on September 25th, filed a 106-page pleading as an objection to the anticipated motion to dismiss and intervention by the U.S. Attorney General, presenting stigmatic harm as an additional standing to sue, his status as a private attorney general for purposes of the RICO Act, and a motion for temporary injunction of TWIC/MMC and for negotiated rulemaking in lieu of defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 5th, plaintiff filed a motion, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 19, for joinder of Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the United Nations because of certain conferences and conventions of the United Nations that threaten to disarm the American people. He claims that the U.S. Guard nullified the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying his application for a National Open Carry Handgun endorsement.
He filed a motion, on October 27th, for substitution of Admiral Thad W. Allen in place of Admiral Thomas H. Collins as the Commandant of the Coast Guard under Civil Procedure Rule 25.
On January 29th, plaintiff filed a morion to amend the complaint to increase the amount of damages sought, a motion for appointment of counsel due to the filing of the amended complaint which will make the case an ultra-complex case, and a notice demanding the mandatory recusal of the undersigned who is being named as a defendant in the amended complaint due to denying plaintiff permission to file his complaint without prepayment of fees.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 2nd which names the United Nations as an additional defendant and, although not named in the caption, alleges a claim against the undersigned -- among other courts -- as Claim 8. He asserts that the undersigned wrongfully denied his statutory right to file his Civil RICO Act complaint without pre-paying the filing fee and the Clerk violated his right to have service via the U.S. Marshal resulting in plaintiff mailing the complaint to the defendants. Plaintiff points out that while this Court, the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court (twice) "extorted" filing fees, the Western District of North Carolina allowed him to file under §1916 without paying a filing fee. He states that he construes those incidences as a predictive propensity of this Court for judicial bias against his case and being a corrupt court in league with the federal courts in Washington, D.C. and so he has filed a petition alleging human rights violations against the United States with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights as he does not trust the undersigned to properly adjudicate this case.
On February 6th, plaintiff filed a motion for case management due to complexity of his case. That same date, he filed a motion for instructions on how to conduct discovery as a private Attorney general and asking for a protective order compelling Condoleeza Rice to issue diplomatic credentials in this name for the purpose of conducting discovery at the United Nations as he fears that he will be harassed or arrested for attempting to visit the United Nations.
Plaintiff filed a motion, on February 15th, for return of filing fee and complaints against competency of the Clerk's office by the return of the summons to plaintiff instead of being sent to the U.S. Marshal's service.
On January 19th, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of certain of the defendants.
Plaintiff responded on February 7th with supplements filed on February 12th and 15th. This motion and the responses by plaintiff will be addressed in a separate order once briefing -- including any reply -- has been completed.
28 U.S.C.A. § 1916 provides:
In all courts of the United States, seamen may institute and prosecute suits and appeals in their own names and for their own benefit for wages or salvage or the enforcement of laws enacted for their health or safety without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security therefor.
In the August 15th order rejecting plaintiff's assertion that he was exempt from paying a filing fee under 28 U.S.C.A. § ...