James v. United States

VERNON-THEUNDER: JAMES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 21-743C

United States Court of Federal Claims

July 29, 2021

Vernon-Theunder: James, pro se, Enola, PA.

Brendan D. Jordan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him were Allison Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch; Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, Commercial Litigation Branch; Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division.

OPINION

HORN, J.

Pro se plaintiff, "Vernon-Theunder: James," filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, which he refers to as a "Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment."¹ Plaintiff seeks $4,032,000,000.00 in "punitive" damages for a wide variety of, sometimes difficult to follow, claims, including for apparent tax refund, false imprisonment, and seizure of his property in connection with his arrest for income tax violations.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff states that he and his "clients (U.S. Slaves Descendants)" attempted to "process a refund from the Internal Revenue Service." Plaintiff alleges that these filings were an attempt to obtain a refund that he could not receive without using the Capital Gains and REIT, i.e., Real Estate Investment Trusts form. Plaintiff claims that in the pastthe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had extorted a "bogus income tax" from him "under duress and coercion."

According to a complaint filed by plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, plaintiff was found guilty of "false, fictitious or fraudulent claims and aiding and abetting," in October 2001, and, on January 25, 2002, plaintiff was sentenced to 78 months in prison, followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. See United States v. James, No. CRIM A 4:01-CR-57(1), 2009 WL 1690299, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2009). According to plaintiff's complaint, he was ordered to pay $566,418.00 to the IRS.

Plaintiff alleges that while he was detained the United States searched plaintiff's dwelling and plaintiff's mail box located at Mail Boxes, Etc., and allegedly seized property belonging to him and his clients, which, according to plaintiff's complaint, totaled $250,000.00 in value. Specifically, plaintiff's complaint states various government officials "Conspired to Defraud Plaintiff of Monetary Assets in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars in Violation of Texas Fraud Statutes and Federal Law." Plaintiff also alleges that the search warrant did not have an affidavit attached and, therefore, was invalid, and that the warrant was "overbroad," and included items that were not relevant to the alleged crimes. Further, plaintiff alleges that the warrant was based on "prior illegal trespass" by the IRS. Moreover, plaintiff states that he was not compensated for the property taken, and that it was taken for "a private agenda" and not a public use. Plaintiff claims that his ex-wife was allowed to keep $20,000.00 of the property "in exchange for perjured testimony against Plaintiff."

Plaintiff further alleges that his imprisonment for tax violations amounted to "Unlawful Arrest, Kidnapping, Hostage Keeping, and False Imprisonment," and calculated the damages to be $1,600,000.00 per day of imprisonment. Plaintiff, therefore, requests punitive damages in the amount of "$4,032,000,000.00." Furthermore, plaintiff claims that he is "not a Citizen of the United States," rather he alleges that he is a "non-juristic and sovereigns natural person (non-enity)." He states that because he is a descendant of African slaves brought to the United States by force, there is "No Documentation, or Records showing mutual Agreement to be in and under the United States Constitution." Plaintiff also claims that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures "forbids Federal Officers from attempting to superscede state laws by enforcing Federal Laws in Texas."

Plaintiff requests the court:

(a) Finds that the Defendants are engaging in conduct which is despicable and treasonous, engaging in RICO/Mafia and corrupt attacks upon the personal and business life of Plaintiff.

(b) Finds that the Defendants are engaging in conduct used to expand Federal authority and at the same time expand Defendants power to circumvent the law, morality and Plaintiff privacy and due process rights.

(c) Finds that the Defendants are attempting to establish international customs venue without leaving Texas or any other Union State.

(d) Finds that the Defendants are misapplying or misdirecting the authority and jurisdiction of Congress and cannot infringe upon the jurisdiction of the states provided a crime has actually occurred.

(e) Finds that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the United States cannot enforce a police power within the states and that the court decided that Federal Court have no authority to create statutory taxpayers.

(f) Finds that the Defendants have committed felony violation of Texas Law and Federal Law in the Application of non-existent Violations of the Internal Revenue Code and Title 18 United States Code.

(g) Finds that the Defendants are subject to Termination by Violating the 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act, Specifically Title I, Section 1203(b) (3) and (6). & Title 18 USC Sec. 242, Treaty Law & Constitution, Deprivation of Right Under Color of Law. & Title 18 USC Sec. 241, Conspiracy against Rights.

(h) Finds that the Defendants Seized illegally over Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars worth of Plaintiff's Clients Property (Money Order and Moneys) and Plaintiff personal and Business Property without just cause and under illegal Circumstances and Orders the Defendants to return all property and effects in good condition Seized by Defendants.

(i) Finds that the 7 1/2 Years of False Imprisonment, and that the Jailing of Plaintiff both times to be illegal (See Warrant For Arrest Probation Violation as EXHIBIT P) and such action requires more than restitution as the exoneration of Defendants actions would send a chilling message to the private Sovereigns that justice cannot be had at any price and relations between any government Agency, Court of Congress and the People of the Union States would become Irreparable.

(j) Finds that The U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service and IRS Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other so called Income to be illegal, See Attached Notices From The IRS and U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service as ( EXHIBIT O).

In response to plaintiff's complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (2020) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) and RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims, and that plaintiff "fails to adequately allege facts that give rise to a claim for relief," respectively. Defendant argues, among other responses to the varied, and numerous, allegations in plaintiff's complaint, that plaintiff's claims relating to "his arrest, imprisonment, and the search and seizure of his property," cannot be brought in this court, and further contends that the complaint fails to meet the prerequisites for filing a tax claim in this court.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion to dismiss and argues that he is "not capable of committing a criminal against the United States by demanding and attempting to process a refund from the Internal Revenue Service." Plaintiff also argues that he has alleged sufficient facts that must be accepted by the court as true. Defendant's reply in support of the motion to dismiss reiterates that this court does nothave jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. Moreover, defendant asserts that the complaint "almost entirely consists of conclusory statements and legal argumentation," and fails to adequately state a claim.

DISCUSSION

The court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se. When determining whether a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff is sufficient to invoke review by a court, a pro se plaintiff is entitled to a more liberal construction of the pro se plaintiff's pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (requiring that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), reh'g denied, 405 U.S. 948 (1972); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), reh'g denied, 429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Jackson v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 242, 245 (2019), Diamond v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 516, 524 (2014), aff'd, 603 F. App'x 947 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1909 (2015). However, "there is no 'duty [on the part] of the trial court . . . to create a claim which [plaintiff] has not spelled out in his [or her] pleading . . . .'" Lengen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 317, 328 (2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Scogin v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 285, 293 (1995) (quoting Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))); see also Bussie v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 89, 94, aff'd, 443 F. App'x 542 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007). "While a pro se plaintiff is held to a less stringent standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, the pro se plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence." Riles v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 9; and Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Kelley v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("[A] court may not similarly take a liberal view...