Excepts:
However, it should be noted that plaintiffs’ use of tax terminology is largely incomprehensible. To the extent that any sense can be made of their use of tax legalese, plaintiffs appear to be asserting a right to tax the “United States Incorporated” entity for millions of dollars. Compl. 2; Compl. Cover Sheet 1-3. Indeed, plaintiffs state that they are “true creditors” of the United States and are “exempt from taxation from the public side.” Compl. App. 61. In any case, the court now turns to the other potential basis for plaintiffs’ claim— breach of contract.
***
More generally, plaintiffs allude to a breach of contract by the United States with such expressions as “default of valid bi-laterally executed contracts”—contracts which are also described as United States debt obligations—and state that they seek “damages from the defendant for its breach of Government Contracts.” Id. at 54, 62. The mass of homemade, meaningless documents in plaintiffs’ appendix includes a “Court Bond / Security” in the amount of $758,402,967, which is just one example of the type of purported financial instrument upon which plaintiffs appear to rely. Id. at 106-15. Construing the complaint very liberally, plaintiffs could be asserting a breach of contract by the United States, although the factual foundation of any such claim is a frivolous compendium of documents with no legal significance, accompanied by fanciful theories of Moorish sovereign citizen entitlement to monetary damages.
***
Plaintiffs also allege, it appears, that “stipulated contracts / stipulated bills of exchange” and “private banking contracts and certificates of deposit held in Treasury Direct” underlie their contract claim against the United States. Compl. 1. There is not, however, a single nonfrivolous factual allegation in the complaint and its attachments that implicates a specific express or implied contract with the United States. Plaintiffs proffer, instead, an incoherent sovereign citizen broadside which presumes that their rights as Moorish sovereign citizens, along with adverse rulings from various courts, entitle them to a breach-of-contract remedy against the United States. Sovereign citizen theories such as these are frivolous and insufficient to establish jurisdiction for a breach-of-contract claim in this court. See, e.g., Ammon v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 210, 219-20 (2019) (noting that a breach-of-contract claim founded on sovereign citizen arguments was frivolous), appeal dismissed, No. 19-1759 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2019); Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 279, 285, 288 (2011) (finding a sovereign citizen claim founded on fictitious homemade documents and nonexistent trust fund accounts with the United States Department of the Treasury to be frivolous).
Plaintiffs expanded upon their contract-related allegations in two other filings—a motion
for default judgment and their opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Although these
filings do not amend the complaint, they do illustrate plaintiffs’ perspective on the purported
contract or contracts with the United States upon which their contract claim relies.
In their motion for default judgment, plaintiffs assert that they are collecting on a debt owed to them by the “UNITED STATES INCORPORATED/CABAL/CABAL MEMBERS” because of a “contractual default”:
[T]he coplaintiffs request a lawful and legal Return on these “Government” Debt Obligations including cost and reasonable interest on claim 1 and 2 where prior to any legal cost is valued at: 590,723,389.78 Government Obligation (444,943,802.00) four-hundred forty four million nine-hundred forty three thousand eight-hundred two fiat federal reserve note / USD . . . . [C]o-plaintiff(s)
reserve the right to collect in alternative species such as gold and silver.
Pls.’ Mot. for Default J. 2-3. Plaintiffs also offer another description of a debt instrument that
underlies their suit:
t is requested that our Registered - Bond / Court-Bond be Surrendered to us pursuant to CFR 306.75(a)(b). This bond is 3 times the value of the Certificates of Indebtedness being held in the Treasury Direct Account since July 29, 2019 . . . . [T]he value of this bond is 758,402,967.00 (seven hundred fifty eight million four hundred two thousand nine hundred sixty seven federal reserve notes
/ fiat / USD[)].
Id. at 9. The aforementioned “Court-Bond,” printed on paper bearing the banner of “The Moorish National Republic,” is included in the appendix, and is in the amount of $758,402,967. Compl. App. 106, 108. It is signed only by Mr. Bey and a notary. Id. at 114. To the extent that plaintiffs attempt to base their contract claim on this bond or others of their own devise, their contract claim is frivolous.
***
Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also DENIES plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis. In consequence, the court’s filing fee for this suit remains due and owing. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith because, as alleged, plaintiffs’ claim is clearly beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.
In addition, due to plaintiffs’ pattern of frivolous and vexatious filings in this matter and their previous cases filed in this court, Double Lion Uchet Express Trust, Ra Nu Ra Khuti Amen Bey (also known as Bertram Andrews-Powley, III), and Delma Andrews-Powley are immediately ENJOINED from filing any new complaints with this court without an order from the chief judge of the court granting leave to file a complaint. If these plaintiffs, or any subset thereof, seek to file a new complaint, they shall first submit a “Motion for Leave to File” that explains how the new complaint involves new matters not previously raised in this court. Any such motion must include as an attachment a full complaint that meets all the requirements of RCFC 8. In the event that the chief judge grants their motion, plaintiffs will be required to pay all outstanding filing fees owed for Case Nos. 20-577C and 20-1074T, as well as the filing fee for the new suit, before they can proceed in this court.
