Abdullah v. New Jersey

• Decision Date: 16 July 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 12-4202 (RBK)
• Citation: Abdullah v. New Jersey, Civil Action No. 12-4202 (RBK) (D. N.J. Jul 16, 2012)
• Parties: FATIMAH BINT ABDULLAH, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

FATIMAH BINT ABDULLAH, Plaintiff,

v.STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-4202 (RBK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: July 16, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER

IT APPEARING THAT:

1.This matter comes before the Court upon the Clerk's receipt of a set of submissions made by the individual designating herself as "Fatimah Bint Abdullah"¹("Plaintiff"); these submissions suggest Plaintiff's desire to remove a certain state proceeding to this District.SeeDocket EntriesNos. 1 and 1-1.

2.Since Plaintiff's submissions: (a) make references to removal of a state proceeding to this District; and (b) indicate, in no ambiguous terms, that the submissions at bar fall within the category of what has become known as "Marrakush" filings, the Court finds it warranted to detail, prior to examination of the factual predicate asserted and allegationsraised in this matter, the deficiencies necessarily plaguing all such "Marrakush" filings, and, in addition, the statutory requirements associated with any removal efforts.

3.A party to a state action cannot, at a mere whim, remove his/her state proceedings to the federal forum; rather:

a. Removal of a state court action to federal court is proper only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter.See28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(b);Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Lagno, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80497(D.N.J.Nov. 3, 2006).In order to avoid remand, the removing party must show that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the removal was proper.SeeBoyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111(3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085(1991).The Court of Appeals guided that "the party asserting federal jurisdiction in a removal case bears the burden of showing, at all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly before the federal court."Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193(3d Cir.2007)(citingSamuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396(3d Cir.2004)).²If federal question jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be remanded to state court.

Notably, removal statutes are strictly construed against removal, and all doubts are resolved in favor of remand.SeeSamuel-Bassett, 357 F.3d at 396;USX Corp. v. Adriatic Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 190, 206(3d Cir.2003)("[C]ourts construe removal statutes strictly with all doubts resolved in favor of remand").

b. To properly remove a case from state court to federal court, a notice of removal must be filed in the federal court within thirty days after receipt, "through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based."28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).The thirty day limitations period for removal is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court.SeeGalvanek v. AT & T, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81764(D.N.J.Nov. 5, 2007).The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing that the notice of removal was filed in a timely manner.SeeRosebud Holding LLC v. Burks, 995 F. Supp. 465, 467(D.N.J.1998).Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a case may be remanded to state court on the ground of a defect in the removal procedure, including a failure to file a notice of removal within the thirty day limitations period.SeeGalvanek, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81764, 2007 WL 3256701, at *2(citingFoster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., Ltd., 933 F.2d 1207, 1212-14(3d Cir.1991)).

4.Moreover, a litigant initiating a civil action in a federal forum (or seeking removal to a federal forum) must submit a valid pleading and either prepay the applicable filing fee or duly apply for in forma pauperis status.A "Marrakush" filing fails to operate as a validpleading or as a cognizable in forma pauperis application.This Court already clarified that

Two concepts, which may or may not operate as interrelated, color the issues at hand.One of these concepts underlies ethnic/religious identification movement of certain groups of individuals who refer to themselves as "Moors," while the other concept provides the basis for another movement of certain groups of individuals, which frequently produces these individuals' denouncement of United States citizenship, self-declaration of other, imaginary "citizenship" and accompanying self-declaration of equally imaginary "diplomatic immunity."

[a].Moorish Movement

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -being one of the first courts to detail the concept of Moorish movement, observed as follows:

[The Moorish Science Temple of America is a] black Islamic sect . . . .[T]hree-fourths of its temples (congregations) are inside prisons.The Moors, as adherents to the Moorish Science Temple are called, have their own version of the Koran and a list of prophets that includes, in addition to the prophets recognized by orthodox Islam, Buddha, Confucius, and the founder . . . of the Moorish Science Temple . . . .Two groups vie for leadership of the sect: one in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, headed by [someone referred to as] Grand Sheik/Moderator Brother R. Love-El, and one in St. Louis headed by [someone referred to as] Grand Sheik Jerry Lewis-Bey.(The suffixes "El" and "Bey" refer to the African tribes from which the Moors believe black people are descended.)

Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308, 1309(7th Cir.1998).³

[b]."Redemptionism,""Paper Terrorism" and Related Concepts

Shortly after the concept of Moorish movement was outlined by the Seventh Circuit, discussions of another movement appeared onthe pages of legal opinions issued by the federal judiciary; that other movement was dubbed as "sovereign citizenship" movement.This movement was fostered by

a loosely organized collection of groups and individuals who have adopted a right-wing anarchist ideology originating in the theories of a group called the Posse Comitatus in the 1970s.Its adherents believe that virtually all existing government in the United States is illegitimate . . . .[Therefore, such]"sovereign citizens" wage war against the government and other forms of authority using "paper terrorism" harassment and intimidation tactics, and occasionally resorting to [physical] violence.

Sovereign Citizen Movement, Anti-Defamation League, at <us/SCM.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extre mism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&ite m=sov>> (visited on Mar. 31, 2011).⁴

Consequently, a decade after the Seventh Circuit's issuance of Bey v. Lane, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted a stream of government actions aimed at controlling the "paper terrorism" activities of sovereign citizens, which - by then - matured into a wide-spread criminal scheme, where the scheme participants' "self-legitimized" their names for the purposes of initiating fraudulent legal transactions.The Court of Appeals explained:

Evidently, [adherents of this scheme have . . . built on] the "Redemptionist" theory, which propounds that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the "strawman.". . . Redemptionists claim that government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains free [and, thus,] individuals can free themselves by filing UCC financing statements, thereby acquiring an interest in their strawman.Thereafter, [pursuant to this "theory,"] the real person can demand that government officials pay enormous sums of money to use the strawman's name or, in the case of prisoners, to keep him in custody.If government officials refuse, [adherents of this scheme] file liens against [government officials] .Adherents of this scheme also advocate that [they] copyright their names to justify filing liens against officials using their names in public records such as indictments or court papers.

Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 and nn. 3 and 4(3d Cir.2008);accordRoche, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5773, at 2 . . . .The "strawman" concept is, occasionally, presented/exploited somewhat differently by those redemptionists who claim that - at the moment of their denouncement of United States citizenship and/or their accompanying self-grant of imaginary alternative citizenship - their "strawman" incarnation became "deceased," and their live persons quasi-expatriated from the U.S. (while continuing their actual physical residence in the United States).In connection with this odd quasi-expatriation scheme, suchredemptionists often claim that their live persons: (a) hold "estates" in the form of actual physical bodies of their respective "quasi-deceased" strawmen;⁵ and (b) reside in geographic locales "self-claimed away" from the United States.

[c].Interplay Between Moorish and Sovereign Citizenship Movements

It does not appear that one's Moorish ethnic roots (or Moorish religious convictions, or both) have any reason to go hand-in-hand with one's adhesion to the sovereign citizenship movement (or with one's professing the theory of redemptionism, or with one's practice of "paper terrorism," claims of self- granted "diplomatic immunity," etc.).However, and unfortunately enough, certain groups of individuals began merging these concepts by building on their alleged ancestry in ancient Moors (and/or on their alleged or actual adhesion to Moorish religious convictions) for the purposes of committing criminal offenses and/or initiating frivolous legal actions on the grounds of their self-granted "diplomatic immunity," which these individuals deduce either from their self-granted "Moorish citizenship" and from their correspondingly-produced homemade "Moorish" documents (or from correspondingly-obtained "world passports") or from a multitude of other, equally non-cognizable under the law, bases, which these individuals keepcreating in order to support their allegations of "diplomatic immunity."⁶

Murakush-Amexem, 790 F. Supp. 2d 241, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51887 at *2-12(footnotes in original).The above-quoted Murakush-Amexem decisi...