Curie v. United States

• Decision Date: 19 December 2022
• Docket Number: 22-650T
• Parties: CHRIS DAVID CURIE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

CHRIS DAVID CURIE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 22-650T

United States Court of Federal Claims

December 19, 2022

Chris David Curie, pro se, St. Petersburg, FL.

Richard J. Markel, Trial Attorney, Tax Division, Court of Federal Claims Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him were G. Robson Stewart, Assistant Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, David I. Pincus, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, and David A. Hubbert, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice.

OPINION

MARIAN BLANK HORN JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff, Chris David Curie, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In response to plaintiff's complaint, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (2021) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's complaint, which is difficult to understand, appears to be alleging entitlement to certain monies, only some of which are allegedly due from the federal government. Plaintiff states this court has jurisdiction to hear his case because "[t]his matter involves U.S. Federal Person 'CHRIS DAVID CURIE' and various agencies, departments, substitute trustees of the UNITED STATES. This is an internal administrative matter of a U.S. Estate/Inter vivos Trust."^[1] Plaintiff alleges three

1

counts: (1) violations of 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(4)^[2] and 26 U.S.C. § 6065^[3] sufficient to reverse Curie v. Comm'r, No. 6557-19 (T.C. Jul. 25, 2019);^[4] (2) "Breach of Trust," based on a

2

Dekalb County, Indiana Court's accounting and alleged mishandling plaintiff's mother's mortgage foreclosure; and (3) "Breach of Trust" because plaintiff "provided appointment letters to the alleged custodian of unclaimed property requesting an accounting of the estate/inter vivos trust" but received no response.^[5] As relief, plaintiff seeks:

A. Issue an order to cease and desist collection on "lien", return funds taken in error, remove the Notices from the County, assign a private Treasury Agent to assist in settling accounts

B. Order an accounting of Case 17D01-1802-MF-000015 in Dekalb County, Indiana and issue an order for recoupment of non-abandoned securities to the heir

C. Certify the Trust indentures for the record and provide an accounting of securities held in trust.

D. Petitioner now demands maximum allowable damages and reasonable fees pursuant at Section 813 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, and for such other treble or punitive relief as the court deems just and proper.

3

Along with his complaint, plaintiff attached numerous confusing attachments, proposed notices, orders, including a notice for a default judgment. The first attachment is a June 6, 2022 letter from plaintiff to the United States Court of Federal Claims titled: "Notice-to-agent-is-notice-to-principal-and-notice-to-principal-is-notice-to-agent. This first attachment appears to include three proposed orders. The first of the three proposed orders is titled "ORDER FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT," while the second and third proposed orders are both titled "ORDER." The fifth document is titled "Acknowledgement of Trust Indentures," also with the heading "Notice-to-agent-is-notice-to-principal-and-notice-to-principal-is-notice-to-agent." The sixth attached document is titled "BILL OF LADING." The document again contains the language "Notice-to-agent-is-notice-to-principal-and-notice-to-principal-is-notice-to-agent" and includes a table of contents titled "Cargo Manifest." The seventh attached document, dated March 15, 2016, is titled "NOTICE OF TRUST" and was referenced in plaintiff's "BILL OF LADING" as Attachment A: "Notices to IRS showing good faith effort to obtain certificate of assessment." This document contains a list of nineteen "notices" from the plaintiff to various individuals and entities regarding "Illinois Cook County Notice of Lien SN933257413 Now RE 1032700113US [illegible] Illinois DuPage Notice of Lien SN 933257413 Now RE103270013US [illegible] and Illinois Lake County Notice of Lien SN 93325781 Now RE103270013US[illegible]." The eighth attached document is the July 25, 2019 "ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION" by The United States Tax Court in case 6557-19, (quoted above) involving petitioner Chris David Curie and respondent, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. This document also was referred to in plaintiff's "BILL OF LADING" document as Attachment B: "US TAX COURT ORDER." The ninth attached document, labeled "Attachment C," is the document referred to in plaintiff's "BILL OF LADING" as "Common Law Consent to Judgment." Dated June 17, 2021, the document seems to have been authored by the plaintiff and lists "Office of the Indiana Attorney General," "Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service," "The Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Natural Resources," "Illinois Department of Natural Resources," "Commissioner," "IRS Commissioner," "AFLAC WORLDWIDE," "Farmers and Merchant Bancorp, Inc.," "David M. Findlay President and Chief Executive Officer Lakeland Financial Corporation," and "TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE." The tenth attached document is a December 9, 2021 notice from the Social Security Administration to plaintiff of payment withholding. The notice states, "We are writing to you about your Social Security benefits.... We changed the amount we withhold from your monthly payment to pay your debt to the IRS." (alteration added). The eleventh attached document is a December 26, 2018 notice from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service to plaintiff. The document states in relevant parts: "The U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service), applied all or part of your payment to delinquent debt that you owe.... If you believe that your payment was applied in error, you would like to resolve your debt, or you have questions about your debt or outstanding balance, contact the agency." (alteration added). The twelfth attached document is labeled "Attachment F" and was referred to by plaintiff's "Bill of Lading" as "True Bill for damages." The document contains the heading "Good faith estimate and True bill to: UNITED STATES" and the subheading "atachments refer to items Bill of Lading number 911499944314212247335." The thirteenth attached document is a December 3, 2021 order by DeKalb County Superior

4

Court of Indiana Judge Adam C. Squiller in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dorothy A. Curie, 17D01-1805-MF-015 (DeKalb Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2018). The document is labeled "Attachment G" and was previously referred to by plaintiff's "Bill of Lading" as "Dekalb County denial of accounting." The fourteenth attached document is a December 22, 2021 letter from plaintiff to one "Holly Albright," who, apparently, was involved in the trust plaintiff alleges was mishandled in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dorothy A. Curie, 17D01-1805-MF-015 (DeKalb Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2018).^[6] Plaintiff accuses the letter's recipient of "extortion . . . under the color of official right" and an "appalling betrayal of the public trust." The fifteenth attached document is a mostly illegible and unidentifiable webpage. The document was previously referred to by plaintiff as "Summary of Court Judgement." The words "Wells Fargo Bank v. Dorothy A. Curie," "Inactive," and "Summary judgement entered" are decipherable. The document contains the handwritten equation "76,000.00-67,694.17=8305.83 DUE." The sixteenth attached document is a May 29, 2018 letter from Wells Fargo Bank, NA to Dorothy A Curie with the subject line "Your insurance refund check Mortgage account number: 0362331191 Client 936 Property address: 605 E Third Street[,] Auburn IN 46706." The seventeenth attached document is a partially illegible "Sheriff's Deed" from DeKalb County, Indiana, dated November 29, 2016. The eighteenth attached document is titled "Good faith accounting absent one from the County." It lists various accounting items and expenses totaling, including a multiplier for treble damages, more than seven and a half million dollars. The nineteenth attached document is a letter from plaintiff to the "Office of the Indiana Attorney General." The letter contains the header "Notice-to-agent-is-notlce-to-principal-and-notice-to-principal-is-notice-to-agent" and lists various statutes and Ecclesiastical law to support plaintiff's claims regarding him as the holder of a trust.

In response to plaintiff's complaint, on August 15, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. According to defendant's motion to dismiss, "[w]hen jurisdiction is lacking, 'the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.'" (quoting Harris v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. 290, 292 (2013)). The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. During the course of the briefing on defendant's motion to dismiss and subsequently, plaintiff has tried to file numerous additional documents with the court, none of which were in conformance with the Rules of this court. Moreover, plaintiff continued to submit documents of the United States Court of Federal Claims, even after the court issued an Order instructing plaintiff not to file such additional documents until after the motion to dismiss was decided.

DISCUSSION

The court recognizes that plaintiff in the above captioned case 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....