Main Menu

Hamrick v United States et al

US Merchant Seaman Don Hamrick of Arkansas has sued the United States, all 9 justices of the Supreme Court, and “putative President” Barack Obama for $14.4 million in a 395-page complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge John D. Bates was seen with a dazed expression leaving the court after issuing his order dismissing the suit sua sponte, mumbling something about the rules requiring complaints to be short and to the point. [Just kidding]

Is this an Obama eligibility case? You think I read that thing? I think not, though. It’s mostly a Second Amendment case. There was something about machine guns in there. It does talk about standing and RICO and stuff you seen in some eligibility lawsuits.

H/t to Phil and the McClatchy Blog, Suits and Sentences.

17 Responses to Hamrick v United States et al

  1. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP August 28, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    Too much time on my hands
    And it’s ticking away with my sanity
    I’ve got too much time on my hands
    It’s hard to believe such a calamity
    I’ve got too much time on my hands
    And it’s ticking away – ticking away from me

    🙂

  2. avatar
    AnotherBird August 28, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    From 547 to 395 is a small improvement.

    I have a strong feeling that this kind of madness occurred before the Obama presidency, and continues to occur. This behavior is what I would expect with a child playing make belief with their friends, but the extend that which these people go are baffling.

  3. avatar
    Bovril August 28, 2010 at 7:36 am #

    Looks like this one has been going on for years and years……has the smell of a “Sovereign Citizen” suit as well with all sorts of references to Admiralty law, personal sovereignty etc.

    Just a loon in the system, nothing like the “quality” of Mad Ole Orlys fine briefs….8-)

  4. avatar
    NbC August 28, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    See also Hamrick v Fukino, which appears to have been missed on the list of failed lawsuits.

    Hamrick is a hoot… If you think Orly is hilarious, you’d love this pro-se filer…

  5. avatar
    NbC August 28, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    Hamrick attempts to file under 28 USC 1916 which exempts seamen from having to pay filing fees

    § 1916. Seamen’s suits

    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.

  6. avatar
    Sef August 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    NbC: See also Hamrick v Fukino, which appears to have been missed on the list of failed lawsuits.Hamrick is a hoot… If you think Orly is hilarious, you’d love this pro-se filer…

    Why was this (& a lot of the other cases) dismissed w/o prejudice? It would seem to me that a lot of these “silly suits” could be cut off at the pass if they were dismissed “with prejudice”.

  7. avatar
    Sef August 28, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    Here’s a hoot for ya’ll. Bing maps shows 5860 Wilburn Rd., Wilburn AR (Hamrck’s residence as listed on the filing) to be a vacant lot.

  8. avatar
    Majority Will August 28, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Sef: Here’s a hoot for ya’ll.Bing maps shows 5860 Wilburn Rd., Wilburn AR (Hamrck’s residence as listed on the filing) to be a vacant lot.

    The irony. It burns!

  9. avatar
    NbC August 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Sef: Why was this (& a lot of the other cases) dismissed w/o prejudice? It would seem to me that a lot of these “silly suits” could be cut off at the pass if they were dismissed “with prejudice”.

    SInce he failed to pay for the filing, the dismissal was not based on the absence of any legal argument or claim, but rather on Hamrick’s inability to follow rules and regulations of the Court.

  10. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 28, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Sef: Why was this (& a lot of the other cases) dismissed w/o prejudice? It would seem to me that a lot of these “silly suits” could be cut off at the pass if they were dismissed “with prejudice”.

    As a practical matter, a dismissal “with prejudice” is of no effect if you can’t figure out what the dismissed case was about. “With prejudice” means that the plaintiff can’t bring another lawsuit on the same cause of action, but it doesn’t stand in the way of an action on a different cause of action…. so it makes sense for the court to continue to push the plaintiff towards stating the claim in clear language.

    Also, practically speaking, I figure the courts don’t bother to read the whole mess before the dismissal “without” prejudice — if the grounds for dismissal is that they can’t figure out what the case is about, they are under no obligation to waste their time reading the whole pile of garbage. But for a “with” prejudice dismissal… they really would have to read the whole thing, just in case there is a germ of a valid claim in there somewhere.

    So the easiest thing is to keep on tossing it back, no matter how often, until they get some sort of paper that would be the foundation for a firm, and enforceable, ruling.

  11. avatar
    NbC August 28, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    NbC: As a practical matter, a dismissal “with prejudice” is of no effect if you can’t figure out what the dismissed case was about. “With prejudice” means that the plaintiff can’t bring another lawsuit on the same cause of action, but it doesn’t stand in the way of an action on a different cause of action…. so it makes sense for the court to continue to push the plaintiff towards stating the claim in clear language.

    In other instances, the failure to present a coherent claim can be rectified and since the court refused to read the document, its decision to dismiss w/o prejudice saves them a lot of reading and frustration with the lack of any coherent logic, or argument in the 300+ pages.

  12. avatar
    Rickey August 28, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    AnotherBird:
    I have a strong feeling that this kind of madness occurred before the Obama presidency, and continues to occur. This behavior is what I would expect with a child playing make belief with their friends, but the extend that which these people go are baffling.

    Christopher Strunk has been filing lawsuits pro se in New York State since at least 1997. He has yet to win one, as far as I can tell.

  13. avatar
    AnotherBird August 29, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    Rickey:
    Christopher Strunk has been filing lawsuits pro se in New York State since at least 1997. He has yet to win one, as far as I can tell.

    Is he that inept? Come on now, anyone who has been filling lawsuits since 2007 would work on improving their legal paper work. The judge is even “holding his hand” on this latest filing. I wonder how many have been “dismissed with prejudice.”

  14. avatar
    Jules August 29, 2010 at 5:39 am #

    I can tell that the complaint is alleging some sort of violation of Second Amendment rights and procedural rights. However, it does seem to allege any facts about any injury to Mr Hamrick and seems instead just to present multiple policy arguments.

    If it’s about machine guns (and there is a section on machine guns), then perhaps Mr Hamrick should state early on facts about how he wished to own a machine gun, that he is prevented by federal law from doing so, and that he is seeking a declaratory judgment that a particular statute is unconstitutional so that he may get a machine gun. His chances of success would not be good at all, but at least it would be clear what he was talking about.

    However, the matter doesn’t seem to be entirely about supposed 2nd Amendment violations. He seems to want to be granted the right to arrest judges for some form of corruption. This seems to stem from various rulings about guns that he dislikes. Ultimately, the complaint is just an incoherent rant about how the plaintiff is really angry about gun regulations and wants to punish everyone involved. Needless to say, that’s not the basis for a legitimate claim.

  15. avatar
    Bovril August 29, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    The problem with this gem of a filing along with almost all the Birfer 70+ is that it’s not actually or rather at best peripherally a case.

    For the court to take up any of these piles of dross they have to at a minimum (and in no particular order)

    1. State what the injury is
    2. Why it is an injury
    3. What legally supports their case around the injury
    4. How this injury applies to the actual injured party
    5. How can the injury be addressed
    6. Who is the offending party
    7. Why are THEY the offending party (reality, not “It’s da Ebil Gunmint”)
    8. Are there any other NON judicial avenues that can address this injury
    9. Have all the other avenues been followed without avail OR why this cannot occur
    10. Does the court have jurisdiction to address the injury
    11. Can the court apply the requested manner of address to the injury

    There are the other procedural rules etc but if you don’t/won’t/can’t address the above “Buh Bye”

    So the above case, doesn’t address these in any coherent form so it’s sayonara

  16. avatar
    HORUS August 29, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    “Summary Judgment Dismissal is Barred”

    No Judge likes being told what he can’t do right off the bat.

  17. avatar
    JoZeppy August 30, 2010 at 10:12 am #

    HORUS: “Summary Judgment Dismissal is Barred”No Judge likes being told what he can’t do right off the bat.

    Well, I don’t think he’ll be disappointed, since there really isn’t any such thing as “summary Judgment Dismissal.” There is dismissal, and then there is summary judgment. Dismissal is what he will get. Same as all the birther have up until now. It is the court’s way of telling you you have no case, and no matter how it reads your complaint, there is no way on God’s green earth you will ever have a case. Summary Judgment comes once you state a claim where there is at least some theory under the law where you could actually go to the court for redress. Summary judgment is granted when there are no material facts in dispute, and the court can issue a judgment on the law. Summary judment is an actual decision on the merits of the case, whereas dismissal is saying that you don’t have a case.