United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony J. Trenga, United States District Judge
Ashanti Champean a/k/a Douglas Howell, a federal inmate
proceeding pro se, has fled a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(i.e., the Federal Acquisition Regulations). The
named Defendants are Assistant United States Attorneys
Michael Rich and Zachary Terwilliger, whom Plaintiff
identifies as "acting agents for the Commonwealth of
Virginia." Plaintiff has paid the statutory fling fee
and the administrative fee for this action. After reviewing
Plaintiffs submissions, the Court has determined that his
suit must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) as frivolous.
reviewing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A, a court must
dismiss a prisoner complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or
files to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).  Frivolous complaints are those
that are based on "inarguable legal conclusion[s]"
or "fanciful factual allegation[s]." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (I 989) (examining identical
language of predecessor statute to § 191 SA).
complaint in this case consists of several sections. In the
first, entitled "Special Notice to the Court, "
Plaintiff notifies this Court of his "absolute
ministerial right" to make a "restricted
appearance" pursuant to Rule 8(E). Plaintiff identifies
himself as "a real flesh and blood man, a State Citizen
and Inhabitant of the County of Alexandria, Virginia, by
SPECIAL VISITATION In Propria Personam, not general to
present this, his Notice and Demand for written proof
(verified and demonstrated evidence) of jurisdiction over His
Proper Person and over the subject matter in the above
entitled cause as known as 1: 12-CR-191." Plaintiff further
asserts that a court has "no jurisdiction" to
determine whether a complaint is subject to dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim,
Compl. at 2, and that "officers of the court have no
immunity." Id. at 3. Plaintiff concludes that
once this Court determines that jurisdiction is Jacking in
the cause in question, " he should be "assigned the
minimum monetary values as per precedent ... [of $25, 000.00
per 23 minute period, i.e. $65, 217.91 pr hour, plus
punitive damages .... " Id. at 4.
then attaches a document styled as an "International
Commercial Affidavit Presented As/Under Letter
Rogatory." He states that the document is fled "as
lawful public notice" under provisions of the UCC, and
that "[t]he Secured Party signatory herein is executing
this instrument, under his signature, expressly to declare
his status as a Non-Resident Alien, " "with no
duress, in accord with the terms of the aforementioned
private agreement, " nunc pro tune to his
eighteenth birthday. Compl. at 5.
next sets out a section captioned "Identification of
Moving Party" in which he describes himself as a
"natural born, fee, Living, breathing flesh and blood
human with sentient and moral existence, a real man upon the
soil, a juris et du jure, also known as a Secured Party and
an inhabitant, not a United States citizen." As such,
"secured party/plaintiff is not a subject of or to. the
Virginia states Constitution or the United States
Constitution, its Ordinances, Statutes. Codes or Regulations
.... " Compl. at 7.
following "State [sic] of Issues, " Plaintiff
declares that he "tendered payment and a private
administrative remedy to the named respondent through the
Administrative Procedures Act ... requesting that case No: 1:
12-CR-191 be set of, settled and closed, and the Respondent
obtained a court order for his release from custody."
Plaintiff filed an Initial Financing Statement in the
"commercial registry" at the Office of the New York
Secretary of State. Respondents defaulted "by their own
choice, " and Plaintiff concludes that, accordingly,
"there is no longer a controversy before the
court." Compl. at 8.
then includes a Notice of Void Judgment, in which he argues
that the courts to which members of the public currently have
access "have no jurisdiction over living men. When the
judge and the prosecutor use deceit and trickery to cause the
living man to believe he is actually the defendant, those
public officials have breached their fiduciary duties, and
breached their contract with the public, and are subject to
legal actions." Compl. at 10. Plaintiff asserts in a
section entitled "Jurisdiction" that the burden of
proving jurisdiction lies with .. the asserter" - in
this case, the named Defendants - but although they have
"had time and 2 different chances to respond, "
they have "gone silent." Compl. at 11. Plaintiff
"revokes rescinds and cancels all signatures, "
Compl. at 12, and declares himself the "Grantor and Sole
beneficiary of the TASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR. Cestui Que Vie
trust, a document vessel under the United States
registry . . .. " Compl. at 13 - 16. In a "caveat,
" Plaintiff observes that Defendants have "had
every chance to respond to the Proof of Claim that was
addressed ad sent to them by Certified Mail" and
declares that "for the Court Record, " Defendants
"must comply with the Proof of Claim answering each
question that has been presented by Affidavit Form and sent
back to the Court.' Compl. at 16. Plaintiff then provides
"Judicial Notice" that he "appoints" the
Defendants "as co-trustees for a judicial or
administrative matter in which the T ASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR.
Cestui Que Ve trust may be involved, past, present,
and future, and specifically for Case No. 1:12-CR-191, "
and he "specifically appoint[s] the trustees to settle
and close the matter, " "zeroing the account,
" while "exercis[ing] scrupulous good fifth and
candor towards, and for the benefit and on behalf of, TASHEIK
CHAMPEAN, SR." Compl. at 18.
in a section entitled "Relief Sought and Conclusion,
" Plaintiff asserts that Defendants "knowingly and
willingly allow[ed] the STATE OF VIRGINIA to proceed against
the Secured Party. committing a malfeasance of justice,
through negligence and/or inadvertence . . . ." He
states that "the Secured Party is the
Holder-in-Due-Course and has established an un-rebuttable
Superior Claim over that of the STA TE OF VIRGINIA over the
debtor." Therefore, he argues, the judgment in Case No.
1: 12crl 91 must be "vacated for want to Subject Matter
Jurisdiction and Dismiss [sic] with Prejudice;" he
should be discharged from the custody of the State of
Virginia; and a hearing should be convened to appoint Michael
Rich and Zachary Terwilliger as "Trustee[s] of TASHEIK
CHAMPEAN, SR. and released discharged from any and all
alleged obligations to the State of Virginia." Compl. at
19-20. Plaintiff has appended a number of exhibits to the
complaint, including a UCC Financing Statement and numerous
other financial documents.
extent to which Plaintiff's allegations are
comprehensible, it is readily apparent that they arc based on
"inarguable legal conclusion[s]" and "fanciful
factual allegation[s]." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
Accordingly, the complaint is frivolous, and it is hereby
that the complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to § 191 SA(b)(1).
a final order for purposes of appeal. To appeal, plaintiff
must file a written Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the
Court within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A Notice of Appeal is a
short statement stating a desire to appeal an order and
identifying the date of the order plaintiff wishes to appeal.
Failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal waives plaintiffs
right to appeal this decision.
Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Order
and Opinion to ...