Case: 3:14-cv-00826-JJH Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/09/14 1 of 5. PageID #: 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`David Lee Buess,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Internal Revenue Service, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-0826
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Pro se Plaintiff David Lee Buess filed this action on behalf of the People of the State of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ohio against the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Treasury, United States President
`
`Barack Obama, Hancock Federal Credit Union, the United States Congress, Treasury Inspector
`
`General J. Russell George, the United States Postal Service, the Universal Postal Union, the United
`
`Nations, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Hancock County Sheriff Mike Heldman, and
`
`Hancock County Clerk of Court Cathy Prosser Wilcox. Plaintiff attempts to bring criminal charges
`
`against the “Respondents and Co-conspirators.”
`
`
`
`The document submitted as a pleading in this case is composed entirely of rhetoric.
`
`Specifically, the Plaintiff lists twelve “frauds” he believes the United States government is
`
`committing, including taking money “under the counterfeited name of [SIR DAVID-LEE DBA],”
`
`assigning a zip code for mail for military purposes, enslaving its citizens to the Federal Reserve to
`
`pay a bond created for them, listing his name in all capital letters which he contends represents a
`
`straw man, a trade name or a corporate entity; and collecting income taxes which he asserts is
`
`unconstitutional. He further states secret societies have infiltrated all three branches of government
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00826-JJH Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/09/14 2 of 5. PageID #: 28
`
`and require their members to uphold the secret society’s oath over all other oaths of office. The
`
`other listed “frauds” are unintelligible statements concerning the Bankruptcy Act, a new world
`
`order, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Internal Revenue Code and private banks. Plaintiff
`
`indicates neither Congress nor the Department of Justice would grant him copyright permission to
`
`cite the precise statutes under which relief may be granted, so “it shall be up to the DOJ to fill in all
`
`criminal charges by law and statute to avoid any statement such as I failed to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can granted.” (Doc. No. 1 at 8).
`
`
`
`In addition, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee of $400 nor did he file an Application to
`
`Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Instead, he filed an untitled document in which he states, “the in forma
`
`pauperis forms have no basis in law [and] all costs relating to all cases filed shall be paid from the One
`
`Peoples Trust Account formerly known as CESTA QUE VIE TRUST.” (ECF No. 3 at 4).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff is no stranger to this District Court and is well aware of the filing fee requirements.
`
`In addition to this case, he filed seven other actions from May 2013 to the present date, all of which
`
`named federal agencies, the United States President, the United States Congress, the Ohio
`
`Governor, and various Hancock County officials as Defendants. The Judges of this District have
`
`informed Plaintiff on three prior occasions that filing fees could not be taken from a “Cesta Que Vie
`
`Trust” nor would they be paid by the Defendants. See Buess v. Obama, No. 3:13 CV 2209 (N.D. Ohio
`
`filed Oct. 7, 2013); Buess v. Obama, No. 3:13 CV 1228 (N.D. Ohio filed June 4, 2013); Buess v. Piscitelli,
`
`No. 3:13 CV 1137 (N.D. Ohio filed May 21, 2013). In his earlier cases, Plaintiff filed Applications
`
`to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and was granted pauper status. See Buess v. Kasick, No. 3:13 CV 2576
`
`(N.D. Ohio filed Nov. 20, 2013); Buess v. Congress of the United States, No. 3:13 CV 2461 (N.D. Ohio
`
`filed Nov. 5, 2013). Later, he has refused to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In
`
`Forma Pauperis claiming he has no income because under prevailing tax law income is derived only
`
`from the gain from the sale of capital assets. Buess v. Obama, No. 3:13 CV 2209 (N.D. Ohio filed
`
`Oct. 7, 2013) (refused to pay fee or file In Forma Pauperis documents and returned the Court’s Order
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00826-JJH Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/09/14 3 of 5. PageID #: 29
`
`to Correct the Deficiency with the notation that he was denying the Court’s contract offer). The
`
`District Judge rejected this argument and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.
`
`
`
`Despite prior orders rejecting these arguments, Plaintiff once again submitted a pleading
`
`without the filing fee or an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis claiming, “the in forma pauperis
`
`forms have no basis in law” and directing the Court to get the fee “from the One Peoples Trust
`
`Account formerly known as CESTA QUE VIE TRUST.” (ECF No. 3 at 4). As Plaintiff has been
`
`told on three prior occasions that filing fees cannot be paid from a fictitious trust or by the
`
`Defendants, and because Plaintiff has submitted proper Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in
`
`other cases, it is apparent that he understands the filing fee procedures and has chosen not to
`
`comply with them.
`
`
`
`Moreover, all of Plaintiff’s prior cases have been dismissed for failure to state a claim. Like
`
`the pleading in the present case, those pleadings were composed entirely of incoherent rhetoric
`
`espousing Plaintiff’s belief that the Internal Revenue Service has no authority to collect income
`
`taxes, that the United States is a corporation owned by Great Britain, secret societies control the
`
`government and that flags with gold fringe are improper and indicative of military tribunals. His
`
`pleadings do not contain factual allegations, do not raise any real causes of action, and profess to
`
`institute criminal charges against government agencies and officials. He issues his own “true bill[s],”
`
`invoices, and, in Case No. 3:13 CV 2576, an arrest warrant. Plaintiff continues to file the same
`
`documents even after the case is closed, announcing in his post-judgment documents that the
`
`Court’s orders are void because he refuses “the contract.” Plaintiff’s attempt in this case to place the
`
`onus on the government to fill in causes of action for his pleading to avoid dismissal for failure to
`
`state a claim suggests he did not file this action in good faith with the expectation that it would
`
`proceed through the stages of litigation.
`
`It is apparent that Plaintiff’s repetitive pleadings are not submitted in an attempt to gain real
`
`relief from the named Defendants for an actual injury or controversy. At best, they can be
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00826-JJH Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/09/14 4 of 5. PageID #: 30
`
`construed as an attempt to use the Court’s docket as a public platform to publish his political or
`
`social opinions. Construed less generously, it could be argued they are filed for the purpose of
`
`harassing the Court and the Defendants. Neither of these are acceptable uses of the Court’s time
`
`and resources.
`
`Up to this point, the Courts in this District have been tolerant of Plaintiff’s pro se filings;
`
`however, there comes a point when we can no longer allow Plaintiff to misuse the judicial system at
`
`tax payer expense. The filing of frivolous lawsuits and motions strains an already burdened federal
`
`judiciary. As the Supreme Court recognized: “Every paper filed with the Clerk of ... Court, no
`
`matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the [Court’s] limited resources. A part
`
`of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the
`
`interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). Our ability to perform our duties is
`
`compromised when we are forced to devote limited resources to the processing of repetitious and
`
`frivolous filings. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991).
`
` After a careful review of Plaintiff’s conduct in this and other cases filed in the Northern
`
`District of Ohio, I have determined that it is necessary to impose some restrictions on Plaintiff’s
`
`ability to continue on in this manner. As an initial matter, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and
`
`further declined to submit the proper forms to request pauper status. Congress first enacted an in
`
`forma pauperis statute in 1892 “to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal
`
`courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co.,
`
`335 U.S. 331, 342–43 (1948)). Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, and not a right. Wilson v.
`
`Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991);
`
`Marshall v. Beshear, No. 3:10CV–663–R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010). Federal
`
`courts may revoke or deny the privilege of proceeding as a pauper when a litigant abuses the
`
`privilege by repeatedly filing frivolous, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S.
`
`180, 184–85 (1989) (per curiam); Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam);
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00826-JJH Doc #: 5 Filed: 10/09/14 5 of 5. PageID #: 31
`
`Levy v. Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:13–cv–148, 2014 WL 49188, at *4 -5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2014); Hopson v.
`
`Secret Service, No. 3:12CV–770–H, 2013 WL 1092915, at *1-3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2013); Marshall v.
`
`Beshear, No. 3:10CV–663–R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010); Haddad v. Michigan
`
`Nat. Bank, No. 1:09–cv–1023, 2010 WL 2384535, at *2-3 (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2010). Plaintiff has
`
`abused that privilege and may not proceed with this action unless he pays the entire filing fee.
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff is cautioned that if he continues to file frivolous lawsuits, the Court
`
`may impose sanctions including a permanent injunction prohibiting him from proceeding in forma
`
`pauperis in the future and requiring him to pay the entire filing fee for every new action at its
`
`initiation. The Court may also enjoin him from filing any new actions without first obtaining leave
`
`of court. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 260-61 (6th Cir. 1992); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146
`
`(6th Cir. 1987).
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
`
`If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must pay the entire filing fee of $400.00 within
`
`thirty days, and must file a Motion to Re-Open Case. The Motion will not be accepted if it is not
`
`accompanied by the full filing fee. No other documents will be accepted for filing in this case unless
`
`the entire filing fee is paid, and a Motion to Re-Open has been granted.
`
`So Ordered.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Jeffrey J. Helmick
`United States District Judge
`
`5