Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Skelly

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

May 23, 2018

JAMES FREDERICK WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF
v.
THOMAS P. SKELLY DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Greg N. Stivers, Judge

         Plaintiff James Frederick Williams filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint. He later filed a “Motion to Proceed with Suit” (DN 5), which the Court construes as an amendment to the complaint. This matter is before the Court for screening of the complaint and amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.

         I. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

         In the complaint, Plaintiff, who designates himself as “a natural living person” residing in Warren County, Kentucky, asserts federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He sues Thomas P. Skelly, “a living person, d/b/a, Department of Education . . . an unknown entity, believed to be authorized to do business in the state of Pennsylvania.” As his “Statement of Facts, ” Plaintiff states:

1. On or about November 13, 2017, the Plaintiff did execute and deliver (1) contract/bond in the amount of $212, 032.25 promising to pay Thomas P. Skelly, an agent believed to be acting for said Defendant in this cause of action . . . .
2. The Defendant(s) has dishonored and not accepted the contract/bond. . . .
3. The Defendant breached the contract/bond.
4. The plaintiff states that the contract/bond is backed by the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; Public Law 73-10, Chapter 48, Statute 112; U.S.C. 411; Securities Act 2 (1), 3 (a)(3); Congressional Statute At Large, Title 62; U.S. Supreme Court; and settlement in the terms of the Uniform Commercial Code.

(DN 1, Compl.) (emphasis by Plaintiff).

         To the complaint, Plaintiff attaches a copy of the “contract/bond” he indicates he delivered to Defendant. Therein, he declares:

There appearing no bond, contract or title of record entered by claimant(s) to initiate the matter(s) alleged by the U.S. Department of Education, regarding SSN: ***-**-****.
I, issue this bond to discharge all debt in the matter(s) of SSN: ***-**-****, dischargeable to the U.S. Department of Education, as mandated by Public Policy through the Bureau of Public Debt. In that no lawful money of account exists in circulation and in consideration thereof, I have suffered dishonor by the U.S. Department of Education, regarding SSN: ***-**-****.
I, James Frederick Williams, principal, as surety, am held and firmly bound to the U.S. Department of Education for the sum of: $12, 032.25 unless the alleged debtor JAMES F. WILLIAMS, Ens legis, shall satisfy any debt which may be recovered against it by alleged creditor, the U.S. Department of Education, for the attachment(s) of alleged debtor JAMES F. WILLIAMS, Ens legis, for the sum certain of: $12, 032.25, returnable to the U.S. Department of Education . . . . Please adjust the aforesaid account to zero balance, in accord with HJR-192 of June 5th, 1933; Public Law 73-10 and 31 U.S.C. 371, whereas this negotiable note being a negotiable instrument is hereby tendered in good faith.
This BOND payable to the U.S. Department of Education is redeemable, on after November 13th, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.