Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00835/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00835-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE-FABRICIO: DIAZ,

JUAN-JOSE: VADO,

Sramineus Homo, US Vessel

Libellant,

 v.

CITI BANK, US Vessel 

DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100, et al.,

US Vessel sand

Libellees, ___________________________________

RENE-FABRICIO: DIAZ

JUAN-JOSE: VADO

Lien Holders of the Vessel, the Real Party

In Interest, Lawful Man

Injured Third Party Intervenor/ Petitioner/

Libellant,

 v.

CITI BANK, U.S. Vessel, 

DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100, et al.,

US VESSELS

INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY

Third Party Defendants/Libellees

 /

No. C-08-0835 MMC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 12, 2008, the Court ordered Rene-Fabricio Diaz and Juan-Jose Vado

(collectively, “petitioners”) to show cause, no later than February 29, 2008, why the instant

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 10 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Petitioners allege, for example, “all parties are U.S. Vessels and fit the legal

definition of a U.S. Vessel.” (See Pet. ¶ 15.) Contrary to such assertion, petitioners are

individuals and have named a banking institution as a defendant. Petitioners further allege

“[t]he cargo is shipped via U.S. Postal Service and all parties are subject to the Postal

Codes in this instant action,” (see id. ¶ 18), and assert the “Law of the flag: Man is created

in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to

God. Exodus, 13:16 and Genesis 1:27,” (see id. ¶ 10). 

2

 This document states, inter alia: “Your company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT inc. holds itself out as an article three court when in fact it is an administrative

department of the executive branch of the private defacto governing corporation doing

business as THE UNITED STATES inc.” (See Pets.’ “Letter Rogatory” at 2:6-9.)

2

“Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment” (“Petition”), should not be

dismissed in light of petitioners’ having failed to allege any facts that could state a claim

under either state or federal law, and having failed to allege the existence of an

administrative decision.1

 

On February 29, 2008, petitioners filed three documents, titled, respectively, “Notice

of Appointment of Fiduciary Trustee,” “Notice of Acceptance of Oath of Office and Bond,”

and “Memorandum of More Definitative [sic] Statement”; in none of such documents,

however, did petitioners state facts that would support a cognizable claim for relief. 

Accordingly, by order filed March 11, 2008, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to

state a claim, and afforded petitioners the opportunity to file, no later than April 7, 2008, an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted. 

On April 7, 2008, petitioners filed six documents, the first three of which are titled,

respectively, “Certificate of Service,” “Letter Rogatory,”2 and “Notice to Show Cause.” The

latter three documents consist of a copy of an order in an apparently unrelated proceeding

in the Northern District of Ohio, and copies of two news articles concerning the state of the

American legal system. Petitioners fail to explain the significance of said documents, and

the documents appear wholly unrelated to the allegations made against the defendant to

the instant action. 

In sum, having been afforded multiple opportunities to state a claim, petitioners have

failed to state facts describing their cause of action and alleged injury, or to assert any

cognizable legal theory upon which petitioners could potentially recover. Under such

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 10 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

circumstances, the Court finds further amendment would be futile. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without further leave to

amend, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 10 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3