UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

The document that initiated this case is atypical. Instead of a complaint, Melkiyah El—

and possibly Martha Daniels Bey—filed a “Letter Rogatory” pursuant to “the United States 

Constitution, Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1787), divine law, International Laws of 

Commerce and Trade, Foreign Relations and Intercourse Title 22, and the Moroccan Empire,” as 

well as “the All Writs Act, 28 USC § 1651 and § 1696.” (Dkt. 1 at 1–2.) Essentially Melkiyah El 

asks this Court to order Bernard Youngblood, alleged to be the Wayne County Register of 

Deeds, and Cathy Garrett, alleged to be the Wayne County Clerk, to produce certain documents 

relating to the foreclosure of Daniels Bey’s home. (See id. at 3–4.) He says, “[t]he information 

obtained from this Letter Rogatory request is necessary in obtaining evidence into the 

investigation of unauthorized claims, unfair debt collection practices and misrepresentations 

made by BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON fka THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE [FOR CERTAIN CERTIFICATE HOLDERS] . . . and RESURGENT MORTGAGE 

SERVICING regarding real property located . . . [in] Belleville, Michigan.” (Dkt. 1 at 2.) 

Youngblood and Garrett move to quash the letter rogatory. (Dkt. 5.) For the following reasons, 

MARTHA DANIELS BEY and 

MELKIYAH EL, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

v. 

 

BERNARD YOUNGBLOOD and 

CATHY GARRETT, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:14-mc-51041 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO QUASH [2] 

2:14-mc-51041-LJM-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/03/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 20
2 

the Court will grant Youngblood and Garrett’s motion as it pertains to Melkiyah El’s requested 

relief. The Court will dismiss Daniels Bey’s case without prejudice. 

“‘[A] letter rogatory is the request by a domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence 

from a certain witness.’” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 248 n.1 

(2004) (quoting Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for 

Reform, 62 Yale L.J. 515, 519 (1953)). For the first time in 1855, Congress provided federal 

courts with the power to assist foreign tribunals in gathering evidence, with the request for 

federal-court aid taking the form of “letters rogatory forwarded through diplomatic channels.” Id.

In 1948, Congress passed legislation, now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1782, that “substantially 

broadened the scope of assistance federal courts could provide for foreign proceedings.” Id. at 

247–48.1

 

1

 Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code now provides, 

(a) The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may 

order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other 

thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including 

criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be 

made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or 

international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may 

direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be 

produced, before a person appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, 

the person appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the 

testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and procedure, 

which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country 

or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing 

the document or other thing. To the extent that the order does not prescribe 

otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other 

thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

A person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a 

document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege. 

(b) This chapter does not preclude a person within the United States from 

voluntarily giving his testimony or statement, or producing a document or other 

2:14-mc-51041-LJM-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/03/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 21
3 

Section 1782 does not permit this Court to compel the Wayne County Register of Deeds 

or the Wayne County Clerk to produce the documents that Melkiyah El seeks. There are a 

number of requirements that must be satisfied for a court to compel the production of evidence 

under § 1782. Dispositive here is that the testimony or documents be “for use in a proceeding in 

a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal 

accusation,” 28 U.S.C. § 1782. See In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2007) (“A 

district court has the authority to grant an application for judicial assistance if the following 

statutory requirements in § 1782(a) are met . . . (3) the evidence must be ‘for use in a proceeding 

in a foreign or international tribunal’; . . .); In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 1998) 

(“The prima facie showing mandated by [§ 1782] is only that the application be made (1) ‘by a 

foreign or international tribunal’ or ‘any interested person,’ (2) that it be ‘for use in a proceeding 

in a foreign or international tribunal’ and (3) that the person or entity from whom the discovery 

is sought be a resident of or be found in the district in which the application is filed.”). Melkiyah 

El has not identified any “foreign or international tribunal” in which the information he seeks 

from Youngblood and Garrett will be used. (See generally Dkt. 1.) Accordingly, this Court 

cannot grant Melkiyah El the relief he seeks and will grant Youngblood and Garrett’s motion to 

quash Melkiyah El’s letter rogatory. 

The Court also notes that the court filings in this case are signed only by Melkiyah El, not 

by Daniels Bey. (See Dkt. 1 at 4, Dkt. 3 at 1.) This presents an additional problem because 

Melkiyah El may represent himself pro se, but he may not represent Daniels Bey unless 

Melkiyah El is an attorney whom Daniels Bey retained to represent her interests. See Myers v. 

 

thing, for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal before any 

person and in any manner acceptable to him. 

2:14-mc-51041-LJM-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/03/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 22
4 

Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The right to litigate for oneself . . . 

does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others. . . . The reasoning behind this rule is twofold: it protects the rights of those before the court, . . . and jealously guards the judiciary’s 

authority to govern those who practice in its courtrooms . . . .”); cf. Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 

F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that “parties may 

plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” that statute “does not permit 

plaintiffs to appear pro se where interests other than their own are at stake”). “A federal court 

rightly expects a lawyer to represent a litigant. By its supervision of the bar and through its 

reliance on the lawyers before it, the court is enabled to function. Professional competence and 

professional responsibility are the sine qua non of federal litigation and effective judicial 

response.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 698 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, 

Melkiyah El has not identified himself as an attorney. See E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(1) (providing 

that papers filed with the court by attorneys must include state bar identification number). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

Youngblood and Garrett’s motion to quash is GRANTED as to Melkiyah El’s request for 

this Court to order Youngblood and Garrett to produce documents or any other potential 

evidence. Because no other relief is sought, Melkiyah El’s case is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

Because Daniels Bey has not signed any of the filings in this case, because it appears that 

she has not retained an attorney to act on her behalf, and because she did not respond to the 

2:14-mc-51041-LJM-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/03/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 23
5 

motion on her own behalf, the Court DISMISSES Daniels Bey’s case WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

It is further ordered that the hearing scheduled for October 9, 2014 is CANCELLED. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 3, 2014 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the 

attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on October 3, 2014. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:14-mc-51041-LJM-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/03/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 24