frivolous claims. See Hill, 630 F.3d at 471 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328); see also Denton,
504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The complaint provides no factual content or context
from which the Court may reasonably infer that the defendants violated plaintiff's rights. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith
and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to
proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800,
803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277

(6th Cir. 1997).

Date:_/O/ OL Z Bhen. x tou
Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court


8. Brud Rossmann brings the most unusual and truthful of Complaints for the
twisted psychopathology and idiocy of the named and associated Defendants, all
skewing Apparatchik, and all proven, in agency or as principals, guilty of Brud
Rossmann’s attempted murder, false imprisonment, extreme torture, implausible
impoverishment, unemployability, worse. IRS rulings, findings, other official
statements, findings corroborate.

9. Proceeding on the worst of bases, sociological biases, pro-Jewish, anti-
German, pro-male hating female or violent homosexual , anti-normal heterosexual
male, pro-African American, anti-Caucasian, pro-Minority, anti-Caucasian, or so
called “White”, pro-Apparatchik English or WASP, anti-normal English or
normal-WASP, as well as anti-meritocracy, anti-Athletic, type A male, anti-true
Equity, anti-decency, and pro-Coward, Thuggish, Stupid, Contemptible,
Apparatchik, low end sh*tbag garbage Evil, these idiots and others are proven
guilty of (a) blocking Brud Rossmann from exiting this sh*thole, the United
States of America that is, and (b) his continuing persecution.

10. The essential relief sought is the following : (a) a protective order preventing a
further false arrest on a stale Alabama warrant, and related proceedings, when the
local US Attorney in DC dismissed the case, dropped the charges in June, 2017 on
such premise, and Alabama refused to show to effect extradition; (b) delivery of
Brud Rossmann’s social security card and Passport to him via US mail when any
personal appearance by him at a SSA Office or State Department Office will
trigger his further false arrests for the computer-virus like population and re-
population of one government database after another, all recycling the prior stale,
false, meaningless Alabama warrant to effect de facto violent if not homicidal
violent faggotry by natural persons otherwise confessed murderous faggots,
skewing Jewish, male hating female, African American, etc.; and, (c) political
asylum, the granting of such official status for the continuing targeting, indexing,
destruction of Brud Rossmann, until Brud Rossmann leaves this sh*thole - the
United States of America that is.

11. Accordingly, Brud Rossmann, natural US citizen, born in Rochester, NY 05
22 64, 1023 a.m., demands in relief Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in
damages from each such named natural person, across each such lawsuit, as well
as injunctive relief and declaratory relief specified further herein.
(Doe. 1-1). Plaintiff's complaint continues in a similar vein for 24 pages. (/d.).
Plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim with an arguable basis in fact or law, or
alternatively, are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court.

Plaintiff's pro se complaint is rambling, difficult to decipher, and borders on the delusional.

Therefore, the instant complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage because it raises


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
BRUD ROSSMANN, Case No. 1:17-cv-661
Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

VS.

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
BRUD ROSSMANN, Case No. 1:17-cv-661
Plaintiff, Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
DONALD TRUMP, et al., REPORT AND
Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, brings this pro se civil action against over 30
individuals and entities, including the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the
United States, “Juris Doctors,” “Lawyers,” “Medical Doctors,” the CIA Office of Medical
Services, “Similar ‘Human Resource’ Functions of the FBI, NSA, Other DOD,” and the Israeli
Government, among others. By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte
review of plaintiff's complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should
be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant
whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an
economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in

Jorma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Jd.; see

also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the


plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th
Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or
when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise
to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d
at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional”
in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

Congress also has authorized the swa sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed
by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71
(“dismissal standard articulated in Jgbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a
claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well-

pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a


factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide
“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual
enhancement.” Jd. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the .. .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleges the following:

1. The Plaintiff, Brud Rossmann, a former decorated Trial Attorney of the U.S.
Department of Justice, receiving “Outstanding” performance reviews when
handling both National Security matters and Billion Dollar cases, Honors
graduate of Harvard Law School, (cum laude, 1989), excellent reviews when
managing a leading investment fund, with possibly Best in World Investor status
and financial returns, as the best fund manager of the world’s arguably leading
venture capital fund of all time, AOL Investments, if not AOL Time Warner
Ventures, an IQ that possibly ranges to 186, 1 in 26 million or 202 million people,
see attached, and recipient of a community service award from the Attorney
General of the United States of America for his volunteer work in the African
American community of Anacostia, MD, outside of Washington, D. C. brings

this Complaint. Select proof is annexed hereto.
*

*
*

5. Recent confirmations of both Brud Rossmann’s professional acumen and
mental health are robust, unanimous and belie his cashless, homeless, jobless, and
unemployable status over many years now. In other words, Brud Rossmann, the
Plaintiff, should be worth about $65 million, per statements, estimates of Anthony
Scaramucci, then of Neuberger, Berman (7/1/02 : “you are a guy who someday
will probably be worth $50 to $100 million”, near verbatim), IRS reporting, other
sources. Personal net worth estimates, normalized, range to Billionaire status and

for years.
*

*
*