UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil No. 19-3406 (TJK)

DIVINE MINISTER MOSIAH OSIRIS RA 

EL,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH STATE ACCEPTANCE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Divine Minister Mosiah Osiris Ra El, on behalf of Tyree Antoine Honablew, initiated the 

above-captioned civil action in November 2019. Ra El’s only filing, which the Court construes 

to be a complaint, is largely indecipherable. See generally ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Ra El 

purports to be “an authorized representative of the artificial person/ens legis ‘TYREE ANTOINE 

HONABLEW’” whom Ra El alleges “is non-liable for the fictions [sic] ‘damages.’” Id. at 2. Ra 

El further states:

I am here in special appearance on my clients behalf as Consul only to challenge 

jurisdiction and to have this matter dismissed. I believe this court lacks a 

jurisdiction. I want to see the supposed personal and subject matter jurisdiction 

duly placed into evidence and all questions in this affidavit answered on the 

record and for the record in order to proceed. My client declines the solicitation 

of this commercial activity. 

Id.

1

 The complaint then lists a series of statements and questions that are either irrelevant or 

incomprehensible. For example, Ra El asks, “Can you prove that the TYREE ANTOINE 

HONABLEW named in ALL CAPS in this indictment is a live flesh and blood being and not a 

corporate artificial person created by the coerced birth certificate issued Mosiah Osiris Ra El’s 

 1 Ra El does not identify any related cases in his complaint or in his Civil Cover Sheet. See 

generally Compl.; ECF No. 1-1 at 2. 
2

Mother at his bearth [sic] by hospital personnel without disclosure of the nature of this 

document?” Id. 3–4. He then references extensive case law that purportedly supports the 

proposition that the Court cannot proceed without jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction can be 

challenged at any time. Id. at 4–6. Finally, Ra El makes a series of “demands,” including:

It is hereby demanded by Mosiah Osiris Ra El whom is a Public and Divine 

Minister of an Aboriginal and Autonomous Indigenous Al Moroccan/American 

religious state and a de jure party in first part to the Original American 

constitution as part and parcel of We the American People . . . that any and all 

actions to proceed in any form of prosecution, solicitation, litigation, mitigation, 

accusation, adjudication, interrogation, search, seizure, harassment, et al against 

TYREE ANTOINE HONABLEW and Divine Minister Mosiah Osiris Ra El be 

ceased, disassociated, and desisted with prejudice in this matter . . . . It is hereby 

demanded a live flesh and blood injured party be produced on the record for the 

record. . . . It is demanded proof that my client is not a Public Minister of a de 

jure Foreign organic religious state be produced on the record for the record. . . . 

It is demanded all parties of the UNITED STATES and COMMON WEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA produce proof of Nationality or citizenship on the record for the 

record pursuant to requirements of Diversity of Citizenship subject matter 

jurisdiction, and if Diverse from the ab origine Muur American Indian Nobility of 

Mosiah Osiris Ra El and his property TYREE ANTOINE HONABLEW that this 

unaccepted solicitation be deceased as herein moved.

Id. at 7–8. He states that “This true bill must be tendered within 21 calendar days,” and 

closes by calling his pleading “A TRUE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.” Id. at 8. 

The Court finds that it lacks the power to hear this case. Ra El asserts no cognizable 

claims and presents no cognizable controversies for the Court to resolve. He does not appear to 

allege that he was injured by the defendant. Indeed, he does not even refer to the defendant at all 

after captioning his filing. The Court “may dismiss a complaint sua sponte . . . where it is 

‘patently obvious’ that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.” Perry 

v. Discover Bank, 514 F. Supp. 2d 94, 95 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole 

Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726–27 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Ra El’s complaint fits the bill. 
3

The complaint must also be dismissed for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. While pleadings prepared by pro se litigants are not held to the same standard 

as pleadings prepared by attorneys, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must 

still comply with those rules. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).2 Rule 8(a) 

requires a complaint to include a “short and plain statement” explaining why the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Ra El’s complaint fails to do that.

For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. A separate order 

will issue. 

/s/ Timothy J. Kelly

TIMOTHY J. KELLY

United States District Judge

Date: November 22, 2019

 2 Although Ra El indicates on his Civil Cover Sheet that he is proceeding pro se, see ECF No. 1-

1 at 1, he repeatedly states in his complaint that he is acting on behalf of Tyree Antoine 

Honablew, see, e.g., Compl. at 8. He also asserts that he is not an attorney. See id. at 4 (“Mosiah 

Osiris Ra El does not do ‘Attorneys’ as I have found them to be injurious to my freedom, life,

liberty and pursuit of happiness.”). Ra El’s lay representation of Honablew is proscribed by law. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984).