The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"The Alleged Misdeeds of Jewish Individuals, Elected Officials, Judges and Others in Myriad Circumstances,"
"including Plaintiff's divorce proceedings and criminal case."
From Uzamere v. Trump, decided Monday by Judge Timothy Kelly (D.D.C.):
Over 201 paragraphs and 95 pages of the original complaint, Plaintiff purports to challenge Executive Orders 13899 and 14188 [the ones related to "Combating Anti-Semitism" -EV] on the ground that they "violate the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution] that prohibits the government from establishing a religion; and the Free Exercise Clause, that protects individuals' right to practice their religion … as they choose."
Plaintiff, "an adherent of the Jehovah's Christian Witnesses sect," alleges the Executive Orders are "designed to subject individuals who engage in disseminating information regarding members of Jewish leadership who engage in unconstitutional, tortious or criminal acts that are permitted by the Babylonian Talmud to be subject to Jewish leadership's interference with commerce by threats, violence and other tortious and criminal offenses."
What follows is a lengthy discussion of Plaintiff's prior lawsuits, lawsuits filed by others, and the alleged misdeeds of Jewish individuals, elected officials, judges and others in myriad circumstances, including Plaintiff's divorce proceedings and criminal case. It is not clear whether or how these matters pertain to Executive Orders 13899 and 14188, however, particularly insofar as certain events occurred prior to the election of the current President of the United States and issuance of Executive Order 14188. Nor is it clear whether or how enforcement of the Executive Orders affects Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's original complaint is neither short, plain, nor intelligible, and her Errata (ECF No. 4) and myriad exhibits (ECF Nos. 1-1 through 1-58, 4-2 through 4-34) utterly [fail] to clarify matters. Because the pleading fails to meet Rule 8(a)'s minimum pleading standard, the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The court dismissed the suit without prejudice for access-to-justice reasons, but us private citizens are free to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiff as both nutty.
I'm sure that the plaintiff will take this dismissal without prejudice and use the opportunity to present a tight and cohesive narrative showing a clear right to relief.
Any judicial opinion that recounts the length of the complaint is going to dismiss that complaint. You can safely bet on that.
This one is not even that long. I once was involved in a case where the complaint was much longer, and the judge characterized the Complaint as a "Serbonian Bog."
The top result for this woman's name is for a granted motion to dismiss
"In 2023, plaintiff commenced the instant action, setting forth 11 causes of action against 137 defendants in a 175-page amended complaint [*2]with thousands of pages of exhibits"
This plaintiff is an idiot. He has no idea what we're really up to.
The first result for the plaintiff's name is another court case. The second is a NYDN story from 2009 that begins:
"A woman suing her Nigerian husband for millions started screaming and ripping off her clothes before her arraignment on Wednesday on charges of threatening to kill a Brooklyn judge."
The complaint seems pretty simple in its thrust. It basically says “Jews and Judaism are evil, so anything government does to protect them violates the Establishment Clause.”
We’ve certainly seen variants of the theme on the comments on this blog. Several regular commenters repeatedly say “Religion and religious people are evil (or sometimes just Christianity and Christians are evil, and occassionally Islam and Muslims), so anything Government does ro protect them violates the Establishment Clause.”
The complaint strikes me as clear enough to warrant dismissal with prejudice.