Michael-destry Williams Trust v. United States
This text of Michael-destry Williams Trust v. United States (Michael-destry Williams Trust v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PATRICIA W. GRIFFIN CHANCERY COURTHOUSE MASTER IN CHANCERY 34 The Circle GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
Final Report: April 30, 2018 Date Submitted: April 13, 2018
Michael-destry Family of Williams Federal Correction Institution FCI Englewood Prison BOP# 39714-013 9595 W. Quincy Avenue Littleton, CO 80123
RE: Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America C.A. No.
Dear Mr. Williams:
You have filed a petition for instructions with this Court, naming the United
States of America, Inc., as defendant. Although your petition is not entirely clear,
you appear to be seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief releasing you
from incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood, in
Littleton, Colorado, because of allegedly unlawful presentment and trial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in
which you were found guilty and incarcerated. You argue that, since the United
States of America, Inc. was a corporation originally registered in Delaware, this Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America Civil Action No. April 30, 2018
Court has jurisdiction over your case. You also appear to be seeking instructions
from this Court related to administration of the M.D.W.© trust. Further, you seek
approval to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. I recommend that the Court
grant your request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss your petition as
legally frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This is a final report.
I. Background
In the petition, you claim that you are the sole “foreign beneficiary” under a
trust known as “MICHAEL DESTRY WILLIAMS © (M.D.W.© trust)” which you
allege was created by the United States of America, Inc. between May 23, 1964,
the date of your birth, and May 23, 1982, the date of your majority.1 You state that
you were arrested by the U.S. Marshal Service under a commercial presentment,
brought before the United States District Court of the District of Colorado, and
following a jury trial, were found guilty and incarcerated. You allege that the
“officers and agents of the U.S.A. Corp and or their subsidiaries [sic] corporations”
have not produced claims of the contractual obligations between the parties,
including a “commercial” presentment and claim in the United States District
Court of the District of Colorado and in the 4 th Judicial District, El Paso County,
Colorado.2 You further assert that you have not received a “true benefit” from the
1 Pet’r’s Pet. for Instr. ¶¶ 1 - 3. 2 Id. ¶ 10.
2 Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America Civil Action No. April 30, 2018
M.D.W.© trust to date and, after requesting that the Social Security Administration
close and distribute the trust in 2009, you seek an “accounting of the M.D.W. ©
trust [to] provide prima facie evidence of the mismanagement and rape of said trust
and the violations of fudiciary [sic] responsibilities of officers, agents and trustees
thereof.”3
II. Analysis
I have reviewed your application to proceed in forma pauperis. To proceed
in forma pauperis, a litigant, who is an inmate, must provide a sworn affidavit
addressing his ability to pay court costs or fees and a certification of his inmate
account.4 Upon review of the information provided, a court may grant the inmate
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.5 Your application meets the criteria for
prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. § 8804, and I recommend
the Court grant your application to proceed in forma pauperis.
If the Court grants the inmate’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, then
the Court determines whether the complaint is factually frivolous, malicious or
legally frivolous.6 I recommend that the Court dismiss your petition as legally
frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Delaware’s in forma pauperis
3 Id. ¶¶12, 15, 17. 4 10 Del. C. § 8804. 5 Id.
3 Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America Civil Action No. April 30, 2018
statute defines a legally frivolous complaint as one that is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.”7 The Court of Chancery is a Delaware state
court of limited jurisdiction. It has subject matter jurisdiction over a case in three
ways: (1) the plaintiff asserts an equitable claim; (2) the plaintiff requests equitable
relief for which there is no adequate remedy at law; or (3) subject matter
jurisdiction is conferred by statute.8 When it appears that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action, the action must be dismissed.9
Because subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, a court has an “independent
obligation to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction if it is in doubt.”10
Here, it does not appear from your petition that any of the alleged acts of
which you complain occurred in Delaware. You fail to allege any actions that
were taken by the agents or officers of a corporation, the “United States of
America, Inc.,” which you claim was registered in Delaware at some point. Your
complaints relate to actions taken by officers and agents of the United States
federal government, and most specifically, actions taken by the United States
6 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). 7 10 Del. C. § 8801(7); McCoy v. Taylor, 1998 WL 842322, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 12, 1998). 8 Cf. Envo, Inc. v. Walters, 2009 WL 5173807, at *4 (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 2009), aff'd, 2013 WL 1283533 (Del. Mar. 28, 2013). 9 Ct. Ch. R. 12(h)(3); see also Czarninski Baier, v. Upper New York Inv. Co. LLC, 2018 WL 1791996, at *5 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2018).
4 Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America Civil Action No. April 30, 2018
District Court for the District of Colorado which led to your incarceration. Further,
you seek an accounting of the M.D.W. © trust, which you claim was set up by the
federal government, without your agreement, with you as the only beneficiary.
Your petition does not show that the M.D.W. © trust is an existing trust, or that it
has any connection to, or activities in, Delaware. The remedy for your claims
regarding federal criminal matters occurring in Colorado, or otherwise related to
actions by the federal government, is not available through this Court.
None of your claims demonstrate a connection to Delaware or a Delaware
entity, or request relief that this Court can grant. This Court has addressed similar
issues previously and dismissed the complaints for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.11 I find this Court lacks the authority to grant the relief you request,
and recommend that the Court dismiss this petition as legally frivolous for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.12
III. Conclusion
10 Appriva S'holder Litig. Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1284 (Del. 2007). 11 Cf. Critchfield v. Rios, 2016 WL 2755881, at *2-*3 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2016); IMO Bechard, 2016 WL 1169097, at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 17, 2016); Bechard v. Rios, 2016 WL 402471, at *1-*2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2016). 12 It can be determined, alternatively, that the corporate defendant you charged is not the real party in interest.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael-destry Williams Trust v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-destry-williams-trust-v-united-states-delch-2018.