Rosser-El v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 6, 2002
• Docket: 02-1627
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1627

DAVID ROSSER-EL, Sultan; EDNA GORHAM-BEY; UNITED STATES MOORISH-AMERICAN NATION, INCORPORATED, District of Columbia, a non- profit corporation; ANITA E. BELLE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED KINGDOM; NATION OF GERMANY; NATION OF PORTUGAL; NATION OF SPAIN; NATION OF ITALY; NATION OF FRANCE; HOLY SEE; NATION OF DENMARK; JUAN CARLOS, I, King of Spain, as beneficiary of the Estate of Isabel I and Ferdinand I; ELIZABETH, II of the United Kingdom; CROWN OF LONDON; NATION OF THE NETHERLANDS; NATION OF BELGIUM; MOTHER SUPREME (MASONIC) COUNCIL OF THE WORLD; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; SOVEREIGN MILITARY ORDER OF MALTA; FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK; INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND; WORLD BANK; GEORGE H.W. BUSH; GEORGE W. BUSH; RUSSELL TRUST, a/k/a Yale University Order of Skull and Bones, Brotherhood of Death, of (Illuminati) Chapter 322; ROBERT GALLO; LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Northrop Grumman Corporation; THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-293-AW) 2 Submitted: October 2, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Rosser-El, Edna Gorham-Bey, Anita E. Belle, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing their

complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Rosser-El v. United States, No. CA-02-293-AW

(D. Md. filed Apr. 2, 2002, entered Apr. 3, 2002). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED