UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LOGAN LAKE,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-237 DRL-MGG

UNITED STATES CONGRESS et al.,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Logan Lake, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court still must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. In his complaint, Mr. Lake states he is suing the United States Congress for security fraud negligence because it was loath to return the legal documentation he sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. ECF 1 at 3. Specifically, he asserts that between January 2019 and March 2021, he sent documents and letters to the Senate regarding: “Item Nos. Impeachment - Lawsuit - et seq., Sovereignty - Education - et seq., Prince - 999-99-999, and LBL - PERJURY - 0007”; however, he never received a response from Congress. Id. at 3-4. Mr. Lake asserts that Congress has “no more right to decline to answer and respond to [his] documents and/or instruments sent to any part or body thereof the United States Congress, than to usurp or use [his] documents and/or instruments without the

obligation to notice [him] and fraud to do so without [his] grant, leave, permission, remission, submission and/or consent which has not been given.” Id. at 4. He states that the “one or the other are to be treason to both the States and Federal Constitutions.” Id. In seeking this court’s relief, he further argues: Any/all commissioned Public Trust Official in a setting toward the public has placed the charge with the fiduciary obligation under the Federal mandate trust laws thereof their Constitutional Oath of Office affirmance under obligation to the trust laws and its provisions thereof the USDC Const. Fourteenth Amend. XIV (1868), to not deliberate conceal material information caused by their failure to respond and/or answer any/all documents or papers sent to them under their duties to do so even if one is harsh and sarcastic due to their responsibility to lisen, or that individual(s) and/or person(s) are guilty of fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit, made in pursuance thereof COLOSSIAN 4:6 statute, via “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you know how you should response to each one”; STARE DECISIS UNITED STATES VS. PRUDDER of 1970 (

) “Silence can only equate with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to respond or where an inquiry left unanswer would be intentionally misleading.” This is one that designed “actual” or “positive” civil servant’s act that is ground for removal from Office, made in pursuance thereof Corpus Juris Secundum Officers and Public Employees §§ 133, 164-166; fraud or “fraud in fact” or “fraud in Moral Law. It means fraud, as per Corpus Juris Secundum Contracts §§ 2- 3, 9, 12, which involves actual guilt, a wrongful purpose, or moral obliquity in real property law and law of insurance, due to failure or falsehood of an affirmative promise or statement, of non-performance of an executory stipulation wrongful omission by Congress of any act required by the Constitutional terms of the trust and commission. Who must exercise a general standard thereof due and proper care in course add diligence in protecting such management activity imposed by law and/or contract, owed to . . . [him] to follow the terms of the trust and the requirements of applicable law particularly which equity lays upon Congress, whether willful and fraudulent, or done through negligence or arising through mere oversight or forgetfulness, is a breach of duty by the United States Congress. Currently to present day and time Congress’ actions have negligently render the possibility of having a free and open discussions an impossibility under the color of law for unethical reasons that created deprivation of [his] freedom of speech right to be heard in his conscience that have systemicly caused an Non-Transparency between the United States Government and its We the People, becoming dangerously harsh and tyrannical in its nature. Under the Clean-hands doctrine, as per Corpus Juris Secundum Equity § 102, the principle that the United States Congress cannot seek equitable relief nor assert an equitable defense due to Congress has violated an equitable principle, such as the variety of types of Nonfeasance or Nonperformance or misfeasance conduct characterized as involving the United States Congressional Senate Judiciary Committee’s ‘bad faith’ because they have violated Congressional community standards of decency, fairness, and reasonableness duties of Constitutional good faith, made in pursuance thereof this Constitution and Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 cmt. a (1979). The said to Attach Senate Judiciary Committee’s Bad faith upon its dishonesty of belief or purpose observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business as ordained by We the American People, made subject, by the United States Federal Constitution (1871) Article 1 § 8 (17), to the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the Several States intrusted right and duties of Congress that shall include claims made by [him] arising on obligations of right and justice, made in pursuance thereof SENATE DOCUMENT NUMBER 170, 82nd CONGRESS, 2nd SESSION; STARE DECISIS BARRON VS. BALTIMORE of 1833 (

); AND STARE DECISIS CHISHOLM VS. GEORGIA of 1793 (

). “PERIOD”

Id. at 4-6. Though Mr. Lake is generally unhappy with the United States Congress, his allegations as they pertain to this lawsuit boil down to his belief that his constitutional rights were violated because Congress either fraudulently or negligently breached its duty to respond to his documents and papers. Id. Mr. Lake cannot proceed on his claims for several reasons. First, the court cannot hear Mr. Lake’s claim against the United States Congress because his complaint fails to allege that it has waived sovereign immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer,

(1994); Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys.,

(7th Cir. 2005). “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” Meyer,

. “Sovereign immunity” which is “jurisdictional in nature,” means that unless Congress waives sovereign immunity, this court does not have jurisdiction

over Mr. Lake’s claim.

Furthermore, Mr. Lake has failed to identify any constitutional violation against the United States Congress. “The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States,

(7th Cir. 2018). However, “courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.” Hukic v. Aurora Loan

Servs.,

(7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons previously explained, such is the case here. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. SO ORDERED. January 27, 2022 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court