Litigant-in-person files notice to ‘f*ck this court and everything it stands for’

By on

This expletive-fuelled — but strangely nearly cogent — notice to a US federal court judge may be the rudest official legal document ever


One of the strongest arguments against the last government’s slash-and-burn of civil legal aid was that the cuts will remove lawyers from the equation and clog courts with litigants-in-person, who may have strong points, but will make a rambling mess of their cases.

Well, if this example from the US is an indication of what we have to look forward to, some might cry: bring it on — if only for the comedy value.

Meet Floridian Tamah Jada Clark. She is a woman who doesn’t take any sh*t from the bench. We use that word and construction advisedly, as it is exactly in the spirit of Clark’s 34-page submission to the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division).

To put it simply, and in language Clark would understand, the litigant-in-person tears Judge Willis B Hunt Jr a new a*shole.

Our friends at Above the Law in the States have unearthed this written submission to the court from last week, in which Clark unleashes a fusillade of expletives at the bench far too numerous to recite in full.

But here’s a taster from the just the first page:

“Don’t you ever again in your mother*ucking [sic] life attempt to disrespect me, my family or our status again. Keep our names out of your unworthy mouth — you old IMPOTENT geezer.”

The notice itself is headed:

“To f*ck this court and everything it stands for.”

Robust advocacy, indeed — and let’s face it, what member of the English bar won’t have harboured similar sentiments regarding certain judges in the past.

The thing about Clark’s submission is that while her style is peppered with obscenities — albeit, coyly modified with asterisks — she still writes in a relatively lucid and grammatically correct manner … mostly.

Clark also throws loads of law and legal argument into the mix — whether any of it is remotely valid is open to debate and analysis by those more au fait with US jurisprudence than those in the Legal Cheek offices.

But at least Clark gets a gold star for trying — and for personality.

Read the submission in full below:

Notice to Fuck This Court and Everything That It Stands For


Non-Oxbridge Pleb

Extract from page 4, for those too lazy to read the full thing:

“Look here, old man, when I told you I AM Justice-I meant it. It took me about I month to study the history of the world and to learn the history and inner workings of American jurisprudence, literally. I was born to do this here. Don’t you know that your FBI and CIA have been trying to recruit me since grade school? Lol. But they re unscrupulous losers like you, so it won’t be happening.”

…Yeah. Grammatically correct, I suppose, but lucid not so much. She has also attached a document explaining why most Americans do not owe income tax, and detailed how she is not a federal citizen, but a citizen of Florida, and therefore federal laws do not apply to her.

Far from being funny, this sort of thing is rather sad. It is always worth looking at Meads v Meads, a Canadian case in which Justice John D Rooke dealt comprehensively with the insane arguments submitted by litigant in person Mr Dennis Larry Meads, in the vein of ‘sovereign citizen’ or ‘freeman on the land’ stuff. These desperate people are sold a nonsensical pipe dream by libertarian ‘gurus’ who tell them that the Courts are actually admiralty Courts, that the State has no jurisdiction over a person if they can spout the correct incantation to a Judge, and that they can be separated into a ‘flesh and blood person’ and their legal personage, which is a corporation under their name which attracts all of their tax and legal duties.

It is a small plague in Canada and the USA, and does exist in England & Wales too. And it is utterly demonstrative of why we need good legal aid.

(Meads v Meads here. It is a wonderful read: )


Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark

Non-Oxbridge Pleb, You simply have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just a know-nothing, nobody who felt it would give meaning to your life to hop up on this comments section and hand out faulty, “legal advice”, when almost surely you have little to NO knowledge about the facts of the matter about which you speak. How “scholarly” of you. What’s sad is that you even feel “right” or justified opening your uninformed mouth on this matter. If anyone has any questions, they can direct them to me. You simply do not know what you’re talking about, whereas, I OBVIOUSLY do being that I tore that judge “a new one” without ANY repercussions whatsoever.


Non-Oxbridge Pleb

As much as this is funny for us, it is also quite sad. The woman writing in this case has been taken in by the ‘sovereign citizens’, ‘freemen on the land’, or whatever they call themselves this week. From Page 4, for those who didn’t have time to read the full thing:

“Look here, old man, when I told you I AM Justice-I meant it. It took me about 1 month to study the history of the world and to learn the history and inner workings of American jurisprudence, literally. I was born to do this here. Don’t you know that your FBI and CIA have been trying to recruit me since grade school? Lol. But they’re unscrupulous losers like you, so it won’t be happening.”

She claims not to be a federal citizen, but rather a citizen of Florida, and attaches a self-written article about why she is not legally required to pay income tax.

The superb Canadian case of Meads v Meads dealt with just about every argument that these people make. In Canada and England, they appeal to ‘the Common Law’ as being a kind of secret code, claiming that everything since the Restoration is invalid, or something like that. In the USA they tend to claim that the Federal Government is illegal, or that the Courts are actually Admiralty Courts with no jurisdiction over them, and one need only pronounce a mystical incantation to be relieved of all responsibility for everything.

These people fall prey to ‘gurus’ (dealt with extensively in Meads v Meads) who profess to have unlocked The Truth(tm). They charge money for nonsensical ‘advice’ to conspiracy theorists and lunatics, but also desperate people who think that they have found a way out. The judicial smackdowns that result are highly entertaining, but leave a sour taste in the mouth when one considers that they are essentially ruining a mentally unstable person who has been negligently advised.

Does anyone have any examples of English or Australian cases? This stuff crops up in the US all the time, and Meads v Meads deals with Canada. I know it exists in England but haven’t seen an example for a while. The civil law countries seem more immune to it (though I have been told it exists in Germany).



I’d also be interested to hear if there are any freeman-on-the-land cases from this side of the pond. I’ve bumped into a few of those nutters in my time. They’re quite funny until you realise how dangerous they are.


Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark

Oh, just be quiet.



There’s an excellent video on YouTube of the Freemen of the Land (accompanied by a BNP Mayoral Candidate, just so you know the company they keep) storming the County Court at Birkenhead over council tax. One chap even brings a black cap and noose to hang the Judge.


Juan Pertayta

I know a FOTL. He also believes in Big Foot and that the moon landings were faked.

FOTLs are certainly good for a laugh on Youtube. The Birkenhead court invasion footage is corking, I agree. And there’s a great one of an ice-cream seller ‘winning’ against an Environmental Health inspector.

Some of the most entertaining FOTL nonsenses are:

– put a colon between your first- and surnames and you won’t have to pay tax;
– avoid the reach of the criminal law by saying “I do not stand under” if a policeman reads you your rights and asks if you understand;
– spring free of all statutory obligations by writing to the Queen and declaring yourself sovereign;
– shout “man overboard!” when someone leaves a courtroom (there’s a ludicrous reason for that supposedly to do with Admiralty law, but I can’t be arsed to check what the no doubt rock solid jurisprudence is).

I find these people weirdly fascinating.


7th Baron Col. Prof. Lampcock, BA LLB LLM BBC MAd Phal DIC

A very fine submission – I powerfully resent the libellous intimations of this article against the learned and honourable OPCA community.

In fact, I intend to personally represent Ms Clark on a pro bono basis. I shan’t detail my masterful strategy here; suffice to say that I have drafted an alternative constitution, which I shall argue is valid across those so-called ‘United States’ and so will adjust those atrocious legal imbalances which have plagued noble sovereign persons for far too long. Fortunately I have acquired a diploma through a week’s diligent study under partners at a noted attorney’s chambers, so this will not be a problem.



Are you the fake Lord Harley?


Comments are closed.