United States District Court, D. Maine
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Plaintiff,
SHANNON R. MOORE, Defendant, STEVE THOMES, Party-in-Interest.
ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on
November 25, 2019, his Order on Defendant's Pending
Motions. Order on Def.'s Pending Mots. (ECF No.
35) (Order). The order addressed filings of
Defendant Shannon Moore which the Magistrate Judge
interpreted as “a motion for entry of default and
challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court (ECF No. 22), a
motion for administrative declaratory judgment (ECF No. 32),
and a motion to compel restitution (ECF No. 32).”
Id. Ms. Moore filed her objection to the order on
November 26, 2019, see Order to Strike Magistrate's
Order (ECF 35) and Replace with Sovereign Pet'r's
Order to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 39)
(Def.'s Obj.), and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as
Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (U.S. Bank) filed
its response to the objection on December 16, 2019. See
Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Reconsider Ct.
Orders Under ECF Doc. 28, 29, 30, and 35 (ECF No. 40).
Moore argues that the Magistrate Judge has erred “by
misrepresenting the status of the Sovereign with the word
‘defendant' in conflict with the Petitioner
commercial affidavit E[CF] 15-1 and counter claim E[CF] 16
and all documents thereafter.” Def.'s Obj.
at 2. This argument stems from Ms. Moore's
self-description as “the Sovereign In Fact Shannon,
” id. at 1, or elsewhere “Moore:
Shannon, as Woman, Sovereign Petitioner.” Id.
at 13. In her objection, she describes “three
categories of people in our Corporate United States”:
(1) Sovereign peoples “who are the beneficiaries and
heirs to the said ‘we the people'”; (2)
Government persons/people, who are “employees of one of
the many corporations with the associated name iteration of
‘The United States'”; and (3) Statutory
Citizens, “who are consciously or unconsciously
14th amendment citizens . . ..” Id.
at 6. Although she seems to place herself in the first
category of people, Ms. Moore does not directly propose that
because she describes herself as Sovereign, she is immune
from suit or retains a special legal status that affects her
susceptibility to a civil action. Whatever way she elects to
describe herself, for purposes of this lawsuit, Ms. Moore is
the Defendant, and the Magistrate Judge did not err by
referring to her as such.
Moore states that the Magistrate Judge “erred by taking
4 weeks versus three days in addressing the lack of
jurisdiction issue.” Id. However, Ms. Moore
cannot impose any deadline on the Magistrate Judge simply by
writing “72 HOURS TO DEFAULT OF WRONGDOER” in her
filing. Judicial Notice at 1 (ECF No. 22) (emphasis
Moore contends that the Magistrate Judge “has failed to
recognize that the ADMINISTRATIVE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
instrument is a binding contract by operation of law that has
already been recognized as the valid instrument that has
expunged alleged petitioner[']s debt and discharged the
recorded mortgage” and that therefore, U.S. Bank has
“fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Def.'s Obj. at 2. Ms. Moore
appears to be referring to the second attachment to her
filing entitled “Claimant's Administrative
Declaratory Judgment, Motion to Compel Restitution
Payment.” Claimant's Admin. Declaratory J.,
Mot. to Compel Restitution Payment (ECF No. 32). The
attachment, entitled “Administrative Declaratory
Judgment, ” appears to be Ms. Moore's attempt to
unilaterally find that U.S. Bank's failure to respond to
one of her previous filings allowed her to impose a final
judgment on U.S. Bank that discharged the mortgage and loan
at issue in this case. Id., Attach. 2. Ms. Moore
does not have the power to impose deadlines on other parties
to this litigation or create consequences for failure to
comply with her deadlines.
Court reviewed the remainder of Ms. Moore's objection and
determined that it does not relate to the Magistrate
Court has reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's
Order, together with the entire record; the Court has made a
de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by
the Magistrate Judge's Order; and the Court concurs with
the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for
the reasons set forth in his Order, and determine that no
further proceeding is necessary.
therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Order on
Defendant's Pending Motions (ECF No. 35) be and hereby is
AFFIRMED. The Court OVERRULES Defendant Shannon R.
Moore's “Order to Strike Magistrate's Order
(ECF 35) and Replace with Sovereign Petitioner's Order to
Dismiss with Prejudice” (ECF No. 39); DENIES Defendant
Shannon R. Moore's “Judicial Notice 72 Hours to
Default of Wrongdoer” (ECF No. 22); and DENIES