Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR Document 25 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ANTHONY KEYTER, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. 08-097-SLR
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, g
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS, )
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO )
GONZALES, and FBI DIRECTOR )
ROBERT MUELLER, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. BACKGROLIND
On February 11, 2008, plaintiff Anthony Keyter ("Keyter") filed suit against
defendant United States of America ("the government") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas ("the Texas action"). Keyter v. United States of
America, No. 3:08—cv—00260-O (N.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2008). Keyter, a resident of Gig
Harbor, Washington, alleged "twenty—two causes of harm and suffering inflicted upon
him, including failures to abide by the Constitution, slander, destruction of career and
livelihood, intimidation, retaliation, stalking by government assassins and conspiracy to
kidnap and murder him." Q at 2. Although naming the government as the only
defendant, Keyter specifically asserted charges of conspiracy to kidnap and murder
against President George W. Bush, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. On April 8, 2008,

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR Document 25 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 2 of 4
the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), transferred the Texas action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington}
On February 12, 2008, Keyter filed virtually the identical case in this court ("the
Delaware action").2 Specifically, Keyter alleges violations of several criminal statutesg
by defendants President George W. Bush, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller. (D.I. 1, 6) Keyter asserts
there is a "seditious conspiracy and insurrection against the laws of the United States"
and contends defendants have attempted to kidnap and murder him." (D.I. 6 at 6) He
‘After finding no connection between the alleged facts and the Northern District
of Texas, the court concluded that the interests ofjustice favored transferring the case
to the district where Keyter resides and where a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to Keyter’s claims occurred.
ZA comparison of the papers filed in the Texas action and Delaware action
reveals obvious duplications and similarities. For example, both contain the same
complaint titled "Affidavit of complaining witness/criminal complaint: insurrection and
seditious conspiracy against the laws of the United States" signed and submitted by
Keyter on May 23, 2007. Following each complaint are the exact same 39 pages,
which include: (1) Appendices I and II; (2) a request that criminal charges be lodged
against 443 "insurgents"; (3) a request for injunction; (4) removal from office ofthe
"insurrectionists"; (5) charges of treason lodged against 535 members of the 110"‘
Congress of the United States; and (6) the following caveat:
You are further requested to advise me without delay of what action you have
taken, if any, to deal with this Criminal Complaint. Should I fail to hearfrom you
by return, I shall have no choice but to assume that you have no intention of
removing the insurgents from public office, providing protection ofthe laws, and
dealing with the insurrection and Seditious Conspiracy against the laws of the
United States.
(Delaware action, D.I. 1 at 5; Texas Action, D.I. 1 at 5)
318 U.S.C. § 3, § 1117, § 1201 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381 through 2384,
"Keyter has an extensive litigation history. gg, www.anthonykeyter.com By his
own account, Keyter has sent correspondence to each defendant "informing them of
the criminal conspiracy against the laws and appealing for the enforcement,
administration, and execution of the laws, provide further clear evidence of their role in
the seditious conspiracy to kidnap and murder" him. (D.I. 6 at 21, "To President Bush -
2

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR Document 25 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 3 of 4
urges the court to compel defendants to obey the laws and to protect plaintiff "against
prospective government assassins by arresting the plotters" any by initiating criminal
prosecution of defendants.5 (D.l. 6 at 3) He does not allege any of the conduct at issue
occurred in Delaware?
ll. VENUE
28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) provides, in part:
A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of
legal authority, or an agency ofthe United States, or the United States, may,
except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in anyjudicial district in
which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of
property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) the plaintiff resides
if no real property is involved in the action.
Considering this statute against Keyter’s copious filings, the court finds venue in
the District of Delaware is inappropriate. Specifically, there is no evidence of record
that any defendant resides in Delaware. Subsection two, likewise, does not provide
venue as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred
45 pieces of correspondence . . . [t]o Chief Justice Roberts - 21 pieces of
correspondence . . . [t]o the Attorney General - 34 pieces of correspondence . . . [t]o
FBI Director Mueller and the FBI -30 pieces of correspondence").
5Keyter has filed similar actions requesting criminal prosecution of government
officials, all of which have been dismissed. g Kegger v. 230 Government Officers,
372 F. Supp.2d 604, 605-08 (W.D. Wash. 2005); Keyger v. United States, Misc. No.
1:2006mc00148 (D. D.C. Mar. 9, 2006); Kegger v. McCain, Civ. Action No.
2:2005cv01923 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2005); Keyger v. Bush, Civ. Action No.
1:2003cv02496 (D. D.C. Dec. 3, 2003).
‘°’The summons and amended complaint were sen/ed on each defendant in
Washington, D.C. (D.l. 9) Subsequently, defendants’ moved to dismiss for improper
venue. (D.l. 10) Although Keyter opposes defendants’ motion, he requests that the
court transfer the case to the proper venue rather than dismiss the case. (D.I. 12 at 4)
3

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR Document 25 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 4 of 4
outside of Delaware. Similarly, subsection three does not confer venue as Keyter is a
resident of Washington.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a), a court may, in the interests ofjustice, transfer
a case where the original venue is improper to a district where venue would be proper.
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995). The decision to
transfer a case lies within the broad discretion of the district court. Stewart Org., Inc., v.
Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). Considering this record, the court finds the
interests of justice favor transferring the action to the Western District of Washington
where Keyter resides and the events at issue seem to have occurred.
III. CONCLUSION
At Wilmington this I-5+* day of August, 2008, for the reasons stated;
IT lS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
4

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR

Document 25

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR

Document 25

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR

Document 25

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00097-SLR

Document 25

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 4 of 4