07 Oct Suing the International Court of Justice
Here’s a strange case I came across that I thought you might enjoy. It seems one Quintin Littlejohn had his own ideas about how to handle the situation in Kosovo and was upset with how the International Court of Justice was hijacking his issue. So he sues the ICJ.
Here is an excerpt of the decision of the magistrate judge, adopted by the federal district court in South Carolina, in the case of Littlejohn v. International Court of Justice, 2007 WL 601645 (D.S.C. 2007):
In the above-captioned case, the plaintiff has brought suit against the International Court of Justice and its building, the Peace Palace, in The Hague, a city in The Netherlands. In the “STATEMENT OF CLAIM” portion of the complaint, the plaintiff refers to his often-used acronym: “K-DLLL (Kosovo Doctrine Littlejohn Litigation and Law).” The plaintiff alleges that former President William Jefferson Clinton “stole” the plaintiff’s agenda…. In his prayer for relief, the plaintiff seeks “Injunctive Relief to the extent of all the wealth of the litigation” previously filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also appears to be requesting that money be held in the Municipal Court for the Town of Gaffney, [South Carolina].
This court is required to construe pro se complaints and petitions liberally. Such pro se complaints and petitions are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, and a federal district court is charged with liberally construing a complaint or petition filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case…. Even under this less stringent standard, the complaint is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court.
The International Court of Justice “is a[j]udicial arm of the United Nations.” The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases and collateral attacks on convictions.. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is limited to disputes between nations. It should also be noted that the above-captioned case is barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Moreover, no state or federal court can issue process against the United Nations and any of its component agencies or bodies by virtue of the location of the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.
Insofar as the plaintiff is complaining about the foreign policy of the United States, this case is subject to summary dismissal under the “political question” doctrine. Under the “political question” doctrine, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina cannot address the plaintiff’s claims relating to an alliance or alliances of the United States, its foreign policy toward other nations and international organizations, or matters handled by the United Nations Security Council or the International Court of Justice.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Court summarily dismiss the above-captioned case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
He doesn’t really have the panache of a Jonathan Lee Riches who has sued among others the Uniform Commercial Code and I believe the Vienna Convention. But maybe there’s something in the water in South Carolina.