After all, this guy invented his own language and from 2010 to 2012 intitiated about a hundred court actions in Hawaii, California, and other states with claims written in that language, despite the difficulty everyone else has of understanding it.
Most of the actions are in concert with one or two other plaintiffs, often with the same surname, against a bank of mortgage company. I speculate that they claim a mortgage is fraudulent, the homeowners don't need to pay it back yet can keep the home. I have to speculate because these judgements don't tell us what the plaintiffs wanted.
As an example, in the case of David Wynn-Miller et al v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, et al. in Hawaii in 2012, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi said:
(I omit the citations.)Plaintiffs’ Complaint is completely nonsensical and has no apparent relationship to any claim for judicial relief. It does not contain any coherent or complete sentences, let alone identify any specific claims that Plaintiffs are advancing or factual allegations they are making. Indeed, the Court cannot make out a single allegation from the Complaint. The Complaint is essentially comprised of a random collection of unintelligible words, symbols, and initials laid out in no apparent order. This incoherent text cannot be said to provide Defendants fair notice of the wrongs they have allegedly committed.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action for failure to comply with Rule 8. Further, the dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE because the Court FINDS, based on the content of the Complaint as well as Plaintiff David-Wynn Miller’s numerous other filings in this district court, that he has filed this action in bad faith and that granting leave to amend would be futile.
In the case of Kualaau et al v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway said:
In a footnote, the judge observes:This Complaint is only one of many filed by David-Wynn Miller in this court (as well as many other federal courts). Like his other filings, the Complaint consists of a collection of disjointed words, symbols, letters, and phrases and is completely unintelligible. As a result, those of Miller’s other complaints that have been the subject of court rulings have been dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and/or Rule 12(b)(6). [Citations omitted.]
The Complaint in this action must be dismissed for the same reasons-–it is unintelligible and frivolous on its face. Indeed this court has just filed an Order Directing David Wynn Miller To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Required To Obtain Leave of Court Before Filing Any New Action.
In that case, there was a filing fee of $350. Around 100 cases would be $35,000. Doubtless Mr (not Judge) Miller is a generous soul who gives away his time to help hard-working house-owners against the evil mortgage companies. I don't suppose he offers a "no win no fee" guarantee. I wonder if, perhaps, homeowners make any donations to Mr Miller in return for his services. Donations equivalent to the court fees wouldn't be a bad living. He boasts on his video that he wins court cases, including in the US supreme court.The Complaint refers to David-Wynn Miller as a federal judge, although he is not a judge of any United States tribunal. Miller is cautioned not to make false representations.
He has also failed in Australia.
On his website, David describes his invented language. Sadly, he does so (eg Overview-syntax) using his invented language, so it's not a lot of help to newbies like me. His videos such as QUANTUM LANGUAGE OF LAW by JUDGE :David-Wynn: Miller are easier as he talks in a more conventional English. He parses sentences into parts of speech: verb, noun, adverb and so on. He gives syntax rules for how parts of speech may be put together to form valid sentences. An invalid sentence is an illusion, a lie. His syntax rules are different to everyone else's, naturally. Statutes, regulations and the Lord's Prayer don't follow his rules so are invalid.
Sample rules: to be valid, a sentence must start with "FOR". The only valid verbs are "IS" and "ARE", and gerunds. Adverbs and adjectives are not allowed. (The reason for this is that "adjective" and "adverb" both start with a vowel and two consonants, so they both mean "no contract", which makes the sentence untrue.)
When trying to understand these rules, the real difficulty is that David's definitions of verb, noun, adverb are different to everyone else's. As an example, he parses [video 50m 0s] "The United States of America". Most of us would parse this as "article, adjective, plural noun, preposition, proper noun", combining to form a noun-phrase. David agrees, but moves on: "the" and "of" are separated so both become adverbs. The adverb modifies the adjective, the adjective modifies the pronoun [what pronoun?], the pronoun is connected by the adverb which then modifies the dangling participle verb "America". A pronoun is apparently any word that stands alone.
The video goes on to explain exactly how to write lawsuits. For some reason, he doesn't mention his many failures I mention above, nor that he has been declared a vexatious litigant.
What authority does David claim for his assertion that his language rules are correct, and conventional language is wrong? No authority, as far as I can see. He tells us that a botched operation left him dead for half an hour, and he then didn't sleep for eight years. Perhaps his brain has rewired itself.
