https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_1.pdf
It’s 189 pages of high-strung prose, and the self-described "one of the most intelligent attorneys in this country" filed his pleading as an image rather than a searchable pdf. I’ve transcribed a few choice bits from the couple dozen pages that I’ve skimmed.
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Mark Jerome Johnson Blount, Gentleman-Esquire, Juris Doctor, graduate of Duke University School of Law and scorer of a 173, the 99th percentile, on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) and a 169.6, roughly the 95th percentile, on the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) portion of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), and prays that this Court enter a declaratory judgment [that a number of federal firearms statutes are unconstitutional].
[59] In order to be the Sovereign, one must be the person in which all rights and power originate, the one from whom all rights are derived. The government is in no way sovereign in relation to true Americans, the Posterity, the lineal bloodline descendants of the Founding Generation, because our rights are not derived from the government, or the Constitution for that matter, but, instead, are inherited and are derived from our lineal bloodline descent from our Founding Generation ancestors, the original Sovereign Body of this country, and the one's [sic] from whom the government derives its rights and power.
[112] Owning machine guns, to wit, ordinary military weapons, is well within Plaintiff’s right to keep and bear arms, Plaintiff’s retained sovereign power, retained by his ancestors for him. Thus, in this case, Plaintiff is the Sovereign, not the government. The government is acting as a usurper of the Posterity’s sovereignty, and traitorously to the trust reposed in it by the Founding Generation and their Posterity.
[320] Being a family of noble and royal descent, and of perennial knightly status, Plaintiff's family and ancestors were part of the class of "greatM[e]n or other lawful person(s) of good repute," …
[328] As Plaintiff's ancestors comprised the knightly class, who were entitled, by virtue of their birth, to keep and bear arms, as the right of keeping and bearing arms had always been an inalienable, private, individual, ancient ancestral right held by them and their antecedents from time immemorial, Plaintiff's ancestors were buried in tombs in the churches of St. Peter's Church in Astley, Worcestershire, and the parish church of Kinlet, Shropshire, St. John the Baptis [sic] Church, upon which rested effigies of said ancestors in full suits of armor and bearing swords, to wit, the ordinary military weapons of their day and age. Thus, even in death, Plaintiff's ancestors bore arms.(emphasis added)
[330] No sovereign ever held the power to regulate Plaintiff's ancestors' right of keeping and bearing arms. Plaintiff's ancestors' right existed inviolate.
[381] In addition, statutes which regulated free blacks' keeping and bearing of arms, a privilege, not a right, for such individuals, as they did not possess the ancient, inalienable, absolute, private, individual, ancestral sovereign rights of keeping and bearing arms, at least not as to the Kings of England, our predecessor sovereigns, they not being descended from the ancestral class of rights-holders at common law, all provide that it is well within the right of keeping arms, held by those whom comprised the class of full right-holders, to keep "any military weapon." (emphasis in the original)
[488] While Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, Plaintiff is a lawyer, a graduate of Duke University School of Law and scorer of a 173, the 99th percentile, on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) and a 169.6, roughly the 95th percentile, on the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) portion of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), and a 169 on the MBE portion of the Georgia Bar Exam, roughly the 95th percentile on said MBE portions of said Bar Exams.
[489] As such, Plaintiff's time is extremely valuable, Plaintiff charging between $300 and $500 per billable hour for work that he completes for clients as a private practice attorney.
[490] As Plaintiff is one of the most intelligent attorneys in this country, and one of the most competent attorneys in this field of the law, Plaintiff should be allowed to collect attorney's fees in connection with his self-representation in this case, as the very intent of 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) is to enable United States citizens to vindicate their rights when said rights are unconstitutionally infringed by the federal government. (emphasis added)
x5