Government of Law

This web page focusses on widespread criminal violations by federal agaencies (primarily falsification of government records, 18 USC § 1001), lawful statutes, and the constituional protections of individual liberties (primarlly the 5th amendment right to due process).

Overview of problems with federal agencies

I was surprised by the widespread violations of due process for foreign nationals. They just aren't given a fair hearing (due process) which seems to be reserved for citizens, not foreign nationals. There was also widespread falsification of government records.

After a series of problems with USPS, Department of State (DoS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and, later, the IRS, I needed to file a civil suit as the various Inspector Generals and Department of Justice (DOJ) were not helpful.

The violations of USCIS were particularly egregious and necessitated a civil suit in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas (TXND) with suit 3:23-cv-02875-S. There is a time line with all the papers filed in that suit as well as links to the actual files.

I was a little surprised that the attorneys at DoJ did not try to correct the serious violations by federal agencies but instead tried to conceal the violations through false and misleading statements. Further down in this web page are descriptions of the violations by DoJ attorneys.

I was then quite surprised that the judges assigned to the matter appatently colluded with the DoJ attorneys to conceal the violations and make the matter go away. The case is now being prepared for an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court. I will be seeking assistance of various legal assistance organizations in encourage public scrutiny so that this disregard for the rule of law can be corrected and does not become more widespread.

Overview of Agencies and Violations

USPS - United States Postal Service

• Falsified delivery times which is a violation of 18 USC § 1001, falsification of government records
• Automated denial of refund requests with broken business processes which require appeals when delivery records are falsified.
• Appeal resolved with 'Dispute Paid' do not actually result in payment of authorized refund resulting in consumer fraud.

USPS OIG - USPS Office of the Inspector General

DoS - Department of State

• The interviewers did not consider or even look at the evidence which I had prepared for my wife and her sister,
• DoS did not allow myself or the applicants to have representation.
• The interviewers relied on information on their computers but we were never permitted to review the evidence (if any) against them,
• The written denial letters were identical and claimed that in accordance with INA 214(b) (8 USC § 1184) they had not demonstrated sufficient ties to Thailand to insure that they would not overstay their visa but with no discussion of any evidence considered,
• In all four cases the interviewer gave a different verbal justiifcation which was nonsensical as it had no basis in law or the facts of the matter,
• As the written decision and video interview record contradicted each, one or both must be false which is a violation of 18 USC § 1001, which is a federal crime.

Doctrine of Consular Non Reviewability (DoCNR)

DoS OIG - DoS Office of the Inspector General

USCIS - United States Citizenshipand Immigration Services

• No replacement 10 year green card issued as required by statute.
  
  My wife and I applied for an immigration visa and green card right after we were married. As such, she was given a 'conditional' two year green card as we had not been married for two years before applying. After we had been married for two years I applied for a ten year green card as soon as possible with an I-751 application. However, instead of adjudicating the application (waiving interview if necessary) within 90 days as required in 8 CFR Section 216.4(b)(1) and the underlying statute INA 216.4(b) which is 8 USC § 1186b(d)(3). However instead USCIS improperly gave her a two year extension letter (ECF18-6) which expired in 2022.
  
  The statutes cited above required USCIS to adjudicate the I-751 application in 2020 when her 2 year green card expired and either deport her or give her a ten year green card. As our marriage was real she should have received her ten year green card in 2020.
  
  
• My wife stranded in Thailand without documentation to return.
  
  However, when the 2 year extension letter expired in 2022, my wife was in Thailand on an emergency trip due to her mother's frail health and then death. USCIS was required to insure my wife could travel freely as INA 264 which is 8 USC § 1304 requires USCIS to provide documentation to every legal immigrant as well as requiring all such immigrants to have this documentaiton with them at all times.
  
  When we contacted USCIS to get documentation allowing my wife to return from Thailand, their response was that they could provide a stamp for her passport once she returned to the U.S.. As a result my wife had to apply for another non immigrant visa so that she could return to the U.S.. This unnecesssary expense ($160) is attributed one half to DoS for improperly denying the first application and one half to USCIS for not providing the required documentation in accordance with statute.
  
  
• USCIS Approves Citizenship Then Leaves as Apparent Illegal
  
  Shortly after we returned from Thailand, my wife had the joint interview for a ten year green card and citizenship. We were elated when we got the notice she had passed both but would not getting the ten year green card as she would instead be taking the 'Oath of Allegiance' for naturalization. See ECF10-5.
  
  The statutes require timeliness of the Oath of Allegiance in INA 337 which is 8 USC § 1448 as well as regulations 8 CFR 337.2 which generally requires that the Oath be administered within 30 days. However, for over six months USCIS simply refused to schedule the oath ceremony.
  
  
• USCIS Falsifies Documents to Leave My Wife As An Apparent Illegal
  
  When my wife was stranded in Thailand I had complained to the Director of USCIS, USCIS OIG, and my U.S. Representative about the statutory violation of USCIS. When her oath was delayed over six months I again complained of these new violations of the statutes cited above. Shortly thereafter we received a false notice that her joint interview which approved her citizenzhip (ECF10-5) never actually occurred but was cancelled (ECF10-6)
  
  Of course this is a clear criminal violation of 18 USC § 1001) as everyone knew that interview had been completed. Further, the two documents contradicted each other so that one or more was clearly false.
  
  Shortly thereafter the citizenship test / interview was scheduled for a time when USCIS knew that we would be out of the country. We requested that the interview be rescheduled (earlier or later) so as to not interfere with our elaborate travel plans, but the requests were summarily denied with additional apparent false statements.
  
  Within a few days of the scheduled interview, the Director of the local USCIS office denied my wife's N-400 citizenship application for 'failure to appear' and added additional false and misleading decisions (violations of 18 USC § 1001) in the denial, ECF10-10.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 7, on page 32 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.



DHS OIG - DHS Office of the Inspector General

I complained to DHS OIG on several occassions of malfeasance by USCIS to include violations of lawful statutes (as cited above) and federal crimes and violations of individual constitutional rights but they did not take any corrective actions.

About two months after we were stranded in Thailand and complained to DHS OIG, USCIS did announce the creation of a 48 month extension letter (see ECF48-2) but this was after we had already returned to the U.S. on our own via a non immigration visa from DoS. No such extension letter was ever provided to us even though it was requested during the period when USCIS left my wife as an apparent illegal.

Further, the later falsified documents by USCIS were reported to DHS OIG as apparent 'whistleblower' retaliation for the previous complaints. These later federal crimes did not result in any apparent investigation by DHS OIG or USCIS and it appears that this abuse of USCIS's power over foreign nationals was intrinsically endorsed by DHS OIG.

Every OIG is mandated under 5 USC § 404 (IG Act of 1978) to report federal crimes to the Attorney General, or, more realistically, the Department of Justice (DoJ). However, there are no indications that these federal crimes were ever reported to DoJ.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 8, on page 54 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

CIGIE - The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency is a council of the different Inspector Generals tasked by congress in its charter 5 USC § 424 CIGIE to develop integrity and professionalism in the staff of the various OIG's.

However, when faced with members of the council who violated the clear and specific statutory requirements to report federal crimes to the DoJ, the council refused to take any corrective action as can be seen in Count 6, on page 30 of ECF76-1



Department of Justice

The Department of Justice (DoJ) is in general the sole agency with the mission of enforcing the law. Congress has mandated that the different OIG's must report federal crimes to DoJ in 5 USC § 404.

Of course DoJ does not have the resources to investigate every federal crime so that it is completely reasonable for the DoJ to request that the reporting OIG manage any investigation. In turn the OIG (which also has limited resources) can refer the matter to local management for the actual investigation. However, under these circumstances it is incumbent on the OIG and DoJ to monitor the investigation and insure that measures are put in pleace to prevent future violations. There also must be consideration of damages to individuals and whether some amelioration is possible.

While the decision to prosecute is reserved solely to DoJ this is primarily a tool so that DoJ and affiliated agencies (e.g. OIG) can use the threat of prosecution as a tool to prevent future violations and, when possible, ameliorate damages to victims. This claim is elaborated in Count 9, on page 55 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

In this case, DoJ did not fulfill its constitutional mandate of enforcing the law but instead violated the law with its own violations of 18 USC § 1001.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 9, on page 55 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

IRS - The Internal Revenue Service

The IRS Extorted Unjustified Penalties by Illegally Threatening Property Seizure

In November 2024 (almost a year after this suit was filed), the IRS started seizure of property with a CP504 notice (ECF67-16) for contested penalties even though an appeal was outstanding challenging the faulty assumptions the IRS had made in computing the penalties.

Sufficient estimated taxes had been paid (90% of the total amount due) but the majority of the payments were made in the second half of the year when the income was received. However, the IRS had incorrectly assumed the income had been received evenly distributed through the year to compute the disputed amount.

The notice itself was illegal as it threatened immediate seizure even though Congress had mandated a 30 day notice before property seizure ( 26 USC § 6331). The notice itself was false as it claimed payment must be made immediately to avoid seizure which was a criminal violation of 18 USC § 1001.

We paid the contested amount that evening as it was a minor sum compared to having our propery seized. However, the IRS has stopped any processing of the appeal.

The appeal is still languishing waiting for the IRS to submit the required documentation to substantiate their claim for penalties. Of course the appeal could only demonstrate that the IRS now owes us money so there is little incentive to complete the appeal while they have already extorted unfounded penalties from us.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 10, on page 57 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The IRS and TIGTA were proposed new defendants as the claims were remarkably similar to those for USPS, DoS, and USCIS and all the plaintiffs were the same and a majority of the defendants were already included in this matter.



TIGTA - Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was notified of the violations by the IRS via email (ECF67-1) includung federal crimes, violations of 18 USC § 1001.

There was also an online request to TIGTA which was assigned ID TRN-2412-0282. No response has been received to date (and the IRS appeal is still pending). It is also apparent that no interdiction efforts have been made by TIGTA or DoJ.

This claim is stated on page 62 in paragraphs 310 ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint. Due to a clerical / typographical error, Count 11 was not included as a header before that paragraph.

My e-mail is brian@carrclan .us (take out the space).

---

This page was last updated on Mar 23, 2026.