Government of Law

Welcome to this site dedicated to promoting Government of Law. Initially it was focussed on the Washington State judicial system. The previous web page is available at a version of the old web page

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

After over 50 years of programming computers I retired in 2018 and went to Thailand where I met my wife. I then needed to navigate the restrictions placed on foreign nationals.

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

Agency	Full Name of Agency	Crimes and Violation
USPS	United States Postal Service	Falsified delivery times (government records) and fraudulently denied refunds.
USPS OIG	USPS Office of the Inspector General	I contacted USPS OIG concerning the federal crimes listed above but they did not take any corrective actions or report the federal crimes to DoJ as all OIG's are required by statute to do.
DoS	Department of State	DoS denied non immigration visas to my wife and her sister (who were Thai nationals at the time) without due process and in violation of clear and specific statutes.
DoS OIG	DoS Office of the Inspector General	I complained to DoS OIG concerning the federal crimes and violations of individual constitutional rights listed above (see ECF34-6 and ECF10-4) but they did not take any corrective actions or report the federal crimes to DoJ as all OIG's are required by statute to do. They simply referred the matter to the DoS Bureasu of Consular Affairs (BCA) which is simply local management as before with USPS.
USCIS	United States Citizenship and Immigration Services	USCIS violated statutes and delayed giving my wife her permanent (ten year) green card. The alternative 2 year extension letter expired leaving her stranded in Thailand while on a emergency visit due to her mother's death. After approving both the ten year card and citizenship, USCIS instead falsified documents and later denied citizenship It is possible that this apparent punitive action by USCIS was whistle blower retaliation for our complaints when my wife was stranded in Thailand. The result was that my wife was left an apparent illegal with no documentation of her status and terrified that she would deported without cause or notice during these crazy times.
DHS OIG	Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)	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. There are no indications that these federal crimes were ever reported to DoJ.
CIGIE	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 to develop integrity and professionalism in the staff of the various OIG's. However, when faced with members of the council who clearly violated the clear and specific statutory requirements to report federal crimes to the DoJ, the council refused to take any corrective action.
DoJ	Department of Justice	The Department of Justice (DoJ) is in general the sole agency with the mission of enforcing the law. 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. However, 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.
IRS	Internal Revenue Service	IRS Extorted Unjustified Penalties by Illegally Threatening Property Seizure 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. 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, but then the IRS simply ignored the appeal contesting the amount due such that the appeal is still waiting for the IRS to substantiate their claim for penalties.
TIGTA	Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration	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.

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.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 1, on page 12 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

USPS OIG - USPS Office of the Inspector General

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, every criminal violation which was reported to USPS OIG was referred back to USPS local management which took no action. USPS OIG was apparently precluded from investigating or reporting 'delivery or tracking' problems.

USPS OIG specifically refused to report falsifying of delivery times to DoJ which is a direct violation of 5 USC § 404. It became apparent that the USPS Board of Governors had made an illegal order (likely verbal only and suitably ambiguous) that the USPS Inspector General must keep DoJ from getting involved with any delivery or tracking problems such that if DoJ did get involved (because they were reported to DoJ) then she would be fired. She then relayed that message to all investigators in USPS OIG so that DoJ never got involved with delivery or tracking problems such as falsified delivery times for packages.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 2, on page 16 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

DoS - Department of State

In 2018 and 2019 my wife and her sister applied for non immigrant visas on four different occassions which were contrary to clear and specific lawful statutes. Later in 2022 they each received non immigrant visas. However, there were damages from the improper denials. The denials were improper because:

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)

Surprisingly DoS does not feel any need to abide by the constitution (and individual liberties) nor even clear and specific lawful statutes. They commit violations with impunity that they are protected by the Doctrine of Consular Non Reviewability (DoCNR). This arcane doctrine was created by the appellate courts in the 1890's in response to the The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

It was a reflection of the times when the U.S. was struggling with the goals of 'liberty ad justice for all' in contrast to the reality of widespread discrimination as an integral part of our culture. In that regard it is similar to the 'Separate but Equal' espoused in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which was discarded with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

DoCNR is offensive on its face at this time as it assumes that people of color, women, and non Christians are not really 'persons' protected with rights and liberties but instead vermin to exploited for profit or eliminated if necessary.

A central part of the DoS claims is to relegate the DoCNR to the dustbin of history as was done with 'Separate but Equal'.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 3 and Count 4, on pages 18 and 22 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

DoS OIG - DoS Office of the Inspector General

I complained to DoS OIG concerning the federal crimes and violations of individual constitutional rights listed above (see ECF34-6 and ECF10-4) but they did not take any corrective actions or report the federal crimes to DoJ as all OIG's are required by statute to do. They referred the matter to the DoS Bureasu of Consular Affairs (BCA) which is local management as before with USPS.

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, every criminal violation which was reported to DoS OIG was simply referred back to DoS BCA (local management) which took no action.

In Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Department of State v. Munoz (S. Ct. 2024) she cited a brief from Former Consular Officers which listed DoS OIG consulate visa processing audits in 2009 (1), 2016 (1), 2017 (1), 2018 (2), 2019 (5) and 2023 (1) which demonstrate the violations of individual rights and federal crimes were identified by DoS OIG but after the audit reports were submitted no corrective actions were taken.

It is worth noting almost half of the audits were conducted in 2019 (5 out of 11) just after my report of problems in 2018 so DoS OIG was well aware of the problems but, apparently, did not report the crimes to DoJ and instead buried the problems in the audit reports.

This claim is fully elaborated in Count 5, on page 29 of ECF76-1 which was the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

USCIS - United States Citizenshipand Immigration Services

USCIS is much more subtle in its mistreatment of foreign nationals but there are three main complaints concerning violations of clear and specific lawful statutes.

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 written decision of USCIS which stated:
We have approved your I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence. Our records also indicate we have approved your Form N-400 Application for Naturalization. Because we also approved your N-400, you will not receive a new Permanent Resident Card (also known as a Green Card). Instead, once you have taken the Oath of Allegiance, you will receive a Certificate of Naturalization, which will be proof of your U.S. citizenship.
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.

AUSA Padis Lies in Government Email and Court Papers

USATXN Falsely Claimed No Service of Complaint and Summons

AUSA Padis lied in an email before appearing in the matter and attempting to get a delay of almost sixty days by pretending that the required service / delivery of the complaint and summons were never received when in fact he had two paper copies accessible. I challenged his claim that his office had 'no record of having been served' which was clearly false and refused to accept any delay (ECF28-1) but it was a clear violation of 18 USC § 1001) falsification of government records.

AUSA Submitted MTD Without Merit and With False and Misleading Statements

I responded to AUSA Padis false email with an electronic copy of the complaint and summons (as requested) but also sent a copy of USCIS decision ECF10-5 and explained my wife's dire circumstances caused by USCIS violations. However, instead of working out some relief for my wife's dire cirumstances, AUSA Padis instead filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD, ECF15) which was totally without merit and full of false and misleading statements (violations of FRCP Rule 11).

Motion for Sanctions Submitted for Violations

A separate Motion for Sanctions, ECF30, was made under FRCP Rule 11(c)(3)) (the court's discretion) which the court declined to consider, ECF59. Another similar Motion for Sanctions, ECF79, was made under FRCP Rule 11(c)(2)) which requires at least minimal consideration by the court. The court's refusal to even consider sanctions in ECF91 violated the Supreme Court's guidance for FRCP Rule 11(c)(2)) motions and was an 'abuse of discretion'.

Separate Bar Association Complaint for Ethical Violations

There are also misconduct complaints against AUSA Padis as well as AUSA Parker, Magistrate Rutherford and Judge Scholer for ethical violation of trutfulness. The complaints were submitted to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC), State Bar of Texas with the complaints against AUSA Padis with the initial complaint as PadisComplaint which has the context for all four complaints as well as a more focussed complaint as Padis Amended Violations to TxCDC

Magistrate Rutherford Lies In FCR, Conceals Violations

Entire FCR False and Misleading, False Claim USCIS Denies Visas

Magistrate Rutherford Recommended Dismissal on all claims in Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) ECF60. However, as there are serious and well supported claims, this was only possible using false and misleading statements to conceal the violations of the federal agencies. In the Motion to Rescind ECF63 the various false and misleading statements are refuted here but there is also a complaint of misconduct filed with the Judicial Council of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, 5CCrCR Form and 5CCrSR Statement of Facts.

Misconduct Complaint Focusses on Two False Statements

The Misconduct Complaint focusses on two false statements. The first and most obvious is the claim that USCIS denied non immigrant visas which is simply false. Even a cursory review of Counts 3 and 4 in the complaint ECF29 shows that it was the Department of State which wrongfully denied visa to my wife and her sister.

While this could be construed as a simple mistake, after the errors in the original FCR ECF60 were refuted in ECF63, Msgistrate made a new FCR ECF91 which did not correct the previous error but instead added new false and misleading statements with a particular egregious example in citing:

Mrs. Carr's and her sister's various attempts to obtain immigration benefits

Separate Bar Association Complaint for Ethical Violations

There are also misconduct complaints against Magistrate Rutherford as well as AUSA Padis, AUSA Parker and Judge Scholer for ethical violation of trutfulness. The complaints were submitted to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC), State Bar of Texas with the complaints against Magistrate Rutherford with the initial complaint as RutherfordComplaint which has the context for all four complaints as well as a more focussed complaint as Rutherford Amended Violations to TxCDC

AUSA Parker Lies Court Papers and in Government Email

USATXN Did Not Timely Oppose Motion to Rescind Order

As I was preparing the first motion for sanctions ECF30, AUSA Padis appears to have transferred this matter to a subordinate, AUSA Owen. However, after the first FCR ECF60 in the mandatory conference to determine if a motion / objection is OPPOSED, AUSA Owen stated in an email ECF75-1.:

I am not filing any response unless otherwise requested/ordered by the Court

which was quite cryptic as it is not clear when / how the court would ever order a defendant's counsel to file a response supporting their order.

However, the result was that the first FRCP Rule 60 Motion for Relief, ECF67, to rescind the order dismissing the matter ECF63 was actually unopposed.

AUSA Parker Replaces AUSA Padis as Deputy Civil Chief

AUSA Parker May Have Fired AUSA Owen With Illegal Order

After AUSA Owen refused to file a response supporting the first FCR ECF60, she left government service and apparently was replaced by her new boss, AUSA Parker, who replaced AUSA Padis when he also left government service.

USATXN did not ever explain the departure of the previous AUSA's in this matter, but it is possible that AUSA Parker had made an illegal order that AUSA Owen file a response supporting the first FCR ECF60, but the prohibition against false and misleading statements in court filings in FRCP Rule 11 forced the resignation / firing of AUSA Owen who faithfully obeyed her Oath of Office Office according to 5 USC § 3331)

AUSA Parker Attempts to Conceal Previous Refusal to Support FCR

Just a few minutes after AUSA Parker had filed her substitution of counsel to replace AUSA Owen, I sent an email (see ECF75-1) which informed her that AUSA Owen and I had completed the required Conference under Local Rule 7.1 and USATXN had stated it would not be filing any responses opposing the supporting the FCR ECF60 or opposing any of the FRCP Rule 60 Motions for Relief, of which ECF67 was the first of several.

I also stated:

Are you planning on filing any responses (opposing these motions)?

providing her with an easy opportunity to alter USATXN's position on the next few motions.

However, in ECF74 AUSA Parker states she:

inadvertently failed to respond to that email

and then goes on imply that I had violated Local Rule 7.1(a) and Certificate of Conference requirements by not conferring with her about the specific motion.

However, a review of the emails demonstrate that by not responding to the email AUSA Parker was accepting the completed conferences of her predecessor where AUSA Owen stated in ECF75-1:

I am not filing any response unless otherwise requested/ordered by the Court

and it was AUSA Parker who was violating Local Rule 7.1(a) by not altering the conference results of her predecessor.

This attempt to mislead the court violated FRCP Rule 11 and may have been an atttempt to conceal the illegal orders by AUSA Parker which resulted in AUSA Owen's termination / resignation.

AUSA Parker Lies in Response, Falsely Claims Inadvertence

In ECF74 AUSA Parker's claim of inadvertence was clearly a lie. The truth is that she made countless decisions to not respond even seconds before she typed 'inadvertently failed to respond'. She could have responded at any time and consistently decided not to respond; she still has not responded to that email to date.

AUSA Parker later explained in in ECF87that she 'forgot about the email' but did not explain:

why she did not answer immediately,
when she intended to respond,
what measures she took to insure a response, and
why she did not respond on each occassion when she remembered the email and the need to respond (specifically before typing inadvertently).

Response Demonstrates Willful Negligence Rather Than Inadvertence

45 CFR § 160.401 states:

Willful neglect means conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply with the administrative... [requirement].

and it is clear in the associated law that accidents and mistakes which may occur do not override the conscious, intentional decisions to not comply.

Apparent Criminal Collusion Between AUSA Parker and Mr. Padis

Interferes With Service by Mail

After Motion for Sanctions ECF79 was served by mail on Mr. Padis as required by FRCP Rule 11(c)(2) for preliminary service in accordance with FRCP Rule 5, it appears that Mr. Padis who had left DoJ and was now a partner in a private law firm, concocted a scheme with AUSA Parker (his apparent replacement as Deputy Civil Chief) to illegally interfere with the delivery of mail with time sensitive legal papers and illegally prevent proper service of the motion ECF79.

When on 2 Sep 2025 AUSA Parker claimed in a government email in ECF83-2 that:

I will take no further action with respect to attempting to forward your proposed motion to Mr. Padis at this time.

she was stating she was going to indefinitely retain those time sensitive legal papers addressed to Mr. Padis. This is a prima facie claim that she was violating 18 USC § 1702) and, potentially, 18 USC § 1709).

Of course it is likely that she was colluding with Mr. Padis to later falsely claim to the court that he never received proper service as required by FRCP Rule 5, and FRCP Rule 11FRCP Rule 11(c)(2).

In this case, her criminal violations would also likely include 18 USC § 1001) with concealing a material fact (that she had actually forwarded the prior electronic document to Mr. Padis and he had asked that she retain paper document).

Separate Bar Association Complaint for Ethical Violations

There are also misconduct complaints against AUSA Parker as well as AUSA Padis, Magistrate Rutherford and Judge Scholer for ethical violation of trutfulness. The complaints were submitted to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC), State Bar of Texas with the complaints against AUSA Parker with the initial complaint as ParkerComplaint which has the context for all four complaints as well as a more focussed complaint as Parker Amended Violations to TxCDC

Judge Scholer Claimed to Have Verified Every Challendged Statement

Judge Scholer Signed Off On Demonstrably False FCR ECF91

Entire FCR False and Misleading, False Claim Concerning Immigration Benefits

Judge Scholer's Order ECF95 was suprisingly brief as it disposed of a surpisingly complex case and numerous legal arguements with only:

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. Objections were filed. The Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motions (ECF Nos. 64, 65, 67, 71, 73, 76, 79, 83, 84, and 85) are DENIED.

Further, the Court warns Plaintiff Brian P. Carr that if he continues to file documents that urge the same arguments already considered by the Court, the Court may find that he is a vexatious litigant and impose appropriate sanctions.

The first paragraph basically only describes the required process of review for both FCRs, ECF60 and ECF91 and almost every other contested motion in the case. It claims that all contested portions of the every listed motion were reviewed de novo or anew without any presumption that it was correct. As virtually all of both FCRs were challenged in Motions to Rescind ECF67 (unopposed), ECF73 (opposed but with objections that were not timely), and Objections ECF92, this means that the entirety of the Complaint ECF29 was reviewed along with the denied motions considering the challenges in the Objections ECF92.

As such, Judge Scholer is stating that she had confirmed the accuracy of every statement in the FCR ECF91 including the ones which are deomnstrably false and were challenged in the Objections ECF92. Judge Scholer could not actually confirm the false statements in the FCR ECF91 so the broad claim of confirmation is false.

Demonstrably False Statement Objected to But Confirmed

The criminal violation of 18 USC § 1001 is demonstrated by the same claim that was refuted in the complaint against Magistrate Rutherford though the full analysis of this and other false statements are included in the Objections ECF92.

ECF91 added numerous new false and misleading statements with a particular egregious example in citing:

Mrs. Carr's and her sister's various attempts to obtain immigration benefits

while the truth is that my wife's sister had not ever applied for immigration benefits, only non immigration visas so that she could visit the United States as required to start receiving her surviving spouse social security benefits as clearly stated in the Complaint ECF29

This false statement can not be confirmed under any circumstances.

Judicial Council of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Misconduct Complaint

In the Objections ECF92 the various false and misleading statements are refuted but there is also a complaint of misconduct filed with the Judicial Council of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, 5CCrCS Form and 5CCrSS Statement of Facts.

Separate Bar Association Complaint for Ethical Violations

There are also misconduct complaints against Judge Scholer as well as AUSA Padis, AUSA Parker and Magistrate Rutherford for ethical violation of trutfulness. The complaints were submitted to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC), State Bar of Texas with the complaints against Magistrate Rutherford with the initial complaint as ScholerComplaint which has the context for all four complaints as well as a more focussed complaint as Scholer Amended Violations to TxCDC

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

This page was last updated on Mar 23, 2026.