Government of Law

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 vaious 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 complainted 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.



The Old Complaint From Washington State Follows

Original Legal Conflict With Corrupt Washington State Judges

I personally have had litigation in Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington. In all states but Washington it was my experience that the judges were conscientious about staying within the boundaries of the law, though they certainly used their own judgement within that constraint and I didn't always agree with their decisions (but then that is what we have judges for). However, I have heard that in Washington state the judges have their own little fiefdoms and give little consideration to what the law says; they basically do whatever they feel like. Sadly, that has been my experience in Washington. You can see the details of my experiences on another web page.

In preparing my case for the Western Washington Federal District Court, I demonstrated what many people already know which is that the domestic violence laws in our country are extremely biased against men without any good foundation, just hysterical prejudice assuming men are guilty and women innocent. You can see for yourself here. So sad, in particular that no one cares (men are a socially disenfranchised group in this regard).

I have also checked with Portland Police Bureau and verified that there is also an definite sexual bias in their domestic violence arrests as well, though the bias is probably rooted in human nature, our society, and the courts, so it is not clear what they can do about it. The summary is more than 5 to 1 in ratio of male to female arrests for domestic violence arrests.

I have filed two federal civil cases concerning these violations and they coming to their conclusion. I made up a separate page with the various filings. The sad thing is that apparently it is widely known by the people in power that we don't live in country governed by the rule of law but instead strong man rules. There are subtleties as popular perception is one of the sources of power in our society, but if you can keep the public unaware, you can get away with most anything. The clear and direct violations of the Washington constitution by the Washington judiciary does not seem to seriously bother anyone. They just carefully conceal the violations in order to preserve their own power base. To me that is really scary as it means that when the U.S. military finally gets clued in on this lack of respect for the law, the balance will likely tip away from civilian rule (always a tenuous loyalty in my experience) and the military will assume its natural place in a country of strong man rules, i.e. military dictatorship.

While I was moderately comfortable in a military guided by the constitution (and the inherent rules and regulations that result) I really don't want to be under the rule of a military where 'might makes right'. What to do?

Picture	Individual(s)	Violation
	Robert L. Harris and other members of the Clark County Superior Court who should have been consulted on these unconstitutional appointments. This includes John P. Wulle, John F. Nichols, Edwin L. Poyfair, Barbara D. Johnson, James E. Rulli, Diane M. Woolard, and Robert Lewis (2005 only).	Ignored the Washington State constitution finding the restrictions in it too inconvenient to be bothered with. Washington State Constitution, Article IV, Section 23 states There may be appointed in each county, by the judge of the superior court having jurisdiction therein, one or more court commissioners, not exceeding three in number, who shall have authority to perform like duties as a judge of the superior court at chambers.... However, the Honorable Harris signed at least four such cotemporaneous orders in 2004 for the Honorable Anders, Eiesland, Melnick and Schreiber and in 2005 also for the Honorable Anders, Eiesland, Melnick and Schreiber.. Ignoring the restrictions of the state constitution seems more like defiance of the constitution rather than supporting and upholding the constituion as in the oath of office.
	Kenneth Eiesland	Issued Temporary Order even though he did not have jurisdiction as shown above (was one of more three Commissioners in violation of the state constitution). Did not hold ex parte hearing as required by RCW 26.50.070 (3) which must be 'in person or by telephone' but was actually in chambers with no contact with the Petitioner (so what do we have statutes for)1. Issued the Order even though the the Petition did not contain the required allegations of irreparable injury (see RCW 26.50.070 (1) ) or even the required allegations of physical assault, threats of physical assault (RCW 26.50.030 and RCW 26.50.010), or behavior which would cause a reasonable to fear injury to person or propery (RCW 9A.46.110).
	Rich Melnick	Issued Order for Protection even though he did not have jurisdiction as shown above (was one of more three Commissioners in violation of the state constitution). The Order was issued even though the Respondent was not permitted to testify as required in STATE v. KARAS - 108 Wn. App. 692 referring to RCW 26.50. In the hearing transcript both parties were permitted to speak but no one was placed under oath so no testimony was taken (and no one could be prosecuted for perjury if they lied to the court). Issued the Order even though neither the the Petition or the allegations at the hearing contained the required allegations of physical assault, threats of physical assault (RCW 26.50.010), or behavior which would cause a reasonable to fear injury to person or propery (RCW 9A.46.110). Denied an Order without holding an ex parte hearing as required by RCW 26.50.070 (3) which must be 'in person or by telephone'.2. Further, the Petition was denied improperly as it contained the required allegations of past domestic violence in describing three cases of assault (albeit minor assaults).
	Barbara D. Johnson	Rather than attempting to correct decisions which were clearly not in touch with reality, sought to block the appeal which would expose her and other Judges violations of the constitution as shown above when they appointed more than three Commissioners. Sent a letter falsely claiming that the unsigned Order had been made by Judge Nichols to prevent the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner Melnick from being a part of the record. However, a trivial comparison of the handwriting of the Order and one issued later by Judge Nichols demonstrates her claims were false. Finally issued an Order denying all the relief which I sought including a request that I be permitted to attend court hearings where I was scheduled to appear and preventing me from seeking modifications to the Order for Protection.
	John F. Nichols	In an apparent attempt to block the appeal which would expose his and other Judges violations of the constitution as shown above when they appointed more than three Commissioners, issued an Order even though there was no motion before the court and there was a Notice of Appeal filed in the case. The ruse was intended to insure that there were no references to the improperly appointed Commissioners, but a trivial review of the hand writing of the previous unsigned Order shows that Judge Nichols did not issue the unsigned order.
	Joel Penoyar, (J.) C. C. Bridgewater and J. Robin Hunt	In Washington Court of Appeals case 32671-0-II, these judges were asked a question of: Can the Superior Court in any given county make more than three valid simultaneous appointments of Commissioners who aren't Family Court Commissioners? The trial court answered in the affirmative. with evidence copies of Orders appointing four Commissioners who weren't Family Court / Law Commissioners (see above as well as the supporting affidavit). The Opinion of the Court of Appeals was: Carr argues that his due process rights and his right to have a judge adjudicate his case were violated because Clark County allegedly appointed more than three court commissioners. However, a family law commissioner is not a "commissioner" within the meaning of the constitutional provision limiting the number of court commissioners in counties.3 The Court of Appeals simply ignored the question before it and answered a well understood question which was not relevant to the case at hand. Apparently Washington courts don't follow the Rules of Law but just make things up as they go along. They get away with it because no one would dare call attention to the fact that they are violating the law on a daily basis.
	Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander and Justices Barbara Madsen, Mary E. Fairhurst (sitting for Justice Bobbe J. Bridge), Susan Owens and James M. Johnson.	When the Washington Supreme Court was presented with the issues above and asked to reverse the Court of Appeals brazen refusal to address the flagrant violations of the state constitution, the Washington Supreme Court was not interested. It appears that violations of the constitution, statutes, and due process are so rampant in Washington State that it hardly warrants notice or any attempt to correct it.
	Robert L. Harris and other members of the Clark County Superior Court who directed domestic violence cases be heard by 'Commissioners' who aren't authorized to hear these matters. This includes John P. Wulle, John F. Nichols, Edwin L. Poyfair, Barbara D. Johnson, James E. Rulli, Diane M. Woolard, and Robert Lewis.	In apparent recognition that the prior appointments of Superior Court Commissioners violated the numeric limits of the Washington Constitution (above) and were not valid, in 2006 and 2007 the Superior Court instead appointed the District Court Judges as Family Law Court Commissioners under RCW 26.12. However, the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction (Ordell v. Gaddis, 99 Wn.2d 409) and are only authorized to issue temporary restraining orders (RCW 2.24.040 (3)) which does not include the Orders for Protection of a year or more which they routinely issue. The individuals hearing RCW 26.50 matters in Clark County at this time do not have jurisdiction to sign the resulting Orders which makes them invalid. To support this facade, the Honorable Harris signed orders in 2007 for the Honorable Eiesland, Hagensen, Melnick, Osler, Schreiber, Swanger and Zimmerman.. Assigning case loads to Commissioners who have no authority to resolve matters (and ignoring the restrictions of statutes) is another violation of the oath of office.
	John Hagensen	Routinely extends Temporary Orders for Protection for more than 14 days as in 06-2-08385-1 without addressing the restrictions listed in RCW 26.50.070, RCW 26.50.085 and RCW 26.50.123. Of course when you routinely violate the constitution and statutes, it makes little sense to abide by these inconvenient requirements. Routinely issues orders which involve a shared residence and are beyond his authority to issue temporary restraining orders (RCW 2.24.040 (3)) as most all the Orders for Protection are for a year or more as in 07-2-07009-9.
	Kelli E. Osler	It appears that in Clark County no one really wants to hear Domestic Violence cases, presumably because they are messy and offer little opportunity to gain political favors. As a result, they get foisted on the most junior person which is the District Court Commissioner, the Honorable Osler, who can normally hear only traffic violations. She reviews almost all of the Petitions during lunch and makes her decision without holding any ex parte hearing as required by RCW 26.50.070 (3) which must be 'in person or by telephone' but is actually in chambers with no contact with the Petitioner (so what do we have statutes for). She also has conducted hearings and granted Orders for Protection for a full year as in as in 06-2-08362-1 which are supposed to heard only in the Superior Court and even though she only has authority to issue temporary restraining orders (RCW 2.24.040 (3)) which does not include the Orders for Protection of a year as in this case.
Washington State Commission of Judicial Conduct	Wanda Briggs (Chair) and Antonio Cube, Wayne Ehlers, John Erlick, Larry Goldberg, Hubert Locke, Margaret Ross, John Schultheis, and John Sleeter.	When presented with evidence of violations of the Washington Constitution (above) in letters of: July 9, 2006 August 12, 2006 October 16, 2006 their response was that there was no basis for charges. What would it take? Here is a letter about the last decision and another about the previous decision where they declined to consider violations of the State Constitution. Let's see if I have this right. A judge who visits a prison to see what the conditions are like and talks to inmates who might at some time in the future have cases before him nad then properly notifies parties when the issue is raised (and recuses himself as appropriate) is a violation, but direct and flagrant violations of the constitution, statutes, and rules of law aren't (nothing unethical about that in Washington state it seems). Go figure!
	Ancer L. Haggerty	I regret that I need to add Ancer L. Haggerty to this list. My personal intuition is that both Judge Melnick and Judge Haggerty are honorable people who were caught up in a corrupt system. However in Judge Haggerty's decision he simply ignores the primary issues presented to him and rules on the ancillary issues which are at best peripheral to the matter at hand. Sadly this seems to be what judges do when they are asked to do something which they don't want to do. In this case it is a lose-lose situation for the judge (District Court judges gain nothing by making controversial decisions), but it is sad to see this failing of our government of law. If our government of law is replaced by a military dictatorship (strong man rule) it will be because of good people simply doing what is easy rather than what they know is right.
	Richard R. Clifton, Barry G. Silverman, and Sidney Runyan Thomas	In the Ninth Circuit's decision, they simply ignores the primary issues presented to them with 'Carr’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive' which is little better than the Oregon Court of Appeals 'Affirmed without Opinion'. Just ignore any issues which are troubling. The problem with relying on the appeal process to correct egregious errors by lower courts is that appeals courts are more likely to conceal egregious errors (by ignoring the issues presented to them) rather than facing tough issues and taking the tough stand. The result is the gradual undermining of our government of law, replacing it with 'might is right'.

You can find other cases of the Washington judiciary flaunting the law at:
http://www.anthonykeyter.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a707f902b32.htm
http://www.dougschafer.com/980414_UPJournal.htm
http://www.realfamilylaw.com/index.php has an irreverent and quite humorous description of the state of domestic violence proceedings in the U.S..
http://www.redressinc.org/JudicialMisconduct.html (more general)
http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm (also general)

Legal Decisions

The decision of Judge Robert J. Bryan dismissing my federal case was quite nicely done, avoiding the tough issues in a quite legal fashion. It is not surprising as judges commonly don't like to rock the boat but instead resolve individual cases in a fair and equitable fashion. Also, had Judge Bryan made a radical decision seeking reform of serious and widespread problems, it would likely be futile. It was virtually certain that whatever Judge Bryan decided, it would be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court and on matters of this nature, they would simply ignore whatever Judge Bryan said and do whatever they like. In all liklihood that will be the same (avoiding the tough issues), so why should Judge Bryan sacrifice his reputation as a judge in a futile effort. It did raise intersting questions for me as to the application of principals even when the 'right' thing is futile, but that will be on a separate page.

My e-mail is brian@brian.carr .name (take out the space).

__________________________________

1 On April 4, 2007 I requested as copy of the Court Recording of any hearing that was held in this matter and was told by Jamie, the clerk who access the recordings, that there was no such hearing. Jamie annotated a copy of the request noting that there was no hearing on that date.

2 An affidavit was submitted to the court which explained the manner in which this Petition was denied. Several other Petitions were similary denied without an ex parte as can be seen at the end of the hearing of Nov 12, 2004.

3 The entire Opinion of the Court of Appeals makes good reading as it is most artfully written, full of deceptions from inaccurate and misleading statements. To read it superficially, it sounds quite reasonable (as in the example above). My rebuttal can be found in my Petition to the Washington Supreme Court. Having seen first hand how Washington Courts can just ignore reality and write Opinions that sound good when read alone but which have little with the facts of the case they are addressing, it makes me wonder how many other of the published decisions are just pure bull.

---

---

This page was last updated on Jan 19, 2026.