U.S. DISTRICT COURT
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STANLEY v. DUFF, et al
Assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
Date Filed: 07/23/2018
The Defendants in this case are Mr. James Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), and Ms. Sheryl Walter (AOUSC Attorney).
This case arose from the actions in 17-1720 and 17-2602, in which Judge Rudolph Contreras improperly solicited representation by Department of Justice attorneys for four (4) judges, sued in personal capacity, after each had failed to respond to lawfully issued summonses and, therefore, defaulted.
In case 17-1720, on April 13, 2018, DoJ attorney James Yu filed a document styled “Defendants’ Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment”, wherein he blamed the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for mismanaging the case:
“Defendants each immediately notified the AOUSC upon learning of the suit. The AOUSC referred the matter to the Department of Justice after the time to respond had run.”
Thus, DoJ attorney Yu claimed that each of the Defendants had submitted applications to AOUSC for Government representation, in accordance with 28 C.F.R. §50.15(a)(1). When Plaintiffs filed motions requesting that Judge Contreras issue an Order for Mr. Yu to produce the documentation supporting his unsubstantiated claim, Mr. Yu responded that Plaintiffs had no right to see such documentation…..and Judge Contreras agreed.
Therefore, in this case, Plaintiffs are seeking to contest any “finding”/determination, if one was in fact made by Defendants Duff, Walter or their associates in any referral made to the DoJ in 17-1720 and 17-2602, whether timely or not, and whether or not in the form mandated by 28 C.F.R. §50.15(a)(1), which referral has resulted in the violation of their right to sue the defaulted attorneys, and the interposition of the United States into the case, at the expense of the damaged United States.
In other words, Plaintiffs contend their rights to sue the attorneys in personal capacity renders any referral made by Duff, Walter, et al, subject to judicial review, since, if in fact such referral was made, it has resulted in the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to sue the defaulted attorneys. Again, Plaintiffs do not want to sue the United States, and have not. Moreover, they have as much right to representation by the DoJ as do the defaulted attorneys.
Further, in both 17-1702 and 17-2602, Plaintiffs’ efforts to sue attorneys in personal capacity are being blocked by Defendants Duff and Walter, in tandem with a trio of DoJ attorneys (Richard E. Zuckerman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division; Jessie Liu, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; and DoJ Tax Division trial attorney James Yu), at the invitation of Judge Contreras. Plaintiffs have filed this suit to a.) determine whether or not they have a right to sue attorneys in personal capacity for violating their protected rights, to b.) enjoin any possible improper activity by Defendants Duff and Walter, if in fact it has occurred, and c.) if it has, to collect damages.
A. Defendants Duff, Walter or anyone associated with them, made a determination to refer 17-1720 and 17-2602 to the DoJ without a written request having been timely made by the defaulted attorneys sued solely in personal capacity in those suits, or if
B. Defendants Duff, Walter or anyone associated with them, made the determination that the acts of the defaulted attorneys which Plaintiffs complain in 17-1720 and 17-2602 are “within the scope of their employment”, and that it is supposedly in the interests of the (damaged) United States to obstruct Plaintiffs’ rights to sue the defaulted attorneys in personal capacity,
Plaintiffs request damages from each Defendant Duff and Walter (only) in the amount of $10,000 for each Plaintiff/victim, i.e., for obstructing and destroying Plaintiffs’ protected rights to sue attorneys in personal capacity for committing acts Congress has proscribed, (i.e., to conceal and prolong the underlying IRS/DoJ record falsification program whereby attorneys are raping the due process rights of those IRS labels “non-filers”, while enforcing the income tax exaction on them).
At this this point in these proceedings before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, DoJ attorney Yu has not responded to Plaintiffs’ Surreply to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on December 6, 2018.
Please review the Docket Sheet, below, which contains links to all the documents filed in this case.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia