A civil rights action was filed in DC District Court following the denial of proof of citizenship by the U.S. Embassy in Manila. At an interview in October 2022, Embassy staff repeatedly asked whether the appointment was for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad application and inquired about the whereabouts of a child, notwithstanding that the appointment was scheduled for an adult derivative passport application. Staff demanded documentation including parents' stamped passports of entry and ultrasounds of the applicant, then forty-four years of age. Court documents establishing the parents' common-law marriage were presented to the intake clerk at the time of the interview.

The denial was communicated by telephone, during which a second male voice was audible advising the consular officer. Written denials followed by email and lettermail, each refusing to recognize the applicant's United States citizenship on the ground that he had not been legitimated by his father. One year after the Embassy interview and days before the Defendants' response was due in District Court, the Department of State submitted a passport record to the Court as proof of the Plaintiff's citizenship. The Defendant moved immediately for dismissal on mootness grounds. Responsive submissions referred to the Plaintiff as a criminal with a psychiatric condition. These false statements were contested in a subsequent civil action in DC Superior Court. Although the Plaintiff dropped the injunctive request in a partial summary judgment motion claiming only damages, the Court maintained the agenda of mootness and the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted by Judge Carl J. Nichols for lacking cause of action. Judge Carl J. Nichols was nominated to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2019 and was a former member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The District Court judgment in No. 23-00216 was affirmed by the DC Circuit by summary affirmance without substantive analysis. The Petitioner's subsequent certiorari petition was rejected by the United States Supreme Court without acknowledgment or consideration. The Petitioner contested this disposition as a denial of due process in a separate proceeding (No. 26-17, below) attaching the Supreme Court petition as evidence. The attached petition in the subsequently filed case was then entered into the Supreme Court's docket six months after its initial submission and was immediately dismissed.

This action alleged that the Supreme Court's handling of the prior certiorari petition constituted a denial of due process. The case was dismissed for lacking a cause of action. Court Clerk Scott Harris was granted judicial immunity for disposing of certiorari petitions without acknowledging receipt and before the matter was placed before the Court for substantive consideration. No consideration was given to compensating the Petitioner for the destruction of court filings beyond the immunity granted to the Clerk.

Defamatory statements documented in the action against the Embassy remained undisputed with no answer from the Defendant, DOJ lawyer Sergio Sakarny, before being moved to District Court renaming the Defendant as the USA by way of Westfall certification. The case was filed in District Court by DOJ lawyers without prior notification or consent from the Plaintiff and was immediately moved for dismissal for lacking jurisdiction as defamation claims are carved out from being actionable under FTCA.

The dismissal was issued contrary to 28 U.S. Code section 1447(c), which requires remand to the court of original jurisdiction in federal cases lacking jurisdiction where the underlying issues remain undisputed. The resulting order by Judge Nichols is considered void for exercising jurisdiction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction when the proper judicial response was remand or declination. The order extending immunity to DOJ lawyers expanded Westfall Act coverage to indemnify government counsel for tortious or illegal content in any written submissions filed in the course of their employment duties. A jury trial request was not honored by the court. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's void ruling and conflated the distinct procedural standards for mandamus and reconsideration in denying review, citing an inapposite terrorism case as authority.

The certiorari petition arising from the defamation proceedings was denied by the Supreme Court without stated reasons or substantive consideration of the issues presented.

Since the formal recognition of the Plaintiff's citizenship by the Department of State in 2023, the United States government has denied every administrative claim advanced by the Plaintiff. The United States Patent and Trademark Office declined to process a properly filed patent application and denied a refund of the associated filing fees. The Internal Revenue Service declined to issue a refund on a lawfully filed tax return. During follow-up calls with agency staff, third-party voices were audible employing language prejudicial to the Plaintiff's demands for refund. This proceeding documents the continuation of a pattern of coordinated administrative denial following exhaustion of all available judicial remedies in prior matters.