Gilly v. Ocwen
3:16-cv-00397
D. Conn.Mar 7, 2016Background
- On Feb 8, 2016 a certification purporting to register a judgment from the "Federal Postal Court" was filed in the District of Connecticut against Ocwen for $11,509,456. The filing used a federal AO-451 form and included an unintelligible "translation" of a "Final Default Judgment."
- The submitted documents identified "David Wynn Miller" as a judge and "Leighton-Lionel Ward" as clerk of the Federal Postal Court and listed an Arizona PO box; the named plaintiff did not respond to court notice.
- The district court convened a telephone show-cause hearing; Miller and Ward participated and described the Federal Postal Court as a revived, nontraditional body relying on idiosyncratic linguistic/mathematical theories and lacking a fixed courthouse.
- Court review (including Westlaw and public sources) showed no valid precedents, and similar filings by Miller have been repeatedly characterized as frivolous by other federal courts.
- The court evaluated the filing under the federal registration statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1963, and found the source judgment did not originate from any of the courts listed in that statute and otherwise appears to be a sham.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judgment from the "Federal Postal Court" may be registered under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 | The registration form purported to present a final judgment entitled to registration (implicit) | Ocwen implicitly argued (through court analysis) that §1963 limits registration to judgments from specified federal courts; the defendant did not contest via counsel | Court held §1963 applies only to judgments from courts listed in the statute and the Federal Postal Court is not one of them; registration cannot stand |
| Whether the Federal Postal Court judgment has any valid legal authority | Miller/filers contended the Court is a legitimate forum with historical/united-nations recognition and unique linguistic methodology | Ocwen denied no recognition; court found no legal basis or recognition | Court held the Federal Postal Court is a sham lacking valid legal authority; judgment is not subject to registration |
| Whether the registration document should be stricken | Filers sought to effect enforcement by registration | Ocwen opposed enforcement by registration implicitly through court review | Court struck the registration and ordered the matter closed |
| Whether §1963 requires additional inquiry before striking a facially invalid registration | Filers implied procedural compliance via AO-451 form | Ocwen relied on statutory text and precedent restricting §1963 | Court concluded no further inquiry needed when the source court lacks statutory status or any legitimate authority; strike appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Int'l Yachting Grp., Inc., 252 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2001) (purpose and effect of §1963 registration)
- Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1965) (registration provides equivalent of new judgment in the registering court)
- Fox Painting Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 16 F.3d 115 (6th Cir. 1994) (§1963 does not permit registration of judgments from courts not listed in the statute)
- Marbury Law Grp., PLLC v. Carl, 729 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2010) (refusing registration from nonstatutory source court)
- United States v. Wells, 131 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (striking a document registered under §1963 that lacked legitimate purpose)