I am sending a letter to a Tulsa state court judge asking him to enter default judgment on a counterclaim complaint that Stilley filed in litigation brought against himself and others. The rogue federal agents who stole $2,000 from Lindsey Springer also recruited certain of their victims to bring the lawsuit, to harass Stilley and Springer as they defended the criminal charges. The government has so far protected their puppets from having a judgment entered against them on my counterclaim complaint. This letter explains why the refusal to consider my motion for default is contrary to well established legal principals, and asks the judge to promptly enter the default judgment I requested a year ago. To read the blog post (which contains access to the letter)…

It has been often said that in war, money is the worst of all contraband, because it commands everything else. The criminal case against Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley is but a single front in the Department of Justice’ ongoing, pervasive war against the rule of law. The corruptionists who drove the criminal prosecution are keenly aware of both of the foregoing facts. Thus, they have engaged in a scorched earth campaign calculated to destroy every morsel that either of us might find to sustain our legal defense. This blog post relates to one of the many financial assaults by these remorseless thieves, and sets forth facts indicating that they have been able to secure the co-operation of state authorities in support of their unlawful purposes.

Eddy and Judy Patterson filed a lawsuit against Oscar Stilley and others in 2005. After much footdragging, a 2008 refiling of the complaint was served on Stilley in early 2009. Stilley counterclaimed for a substantial sum in legal fees related mostly to the preparation of the very appellat brief that caused Judy Patterson to be released from prison.

On the 2nd day of the federal criminal trial in October of 2009, Judge Deborah Shallcross (retired earlier this year) dismissed the Pattersons’ state court civil complaint, along with Stilley’s counterclaim complaint, without any notice to Stilley. Stilley refiled the counterclaim, paid the fee, and moved for default judgment. In response to Stilley’s repeated inquiries, Shallcross’ personnel said the motion for default was simply awaiting a decision of the court. Shallcross waited until the 2nd day of the criminal sentencing hearing April 21-23 of 2010, and reissued a dismissal of the Patterson complaint.

Believe what you will, but I conclude that Shallcross’ original action in dismissing my complaint on the 2nd day of my criminal trial, with no notice to me either before or after the entry of the order, was calculated. Whatever question was in my mind was erased by 1) her refusal to act on my subsequent motion for default for two months despite polite entreaty, 2) entry of an order apparently for the purpose of making me believe that my counterclaim was vacated or dismissed, 3) timing the order for the 2nd day of a sentencing hearing, and the day before I went to jail. When all these facts are taken together, the “co-incidences” are too much to ascribe to chance.

Shallcross’ personnel claimed that the counterclaim complaint was also “vacated.” This letter to the successor judge, Honorable Carlos J. Chappelle, explains 1) why that could not have legally happened, 2) that the docket doesn’t support this theory, and 3) why I say that it never happened at all, and that the motion for default thus remains pending.

Fundamental due process considerations require the prompt entry of the default judgment in favor of Stilley and against the Pattersons. Read the letter here…

Letter to Judge Chappelle-030311