ANOTHER UNFAIR PRACTICE OF THE COURTS [D.C. FEDERAL DISTRICT, ADDRESS DISCLOSURE OF PRO SE LITIGANTS, ADDRESS WITHHOLDING OF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS]
- 30 minutes ago
- 8 min read
THE FOLLOWING IS A CASE THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN DC REQUESTING A RULE 27 MOTION TO DEPOSE. THE ARTICLE EXPOSES TWO ISSUES, 1. THE COURTS PRACTICE OF BIAS TOWARDS PRO SE LITIGANTS (IN BOTH D.C. AND NATIONWIDE), THOUGH THIS ARTICLE ADDRESSES A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF BIAS REGARDING THE PROTECTIONS DENIED TO PRO SE LITIGANTS. AND 2. IT CREATES AWARNESS OF THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND REFUSAL OF THE PAST JUDICIARIES TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS AND SHOW THE WORKINGS OF THE COURTS.. (AGAIN A NARROW ISSUE IS PRESENTED AS PART OF A GREATER SET OF ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED IN OTHER STORIES).
The issue though is not the motion to depose or how the rules of the federal courts make depositions (a necessary tool of litigation) an impossible tool to reach due to the costs of office space reservation (in event of parties refusing to meet in private residences or public places) the costs of court reporters (several hundred to thousands of dollars per deposition) and the cost of transcribers (again several hundred to thousands depending on the length of depositions)... all equating to far more than the initial filing and subsequent filing fees the court waives [Discussed in other stories, link to follow]...
This issue is about the practice of the D.C. federal civil courts requiring pro se litigants to disclose their home address and allow the represented to use their lawyers address, giving a litigation advantage to any and all opponent's who are represented by lawyers. [[[ IF YOU CAN IMMAGINE THE RULE CREATES A HESITANCE OR DISUASION EFFECT ON WOULD BE FILERS WHO MUST DECIDE IF THEY ARE GOING TO DISCLOSE THEIR HOME ADDRESS AND FAMILY TO THE DEFENDANTS OR JUST ACCEPT THE INJURIES AND DAMAGES OF THE WRONGDOER (Personal infos can to some measure be hidden from background search services, by companies like Kikoff and Experian).]]]
Here is the specific rule and an explanation of how it creates an unfair advantage for the represented opponents of pro se litigant's, in both exposure to the public and information scraping entities such as companies who compile and sell personal info.... as well as creating a favortism toward the opponent of pro se by disclosing their home address to an opponent (and in cases of pro se plaintiffs, this creates an unfair advantage by allowing a person who is alleged to be a civil and possible criminal law violator to have access to the current address of their victim... You may say the local rule allows for seal, thats only from the public and does not take into account the disclosure to the victimizer or false accuser... There are other mechanisms to prevent disclosure but they only get applied when the pro se shows a connection to acts of victimization in the form of injuries and damages to property related to the opposing party, when acts of constitutional rights and unprovable or unrelated injuries and damages are asserted, the courts in my reviews of the case law decline to protect personal identification info, despite several states and counties of the nation practicing these protections, though they also fail as stated.
[ "LCvR 5.1
FORM AND FILING OF DOCUMENTS
(c) NAME AND ADDRESS OF PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS. (1) The first filing by or on behalf of a party shall have in the caption the name and full residence address of the party. If the party does not wish its full residence address to appear on the public docket, it shall omit the address and simultaneously file under seal a notice containing its full address, which notice shall be available only to the Court and the opposing party. If the party is appearing pro se, the caption shall also include the party's telephone number, unless the pro se party wishes to include that in its sealed filing. Those filing pro se in forma pauperis must provide in the caption the name and full residence address or official address of each defendant. Failure to provide the address information within 30 days of filing may result in the dismissal of the case against the defendant. All documents signed by an attorney shall contain the name, address, telephone number, and D.C. Bar identification number of the attorney..."]
The following is the response to the courts ruling in the case where the court brought to attention my lack of compliance in the rule when I used a p.o. box as my contact address. Which was a result of reading the rules once and forgetting the specific rule...
So here is an excerpt from the case and the full filing is attached as a PDF, it may be replaced inthe future with a link to courtlistener (because pacer the website that hosts the federal courts dockets online charges and requires registry. not a quick or cheap process...)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MOTION TO WITHOLD
RESIDENCIAL ADDRESS
and CLARIFICATION
1:25-mc-00146
Date 1/20/2026
Judge Ana C. Reyes
[PAGES 5-6]
12. I here by ask that the court direct me to LCvR 5.1(c)(1) materials on this rule (the materials used to make and enact the rule) showing its belief as to why the rule is considered to facilitate a governmental interest.
13. LCvR 5.1(c)(1) and the Minute Order impose a mandatory public-disclosure burden on pro se litigants that is not imposed on represented litigants, despite both being similarly situated for all legitimate court purposes. The rule does not to me rationally advance service, accountability, or judicial administration, because alternative mailing addresses—such as P.O. Boxes —serve those interests equally well. Instead, the rule imposes a special disability on self-represented parties—exposing them to heightened safety and privacy risks as a condition of access to the courts—while exempting represented parties entirely. Under Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631–636 (1996); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 446-450 (1985); and U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973), such a disparity seems to fail rational basis review and violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment as applied, while I am still searching for further caselaw that maybe on point, it appears the rule lacks basis.
14. Moreover, the Court appears not to have published, docketed, or otherwise made publicly available any findings, committee reports, or explanatory materials describing why LCvR 5.1(c)(1) was adopted, what governmental interest it was intended to serve, or how the Court concluded that mandatory public disclosure of pro se// [// INDICATED PAGE END OF 5 AND // START OF PAGE 6(THESE BRACKETS CONTENTS ARE NOT PART OF THE FILING)]
//litigants’ residential addresses—while exempting represented parties—was
necessary or appropriate. In the absence of such information, Plaintiff cannot
meaningfully evaluate or address whether a valid governmental rationale exists, nor
can Plaintiff fairly assess whether the rule is narrowly or rationally tailored to any
legitimate objective.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
a. Permit plaintiff to continue using his P.O. Box address with the court,
waiving LCvR 5.1(c)(1). [Also grant request c.] or
b. Permit Plaintiff to continue using a P.O. Box address on the public docket
and with the defendants; and
c. Assess the rule for lawful basis, provide relevant materials and opinion
showing rational basis or if in error, notify the Local Rules Committee as
appropriate for correction.
OR
d. Grant leave for Plaintiff to file his full residence address under seal,
denying the address from the public; AND request c.
Respectfully submitted by Nicholas Woodall on 1/20/2026
NOTICE OF SERVICE
Served on the courts on 1/20/2026
===========================
END OF DOCUMENT
==========================
If you are a lawyer or not and you have a perspective on the caselaw and theory presented (specifically a situation where the court failed to show the grounds for its creation of a rule and asserted it as lawfull, and in this specific situation, the judge in this case not being the enactor of the rule and the rule enactor (the Chief Judge prior to Boasberg) not seemingly or likely having provided the sitting Judge Anna Reyes or other judges with the info requested... Shows me exactly how the Judiciary works, continuing the assertions of the past judiciaries without having the info pertaining to why they do what they do... I dont believe the Judges get a packet on the local rules that shows why they are lawful...
But the Judiciary practices several laws of precedent (no pro se compensation for legal work done, despite the fact that the work may not be at a lawyers valued time, the effort to obtain compensation for a civil wrong does not address the fact that the effort to receive compensation while injured and to learn and research specific practices of litigation is a burden that deprives separate from the injury)and rules (arising in the 1930s, before WWII) like deposition requirements and a few others, so questioning iuf the Judiciary has come time to accept its time for some corrections or public forums to address shortcomings and deficiencies of the law, I say its been past time and offer the following instances that show a clear practice of oppression of Americans rights exists in the Judiciary and has existed for quite some time as a still today practiced reduction of the rights the poor and unestablished in this country have.. In clear violation of what the founders intended, or at least what James Madison in his drafting's and the drafters created.. Equality for all, Justice for all... So to the considerations..
Further if you consider that Vagrancy laws were found lawful and only diminished over time thru acts of the courts (finally ending in the 70s, but were replaced by reasonable suspicion, not that a mechanism should not have been created, but it was arguably not the judiciaries right, though I am not legally educated), That Blue laws were enacted restricting personal and business practices (such as Sunday business operation) by the states even after the 1776 constitution... (James Madison specifically notes that freedom of religion was meant to foster a welcoming environment for all, stating jews, turks and infidels in his communications with Thomas Jefferson...)
The rise of Criminal cyndicalism laws that targeted socialism and their defeat in Whitney and DeJunge... These cases and citing's will be spell corrected and supplemented, but this is a working draft... So all that is here currently is reasoning, absent data and research.. kinda like an opinion except if gives an argument so its more than an assertion... (for all you News Network fans)
Also I realize saying the judiciary should not have created reasonable suspicion (its causation a high level of law enforcers being shot, not supported by my findings, nor relevant... )) is controversial, but the fault is not the congress' where they could not agree on a fair law, it is the judiciaries where the mechanism of reasonable suspicion defeats the long held and foundational practice of probable cause, where law enforcers for centuries before encountered a more prevelant gun possessing population and the remedy should have been increased time for offenders not an ever broadening reduction of the right to privacy possessed by the people, though the people most effected are law breaking people of poverty... So I hope i have disuaded you from taking a side and encouraged you to say its an issue that is not party relevant... I hate party politics and want to hear from independents or people who only register as party voters to get into the meetings...
Hope this does not defeat my purposes, and result in an appropriation of these ideas and works for the purpouses of the parties (who usually do just that.. Usually by incorporating language use into their prepared speaches and then failing to address the issues..) Feel welcome to use the contact info and share the articles of the site to give the American people a fighting chance and stop the fighting among the American people.