They Tried to Go Behind My Back to the Judge

I need to tell you what just happened, because this is the kind of move that usually happens in the dark.

The other side, some of the most powerful law firms in the country, tried to reach out directly to the judge’s chambers without me copied. On the surface, it looked like they were asking a simple question. But really, they were trying to minimize their earlier filing. They had already submitted a response full of false framing, and now they wanted to walk it back. They were basically saying: “Judge, we don’t really need to answer here, this is just arbitration.” In other words: give us another chance, let us undo what we’ve already put on the record.

That is not how the system works.

The judge’s chambers immediately corrected this behavior. They made it clear: all parties must be included in communications. If you have a request, file it as a motion on the docket. No back-channels, no side doors. And in her scheduling order, the judge was direct: Respondents already filed their response. Nothing more is needed from them until all other parties have responded. That’s a huge deal. It shuts down their attempt to get a second bite at the apple after filing their premature false response. 

Why did they try it? Because the record is bad for them. The IRS got involved very quickly. Other government agencies are informed. DRVM operated while revoked, then suddenly reactivated in multiple states under a trust after I said I’d seek legal relief. An unexplained $6,130 deposit showed up mid-arbitration. JAMS failed to enforce the arbitrator qualifications both sides agreed to, AI and emerging tech experience, plus competence in pharma, whistleblower, tax, and RICO issues. Given that record, their best move isn’t to fight the facts. It’s to reframe the process.

But this isn’t arbitration anymore. We’re in federal court. That means everything must be on the record, with both sides included. And it means the judge has real authority now: she must look under the hood to decide who is actually bound to arbitrate, whether the process was obstructed, and whether to appoint a qualified arbitrator or keep the case here in court.

And let me be clear: these aren’t rookie mistakes. These are elite law firms who know the rules. They know ex parte contact isn’t allowed. They know they can’t walk back filings without permission. They tried it anyway. Why? Because that’s how power works — bend the process, shift the frame, do it quietly, and hope no one notices.

But this time, I’m making sure you notice. 

I’m pro se. I’m public. I’m using AI openly while they hide behind PR teams and closed doors. They’ll say I’m unconventional, and they’re right. But unconventional is the only way to fight a $15 billion fraud case tied to one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

The contrast couldn’t be clearer: one of the most powerful law firms in the country quietly trying to seek “guidance” from the Court, in a multi-billion-dollar case, without notifying or copying the pro se whistleblower they’re up against.

This isn’t just about me. It’s about workers being paid under dissolved shells, about regulators and taxpayers being misled, about shareholders being deceived. It’s about a system that counts on silence, and why transparency is the antidote.

They tried to back-channel the judge. Now it’s all on the record where it belongs.

Pay attention.