DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
 
 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
IN RE RICHARD H. LAMBERTSEN, 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
Petitioner 
 
║ 
1:25-cv-00010-WAL-EAH  
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
________________________________________________ ║ 
 
TO: 
Richard H. Lambertsen, Pro Se 
 
 
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the issuance of an Order to Show 
Cause on March 20, 2025 that directed Petitioner Richard H. Lambertsen, to show cause in a 
written submission by April 3, 2025 why this Court should not recommend to the District 
Judge that his petition for a writ of mandamus be dismissed for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 4. Mr. Lambertsen timely filed a response. Dkt. No. 7. For the reasons 
that follow, the Court recommends that the District Judge dismiss the Petition for Writ of 
Mandamus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
BACKGROUND 
On February 7, 2025, Mr. Lambertsen, appearing pro se and fee paid, filed a Petition 
for Writ of Mandamus. Dkt. No. 1. In his Petition, Mr. Lambertsen sought relief from Joel Lee, 
Director of the U.S. Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue. Specifically, he asked the Court 
to “direct the Director of the U.S. Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue to promptly issue 
to Petitioner the $237.00 refund due based on Petitioner’s Amended 2023 Federal tax 
return.” Id. at 2. Mr. Lambertsen explained that he was a veterinarian, consultant, investor 
and philanthropist, and was a “defacto agent of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” 
Id. In order to advance his work to have Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, 
Case: 1:25-cv-00010-RAM-EAH     Document #: 12     Filed: 04/29/25     Page 1 of 5
In re Lambertsen 
1:25-cv-00010-WAL-EAH 
Report & Recommendation 
Page 2 
 
 
 
prosecuted by his own government for ordering a war of aggression against Ukraine, and not 
to undermine his effort to ensure cost-effective personal security,1 Mr. Lambertsen 
demanded that Respondent Lee issue the past due $237.00 refund based on his 2023 
Amended tax return that he had filed sixteen weeks ago. Id. at 3. He concluded that failure of 
the Court to issue the writ would constitute obstruction of justice. Id. 
The District Judge referred all pending and future dispositive matters in this action to 
the undersigned for a Report & Recommendation. Dkt. No. 3.  
The Court then issued the Order to Show Cause, observing that it was a plaintiff’s 
burden to establish federal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 4 at 2. Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 
1651(a), a district court had jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus only “in aid of” its 
jurisdiction and, before entertaining such a petition, the Court was required to “identify a 
jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ might assist.” Id. (quoting United States v. Christian, 
660 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1981)). But because the petition asked the Court to order the 
Director of the U.S. Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue to promptly issue Mr. 
Lambertsen his 2023 tax refund, and it was well-established that a federal court lacked the 
authority to issue a writ of mandamus to state officials, the Court appeared to lack 
jurisdiction over Mr. Lambertsen’s petition. Id. at 2-3. The Order to Show Cause provided Mr. 
Lambertsen notice and an opportunity to be heard on the legal viability of his Petition and 
 
1 In this regard, Mr. Lambertsen mentioned that he had applied for a firearm permit in the 
Virgin Islands and had petitioned the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 
Governor of the Virgin Islands to decide on that permit application. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. 
Case: 1:25-cv-00010-RAM-EAH     Document #: 12     Filed: 04/29/25     Page 2 of 5
In re Lambertsen 
1:25-cv-00010-WAL-EAH 
Report & Recommendation 
Page 3 
 
 
 
ordered him to show cause why the Court should not recommend to the district judge that 
his Petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3. 
On March 27, 2025, Mr. Lambertsen responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 
7. He asserted that 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) “does not indicate that writs of mandamus may be 
issued by a district court only in aid of its jurisdiction as claimed in the Order to Show Cause” 
because the statute states that a district court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate 
in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” Id. at 2. Thus, the letter and spirit of § 1651(a) favored 
inclusiveness, not exclusiveness, when there was a compelling reason. Id. The Court’s 
interpretation of the statute appeared to be a “self-serving interpretation of sometimes 
overworked members of the U.S. federal judiciary.” Id. 
Mr. Lambertsen response referred to events, documents, and persons that had no 
apparent relationship to the instant Petition. Id. at 3-5. For example, he referred to “evident 
mea culpas” by President Donald Trump in February and March 2025 relating to the war in 
Ukraine and to pardons by President Biden, and various letters he wrote, inter alia, to 
Presidents Biden and Trump and King Charles III of the United Kingdom. Id. He then 
addressed the subject matter of the instant petition, asserting that Mr. Lee’s failure to 
provide the overdue $237.00 tax refund “precludes his preparation of a second amended 
2023 return which would significantly increase the tax refund due to him.” That second 
amended return was “precluded by a technical restraint imposed by Petitioner’s tax 
preparation software (Turbotax), which dictate[d] that any prior amended return first be 
processed.” Id. at 5-6. Mr. Lee’s failure to issue the overdue tax refund was “evidently 
Case: 1:25-cv-00010-RAM-EAH     Document #: 12     Filed: 04/29/25     Page 3 of 5
In re Lambertsen 
1:25-cv-00010-WAL-EAH 
Report & Recommendation 
Page 4 
 
 
 
intended to compromise Petitioner’s credibility as a witness against Donald J. Trump, 
President of the United States, and thereby obstruct justice.” Id. at 6. Consequently, it would 
be “inappropriate—and probably criminal—to recommend to the District Judge that 
Petitioner’s petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. 
Mr. Lambertsen attached fourteen exhibits to his response, which included letters he 
had written to various United States Presidents over the years, communications to officials 
from West Melbourne, Fla., letters to King Charles III and the President and Ambassador of 
India to the United States, and some responses. Dkt. Nos. 7-1 to 7-14. 
DISCUSSION 
 
Most of the statements and arguments Mr. Lambertsen offered in his response do not 
address the issue of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his Petition, as set out in the 
Order to Show Cause. The points that he does make—concerning the specific wording of the 
text of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), whether the statute should be inclusive rather than exclusive, and 
his view that it would be inappropriate, if not criminal, for this Court to recommend to the 
District Judge that his petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction—do not 
speak to, much less challenge, the well-established case law included in the Order to Show 
Cause. Those cases hold that a federal court lacks the authority  to issue a writ of mandamus 
to state officials, and that such a request “lies outside the bounds of . . . mandamus jurisdiction 
as a federal court.” In re Brown, 382 F. App’x 150, 150 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). This 
holding was recently reaffirmed by the Third Circuit in Martinez v. Colville, No. 24-1935, 2024 
WL 4234628, at * 2 n.4 (3d Cir. 2024) (per curiam).  
Case: 1:25-cv-00010-RAM-EAH     Document #: 12     Filed: 04/29/25     Page 4 of 5
In re Lambertsen 
1:25-cv-00010-WAL-EAH 
Report & Recommendation 
Page 5 
 
 
 
Mr. Lambertsen’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus asks the Court to direct Joel Lee, 
Director of the U.S. Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue, to promptly issue to Petitioner 
a $237.00 refund based on Petitioner’s Amended 2023 Federal tax return. However, because 
the Petition asks the Court to direct a state official to take some action, the Court lacks subject 
matter jurisdiction over the Petition. In re Brown, 382 F. App’x at 150. 
CONCLUSION 
 
Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Mr. Lambertsen’s Petition 
be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing within 
fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and must “specifically 
identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which 
objection is made and the basis of such objection.” LRCi 72.3.  Failure to file objections within 
the specified time shall bar the aggrieved party from attacking such Report and 
Recommendation before the assigned District Court Judge.  See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 
140 (1985).  
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the pro se 
Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested.  
 
 
ENTER: 
Dated: April 29, 2025 
 
 
 
/s/ Emile A. Henderson III  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EMILE A. HENDERSON III 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Case: 1:25-cv-00010-RAM-EAH     Document #: 12     Filed: 04/29/25     Page 5 of 5