Instead of investigating that question, the D.C. Government and administrative law judges snuffed the question altogether. The courts followed suit, deferring to the decision of the assigned administrative law judge, James Harmon. Harmon acted as an “attorney examiner” paid for by the D.C. Lottery, not an administrative law judge, but alas, his opinion became a binding administrative law type decision. It was up to the executive director of the D.C. Lottery to pen the final nail in that coffin, suppressing the fact that the chain of possession was not adequately investigated. One Jeanette Micheal was the “Acting” Executive Director and she certainly did in 2000 assert that “the D.C. Lottery shall not be responsible for lost and stolen tickets.” Jeanette was a mentor for Kwame Brown, who was eventually convicted in his own right for financial fiddlings. I guess his mentor’s apples don’t fall far from his criminal tree.
Anyway, bluntly put, the D.C. Lottery did not give a damn that the ticket was lost or stolen, as long as some attorney acting as a “trustee” got possession of it, nothing else mattered. The D.C. Courts didn’t care either. Judge Bates in the D.C. Circuit tossed the case, and what followed was sheer drama. Ofcourse by this time the attorney we hired was allegedly dead, and so was Jeanette Micheal. But I don’t give up easily. As I pressed the matter I was able to return to the federal court with it. But by this time a D.C. Superior Court Judge, Boasberg, was able to cross the street and become a federal judge, and the renewed case was assigned to him. He decided to make an example out of me, claiming that I presented “a fantastic or delusional scenario warranting dismissal of the case…as frivolous.”
The ad-homonym didn’t stop there. Between the time Boasberg drafted his fantastic and delusional decision, and posted it, I was arrested for stealing a bicycle. The government focused on their idea that I “touched” a bicycle that was left untethered on the street. It seems they claimed I “crossed the street” with it. Chain of possession was certainly an issue, and the basis for affixing a charge of theft was that a person used a fairly sophisticated scheme to take possession of other people’s property. But if I can be arrested for taking possession of other people’s property, I am quite amiss as to how Heber cannot, and why some judge who crosses the street to attend to a pro se ligitant’s case in some other court cannot be cited for bad behavior. These are legal questions.
The only plea the government offered (as if I would plea to begin with) was one where I would admit to being mentally incapacitated in some way. What they were really after was to try to impeach my credibility. Boasberg’s order was the goal post, the sting-bike frame-up was the play-book. It didn’t work. The case fell apart not only because I challenged jurisdiction of the D.C. Superior Court, but because I also raised a profound question as to the identity of the “bicycle” that I allegedly “crossed the street” with. In the process I discovered a new definition for “bicycle” that may have been employed by government operatives and the underlings with which they co-operate in order to suppress their own acts of corruption, one that bodes poorly for unsuspecting families, their loved ones, and the credibility of government operations relative to discretionary abuse. My family, it turns out, is the least of the laughing stocks here. /s/ Radcliffe B. Lewis, Editor-in-Chief, INTELLEXAE. 12/9/15