Why Is DC’s US Attorney Prosecuting Municipal Misdemeanors?
FROM THE FOUNDER: Readers of INTELLEXAE may recall the fiasco “Which Bicycle?” where the DC Government tried to catch me in a sting-bike operation but could not identify which “bicycle” they accused me of stealing. They then tried to call me crazy when I refused to take a urine test. Turns out the ‘bicycle’ seems to be more akin to ‘Black vagina’. Needless to say, the case was dismissed. The judges have so far acknowledged that I was falsely arrested.
One of the mission purposes of INTELLEXAE is to convey to the public legal issues that may not be adequately covered elsewhere but ought to be (as Ivanka Trump–Kushner would say) “a part of the conversation”. The following is Part One of a two-part report regarding a motion for default that is filed before the court regarding the matter. Note the sub-title and ask yourself if a default judgment is appropriate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis v US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL,
Civil Action No. 16-2352 (RJL)
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND, ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER COMPLAINT
Noting 28 U.S. § 55 and LcvR 83.23
1 I, Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis, now move upon this Court to enter a default judgment against the United States Attorney General,and, all FEDERAL DEFENDANTS for that Officer’s failure to reply to the Complaint.
2 Neither the United States Attorney General nor any other FEDERAL DEFENDANT has complied with the Order of this Court to Answer the Complaint. [Docket entry 9].1
3 The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia has not provided a formal Answer either but only advanced a motion to dismiss asserting that this Court has no jurisdiction, but fails to explain why the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia would now assert that this Court has no jurisdiction after this particular Defendant – United States Attorney for the District of Columbia was the one that Removed the case2 into a Court that it believes does not have jurisdiction. What the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is attempting to do is to backtrack on the case because it does not like the reality that this Court acknowledges that I was falsely arrested.3 But if the United States for the District of Columbia is correct, then the counsel for the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia knowingly and willfully Removed the case for no just cause – to arm itself to accuse you the judges of treason if you don’t dispose of the case4 the way they want you to – hence Cohen’s motion at Docket entry 14.
4 Be that as that may be, it is my contention that the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is no FEDERAL DEFENDANT5 but at best, is a proxy for the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General. But even if this Court insists that the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is, their counsels6 having filed no formal Answer, and absent any other party coming forward as a FEDERAL DEFENDANT, absent no formal Answer on the Docket in direct reply to this Court’s Orders of January 6, 2017, (Docket entries at 5 and 6) and Scheduling Notice at Docket Entry 9, I am entitled to an Entry of Default.
Points and Authorities
5 The latest publication of the Local Rules7 does not appear to address the particular consequences to be meted out to a defending party who has been served8 but refuses to provide any Answer or other reply after service. If it does it is lightly treated enough for me to pay a little more attention to LcvR 83.23 – Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute.9 We do know that were the tables reversed then, for all practical purposes, just as in light of this Local Rule, not only would I be deprived of my day in court, but any court would most likely rule against me if I were sued and failed to answer. This Court dockets the Demand at $7,000,000 and if I were the Defendant I would wake up by week’s end with $7,000,000 of debt hanging over my head.10
6 It would appear then that a default judgment against a non-answering party is appropriate.
7 I now include the accompanying Declaration in support of this Motion.11
Verily submitted by Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis, Plaintiff
© Radcliffe Lewis Enterprises, SP
1 Docket Entry – A line in a log report of all documents filed with a court by all parties, and/or, orders from the judge.
2 Removal Actions – The United States Code allows parties (plaintiffs, defendants) to move a case from a state court to a federal court for various reasons. For further information read the law at 28 U.S. Code § 1441 – Removal of civil actions.
3 Read Which Bicycle? – To Frame a Pro Se Litigant, Letters by INTELLEXAE Vol 10. 12/14/2015. Read online at https://intellexae.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/which-bicycle/.
4 Dispose of the case – To close out the case.
5 FEDERAL DEFENDANT – In other words, when the US Attorney for the District of Columbia is operating as a prosecutor in a misdemeanor case, it is arguable that he can at the same time claim he is fully protected by Sovereign immunity under the flag of the Unite States as being a Fed.
6 Counsels – Representing attorneys, or, the attorneys representing someone in a case.
7 Local Rules – Each court has rules of procedures that must be followed aside from the laws created by a lawmaking body.
8 Served – To be officially notified of action regarding them before a court.
9 LcvR 83.23 – Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute – This rule allows the Federal Court in DC to dismiss a case if the court does not believe I am vigorous enough in suing/prosecuting the case.
10 Think about students loans, for example. If you default and the sue you and you don’t answer, you are already done.
11DECLARATION – in Part Two.