DE-FEDDING THE FED 2

usadcoverusag

Is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia a Crane Operator?

radcliffe

FROM THE FOUNDER

In Part One of this series, I published the Application for Default against the U.S. Attorney General that I filed with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia regarding a case of false arrest. Once the Clerk of the Court “enters” the default, that should count as a win for me on the case. Next is to collect on my newly minted judgment – Not so fast!.

Whenever I talk about this to others, I detect a vague glaze over their eyes – as if to convey – that this is wishful thinking. I interpret it as a mass loss of confidence in the public in the idea that justice can ever be obtained when the ‘little man’ has a claim against government. Especially where Black America is concerned, this is just the ‘Rich Man’s’ game, and as Donald Trump would say, “Its all rigged!”

To get an application properly filed, you have to file both the Application, and a supporting Affidavit. In Part One I published the Application. Here in Part Two, I publish the Affidavit. As you read on, ask yourself if the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is the ‘conscience’ of the U.S. Attorney General.

 ==================================================================

dcdcseal

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)

DECLARATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S. § 55

1      A docket print-out of April 18, 2017 indicates the following:

  • On December 28, 2016 the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA through counsel Jason Cohen moved upon this Court to “Establish Deadline to Respond to Complaint.” (Docket entry 5)
  • On January 1, 2017 this Court granted a minute order granting “that the federal defendants’ Motion to Establish Deadline to Respond to Complaints”. In that minute order, this Court, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), instructed the Clerk of the Court to issue summonses, and cause service to be effected on the United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The Court ordered those defendants to file an Answer or other response to the complaint by March 10, 2017. (Docket entries 5 and 6).
  • On January 17, 2017 the Clerk complied by issuing SUMMONS as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Docket entry 7).
  • On January 30, 2017 a RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed was filed pertaining to the United States Attorney General. The Date of Service was January 25, 2017, and an “Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/26/2017”. (Docket Entry 9).
  • On February 10, 2017 the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA filed a MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Docket entry 14).
  • On February 16, 2017 this Court ordered me to file an opposition or other response to the filed motion entered as docket entry 14, and warned that if I do not file a timely opposition, the Court may treat the motion as conceded and may summarily dismiss this case as against these defendants. (Docket entry 15).
  • On February 17, 2017 I filed a RESPONSE to the motion, (Docket entry 16), and
  • On February 27, 2017 I filed a Memorandum in opposition to the the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
  • On March 7, 2017 the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jason Cohen filed a REPLY to my opposition to his motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

2      Relative to the above, the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ergo United States Attorney for the District of Columbia through counsel/employee Jason Cohen, under license from the state of Main, #004465 filed

  • A motion to establish deadline to respond to a complaint where it is a defendant in an action
  • a motion to then dismiss the complaint and
  • a reply to my opposition (if you may call it that) of that motion to dismiss.

3      The United States Attorney General acknowledged receipt of the Summons and Complaint but has not filed anything.

4      Even though this Court, issued a clear order to the United States Attorney General to Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by March 10, 2017, and gave ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS to reply by March 26, 2017, and even though the the docket reflects that the United States Attorney General acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on January 25, 2017, the United States Attorney General, or at least that particular Office ignores those orders.

5      It is notable here to say at least that particular Office because the United States Attorney General has gone through at four individuals at the helm since January 6, 2017:

  • First there was Lorretta Lynch who left office on January 20, 2017 in light of the new President taking office,
  • Second there was Sally Yates who left office on January 30, 2017 when she was fired by the incoming President for insubordination,
  • Third there was Dana Boente who left office on February 9 when Congress approved the fourth
  • Jeff Sessions, the sitting Attorney General.

6      Under normal circumstances where the Department of Justice acknowledged that it is aware that there is a live case on the Federal docket against the United States Attorney General since January 25, 2017 until March 26, 2017, the latest date for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS to Answer the Complaint, that span of time amounts to amounts to precisely 60 days.

7      In consideration of the three concussions suffered by the United States Department of Justice from Loretta Lynch to Jeff Sessions, had the deadline to Answer the Complaint been extended to cover that period plus 10 days to allow the Congressionally approved Jeff Sessions to be briefed, or allow the Department after the fact to at least provide some counsel to enter appearance even, and thus if we count the days from February 19, 2017 to the date of the drafting of this status report (April 25, 2017) it amounts to 65 days.

8      Discounting seven days to accommodate the date when the Clerk of this Court finally allowed me to get a copy of the Local Rules in hard print so that I can provide some semblance of cognitive understudy as to how this court deals with the failure of a defendant to provide an Answer as ordered by this Court, the span of time to date amounts to a mere 58 days.

9      Adjusting the calendar from 15 days after the installment of Jeff Session to date, hence from February 24, 2017 to April 25, 2017, this amounts to being precisely 60 days.

10      Not only has the United States Attorney General not Answered the Complaint, the United States Department of Justice has not even entered counsel separate from the counsel representing the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Neither Jason T. Cohen, nor any other counsel entered any other appearance to indicate that his, or their representation of the Office that the individual Channing Phillips mans amounts to their representation of the Office that the individual Jeff Sessions mans.

11      Channing Phillips is not Jeff Sessions.

12      I assert that in my opinion, the State of Main cannot automatically qualify an attorney under the employ as an Assistant United States Attorney to be the counsel appearing to defend the Attorney General of the United States Attorney General without some indication in the least bit that the Attorney General is conscious of the matter.

13      The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia does not control the Attorney General of the United States.

14      I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true.
Verily stated by:
Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis

===========================================================================

FINAL NOTES – Unlike in Part One where I applied footnotes and bold writing to make clear the context of the application, I decided I would simply place the Affidavit/Declaration here. You may see that the focus was on whether the defendants followed the court orders relative to time. Now, though the court clerk assures me that this is all that is needed in order for me to have the default status enforced (which means I should expected payment on the default next) the clerk failed to execute enforcement, and this decision confirms and reinforces why so many people have that glaze-eye look when it comes to enforcing a default against the Feds.

This series therefore may be just what is needed, a walk-along with the actual experience of a claimant who seems to have made it to the crest of the winning a case, only to be keel-hauled by government as if he is foolishly delusional to think he could ever de-Fed a Fed and obtain justice. So this series can only continue, and there are other Parts to come.

Subscribe to INTELLEXAE at our website to follow this and other interesting topics on public policy.

© Radcliffe Lewis Enterprises, SP

Advertisements

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s