Do the Court Clerks wear Flip-Flops?
In Part Two of Defedding the Fed I disclosed the Affidavit or Declaration that I filed with the Federal Court in DC in my attempt to execute a default judgment that the Clerk seemed to have “entered” in my favor as a matter of right. Now even though they confirmed to me that I submitted everything necessary to execute the Default, the Court Clerks did not execute the default.
Two of the services that I regularly provided when I was doing full-fledged litigation support were: Case File Review – to determine the
status of a pending case, and Case Proceeding Analysis – to review the case and analyze it relative to process. These actions were mandatory before I did any detailed research or develop any strategy for my client. It was now time to provide mine own professional services to mine own case.
Clerks of the court are supposed to be unbiased handlers of court filings. They are not supposed to be supporting one party over another, or, for that matter, the government when the government is being sued by one of us. I now publish a letter to adverse counsel regarding my findings from the docket review. As you read, ask yourself if the Clerk of the Court flipped-flopped on my hard-won default.
May 12, 2017
To Jason Cohen:
Today (Friday, May 12, 2017) I visited the clerks office of in the U.S. District Court to perform a case file review. At issue remains the matter of executing the entry of default which was or is supposed to have been entered against the United States Attorney General (USAG). The clerk insists that though the USAG was to be served, he did not have to enter the case, and particularly because I did not sue the USAG in the original case prior to removal. Regardless of whether or not that is so, I also realize that none of the other defendants have taken up my offer of settlement so far, and thereby apparently throw their dices siding with your tactical posture relative to this case. Let us look at this tactical posture of yours.
In reviewing the docket and cross-referencing with my files, I see that the following documents were not availed to me:
Docket entry #1: the Civil Cover Sheet
Docket entry #2: the Notice of Removal
Docket entry #3, the Receipt of the Original File,
I brought this matter to the attention of the employees of the office of the clerk of the court and according to them, you are responsible for having sent me a copy of these filings.2
I was able to finally obtain a copy of Civil Cover Sheet and three pages of the Notice of Removal, but I was not able to obtain a copy of the 18 or so page set of exhibits that you apparently attached to the Notice of Removal, or the 155 or so pages filed in Docket entry #3.
It is difficult for me, Mr. Cohen, to provide cogent advances in prosecuting this case while you willfully and deliberately deprive me of the documents that I am entitled to in order to challenge
- your removal action to this jurisdiction
- your motion to dismiss asserting that this jurisdiction to which you came has no jurisdiction
- your implied assertion that you hold the authority to speak on behalf of the USAG, and so forth.
You may well see then why I could not, and may not be able to accept your motion to dismiss or rebuttal as a cogent alternative to the Answer that the court ordered the United States Attorney General, and “ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS” to provide not later than March 26, 2017. If I was not served in any way so many documents that you asserted you served me, of which I am entitled, there is no way in which I could intelligently address your claims that this court does not have jurisdiction over my claims. Summarily, you provided no cogent Answer to justify your Motion to Dismiss. Assuming that the USAG actually submits to you representing the USAG and ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS in this case, and silently so, such a position can not be justified absent a statutory provision to justify your position, and, or, a clear statement from the sitting USAG that indeed you are empowered to represent the entire United States Department of Justice, including the USAG, and not just your Office in a municipal case where you prosecuted a municipal criminal case resulting in a judgment of false arrest, especially inside a municipal district where the residents have elected a municipal Attorney General to address municipal affairs. It raises the question, not only as to whether you have permission then to represent the USAG, but also whether the US Attorney for the District of Columbia has the permission to prosecute the municipal charge(s) that the Prosecutor tried to mount against me, especially given I am a citizen of a different State. You need to cite not only a statutory provision for the actions of the Prosecutor, but also provide such other documents to that effect.
Were it, Mr. Cohen, that your Office (USA-DC) attempted to prosecute me under federal charges, my inquiry at this time would be a non-sequitur, but even were the District of Columbia deemed merely a territory, where no Home Rule Act exists and only at best some kind of government structure more akin to territories possessed under the Guano Island Act holds the fort, in light of the existence of both the Home Rule Act in this incorporated municipality, and, the existence of a robust Attorney General elected by the people, it does not follow that your Office should have had been the Prosecutor in the first place. So False Arrest it is and Malicious Prosecution.
If you do care to behave, you may now advance to me the following documents – by email:
A copy of Docket entry #2, all attachments thereto
A copy of Docket entry #3,
A copy of such corporate disclosure to verify that the Prosecutor in the criminal action is in fact the United States
Your Federal Corporation identification structure, and
Verification that your client, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is authorized to be the Prosecutor in misdemeanor cases inside the municipal court.
Additionally Mr. Cohen, when I filed the application for an entry of default against USAG it was for $7,000,000 according to what was entered unto the docket. I was expedient in this wise as the entry for default requires in such light a set amount, and in good faith I was willing to satisfy with that amount.
I am still willing to satisfy with that amount if all parties are willing to allow the entry of default to proceed thereby resolving this case. After-all, your motion to dismiss will not Resolve this case, as a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds only provides opportunity to engage the matter in the correct jurisdiction. Given the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (OAG) was offered an opportunity to address the matter administratively, but did not, and the U.S. Department of Justice had the opportunity to oversee the conduct of the OAG but did not, I doubt that your assertion that some kind of permanent dismissal is warranted or can prevail to quell the matter even if this Court agrees with you in some way that it lacks jurisdiction. Had the Department of Justice engaged administrative remedy to resolve this matter before I had to, in light of time, proceed in the municipal court in suit against the Prosecutor, which turned out to be your office, I am sure that at the end of such administrative address, even if the matter was unresolved, such address would have ended with a determination as to the appropriate judicial body with which to bring suit.
Did I not, in the originally filed action, state, “This matter remains open for mediation.”?
Did I not, in the originally filed action, state, “Adverse parties are here advised against devising contrived exigencies to extract dismissals averting discoveries or resolution of this matter?
But instead of applied administrative remedy, or mediation, you blatantly ignored this warning, and instead removed this case without serving me a copy thereof, or, Causing the Clerk of the municipal court to do the same. Then you failed to mail me the various docketed filings mentioned above, then I now discover, having finally been able to review the cover sheet that you filed, that you claim that I claim an amount of $7,000,000. But the claim against your Office exceeds that. You conveniently left out claim number 9 against your office, Craig N. Moore, and the District of Columbia Office of Behavioral Health the claim for $67,000,000 and that does not include the amounts filed against one of your colleagues at employment, Craig N. Moore. In fact the tort claim filed against your office was not for $7,000,000 but for $73,313,588.85. That property damage of $66,313,588.85 becomes cemented with the handling of the matter of Lewis v United States, Case 1:17-cv-00720. Maybe you should have told the truth about the value of the claim instead of trying to split the cause of action so as to suppress the otherwise independent claims in that latter case.
You have until Monday at 12 Noon to make a decision as to whether you will concede to the Default at US $7,000,000 plus interest and court costs; otherwise, at the very least, given you reject administrative process, and mediation, it is you who are accelerating litigation – at taxpayers expense, and that is in the light most favorable to you.
/s/ Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis.
FINAL NOTES –
This is Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court in DC. Either she has no idea how well the US Attorney for DC can manipulate her court clerks, or she is complicit with it.
Maybe the right question to ask was – Can the US Attorney for DC influence the Clerk of the Court to flip-flop (on entering a default), by advancing a lie.