Barbara J. Lewis v District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable
Games Board
Jurisdictions: DCRA, DC Courts, Supreme Court, US Courts, DC-Circuit
Notable Case Numbers: Supreme Court No. 06-11906, Judicial Complaint No. DC-08-90029.
Notable parties, individuals: DC Lottery, DCRA, Natwar Gandhi, Anthony Cooper, Esq.,
Anthony Williams, Adrian Fenty, Mona Blake, Paul Friedman, others.
Synopsis: Where B.J. Lewis purchased tickets for the December 11, 1999 Powerball
Game, she learned that she may have one the game, sought for her tickets and could not find the ticket. Based upon direction
from Lewis as to where to look, agents for the DC Lottery Board found the ticket in the garbage of S&S Liquors, the place
where Lewis purchased the ticket. The Board denied Lewis's claim and then awarded the money to a Trustee, but failed
to disclosed the trustor to whom the trustee answers. It was eventually discovered that the General Counsel for the
Board, Mona Blake had a one-on-one meeting with that trustee in order to determine how best to transfer money to that trustee
without disclosing the trustor yet remain in compliance with the law. It is our position that this can not be done.
The counsel for Lewis filed suite in the DC Courts but then failed to perform adequately. Our Founder intervened and
discovered that the laws in the District of Columbia subordinates the Courts under the authority of the Board, and this defective
mandate has been made to rule the order of the day up until March 12 2009 when the US Court of Appeals - DC dismissed the
mandate. The case is currently dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction because the trust is in Maryland, but the District
is not a State.
Notable Issues: The preservation of pre-possessory interests - The preservation
of third party heir-legatee standing - The appropriateness of the role of conservator ship - Willful and intentional malfeasance
of government - Cause of action and claims related to fraud, and unjust enrichment - Jurisdiction and Racketeering -
Venue of investigation for financial crimes - Minorities' rights to fair and equal treatment regarding lottery winnings -
Preservation of right of action related to related pleadings, and non-censor in multi jurisdictional and venued cased.
Our Input: We have preserved the since circa 2004, as counsel for Lewis became
unresponsive. We have exhausted administrative remedies ad-nauseum to assure access to the Courts. Though Lewis
remains alive she is denied access to the Courts. In keeping with the statutory authority of the Board, this case has
been sequestered. We have broken through the barriers this sequester to now engage disclosure of this case through our own
ad hoc publication process, it appearing the standard media for public disclosure has been co-opted.
---------
Radcliffe Lewis v Rufus King, District of Columbia Superior Court
Jurisdictions: DC Courts, US Courts, DC-Circuit
Notable Case Numbers: US District Court No. 07-697
Notable parties, individuals: DC Superior Court, Rufus King III, DC Public Defender
Service, Julia Leighton, Brenden Wells, DC Government, Henry Youngblood, Samira Cook, Department of Veterans Affairs, others.
Synopsis: Where Radcliffe Lewis sat through a three week orientation course
back in 2002 that was offered by the DC Superior Court by way of the DC Public Defender Service (PDS), he completed the course
and all qualifications, but the DC Courts and PDS denied him he promised certification. After exhausting all discernible
administrative remedies he filed suit.
The certification is for "Criminal Justice Act Investigator" in accordance, supposedly, with
18 USC 3006.
The governments sought to defend against legal action under the pretext that Lewis alleges
collusion which he could not prove. This was denied. Then PDS, like the United States government sought to defend on
jurisdiction grounds, 28 USC 1331, 1332. The United States prevailed here, so far. As of this writing there is
no indication the District prevailed. Meanwhile the District fervently rushes what appears to be an unconstitutional
attempt to obtain voting representation in Congress without any mention of allocation for cure of jurisdiction relative to
judicial access to the courts.
Notable Issues: The preservation of pre-possessory interests - Disposition of
Citizenship - Misrepresentation of identity by government demanding "IDENTIFICATION" - Minorities' rights to fair and equal
treatment regarding merits earned - Right to engage commerce - Right to representation and self determination - Right to privacy
and diversification of identification processes - Militating of veteran's privileges - Commerce value - Equitable treatment
of process servers/investigators/litigation agents other than attorneys and "para legals", - entrapment and classification
of individuals as "investigators".
Our Input: This action challenges the tendency of government employees to enact
abusive austerity measures against singled out members of society. It is necessary because of the discernment of systematic
denials of access to progress in civil society by those in power, particularly against classified young Black males.
The denial of merit earned in as indicated in this case occurs after the systematic denials of merits otherwise pursued and
confirms a defect in the American socio-political-economic structure indicating constructionist schemes to undercut the potential
of minority individuals, thereby creating exigency to impeach the efficacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other such
acts. The targets are in fact young Black males. Lewis was compelled to stand against this scheme in defence of
his own lawful efforts to be a productive citizen. This was being undermined. Furthermore, challenging the District
helps to build objection to the uniform nationalization of identity under the Patriot Act, which can lead to excessive abuse
of individuals. Upon filing suit we were able to discover where Rufus King, while sitting as the Chief Judge of the
DC Superior Court, help to draft laws affecting the deliberating operations of the Federal Judiciary; particularly, he drafted
the laws governing Jury deliberations in the DC-Circuit of the U.S. Courts. King announced his resignation about five
days after disclosure. Our last check indicates the case remains pending.
---------
Radcliffe Lewis v EBay, INC.
Jurisdictions: DC Courts
Related Jurisdictions: US Courts, DC-Circuit, EU
Notable Case Numbers: US District Court No. 07-cv-1208
Notable parties, individuals: EBay Inc.
Notable precedents EU V Microsoft Corp.
Synopsis: Where Radcliffe Lewis, a Paypal account holder suffered the cleaning
out of his bank account by Paypal for a trite amount. The rash action of Paypal prompted cause to consider the intent to be
well beyond that of pecuniary considerations. Lewis filed suit for libel and theft.
Paypal immediately returned the money, but refused to acknowledge other consideration. Paypal
insists on the excercise of personal jurisdiction in Santa Clara County California. The trial Court agreed, Lewis appealed
.
Upon appeal EBay, Paypal's parent company offered a corporate disclosure statement indicating
EBay has no parent company. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the managing partner of the law firm representing
EBay, (Godwin Coley) was a member of the Security and Exchange Commission at the time of suit, that he sits on the President's
transition team, and that in keeping with the legal interpretation of EBay regarding Santa Clara County, in comparative analysis
of that county, it appears it is a jurisdiction, a safe haven that is, for "Californios", not Californians. Legally
speaking it is definable as a Mexican enclave, not the United States. Civil war is now emergent in Mexico with spillover
effects in the United States.
Notable issues: Anti-trust violations - enforceable contracts v dispute of sovereign
claims not disclosed - jurisdiction fraud.
Our Input: Our investigation of EBay's corporate disclosure standards bring
the overt market levering of EBay squarely in line with the commercial bundling of services that Microsoft engaged, and contributes
to the consideration as to what constitutes sound financial policy of government related to conflicts of interest. The
current financial crisis of the United States especially in line with the AIG scandal only underscores the importance of not
overlooking such considerations, as well as the fact-finding and analysis abilities of those of us who are able discern improprieties
and in-effectiveness in such implemented laws and policy action.
--------
