To

The Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20543 Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis Mail to: Radcliffe B. Lewis 8210 Colonial Lane Silver Spring, MD 20910 Complainant

: : : :

Telephone Number: (202) 479-3011

: : : : : : : : :

And

:

v. William Kent Suter, Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, D.C. 20543-0001

Before The Honorable John Roberts Chief Justice

The United States of of America : C/o Solicitor General of the United States : Room 5614 : United States Department of Justice : 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. : Washington, DC 20530-0001 : Respondents : _________________________________________ : PROTEST and COMPLAINT FOR ACCESS TO THE COURTS Pursuant to U.S. Const.art III §2 Rule 17 and 22 Points and Authorities Magna Carta Constitution of the United States, Amds. 1,5, and 14 28 USC § 1332(e) Rule 17.7 Civil Rights Page 1 of 9 Pages

Vanstophorst v. Maryland, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 401 (1791) Yakus v. United States 321 U.S. 414 Jinks v. Richland County (2003) Identity 1

I, Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis am a citizen of the United States of America.

Discovery 2

On Monday, October, 1, 2012, I visited the Clerk of the Court to obtain the necessary

instruction package, forms if any, etcetera, in order to file an original complaint with the United States Supreme Court. I was informed at that time by the employees of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court that the Court does not accept original complaints from individuals, but only from sovereign entities, such as “a State versus a State”.

3

When I informed the employees that I intend to make the attempt to file anyway, the employees

indicated to me that the Clerk of the Court will not allow it.

4

When I indicated that I would prefer for the justices to make that decision, one employee who

would not give his name stated to me that the Clerk of the Court is the one that will decide. (This employee provided me the name of a different employee Mr. “Barnes” when I asked for that other employee's name, but the alleged “Barnes” did not give his name directly to me either.

5

The employees of the Court indicated that they are relying on Rule 17 of the Court's Rules.

Page 2 of 9 Pages

Relevance 6

This issue is relevant to me personally because at this time I have several cases that may

eventually find their way before the Supreme Court of the United States either by way of an application for certiorari, or up until now, by some other means such as by way of an original pleading. For the past 14 or so years I have been living a life in this country where I have had my civil rights violated on a continuous basis by employees of several courts in several jurisdictions on several issues. This is an ongoing and unrelenting problem that hampers my productivity and renders me incapable of doing such simple things as fronting the fees necessary to proceed in litigation here. For all practical purposes I have already lost all confidence in the structure and efficacy of the American judicial system, and, yes I know, nobody cares. The system works just fine for people who are rich, white, gay, and successful, but not foreign-born yet naturalized and now money-less, black, straight male citizens like me. Certainly not for a U.S.N.R. veteran with “no fixed address”. But, particularly where such systematic and unrelenting discriminatory practices are concerned, the District of Columbia happens to be a prime area where I have been having difficulties.

7

The District of Columbia Courts, and the District of Columbia Circuit has made it abundantly

clear to me that whether it be property that the District of Columbia has taken from my family unit and I without just cause, or whether it be a credential that I have sought and have met all conditions for,but which is denied me anyway, or whether it be a performance on a contract or trade agreement that the District of Columbia is obligated to fulfill but refuses to, no court is able –

to compel the District of Columbia to return property it steals,

–

to compel the District of Columbia Courts to provide the credential which I duly earned, and, or

–

to compel the District of Columbia to fulfill its obligations on a contract.

Page 3 of 9 Pages

Consider attached orders and other filings from the following cases as examples: Exhibit 1

Lewis v. Anthony Williams, et al., D.C. Sup. Crt. No. 00ca5783, Order Denying

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, November 22, 2005. Exhibit 2

Lewis v. District of Columbia Judiciary, et al, U.S. Dist. Crt. D.C., No. 07-697 (RJL),

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Jul. 24. 2008, Page 2; Exhibit 3

Lewis v. District of Columbia et al, D.C. Circ. No. 12-7013, Sept. 2011 Term, Judgment

of May 24, 2012, affirming dismissal below based on jurisdictional grounds.

8

And when we have a situation where a government entity is able to make and advance promises

to perform according to agreements, only to hide behind the veils of its own alleged sovereignty, or 'judicial immunity' and refuse to perform as any other entity would be obligated to do, while at the same time indemnifying its officers and agents by both sovereign immunity and hiding their identities and serviceable addresses so that they cannot be properly served if personally sued, without there being exhaustive expense on the part of the aggrieved (especially when the aggrieved must file suit only after being stripped of all of his financial means having naively placed his trust in that Government and its false promises – whereby the aggrieved is then been deemed an homo erectus pauperis by others with all of derogatory and insulting castigations that such a profiling entails), it has been up to this point as far as I know that the internationally recognized sovereignties, and in terms of the cases stipulated above, the Union of the United States of America to see to it that such government entities and their agents are called to answer for their non-performance on their own promises.

9

And in the cases where the inferior courts have abolished mandamus actions, and refuse to

police the so-called judicial actions of the municipal courts, it has been the case as far as I know up to this point that for such kinds of specific performances of lesser government bodies according to Page 4 of 9 Pages

agreements, the United States Supreme Court enables the forwarding of the dispute in at least some such cases to this Court by way of an original pleading handled usually by a special master on the judicial side, not the administrative side, of the Court, irrespective of whether the aggrieved party is a State or not a State. Vanstophorst v. Maryland, 2 U.S. 401, Yakus v. United States 321 U.S. 414

The Protest 10

But even if this Court were to now assert it will no longer entertain such actions and I disagree,

far be it for me to upon appealing such an adverse PREEMPTIVE decision of this Court, conclude that the Clerk of this Court is entitled to play JUSTICE. Nobody made Mr. William Kent Suter a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and no Supreme Court Justice has the power to replicate itself, or delegate his or her judicial deliberation responsibilities to the Clerk of the Court to act as a Justice, Circuit Justice, Administrative Law Justice, Justice-De-Facto, Coup-De-Justice, Justice-Rogue-De'tant, or any other kind of judicially deliberating Agent or Officer of the United States Supreme Court, or to create any of the above, especially in the absence of an appeal to a true Justice so selected by the President of the United States, Ratified by the Senate, and Sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. I therefore protest that the Clerk of the Court, which has already conveyed its prejudice against me when it comes to filing an original pleading, should hold judicial power, absolute or otherwise, to deny me access to the Court. Clerk of this Court is no King.

Considerations 11

For brevity and in light of the audacious amounts of copies that I may have to make just to get

this thing filed, [40 + up to four more for the adverse respondents (two each), and thereby not less than 44 of them, unless otherwise waived], I advance a logical discourse here relative to a reading of the applicable laws and Rules of the court regarding this matter, without transcription. Page 5 of 9 Pages

12

The Supreme Court of the United States holds Original Jurisdiction in cases “in which a State is

a party”. U.S. Const. art. III.

13

The right to petition not merely the right to utter 'Ouch', but also utter that “Ouch” in pursuit of

redress by way of government. Certainly such utterance in pursuit will most likely be adversarial in nature, but we the People (each and every one of us) have the right to go after you for redress nonetheless, and to do so without hindrance. Magna Carta, U.S. Const. Amds, 1, 5, and 14.

14

The Congress of the United States neither has the authority to change the original jurisdiction of

this Court, nor the authority to deny a fundamental right of its citizens. Bill of Rights.

Discussion 15

For the purposes of the examples I note above, where the Government of the District of

Columbia is the aggrieving Government, to treat the District of Columbia as a State in the Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States, 28 USC § 1332(e), is to grant to parties at suit the privilege to treat it like a state in according with Article III, and accordingly the section sentence in Section 2 of Article III applies, and thus it is a given that it is the Supreme Court of the United States that has Original Jurisdiction if the District of Columbia – treated as a state – is a party. If this Court now summarily reneges on this interpretation of things, the District of Columbia suddenly becomes just that – a District of the United States of America, which means either the United States becomes the party, or in the alternative, the District of Columbia operating as just a municipality is not entitled to sovereign immunity. Jinks v. Richland County (2003).

Page 6 of 9 Pages

16

Nevertheless, there has been no indication that I know of to date where the Judicial Branch

reneges on treating the District of Columbia as other than a State, even though relative to the other Branches it is not, though they are complicit with this improperness. Notable here and for future considerations, the Distict of Columbia does not have a “Governor”. Rule 17.7

17

As for the Clerk of this Court, nothing in the laws stipulated so far mention the Clerk, much

less his duties, and nothing in Rule 1 of the Courts Rules state that the Clerk of the Court or his assigns performs judicial deliberation duties. The only issue is whether the filings comply with the Rules. The employees of the Clerk of the Court looked to Rule 17 to make a determination regarding Original Actions. I see nothing in Rule 17 or the Rules or statutes that it refers to that limit the identify of a moving party to those that are States.

18

What is happening here is that I am being hindered from proceeding with my discovery that in

all of the cases mentioned above it is the Supreme Court of the United States that holds Original Jurisdiction regardless as to whether there is any Concurrent or any other form of Jurisdiction, a violation of my Bill of Rights by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States and his assigns himself, because I am the proverbial Little Man.

19

WHEREFORE I move this Court to accept this Original Protest as a Complaint in and of itself

irrespective of whether the other cases I mention above or any other are treated as original jurisdiction cases, or petitions from below if and when I then approach this Court regarding such matters, and that I be granted relief by the Judicial Branch in that the United States adhere to the principles of ascertaining that individual United States Citizens are not hindered in claims that fit the prescription for this Court's Original Jurisdiction but are provided clear access to this Court with Clear instructions embedded Page 7 of 9 Pages

within the Court's Rules as to the proceedings advancing such grievances, claims, and, complaints be the solely Original in scope or be they Original and Non-Exclusive, or Concurrent in Scope, or otherwise, but not hindered.

Verily submitted by _____________________________ Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis “No Fixed Address”

_________________

Yet, mail to: Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis 8210 Colonial Lane Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910. Telephone Emails:

Voicemail: Personal Press

202 670-2196 [email protected] [email protected]

Certificate of Service 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) may apply. I, Radcliffe Bancroft Lewis hereby affirm that on this 5th day of October 2012 I caused a copy of the foregoing Protest and Complaint, with attachments, together with a Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Court Fees , and a Declaration regarding the Motion to be sent either by postage prepaid first class or by hand delivery filing to a government intake manifold or portal to the following: Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States C/o Office of the Special Counsel 1730 M Street, NW. Suite 218, Washington, D.C. 20036 – 4505 Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001 William Kent Suter, Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, D.C. 20543 Page 8 of 9 Pages

Donald Beaton Verrilli Jr., Solicitor General of the United States Office of the Solicitor General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Sign: ______________________________

______________________

Estimated cost of postage and or delivery Qty 4

Units Packages

Description Letters @ 25 pages

Rate est./Unit 5.00

Totals $20.00

___________________________________

Page 9 of 9 Pages