___RADCLIFFE LEWIS ENTERPRISES___
Providing Business & Marketing Consultation to Subsidiary Portfolios
PUBLIC NOTICE
Addendum to the Terms of Operations of Radcliffe Lewis Enterprises
2009-1104-1313
Print Edition
________________________________________________________
Over the past several years the Firm has observed certain business practices that can create the exigency for eventual disputes in commercial practices due to losses or misunderstandings of agreements. We have worked stridently to conform with acceptable standards in the areas of the commercial markets where we operate in order to foster the best available arrangements for the conduct of business, and the assurance of confidentiality where necessary, and also to diminish the potential for unnecessary disputes in that wise.
Litigaton Support Services
In the litigation support services sector, we have developed the terms and conditions of Radcliffe Research and Investigations from a blank slate, and have followed that up with a Notice to the Bar of the District of Columbia so as to delineate the nature of our litigation support services from the larger "legal advice" providers. ("Law firms").
Visual Arts
In the visual arts sectors we have made significant adjustments to our image use practices incorporating where necessary the standards of De-accessioning of images, and have declared our opposition to interpretations of copyright usage that allow image compilers to declare ownership of images grafted into their compilations but not owned by them.
Consulting in General
Relative to general consulting, litigation support, and image design, we have struggled to gain acceptance of our business contracting arrangements with those who indicate an interest in any of our entrepreneurial activities. In some cases we have demanded strict adherence to contracts, and in some cases we have been more lenient, however by-and-large we discover that for us, many in the business communities do not respect the idea that we are a business and that some semblance to the adherence to firm and enforceable agreements are required in business even in very private arrangements. Consider: Lewis v. District of Columbia Judicary, U.S. Dist. Crt. DC, No 07-cv-697 rjl, and, Squires, Jr. v. Roberts, D.C. Supt. Crt. No. 2009 CA 406 in re Lewis v. Yelverton, Ofc. of Bar Counsel, Undoc. No. 2009-U411. Nevertheless, we must continue to strive to ascertain that the business community conform to acceptable standards, lest we find ourselves continuously in a less than favorable light before others for not maintaining a veritable level of business conduct.
Like all businesses, Radcliffe Lewis Enterprises, SP operates within a community of clients and associates. Regardless of the nature of introduction of, or, interaction, it is important for those clients and associates to be mindful that for us, such interaction is geared toward the fostering of trade through market development, positioning, competition, and reward. It is our responsibility to remind our clients and our associates, as well as ourselves of this commercial consideration. In that light:
1. Bartering Discouraged - It is important to remind all service providers and consultants of the Firm, as well as all clients and associates that the Founder discourages bartering arrangements, loans for service, the use of tangible items for un-enumerated cooperation or services with members of the RLE SP community in relation to the conduction of business, consultation, product development, or work process.
2. Possession Over Delayed Ownership Discouraged - In light of the foregoing, Service Providers and Consultants are discouraged from accepting any item for the Firm if that item does not constitute a purchase or full transfer of ownership. (Consider Lewis v. Vilda Francisco, D.C. Supt. Crt. circa 1998 (citation omitted).
3. Tool Bailment Discouraged - In light of the foregoing, Service Providers and Consultants are discouraged from accepting any item where the owner expects the item to be returned to the owner, unless the item is rented specific to an invoiced arrangement for consideration. This statement should be noted particularly where the item involved is a perishable, or an electronic device where configuration and wear and tear cause changes in the value of the item over time.
4. Valuation of Offers Required - In light of the foregoing, the Founder strongly discourages the acceptance of any offer or arrangement where the value of any such offer is not enumerated and invoiced and the cost of any product or service recieved is indeterminate relative to its subseqent value.
5. Adherence to Protocol of Commerce Required - In light of the foregoing Clients and Associates are reminded that where a Service Provider, Consultant, or other agent of the Firm engages in cooperative discourse definable as being in a "use-group" or other forum setting, at some point it is more than likely that the Service Provider, Consultant, or members of the forum our use-group may become a significant beneficiary of a cooperative activity, requiring invocation and execution of a business relationship and attention to the Terms of the Firm and its affected Portfolio(s). It is the Service Provider’s responsibility at such juncture to kindly and diligently notify the member(s) of the use-group, forum, or cooperative team, and take steps necessary to formulate and execute such valuation, agreement, and invoicing as necessary to preserve the interest of all parties involved.
6. Business Engagement with Clandestine Gambling Organizations Prohibited - Additionally, in light of the decision in Lewis v. Ebay, DCCA No 08-1208, the Firm recommends disassociation with any gambling organization perpetrating as a financial institution not so classified. This includes direct involvement with EBay Incorporated and Paypal.
7. Declaration of Independence from Subjugation From Attorneys of the District of Columbia Bar - In light of the Decision of the District of Columbia's Office of the Bar Counsel in relation to the Matter of Lewis v. Yelverton ("Undocketed No. 2009-U1411), the Decision of the D.C. Superior Court in the underlying tangential case related to the same (to wit: Squires, Jr. v. Roberts, D.C. Supt. Crt. No. 2009 CA 406), as well as the dispute regarding the Criminal Justice Act (See Lewis v. D.C. Judiciary, et al, No. 07-cv-697) the Founder hereby declares the imposition against investigators "practicing law" in the District of Columbia, to wit: D.C. App Rule 49 as currently interpreted and practiced by the District of Columbia Courts to be in conflict, fraudulent, and unlawful, and very harmful to the business sustainability of "effectors" carrying out service of process in investigations on behalf of parties and officers of the court. Note, D.C. Superior Court Rules 4, 5, 5-I, and DC ST § 13-331, among other laws.
8. Proprietory Exceptions and Imposed Deposits - Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Founder reserves descretion to allow and initiate exceptions thereto in keeping with RRITC III,C,2,a, which reads:
"Amendment of 16 March 2009
Effective to all present and future assignments and services provided - Where a Client advances an amount of article(s) of value prior to disclosure of any written Estimate, or irrespective of it. such advance shall be deemed a deposit on services provided and shall not be refundable."
9. Incorporation to Terms of the Firm, and Portolios - Adherence to the foregoing can be of great assistance to maintaining a healthy business oriented arrangement for both the Firm and others and constitutes the best arrangement for fostering a healthy commercial environment for all. The foregoing are therefore hereby incorporated into the Terms of Radcliffe Lewis Enterprises, SP.
/s/ Radcliffe B. Lewis, Founder [2009-1105-1329]
Copies to:
Intellexae Register Web-log,
Clients, Associates, and Subscribers of Radcliffe Lewis Enterprises, SP
United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs,
United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law,
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals Office of Bar Counsel,
Judge Clark, DC Superior Court,
Judge Kravitz, DC Superior Court
Posts
