About

The need arose to regularly provide feedback reports to the supporters and references of Radcliffe Research & Investigations, SP. This feedback was of two forms: regular business progress information as the need to report arises, and information pertaining to issues that affect the dynamics of investigations. The Findings newsletter grew spontaneously from meeting the needs of the latter, commencing with a report on discovered atrocities in the War on Terror - Iraq as undertaken by the government of the United States.

The Investigator perceived a significant shift in the dynamics relating to civil liberties moving away from individual liberties as the war progressed. The continued discussions in the investigative and legal communities engendered a need for simple, to the point, comprehensive reports regarding the causes for this shift, and hence the first article "The Truth About Iraq", Feb 17, 2004, was written. The backlash from that first article and other letters not published, included the usual monitoring of email and internet activities, and eventually the closing off of access to a library of the Public Defender Services, Washington, DC, (PDS) to investigators and other members of the public"[1], even to public defender attorneys who were not on the payroll of the PDS. This general denial of access to information remains in place today under the supposition that it was just not economically feasible in relation to PDS's mission.[2]

The editing process of Findings aims to be factually correct, yet pointing out the practical impact of the facts and circumstances surrounding a situation as encountered, perceived, and researched/reviewed/investigated by the reporter. The newsletter, being an off-shoot work of a private company, is therefore neither classified as the work of a "non-profit" entity, nor a "non-governmental organization", and the Editor does not seek to be hampered by the collateral mandates of such forms of classification. All funds provided to Findings must therefore provide for the publishing, distribution, research, write-up, administrative, and if necessary, relevant compensation of those who partake in this reporting effort.

As of 6 March 2007

In reviewing the development strategy of Findings, we realized that the constraints of normative business development strategies public policy organizations (eventually becoming or even commencing as 501-(c)3 classified organizations) did not lend themselves well to the development of Findings. Such classification effectively transfers ownership of organizational assets and editorial control, in whole or in part, to the governemnt itself. But this publication commenced, and spontaneously at that, by voicing a dissident opinion against the interest of the very government in whose jurisdiction it exists. Both the Founder and the organization are still reeling from the results of having had so dared to publish. Findings is unique not only because of the environment of its genesis, but also because from the first publication we were also able to concentrate only on one article at a time. The editorial integity of Findings had to remain distinct.

Eventually, topics of concern outpaced our work product capacity, and Intellexae was born - a new project aimed at more objective and indepth review. Intellexae has a different mission for its platform - not to simply to evoke a discovery, but to take topics of interest and in addressing them, place them squarely in the context of actionable doctrine, theory, legislative and litigal venues - to develop actionable factual nuclei for the topics, sufficient to engage policy development and litigation support.

Limited manpower however constrains us - so to make optimal use of current available technology and market potential, a merge is appropriate at this time: hence - FINDINGS is now INTELLEXAE and INTELLEXAE is now FINDINGS.

Radcliffe Lewis, Founder

__________________________________________

End Notes

[1] The reference to citizens and civilians as "members of the public" appears to be a relatively new introduction to the jargon of the government-legal community, since the commencement of the 'War on Terror'. This term appears to imply a certain package of connotations that:

1. Strips the civilian of his supposed citizenship rights,

2. Upgrades the non-citizens to an equal political footing with citizens, thereby challenging the class authority of citizens to claim rights before their governments,

3. En-groups citizens into an amorphous and impersonal definition, otherwise known in the prosecutorial community as "abstracts" and thereby entities incapable of being defined sufficient to receive 'clearance' and thus access to otherwise warranted information, and

4. Develops the impetus for individual government agents to summarily deny with suspicion those "members of the public" who insist on acquiring access to warranted or other information. The result appears to be that the term "members of the public" amplifies the individual rights of non-citizens in a republic, but at the same time de-amplifies the rights of citizens to challenge the governments of the republic, and the governments themselves view the public in general as hostile if members are not subservient. In effect a garrison type government in a relativistic State is created. Time will tell to what degree this importation, and other like-effect terms within the government-legal community actually thrusts the State into this garrisson-type direction.

[2] The PDS does not restate its mission, nor does it give reference as to the locaton of its chartering papers. It is one part a DC government agency under the executive branch, one part federal, and one part a private non-profit type run entity, and it appears to be an agent of both the executive and judicial branches of the Government of the District of Columbia. The operations of the PDS as casually observed appears more in line with the 'general intent' construct of legal defense, than by the otherwise constitutionally inferred 'special intent' construct in relation to those charged with crimes. The 'general intent' construct essentially groups an individual defendant into a batch of like-group defense theories based upon his profile, location, and nature of the alleged crime, as opposed to the Article 6 prescribed investigated ("compulsory process") facts and circumstances of the alleged incidents pertaining to the alleged crime.