August 9, 2025 • 7 mins
The Political Weather Show. This show: Detailed explanation of US District Court Case 1:25cv00079-RC ( Seale Vs. DowntownDC BID Foundation ). Gabriel Seale, ( Podcaster or Host ) talks about contacting the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and U.S. President Of The United States in early 2025 regarding USDC court judge Rudolph Contreras's unjustly dismissal of the employment discrimination case filed by himself, plaintiff Seale, against DowntownDC BID Foundation. The judge's Memorandum Opinion and order to dismiss of 7-7-25 is stated to have errors of fact, and Gabriel Seale is requesting the investigation of the judge to be conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. President.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good day people, Good day again. I know that people
want a detailed explanation of the Seal versus Downtown Dcbid
Foundation case Civil Action number one Colon twenty five CV
zero zero zero seventy nine RC. So if you're looking
for additional details about my plaintiff claim and the reason
for filing it, here you go. I Gabriel Seal, a
(00:23):
pro C plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Downtown
Dcbid Foundation on January thirteenth, twenty twenty five, alleging discrimination
and retaliation under Title seven. The case stemmed from my
resume application for a safety maintenance ambassador position in December
twenty twenty three. After contacting the company over the phone
(00:44):
and this time being told they were not hiring, I
visited the organization's headquarters to get information about my resume.
A receptionist at the Downtown Dcbid headquarters shouted a discriminatory remark,
suggesting that I might not get hired just because there's
a bunch of blacks words looking there because the hiring
manager was Spanish. The receptionist's comment, that I interpreted as
(01:05):
racially and ethnically biased, became a central point for my complaint.
Following that incident, on January thirtieth, twenty twenty four, I
reported the remark to a Downtown dcbid Public Space Operations director,
who apologized to me and requested my resume to his
personal Downtown Dcbid email address. Told me that he would
(01:26):
tell the manager what the receptionist did at the headquarters
and have him contact me. On March eighteenth, twenty four,
the manager sent a falsified second interview email telling me
that we had discussed this previously, when we never discussed this,
and to come to the second interview. I figured that
they sent the falsified second interview information in their email
(01:46):
to cover for the racist remarks made from the receptionist
at the headquarters. I was hired and began work on
April eighth, twenty twenty four. However, after training, I was
excluded from immediate assignments some of the time after clocking
onto work and denied access to a company issued radio
locator phone, a device used to verify employee presents in
(02:08):
designated work zones. Supervisors refused to issue the phone out
of jealousy and made bizarre comments about my last name Seal,
being too close to the pronunciation of the seal of
the President, causing me to have some type of political
or symbolic discomfort. Their delirium revolved around the ten thirty
nine President in the area radio code that we had
(02:29):
to use whenever the US President may have been nearby
in a Downtown DCBID work zone if we was deployed
to work there. In early twenty twenty five, after filing
the case with the US District Court for the District
of Columbia, I took the extraordinary step of contacting the
President of the United States. I informed the court within
(02:49):
my original complaint that I had reached out to the
US President regarding the denial of the radio locator phone,
emphasizing its importance not just for job performance, but also
for accountability. I viewed Downtown Dcbid Foundation's denial of the
radio locator phone and seemingly false claim they made about
(03:10):
them being late with minds as a deliberate act to
prevent me from proving my presence in work zones. That's
where I believe that was part of a broader pattern
of retaliation and discrimination from the company. My complaint also
included allegations of retaliation following the report of the receptionist
comments Downtown DC bid sending a falsified email about a
(03:33):
second interview to my Google Gmail is what I interpreted
as an attempt to confuse the timeline and undermine my credibility,
and now looking back at that, to confuse the timeline
to the court and undermine theirs. If Downtown DC already
thought that I was going to press charges at this
time for the District of Columbia before my attempt to press,
(03:56):
the denial of the radio locator phone, coupled with exclusion
from it immediate morning work assignments at times formed the
basis of my retaliation claim. The defendant company then moved
to dismiss the case under Rule twelve B six, arguing
that I seal failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. However, reading my plaint of complaint,
you can tell that I did state a claim where
(04:17):
relief could be granted. On July seventh, twenty twenty five,
Judge Rudolph contrerast, granted the motion to dismiss, but allowed
for me to file an amended complaint. The judge's memorandum
opinion stated that my original complaint lacked sufficient factual detail
to support a plausible claim, which really did not make
sense for the judge to state based on the content
(04:40):
of the claim. However, I found the judge's phrasing confusing,
particularly the instruction to cure deficiencies in the judge's memorandum opinion,
where I interpreted that as suggesting I needed to fix
the court's reasoning rather than my own complaint. The confusion
that caused, along with perceived omissions from the judge in
the judge's memorandum of pa opinion, prompted me to file
(05:01):
a motion to alter and amend the judgment under Rule
fifty nine E. Maybe this was Judge Rudolph Contreras's trick
with the explanation of needing to cure the deficiencies in
the judge's memorandum opinion, because he had known that my
next move was to file a motion fifty nine E.
In my August fourth, twenty twenty five motion to alter
the judgment of seven seven twenty five, I argued that
(05:24):
the judgment contained clear errors of law and fact. I
stated that the court had overlooked critical evidence, including Downtown
DC's falsified second interview email and the discriminatory denial and
lateness of the company radio locator phone, I tried, reasoning
that its denial, along with telling them about other incidents
(05:45):
that took place, was discriminatory and retaliatory. I reiterated that
I had contacted the US President to raise awareness of
the issue, literalizing its seriousness and broader implications. I also
challenged the court's narrow focus on race as the sole
basis for discrimination, arguing that Title seven protects against discrimination
(06:05):
based on color and national origin, both of which were
implicated by the receptionist's remarks. I disputed the judge's claim
that he claimed that I had stated that no nexus
is required between discrimination and adverse action, which I did
not state in the claim. I also insisted that there
was a causal link. I do not believe that it
(06:28):
is legal for a judge to state that you made
a statement within a complaint or motion or memorandum that
you did not make. And additionally, also I criticized the
court for not penalizing the defendant company for refusing to
participate in the mandatory rule twenty six F conference where
I filed a motion to compel, and ultimately my motion
(06:49):
to alter or amend the judgment was to prevent what
I describe as manifest injustice. I know and the judge knows,
that my original complaint already met the threshold for plausibility,
and that requiring another amended complaint would be inefficacious given
the court's apparent disregard for key evidence and refusing the facts.
(07:09):
My filing with the civil judicial process in this case
one twenty five CV zero zero zero seventy nine RC
Seal versus Downtown d CBID Foundation will show the people
that my claim wasn't given fair consideration. Whether the court
wanted to grant the motion to alter remains uncertain at
this time. However, my contacting the US Senate Committee on
(07:30):
the Judiciary will show the district Court that they have
the power to investigate the matter of Judge Rudolph Contreras's
unjust decision.
Good day people, Good day again. I know that people
want a detailed explanation of the Seal versus Downtown Dcbid
Foundation case Civil Action number one Colon twenty five CV
zero zero zero seventy nine RC. So if you're looking
for additional details about my plaintiff claim and the reason
for filing it, here you go. I Gabriel Seal, a
(00:23):
pro C plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Downtown
Dcbid Foundation on January thirteenth, twenty twenty five, alleging discrimination
and retaliation under Title seven. The case stemmed from my
resume application for a safety maintenance ambassador position in December
twenty twenty three. After contacting the company over the phone
(00:44):
and this time being told they were not hiring, I
visited the organization's headquarters to get information about my resume.
A receptionist at the Downtown Dcbid headquarters shouted a discriminatory remark,
suggesting that I might not get hired just because there's
a bunch of blacks words looking there because the hiring
manager was Spanish. The receptionist's comment, that I interpreted as
(01:05):
racially and ethnically biased, became a central point for my complaint.
Following that incident, on January thirtieth, twenty twenty four, I
reported the remark to a Downtown dcbid Public Space Operations director,
who apologized to me and requested my resume to his
personal Downtown Dcbid email address. Told me that he would
(01:26):
tell the manager what the receptionist did at the headquarters
and have him contact me. On March eighteenth, twenty four,
the manager sent a falsified second interview email telling me
that we had discussed this previously, when we never discussed this,
and to come to the second interview. I figured that
they sent the falsified second interview information in their email
(01:46):
to cover for the racist remarks made from the receptionist
at the headquarters. I was hired and began work on
April eighth, twenty twenty four. However, after training, I was
excluded from immediate assignments some of the time after clocking
onto work and denied access to a company issued radio
locator phone, a device used to verify employee presents in
(02:08):
designated work zones. Supervisors refused to issue the phone out
of jealousy and made bizarre comments about my last name Seal,
being too close to the pronunciation of the seal of
the President, causing me to have some type of political
or symbolic discomfort. Their delirium revolved around the ten thirty
nine President in the area radio code that we had
(02:29):
to use whenever the US President may have been nearby
in a Downtown DCBID work zone if we was deployed
to work there. In early twenty twenty five, after filing
the case with the US District Court for the District
of Columbia, I took the extraordinary step of contacting the
President of the United States. I informed the court within
(02:49):
my original complaint that I had reached out to the
US President regarding the denial of the radio locator phone,
emphasizing its importance not just for job performance, but also
for accountability. I viewed Downtown Dcbid Foundation's denial of the
radio locator phone and seemingly false claim they made about
(03:10):
them being late with minds as a deliberate act to
prevent me from proving my presence in work zones. That's
where I believe that was part of a broader pattern
of retaliation and discrimination from the company. My complaint also
included allegations of retaliation following the report of the receptionist
comments Downtown DC bid sending a falsified email about a
(03:33):
second interview to my Google Gmail is what I interpreted
as an attempt to confuse the timeline and undermine my credibility,
and now looking back at that, to confuse the timeline
to the court and undermine theirs. If Downtown DC already
thought that I was going to press charges at this
time for the District of Columbia before my attempt to press,
(03:56):
the denial of the radio locator phone, coupled with exclusion
from it immediate morning work assignments at times formed the
basis of my retaliation claim. The defendant company then moved
to dismiss the case under Rule twelve B six, arguing
that I seal failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. However, reading my plaint of complaint,
you can tell that I did state a claim where
(04:17):
relief could be granted. On July seventh, twenty twenty five,
Judge Rudolph contrerast, granted the motion to dismiss, but allowed
for me to file an amended complaint. The judge's memorandum
opinion stated that my original complaint lacked sufficient factual detail
to support a plausible claim, which really did not make
sense for the judge to state based on the content
(04:40):
of the claim. However, I found the judge's phrasing confusing,
particularly the instruction to cure deficiencies in the judge's memorandum opinion,
where I interpreted that as suggesting I needed to fix
the court's reasoning rather than my own complaint. The confusion
that caused, along with perceived omissions from the judge in
the judge's memorandum of pa opinion, prompted me to file
(05:01):
a motion to alter and amend the judgment under Rule
fifty nine E. Maybe this was Judge Rudolph Contreras's trick
with the explanation of needing to cure the deficiencies in
the judge's memorandum opinion, because he had known that my
next move was to file a motion fifty nine E.
In my August fourth, twenty twenty five motion to alter
the judgment of seven seven twenty five, I argued that
(05:24):
the judgment contained clear errors of law and fact. I
stated that the court had overlooked critical evidence, including Downtown
DC's falsified second interview email and the discriminatory denial and
lateness of the company radio locator phone, I tried, reasoning
that its denial, along with telling them about other incidents
(05:45):
that took place, was discriminatory and retaliatory. I reiterated that
I had contacted the US President to raise awareness of
the issue, literalizing its seriousness and broader implications. I also
challenged the court's narrow focus on race as the sole
basis for discrimination, arguing that Title seven protects against discrimination
(06:05):
based on color and national origin, both of which were
implicated by the receptionist's remarks. I disputed the judge's claim
that he claimed that I had stated that no nexus
is required between discrimination and adverse action, which I did
not state in the claim. I also insisted that there
was a causal link. I do not believe that it
(06:28):
is legal for a judge to state that you made
a statement within a complaint or motion or memorandum that
you did not make. And additionally, also I criticized the
court for not penalizing the defendant company for refusing to
participate in the mandatory rule twenty six F conference where
I filed a motion to compel, and ultimately my motion
(06:49):
to alter or amend the judgment was to prevent what
I describe as manifest injustice. I know and the judge knows,
that my original complaint already met the threshold for plausibility,
and that requiring another amended complaint would be inefficacious given
the court's apparent disregard for key evidence and refusing the facts.
(07:09):
My filing with the civil judicial process in this case
one twenty five CV zero zero zero seventy nine RC
Seal versus Downtown d CBID Foundation will show the people
that my claim wasn't given fair consideration. Whether the court
wanted to grant the motion to alter remains uncertain at
this time. However, my contacting the US Senate Committee on
(07:30):
the Judiciary will show the district Court that they have
the power to investigate the matter of Judge Rudolph Contreras's
unjust decision.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.