Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals erred in determining subject-matter jurisdiction and creating a new absolute immunity for IBRD officials, thereby violating the petitioner's constitutional due process rights

Courts are required to respect the Constitutional rights of all persons. In November 2020 Petitioner filed complaint in D.C. Superior Court alleging common law torts. Respondents removed to federal court which remanded in 2022. D.C. Superior Court denied ‘with prejudice’ determining Respondents’ functional immunity under IBRD’s Articles (an international treaty) deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appealed. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed on October 25, 2024. Certiorari is sought because the D.C. Court of Appeals’ refusal to: allow proper appeal, follow procedural requirements, and correctly apply legal principles and federal law, and so refusal to correctly determine subjectmatter jurisdiction, denies Petitioner’s Constitutional rights to due process, to be heard, and to bring legal suit when her rights are violated. This court’s writ is equally sought because the decision usurps Congress’s powers, so fails to observe as the court purports to create a new absolute immunity, oversteps the boundaries of judicial authority and jurisdictional limits and, politicizes and weaponizes the justice system and courts, and claims to create new legal rights or broaden existing rights, dangerously, of both international organizations and those working for them. A right reserved for Congress, and the international parties to the treaty. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a writ of certiorari is appropriate because, contrary to the judgement of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and its holding, the court's ii determination resulted from failure to carry out its judicial duty to establish its jurisdictional authority under applicable legal principles, including federal law where applicable, not District of Columbia law, which in turn requires international law considerations and principles be applied in interpreting the body of law under which the court determined it lacked jurisdiction (an international treaty, the Articles of Association of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (‘IBRD’) ). And the District of Columbia Court of Appeals creation of a new absolute immunity for persons claiming to be acting in ‘official capacity’ for IBRD’s ‘purposes’ (without evidence or factual underpinning of such jurisdictional facts which were in dispute) is unlawful judicial use of a power reserved for Congress alone, and legal error, and amounts to refusal to carry out the court’s judicial duty to respect the right of persons in this land to bring suit for state! law violations committed in the District of Columbia. 2. Whether writ of certiorari, or other relief, is required because the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, its highest court, erred in failing to correct, and restrain, the District of Columbia Superior Court’s abuse of its powers, and abuse of its discretion, denial of jurisdictional discovery and refusal to properly use accepted legal norms to evaluate and establish jurisdiction, and violation of the Petitioner’s Constitutional due process rights at law. And whether in turn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals violated those same due process rights in the manner that proceedings in that court were conducted. ‘Congress has determined District of Columbia courts are to be treated equally as ‘state courts’ .