Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Reginald Ellison, aka Ronda Ellison, Petitioner v. United States

No.

-

In the Oupreme Court of the Lnitib 'tate

REGINALD• ELLISON,

PETITIONER

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENT

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI

Reginald Ellison

P.O. Box 65082

Baton Rouge, La 70896

(225)774-5193

Reginald E. Jones and

Helina S. Dayries

Assistant United States Attorney

777 Florida Street, Suite 208

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801

(225) 389-0443

FER2: 2O18

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

The Petitioner was declared disabled by United Stated Social

Security Administration. As a qualified individual with physical and

mental impairments that substantially limits one or more major life

activities, a person who has a history or record of such an

impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such

an impairment. Is protected under Americans with Disability Act

Title IL

Whether the practice of the court and prosecution were done

according to procedure in the handling of a citizen with physical

and mental impairments.

Whether the Petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of

counsel on Appeal and if relief should be granted when a genuine

issue is presented. App. R. 26 (B) State v. Murnahan (1992), 63

Ohio St.3d 60,66

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

.

JURISDICTION.......................... .................................................................

1

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..............................................16

CONCLUSION........................................................................................... .21

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Decision of United States District Court

APPENDIX B

Decision of United States Court of Appeal

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES:

Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) ..................6

Pippin v. Dretke, 434 F.3d 782, 787 (5th Cir. 2005)........................6

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)..............................6

Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540......................................12

Evitts v. Lucey (1985), 469 U.S. 387, 396 .....................................16

Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668,687 ........................16

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.......................................................17

STATUTES:

28 U.S.C. 2255 .......................................................................4

18 U.S.C. '2252 ....................................................................5

18 U.S.C. '2252(a) (4) (B) ..........................................................5

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) ..........................................................6

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) ..............................................................6

28 U.S.C. § 2255 ...................................................................18

MISCELLANEOUS:

Fed. R. App. P.42 (b) ............................................................Fed.

R. App 2

5thCir. R. 42 (b) ...................................................................2

Fed. R. App. P. 25(d) .............................................................3

Louisiana Constitution, Article 1, § 19 .......................................4

5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2013 .............................................................5

Id. At 399-400. App. R. 26(B) ...................................................16

No.

-

In the bupreme Court of the Uniteb 'tatc

REGINALD ELLISON,

PETITIONER

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENT

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Reginald Ellison, asks that this Court issue a writ of

certiorari and summarily reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit Appeals.

CITATION TO OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals appears at

Appendix to the petition and is unpublished.

1.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of appeals was entered On October 4, 2013

1

and- later reinstated on December 4, 2017. The United States Federal Court

denied Appeal on March 30, 2017. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked

under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This case involves the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State

and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which

district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted

with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for

obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have

the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

This case involves the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, which provides, in relevant part, that "No state may

deprive any person of life [or] liberty.

.

.

without due process of

law."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 4, 2013 Appellant Counsel's filed a motion to have the

instant Appeal dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.42 (b) and 5th Cir. R.

42 (b). This motion was granted on October 24, 2013. The Appellant file a

Motion to Vacate the Clerk's Dismissal of Order on October 24, 2013 and

reinstate his direct appeal proceedings on the basis that Appellate

Counsel's inadequate performance compromised the appeal was filed in

November of 2017. Appellant has suffered severe prejudice as a direct

result of his appellant counsel's inadequate representation and this Court

should reopen his direct appeal. Reinstate of Appeal was denied on

December 4, 2017.

I.

A timely Notice of Appeal was filed on July 19, 2013 with the Middle

District Court of Louisiana before the withdrawal of Court Appointed

Counsel, Mr. Thomas C. Damico on July 31, 2013. Mr. Damico did not file

an Appellate Briefs on behalf of Mr. Ellison. Shortly following the

withdrawal of Mr. Damico. Attorney 'Peter Q. John was hired and Enroll as

Counsel on August 5, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, Deputy Clerk Alison G. Lopez sent a letter to Mr.

John stating, "We have received your Motion to Withdraw the Appeal on

behalf of the Appellant in this case; however, you must obtain and send us

written authorization from your client to withdraw the Appeal. You must

also serve your client with a copy of the Motion and provide the Court

with a copy of your Certificate of service pursuant to FED R. APP. P. 25(d).

Mr. John wrote in this Motion he had the Consent of the Counsel for the

Government, but he did not the Consent of those who worked hard every

day to ensure he received payment for his services when he filed the

3

Motion to Withdraw the Appeal and an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss

Appeal. Although, he has only met with Mr. Ellison once. His family was

in constant contact with the Mr. Johns law firm regularly for updates and

to make payments. At no time did Mr. John or his staff state we are filing a

Motion to Dismiss and we need Reginald Ellison signature to waive his

rights when his office made request regarding paying for the transcripts.

The Court of Appeal Clerks Office verified they did not receive a wavier

sign by Mr. Ellison nor was the Court provided with a copy of the

certificate of service.

1.

Appeals are favored by the law and protected by the

Louisiana Constitution, Article 1, § 19. At no time did

Mr. Ellison sign a written authorization to withdraw his

Appeal with in the Court of Appeals. Mr. Ellison

maintains his constitutional right to an appeal. This right

can only be waived by the defendant himself. Any wavier

of right to appeal must be an informed one.

The filing of the Motion to Withdraw the Appeal and an Unopposed

Motion to Dismiss Appeal was only made known to the Ellison's family

after receiving a copy of the Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation

(February 28.2017) written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes

regarding the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the validity of conviction on the ground of

Ineffective Assistance of his Trial Counsel, Mr. Benn Hamilton filed

on March 3, 2014. In the section labeled Background of the Report and

Recommendation it states:

On May 22, 2012, after a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty

of one count of Attempted Receipt of Child Pornography in

violation of 18 U.S.C. '2252(a)(2) (Count I) and one count of

Attempted Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18

U.S.C. '2252(a)(4)(B) (Count 2) in the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana. Petitioner was sentenced to

serve a total of 72 months of imprisonment in the custody of the

United States Bureau of Prisons. Judgment was entered on July 18,

2013. Petitioner appealed, but the appeal was later dismissed

pursuant to Appellant motion. United States v. Reginald Ellison,

No. 13-30775 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2013).

Attorney Peter John did not submit a response to Judge WilderDoomes Report and Recommendation. Whenever the Ellison family

contacted his office they were told Mr. John was out of town or the

country. Forcing Ellison's family to write a letter to Judge Wilder-Doomes

on Mr. Ellison behalf. As a result of Mr. Johns misconduct both Judge

Brady and Judge Wilder-Doomes have told Mr. Ellison he is out of Appeals

as stated in the Certificate of Appealability.

"An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding "unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 28

U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A). Although the Petitioner has not yet filed a Notice of Appeal

5

herein, the Court may address whether he would be entitled to a certificate of

appealability. See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). A certificate

of appealability may issue only if a habeas petitioner has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.' 2253(c)(2). In cases where

the Court has rejected a petitioner's constitutional claims on substantive grounds, a

petitioner must demonstrate that "jurists of reason could disagree, with the district

court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Pippin v.

Dretke, 434 F.3d 782, 787 (5th Cir. 2005), quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

327 (2003). In the instant case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not

debate the denial of the Petitioner's 2254 application or the correctness of the

procedural or substantive ruling. Accordingly, it is appropriate that, in the event that

the Petitioner seeks to pursue an appeal in this case, a certificate of appealability be

denied."

II.

Ellison was deprived of meaningful appellate review by virtue of his

attorney's decision to dismiss his direct appeal. The claims raised in Mr.

Ellison federal habeas proceedings were dismissed.

Appellant Counsel failed to raise on direct appeal. Attorney

Hamilton received a second copy of Reginald's' SSA Documentation at

Trial. During the questioning of a witness for the defendant a copy of

Ellison's SSA Documentation was presented before the court and Mr.

Hamilton at the witness stand. (Transcript No. 2, Pg. 73 Line 8-18) Which

made this the second time a copy of the SSA Documentation were seen by

and given to Mr. Hamilton. Although, Trial Counsel repeatedly denied

receiving any SSA Documentation at his office or having any knowledge

that Reginald had mental deficits. He cannot make the same argument he

made at the Evidentiary Hearing and in his Affidavit. Mr. Hamilton did

not ask for a recess to address these documents, but he simply continued

with the questioning of his witness and the trial as if Reginald SSA

Documentation did not exit or were not relevant.

Prior to the witness testimony of the Reginald physical and mental

impairments. It was entered into records by Special Agent Charles Wagner

on the Search Warrant and later signed by Magistrate Judge Christine

Noland. After receiving those documents, a second time Mr. Hamilton had

an obligation to address these documents and request a competency

hearing.

Mr. Hamilton was still Reginald Counsel when a Notice of Presentencing Report Disclosure was filed on July 31, 2012. He had 14 days to

state in writing any objections, including objections to material

information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained

in or omitted from the report. After receiving objections, the probation

officer may meet with the parties to discuss the objections. Mr. Hamilton

failure to provide the probation officer a copy of Ellison's SSA

Documentation, request probation to consider 52k.13 of the federal

sentencing guidelines and file a Motion to Determine Mental Competency.

(Evidentiary Hearing, Pg. 62, Lines 24-25; Pg. 63 Lines 1-4,11-22)

7

Mr. John had Audio recording of Trial Counsel discussing Mr.

Ellison brain damage. This information should have been given to the court

to further show Mr. Hamilton was aware Ellison had mental deficits.

III.

Assignments of Error Not Considered on Appeal

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

WITNESS TESTIFIED THE DEFENDANT SUFFERED WITH BRAIN

DAMAGE. THIS TESTIMONY RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE

DEFENDANT'S CAPACITY TO PROCEED TO TRIAL. THE PROCEEDINGS

SHOULD HAVE STOP AND A COMPETENCY HEARING ORDERED.

Prior to the witness testimony of the defendant physical and mental

impairments. It was entered into record by Special Agent Charles Wagner

and later signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland. On page 8 of the

Search Warrant in the "Personal and Criminal History" section it states.

(August 11, 2009) "Reginald Ellison is a single 47 years old black male. Mr.

Ellison does not work due to being disabled. He is currently taking

prescription medicine for diabetes and high blood pressure. A criminal

check on Mr. Ellison was negative."

Mr. Ellison suffers from organic brain damage as a result of an

automobile accident sometime in the late 1980s. Further, Ellison is partially

blind and diabetic. As a result of the same, Ellison suffers from severe

ri]

[Si

depression and mental illnesses as reported in Ellison's Social Security

Disability Determination, which states that he was eligible for Social

Security Disability due to medical and mental condition, including, but not

limited to brain disorder as well as affective disorder. Furthermore,

Ellison's Comprehensive Neuropsychological Evaluation report, that he

exhibits neuropsychological impairment and related psychological

sequence related to the automobile accident. Of significance, the report

states that Ellison's greatest defects are in the areas of concept formation

and reasoning. This was not the first time Ellison sustained a head injury.

As an adolescent into martial arts Ellison sustain two head injuries and

suffered with amnesia for a month all before the age of 18.

Ellison has not received his Diabetic medication to regulate his

Glucose levels for over three years (2014) since his incarceration at Oakdale

Federal Correctional Institute. This was not an issue at other Institutions,

West Baton Rouge Parish Jail and Tangipahoa Parish Prison, were he

received his Diabetic medication regularly before being transport to a

Federal Intuition. His Primary Care Physician would prescribe around of

antibiotics to fight the infections in his body yearly as a diabetic. Ellison

has undergone surgery to remove a large section of the back of his head

and neck from an infection going to his brain.

Inmate's Glucose levels are check by the Medical Staff at Oakdale

Federal Correctional Institution once every three to four months. Since his

incarceration at this Institute, he was admitted to the hospital for chest

pain. Ellison continues to have other Diabetic issues including nerve pain

and swelling of the feet. Oakdale Physician has document Ellison is

Anemic. This is another issue of concern when a diabetic becomes Anemic,

it is often a sign he/she might have liver or kidney damage.

The Advocacy Center of Louisiana was contact by his family seeking

for assistance for this matter. The Center requested a copy Ellison Medical

Records from the Bureau of Prison Health Service for Inmates. The

following chronic health problems was documented: Proteinuria, Anemia,

History of Traumatic Brain Injury, Hyperlipidemia, Exotropia, Diabetes

Mellitus Type II, Hypertension, and Acute Chest Pains.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

PROSECUTORS CONCEAL EVIDENCE AND FAILED TO CORRECT

THE RECORD WHEN THESE WITNESSES TESTIFIED FALSELY.

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE 'OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

BARS PROSECUTORS FROM PRESENTING FALSE TESTIMONY

AND REQUIRES THEM TO CORRECT FALSE TESTIMONY WHEN

IT OCCURS,

The Prosecutors in this case had prior knowledge that the Los

Angeles Company was cleared of selling child pornography on April 1,

2009 by the Western District of Virginia Court. The allegations made

regarding the company selling child pornography, the Baton Rouge

address listed the companies' database, and ordering of the 25 movies from

this Los Angeles Company

10

were used to establish Mr. Ellison had a prior a history of ordering illegal

material. These allegations were inappropriately presented at Trial in 2012

and there was insufficient proof of a pattern of activity. In his opening

statement, U.S. Attorney Reginald Jones, the connection between the Los

Angeles Company and Mr. Ellison are made. (Transcript #1, Pg.14, lines

12-21) "The facts of this case, let's connect these facts to the evidence that

will be presented during trial. In May of 2009, Agents began an

investigation regarding individuals who have previously purchased DVDs

of nude minors from a Los Angeles company. In being proactive and

trying to combat this type of behavior, agents began an operation involving

creating a factitious company called Little Feet Productions, which was in

the business of offering child pornography DVDs for sale." U. S. Attorney

Richard Bourgeois line of questioning would further show he knowingly

used perjured testimony.

Witness Testified: (Transcript #1, Pg. 25, lines 13-15)

Q: And IVC, what were they selling?

A: They were selling videos, VHS tapes, books of nude boys via the

U.S. Mail.

Witness Testified: (Transcript #2, Pg. 22, lines 8-12)

Q: Now, you heard Inspector Covington testify about 25 videos

being previously ordered from IVC, this company in California.

What did the defendant say about ordering items from IVC?

A: He Also admitted to ordering those.

Witness Testified: (Transcript #2, Pg. 34, lines 16-23)

11

Q: Agent Wagner, Mr. Hamilton started about the connection of the

defendant to IVC, the videos ordered by Reado Ellison. who told

you that he ordered the DVDs from the videos from NC?

A: Inspector Covington

Q No, who admitted to you in the interview?

A: Well, Mr. Ellison admitted that he had used the Name Reado to

order those videos.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST

TO INCLUDE AN ENTRAPMENT INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY.

The Los Angeles Company accused of selling child pornography was

cleared on April 1, 2009 by the Western District of Virginia Court. Prior to

the mailing of the flyer to Reginald Ellison on May 14, 2009 as documented

by Inspector Wagner Search Warrant Affidavit provide to the Middle

District Court. (Pg. 3 #15) Inspector Covington testified she had no

information that tied Reginald Ellison to this case or IVC. In Jacobson v.

United States, 503 U.S. 540, the court held that the government must prove

not only that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime before the

opportunity to commit it arose, but also before the Government came on the

scene.

Inspector Covington took the names of customers from the database

of a company who did not have any involvement in selling of any type of

Illegal Material by Mail. There were over 40,000 customers listed in the

company database. She did not send flyer to all 40,000 customers, but only

12

the customer had to order more than one Oskar film to get a flyer in the

mail. (Transcript #1, Pg. 29, lines 7-17) There was an Address Query ran on

the Baton Rouge address listed in the company's database which identified

five individuals living at the address. Instead of sending the flyer to the

name listed on the customer database. It was sent to Reginald Ellison. Mr.

Ellison testimony was that he has never, prior to the contact of the

government, had any involvement, contact with, or dealings with child

pornography.

Mr. Ellison did not have a Criminal record. He was a law-abiding

citizen with mental and physical impairment. Also documented in

Inspector Wagner Search Warrant Affidavit provide to the Middle District

Court. (Pg. 8) "Reginald Ellison is a single 47 years old black male. Mr.

Ellison does not work due to being disabled. He is currently taking

prescription medicine for diabetes and high blood pressure. A criminal

check on Mr. Ellison was negative."

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION

FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE

EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES AT TRIAL DURING THE

PROSECUTION'S DIRECT CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A

CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANTS

The government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

13

the defendant possessed the predisposition to commit the criminal acts

prior to the contact by the government's agents. They also failed to prove

that the defendant possessed the necessary and requisite intent to commit

the crimes charged. Government Witness testified :(Transcript #1, Pg. 33,

lines 17-21; Pg. 34, lines 1-7)

The Defendant claimed that he thought that this

company was, again, a business where he could order

materials from but would be adult actors portraying

younger actors.

The Defendant claimed he never ordered

it, which means he probably wouldn't have seen it.

The government did not have a reason to contact Mr. Ellison since

the Los Angeles Company was cleared of selling child pornography in

2009. The witnesses for the government gave false testimony. The raid of

the Mr. Ellison home resulted in No illegal material being found. The

catalogs and flyer sent to the Mr. Ellison did not have any visuals depicted

as stated in the law only misleading phrasing. The Defendant was a lawabiding citizen with mental and physical impairments.

FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

THE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILURE TO BRING UP VIOLATIONS UNDER

PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT

Mr. Ellison is Pentecostal. He does not smoke, drink alcohol of any

14

kind, and does not do drugs. He is an advocate for abiding by the law.

Being responsible for family, friends, and the Community. Before

becoming disabled he attended Louisiana Technical College for Culinary

Art and Carpentry, School of Art Commercial College, and Nursing School

American College. He is a video enthusiast and makes that No secret upon

entering our home is a vast movie collection. He was a Gospel Singer in a

traveling Group. Our mother suffered from heart failure and he took care

of his younger siblings. Reginald is a family man and community oriented

volunteering Pick-up Trash Day at the Delmont Community Center,

Church Fairs, Health Fairs, Community Pharmacy, Donating School

Uniforms and Supplies, CADAV, Donating Supplies to Support our Troops

family of Cedar Rose Thrift Store. Donating to the Special Olympics and

the Police Department.

Mr. Ellison's beliefs do not align with those of the government. As a

victim of child abuse and a witness to the abuse of a family member. Also

documented in Inspector Wagner Search Warrant Affidavit provide to the

Middle District Court. (Pg. 8) Mr. Bourgeois even motioned to bar the

mention or evidence regarding defendant's claim of being abused as a

child and witness to the abuse of a family member. Mr. Ellison witnessed

his twin sister's rape, at the age of six, by a stranger who had taken her into

a wooded area and he had subsequently identified his sister's attacker who

was arrested and prosecuted. (Search Warrant Affidavit pg. 8)

15

The infliction of a 72-month prison sentence on Mr. Ellison who, if

simply left alone by our government, would otherwise be free, is a manifest

injustice. The government had no reason to contact Mr. Ellison regarding

the L.A. company in 2009. Since the Prosecutors and Special Agents in this

case had prior knowledge that the Los Angeles Company was cleared of

selling child pornography in 2009 by a Virginia Court. This evidence was

concealed during the trial in 2012. When Special Agents testified Mr.,

Ellison was identified as someone who purchase illegal material the

Prosecutor failed to correct the record when their witnesses testified

falsely. Special Agent Wagner testified Mr. Ellison claimed he never

ordered it, which means he probably wouldn't have seen it.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The United States Supreme Court determined that "nominal

representation on an appeal as of right- like nominal representation at trialdoes not suffice to render the proceeding constitutionally adequate." Evitts

v. Lucey (1985), 469 U.S. 387, 396. Proper Appellate review must be had to

ensure that a criminal conviction has been obtained through a reliable

process. Id. At 399-400. App. R. 26(B) provides a remedy to defendants

who have been deprived of the effective assistance of Appellate Counsel.

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of Appellate Counsel, a

criminal defendant must prove that counsel performance was deficient,

and counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland v.

Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687.

16

The appellate Counsel failed to raise winning issues. But for

appellate counsel's unreasonable and unjustifiable errors, the appeal would

have resulted in a different outcome. Moreover, there was no reasonable

justification for counsel's ineffective performance. Because there is a

reasonable probability that but for these errors, the outcome of his appeal

would have been different, Reginald Ellison was prejudiced. Strickland,

466 U.S. at 687.

A complaint was filed with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary

Board Office of the Disciplinary Counsel in Baton Rouge against the

Appellant Counsel in November of 2017. In Attorney Johns response he

admits to using information relating to representation of a client to the

disadvantage of his client:

1. Attorney John states, "Counsel did not deem the alleged secret

recording of Attorney Benn Hamilton fair and credible and defensible." He

had multiple audio recordings provided to him by the Ellison family, Mr.

Johns never mention he deem these recording to be an unfair and credible

and defensible to the Ellison family verbally or in writing. We could have

sought the services of another Attorney and fired Mr. John. But instead he

continued collecting monthly payments. The reason why Mr. John received

those recordings were because, Mr. John stated he would use these

recordings if Mr. Hamilton committed perjury on the stand during the

Evidentiary Hearing conducted before Magistrate Judgez5tephen C.

17

Riedlinger. Attorney Hamilton testified that he provided, the government

with a sworn affidavit in which he stated that he was unaware of Mr.

Ellison medical issues prior to trial and that he first became aware of on

after the Ellison family filed a disciplinary complaint against him in May of

2013 with the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Mr. John had an

obligation to be as honest as possible when communicating with his client.

His actions are bias and a Conflict of Interest. Under LA R.S. 15:1303

regarding in-person conversations, "It states that a person cannot overhear

or tape a private conversation to which that person is not openly present

and participating or listening, unless consent to record is given by at least

one of the parties to the conversation." Mr. John was not hired to represent

Attorney Hamilton or the Government.

2. Mr. John states he had No Objection to U.S. Magistrate Judge Erin

Wilder-Doomes Report and Recommendation that the Motion to .Vacate

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied and any Appeal Rights Mr. Ellison had in

this case.

Petitioner provided little evidence in support thereof at the

evidentiary Hearing.

Petitioner has met his burden of showing a likelihood that the

results of the proceeding would have been different had his trial

attorney engaged in additional investigation and attempted to

show that Petitioner did not have the requisite intent to commit

the charged offenses.

I U-11

Counsel did not discuss this with his clients who repeatedly contact

his office regarding the report. The Ellison's informed his Office he had 14

days to respond. By not doing so Attorney John abandon his

representation. Forcing Reginald's' family to write a letter to Judge WilderDoomes on Reginald's behalf. One of many reason given for why the

motion should be denied, "Finally Petitioner did not call any witness to

provide opinion testimony regarding the written psychological

assessments that dated back more than 20 years, regarding whether

Petitioner in fact suffered mental deficits or providing a psychological

assessment of Petitioner's ability or inability to form the required intent to

attempt to receive or possess." (pg. 12) Although Reginald's Social Security

documents are 20 years old. Disability Judge Lawrence T. Ragona ruled on

the findings of multiple doctors. Social Security Administration is

legitimate division of the United States Government. Reginald's

automobile accidents were not the first time he sustained a head injury. As

an adolescent into martial arts Ellison sustain two head injuries and

suffered with amnesia for a month all before the age of 18. Mr. John

informed Mr. Ellison's family they would have to pay for all the transcripts

and a specialist. But he did not arrange for an expert to testified. Dr.

Thompson represented the interest of the Court and not that of Reginald.

Dr. Thompson stated, "A review of Mr. Ellison medical records may be

helpful, and I would suggest that his Attorney procure these records so

that I can review them." This is another issue that should have been

addressed. Mr. John was hired to correct/fix any problems or issue arising

19

out of the representation by the previous Attorneys. Mr. Ellison's family

we're willing to pay for additional testing if needed had Mr. John made

arrangements for an expert to testified maybe that person could have

gotten the records Dr. Thompson spoke of. Maybe he or she could have

compared our brothers' injuries with those of athletes whom have received

multiple head injuries also.

3. Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the

accused shall enjoy the right.. .to be confronted with the witnesses against

him." This Clause was intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant

upon written evidence without that defendant having an opportunity to

face his or her accusers and to put their honesty and truthfulness to test

before the jury. Due to both Attorney's failure to investigation any of the

facts of this case. Further investigation into Mr. Ellison would have

uncover Mr. Ellison had No connection to any child pornography, nor has

he seen it. The company accused of selling this illegal material was cleared

of all charges.

It is clear both Attorneys deliberately fail to provide the quality and

kind of service that another legal professional would provide under the

circumstances. There negligence has caused Mr. Ellison the right to an

Appeal and a fair Trial. Mr. Johns misconduct has caused a miss

opportunity to seek an Attorney who would do the job for which they were

hired for. We trusted these Attorney to be our advocates.

20

CONCLUSIONS

This Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

K

Date: