Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Antonio Sierra, Petitioner v. Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.

Supreme Court briefMar 6, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Ex parte In Re. Mr. Antonio SIERRA, Petitioner —PRO SE

Subnom: Antonio Sierra, (Petitioner) vs. Department of Justice - civil process Clerk —do Ms. Rebecca Franz

(Deputy Attorney General) for D.O.J. Office of Attorney General Ms. Kathleen Kane (Former A.G.) and/or all the

same; Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel —do Ms. Laura J. Neal Esq., for D.O.C., SCI. Albion,

Warden Mr. Clark, Ms. Giroux (Former Warden), Ms. Neal and/or all the same; District Attorney of Erie County

Mr. Jack Daneri Esq. (D.A.) —Erie County Courthouse Office of District Attorney, -RESPONDENT(s)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

r---IVE

'- -'

12 2018

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

) , PH.D., DD

BY: /S'[

ANTONIO

RES1DENNCE: STATE OF NEW YORK,, CITY OF THE BRONX

RESTRAINT: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

PA. I.D. NO.: D.V. 0686

LOCATION: STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE ALBION

10745 STATE ROUTE 18— ERIE COUNTY, PA

ALBION, PA 16475

Q UESTION PRESENT

Whether on the basis of Petitioners fact

Unconstitutional acts void his 1998 and

within the meaning of the Constitution

Appellate Court decision to subordinate

2013 Oontracts deny Him Due Process of

Law

and laws of the United States and if

so, is

power by such exceptional matter wrony?

Whether Montgomery Constitutional command

fair-ecual grounds in collateral rev

where without notice, hearing or power

adopts a new rule to set retroactivity

iew so that previous determination

s of this

Court awaitin guidance by both the peop

le and Judiciary in this class may appl

y 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• QLiETION PRESENT

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

L. TABLE OF MJThORITLS

1. OPINION BELOW

II JUDICIAL

III CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

IV PRELIC41NARY MATTERS

A STAT&MJNT OF CASES STATE COURT MATTERS -1997-93

o4-o5

13 S2ATr COURT 1991-2031 - INADkUATE MATTERS ON RORD

o6-7

C WWNGDOING UNRAVEL4 FIRST TIME GOVERNMENT CONCESSIONS

0e3-10

CONCESSION LAST PIECE UNCOVERED, 2013-2016

10-i1

2016 CAUSE OF ACTION -T13RU 2018

1212-13

a STATE AND FEDERAL COLLECTIVE

.13-14

FEDERAL 2016-2017,' US-DC-WD-PA &

APPELLATE COURT DUAL REFUSAL TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTION

14-

d NEW INJURZ & 13ARMS SURFACE IN WALE OF 2016-2018 MATTERS

14-

13 FINAL ON THE RECORD VIEW, CdARGE vs OFFENSE vs PETITIONER CLAIMS

15-16

ARGUMENT

17-25

I cuEsnON4

17-23

A PRO SE PLEADINGS TIMING & CONSTITUTION

23-23

24-25

QUESTION

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

i APPENDIX & TABLE OF,

I.F.P. APPLICATION

S.CA-3rd

1.4

•

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES -I

• Ailejne v U.S., 133 act 2151, 186 L.Ed.28 314 (2013), -25

Armstron V Mao 380 us 525, 85 act 1187 (1965), -22, £

Bartone.v U.S., 375 us 52, 84 act 21 (1963)(per curiam)

Baizac v Puerto Rico, 258 us 298, 42 act 343 (1922) -E

.BU.J. Johnsons Rear'ta Inc. v NLRB, 441 us 731, 103 act 2161 (1983)

BiaKe1J v. Waahin.ton, 542 us 296, 124 act 2521 (2004) -19, -E

Blunt v Rio, 400 us 410, 9.1. act 423 (1971) -B

Bond v U.S., 564 us 211, 131 act 2355 (2011)(2er curiam) -20, 25, -E

•

Bounds v Smith, 430 us 817, 97 act 1491 (1977)

...

Burns v Ohio, 360 us 252, 79 act 1164 (1959) -2, -E

8radlej V Fisher, 80 us 335, 20 L.Sd 646 (1872) -E

Browder v Dir. of DOC of Iii, 434 us 257, 98 act 556 (1978) -22, 25

.caita1 Cities Media Inc V Chester, 797 F.2d 1164 (3rd, 1986) -E

Cent'l Trna'n Co. v Palace Car Co. 139 us 24, 11 act 478 (1881) -20

City of Littleton v Z.J Gift 0-4 LLC,

us --, 124 act 2219 (2004) -E

Chessman v Teets, 354 us 156, 77 act 1127 (1957) -E

Combs v NicK Garth Truckin9, 825 F.28 437 (CA-Dc- 1935) 18

Comz1. v Bower

612 A.26 512 (Pa-Suer 1992) -19

comwl v Cruz, 851 A.26 870 (Pa. 2004) -24

Comw1 v Dunn, 385 A.2d 1299 (Pa. 1975) -19

Comi1 v Garcia, 2016 Pa.Suer.Unub1.Lexis 251 (Pa.Su?er) -24 omw1 v Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) -25

Comwl v Moore, 937 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2005) -22

Comwi .v Reading, 603 A.28 197 (Pa-Super 1991) -19

Daniels v U.S., 532 us 374, 121 act 1578 (2001) -22

Daniels v Williams, 474 us 327, .1.06 act 682 (1936) -E

Danaforth v Minnesota, 552 us 264, 123 act 1092 (2008) -24

Dodd v U.S., 545 us 353, 125 act 2473 (2005) -21

Dulhos v Straser, 321 F.3d 35 (3rd 2003) -21

Dye v.Hofbauer, 546 us 1, 126 sct 5 (2005)(per curiam) -21

Elrod v Burns, 427 us 343, 96 sct 2673 (1976) -19-20, -E

Estelle v Williams, 425 us 501, 96 sct 1691 (1976)

Ex Parte Mi11i.an, 71 US (4 WALL) 2 (1886)

Fed'l Dept. Ins. Car,). v Citz'n Bank & Trust Co,

..,

592 F.26 364 (7th 1979) -21

Fist Seneca K)ank v Greeni11e Dist'b Co.., 533 A.2d 157 (Pa-Sur. 1986) -19

Fiore v White, 531 us 225, 121 sct 712 (2001)(er curiam) -24, =E

Frosty Corporation Comnm'n, 278 us 5154 73 L.Ed 483(1929) -19, 25, -E

Foucha i Louisiana, 504 us 71, 112 sct 1780 (1992) -20

Gannett Co., v DePasua1e, 443 us 368, 99 sct 2898 (1979) -E

Gre v Georgia, 428 us 153, 96 act 2909 (1976) -22

Griys v Provident Consmr Disc. Co. 459 us 56, 103 act 400 (1982)(per curiam) -25

Guzman v Greene, 425 F.Su.2d 298 (DC.2d, 2006) -24

Hall v Anes, 182 F. 1008 (Ca: 1, 1910) -20

Haines V Kserner, 404 us 519, 92 sct 594 (1972)(er curiam) -21

Hanco v Uchurch, 496 F.Su.2d 569 (3rd, 2007) -17

Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Er' Co, 322 us 2384 64 sct 997 (1944) -18

Hewitt v Helms, 459 us 460 4 130 act 364 (1933) ' -Z

Holmes Gr. v Voriado Air Cir. Sys., 535 us 826, 122 sct 1889 (2002) -21

Holt v 211-Leis1 tve Rea??ortionment Coin&n, 38 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2012) -20

Horsey v B,jsiewicz, 2004 WL 2677135 (2d, 2004) -21

Houston v Lack, 487 us 266, 106 sct 2378 (1988) -25

Hu9hes v Rowe, 449 us 5, 101 sct 173 (1980)(er curiam) -21

Hunter v Super. Ct of NJ, 951 F.Su.1161 (3rd, 1996) -E

In Re F1anaan 999 F.28 753 (3rd, 1993) -25

In Re Murchison, 349 us 1331 75 sct 623 (1955) -E

In Re Novak, 932 F.2d 1397 (11th, 1991) -E

In Re Scaraborou.h, 457 F.Ax. 193 (3rd, 2012) -19

Jacobs v Giroux, 2015 US.Dist.EXIS 8265

1 (3rd) -22

Jones v Johnson, 134 F.3d 309 (5th, 1993

) -22

Kansas v Crane, 534 us 407, 122 act

367 (2002) -20

Kohl r Lehacx,. 160 us 293, 16 act .304'

Kokkonen v Guardian Life Ins. Co.

of Am, 511 us 375, 114 act 1673 (1994)

Little v Barrem, 6 us 170, 2 L.Ed 243

Loan v Zimm3rman Brush Co, 453

(1895) -171 22

(1804) -19

us 422, 102 act .1.148 (1932)

Lo,aa City Nat'l Barv, v Townsend 159

jJ act 496 (1891) -20

Lucxett v Folino, 264 F.A. 171 (3rd

, 2008) -21

Mary v Johnson, 467 us 504, 92 act 493

(1971) -E

Mavood v Patterson, 561 as 320, 130

act 2788 (2010) -22

1aruri v Madison, 5 us 137, 1 crncn

137 (1803) -18, 20

Marshall v Holmes, .1.41 as 58, 12 LCC

62 (1891) -1.3, 19, 21.

Marshall v Jerrico, 446 as 238, 100

Maynard v hill, 125 us 190,

---

act 1610 (1980) -E

L.Ed

Miller v Alderhold, 288 us 206, 77

(1388) -E

---

L.Fd 702 (1933) -18

Montomarj v Louisiana, 136 act 718

, 193 L.d.2d 599 (2016) -17, 20-1, 24,

Mullane v cntr'j Haover Baizi & Tru

st, 339 us 306, 70 act 652 (195

0) -22, -E

Mullaney v Wilbur, 421. us 684, 95 act

1381 (1975) -E

Mullen v Slue, 62 A.26 14 (Pa. 1948

) -19

M. & P. Mnmt- L P v Williams 937

A.23 398 (Pa. 2007)

NAACP v Buttoi, 371 us 415, 83 act 328 (196

-19

NJ.-Paid. ETC, v 3-State Ed., 654 F.28

868 (3rd, 1981)

0'Bannon. v Town Ct. Nursinj Ctr., 447 us

773, 65 L.Ed.2d 506 (1980) -E

Panetti v Quatrman, 551 us 930, 127 set

2842 (2007) -22

Paul v Davis, 424 us 63, 96 act 1155 (197

6) -22, -E

Pratt v U.S., 102 F-2d 275 (cA.oc 193

Press Entr'se Co v Superior Ct. of

Ill, 478 us 11 .1.06 act 2735 (1966) -E

Pruett v Levi, 622 F.23 256 (6th, 193

0)(er curiam) -22

25, -E

Rochiri v Cali, 342 us 1654 72 act 205 (195

2) -E

Ronosrer v Rombarger,, 139 Ae 159 (Pa. 1927)

-19

Ruhr9as AG v Marathon 011 co, 526 us 575, 119

act 1553 (1931) -E

Sandiri v Conner, 515 us 472, 115 act 2293 (193

5) -2

School Dist of AD1ntowa Twap vi Sn

347 us 2J3, 83 sot 1560 (1963) -20

Ssnith v MCoo1, 83 us 560, 21 L.Ed 324 (1873)

S.nith

-19

Wit1ia1n3, 871 F.3d 684 (9th, 2017) -22

Sjenoe v Washinton, 418 us 404, 94 act

2727 (1974)(er cutlam) -E

Sullivan v Louisiana, 503 us 273, 113 sot

2073 (1933)

Swift & Co. v Wickham, 332 us 1111 86 act

253 (1965) -21

Ta9ue v Lana, 439 us 283 103 sat 1060 (198

9) -24

Tennant v Peoria & P.U. RJ Got 321 us 23,

US v C1a'co.o, 577

64 sot 403 (1944) -19

804 (10th, 2014) -22

US V Johnson, 258 !.3c1 3

(5th, 2001) -22

US v Wood, 299 us 123, 81 L.E8 78 (193

6) -E

Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 us 57,

93ct 80 (1972)

Williamson v Barry, 49 us 495, 12 L.Ed 117

0 (1350) -19, 20

Whitten v Tomlinson, 160 us 231, 16 act 297

(1895) -17 22, -E

oust v 1ecks Food 6sr, 94 A3d 1057 (Pa.

u,r 2014) -19

AUTh3R.XT18S Ii.

7 3. Moors & Lucas, Moores Federal Practice

(1385)

22 J. Moore & Lucas, Moores Federal Practice

(2003)

2 2. Coe, Inatitut (1797)

46 Am:Jur.28 Judments

F.RuJ. civ. P. 1 and 3

21An.Jur-2d CciinLai § 535

Cowan v City of Chaster, 2 Dul: Cnt1 Reso

rts 234 (1834)

Rowley v Vaughn, Beaver Cntj. Leal Journal

14 (1362)

28 USC § § 1257, 1657, 2106w 1254, 21011 2241

, 2244, 2254

INTHE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Ex Parte In Re. Mr. Antonio Sierra, Pro•Se

Subnom: Antonio Sierra vs.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -CIVIL PROCESS CLERK, do MS FRANZ (D.A.G.) FOR D 40-J. .OFFICE

. ?4

Ile

OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MS KANE AND/OR ALL THE SAME; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS -OFFICE

OF CHIEF COUNSEL, do MS NEAL. ESQ., FOR jj.O.C., SCI ALBION, WALDEN MR CLARK,

i13

GIROUX, NEAL AND/OR ALL THE SAME; DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNT -Mr DAMERI -D.A.

ERIE COUNTY COURTHOUSE -OFFICE OF D.A. -RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Antonio Sierra, citizen and resident in the city of the Bronx, to tne New Lor State

and the United States is Petitioner -prose, restrained at Erie Councj Pa. D.O.C.4

V14 'y

SCI: ALBION Sincerely pray this court leave for the petition to issue for review

the jud jments and Orders of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered and

mailed on November 2 2017 and January 10, 2018

OPINION BELOW

The Order and opinion of the third circuit in this case for Noveinoer.- 2, 2317 appears

at Appendix Al to this petition. A timely Chancery petition addressed in the same

for the full court, denied on January 10, 2016, appears at Appendix .2.

The Orders and Opinions of the U.S District Court appears at Appendix B, (1-3).

The Orders, Opinions, Trial transcripts and yoverniltent matters address appears at

Appendix U, B, F and G, and the Affldain.t5 oi Antonio Sierra and such inatcers by

U.S.S.C. Rule 14.1(f) appears at Appendix H, 1, and C, respectively.

-I.

JUDICIAL 'ORS

Petitioner invoices the Due

Process Clause of the Con

stitution and the Laws of

United States to confer jur

isdiction upon this Cour

rendered o.k' tne United

States court of

decision could oe had The

No exceacion are present

to review a final

the

udinent

Appeal for the Third

Circuit in wh

ich

test for and of the dowe

r is set at Appendix I at

in tnis case wniie in the

1-2.

same, the initial and

subsequent

onali ereious; Good cau

se is shown Petitioner

' rihts

under the Constitution and

Laws of the United States

is meritorious, maintaine

d and

may e covered by 26 USC

1657(a) 2106 and/or 2iW.

USSC. Rule ii, 13.

As another judmant is Van

dinj issuance in the Cou

rt of Ap,eals and this

petition

is timely from the last cie

cision thereunder, Petiti

oner invokes 25 USC § 125

4(1),

21.01 et. se., and USSC Rul

e ii.

The test for the jurisd

iction of this Court,

inc.Ludinj Article III,

is set at

A&eadix I at 1-6, if not

also in the entire body

of the )etition.

matter being Con3t1cuti

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

The Followiaj provisions

inv

olved are in the Amendm

Fourteenth and Due Pro

ents to the First, Fifth,

cess Clause of the Constit

ution and laws of the Un

The percinent. portions of

the First. and laws is set

The ercthent orcions oi the

ited States.

at Appendix I at 3.

iitcin and laws is set

The Varciaent portions of

tne Sixth and laws is sa

The ert.inent. oct.ions of

the Fourteenth and laws

Aendix I at 4.

t at Aendix I at 5.

The jpertineaL portions of

the

The Fo11owin Statutory

&ro

is set at Appendix I. at 6

Due Process clause is set

at Appendix 4 and G.

visions are involved

26 USC

1257, 1657(a), 2101, 2106,

124, 2241, 2244, 2254

Sixth,

£V.

1iiM tTrRs

o. mete are no exceptionsin this case of two contracts- made void. Adverse dationa

taU.in relief, reviews while in the same f acW and evidence is

essed is riot

within the mandate of the Constitution or Iawa of the United States.

o2. The Coaonweaith oz PennsjLaaia (hatein "State") mAdu the 193 2013 contract

void wron,4fully and remeiti voids relief is mandatory and no 6ubsaliuent act. catt

iiiie a onLti1. U

tionai act &3 shown in Appendix

2-6.

Ps toner instituted with third Ciruit a pe,Utjon tot ciedited Caideratian

&fld Adgeal NUfl

PtO TU

CO.A. in 10EROR (inter alia) in Peruarj i 2018

ause

doubt eLste in the federal Courts tarisdictior -Xd. p.26

04. 4oreover, thoui an Order bi the US. Middle District 'ioer Coutt 'inDacemer

•8, 2)17 adverse to him was traversed within ten days to said court and the third

circuit has elected to move this case aiór& aithouh the same tact. was Lairij

coiicated -Id o5 Petitioner avers there are no case laws diretL on eoint with the facts Of thj3

case unless ore toica • thtouh the sean of years in aaoue case

et, betn

restrained in prison with its hurdLes and limits as aoovc, glotwith"aadimj all the

eressed facts herein comuunicated?

06. It 4tUSt be noted that contrary to the Law of the sand, State law holds that

'Aeitbec Court nor the state correctional sacem is øbiiated to educate or uxate

•cieonera conzerniAj chanes in the Law, ealdwin t 798 k.2d @ fli.

•

07. In all this above, on the basis ot Petitioners undisputed facts the mnne

which lie and cause. of actions is bein handled leans ositef that decived ,rotection

•

'ederal COnstitution S Statute and ales will occur and does 55 bj leave

ezectuii

move for help id. p. 7-12 I92i & 22-26 (with 2017-'2016 new hatm

oein tm,osed)

03. ie huii ra

b1 Laava snLn other than ooritnuia the wCAditt resulta

Lift this aae of review, )?lease.

•

A) STATEMENT OF CASE

STATE COURT MATTZRS •17-98

o9 The State alleges in November 1997, Petitioner an brother from New york alon

with others were invited to a residence and three companions were attach

ed and left

as it burned out; This lead to arrest and chre for Criu1inai Attemp

t to co'nit

Criminal Homicide here "first offense, " -See Apx F pp. 4 # 6

lo In this the purported attack took place with fist, feet and items lying

around

until companions were subdued (Id.) and Petitioner then tooc fold

of a tabar to

strie them several times with the mideval axe -one DCiflJ strucx. with

force enough times to crush the oone in the side of his face, ia'in

sufficient

unconscious in

a pool of blood as represented by State Prosecutor in 1998 jury trial

11 urj-98" for

the short lived first offense -Apx• S at I

11 The Prosecutor plea agreement with 3ude Kline, iawjera wjnn and Kelsey

(Id @

1-2) address first offense as one that does not exist; Kline voiced concer

ns and

Options for "attempt homicide" out Prosecutor ooected forcsf

uiij aainst the

various constructions intimated bj them (Id. 2-3) and instead offere

d a

that in his words express "we are asking for an instruction to the ucj

new chara

on ATE1PT

THIRD DEGREE MURDER, and that is it" -Id. 0 4

11 acre, before the second charge became actual, Kline persuaded Winn

to aree with

Prosecutors offer and he conceded (Id.), ieieej reuested to "amend

" and "cnaae"

the first offense for attempt 3rd degree chare (Id. 4-5) -stririnj

the first

offense on this contract entered on the record oefore inducing urj-96

to render a

verdict on the second chare -cf. Apx' [I, p.2

13 in this aoovet Petitioner' salient point of reason is a) if attempt

homicide is

actual as chare restrainini and as jiven to nifn and Jury-98, then all

Courts to

date is correct finding the same and no cause of action or relief reside

s, The

transcripts of trial showing attempt homicide as stricea is false mislea

dinj and

federal courts may afford some form of relief to His -21 jears of praudi

ciai losses

in propertj and finances on this misrepresentation, See ApA-d# pp 13-16

finances from 2016 thru 2017 alone is $ 3,956,147 U-S. L)iilars and

pcopertj &

Cents.

14 As point 2- if attempt 3-rd degree charge is actual as above then

a) the striken first charge is material to this case that has no judgment or one of

conviction; The governments actions from 1998 forward is a nullity, void, relief

is mandatory and cause of action resides for Petitioner where

b) after 1998 an intent in the common scheme to conceal and violate Petitioner's

Constitutional rights is revealed with the act to defraud Him, State and Federal

Judiciary with the dissemination of false and misleading information and

a continuous wrong and fraud on Petitioner and the judiciary is actual violating

the Constitution and laws of the United States as fairly address herein that in

effects also Show a breaicdown in the judicial process, and

present recital or judicial notice of criminal & appellate dockets as substitute

to Petitioners facts and evidence placed at issue in 2016-17 and as late in 2013

-2015 term is unfair, prejudicial and miscarriages justice -See Apx B at 3 fzvl

(MDJ allowing outside influence to reach decision).

15 As these are Petitioners facts that fairly appear with the legal official

documents cited above, in all the same after 1998, the State and Federal

judiciary

was intentionally cause to assent wrongfully during such times wnen rights

to appeal

and with a lawyer was most pronounced in 1999-2001 as fairly shown in Apx F, 1-8

where only "ATTEMPT HOMICIDE" appears with nothing in said judicial Opinion

s and

Orders indicating attempt 3rd degree's charge relevance.

16 That after Petitioner' 2004-05 term address as to oe expressed below, even

if He

was not legally articulate in writings, the government had notice and even

constructive knowledge a grave wrongdoing existed with the handling of his

case but

elected to do nothing as injuries and harms oecame more pronounced.

17 As attempt 3rd degree charge exists only in 1998 until His 2004-05 addres

s, the

government' could have simply combined Attempt Homicide -with -3rd Degree for

charge as the lower court did in December 7, 2017 Order presently before the

third

circuit, at Dict. No. 18-1150, an unfair prejudicial manifestation that in itself

not existed for twenty one years.

the

has

B) STATE COURT -1999-2001 INADEQUATE MATTERS ON RECORD

18. In this case, Petitioner proceeding from point 2 -express that at no time

relevant to the aforementioned timeline was he provided notice or opportunity to be

heard by anyone whatsoever to

in February of 1999, when the plea agreement was nullified and the contract void

(i.e. five months later) under a state 1925 rule as shown in Apx F @ 1-2; And

in March 23, 1999 when aware of voidinj plea agreement was i11ea1 aoove, Kline

reinstated the contract (i.e. 34 days) later as shown in Apx• E. @ 7

siaed by

Court Reporter CERTIFIED and Kline; And

in August 10, 2000 when again knowingly aware Rule 1925 does not authorize such

acts in such procedure posture, Kline made contract void as shown in in ApX. F @ 3-4

19. Here, Petitioner' facts with the not so subtle distinction the contracts are and

remain void to date as above is somehow lawful, out if not -Petitioner' fauit in not

recognizing the wrong that somehow eludes academic State and Federal Courts or

Justices or Judges -leaving the only material fact that the proof of the scneaie and

of its complete success up to date, is conclusive, See: Apx. H @ pd-2-420. In this, on direct appeal, Wynn issues was not relevant to the plea agreement or

second charge that at the time "only" State law held attempt 3rd degree chare is

not an offense, and so, without this constitutional error no one in Jun-98 would

have reasonaoly convicted him and no Court would have allowed corruption into its

exercised Constitutional adherence and powers.

21. Further, without consent; Vjnn's appeal I PCRA -dual filing's served him and

cohorts keep intentional wrongs concealed and continuous while rushing Petitioner

through the hollow formalities of State business -adding layers of impediments

while aiding the main wrong to secure the unconstitutional restraint and verdicc

-even without Judgment, See Apx D, @ 1-2 (Court address 1999 -2016 filings)

22. As fact, no sound lawyer purposely files two actions (above) without strongest

issue only to default the first and then fail to file orief on second to lose, See:

Apx. G @ I (D.A. address wjnn' failure to raise issue is waived)

The 2000-01 Counsel of 8uchanio did not exist; He express not knovinj of any law

"which would provide relief. uatitj or support Petitioners comiaint on information

brouht by Prosecutor" during appeal request to withdraw, Yet, be knew or had reason

to icnoi about the contract, its iAJ1eo.i metamorflosia and infrinament on Jury-98

province and the second cnarJe was a non exitinj offense as address above.

1. Prior to Suchaniol saLt servinj recitals of reasons appeal was frivolous and no

relief entitled in October 2000. He averred a "conscientious examination of the

record;" So he had full legal icnowlade all Petitioner' facts as above would remain

visibly hidden with his Court appointed help,

P @ 3, Id. at H @ 34, 2021:

2t. In this light, Petitioner' impartial forum and disinterested adudicator in an

impartial tribunal of this State has never been effected whatsoever, flow could it if

the yovernment has been taxiai advantae with knowledge to his lack of ie,a.i

awareness, that he is in unnown environment with brother -no one for ne1, driven

to poverty and the salient fact that the scheme last hurdle "was" 1occed in piaca by

.tianio irrespective of Petitioner, the Judiciary or the United States Constitution

-Really in point of fact.

26. Mere, without his false, misleading and/or inaccurate information, the appellate

Court would have not been inclined to compensate Him

grant withdraw that somehow

undermined At4D1RS reuireznenta and rule adversely in said belief.

27: Petitioner would not have believed his iejai academic grater, accept his

authorative conclusions and g et on with the acclimation of servitude and adjustment

of prison life, when in fact an SUCrI&IiO (Wynn, £(e.Leelj, anyone) had to do was say

something -anjthin that would have placed Him on notice of the wrona:

23. In this, the facts siVly did not exist because they were unxnown and by

stratagem and artifice obscured. Without his 2034-2017 sacrifice, these facts would

roman concealed by the government and only lcnown to them, countless prison

straners and recanti' his anchor and fiance (AA' LI @ p.'); Yet, and aain, had

only ons person come forth, this case outcome would have omen different and most

importantly burin a time where He still had parents to come home to.

C) WRONG-DOINGS UNRAVELS -FIRST TIME GOVERNMENT CONC

ESSIONS

29. Although the government resisted to come forth and

response dismissed the matter outright in March 23.rd

did not contest; Kline did in

then a second time alleging no

jurisdiction in March 24, 2004 and on appeal Prosecutor

GETTLE made her constrained

appearance with a story to tell -Apx G@ 1

30. As communicated by GETTLE, although the matter

"was not raised during first

round (i.e. WYNN) of appellate review the Commonwealth

concedes that

there is no charge as third deree attempt murder (but)

He should have preserved claim during PCRA (i.e. WYNN

/ Buchanio) and

He "requested" attempt 3rd degree charge to avoid harsh

er penalty, And

now he comes back and states jury should have not been

charged as such; (An)

error] by calling it attempt 3rd. degree -was harmless.

Id.

31. Here, GETTLEI insincere concessions coupled by inten

tional misrepresentations

made for the first time in this case induced State

Court to affirm the lower courts

ruling and found it did not have jurisdiction in this

matter and the Supreme court

denied appeals, Apx• D @ 2

32. In this, Petitioner' mere hunch of a wrongdoing

existence of a claim but the Prosecutor simply brought

gave rise to the possible

out the shovel for the truth

unburial that did not previously exist; Yet, liberally

indicated (A) the charge to

jury-98 is attempt 3•rd degree murder, (B) it is fraud

ulent as the charge did not

exist until this case (under GETTLE representation)

, that (C) Jury-98 rendered a

verdict on an unconstitutional law and (D) invalidated

its truth finding function in

1998 as they were unfairly induced to a determination

they were assured was a "law"

in the state books, (s) the plea agreement was breeched

of fraud has been practiced on the Judiciary, but (G)

has reason to know all the foregoing -do nothing on

while the government knows or

account of the massive hurdles

in this put in place in this case and the salient fact

has to figure it out and even if he does, has

built for his brother and I.

wrongfully and (F) a species

Petitioner is the one that

to yet by the labyrinth specially

33 on federal

eal in 2005, Petitioner did attet to ut an end to this matter

in his firet habeas with the undec1inc,j issue maintalniad innocence on the second

chari and this Drount toctn Prosecutor' DITZLER and COOK (herein "Prosecutor")

tnat c,reaentattons is virtually identical to GZT12La with marinai differences a.

34. M ereas by Prosecutor, His apeai ai1ee "for first time lie should not have

been convicted of "attemt 3-rd deree charges -t]kiese suoseuenc fi1ia's are

iiteria1 to the court' inuirj rejardinj timeliness of the writ;" A1thouh

Gnsonwealtn does not have Statue for what he is convicted of, And

Couonealth concede they should have not "referred" to Attempt Homicide chare

as third detea (BUT)

He TMreuestadM attempt 3-rd deyrea chare to avoid harsher enaltj, (AND)

He 'as chared and convicted of "A2rEMPT L301ICIQA." -the 3'rd )srae radin is

1) not disositive 2) harmless /excusable error, 3) semantics and 4) Jury towid

he acted "intentionally" -He is not factually nor 1ejali' innocent.

33. The Prosecutor insincere concessions with misrepresentations made for the first

time in this case induced judge (CMUTO) to dismiss writ on timeliness runds which

his donor recent L)aceuoar 2017 Order described as an aciudication on the merits -and

this cannot be so with all due resect -A• a @ 26

in this Prosecutor knew or had reason to know all the fore.oin

facts

communicated aova because 1993 Prosecutor ARNOLD himself asked for more time to 95t

the record (i.e. Ari1 26, 2006) thouh thej also added a disclaimer on record of no

re.orda but use the same to justify what Petitioner knew or should nave -Id. 4-.

flare Petitioners .usacions of a h?OS5bl5 claim (infra' # 32.d), was more real

when this clarity stated what GETTLE intentionally left out (i.e. there is no

"statute*) and all the new intentional misrepresentations siyij meant that

Petitioner was on the riht track but He would have to reare for more of the same

discrimination and unfair use of owera arisiav out ol the arties relative 1 ositioa

that had (and still lacks) raaect for the ub1ic institutions of Justice:

38. As epcease& lower court dismissed hausaa And third circait (4- 06-3750)

review January 251 2037finding " no exceptional circumstances .warranting review and

Certiorari (4k. 07-704) was denied January 7o 2038.

3. Its noteworthj to exresa that between 2037 apsal until 2013 a 'series o

discriminatin prejudicial 'eveate took

while Petitioner was in prisons that

included tratf ik.in9 tficn across state Anes to 4ihian and all, that. Leal eecta

of which is extensively documented in his December 281 2016 Affidavits of. 5ndured

Derivationa (to third circuit) a coj of which is as tiled in July 264 2017

Certified RecordAhecein c9.— for convenence) as 3h0wn in A?* 8. 13.

a) C0tICi85IONS LAST PICF.S UtC0VEase -20.1.3-2016

40. In 2013. Petitioner souht aain to put an end to these communicated wrtidoins

and seeratad his issue,by two counts -retained in this assess

A) 1) The 19S contract and its effect as void, ex post facto-void and fraud (on

courts) -09 SLT. 2013 --ebaton (C0u*T I). while 2) addresstn true nature o

non criminal coivaitaent

Mhaniout

adiniuistrativei, -o3 ,AU. 2-013 et ae

ebanon, while

erie.

i) petition Court help on Warden impediment labelled "

as an imposition

on access to Llanqe visits phone and narcLaa contract, done without notice,

opportunity to contest and without "any'" constitutional adherence Or protection, -19.

SEPT. 2013 at seq. (COUN T Ii). Ecie j Lebanon -It Be 1-6 , ,&

These matters decided adversely as in COO= I - Count. I.- A Writ Of Assistance

lot 4burtj was -amended to add WAR4 and new evidence of Medical perts and State

2013 concessions in November 24i 2013 without contest. After unfair delay,—Kline

troh counsel (not A.G.) made appearance, briefs filed and at ocai argument Ue

raised immunity aaint all the same herein -Petitioner reaoactfully countered. that

"fraud vitiates, evecjthin

The Lebanon Jude (bj way of

LWAGAOter

count-j)

concluded in. June 23, 2014 Petitioners writtss And oral facts and proof a

unlearned incapable of deteatin iuunitj and Court has no jurisdictioa over WADN

that are matters suited for Erie , county in a PcL.A not. kabesa Corpus4 ct

pp-9-10

42. In C=VT Ii- wrile Lnattea were undewaj (are)

the Erie action Was aiao caused

unfair delays and a enaea on filinjis. Warden thto

uh Counsel made aeaance to

echo Judge inadeuata ervice reasoair*4 so, to have

Stemoer 3, 2)14 Ordered orieta were filed Warden

cause dismissed and though by

conceded to actual service oaLi

to chaaja positions about A.G. not served which Ju&

je favored this unfair tactic to

demand raervica -ot process; A teat. He, could not

com

to the facts and evidence beLore the Court., CR' 24

Ca' # 22,

-11 (COMT I), PP. 11-13 (cou

a to terms with in daradation

LO-la (extended version), of .

11)-condensed version.

4. Thsa cases virtually decided at the same tima

deraiiede choice of forum access denied due to

aeaL to Pa. Suixans was

acts of Oth5rs not Petitioner and

th He persevered, oy the time he returned

the course the State HiJh

refused access and Federal Court would not allow

Him

Sums v. Ohio as shown in Ax H' @ 19 and A,x' C

44: Thoh the unfair selective a1icatien of

Court

access -even on the rrounde of

Law to Him was prejudicial The

.5tenec 164 2013 concession pulled away

the last layer of

hidden truth when

£esorkdents by waj of Office of Chief Counsel ex

pressed "there is no senticin or

mittimus to this case as none exists; " This was

than attested in the same Conan

October 11 1013 b,' way of S.C.I. AII0t Records Supervisor

as shown in Zx' C, 3-4.

In thero

libt1 reason would find these concessions reve

al more than the

193 main wrondoin It reveals what went. Wroatjth

ereafter by those n authority

entrusted to protect the United States Citizen,

Judiciary and uhoi.d the

Constitution; it be.s to sex. WiCi" while briefly

Moviiij into the recent 2016-201

£iiin s.

46 Petitioner rezectfuilj pray bj your leave

to accej't the Statement of facts as

set forth in the attached Affidavits of 4r4 Sier

Writ of Certiorari and to the matter proceedi

ra in auort of this Petition for

n -particularly pajes I to .12 and 26

of Ap,endL H

D) 2016 CAUSE OF ACTiON

(a) STATE & FEDFiW. COLLECTIVE

TdBU 2018

Petitioners with the inowiei.ie left oy Lancaster' Senior Jude (2013-15) did

baia his federal case in Erie County State Court (t1Erie"). March ló .th and fifty

five days from 4ontomerj'a 2016 Constitutional command which was dismissed twice

and a tnird after Erie Ordering Resondent "DANERI" to contest and herein refused

the request to ,ut an end to this matter, Ax' H @ 7-8 13-14.

From State to Federal Court with the two count claims as addressed herein,

Petitioner began his Federal steps by finin..

4 a notice of a&eal ("first notice") in

December 2c3 2016 -for the third circuit and a few adverse occurrences tcansiced

oetween Erie and the Federal Courts Id. 7-8

Liberally expressed Erie instituted a new order erazinJ all irevious denials to

GRANT writ to dismiss on Daneri cedresentation of jurisdiction which all came to

bj releasinj an eiht month held £FP-motion and atatin its July 16-th Order as

Rule 1925 Opinion as shown in Ax• 0 @ 1-7.

In this, thouh Erie was failj given notice on Petitioners facts and evidence

communicated that made the new order controvertial 4 its results stren,thened

Petitioners case because iice 2013-201 term, out of this cause of action

A) -Daneri made an aearance, toot possession of 1?roertj in his legal position and

effect as Prosecutor

of/bj

State; He contested matters inducin j Erie to decide

adversely leave the matter and its effect in Erie County; His control and possession

is the earliest Lpoint in the litigation oscause Erie County had an official indorser

tenderin. or retucnin the consideration on redudiatin4 a release to the same mar-ter

and ,ersona1 inuries to Petitioner; And

6) As a matter of course Daneri sined and accepted the same on the record; And

Petitioner seexinj thereafter by the contracts to make a demand upon the receiver

for the proortj and damaas thereto was the lawful course -Id. & 20-21.

Thae facts are ainificant for Petitioner to plant his fiaj uon because the

tanin is important in that later events may not create jurisdiction where none

existed at the time of fihia -the lower courts erroneous 2005 denial is ,?roof of

this.

£2.

In this iiht eitner (A) the Order doss not affect what has already occurred and

DANax' untimely contest must os assessed under PIOt8R4 or (Li) Order affects this

case and its terms enforceable that render Jane' Order yiviri OANRI time to contest

an unlawful act, void and Petitioner's facts and evidence

unc0nt.st.da has clear

path to federal 14-th Amendment rssedj or (C) irrespective of the two above, 198

/2013 contracts as made void, no aubauant act can infuse vitality into it -and all

determinations ate nullities and does not oar relief.

Conclusively- the State á?COCe$5 was not on the facts or evidence, no evidentiary

hoarirN was held, Petitioner ' ritkts as address heroin throu9hout as violated was

fairly shown with itdatOCj relief, ret, none would yield under federal law.

(b) FEDERAL, 2016-17 US.DC.JD.PA & USCA. 3RD dR.

As addressed, the first notice with affidavit moved the case and trial Coutt

January .Li•th ranted paupers nation left Bin to only a Certificate of A,,1?sai

to file; Yet, for matters outside all reason, Ma4strate "BAXTER" issued

reudicial Orders in ñaoruarj 2a& April 10-th and Auju8t 3-rd of 2017 as each is

shown tabled in AL• B.

In point, selective readinj of the Cooetitutionaiitj to the writ (Id-1) forcin

2254, not COA irejudiced to induce Petitioner to act to his detriment, with this

unfair use of sower whenBaxter' recent (2015) determination in a similar context

set the table for how, when and where a Section 2241 writ would issue -A• 11 @ B.

51.

Tnouh lower and trial, court were fairly notified (Id. 15) of case's

•traordinarj circumstances 80ht0c said issues attempt to circumvent Statutory law

and offered 2254 as only avenue to enter federal court Id. and Ax• B. @ 2.

58. Ultimately case suffered more that a transfer (Id. 3) that Third Circuit seamed

to picked u, on when the simple fact remained Petitioner' facts and evidence would

not satisfj 2254 and not once was third circuit aea.L off the table, so de coniied

to the etant of Lollowin

ca-rinted form where relevant, and autxnitced his J 2241

Petition that prayed in the interest of

justice

aasae with cited authorities

Lindin Rule 2 was no bat nor the lack of a jucment and/or of conviction.

COURTS DUAL REFUSAL TO ENFORCE TRE CONSTITUTION

(c)

59. in Anjust 29,. 2017 a notice of appeal to this Court was address to the August

3 rd Order after Ume3.y contest renained stalled and bj S tenber 11 th, for second

time. His choice of foram waS obstructed -as shown in A'B at 9 & 15.

6o • Third circuit issusd "letter" for dismissal of appeal as Petitioner finished his

action and filed petition Septenb3r 29-th,- to both apeliate courts with copies of

letter, hotice and motion on the same as He was caused to slihtlj alter the

petition to address letter as shown In A,x • C •l

By October 2017. both Courts (Id. 2-3) said He couldn't proceed, ho1din out

judge, Justice, Court access as in 2015 (Id. 4-5); Though these unfair prejudices

were address as contrary to letters, Constitution and laws to all underlying Court5

and parties before this Court No one in actual or purported authority toor. notice

16 & 19.

or acted on discrimination ptactidbd `aimj 1.0Apx'lii pp.9-12.

Third Circuit dismissed case November 6•th, prompting Petitioner to petition in

equity Chancerj court in November 14-th, as He was not permitted passage by leave of

this Court gate-kesper (d.); And third circuit seemed to want to her the matter

in December 12th - granting His initial motion to the matter, jet in January 10

2018, hope crumbled as Court treated

the

equitable petition

one for

reconsideration and denied review,, a copy of which is tabled at Ap*A at 2 cf.

ApxsLi. pp. 12, 16 & 26.

(d) NEW ituai & BMiS SURFACE. IN WAKE OF 2016 to 2018 MAtirsRs

There has been subeuant action in this case steaniing from the lower and third

circuit that is not fully covered by Petitioner' affidavits; zetf He provides a

brief ajnopeia as represented to third circuit in February 19 2018, that is tabled

in Appendix I, @ 7,. which should support jurisdiction, claim Id. at 1-2.

..f

.,.

Petitioner sincerely shall aver now to avoid repetition that all his filing's

were informed decisions with careful aterthought to the Constitutions laws and

rules so attendinj the circumstances he faced with the back drop of His facts and

evidence as the ultimate dscidin factor in how to best proceed

FiNAL ON THE RECORD VIE -C HARGS vs OFF

EN SE vs PETITIONER ' CLAIMS

Settinj aside for the inuent the contrac

t is void; State alleed chave is not

suocted by trial transcrits. To auo

aa cha.ce is in atteat honiide would

to aai 1) why during the plea areeaient

instruction on 0attet 3-rd Daree1" 2)

Prosecutor said 1W1t are asc.in

lead

for an

why did lawyer state"You should amend"

even request to 3) "chane" the Inform

ation. 71 -A. E . 1-7.

Furthers if chare is irrelevant

/ natter of semantics and not disositiva -th

question then is"WHY" concede in 2034

-03

5 7

Would it oe oscause of the 15 jars of inie

liceij than not os uro3ted and undone

matters were not itself ripe 7 -See:

_*J45• H

Why not in 191 or 2031 State tern?

rere3eatatioas and couce&Unent.s would

as a miscarciaje of justice since such

Pets June 26 2016 Menoriai of Eviden

.1-14 (State Officers/ officials conetin

b0dj evidence & misrerssentaUozis).

statements to tijalcei

67 The States offense theory fair

s no oetter. Jury-96 is alLeed to nee

d "intent"

as en element for atteuit homicide to

convict

e record is repudiated with

"malice-" The offense alleged Petitio

ner assaulted three comanions till, loss

ofconsciousness to then with a tabar eha

ct more intzrj crushing bone -leavinj

the

com

ani

on in a 'oi of blood,

Infra .4

63. Lets emihasihe the Aey words wit

h actual evidence Here iainlj stated wer

taiiin about crushed oonea and a bloody

mess by way of everjthin but the iUtche

8i(M YET as shown in the evidence fil

ed with this case, the Eerte'Reresenta

tion

of Physical Lbdf would find that it tak

es eiht (8) pounds of pressure to cru

sh a

tiil or the weiht Of 1.400 ounda, £4.5. #e9#

Lp.5

69. In this liht, ettin hit with a cri

ciet oall without a helmet or tennis bali

little above the riht ear or oj a

bas

Eierte show the and result is death -i.e

eoail -in either of these sujositions,

. a case for Murder not uarteint.hl_ A.

P.7

(at NoiABLs CASES), but see: Id. .1-2

-(a1leed assault; recorded medically show

s no

injuries or hositaiihation1 Medical

treatment is recorded as asrin).

Settinj aside ieai implications to the State' false facts that passed for a

fair trial; the Exgarts depiction of an "actual" parson with injuries aiteed in

this case (Id.2-3) would -Quotes "reuire surerj to restore oone stability

...

three veelce of the injury ... (Id-4), The State claim is about crushed scull with

weapon(s) (Id.6)i ret, Ugarts opinions and cases addressed the 'reality of such

injury and its lesser's to the sicaletal co.aposition of an individual (Id.);

As such

staiin clear of the past falsity shows wri' lawyers -2001 consent was necessary in

ho1dinj out revealint3 the truth. See. Id. pp. 3-21 (other considerations).

Here if the Prosecutors material evidence was released ofore Jury-98 verdict

or aajcirne after, it more iiceij one of the various Judicial tribunal would have not

alioed such a verdict to stand when considecin

the Constitutional implications

into the province of Jury' fact findin function and/or Judje ca1in part in pies

a.reement-inducin another to consent and/or attempt 3-rd 0erea -is no law.

To say Petitioner defaulted claim for not oriNint6 it up earlier and must accept

this ieai conclusion is to thiconstitutionul.ij accept any person could oe iiaie for

these acts even if S/He was Cønstitutionaiij under his/her 'parsonai" protection and

of an impartial judje, lawyer, prosecutor and no one was reuired to--jive notice.

aepin

the material evidence concealed up to 2004-33 and 2013 term secured no

Judiciary had its oanef its as Orders disclose, no one but the ovarnment so

oo.nunicated knew 19.)8' contract was made void iiieailj as above; That the chace

in attempt 3'r derae was what Jury-9i tendered its verdict -not attempt homicide;

That there are no judment or of conviction and that the char4e has no statute and

is unconstitutional.

in this 1i.jht as fairlj presented in this case since 2016 and oven as Late as

2013 after 2034-3 and 2013 -n one in javac&aant could taie bacr. exactly what was

revealed -irrespective of concessions insiucritj and intentional false -mis1eadin

statements; And the Cnsti.tution if not jood faith alone reuired the iLiealLtj to

be addressed not suppressed and impeded with further wronful acts.

There are no cases directly on point with the facts of cases rather one must looic

throuyh the span of tia and piece together similar factual instances. In this case,

however, there are no ju8ents, yet there was an exercise of the wind to to do

souethin that in effect was wronfu1 and if that is a udment without an Orders

then liancao V UpChurcht 496 F.Su.2d 569 (3rd. 20)7) is relevant defining .hudnent

as "the pronouncing of a delioerate opinion upon a person or thin and the fornatioa

of an opinion or notice concerniny somethin exorcism; the mind upon it.'

In the present

case s Petitioner believes the

Court of Appeals is/was

Constitutionally wrong In holding Magistrate Judge pretrial order is not final

decision immediately appealacle as not first appealed to judje and that Court Lacied

jurisdiction, even though Petitioner' factual matters as addressed throuhout was

osfore each federal Court4 Jade and Maistrate. He did exercise right to contest

Maistrate to no avail and appeal to this Court which is how third Circuit go,

involved after the fact of which is contrary to the Constitution and Laws of the

United States

?TIT104ERS FEDERAL CLAIM THE 1993/2013 CONTRACTS MADE VOID IN WRONGFUL

ACTS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND IS HOT TRUMPED WL CASE LAWt RULES OR OTdERWLSE

POP, WHICH PETLrIONEP. IS ENTITLED TO CAUSE AN END TO THE HARDSdIP.

75. As expressed aDove, there are no exceptions in this case. Every Sederal CourL

Jud:~ei Justice and Ha4strate obtained the same set of facts and evidence in this

Court today (Apx•li at 15-16) and by the same set of facts and proof were presented

with exceptional circumstances and the Constitution itself required the collateral

review court exercise its powers to not leave in piece a conviction or sentence

"obtained under an Unconstitutional law," Hontomatj4 136 Sot. 0 728-731

(the

exercise of discretion as to the time and mode it will exert its powers is

unuestioned, however that discretion is subordinate to any special circumstance

reurin$ immediate attention). Whitten v Tomlinson, 160 US 231, 241-42 (1985); Kohl

v Lehlbacy., 160 US 293 (19d5) 28 USC § 2241(a).

in this case as averred

facts and proof show the State was not satisfied with

att5n1t haicida and offered in its âaca a new cnare (Axfl

2-5) that prior to

the tetchj consent of the Lawjer, e first chara was stricken for attet third

derae

1-6); Thereafter oatweea 193-2001 and

an non ehistin chare (Ah•Q

without notice or chance to challan~e# this contract was made void-reinstated until

Auuat 2000 where it remaind void and all done with wiUin government assistance

nowinlj aware State Rule 1925(a) does not confer such power which is exactly what

the evidence shows Orders to be (A.•F at 1-2) and 1nowindij aware Petitioner' iac

of ieal now1ede and he].?, domicile in thi lorf. with the precise restrain in PA

orison sjstem made these wronfu1 acts ?ossible to successfullj effect. (L?lro.af of

the scheme, and of its comn4ete success up to date, is conclusive) Marshall v

Holmes, 141 US 5E1)

56 (191) accr'd Ha2e1-Atlas Glass Co v Hartford Co., 322 US

236, 246 (1944)

The Third Circuit flawed reasonin4 raardin "typical circuit enerai rules and

what Petitioner did not do"

1) when court itself interrupted choice of

forun (A-d at 10) after fair notice and aoout all. Orders timelj contested (Id. @

9), imiies that eden assirt Pro -se Petitioners facts and evidence are true, the

Court must COhOCt claim on circuit authority. Such a result maie no sense in terms

of the grin--idles held in virtually every decision of this Court datin oacf, to

Marourj v Madison, 5 US (I cRANCU) 67, 102, it not oj the hoe at least in dart,

bCOL1ht about in 1215 the royal concessions of t4ana Charta on fair-equal treatment

of all geogle.

Th. This case and powars, earcised thereunder in protrar context called Courts

attention on void 1993 & 2013 contracts by wrortful acts, and made void, He "is not

bound to rest under the hacdshi?" Miller v Alderhold, 286 US 205, 210 (1933), Pratt

V U.S. j 102 F..2d 275, 271

(cA.DC. 1939); Nor "show a meritorious claim; defense or

other euities on his oehaif He is entitled to have the ud,msnt treated for what

it is, a 1ea1 auiliti." Comas v Nick Garin Trucc.in, 625 F.2d 437 441-42 (CA.Dc.

1965) 7 J. moore & Lucas, Moore's Fed']. Practice, jara. 0.2[2], at 60-224 (iio).

.13

.79. IfiPtitioner is "entitled to reiie aga

inst one void contracts he is entitled

to relied aint thea all, Marshall, 141 US @

does not iaro'e witn t.ise4 it is the "duty

595. in this State, a void judgment

attention is called to it,

of Courts to etrie off whenever its

aoacer, 13 A. at i

ieachment in any VroaaedAajj, direct or

. coilater

"jilt is oen to attacic or

5snsa Baa, 533 A.2d @ 162, &

al -at anj tis or iace," First

Am.Jur.2d judgment 49, & 21 An.Jur.2d Crim.Law

535.

a) 2te precadiag paagcaths of Pannsjivania law

effectively demonstrate

contracts and in turn the exercise of mind uson

I. Judgmentz entered without authority maj be

bscoaie vaUd through lapse of time, t' & P.

wtlj

it (i.e. &resunscI uciment) is void

strtccen -its no judgment and cannot

M!'9trnt. 1.,.?., 937 A.2d @ 401-02, £4ui1en

62 A.2d @ 16; Orts tnay not act our-aide its scop

e Of power, in Pe S rborou,h, 457

F.I?x. @ 199 (quotizi Williamson V Berry, 4 US 495,

540-41 (10))1

2. Courts zpzaY. through 0cJra ,at adv

iso

ry Rale 1925(a) o,?inions and cannot alter

or rast a jreiious erd verdict -it. .,aii

n.14; Dunn, 335 A.2d @ 13Ui

e reecte, youat, 94 A.3d @ iu75

Raadin, 603 A.2C1 @ 201; Bowen, 612 A.2d @ 516-

17;

30. In this case, ii these above are pointedi

equity and good judgaeutt why Petitioners

j on subject, it is oeyond reason,

facts and drooL continue to oscae review.

a) Pertineatiy rsieiant., the qrezeciinj para.,cap

ns aiso demonstrate the same result

I. A suooequant. acc which is void oscause

unconstitutional

violates the Constitution jdajj has no power and

i.isi an act which

...neither Create now rights nor

destroy sAls

- t.M9 ones. it is an etj iei.slative dec

vitaiity4 Frost, 278 U.

laration without force or

Where rmere is no sower there can os no nair

ment of

Elrod, 427 US @ 3.2, ad 1aetr.&ctiona

cannot ieaiihe acts which without ttteiu

is a glaia trossass or uuiaw.ui act, x3arrema, 6

2: courts ar not fcea to ... act aside a urj

US @ £79.

verdict oecause a jud je Mai feel that

so.0 other result is nore ccaonaoie, Lennan

t, 321

US @ 35, A verdict without a

ud;nent La not valid nith, 33 Ud @ 561, ii

the vacdict alon

act, it 1

1 6 iiieai and iwaiiu. miacei, 042 US

e does not allow the

@ 304-U5 & dUd

Where overr&caant produces results

interference with conatituUonal

it could not directly

rights is impermissible, Elrod, 427

repugnant to the constitution is voi

conuan&

such

US 359; A Law

d and it is not only the ri9ht, but Cou

rts duty

to declare it when violations apears

1 f1arbury, S Us @ 137; Holt, 39 A.3

d 0 733-34;

o maintain such an action as this

is not to affirm "but disaffirm the un

lawful

contracts" Central Tranaortation

139 US @ 60; Loan County Nat'

l Banrto 139 US @

67; When a court acts without author

ity, its judjment and orders are nu

llities, they

are not voidable, but simLy void and

form no bar to a recovery sought eve

n prior to

reversal, Williamson, 49 Us 0 540-41

;

Activities absent a Statute are

unconstitutional, Sheflm, 347 US @

230; An

offense created by an unconstituti

onal law is not a crime but iUeal

and void and

cannot os a 1eai cause of iatrionme

rit, tbntronerf, 136 act € 70-32;

Sond, 564 US

@227; lieu, 182 F . 1013-14; W]h

en the bas 'is for the cozanitment dte

a??ears the

State is no longer entitled to ho

ld the conmittee, Foucha, 04 US

76-77; Crane,

534 US @ 413 (cite to foucha).

di. In this

resent case, Petitioner has fairly

p1eadin's at all ataes of review

(AxH @

aeai to this Curt (Id. @ 9), out

facts or proof which leads him to

compromised or He is the exception

maintained the essence of these

16 & 26) leading to the 2017

no decision tendered in this case

are on the

question whether they are fauLty the

timing is

to the law ?

A) PRO-Z& PLAD1S, TIMING AND CONSTIT

UTION

82 As to all time relevant on

this iitiation8 Petitioner has,

reiterated so not to be restative;

con

as briefly

unicated

a) After the atekes?er of this court

did not have sower to intervene

refused Him entry and third circuit

(Id. @ 19); Petitionet lawfully toot

term action to Erie as addressed (mi

found it

the 2013-2015

re. @ 12) and therein raised his cla

im On the

void contracts by the initial an

d continual wron

unconstituionai in violation Of

amencinnt rihta and Laws of the

fuL acts (Id. 01 2-11) as

the Constitution first, six

th and Fourteenth

United States Id.

rose by

Montoaarj (La. @ 12), Petitioners facts were to os Lioeraiij

construe, uaines, 404 US @ 520 to create a better correspondence Detween

the

subsLaaca ciai.is and underijin ieai oasis Liuhes, 449 US @ 10 A duty court

s are

mindful to iu Lenant 9 Dluhos, 321 .3d @ 36, FRCP- I & 8(t).

The action tuovinj aain, Luc.ett, 264

173, ceuired iira to fairly

present claims to meet his obiiation even if State diine to addre

ss theft, Dye v

All State courts denied review, inciudiri Sries' January

uofuauer, 546 US I (2035)

2017 Order, after He filed first notice, -Id @ 13

In this, State fairly notice £'13ntoserj was controi1in (x D at

4-5); He diead

to exercise ehtraordinarj ,oiars (Id. at fn-4-5), Yet, State did not follow

t'OfltOifl5Cj'

"flCvl

constitutional coausnd" made retroactive to all post collateral

merners of the conunitj and courts,, 136 act 729; A "riht assert

ed and

reconihed by this Court, Dodd, 125 Sat @ 2482.

tje

Federal first notice as tiled moved trial court to rant I.F.P. (Infr

a. @ 13) and

thoun a series of drejudicial dL3iositive Orders were tendered after

the, fact,

jnciudjn unfair demand to file a 2254 haoa and not the C.O.A. (La.) the

fiiin, of

the notice of

a,--d eal rotected the Courts dowers, Horsey, 2004 WL 2677185 at *1

(uotin Swift & Co. v Wickham, 382 U3 LU.

83: Petitioner did not have ',d05S" prior to tnird circuits determination;

Yet, its

denial is resectfu1lj wron oecause fair notice was 9iven on forum choic

e to this

Court not to ba treated iiht1j1 Holmes Group Inc., 5.35 US @ 8.31;

Federal Det Ins.

Corp., 592 F.2d @ 363; and after finances were deiieted in filints

, the Court

unfairly decided tie could not enters A•H at 9-11

84. Thou9h Clerks refused drocess (Id. @ 11-12), this Court on rule limits

circuit on forum after all the aoove (A

and third

C at 2, 1); Aain, fair notice of the

earns set of facts u& to the access denials in 2015-2017 (Id.

at 3-4)) was ivan

aainst justification of all the same that discriminates and conti

nues the

wro%doin4 with no fault in Petitioner, tie "availed himself to a

Court of Cnancerj,"

-Marshall, 141 US @ 56; ret, court still denied review, AhA at 2.

Petitioner brouht to the governments attention the disse

minaion of fa1e and

misleading information violating His interest in

life, liberty and property and

rather than fix it, they join and add more injury

and harm so He states a

constitutional injury arising from the same, Pruett, 622 F.2d

@ 257, Paul, 424 US

712; And because where Judiciary focus is on procedure

s utilized in commitment or

sentence dominated, by factors of accurate informatio

n this "is an indespenible

prerequisite to a reasonable determination ot whet

her He shall live or die," Gregg,

482 Us @ 170; The Eighth ainend.'nant requires as much, Moore

, 973 A.2d @ 1075.

His claims tied into invalid process or proceedings

under which He is restrained

needed copies annexed or parts set out in the petition,

Whitten, 160 Us @ 231, Kohl,

160 Us 293; Petitioner did this because failure

to show the inadequacies of the

State trial record "would be an almost futile exe

it-iso for the Courts review of what

happened decades ago, Daniels. 532 US @ 379, Browder,

434 US@ 261.

He followed the law, but the law failed him indirectly

1998 /2013 contracts were prejudicially made void

•

on account of others; The

without notice or chance to

contest in a meaninfui time and manner, Mullane, 399

Us @ 3141 Armstrong, 330 US

525; Evidence placed on record and the factual pred

icate to claims did not exist

until 2004-05w 2013 and 2016-17 all of which was impe

ded access then and now for no

Judiciary wants to address claims and proof that

came out after not before His

filing's and was unripe at the time of the first habe

as petition, Panetti, 551 US @

943-47; Ciaycom, 577 Fed .Appx. -803, and 28 USC

§ 2244(d) (1) (D)

Would He know all the same in 2005 first Habeas,

petition as he did not do in 2016; Rather a

He would not have filed a § 2254

2241, as even forced; He could not

satisfy Statutes language of judymeats, Maywood, 561

Us 332; Smith s 871 F.3d @ 687

Finally, He had to file in custodial not

middle district, Jacobs,

'-I

2015

US.Dist.LEXIS 82651; Magistrate had to return caus

e to District Judge, not issue

final Order in non•consentual 2241 matter, Johnson,

258 F.3d @ 366-72, nor rule or

consider C.O.A. motion -Jones, .134 ?.ed @ 310-12; So

Chancery was properly invoxed.

87. In this particular case, the Court of'appeal's interpreted

Magistrate' Order as prettial '-whön it was much more than

what Petitioner did not do to in effect find they had

their circuit rules,

transfer and reasons from

no power to effect a fair

review in a meaninyftil time and manner is contrary to the

record in this case,

facts, evidence and laws so expressed.

88. Third circuit' flawed reasoning regarding all the same

to decline exercise of

powers implies, in addition to all the above, that a) the

equitable nature of

Petitioner's requested relief to dissafirm already void

contracts and put an end to

this matter does not serve the interest of justice for all parti

es, or that

their powers was inadequate irrespective of this Court authoritiv

e Constitutional

holdings, principles and statements as addressed above,

or that

the filing of December 28, 2016 notice of appeal

has no jurisdictional

significance, that under circuit authority, Magistrate was not

divested of power to

compel a different selective cause of action not atten

ding

appellate' court'

gàtekeeping function; That its, unconsented August 3rd. Orde

r could be read in a

favorable light irrespective of its facial prejudicial ratio

nale.

89. On the 'basis of these 'undisputed facts, Petitioner since

rely believes that on

their own and/or with the evidence and/or authority expre

ssed the contracts made

void and' so dne without power by 'unlawful acts and there

after kept concealed

without notice or change to challenge represents an excep

tional circumstance that is'

egregious and, 'a clear usurpation of

power where no grounds for it existed;

Constituting •a miscarriage of justice, constitutional error

and that His relief is

mandatory.

90'. For all the same reasons, whether or not the Court

of Appeals (or for the

matter, District Courts) was preforming a gate keeping

function or a facial review,

the dispositional Order(s) entered in this case was not

on the facts, the challenge

or evidence as presented at every stage of the process

wrong.

and is Constitutionally

II.

MONTGOMERY CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND AS AWAITED APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATES OF THE UNION ON POST COLLATERAL REVIEW.

90. Petitioner believes timin is important and the preceding passage are important.

In 2006, the Senior District Judge BLOCK expressed on FIORE v WHITE, that "to

date , the retroactivity question posed by Fiore remains unanswered, -Guzman, 425

F. Supp .2d @ 317. The Honorable went on to express that "[si ince no Supreme Court

holding addressing the issue whether States must retroactively apply a new criminal

rule to state law the retroactivity issue was rendered academic. Id.

In 2016, The State Superior Court (1562 MbA 2015) expressed that "[i]f Alleyne

announced a new constitutional right, "neither our supreme court, not the U.S.

Supreme Court held Alleyne is to be applied retroactively. Because [either court]

have not held Alleyne applies to cases on collateral review, Appellant cannot

satisfy the exception to the Post Conviotion Collateral Act, -Garcia, 2016

Pa.Super.Unpub.LEXIS 251.

In March 16, 2016, in a timely Perogative Writ Petitioner set Monyomary down in

State Court on federal claims expressing these cases above relevant postulate of

retroactivity to by Mtgomery have all applied to His case, (CRl at 1-2); Review

was denied.

91. Though Petitioner is ill equipped to present a proper argument, He believes it

is sufficient to express two additional points for now

Montgomery new command effectively reigned in the post collateral process to the

body of interrelated laws, Dansforth, 522 US @ 271 (the new rule is not ion a

temporal scope of a new right, but whether violations of the right prior to the rule

entitled relief), cf. Cruz, 851 A.2d @ 877 n.5 (recognizing from this Court that

selective application of new rules violate principles of treating similarly situated

defendants the same); Teague, 487 US @ 300 (once a new rule is applied, even handed

justice requires it to be applied retroactively to all whom are similarly situated).

In pertinent relevance to the presñt case, Montgomery recognized that where

• ptitioner attakd udythnt on Ljrounds of conviction wider an unconstituti

onal

Statutei the proPOsition is not solely abOut a conviction that. is mare1 rconeous

be a

oecause it is under an uncon3tit4tioflal lag, bt is i11ea1 and void and cannot

nges to

1eral caiee of .*risonment; A 'logical camand óualj governing challe

inits, 136 act: @ 730-31, see 'rOst and Bond, Supt-4-:11Mfia..

Montoaleri is inareted different for th 'uueu1 end' reatablj ithown practic

beoe

upon the 11 coiiaterai class" ptesuMad to be iretua1l' etáihid in punishment

add ametirnss ate' the flt9h. Court &Mouhices a 'nei

•

riLLe

efttitlitrig the litigant to

ette,Z3 k.3d @'

relief or even awa*eth e pr3ce35 itself 'is a hollow forthalit('Se

a second

3.049 (4:1latera3. iiticants abi1it to obtain relief is 1are1 iUusrj and

round of. relief is uniikel).

la this present caSe, the 2016 writ as timelj and wContfuUj denied1 sO apea1

.016 to present new evidence and facts for 2241 rsl.ei enaUed ad

in )eceinoer 28, 2

, and divest District court over the

-4 is jurisdzctional mandatory

Since its fain`

, '47' U 274;

459 US 58,'Brodec, 44 US 264w 'ust.on"4.

..eia,

•

Where Be'

•

•..

--•.

delivered nctice 'to Jailor 'within tithe and rules, it -is filed, in a' Fiana9a6-99

F.26

, by

759..

•

In this li94t as throhOi1t, the contracts made void and so done without power

unlawful acts and thereafter kept concealed without notice O chafl9e to 0ha4ene

reesents an exceptional circumstance that 001 great writ of habeas corpus was made

ing his circular 3ourner in this cases Be has hwt1j

iths

• persevered and .itnp1j praja his mandatory, relief, iSsAe.

•

'hather or nO the. h oable 1oec courts was

or all the same reasons

'is

•

preforming 'a 9ate iceepin

•

-. •

•

function or a facial review, the dispositional Order(s)

entere3 in this case was not on' the .fats' the cha11ene or evidence as pcethñted at

•

•.

n for

every A of the process and being Constitutiona1Lj wcon MaJ the petitio

•

grit f certiorari -iSsue

•

.•

•

)

•

/_O/

6MARrn23ia

APPENDIX TAAE OF CQfttS

A UC3RD. CII. 0ATI04 •

02 NOV. 2017 OER NO JURISDICTION -DIMM APPEAL

10 3A4. 2018 - ORDBR4 9SI0WT1O*i, 08019D

S, U.S.0c.w9J -

IAT1ON. 17-01 BRIA is 1-17-cv-0301 58

1• 02 FEB- -2017 0RDR'#10J -flL. ALIENDD WIBS, CASE CLOSED

2. 10 APR. 2017 QRDR-MDJ -2254 GAU RD1 -HUTION AT C0*Oi LAW CAt0T tV0i) 2254

• 3. 03 AUG. 2.017 ORDR-4J TRLW(, DLSMXSS 2ALTi (IRTFA AW.A), cASe owSD

4:-

C.IFEMUL APPEWATS COURTS DZTaMIMTIM (2017/ 2015)

14 SEP. 2017, UCA.3RD. -trIC& T0 ACT OR CABS D1SIiSSSD.

ILI

06 O. 2017, USCA3RD. -F1IN %PMOMPTABLE MUST GO TO U.S.S.C.

18 OCT. 2017, U.S.S.C. -APPEAL MW- 0WLt BY R.18

)T AIWSD -AcCi$ 0END

-STATE, ACTION 89 £E1EkRS NOi TO."

14 JUL. 20150 UeS.81.Cp.

-ACCESS D8UfI)

13 AUG. 2015, USCA.3W. N0 PR QVR U.S-SC.

TO TAK& AC11O4-ACCESS D1D

11,

471

P1 DSTU4INAT10N * .1O8082O16

1; 13 JAN.4 2011 ORDER, PETITION GANTD, LNID. LACK Of JUR8DZCE1O

S. 08 SEP, 1998 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, -ATMP 3r6° CliA.GE -00TRACJ4

. STATE COURTS DETEMIMTIONS ON ATT8tPT UO4IC1D (40 £.)

• 11 fB. 1999 -P-L.SSANON -RAP-1925 OPINION, 1997-11239

10 AUG. 2000 -CCP-S8ANON -W-192.5 QINION -91-11239

38• 13 tim. 2001 4A 8UPtB.IOR - 1401 Mi-A 2000

4. 15 JUL.42014 -Cc9-69BAN0W ME WAY Of ANCASTR) 20134)2357

0. GOYSRNMSNT C85IONS

.1 02 AUG.4 2004, D.A. -593 MDA 2004 -NO SUCH WARGS AS MMP 3RD*

• • 2. C19A - 20051 D.A.

-3-C-4)6-0604 -NO SDATUTR FOR 0ONVICTIONi

•

ISSUE WAIVED

&T kiARMLESS

3i,•18 16 859. 2013, PA 000. A.O.R.

-RTKL. 1405-1. -NO 85NTC, NO CO ETL

4 8

•,

4. 01 0C. 2013, PA DOC.4

T ORDf*tS

AP2013-1817 -NO S&lTMCZ j NO M, IMITAM OW 5R$

it. 29 N, 2017, AffIDAVITS Of MR. ANTONIO St5MA (WrORlZM & CsaTIi'iso)

-I. PROVISIONS UNQSP. U.S.S.C. RULE 14.1(f)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.