Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lawrence Mattison, Petitioner v. Virginia

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

LAWRENCE E. MATTISON; Petitioner

VS.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

THE VIRGINIA SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT; Respondents

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To

The Virginia Supreme Judicial Court

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Lawrence E. Mattison

948 Copper Stone circle

Chesapeake, Virginia 23320

(757) 604-7894

La7mattyahoo.com

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Federal Question: Does the State of Virginia have criminal jurisdiction over

Department of Veterans Affairs property, specifically the Hampton Veterans

Medical Center located in Hampton Virginia?

Federal Questions: Does the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of

the United States as codified under 18 U.S.C.7(3) place the Federal

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Hampton, Virginia under

sole (exclusive) federal criminal jurisdiction of the United States?

Was it ERROR for the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court to REFUSE

petitioner's written petition, petition for rehearing and petition to submit

supporting documents when in fact petitioner was attempting to verify or

clarify whether this State or the Federal Government has criminal

Jurisdiction over the Federal Department of Veterans Medical Center

property?

Was it ERROR for Virginia's Supreme Judicial Court to REFUSE to answer

Questions that prose the possibility of a voided verdict based on warrants

that were filed in State court in violation of Federal law 38 U.S.C. §902 as

applied a Federal Department of Veterans Affairs Police Officers?

Was it ERROR for Virginia's Supreme Judicial Court to REFUSE to answer

Questions that prose the possibility of a voided verdict based on warrants

that were filed in State court in violation of the plain language in Code of

Virginia §15.21726 which forbids a federal law enforcement police officer

from enforcing state law?

Was it ERROR for Virginia's Supreme Judicial Court to REFUSE to answer Questions

that prose the possibility of a voided verdict based on usage of previously repealed

portions of a Virginia statue in reference to criminal jurisdiction as applied to Federal

Property?

I

LIST OF PARTIES

Petitioner is Lawrence E. Mattison. I represented pro se to the Virginia

Supreme Judicial Court on appeal of the ruling of the Virginia Judicial

Court

of Appeals and now petitioner proceeds pro se to this Court.

Respondents are the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Solicitor

General in the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, where 28 U.S.C

.

§2403(a) may apply, and The Virginia Supreme Judicial Court.

Interested Party where 28 U.S.C. §2403(a) may apply, based on this Feder

al

Questions, is The United States Office of the Solicitor General, Room 5614,

Department of Justice @ 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC

20530-0001.

Interested Party where 28 U.S.C. §2403(a) may apply, based on this Feder

al

Questions, is The United States Attorney @ 8000 World Trade Center,

101

West Main Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. (757) 441-6331

TABLE OF CONTENS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................

....i,

PARTIES...................................................................................

..........ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................

....iii

STATUTES AND RULES & OTHERS ................................................

......iv

OPINIONSBELOW.............................................................................

....1

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

.....1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........................................................................

.........

.2,3

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

..........3-10

11

Facts

. ,3 4

Petition to Submit Support documents to The Virginia

Supreme Judicial Court ...................................................................4,

Petition to Rehear to the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court ....................5

Petition for Rehearing To The Virginia Supreme Judicial Court..............5

Proceedings In The Virginia Trial Court Of Record ...............................6

Well-Established Rules Of Law ..........................................................6-8

Well-established acts of Virginia's Legislators and the

Veterans Affairs Administrator supporting exclusive

criminal jurisdiction .........................................................................8, 9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ......................................................10

CONCLUSION.........................................................................................10

INDEX TO APPENDICIES .......................................................................................11

APPENDIX A

April 17, 2017 Opinion on the merits by the

Virginia Judicial Court of Appeals denying

the appeal ...................................................... A-i thru A-6

APPENDIX B

Trial Court of record ruling on the testimony,

cover, index, & Judge's ruling beginning

@ B-4 line 21 thru B-6 lines 1-3 .......................... B-i thru B-6

APPENDIX C

Decision of the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court

Denying Petition for Rehearing and denying

submission of supporting documents .................... C-i

APPENDIX D

Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing .....................D-1 thru D-8

APPENDIX E

Petitioner's Petition to submit

supporting documents .......................................E-1 thru E7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGES

Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943) ....................................................8

Commonwealth v. Holly Jo South, 47 Va. App. 250, 623 S.E. 2d, 422 .......................7

Ill

James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S 134, 141 (1937) .....................................6

Markham v. United States, 215 F.2d 56 ............................................................6

North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 109 L. Ed.2 429, 456 (1990) ..................6, 7

Surplus Trading Co. v Cook, 281 U.S. 467, 652-56 (1930) .....................................6

United States v. Gilbert, 94 F. Supp. 2d @ 157-162 .............................................. 6

STATUES AND RULES

18 U.S.C. §7(3) ....................................................................................2, 6

18U.S.C.13 .......................................................................................2,4

38 U.S.C. §902 ......................................................................................2, 7

Code of Virginia § 15.2-1726 ......................................................................3, 7

Code of Virginia § 1-400

.'

.......................................

...................................

2, 5, 8

1869-70 Acts of the Virginia General Assembly c. 325 @ pg. 479 ...........................7

1922 Acts of the Virginia General Assembly c. 390 @ pg. 657 ...............................6, 7

1976 Acts of the Virginia General Assembly c. 211..............................................8

1977 Notice of retrocession to concurrent jurisdiction filed in the

Virginia Circuit Court of record ......................................................................8

OTHER

Federal Constitution Article I, Sec 8, clause 17/18 .......................................2, 3, 5, 6

U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual: CRM @ 664 ........................................6

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgement

below.

OPINIONS BELOW

On April 17, 2017 the Virginia Judicial Court of Appeals refused Petitioner's

appeal but opinioned on the merits is unpublished and at Appendix A;

On May 25, 2016 the Virginia Trial Court made a decision on petitioners

guilt/innocence and is unpublished and at Appendix B;

February 28, 2018 Decision of the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court denying

Petition for Rehearing is unpublished and at Appendix C; also the Virginia

Court's denial to submit supporting documents on the Jurisdictional question

is unpublished and at Appendix C

Petitioner's timely filed Petition for Rehearing unpublished at Appendix D

Petitioner's Petition to submit supporting documents on the jurisdictional

question is unpublished and at Appendix E

JURISDICTION

On February 28, 2018 the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court refused to opinion

petitioner's timely filed Petition For Rehearing, and that decision appears at

Appendix C

On December 12, 2017 the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court refused to

opinion petitioner's case, and that decision is inclusive with Appendix C

On April 17. 2017 the Virginia Judicial Court of Appeals refused the appeal

but opinioned on the merits and that decision appears at Appendix A

Page 1of 11

The Jurisdiction of this Court in invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257; Sup ct Rule

10 (b)(c).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

U.S. Constitution Article I, Sec 8, clause 17/18 authorizes the Federal

Government, with consent of the State and acceptance of the Federal Govern

ment,

the right to acquire land for use by the Federal Government with exclusive

legislative, executive and judicial authority over such lands and also author

izes the

Federal Government the right to make laws, rules and regulations governing

such

lands.

Code of Virginia §1-400 Conditional consent given to acquisition of lands by

the United States; concurrent jurisdiction ceded is specifically related to lands

acquired on and after July 1, 1981. §1-400(D) enumerates the nature and

extent to:

(1) Taxations on vehicles & fuels, (2) Service of civil and criminal process,

(3) Sale of

intoxicating liquors, (4) Taxations on property and business.

18 U.S.C. §7(3) Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United

States enacted by the Federal Congress also allows the Federal Government

authority to purchase lands to erect useful buildings, ect.... for use by the

Federal

Government and it's purpose places criminal Jurisdiction for alleged crimes

on such

property in the hands of the United States Government.

18 U.S.C. §13 Crimes Assimilation Act (ACA) by authority of the Federal

Congress a means to prosecute alleged criminal offenses committed on Federa

lands was provided, if the Federal Government had no law, rule or admin

l

istrative

Page 2 of 11

policy consistent with the alleged criminal offense. That means allows

the Federal

Government to "Assimilate" a State statue into a federal prosecution.

38 U.S.C. §902(a)(1)(A)(C) which regulates a Federal Police Officer's

authority on Department of Veterans Affairs Property to enforcing Federa

l law and

state law traffic citations.

Code of Virginia 15.2-1726 consists of plain language that reads in part

However, no federal law enforcement officer may enforce the laws of

the Commonwealth unless authorized to do so by statue......

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A.

Facts

This case seeks to vindicate the well-established Special Maritime and

Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States. Petitioner alleges that the

Virginia

Judicial Supreme Court's refusal to opinion a well-established jurisdi

ctiona

l issue is

unlawfully supportive of violations of and repugnant to: (1) Federal Consti

tution

Article I, Section 8, clause 17 & 18; (2) the Special Maritime and Territo

rial

Jurisdiction of the United States ; (3) voided criminal arrest warrants

filed by a

federal police officer in a Virginia Court. App @ A. B

On March 25, 2015 a Federal police officer/employee of the Hampton

Veterans Medical Center used a badge of authority and swore to a State

of Virginia

Magistrate that Petitioner; Lawrence Mattison; an employee of the Hamp

ton

Veterans Medical Center (HVAMC), violated State Law while on Federa

l Property

by "Stalking" and "Annoyingly texting" a fellow HVAMC employee. App

Page 3 of 11

@ A,B

Individuals within the Virginia Judiciary advance the arrest warrants

and

heard from nine federal employee/witnesses claiming actions by petitio

ner, which

occurred on federal property, were somehow supportive of a state court

petitioner was convicted and incarcerated. Petitioner timely appealed

process,

to the

Virginia judicial Court of Appeals, through counsel, and was denied an

appeal

without questions from counsel or regard to the obvious jurisdictional

issue

but with

opinion/ analysis on the "merits". App @ A

On July 30, 2017 Petitioner released counsel and filed a Petition for appeal

the Virginia Judicial Supreme Court and after oral argument was denied

to

appeal

and On February 28, 2018 a Petition for Rehearing was denied. App @C

Petitioner was denied appeal and timely sought a Petition for Rehearing

in

the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court. Prior to any ruling Petitioner submi

tted a

request to submit additional information on the jurisdictional claim. App

B.

@F

Petition to Submit Support documents

to The Virginia Supreme Judicial Court

Petitioner filed a request to submit supporting documents Prior to any

decision on rehearing. In the request, Petitioner specifically asked if the

trial

court

had Subject-matter Jurisdiction to hear alleged misconduct which occurr

ed on

federal property? Petition also supplied the notice of retrocession letter

Veteran Affairs Administrator and the Governor of Virginia. App @ F

Page 4 of 11

between the

Petition to Rehear to the Virginia

Supreme Judicial Court

Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Review to the Virginia Supreme judicial

Court. In the PFR, petitioner presented three (3) questions, question 1 is the issue

here:

(1)

Whether or not criminal/judicial jurisdiction is solely in the hands of the

federal enclave (lands) bought or leased by the sovereign Federal government

under 18 U.S.C. W (Assimilative Crimes Act)? App @ E

Question 1 has enough information for the Virginia Supreme Court to opinion the

jurisdictional issue, even with the use 18 U.S.C. §13.

Petition for Rehearing

To The Virginia

Supreme Judicial Court

Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing to the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court

asked, what I believed, to be specific questions. It is plainly clear Plaintiff alerted

the Virginia Supreme judicial Court of the jurisdictional issue and this State's lack

of authority to use their State's criminal court process for alleged crimes on Federal

Department of Veterans Affairs property and the possibility of invalid State arrest

warrants. App @ E Although I was not as clear on these issues, I believe enough

information was submitted to the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court to warrant a

legal opinion and or correction of the lower State court decision. Petitioner was

denied review App @ C

Page 5 of 11

Proceedings In The Virginia

Trial Court Of Record

The Trial Court Judge heard from nine witnesses from

along with arguments of counsel. The lawyers in the lower

court never raised a jurisdictional question or argument

Constitution Article I, section 8, clause 17, the Special

the Federal HVAMC

court and in the trial

in reference to the Federal

Maritime and Territorial

Jurisdictional of the United States or the extent of Virgin

ia's jurisdiction under

code of Virginia §1-400(D).

The Trial Court summarized testimony of the issues in

thru B-6 lines 1-3 and used the following testimonies, in

federal property in finding petitioner guilty: (1) alleged

summary, that pertain to

that petitioner went into

the "Stalked" co-employees office at the HVAMC, accessed

picture to his federal government work computer, trial

App @B-i line 21

her iphone and sent a

transcript T.T 18-19, T.T

128, T.T 168-69; (2) summated that petitioner had Pictu

res of this alleged

"stalked" employee and her family on his Federal gover

nment computer T.T 23-25,

(3) alleged plaintiff was told not to come on federal prope

rty but was seen by

another employee at [h]is desk T.T. 59, T.T. 168-69, then

used a vague statement

claiming "totality" T.T. 168-69

Well-Established Rules Of Law

Page 6 of 11

This Court has long ago and consistently upheld the well-established

Territorial rights of the Federal Government over alleged crimes comm

itted on their

property and specifically those properties where buildings are used for

Federal

Government purposes under the Federal Constitution Article I, Section

8, clause 17

[Which specifically authorizes exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government, with

cession of

the State and acceptance of congress, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsena

ls, dock-yards

and other Needful buildings] The State of Virginia specifically included Vetera

ns

.

Hospitals as a needful building in the 1922 Acts of the Virginia General

Assembly.

[where the Department of Veterans Affairs was authorized to purchase or acquire

d land in 1870

therefore, exclusive jurisdiction was presumed]; 1922 Acts of the Virginia Gener

al

Assembly c. 390 @ pg. 657; James v. Dravo Contracting Co. 302 U.S 134, 141

,

(1937); citing Surplus Trading Co. v Cook, 281 U.S. 467, 652-56 (1930).

18 U.S.C.

§7(3) [Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under

exclusive or

concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the

by consent of the legislator the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of

United states

a fort,

magazine, arsenal, dockyard or other needful building.] United States v. Gilber

t, 94 F.

Supp. 2d @ 157-162 [which specifically references a Veterans Hospital as a needfu

l building

exclusive to veterans and Veteran's health care]. The purpose of 18 U.S.C. §7(3)

was to

replace criminal jurisdiction in the hands of the United Stated Governmen

t; U.S.

Attorney Criminal Resource Manual: CRM 663-664; Markham v. United

215 F.2d 56-57 (4th cir 1954) [which specifically supports territorial Jurisdiction

of the

federal Government pre 1940 acquisition]; North Dakota v. United States, 495

Page 7 of 11

States,

U.S. 423,

109 L. Ed.2 429, 456 (1990), [which discusses a state's responsibility for defining the nature

and extent of concurrent jurisdiction];

Federal Law 38 U.S.C. §902(a)(1)(A)(C) authorize federal police to enforce

federal law and only State traffic laws on federal property; code of Virginia §15.21726 specifically uses plan language, in part reading "

However, a Federal

........

police officer may not enforce the laws of the commonwealth unless specifically

authorized to do so by statue....." this statutory provision was upheld by the

Virginia Judicial court of Appeals in Holly J0 South v. commonwealth, 47 Va. App.

250, 623 S.E. 2d @ 420-21, [the Virginia Judicial court of Appeals specifically opinioned on

the plain language of this statute, and opinioned that a federal police officer is not the functional

equivalent of a State or local officer but convicted Ms. South because the officers were injured

and filed criminal complaints in their individual capacity and parties to a physical altercation]

G.

Well-established acts of Virginia's Legislators

and the Veterans Affairs Administrator

supporting exclusive criminal jurisdiction

1869-70 Acts of the Virginia General Assembly c. 325 @ pg. 479 [which

specifically gave consent to the board of Managers of the National Asylum for disabled

volunteer soldiers to locate a branch of that establishment in the State of Virginia

retaining CONCURRENT jurisdiction, the Hampton Branch later became what is

currently the Hampton Veterans Medical Center.]

1922 Acts of the Virginia General Assembly c. 390 @ pg. 657 [which specifically

amended the 1870 Acts in it's entirety and reenacted that Act in compliance with the Federal

Page 8 of 11

Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 17 giving the United States EXCLUSIVE

over the National Asylum for disabled volunteer soldiers. which All Branches

jurisdiction

eventually became

the Department of Veterans Affairs]

1976Acts of the Virginia General Assembly c.211 [Virginia specifically

repealed

their hold on concurrent jurisdiction in reference to crimes and offenses commi

tted on lands

acquired since March 28, 1936 and hereafter acquired by the United States........the

n reenacted

statute §7.1-21, with others, into code of Virginia §7.1-18.1 without concurrent

criminal

jurisdiction, less traffic offenses; [this code was latter reenacted into the current

Virginia code

§ 1-400 again without concurrent criminal jurisdiction, "less traffic"] Adams v. United

States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943) [which claimed a state's consent to allow federa

l jurisdiction

may be evidenced by a specific enactment or by general constitutional or statuto

ry provision, and

also requires acceptance by the state]

1977 retrocession letter to concurrent jurisdiction between Virginia

Governor

and the Veterans Affairs Administrator. Appendix B. @ pgs. 4-7

[By Federal Constitution standards a possible 100+ years of Exclusive Federal

Jurisdiction was

in place. By Virginia standards approximately 54 years of Exclusive Federal Jurisdi

ction was in

place, less criminal jurisdiction. After repeal of criminal jurisdiction by Virgin

ia legislators, the

Veterans Affairs Administrator and the Virginia Executive Branch agreed to enough

concurrent

jurisdiction with acceptance of the State as codified in Virginia code §1-400

(D) which gives

Virginia concurrent jurisdiction over taxations, serving criminal & civil proces

s, intoxicating

liquor sales and "possible traffic"]. Code of Virginia §1- 400(D)

Page 9 of 11

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

This case involves a Federal Question that has long been well-settled. Review

is Warranted because the Refusal by the Virginia Supreme Judicial Court to

opinion on the obvious violation of the United States' criminal jurisdiction and

invalid arrest warrants are grossly repugnant to Federal law, the federal

Constitution, Federal court Precedent, Virginian Law and the plain language of

Virginian law. These violations put Virginia's Judiciary in full disregard of wellestablished Federal law & precedent. Sup Ct. Rule 10 (b)(c)

CONCLUSION

Petitioner respectfully ask this court to review and overturn the

action/inaction of the Virginia judiciary. This case represents a recurring federal

question. I also respectfully ask this United States Supreme Court will notice the

issues involved in this case have been resolved and well-settled long ago by

decisions of this Court and lower Federal Courts, even this State's Legislative and

Executive Branches played a role in securing Exclusive (sole) Federal Criminal

Jurisdiction of the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs. I submit this Petition

on

M't' +

,2018

-~,Yn --tk,

Lawrence Mattison

948 Copper Stone Circle

Chesapeake, Va. 23320

(757) 604-7894

I..,a7m.att@vahoo.com.

Page 10 of 11