Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Theodore C. Shove, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

Supreme Court briefMay 14, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.:

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN RE: THEODORE SHOVE, Petitioner

VS.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Respondent(s)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

"CAPITAL CASE"

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

THEODORE SHOVE G11092

SAN QUENTIN PRISON

SAN QUENTIN, CALIFORNIA 94974

Question One

Do U.S. Courts have a duty to safeguard freedoms against arbitrary

and lawless state actions. By and through extraordinary remedies

essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach

are surfaced and corrected.

Question Two

Does oath or affirmation clause. Demand affirmative duty,

absolute duty to sovereign pursuant to jurisprudence by contract

duty, to establish a duty to take some action to prevent harm to

others and failures of which one may be liable depending on

invoked duties and circumstances.

Question Three

In invoked duty incumbent upon oath to obtain judicial vested

authority, provides extraordinary obligation to the scope and

flexibility of extraordinary writ and its capacity to reach all

manners of illegal detention

its ability to cut through barriers of

form, and procedural mazes. This is to include States who deliberately

act to create procedural bar to deny Federal reviews, by violation of

constitutional guaranteed rights to a minority class of U.S. citizens,

while acting under colorS of authority.

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover

page. A list of all parties to the proceedings in the Court whose

judgement is the subject of this petition as follows:

SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Superior Court No.:

P).'1( I C1,3

SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE SUPREME COURT

No.: S-164093

No.: S-193252

No.: S-234107

SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA U.S.D.C.

No.: 15-CV-02010-R

No.: 13-CV-01475-R

No.: 12-CV-02194-R

No.: 10-CV-04556-R

No.: 08-CV-07126-R

SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA U.S.D.C.

No.: CV-09-0656-RMW

No.: CV-09-02316-UMA

No.: CV-12-0211-RMW

No.: CV-14-04196-JD

SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA U.S.C.A.

Review order

No.: 18-70072

Additional nine cases

as it relates to same

issues.

96-80069

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinions below

Jurisdiction

Constitutional and Statutory divisions involved

Statement of case

Reasoning for granting

Conclusion

Index to Appendices

Appendix A

Writ of mandates / mandamus

Appendix B

Writ of habeas corpus

Appendix C

Writ of habeas corpus state court

Appendix D

Habeas denial

Appendix E

Habeas denial

prn

cU-

- o - MuJ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES

Cases

Constitution

III

State statute

iii, TV

U.S. statute

California rules of court

Government code

United State Supreme Court rules

Petition for mandate

Statement of case

Statement of legal facts with case authorit

Conclusions

Submitted writ of habeas corpus with comp

liance: motion

Conformed copy of filed and defaulted writ

of mandate

Certification

Notice filed for appeal of 12-12-2017 rul

ing

Exhibits:

Attached in support of all fili

ngs:

Division 1:

Statutes:

2cJ

A02

A03

A04

A05

Exh. A

Exh. 1 P.C. §141

Cal. P.C.

U.S. Title 18

Cal. P.C.

.14

Court order's at bar

Cal. P.C. §1423 thru §1540

Exh. 2 P.C. §1473

Exh. 3 18 U.S.C. §1512

Exh. 4 18 U.S.C. §1515

Exh. 5 18 U.S.C. §241

Exh. 6 18 U.S.C. §242

Division 2:

Exh. 7

18 U.S.C. §1503

Exh. 8

18 U.S.C. §04

Exh. 9

Constitution question

Exh. 10 U.S. Corist. Amend.

Legal notices search warrants

Exh. -1

XIV

Davis declaration

Exh. 2 Cal. pub. defenders visit

Exh. 3

Cal. pub. defenders - visit

Exh. 4 Search - warrant 2001

03071

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Division 2:

Legal notice search warrants

Exh. 5

Search warrant 2002

01012

Exh. 5A Cal. P.C. §1534

§1538.5

Exh. 6

Cal. P.C. §3 legal notice

Exh. 7

Letter Cal. Pub. Defenders

Letter Cal. appellate project

Division 3:

Filed habeas with transcripts at issue

Exh. 3

Filed motion for in camera review

Exh. 6

Pitchess hearing

Exh. 7

Conflict of interest hearing

Exh. 8

Complaint judicial performance

Exh. 10 Court clerk notice of no receipt of habeas

Exh. 11 Superior court denial of not recorded habea

Division 4:

Relevant court orders

Exh. .1

Habeas corpus S164093 Denial

Exh. 2

Habeas corpus S193252 Denial

Exh. 2A

Habeas corpus S234107 Defaulted

Exh. 3

CV-09-2316-RNIW

Exh. 4

CV-12-0211--RNIW

Exh. 5

Superior court habeas order

Exh. 6

Superior court habeas order

Exh. 7

Second District Court of Appeals

Exh. 8

Supreme Court case summary

Division 5:

Contract demands to appointment to capital cases

Exh. 1 Calif., Supreme Court Policies 2-3 adopted by

themselves

Divisio-a 6: (4-) Records corrections transcript

Exh. F-i 12-13-2013

Exh. F-2 02-25-2014

Exh. F-3 06-10-2014

Exh. F-4 07-29-2014

Table of Authority Cited

CASES:

Baca v. Adams, No.; 13-65132

B.T.W. v. Dalton, 712 F.2d 1233

Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 530

D.C. Court of Appeals v. Fieldman, 460 U.S. 462, 472; 103 S.Ct. 1303

Furman, 408 U.S. 430

Gallego, 18 Cal. 825

Green v. Mansour, 475 U.S. 64; 106 S.Ct. 423

Harris, 5 Cal. 4th 827

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 289 (9th Cir.)

Heartland I, 335 F.3d 691

Johnson v. Lee, No.: 15-789 (9th Cir.)

Montiel v. City of Los Angeles, 2 F.3d 334

Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338

Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770 (1995)

Silverthrone Lumber Co., v. United States, 251 U.S. 365

Stankenwitz, 40 Cal. 827

Steele, 34 Cal. 4th 691

United States v. Rivera, 628 F.3d 1224, 1237 (9th Cir 2012)

United States v. Reich, (2006 ED NY) 420 F.Supp 2d 75; 479 F.3d 179

Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010

Wong v. United States, 371 U.S. 471; 83 S.Ct. 405

Young, 109 U.S. 159

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-57

Rules Statutes and Others

U.S.

18 U.S.C.

28 U.S.C.

§04

§03

§241

§242

§1503

§1512

§1515

STATE

Cal. Penal Code

§1473

§1534

§1054.9

§453

§1251

§1253

§1254

§1557(a)

§1651

RULES

§8.610

§8.619(d)(7)

28 U.S.C.

§2243(c)(3)

§2254(A)

§2254(B)(1)()(ii)

§2261(E)

§2262

California Supreme Court Policies 2-3

42 U.S.C.

§1983

flTTT nC'

A. E. D .P .A

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 Judgment below.

OPINION BELOW

11 For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals at Appendix

petition and is mandamus / mandate

to the

1 reported at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ; or,

11 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

13 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

petition and Is habeas challenge to illegal Judgement

11 reported at U.S. District Court

to the

: or

13 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or

11 Is unpublished.

(3 For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix

to the petition and Is habeas challenge to illegal Judgment

11 reported at California Supreme Court

; or,

(1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or

I Is unpublished.

The opinion of the California Supreme Court

to the petition and is

court appears at Appendix

11 reported at

11 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

(1 is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

LI For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was March 26, 2018

LI No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

(I A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals

and a copy of the order denying

on the following date:

rehearing appears at Appendix

•

II An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was

(date) on

granted to and including

(date)

In Application No.

The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. c12541).

LI For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was February 20, 2013

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix C-D-F

(I A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following

and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears

date:

at Appendix

_______•

I] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ certiorari was granted

(date) on

and including

(date) in

Application No.

The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. fl257(a).

Jurisdictional Statement

This case was and is presented to State of California Supreme

Court, California Superior Court. Exhaustion perfected by compliance,

pursuant United States Supreme Court Rule 20.4(a). Further pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1651, §2241(c)(3), §2242, §2254(A) and (B)(1)(i)(ii),

as well as §2264(a)(1).

Further the presentation of this case was provided by

extraordinary writ directly related criminal acts of law as foundation

for false prosecution. This case, a capital case with a judgement of

death. Petitioner presented to both State of California courts and

United States Courts pursuant Title 18 U.S.C. §04 legislative command

to report crimes against United States to U.S. Judicial Branch.

Petitioner presented undisputable evidence as to State of

California deliberate creation of employment contract to appoint

appellate counsel to violate, their clients constitutional rights.

This to maintain illegal, unconstitutional judgements, in a minority

class of U.S. citizens accused of capital case.

The policies created, established, adopted, enforced by

California Supreme Court Policy 2-3. These policies created to

deliberately diminish federal constitutional guarannteed review.

Further in suspension of habeas corpus collateral challenge to illegal

judgement. The demand of appellate review on a complete, accurate

trial court record, possessed by trial court, as invoked demanded

duty.

This case has been presented to U.S. District Court, U.S. Appeals

Court, and U.S. Supreme Court. Now as lower court rulings are

established as erroneous judgements this demands review of original

jurisdiction. This as a State who has deliberately violated U.S.

Constitution, Statutory law, and Treaty between U.S. and State of

California.

This case will provide demands to compliance which will aid in

the U.S. Courts appellate jurisdiction. These violation s by State of

California certify death penalty is utilized, applied arbitrary and

capriciously and utilized for financial gains, and defraud U.S.

Courts.

This filing as procedure, in an original jurisdiction, invoking

the court's original jurisdiction under Artic.e III of United States

Constitutions, see also 28 U.S.C. §1251, and U.S. Const. Art. I §9

petition for extraordinary writ. Further 28 U.S.C, §1253, §1254,

§ 1557(a)

This courts jurisdiction is aided in issuing corrections as they

directly related to affirmation clause to those with contract duty,

absolute duty, affirmative duty pursuant U.S. Const. Art. VI C1.3.

This case aids in appellate jurisdiction by reduction of U.S. citizens

who are denied due process of law, and death's directly related to

foundation of denial of U.S. Constitutional guaranteed rights to an

U.S. citizens.

This case will clarify no other avenues for legal corrections as

demanded by constitution, laws, or in compliance with case authority

of United States Supreme Court.

The legal undisputable facts presented in this case is not

limited to this case only. This is a standard of practice in which

human life is being terminated by our courts based upon denial of due

process of law at each and every stage of State of California capital

proceeding.

This case certifies State of California act arbitrarily and

capriciously in its utilization of death penalty. Further to provide

false and untrue records which indemnifies quality of there legal

process and procedure by creation of false affirmation rate. This

rate established to perpetrate a fraud upon United States in obtaining

federal funding.

However the foundation for this Honorable Court to exercise its

judicial; "The exercise of judgement by a judge or a court based upon

what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and

principles of law; a court's power to act or not act when the action

is demanded by constitution and statute laws. This Honorable Court is

bound by U.S. Constitution Art III §2, This especially as State of

California is bound by both constitution and treaty to accept judicial

authority of supreme law of land, by and through United States Supreme

Court in a supervisory capacity.

This Honorable Court has already established by and through case

authority, but more importantly these violations are prohibited by

State and U.S. Constitution, Statute, and Treaties. Evidence

undisputable, clarifies a criminal enterprise by those acting under

color of vested authority to deliberately, criminally violating

constitutionally guaranteed rights in all stages of capital

proceedings. Evidence is undisputable and confirms all allegations

presented to all listed courts. This are very foundation in which

U.S. Constitution, Statutes have created very protections to protect

against by prohibitory and mandatory directive.

Constitutional Cites

State Constitution

U.S. Constitution

Art. I §7

Art. I §9.2

Art. I §11

Art. I §10.1

Art. I §13

Art. III §1

Art. I §15

Art. III §2.1

Art. III §2.2

Art. IV §1-1

Art. VI §2

Amendment VI

Amenment V

Amendment VI

Amendment VII

Amendment VIII

Amenment X

Amenment XI

Amendment XIII

Amendment XIV

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

This case started with a double homicide in September on or about

16th of 2001. This case assigned to special task force highly trained

in prosecution, investigation to high crimes, members of Los Angeles

California Sheriff's department.

A blanked search warrant was issued for phone records on

10-29-2001 by Pomona Superior Court judge. Execution and return was

not in compliance to Cal. P.C. §1534. Pomona Superior Court issuing

Judge Hunt ordered search warrant voided and all property returned.

See Exh. A-4.

A search warrant six month after crime was issued to Detective

Muse, L.A. County Sheriff's by application on 04-23-2002. This by

Pomona Superior Court Judge Hunt, and issuing judge order search

warrant voided on May 4, 2002 for violation of Cal. P.C. §1534.

See Exh. A-4.

P.C. §1534; Time limits for execution and return:

(a) A search warrant shall be executed and returned within

10 days after date of issuance.

The documents and records of the court relating to the

warrant need not be open to the public until the execution

and return of the warrant, or the expiration of the 10 days

period after issuance.

Now review Attached A-i, search warrant of 04-23-2002,

established by bata numbers as part of murder book. This created by

L.A. County Sheriff's, discovered to L.A. County prosecutor, and

provided to defense trial Counsel Alex Kessel. This also presented to

preliminary court, incorporated within court records. Records which

were certified within trial court records by court rules. <SEE

declaration of Detective Davis on 09-29-2014 Exh. A-0 attached.

Now based upon trial court, L.A. prosecutor, L.A. County

Sheriffs, State Attorney General, California Supreme Court with a

complete augmented accurate record to certify judgement of death as

demanded by California Rules of Court, Rule 8.610, 8.619(d)(7) within

90 days after sentecing.

Now based upon trial court records of search warrants and returns

were never filed with trial court seems L.A. County Sheriff's lost

records of search and arrest warrants as well, as L.A. prosecutor, and

trial defense Counsel Alex Kessel. Search warrants.

Now review Attached A-2; Search warrants provided by lead

Detective Davis, upon request of State of California Attorney General.

This all contained under oath declaration of Detective Davis.

Two search warrants one on 10-29-2001 <2001-03071> and second on

04-23-2002 <2002-01012>. These with returns on 10-2I-2001 attempted

return on 10-20-2004. Rejected as voided by court order, The return

was attempted to be filed on 10-21-2004 on 04-23-2002 search warrant,

after motion to unseal was rejected on 10-20-2004 by Superior Court

order of voided search warrants. <SEE Attached A-2-A search warrant

<2001-03071>, Attached A-2-B search warrant <2002-01012>

Now review Attached A-3, Motion to quash search warrants filed,

argued and denied by trial court judge. No search warrants are on

file with issuing court, this certified in records corrections,

tramnscripts. Exh. F-3 Records corrections transcripts of 06-102014, page 2, line 23 thru 28;

We were looking for returns to the two search warrants

that were challenged: The search warrants for the telephone

records from 2004.

I had a case worker go to Pomona Court, and search

warrant's books are existing in the new Pomona Court.

SEE Exh. F-3

Page 3, line 15 thru 25; Courthouse, and she looked

through books from relevant dates; its listed by judge and

date and address. And couldn't find the search warrants

had been registered there, much less in a return filed. So

I don't think it

we are unable on our own investigation

find

warrants.

is our obligation to do this

And I don't really understand why the warrants itself,

which came out of Pomona, wouldn't be listed in these books.

But I think I need to make a record that seems like something should have happened that didn't.

The trial court: Perhaps. I don't know. I don't know

what they do in Pomona.

Now in Exh. F-2 on February 25, 2014 page 12 lines 1 thru 28;

Trial court judge testifies no search warrants or returns were ever

filed with trial court, preliminary court.

Legal undisputable facts demonstrate L.A. County Sheriff's,

L.A. County prosecutors utilized alleged evidence from 04-23-2002.

Search warrant <2002-01012> with knowledge property ordered returned

and search warrant voided by issuing judge, now seek a arrest warrant

probable cause property of 04-23-2002 search warrant, and this

September 15, 2004, with attached 295 pages of evidence, declaration

to support issuance. Now all removed from all records in law

enforcement, prosecution files, court files, and defense files.

Detective Davis also utilized voided search warrants to obtain

probable cause of additional search warrants. One on 10-05-2001, same

day as arrest and additional on 10-12-2004. Knowledge of criminal

acts by law enforcement, prosecution is verified as Detective Muse was

then ordered to attempt filings for motions to unseal and file returns

on voided search warrants at Pomona Court, and attempts were rejected

as court ordered voided, and property ordered to be returned.

Additional evidence of criminal misconduct is Detective Davis

cold case detective, as task force put case in cold case for lack of

evidence. The only evidence alleged to involve Petitioner, was

alleged fragmented letter according to Detective Davis found on hard

drive of one of several of Petitioner's business and personal

computers, from 04-23-2002 search warrant. "However expert claim

computer hard drive had no letter, or fragments, but letter in

question was scanned into computer while custody of Detective Davis,

and attempted to print, as letter was in printer memory not ever on

hard drive." This the only piece of alleged evidence against

Petitioner.

Now Detective Davis issued threats against witnesses who worked

for original task force, and were questioning evidence, testimony that

were false as a result threat's issued, as to physical threats to

witness if they acted to support defense. SEE Exh. Div. 3, Exh. 3,

filed motion to trial court as to obstruction of justice filed pro se,

with good cause, with a request by the retained defense trial counsel.

Filed court stamped, and trial court judge removed from trial records.

Then review Exh. 4, Division 3, transcripts of Pitches hearing trial

court refused records on Detective Davis who threatened witnesses.

Petitioner filed a motion for conflict of interest with courts

ability to fail to implement correction on obstruction of justice, by

threats, discovery failures, after repeated discovery requests and

court instruction. This to include threats to witnesses by

prosecution. SEE Div. 3, Exh. 7, In transcripts trial court judge

clarified defense counsel retained by Petitioner was very good, and if

Petitioner listens to him he will help you win your case.

Further all acts related to threats, manufactured evidence will

10.

be presented to jury. They will be able to determine and apply the

weight to provide to misconduct by investigators. Also clarified

Attorney Kessel defense counsel work with judge for 20 years as

prosecutors, so she knows he know what he's doing.

At start of trial defense Counsel Alex Kessel announced to

Petitioner that trial court judge is demanding $300,000.00 <Three

hundred thousand dollars> or she will make sure Petitioner is

convicted. This by striking all defenses, defense counsel intend to

present. Petitioner did not accept solicited bribe but reported to

Commission for Judicial Performance. See Division 3, Exh. 8.

Certifying filed complaint prior to trial in early September of 2007.

Petitioner was found guilty in November of 2007, and judgement of

death in November 2007. Sentencing March 13, 2008.

At this point Petitioner started seeking legal resolution

guaranteed by State of California Constitution, and United States

Constitution, Amend. XIV;

"All person born of naturalized in the United States, and

subjected to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the States wherein the reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor

shall and State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property with due process of law, nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus to California Supreme

Court pursuant Cal. Const. Art. I §11, further pursuant Cal. P.C.

§1473 Case No.: 5-164093, filed 06-04-2008. This defaulted by

California Rules of Court after motion to compel judgement.

Additional 90 days to mandate prior to filing to United States

District Court, writ of mandamus pursuant to all writs 28 U.S.C.

§1651, Case CV-08-0726-R. Clarification Petitioner was in custody by

11.

criminal violations by state government agents, by and through County

Sheriff's.

The United States District Court Judge Honorable Manual Real

established his bias and prejudice from the first filing. This

creating denials for 6 habeas corpus collateral challenges, and

finally barred all access to seek habeas filing unless retained

counsel filed or Judge Real approved of filing.

The record will reflect U.S. District Court, denied all requests

for counsel in capital case. All requests for orders to protect

court records were denied. All requests for discovery denied. The

U.S. District Court established exhaustion pursuant to <A.E.D.P.A.>

prior to federal review. This to include 28 U.S.C. §2254(A),

§2254(B)(1)(i)(ii), §2243(C)(3), §2264(a)(1). Further clarifying bias

and prejudice by Honorable Judge Real's own statement of evaluation;

"The gravamen of Shove's complaint was there was and is

broad conspiracy in the California criminal justice system

to deny him his due rights at each stage of the capital

proceedings against him."

Now in review of three habeas challenges to illegal judgement to

State of California Supreme Court: 5-164093, 5-193252, 5-234107 all

suspended by California Supreme Court. This with clarification in

Exhibit A-A, letter from California Supreme Court clerk. Clarifying

no copies or discovery of any kind will be provided to aid any habeas

filings pursuant Cal. P.C. §1054.9, Defined by California Supreme

Court in re Steele, 34 Cal. 4th at 691. Letter Exh. A-A. dated

10-12-2012.

Now as to capital challenge pursuant to Cal. P.C. §1473, Letter

Exh. A-B dated 10-16-2012 from California Supreme Court clerk. The

habeas petition is barred to prose litigants, and they will dispose

12.

of habeas filed in pro Se. The court will appoint you counsel after

appeal is complete and attorney will accept pursuant to contract of

appointment. Policy 2-3.

Now in reviewing Policy 2-3 created, adopted and enforced by

California Supreme Court, not state judicial council as per rules,

constitutional mandates. SEE Division 5, Exh. A copy of Policy 2-3.

This policy has created delays in appointment of appellate counsel.

Generally 3 to 6 years for appointment after sentencing. Petitioner was.

appointed appellate counsel after 5 years of denial of due process of

law. <Appointed on 01-08-2013 California Public Defeders>

It should be noted all filings in State and U.S. Courts challenges

to illegal judgement were filed with motion to protect trial court

records. The delay in appointment provided trial court judge,

prosecution, sheriff's officers, and retained counsel the time

necessary to conceal, alter, and destroy the records. Which certify

criminal violations of law by all the same parties. This is clearly

certified by missing records from all parties who have the duty to

possess maintain by invoked duty of affirmation of oath clause.

The criminal violations is well clarified by review of Exhibits

A-i, A-2, A-3; Search and arrest warrants "all" testified they do not

have in there records, the trial court never had possession pursuant to

testimony in transcripts. This is clarified by Exhibit A-i thru A-3,

clarifying by bata stamp all had possession and by review which is

mandatory, clarified search warrant are illegal. The L.A. Sheriff's,

prosecutor, with trial court approval and defense. No one person

could remove these documents possessed within files of those with

invoked duties, Sheriff's, prosecutor, trial court, and defense.

Search warrants originals, all parties had possession pursuant to

exhibits; All violate the due process of law, by violations of

Title 18 U.S.C. §1512 and §1515 occurs!

Where person acts with intent to deceive adverse party with

reasonable expectation that deception will interfere with

judicial proceedings: United States v. Reich, (2005 ED NY)

420 F. Supp. 2d 75 aff'd. (2007 CA 2) 479 F. 3d 179;

cert. den. (2007 U.S. 128 S.Ct 115; 164 L.Ed 2d 26).

§1515(a)(3), with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting

of inviting reliance on a writing, recording that is false,

forged, altered or otherwise "Lacking in authenticity."

Now in review of Exhibits F-i thru F-4, Division 6, 4 hearings of

records corrections transcripts; the entire case was presented to jury

on power point presentation all missing from records. All court

exhibits missing from records. All 295 pages removed leaving only top

pages of arrest warrant. Returns, search warrants missing from records.

Filing pleadings missing from trial court records.

Now in review of California Supreme Court Policy 2-3 First no

conflict of interest permitted to be filed by defendants. Policy 2

clarifies even if appointed counsel is physically of mentally

incapacitated withdrawal will not be considered unless appointed counsel

can provide replacement under same terms and conditions.

Now we review Policy 2-3, 1-1-1 Appellate counsel is to suspend all

habeas or dispositive issues by making a list for habeas counsel which

is not appointed until after appeal adjudicated, certiorari to U.S.

Supreme Court denied.

Further to create stipulated agreements to legal mandatory records

which have been removed by trial court, prosecutor, and in many cases

defense files. These same records which are by law and rules demanded

to be filed before California Supreme Court within 90 days of judgement

to certify and validate death warrant.

14.

In review of the only alleged evidence in 04-23-2002 search

warrant, order voided by California Superior Court. SEE Division 6.

Exh. F-4; page 14, lines 11 thru 28;

Defense counsel; I would like to suggest

and also,

I have the chart to proffer and the subpoena to put in.

I would like to suggest that in order to

And in order to

to not have need for another hearing, that whatever

whatever the result is with your conversation

Detective Davis

with the detective, that if you made it into a declaration that

can be included in the record and it be provided to the death

penalty appeal clerk, and that we include that is a

supplemental clerk's transcripts on appeal set it for

30 days out from the time that we receive the last supplemental

clerk's transcripts, give parties thirty days to review the

record, and if there is no objection certify record without

another court appearance.

"The court, okay"

"State AG; That fine with me."

Now reviewing A-2 Exhibit attached with declaration by Detective

Davis. The two search warrants are provided with no file stamps, and

clearly by return date issuance are voided. This established a full and

complete denial of due process of law at each and every stage of capital

proceedings. This discovery provided with attached declaration on

09-29-2014. No attempt to implement mandatory corrections.

Now we review suspension;

This California Supreme Court has issued demands upon the

Petitioner as to timeliness of presentation as to dispositive issues.

Especially in light of those issue which have an Authoritative Answer

in law which demands reversal. Robbins, supra 18 Cal. 4th 770 (1998);

In re Gallego, supra 18 Cal. 825. Quoting Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770,

776 (1998) In re Harris, 5 Cal. 4th at 827.

15.

In 1998: The California Supreme Court reemphasized in

Robbins, that "It is the appeal that provides the basic and

primary means for raising challenges to the fairness of the

trial," Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 777; "Habeas corpus, on the

other hand, is an "extraordinary remedy" available for matters

that undermine the validity of judgement, and legality of

Defendant's confinement or sentence, but which are not apparent

from the court's - record on appeal." In re Harris. 5 Cal. 4th

at 825. "In California," A petition for writ of habeas corpus

"Should be filed as promptly as the circumstances of the case

allows." In re Stankenwitz, 40 Cal. 3d at 96; Substantial

delay is measured from time Petitioner or his counsel "knew"

or "should have known" of the information offered in support

of the claim and legal basis for claim." Facility,

[SEE Exhibit 111. However, once again, the duties owed are

founded upon the U.S. Constitution and Statute to support,

uphold and defend to all members appointed to U.S. Judicial

Branch. The invoked duty to seek justice and terminate

miscarriages of justice as it is presented to our U.S. Courts;

Title 18 U.S.C. §049 §1503, §1512, §1515, and §241, §242.

In review of Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, (9th Cir.);

"The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument

for safeguarding individual freedoms against arbitrary and

lawless state actions. Its preeminent role is recognized by

the admonition in the constitution. that the writ of habeas

corpus shall not be suspended; U.S. Const. Art I §9c1.2.

The scope and flexibility of the writ, its capacity to reach

its ability to cut through

all manner of illegal detention

has always been

barriers of form and procedural mazes

emphasized and jealously guarded by Courts and lawmakers.

The very nature of. the writ demands that it be administered

with initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that

miscarriage s,of justice within its reach are surfaced and

corrected."

In. Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d at 530;

"The Ninth Circuit has not entertained habeas petition in

16.

which prisoners have claimed that excessive appellate delays

has violated their due process rights. A Federal Court may

therefore issue an injunction to prevent state officials from

violating the constitution, laws without running afoul of the

Eleventh Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Green v. Mansour,

474 U.S. 64, 68; 106 S.Ct. 423; 88 L.Ed 2d 372 (1985).

SEE also, B.T.W. v. Dalton, 712 F.2d 1225, 1233 (8th. Cir.).

"An injunction to prevent [A state officer] from doing

that which he has no legal right to do is not interference

with the discretion of an officer", ex parte Young, 209 U.S.

at 159; 28 S.Ct. 441; Heartland I, 335 F.3d at 691. "The U.S.

Courts who have knowledge of any person with vested authority

who is in violation of constitution, statutes by abuse of that

authority, has a duty to implement corrections. It clearly

establishes no person within United States possess authority

or jurisdiction to excuse compliance to constitution,

statutes, treaties." D.C. Court of Appeals v, Feldman,

460 U.S. 462, 482; 103 S.Ct 1303.

Further review [Exhibit D], filed on MC-275 Form writ of

habeas corpus on April 18, 2016 prior to filing of opening

brief. Suspended by California Supreme Court, violations

established by Court's refusal to provide challenge to

illegal, unconstitutional judgement. [SEE Exhibit D]

(No.: S234107).

Now reviewing Johnson v. Lee; No.: 15-789 U,nited States Supreme

Court certifying State of California Dixon defaults are valid and have

to be accepted by U.S. Courts.

Now reviewing California Supreme Court Policies 2-3, 1-1-19

California Supreme Court identifies its habeas corpus appointment in

all capital cases are for Clemency ONLY. They also restrict

investigations into issues, and prohibiting those defaults by procedure

or untimeliness, Dixon defaults.

17.

This establishes by denying access to Court by Policy 2-3, and all

conflict of interest with appointed counsel, no challenge to record is

possible. This by deliberate denial of due process of law. Absent of

that challenge U.S. Courts are barred from going behind appellate

records. SEE Exh. A.

The Dixon defaults bar federal review, and its apparent from

Policy 2-3, this forces Dixon defaults to deliberately deny due

process of law. SEE Exh. A-E, California Supreme Court order denying

filing of conflict of interest. 28 U.S.C. §2262(e). "Upon motion by

Defendant, courts are bound to honor conflict of interest, by Court

order change to new counsel."

Now review of legal facts which demand invoked absolute, contract

duty owed to sovereign by oath of affirmation clause, pursuant

28 U.S.C. §453. A criminal violation of law is the foundation in this

case, established by evidence. Certifying violation of due process of

law is established at each and every level in capital proceedings in

this case. Further its apparent this is intentional pattern of

practice,. by State of California.

California Supreme Court Policies 2-3, and especially in this case

where facts clearly established all parties who have legal

acknowledgment have acted in concert to deny constitutional guaranteed

rights of Petitioner. This by failure to correct has extended

"irreparable harm" to Petitioner by continued false imprisonment for

13.5 years and 10 plus on death row.

Further United States Supreme Court have created abstention clause

to protect all manner of State Court violation to U.S. citizens who

will or have caused great and immediate acts to suffer irreparable

110

harm, by bad faith, harassment by state prosecution where state

tribunal is bias against his Federal claims. Younger v. Harris,

401 U.S. 37, 43-57 (1971). The facts of this case at issue clearly

demonstrate trial was created on legal voided search and arrest

warrants pursuant Wong v. United States, 371 U.S. 471; 83 S.Ct. 405;

9 L.Ed 2d 441; 1963 Lexis 22431, and Silverthrorne Lumber Co. v. United

States, 251 U.S. 365, 392, Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341;

This certifying all arr est and search warrants are fruit of poisonous

tree at which no valid judgement can be certified.

Policy 2-3 has already violated the U.S. Federal review in 1,000 cases

in state capital judgements. It should be noted opening brief,

response brief failed to raise issue on voided search and arrest

warrants or missing records. Director Attorney McComb clarified to

Petitioner that California Supreme Court prohibits these issues in

capital cases. Alleging California Constitution Art. VI §13, certifies

false evidence, misconduct, improper admission of rejected evidence,

any errors at to any manor of pleadings, or for any error as to

procedure does not require reversal of judgement. This according to

Director of California Public Defenders also includes introduction of

manufactured evidence obtain in violation of state laws.

See Exh. A-8 attached.

Further this pattern of practice effects over 1,000 <One thousand>

cases, which have been influenced by this standard of practice to deny

due process, at all stages of capital appellate process created by

violation of California constitution by California Supreme Court. The

records will reflect over a hundred (One hundred) deaths while

delaying, denying due process, and by physical and mental abuses by

19.

placement on death row for 10 to 35 years. Furman, 408 U.S. 430 cruel

and unusual punishment U.S. Const. Amendment VIII.

Now in review of experts in law, review by comparison legal

analyzed records, Division 8, Exh. C-i thru C-4; This review clarifies

the foundation for California Supreme Court's need to create

Policy 2-1. The Supreme Court of California in 1986 was issued a

formal legal threat to either provide favorable influence to

prosecution capital cases or be removed from appointment to bench as a

judge in California Supreme Court.

This threat was issued by Governor, State Attorney General, with

full complete backing by the California prosecutors association, law

enforcement thru out the state, and all correctional officers. This as

well as all who are under supervising authority State of California

Attorney General and Governor.

These facts, clearly established all under this authority of law

enforcement, prosecution lacked not only training, ability to act

pursuant to duties owed to Constitution, Statute, and Rules of Courts.

These violations established a reversal rate of 92.8% in capital cases

in 1986 with Rose Bird Court.

Immediately upon execution of threats, and use of vested authority

replaced California Supreme Court a change from a reversal rate of

92.8%, to affirmation of 95% to 100%. a rate change which had its

foundation in violations in State and Federal laws. The abuse of

harmless error, erroneous rulings need to be covered up, and this by

diminishing Federal review.

This is part of the foundation for lawless acts of murder today by

and through Black Lives Matter. Also in many cases which is

20.

adjudicated by Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a

standard of practice. Clarifying perjury, falsifying evidence,

manufacturing evidence. Policy 2-3 has been condemned in commission

for fair administration of justice, also in study of Senior Circuit

Judge Alacorn. SEE Baca v. Adams, No.: 13-56132 No reponsible jurist

would support criminal acts by state government agents.

So now we've established the Federal review is diminished by

inability to go behind capital case record created by stipulated

agreements to replace all mandatory proof of challenged chain of

evidence. This creates ability to obtain judgements with false,

manufactured evidence, perjury. This provides abilities to conceal

crimes by law enforcement to obtain and maintain illegal,

unconstitutional judgements of death.

To further create protection to conceal the pattern of practice by

Executive Branch, work records of those who provide testimony, testing,

collecting, storing, evidence. State of California prohibits all work

records of state, county, city, town officer of law enforcement to

defense for impeachment of credibility bad acts.

Then the forced defaults by and throug California Supreme Court

Policies 2-3. Then state demands NO review of states imposed Dixon

defaults, they force to default. Also in spite of the fact they refuse

to provide competent counsel in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2261(E). State

of California demand limited review by (A.E.D.P.A.).

Now as to a formal demand to exhaustion, where incarceration is

based upon crimes by State of California government agents. This case

is a perfect example, California Superior Court issued and order search

warrants voided. Further to return all property to Petitioner

21.

forthwith. In review of actual search warrant and return the judgement

is certified and validated. Excuse this pro se Petitioner, but What

judgement? What sentence of death? What reasonable jurist would aid

and abet in maintaining false imprisonment on death row, by a

deliberated abuse of vested authority.

The United States jurist who acts in delaying corrective process

has acted outside jurisdiction as an U.S. or State judge sworn by same

oath to duties upon U.S. Constitution, Statutes and Treaties.

28 U.S.C. §453 oath of affirmation clause.

Now we review order by Honorable Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of

March 26, 2018 as it relates to the statement of actual facts. First

of all this alleged review order is limited to appeals related to civil

rights complaints, 42 U.S.C., §1983. Twenty-five plus years old not

review each year, review order is terminated. Also its prohibited from

use or application in seeking relief in criminal conviction. Further a

review order cannot be utilized to violate due process of law.

The application of notice acknowledgment of crime as it related to

termination of issued search warrants two years and six months prior to

providing the only ittof evidence; "Alleged and determined as

forged". But moot as it property stolen by a theft by L.A. County

Sheriff's Detective Davis who violated Superior Court order to return

all property 2.5 years prior to new declaration to defraud Superior

Court out of arrest warrant. Supported with 295 pages to be removed

from Superior Court records, prosecution records, and Sheriff's

records.

The Honorable Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel of Honorable

Siverman, Christen, and Friedland, who have certified this case has not

22.

demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this Honorable

Court, by means of extraordinary remedies.

The Honorable Manual Real has been admonished in at least 9 <nine>

different cases as it related to erroneous ruling in favor of state law

enforcement. The latest speaks loud and extremely clear.

SEE Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010, SEE United States

v. Rivera, 682 F.ed 1223, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012), Montiel v. City of

Los Angeles, 2 F.3d 335, 344 (9th Cir. 1983).

Review attached order with pre-filing order by U.S. District Court

Judge Manual Real. CV-15--2010-R, hearing habeas challenge absent of

attorney. Yet refusal to appoint counsel in a capital case in last

10 years.

Now review CV-09-0656-RMW, CV-09-2316-UNA orders in Division 4,

Exh. 3-4, denied complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, for states

failure to provide due process of law, equal protection of law.

"Denied due to habeas corpus protections within jurisdiction."

The CV-12-0211-RMW, "denied" as State of California Supreme Court

has ruled excess of 3 years to appoint appellate counsel violates due

process. Further in excess of seven years to certify records is

violation of due process of law.

It should be noted the legal challenge to the policy and

procedures created to deny due process rights guaranteed by U.S.

Constitution. SEE CV-14-04196-JD. This dismissed with prejudice and

this judgement can only bedeemed as direct support to violate

constitutional guaranteed rights of minority class of U.S. citizens

accused of capital crime, by State of California.

It should also be noted that same Judge James Donato. Also made

23.

erroneous judgement with intent to assist State of California Attorney

General in barring Court access to Petitioner who diligently seeking

resolution as ordered by other Federal judges. CV-14-02903-JD The

fruit of this case which identified threats by State Attorney General

to withdraw civil complaints against due process violation of serious

physical harm would be inflicted upon Petitioner.. This case filed

under "immediate threat of serious physical injury" which erroneously

dismissed, appeal access denied. Appeal was scheduled, case reversed

back to District Court. The direct result was the permanent damages to

Petitioner's nerves in left hand and wrist. Destroyed by

mis-application of cuffs in spite of Doctors special needs chrono.

Attached A-6, A-7

This clarifies no other remedies exist to implement corrections

as both State and U.S. Courts suspended habeas challenges to illegal

judgement. This in direct violation of both State and U.S.

Constitution, Statutes, Laws, Rules and the Treaty between U.S. and

State. Further any jurist which would support this illegal process

on a false trial and false judgement acts in violation of

jurisprudence, judicial cannons and violated Title 18 U.S.C.03. The

power of extraordinary writ are well established in Nelson v. Harris,

344 U.S. at 86; (9th Cir.) quoted on page 12 this writ.

Reasons for Granting the Petition

The facts at issue are based upon legal Statute, Cal. P.C. §1534.

A law passed by a legislative body. The affirmative statute, a law

requiring that something be done; One that issue a directive which is

contained with the acts and compliance and the failure to comply with

24.

issued court order.

Document to support with records, instruments or other evidentiary

authorities <Document the chain of custodv>. To record, to create a

written record of document on file. This to be recorder as a stamp

required to be affixed to instrument and compliance before it can be

recorded with court.

The issuance of search warrants to peace officer's by declaration

clearly reflects the legal demands upon the officer who accepted

issuance of court order. This to seize described property and return

it to issuing court within 10 days. Further only ability to seal

search warrant is from issuance and return, or ten days from issuance.

This case based upon search warrants <SEE Attached A-i, A-2a, A-2b,

A-3> which were subjected to voided process, the legal process that

in some form, material way, does not comply with required form.

Now prior to declaration for arrest warrant, detective had

knowidge search warrants were voided by issuing court. However

detective with complete acknowledgment that search warrant voided by

issuing judge, also knew court order issued to return all property.

This is also a duty to a peace officer to review chain of documents

prior to attesting under oath as probable cause for warrants.

This is a moot subject, but task force placed this case into cold

case for lack of evidence. Expert testimony confirmed that evidence

was not on hard drive of computer but scanned in after seized.

This was the only alleged evidence related to Petitioner, and in

3 additional search warrants a large amount of property removed, but

never alleged any further evidence. However the Sheriff's department

claims it may be needed to create additional evidence, and refuse to

25.

return. <SEE Exh. F-4 page 9, lines 1

28, July 29, 2014 records

corrections hearings, transcripts>.

Now on voided search warrants, all other warrants issued based

upon probable cause of seized property fruit of crime in voided search

warrants. This to include preliminary court review on voided warrants

on illegally seized property. Then bound over to trial court

Superior Court, who alleged to authenticate in motion for suppression

hearing. Denied suppression this by invoked duty based upon complete

authentication and review of court filed search warrants and returns

court stamped and file with trial court. Now review <Attached A-3>

motions, warrants at issue and transcripts. All sealed within

California Supreme Court records in separate envelopes.

This was filed on writ of habeas challenge to illegal judgement

filed on 06-04-200 case No.: S164093. Court denial on February 20,

2013, denied with all supporting documents. Motion for expedited

review denied. Motion for appointment of counsel denied. Motion for

orders to protect all related evidence denied.

Now the legal facts certify that all records related to search

and arrest warrants are missing from all records keeper;s with invoked

duties. On September 15, 2004, based upon declaration Detective Davis

obtained arrest warrant. This based upon declaration and 295 pages of

supporting legal records, documents. Removed from all records.

<SEE Attached A-5> top page of arrest warrant, missing from trial

court, prosecutor,. law enforcement, state attorney general, defense

files.

The delays in appointment of appellate counsel established the

time and opportunity to destroy, conceal, and alter records. This

26.

especially true where legal facts certify constitutional violations by

State of California Supreme Court. This by deliberate suspension of

court challenge, by habeas corpus, to illegal judgement.

This was the foundation for Petitioner to accept default of habeas

challenge filed California Supreme Court on 06-04-2008, 30 days

default, motion to compel 60 days delay is default mandated. This

prompted the first filing to U.S. District Court, Honorable Real, case

No.: CV-08-07126-R. Naturally Honorable Real made proper legal

conclusions. This clarified within court order. "The gravament of

Shove's complaints was there and is a broad conspiracy in California

criminal justice system to deny him his due process rights at each

stage of the capital proceedings against him." Based upon this

evaluation for last 10 plus years Honorable Real denied appointment of

counsel, in capital case. Further barred court review by others than

Honorable Real and his evaluation, unless Petitioner retains le.g.l

counsel. Further Honorable Real barred all motions for court ordered

records protections, counsel, discovery, and meaningful access to court

to challenge illegal judgement by habeas corpus. This based upon oath

of affirmation clause, and the court did acknowledge presentation

reported pursuant 18 U.S.C. §04, review under 28 U.S.C. §2241(c)(3),

28 U.S.C. §2254(a), (b)(1)(i)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. §2265(a)(1).

Now we review evidence which is undisputable in A-i, A-2,-A,_B.

A-3, all are same documents search warrants. <1. 2001-03071>

<2. 2002-01012>. Now review Cal. P.C. §1534 Attached A-4. Issuance,

execution, seizure of property, "No filed return," rather issuing court

Superior Court judge revoked and voided search warrants with a court

ordered to returned all seized property, as search warrants voided on

27.

expiration of 10 days after issuance. The highly trained law

enforcement executed warrant (2) on 04-23-2002 and attempted return on

10721-2004. Search warrant (1) executed 10-29-2001 attempted return on

10720-2004. Document provide proof beyond all doubt. This is what

prompted removal from records of law enforcement records, prosecutor

records, court records, and defense records State of California

Attorney General records. The commission of a felony is established in

missing records alone.

The removal of records is a felony criminal act, the actual

documents certify a felony by law enforcement, prosecutor, courts,

state attorney general, California Supreme Court, and defense counsel.

This clearly establishes conspiracy as all records keeper's with

invoked duties acted to remove there records to prevent prosecution of

there criminal violations of law. No one person could have perfected

the removal absent of "Co-conspirators."

Honorable Judge Real has certified his acknowledgment for this

United States Supreme Court, as clearly Petitioner falsely imprisoned

for 13.5 years, 10 plus on death row. Based upon same evidence

submitted to Honorable Real. This certifies Honorable Real acted to

aid and abed by failure to compliance to oath of affirmation clause.

Rather acted to support by denying access to courts, suspension of

habeas corpus in direct support of State of California government

agents acting under color vested authority.

Now review California Constitution Art. I §7; art I §11; Art. I

§13,; Art. I §15 all are violated by the process and procedure

perfected in this case and cause. State of California Constitution

28.

prohibits the actions of this policy and procedure by those acts under a

grant of authority. Now United States Constitution Art I §9.21 Art. I

§10.1; Art. III §1, Art. III §2.1, Art. III §2.2, Art. IV §1.1, Art. V

§2, Amenment IV, Amendment V, Amendment VI, Amendment VII, Amendment

VIII, Amendment IX, Amendment XI, Amendment XIII, Amendment XIV. These

constitutional mandates establish as invoked duty, and a jurisdictional

lause at law, a statement in a pleading that set's fourth the court's

jurisdiction to act in this case. Extraordinary remedies, a remedy

such as writ of mandamus, habeas corpus "not" available to a party

unless necessary to "preserve a right" that cannot be protected by a

standard legal or equitable remedy. Legal remedy, a remedy available

in a court of law, as distinguished from a remedy available only in

equity. After the merger of law and equity, this distraction becomes

no longer relevant.

The presentation of this case creates a legal demand upon duty.

A legal obligation that is owed or due to another and that needs to

be satisfied, an obligation for which somebody else has a corresponding

right. This case present s demand by i,nandatory statute, a law that

requires a course of action as opposed to merely permitting it, is

based upon directive. This presents affirmative statute, a law

requiring that something to be done, one that directs the doing of

that act. State of California has established "Penal Code" a

compilation of criminal laws defining and categorizing the offense and

setting forth respective duties and punishments for violations.

This case clearly establishes formal situation of incriminating

circumstances, a situation of facts showing either that a crime was

committed, or that a particular person committed. In review of

29.

evidence with application of oath of affirmation clause to obtain

vested authority clearly higher obligation to duty and compliance to

constitution, statute, penal code, rules, and duties demanded by one

with vestment of vested authority.

This raises additional issues for this Honorable Court to consider

it powers to utilize extraordinary remedies. In review of

Exhibit F-4, July 29, 2014, records corrections transcripts. We review

a stipulated agreement created by appointed appellate counsel. This to

certify trial court records with absolute knowledge all search and

arrest warrants are terminated by issuing court 2.5 years prior to

being used to obtain arrest warrant. Further that a number of trial

court records, documents, pleadings have been removed from trial court

records. This stipulated agreement between appellate counsel, state

attorney general, and trial court satisfies acts in concert of

conspiracy.

United States Constitution Amendment VII; in suits at

common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed

twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be

"preserved" and "no" fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise

re-examined in any court of the United States, than according

to rules of common law.

The trial record was demanded to be preserved, especially as a

suppression hearing was held on search warrants. However trial court

judge testified that court never review search warrant, returns, or

file stamped copy or court authentication and this in capital case.

Now in review of Attached A-3, trial court had filed copies and chose

to conceal these records which are voided, terminated, by court order

of Superior Court approximately 5 years prior to trial.

The records will also reflect that none of these issues were

30.

presented on direct appeal. Further that time to presnt these issues

is when defense knew of should have known, failure to file creates a

Dixon default for untimeliness or procedural default. This further

creates a fraud upon court as "no" direct appeal is possible, as the

legitimacy of judgement is terminated by presentation b tainted

evidence to obtain judgement.

Defense counsel certified its based upon appointment by California

Supreme Court Policy 2-3. This issues a legal directive pursuant to

appointment contract to suspend all habeas or dispositive issues until

after habeas counsel is appointed. This is normally after appeal

affirmed, certiorari denied <as no presentation of constitutional or

statutory violations, issues contained in certiorari this expedites

denial> three to eight years after affirmation of appeal. The denial

of appeal and certiorari establishes a certified appellate record

<created not on the legally demanded documents but rather on stipulate

agreement> of which creates a block for Federal review. Then based

upon violations of timeliness, procedural defaults, Dixon defaults

prohibits Federal review to go behind records.

Naturally California Supreme Court issues a default, and provided

a limited review per, state Const. Art VI §13. This clarifies all bad

or criminal acts, violations in procedure, or tainted evidence

presented to obtain judgement are not a demand to reverse illegal,

unconstituional judgements of death. The criminal intent based upon

Penal Code, affirmative state, mandatory statute, oath of affirmation

clause, establishes incriminating circumstance. Now review California"

Supreme Court Policies 2-3, prohibited by State and U.S. Constitution,

directives to suspend all habeas issues or dispositive issues. This is

31.

the foundation for Cal. Court Policies 2-3, to direct appointment of

habeas counsel for "Clemency only", and this supported by limitations

on all funding to investigate into issues to reverse judgement. This

is a foundation for California Supreme Courts rulings in capital cases

which formally establish violations to constitutional mandates pursuant

Const. Art VI §14. This to certify and clarify all capital case

judgements are to be well formatted to establish a legal foundation for

complete judgement.

The record as it relates to Petitioner, certifies a diligent

determination to seek legal protections of the rights of a U.S. citizen

guaranteed by Constitutional, Statute, and Treaty as guaranteed by

United States. This Petitioner attached orders of CV-09-02316-UNA,

CV-09-0656-RMW, CV-12-0211-RMW 9 CV-14-04196-JD. There grounds for

denial, habeas available within jurisdiction. This after delay of

appointment of counsel over 3 years is denial of due process per

California Supreme Court. <Over 5 years to appoint counsel to

Petitioner> also certified records within 7 years or violations of due

process, <Petitioner 7 plus years and certification is voided by

missing records, documents, and pleadings replaced with stipulate

agreements>. Then court in judgement incorrectly rules Petitioner

rights, or federal review is not in jeopardy by state. Completely

erroneous and acted to delay corrections.

State of California has further demanded Petitioner to terminate

all federal complaints related to C.S.C. Policy 2-3, or suffer a number

of retaliatory repercussions. SEE and review CV-14-02903-JD same judge

in CV-14-04196-JD who deemed the Policies 2-3 is legal constitutional

and petition denied as frivolous with prejudice. The facts certify

issues presented by threat to influence judicial proceedinzs and

process, carried out and permanent damages are the result. As all

nerves in left and hand and wrist are completely destroyed. To date

Honorable James Donato has aided in barring all discovery from Named

defendants, and including Petitioner's medical file. Several bias and

prejudicial rulings, judgements <as violate statute>, and a full and

complete failure to issue orders of protections, hearing, or actually

perform duties owed. Review Attached PS

Now in your review and Petition hope it will be complete and full

review of all exhibits. The discretionary powers provided to this

Honorable Court by and through extraordinary remedy not available to

this Petitioner to preserve a right that cannot be protected by

standard legal or equitable remedy. Petitioner innocent and falsely

imprisoned b'.j illegitimate, illegal, judgement.

This case establishes State of California has deliberately used

death penalty arbitrary and capriciously to violate the due process

rights of U.S. citizens. Review this process and procedure this court

has been presented, and multiply it by 1,000 <one thousand> and then

consider over 100 <one hundred> who have been recipient of wrongful

death by denial of due process of law. As a legislative approved

process and procedure, guaranteed by constitution, statute, and

treaties.

Conclusions

This case invokes the extraordinary rem edies of the Honorable

Court to preserve, support duties incumbent upon U.S. Constitution,

and Statutes. These acts as described have been utilized to obtain

33.

and defraud United States Courts, by creation of defaults, and

incomplete, in accurate records. This will have a registered effect

on several capital cases, and all criminal cases which are created

and or influenced by all members who participate in utilizing this

vested authority to violate rights, laws, and rules of courts.

Relief is so prayed for forthwith.

Respectfully submitted this /6m ay of May, 2018.

Pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1746

Theodore Shove

34.

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.