Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Charles Smith, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Charles E. Smith: Propria Persona

VS.

oCtA

-___-------------

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Dauphin County Prosecutor: 5603-CR-2016

Pa. Superior Court: 26-MDM--2017

Pa. Supreme Court: 503-MAL-2017

Petition for Certiorari

I, Charles E. Smith hereby moves before this Honorable Supreme Court

under Title 28 U.S.C.A. section 2101 and U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13

asking for Certification and for this Honorable Court to hear the

Final Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at Docket 503-MAL-2017

that requested allocatur and was denied on february 26, 2018. This

request for Allowance of Appeal was from the Pennsylvania Superior

Court at 26-MDM-2017 that denied Habeas Corpus Relief from the final

Interlocutory Order on February 6, 2017 by the Honorable Richard

Lewis of the Duaphin County Common Pleas Court that denied Habeas

Corpus relief at 5603-CR-2016.

This request for certiorari is needed to prohibit repetition and evade

review as the matters are of the utmost importance as their have been

many 14th Amendment Due Process Violations.

Wherefore I pray this request be granted.

Respectfully Submitted,

Date: May 9, 2018

C.C.: File

lr

4Lz t"

Charles E. Smith #68421

Dauphin County Jail

501 Mall Road

Harrisburg, Pa. 17111

o

L

Mt1

ner'

Th5t \o

T°r

t5)utf

4 Ar4

Li- it- Cy

O(

tJ

rf)J(w

te

LY1

\1du3e

c11

k\4• 2 Oi5uAI

k'e

rn.Lu( -

f-

4(Y'i.

Atti

2

C

no

u\

5uuO

4

Apd1\ Cuu2

LJc

4t

kfl,k

&

CtUfl

t(Vcf

r1v

\j

n

ahw(

('5

ckr\

(rJ

531n/

-u.)4l

\tf

G

n'

rA•()

rt

96f33 UflLV' Q4

pcn4

ur

i

La

i

LAD

4

L1

3

- lr"

OS

t.

mec'

UItG1P

\1i

'

() 5 W ( Ar

\1e3

Ott Pct

bt

o

u

bsqun

t

App it4 h Cur ?

4fl)-JC(

ut 9cUc5

P .

?tLv C4(?Q&'d

i(fltO)ut,j \'\e()

rbfl'\ <

91, ta ç ',)

fl,

fltukI

9\o 1J

cf

C& Q'kk Afflccu

\\

cç

unc\r AI1e

u\1

t

-Ic (\% \c'-.e,

çrc

ç(fl

L3

i'

jes

CnA4

n

5)&

IA

Lk en

ArrrJ

u( I CA. e-k 1

ud&il

fi,q i?

fltr \'\

3UC5C

\je

Côiu&

Lc5 JAIC

to

Ln

Q,

LQ c,

cnw

cc5

i.%"

Lo

ntAic -)

4r

u(

\ect.c

c

I.AJC.S

-V

c.11>

*''

c4 11&(4J

Ccvu

5Licte: 1e

Lirt,))

uicl\

~w

E

A

/ vr e n s

Ao. c ol 61z)

AIkcL

\-

G CI

L1)1(r

Ac 'J e t

L& (I 4(r

i)

. Lic

A)i ir

S IZ q uq

A2

535t4cn

y,

Tht

ttv

LU

coc: Wi

c

Appei1.tt

CciIm \~d ut csrco W

khe

Ccv

Pc ?

I'

lcr)tj

44jorer

((J

14fl3?

'n5L( i

S.

cY"l/

G1d

CA

flLtt

U(sd t'r cjpj

cc€hrY"Iv)c(/y Hec4rin

[L r

CU(

\LJ

4'

)1re

c"rt

\'flA.

t

4r(4. 5Lkpec1cr

(ôuf+ et

b 'r

r0

N3

cL\r- no - IbUUZA)

Wt

rQ9L2S(li

r.

kb

yn4k

uc't

et n 1i't-c1

+

Aç))k 1L

17c3 2

(I/oi)iJ

G-VY)tJ-e( (S AjfS

-w

15. ce

ôts

ç LT

Lcc..>e

e?LJA-

ort(t

'i 9 A.

*

Ccuv1

jôI(1ce' an

({ft

App1

&w

041)Wtf

tio

j)

yrDR

c:h\

Cnc

\

/tLi

A.

1b

Th

N

C. 1

r

\-n

c-

L-'~ cv,

cc e, \rt\. \L

\e')

Ven4

5)00e

1D NI

fufk v,'- v

&

a /\.

-trn

Th

n,L\

r

(ci

kr /),t.

L

c-

ttt

A\ue q u

\5

k'ct-t

n,V\L(4.rl1 c

5O1 t1AL

&O)i '

Q

9.

(D'pr- i

S

Cü -i:

1.

A

iry c?ro uI't(4)

%u(oir) c

cflenj

u VIN

QUC)

CO)

QJ

V A

at

tO AppQn,

p

C(\)k.

Atfien

Citations in Support

Allah v. Severling 229 F.3d 220

Buchanon v. Verbonitz 581 A.2d 172

Commonwealth v. Bell 762 A.2d 776

Commonwealth Ex Rel Fitzpatrick v. Mirarchi 392 A.2d 1346

Commonwealth v. Flowers 399 A.2d 1188

Commonwealth v. Herstine 369 A.2d 362

Commonwealth v. Smith 140-MM-2016

Commonwealth v. Smith 187-MM-2016

Commonwealth v. Stossel 17 A.3d 1287

Commonwealth v. Thomas 419 A.2d 1344

Interest of L.J. 79A.3d 1073 9 1084-89

Paylor v. Claudy 366 Pa. 287; 77 A.2d 350

Petillo v. New.Jersey93SCtJ393

Rosario v. Dept. of Corrections 920 A.2d 831

State v. Bobo 222 NJ Super 30

State v. Lakomy 126 NJ Super 430, 437

State v. Macon 57 NJ 325

State v. Ross 189 NJ Super

State v. Ruotolo 52 NJ 511

U.S. v. Crawford 124 S.Ct 1354

U.S. v. Di Rey 68 S.Ct 222

U.S. v. Erickson 127 S.Ct 2197

U.S. v. feldman 103 S.Ct 1303

U.S. v. Giordenello 78 S.Ct 1245

U.S. v. Johnson 68 S.Ct 367, 369

U.S. V. Johnstone 856 F.2d 539

U.S. v. Miller 78 S.Ct 1196

Citations Continued

U.S. v. Opper 75 S.Ct 158

U.S. v. Smith 75 S.Ct 184

U.S. v. Wong Sun 83 S.Ct 407

31 Williams v. Dr. Alladin 782 A.2d 1090

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

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

was

[] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

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

to and including

(date) on

(date).

in Application No. .A______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

For cases from state courts:

JcAuvy

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix to

[

A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

4 bc u

01

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix L'

.

[ II An extension of tiij to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

'7

L) /

to and including /

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.

A_______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

? 31

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.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

; or,

[ ] reported at

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

[1 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

; or,

[1 reported at

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

[II is unpublished.

1*

For cases from state courts:

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

Appendix O

to the petition and is

( 0 ofifl/O/i

; or,

[ ] reported at q 1414tq

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

is unpublished.

?61

The opinion of the 1 4 fl5yI 0 n

appears at Appendix 'I to the petition and is

; or,

[1 reported at

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

I(] is unpublished.

1.

court

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Pa. G.S.A. Title 18 § 2506

Pa. G.S.A. Title 42 § 702

Pa. G.S.A. § 741

Pa. G.S.A. § 5574

Pa. Constitution Article 1 § 8

Pa. Constitution Article 1 § 9

Pa. Rule of Grim Procedure #132

Pa. Rule of Grim Procedure #504

Pa. Rule of crim Procedure #542

Pa. Rule of Grim Procedure #544

Pa. Rule of crim Procedure #545

U.S. Gonstituiori Amendment #4

U.S. Gonsttution Athendment #6

U.S. Constitution Amendment #8

U.S. Constitution Amendment #14

Statement of the Case

Petitioner was arrested on July 6, 2016, by the, Harrisburg Police Dept.

and charged with !'Death by Delivery". On August 29, 2016 a Preliminary

Hearing was held in front of Magistrate George Zozos #12-1-05 and the

and the State added a charge of !'Drug Delivery". Petitioner noted that

his requested witness was not present to testify afetr he informed his

Attorney of record to make sure he was present, Petitioner then fired

his Attorney of Record "Jonathan White" and handed Magistrate Zozos a

Subpoena. Petitioner informed Mr. Zozos that it was imperative that

the witness be present as he will offer testimony that the victim who

was not a victim at all died from "Multiple Traumatic Injuries" and

that the manner of Death is listed as accidental, meaning that the

man was alive when he crashed and did not die until after he crashed

from the injuries sustained in the crash. The Autopsy Report doesn't

list the cause of death as "Acute Drug Intoxication" and therefore

the cause of death can not be listed as "Multiple Traumatic Injuries

Due toMultiple Drug Toxicity", meaning (2) two different causes of

Death, all this means Your Honor is that the man had drugs in his

system at the time that he died, but that is not what he died from.

So I need my witness "Dauphin County Coroner Graham Hetrick" to be

present for this hearing, and gave Mr. Zozos the Subpoena, these

transcripts disapppeared.

Magistrate Zozos then rescheduled the Hearing until October 3, 2016.

On August 31, 2016 the Prosecution submitted a Motion to the President

Judge, (Richard Lewis) asking that he assign himself as an Alternate

Issuing Authority. Petitioner in turn submitted a Mandamus to the

State Supreme Court at 140-MM-2016 which was denied. On October 21,

2016, a hearing was held in front of Judge Lewis of the Dauphin County

Court of Common Pleas after (2) two responses from Petitioner. At the

said Hearing Petitioner brought to the Courts attention that the Prosecution was violating Due Process under Court Rule 544 byrnoving for

an Alternate Issuing Authority without following the procedure that

is in place for such, that being the charges were never dismissed or

were they ever withdrawn, nor did they ever receive permission from

the Original Issuing Authprity who dismissed the complaint or allowed

the withdrawal to re-file before they moved under Court Rule 132.

Judge Lewis denied my argument and allowed the prosecution to proceed

and assigned himself the Issuing Authority. Next Petitioner moved for

dismissal of the Criminal Complaint under Corn vs Thomas 419 A.2d 1344

and Court Rule 504 as the Criminal Complaint was blank and failed to

list the Acts Associated with the accused, this violates Due Process

under Thomas and the Court rule and should be dismissed with prejudice

as the Complaint is insufficient, Judge Lewis again denied petitioners

argument and Petitioner again moved for dismissal as the Prosecution

appeared in Court with a Blank Affidavit of Probable Cause to arrest

and failed to have a signature or a seal from a Judge, Magistrate or

Court Clerk or any other Issuing Authority which violated Article 1

§ 8 of the pennsylvania Constitution and the 4th Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution which both state in nearly identical words that: No

warrants search or arrest shall issue except on Probable Cause and

sworn under Oath or Affirmation before a Judge, Magistrate, Court

Clerk or any other Neutral Deatached Judicial Official and must describe

the place to be searched, the items to be seized and the person to be

arrested.

Judge Lewis then asked the Prosecution, "Are you telling me this man

was arrested without a Warrant?", the prosecution stated, "Were saying

he was arrested on an addmission!", Petitioner in turn stated that is

not in conformity with either Constitution and violates Due Process.

Judge Lewis stated on the record it wasn't blank, this caused petitioner

to state: Let the record show that Judge Lewis and Myself have in our

hands a Blank Criminal Complaint, he is lying in this Courtroom and I

would like a Copy of these transcripts as soon as possible. Judge Lewis

then told the prosecutor, to go get another one and denied the Motion

to dismiss. See Notes of testimony from 10-21-16. Petitioner then asked

for Permission to Interlocutory Appeal and was denied, this was filed

in the Sperior Court at 56-MDM-2016 and denied. Petitioner then filed

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court at 187-MM-2016

which was also denied and led to Habeas Corpus relief in the District

Court of Pennsylvania at 1:17-CV-2017 which was also denied.

On October 26, 2016, under objections from petitioner, Judge Lewis conducted the Preliminary Hearing. Petitioner requested a continuance as

his witness, "Dauphin County Coroner Graham Hetrick" was not present.

Stand By Counsel "Jonathan White" was instructed by Judge Lewis at the

conclusion of the Hearing on October 21, 2016, "in which Judge Lewis

assigned himself as the Alternate Issuing Authority", to go.to the

Clerk of Court Office and file the Subpoena to make sure the witness

was present. See notes of testimony from October 21, 2016. Judge Lewis

denied the continuance stating that "We were moving on and he will be

the to decide as to whether my witness will be allowed to testify or

not!" Petitioner again objected by saying it is imperative that this

case be continued until his witness is available as he will offer

testimony that will refute the Prima Facie of the Prosecution, again

petitioner was denied. Judge Lewis then conducted the Preliminary

Hearing and based on the hearsay testimony offered by (2) two police

officer's who were not present nor first on the scene, the matter was

bounded over for trial. Petitioner again objected asking that the

hearing be continued until the proper people who provided the reports

were present, again this was denied and Judge Lewis bounded it over

for Trial and assigned himself as the trial Judge also.

Petitioner then filed a motion requesting Interlocutory review in the

Superior Court, the Superior Court docketed it as an Appeal from a

final order at 1879-MDA-2016 on November 23, 2016, this was denied on

January 17, 2017. On January 17, 2017 Petitioner filed another Habeas

Corpus Petition moved.under Paylor vs Claudy 366 Pa. 287 on its own

merits under Title 42 C.S.A. 741, the Superior Court assigned it to

an already existing matter at 17-MDA-2017, and on February 8, 2017,

the matter was again denied without prejudice due to Petitioners

ability to seek relief in the trial court

On January 17, 2017, Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the

trial court in accord with said order of the Superior Court and on

February 6, 2017, Judge Lewis denied the writ. Petitioner requested

permission to appeal an - Interlocutory order to the Superior Court on

February 16, 2017, February 24, 2017 and on March 8, 2017, as Judge

Lewis refused to certify and denied without an opinion being rendered.

On March 21, 2017, The Superior Court denied review when they assigned

the matter as a Direct Appeal and quashed it rendering it moot. Petitioner sübmitteda Motion to refile along with argument in support of

appellate review to the Superior Court and upon review docketed the

matter to 26-MDH-2017, and on June 6, 2017, the matter was denied as

the Superior Court stated that petitioner did not follow Title 42 of

the C.S.A. § 702. Petitioner then filed for reconsideration under

Title 42 C.S.A § 5574 as the lower court never rendered an opinion

for their to a Question of Law or a Difference of opinion as it is

the Governments duty and responsibility to ensure § 702 is followed.

On June 18, 2017 the motion to reconsider was denied. On June 30, 2017

Petitioner filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania at 503-MAL-2017 and on January 18, 2018, this

request for Allocatur was denied, petitioner then filed for the motion

to be reconsidered and on February, 26, 2018, this was also denied.

This request for Certloari followed.

Respectfully Su mitted,

Charles E

mith #684 1

Dauphin County Jail

501 Mall Road

Harrisburg, Pa. 17111

Summary Argument

The Federal Constitution is the standard by which every Law in this

Country is measured and evaluated. It is the written standard by which

everything else is measured having endured only 18 additions in it 242

year history. It is the foundation of the founding fathers and has enabled this country to get some of the most trying times we have ever

seen. It has withstood the test of time and serves its vital function

today because it is based on cottect principles, fundamental fairness

and the sel evident truths that are in the declaration of Independence.

These principlies have empowered our State and Federal Constitutions

with a timeless strength in the midst of social ambiguity and change.

Our freedom and core values lie within a written constitution.

The fathers stated that we hold these truths to be self evident that all

men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness and that to secure these rights, governments

are instituted among men - deriving their just powers from the consent of

the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive it is

the right of the people to abolish it and institute a new government

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in

such form that as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety

and happiness.

These principles are the core of an Oath that every elected Official

in this Country has swore to uphold and defend, and in order to uphold

such an oath depends on the emotional intellect of the person who swore

on the Oath, not to let personal feelings, favors and outside influences

determine just cause of action. We need law or else society will begin to

deteriorate, and we need those who swore to protect the law, to uphold it,

not only when it is convenient. The Lower Courts have seemingly violated

every single right of petitioners and done everything in opposition to

the Oath that they swore to uphold. This argument is based on Actual

Facts, and actual facts can not be disputed.

The Federal and State Constituions, Statutes and Court Rules, support

Actual Facts and Procedure, that is what is supposed to be done and how it

is supposed to be done, anything other than that violates what is called

Due Process as everything has a process, from the time the Sun rises until

it Sets, to the planets rotating around the Sun in perfect Order, to the

directions on a Box for making a cake, to the Laws of this Country and this

State, dont follow procedure and we have anarchy on our hands because the

process has been violated. The Tyrants Petitioner is up against have done

nothing but violated every right imaginable when it has come to following

the process that the Constitution and Court Rules say should happen, as

evidenced by the contents of this Brief, the Questions Involved, Arguments

and Statement of the Case are all based on Actual Facts.

The Superior Court chose to deny relief because they say Petitioner

never followed a Court Rule, neglecting the Actual Fact that it was the

duty of the Lower Court to initiate the Process, which they did not do and

therefore violated the process. Even if this was the case, Numerous Courts

have ruled that Pro Se Motions are held to less stringent standards than

those drafted by more seasoned Attorneys. These same Courts have ruled that

they have an obligation to correct plain error and check-mate abnormalities

and deficiencies of the Lower Court, see Williams vs Dr. Alladin 782 A.2d

1090, Corn vs. Bell 762 A.2d 776, Rosario vs. Dept. of Corr. 920 A.2d 931 2

Corn vs. Stossel 17 A.3d 1287, Allah vs. Severling 225 F.3d 220, New Jersey

vs. Bobo 22 NJ Super 30, 535A.2d 983 and U.S. vs. Erickson 127 S.Ct 2197.

The Court further went on to rule in Williams that when the elements to a

cause of Action are adequately set forth, a Pro Se complaint will not be

dismissed because it is not artfully drafted. This Constituted error on the

part of the Superior Court twice by denying the Original Petition and then

denying reconsideration when these arguments were pointed out to them.

This Sister States Appellate Court in New Jersey, has ruled that it

would not normally consider questions not raised on Appeal, but then went

on to state that it is the Court's duty to consider issues and questions of

sufficient importance to merit Appellate review, and that they do so in

recognition of their obligation to correct plain error of Constitutional

Magnitude, their own Court Rule Supports this 2:10-2, as well as the Macon

Court @ 57 NJ 325 and Lakomy @ 126 NJ Super 430, 437.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Johnstone 856 F.2d 539, 542,

that the Bedrock Principle of the American justice System is that the

Due Process Clauses protects one against conviction except beyond proof

of a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute a crime with

which one is charged, meaning a person can't be arrested simply on an

admission of a crime. The failure of the State to produce a Criminal

Complaint that was Blank of the Acts associated with the accused, and

Blank Affidavit along with their statement that "Defendant was arrested on

an admission", supports the Johnstone Court ans the 4th Amendment of the

United States Constitution,Article 1 § 8 of the Pa. Constituion, Court

Rule #504 and Com. vs. Thomas 419 A.2d 1344, as the mere admission does

not give permission to arrest without a Warrant as the U.S. Supreme Court

has ruled in Wong Sun 83 S.Ct 407, Smith 75 S.Ct 194 and Upper 75 S.Ct

158 in which the Upper Court ruled that their was independent evidence

besides the admission of the crime, all three (3) Courts ruled that

where a crime involves no Corpus delecti that a crime has been committed,

evidence corroborative of a confession must implicate the accused to show

that a crime has been committed. The Autopsy report does not state that a

crime has been committed, see Corn. vs. Smith 140-MM-2016, and arguments

in Support of Review, nor does the Commonwealth possess any physical

evidence that drugs were even present, having admitted that the alleged

evidence found at the scene was destroyed without any Field Test results

being conducted before this so-called alleged evidence was destroyed, and

is trying to introduce pictures that may as well have been downloaded from

a Snap-Shot, Instagram or a Facebook page, this is the reason that the

Criminal Complaint and Affidavit of Probable cause to arrest are both

Blank. This action violates Due Process all around the Board as the Wong

Sun Court further went on to rule that if those in Law Enforcement can

search, seize and arrest without a warrant and never be required to disclose the facts upon which they based their belief of what they consider

Probable Cause, if in other words they have an Untouchable power to do

these three (3) things without a warrant, then why would they ever bother

to get a warrant?, and this same obvious conclusion follows, if the

Courts when a search, seizure or arrest is attacked as Illegal, will

assume without any facts that a search, seizure or arrest without a

warrant was for Probable Cause. To strike down the Process for Probable

Cause without a warrant, while we maintain them for the issuance of a

warrant would be to blast away one of the Support Columns of Justice by

Law and renders the Complaint to be dismissed and Habeas Corpus to be

granted. This Petition for relief is because Due Process has been violated by the Prosecution and upheld by the Lower Courts. Process comes

from the Root word Procedure, meaning: A particular way of doing things

or a series of steps followed in regular order, to go in an orderly way,

a series of actions directed toward a particular result, as defined by

Webster. Our Court Rules and Constitutions mandate that the Process be

done in a certain way, thus was the wording in the Declaration of Independence because the King of Britain was a Narcisist and wanted to do

things his way, denying the pleas of the people who wanted Justice and

Due Process, oppressing the people without regard for Life, Liberty and

the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration further goes on to. state that:

In every stage of these Oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the

most humbleness of terms: Our Petitions have been answered only by the

repeated injury inflicted, "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". A Prince,

whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is

unfit to be a ruler of a Free People. This has been the actions of the

Lower and Appellate Courts, Tyrants who have skipped and chosen to ignore

the Process that was established by our Founding Fathers. You can't skip

parts of the Process to achieve a particular result, this violates the

Process, "Due Process", which is clearly what has happened in the instant

matter. This Court has an obligation to correct plain error that is of

Constitutional Magnitude, and is not only an obligation of the Court of

Appellate Jurisdiction, see Bobo 22 NJ Super 30, 535 A.2d 983. For help

in this matter the Court should turn to the Crawford Court at 124 S.Ct 1354

where the Court reversed its Roberts Decision concluding that the Indicia

of Reliability standard was to Broad and left to much discretion in the

Hands of Judicial Authority. It noted that Judges like other Government

Officers can't always be trusted to safeguard the rights of the people, id

@ 67, 100 S.Ct 2531. The Court went on to finally conclude that not clear

standards are very manipulative, and why these standards might be of a

small concern toward Petit larceny cases and the like. The framers had an

eye toward the Politically charged cases where the JUST and UNBIASED

decisions of even those in the highest levels of the judiciary might

not be so clear and thus can not always be trusted to do the right

thng. The definitionof decorum is: A certain way of doing things, or

a particular way, tyrants are used to doing things their way and feel

threatened when people go against the standard they have set. In the

Intersest of L.J. 79 A.3d 1073, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania went

on to rule that the Lower Court must set forth its findings of facts

andc000üions of Law at the end of the hearing so that the litigant

and the Appellate courts are aware of the basis for the Courts ruling.,

for the Superior Court to dismiss the petition for review because of

petitioner not following a Court rule when it is clear that Pro Se

petitioners are not held to the same standard as seasoned attorneys

has violated petitioners 14th Amendment right to due process and is

error on the Court.

Requested Relief

Petitioner moves humbly and respectfully before the Court and asks it

to not only grant Certiorari but to also grant the requested relif of

Habeas Corpus due to the constant State and Federal Constitutional

Vioaltions that petitioner has suffered at the hands of the Courts.

Wherefore I pray.

Kspectf 11 S bmitted,

Date: May 12, 2018

C.C.: File

Charles E. Smith #68421

Dauphin County Jail

501 Mall Road

Harrisburg, Pa. 17111

Arguments in Support of

1. Due Process was violated with the Ommission of the acts that were

associated with the accused from the Criminal Complaint. This issue

was raised at the Preliminary Hearing and has been preserved thru

every step of the Appellate Process. The Courts have ruled in the

following cases that this is considered a "Substsantive Defect",

that when a Defendant is misled by a complaint then he doesn't have

fair notice of the charges that are pending and that the potential

for prejudice is apparent and the Appellant is entitled to discharge,

as the arrest warrant is invalid and entitles the Defendant to

habeas Corpus relief, this is a 14th Amendment Due Process Violation.

see Corn Ex Rel .Fitzpatrick v. Mirarchi 392 A.2d 13469 Corn v. Thomas

419 A.2d 1344; Corn vs. Herstine 399 A.2d 1188 and Corn vs. Flowers

369 A.2d 362.

2. Petitioners Due Process under the 4th Amendment of the United States

Constitution and Article 1 § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,

both of which lead to a 14th Amendment violation were violated when

the Prosecution appeared in Court with a Blank Affidavit of Probable

Cause to arrest and was told by the Court to get another one, which

means the arrest is Illegal as both Constitutions state: That no

warrants search or arrest shall issue except on probable cause and

sworn under oath or affirmation before a Judge, Court Clerk, or any

other neutral detached judicial official and must describe the place

to be searched the Items to be seized and the person to be arrested.

(1)

The Failure of the Affidavit to contain a Signature and seal

of an

issuing Authority means in fact that this arrest was in fact

issued

by the arresting officer who is not neutrally detached and makes

the

arrest illegal. See. State V. Bobo 222 NJ Super 30, 535 A.2d 983,

as

the Bobo Court relied on Wong Sun 83 S. Ct 407, State v Ruoto

lo 52

NJ 511, 512; State v. Roes 189 NJ Super 67, 73 and U.S. v. Johns

on

68 S.Ct 367, 369, in stating that: The determination of Proba

ble

Cause for the issuance of a warrant can only be made by a Neutr

ally

Detached Judicial Official. They further went on to say that

what

happened in Bobo was no mere technical violation of the law,

as our

State and Federal Constitutions authorizes the issuance of a

search

or arrest warrant only by the proper judicial officer and only

upon

a showing of Probable Cause that is supported by Oath or Affir

mation

that an Offense has been committed by the accused at the place

that

was described. This also makes the arrest Illegal as it furth

er has

violated the Due Process Clause of the State and Federal Const

itutions.

3. •A Judicial officer's neutral evaluation of a Criminal Compl

aint makes

him or her uniquely qualified to decide whether its sworn factu

al allegations show the required Probable Cause. The Judicial Offic

er is

then trusted to evaluate the legal sufficiency of the sworn facts

and

the credibility of the affiant making the charges against the

accused.

It is for these reasons and these reasons alone that our Feder

al and

State Constitutions empower only Judicial Officers to make deter

minations of whether Probable Cause exists for the issuance of a

warrant,

making a warrant issued by a police officer patently defective,

and

makes this arrest illegal as. it has violated ourl Federal and

State

Constitutions. See Bobo 222 NJ Super 30, 535 A.2d 983; Giordenell

o 78

S.Ct 1245; Petillo v. N.J. 93 S.Ct 1393 and Ross 189 NJ Super 67.

.

4. This Arrest is also Illegal as the Courts have ruled in Johns

on v. U.S.

68 S.Ct 367 and Wrightson v. U.S. 222 F.2d 556 that: If Offic

ers can

arrest without a warrant and never be required to state the facts

upon

which they based their belief of Probable Cause, if in other

words they

have an untouchabe power to arrest without a warrant, then why

would

they ever bother to get a warrant?, and then the same obvious

conclufollows, if the Courts allow when an arrest is attacked as Illeg

al will

(2)

assume without facts taht an arrest without a warrant was for Probab

le

Cause, to strike down all factual requirements in respect to Probab

le

Cause for arrest without a warrant, while we maintain them for issuin

g

a warrnt, would be to blast away one of the support columns of Justic

e

by Law.

5. This arrest is Illegal under Whitley v. Warden 91 S.Ct 1031, as

the

warrant in that case was he1dinva1id because the Affidavit on which

it

was issued only alleged that the defendant had broken into a Ballro

om,

no facts were recited. No Issuing Authority or any other Neutral

and

Detached Judicial Official asked the arresting officer of the facts

in

that case, and there are no facts on the Criminal Complaint in the

instant case, as the warrant is invalid due to the Criminal Complaint

being

blank,, as well as the Affidavit. Judge Lewis of the Dauphin County

Court

violated Petitioners Constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment

and

Article 1 § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution when he asked the Prosecution, "Are you telling me this man was arrested without a warran

t?",

and the Prosecution stated: Well Sir he was arrested on an admiss

ion as

you are aware of how we do things in Dauphin County and through out

the

Commonwealth! Afetr this response in which Petitioner stated that

what

has happened is not in conformity with the State or Federal Consti

tutions

and moved for a dismissal, this oral motion was denied and Judge

Lewis

told him to go get another warrant at the Preliminary Hearing that

was

conducted conducted on October 21st and 26th 2016. See notes of testimony from both dates.

6. Due Process was violated when Judge Lewis conducted this Prelim

inary

Hearing on the motion' of the Prosecution without following the Court

rules of 544 (a), which state that before the Prosecution may petiti

on

the Court for an Alternate Issuing Authority the charges must first

be

dismissed by the Original Issuing Authority or withdrawn by the Prosecution, then they must petition the Original issuing Authority which

allowed the withdrawal or dismissal for permission to re-file, then

and

only then can the Prosecution petition for an Alternate, this did

not

happen as the Prosecution moved straight to Judge Lewis, who not

only

assigned himself as an Alternate Issuing Authority, but held Petiti

oner

for Trial and assigned himself as the Trial Judge also, all violat

ing

Petitioners rights to due Process under the Rules of the Court.

(3)

Due Process was violated under Article 1 § 9 of the Pennsylvania

Constituion and The U.S. Constitutions 6th Amendment when Petitioner

was not allowed to call his witness at the Preliminary, Hearing as

it was the sitting Judge, "Who Assigned himself as an Alternate

Issuing Authority see averment 6",:who stated that he would be the

one who would decide whether the witness will testify or not, these

Constitutional Rights state: In all Criminal Prosecutions the accused

has a right to be confronted with the witness against him, and to

have a compulsory process for obtaining them in his favor in prosecutions by Indictment or Information. This also violated the Courts

Rule uder 545. The Appellate Court also ruled in Buchanon v Verbonitz 581 A.2d 172, that the Preliminary Hearing is an adversarial

part of the Criminal Proceedings and not a sidebar conference where

proffers are made, thus the full panolopy of the petitioners rights

are afforded to him, and those rights include that their is a right

absolutely includes that there be a Compulsory process for obtaining

witnesses in his favor, the Court went on to grant Buchanon Habeas

Corpus Relief and dismissed all of the charges.

Due Process was also violated when the Court did not allow Petitioner

to continue the PreliminaryiHearing so that his witness would be

available to testify. This violated the Courts rule 542 (G) and 545

(A), this was ruled illegal in Corn. v. Ricker 120 A.3d 349, and was

ruled an Exigent and Exceptional circumstance to warrant Interlocutory

Review, however since the brief failed to state that the failure to

allow the continuance violated Due Process, Habeas Corpus relief was

not granted. Petitioner has raised this issue every step of the way

as he has exhausted all of his available State remedies, specifically

at, 143-MDM-2017, 56-MDM-2017, 187-MM-2016 and 503-MAL-2017., all

of the Courts have refused to grant the requested relief.

The rulings and actions by the Lower and Appellate Courts have led

to the violation of Petitioners 14th Amendment right to Due Process.

Re pectfully Submitted,

Charles E. Smith #68421

Dauphin County Jail

501 Mall Road

Harrisburg, Pa. 17111

Conclusion

The Constitution of the united States is the standard from which every

single Law in this country is derived from, it is the guideline and it

has withstood the test of time to the tune of 242 years with only 18

additional amendments. The Constitution has withstood the test of time

because it is based on solid principles, those same principles have

allowed our country to endure some trying times such as slavery, wars,

impeachments and a little of everything in between. These Principles

have empowered the State and federal Constitutions with a timeless

strngth in the midst of Social Ambiguity and Change. The founding

fathers stated: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men

are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain

unalienable rights and that among these rights are life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure rights, governments are

instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of

the governed. These principles are the core of an Oath that every

elected official has sworn to uphold and defend, and in order to uphold

such an oath dependes on the emotional Intellect of the person who has

sworn to uphold that Oath. Petitioners Rights to Due Process has been

violated at every stage of his Judicial proceeding and asks this Court

to uphold his Constitutional rights and protect them, we as a society

need law or else society will deteriorate, and we need those who swore

to protect the law to uphold it, as the President Thomas Jefferson

stated, experience has shown that even under the forms of government

that those who have been entrusted with power have thru slow operation

perverted it into a Tyranny. I'ask this Court to uphold and protect the

Law they swore to uphold.

R s ctfl ly Submitted,

Date: May 5, 2018

C.C.: File

'Charles E. Smith #68421

Dauphin County Jail

Harrisburg, Pa. 17111