Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ray Cobia, Petitioner v. Ohio, et al.

M

iLe

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITIONER

-

ll~~

(Your Name)

vs.

sA f/2'

RESPONDENT(S)

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

si

vA

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULE N MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

69tud oAga,41,-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Your Na)

'71W

(Address)

1,112 1L;

n C

6

1 4~

(City, State, Zip Code)

ç73- 9)r- ccJ 1

(Phone Number)

V

, ~C

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

dP wX 7d- 1) 4on 6)/ d1 b11 YO 9

&s ,~//%J

Zo /3 Con Yld;&'.

e4ad zct 17d a

ate 40-a' So i&U

W pacscd

Co n o "ck on

a

O

peg6o

6L

M ('5 Co rl 66te~, jo ,

~Aaj

11a 4/L CA,

laf-o'e

"-p

LIST OF PARTIES

[

\

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[(A11 parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

.

1

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................

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

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

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

PAGE NUMBER

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

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

[ ] is unpublished.

--

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

; or,

[I reported at

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

Ellis unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

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

Appendix

to the petition and

f'i

('act

[ ] reported at

; or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

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

\ [ ] is unpublished.

\

1.

JURISDICTION

For cases from federal courts:

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

See

4y),1c(was

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

[LA 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

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

(date)

to and including

(date) on

in Application No.

A______

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

[(4" 'or cases from state courts:

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

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

II] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied 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. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Constitution of the United States clearly states in it's Amendment V that

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in

the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or

public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice

put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be

a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without

just compensation.

Therefore as in this claim the claimed defendants pronounces they are under

immunity and proclaim the bill of such, but the question of the fact is (why if a

person that had a prior conviction it can be used against you even if the

constitution and statues say it is not to be done?)

Since the defendants wants to declare immunity, it is discretionary of the

judicial to rule as such Truesdale v. Combs 33 Ohio St. 186, (1878), Childs v.

Voris, 4 Ohio N.P. 67,6 Ohio Dec. 75 (C.P. Summit Cty. (1897); Voll v. Steele, 141

Ohio St. 293,47 N.E. 2d. 991 (1943); Farrell v. State, 204 Misc. 148, 123 N.Y. S.

2d 29 (Ct. Cl 1953); Brinkman v. Drolesbaugh, 97 Ohio St. 171, 119 N.E. 451

(1918); Maxey v. Gather, 94 Ohio App. 115, 510hio Ops. 310, 114 N.E. 2d.

(Summit Cty. 1952).

Furthermore since the waiver of immunity is granted in Courts of Common

Pleas, however in the Court of Claims it brings a special remedy see Barrett v.

State 220 N.Y. 423, 116 N.E. 99 (1917), and Fishbein v. State 204 Misc. 151, 120

N.Y. S.2d 92 (Ct. Cl. 1953), and Chikofsky v. State, 203 Misc. 646, 117 N.Y. S. 2d

26 (Ct. Cl. 1952)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In the case of State of Ohio v. Ray Cobia it was found by the Hamilton County

Court of Appeals that the state was not to convict the as he was convicted

because the supposively victim testimony was less than creditable and the fact

that the State brought the victim and investigating officer into the 2013 case to

testify of the acts of Ray Cobia was a violation of the Criminal Rule of Evidence

404(B). Yes Ray Cobia preceded to trial with the case and the prosecutor

introduced the prior conviction not to show a character of Ray Cobia, but

introduce the prior conviction as a new charge to be added to the indictment of

the 2013 charges, this tactic was objected by the trial defense attorney, however

the trial judge overruled the motion and further stated he was allowing the

prosecution to use the tactic. And it was never stated to the jury to view the prior

conviction as a character of Ray Cobia, and when the defense stated that it was a

violation of Criminal Rule 29 it was later overruled and was stated by the trial

judge that the evidence that the prosecutor introduced is valuable and was

needed to be admitted in to evidence against the defendant. Ray Cobia was

convicted not of any of the charges of 2013, but was found guilty of the2004

charges of his prior conviction. To support Ray Cobia claim in this case the court is

requested to view US v. Hossein Afshari et al 0250355, Miranda v. Arizona 384

U.S. 436, Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, and Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1.

Unlike in your normal prosecuted case the supposively victim was less than

that of a creditable witness and due to the fact that the prosecutor knew that the

supposively victim was not creditable that does not mean you are allowed to

manipulate the judicial system to your advantage.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

It is fully requested that this honorable court would grant this said petition on

the ground(s) of, but no limited to the following:

The lower courts fail to adhere to the constitution of our laws.

The lower courts refuse to serve as the corrective mediation as it is

prescribe to do.

The Plaintiff Ray Cobia fully respect that this court is more than

viewable to view and govern itself with constitution and statues to rule

as such.

Finally the Plaintiff Ray Cobia set his trust and well being in the view of

this court.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

submitted,

Date: