Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Anthony Brian Bevan, Petitioner v. Florida

Im

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ANTHONY BRIAN BE VAN PETITIONER

Vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA RESPONDANTS

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

:LAST COURT TO RULE ON MERITS OF THE CASE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Anthony Brian Bevan

P.O. Box 494946

Port Charlotte, Florida 33949

PH: (239) 939-4900

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, and/or in violation

of U.S.0 Code # 242. and/or in violation of his civil rights and/or

was the Stare Decisis Doctrine wrongfully ignored, as evidenced

by the Governmental Misconduct in the Spoilage of Evidence?

Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in violation of the (14th)

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and/or in violation

of his civil rights, and/or was the Stare Decisis Doctrine wrongfully

ignored, as evidenced by a violation of 18 U.S.C. Code # 242 with a

written bribe to a Government Official, to bring about a false arrest?

Was the Petitioner denied Due Process when Governmental Misconduct

Occurred that denied his 6th Amendment guarantee of counsel and

the 14th Amendment Clause of Due Process, and/or in violation of 18

U.S.C. code # 242, and/or in violation of his civil rights, and/or was

the

Stare Decisis Doctrine wrongfully ignored, especially in respect to his

lack

of representation by counsel at a Deposition of the arresting officer?

Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment Clause of Due Process, and/or in violation of 18 U.S.C.

code # 242, and/or in violation of his civil rights, especially in respec

t

to the fact that he was wrongfully incarcerated for (3) three years after

his New Law Case was Nolle Prossed and dismissed?

Was the Petitioner represented by Ineffective Counsel whose

ineffectiveness and misrepresentation that the Petitioner was not

subject to deportation, resulted in the Petitioner's agreement to Plead

Guilty, which Pleas have now subjected him to deportation in

Immigrations Removal Hearings?

I-

LIST OF PARTIES

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

.......i

LIST OF PARTIES..........................................

.......ii

../TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................

... iii-iv

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

.....v

CITATIONS/OPINIONS ....................................

........ 1

STATEMENT OF BASIS FOR JURISDICTION.......

.....1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVTSIONS/RELEVENT ......

.. 1-2

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

..3-12

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

..12-36

I.Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in viola

tion

of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause,

and/or in violation of U.S.0 Code # 242. and/or in

violation

of his civil rights and/or was the Stare Deci

sis Doctrine

wrongfully ignored, as evidenced by the Governm

ental

Misconduct in the Spoilage of Evidence9 ..............

......

14-17

II.Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in viola

..and/or in violation of his civil rights, and/or was

tion of

the

Stare Decisis Doctrine wrongfully igno

red, as evidenced

to a Government Official, to bring about a false arre

st? ..... 18-20

III. Was the Petitioner denied Due Process when

Governmental

Misconduct Occurred that denied his 6th Amendm

ent guarantee

of counsel and the 14th Amendment Clause of Due

Process, and/or

in violation of 18 U.S.C. code # 242, and/or in viola

tion of his civil

rights, and/or was the Stare Decisis Doctrine wron

gfully ignored,

especially in respect to his lack of representation

by counsel at a

Deposition of the arresting officer? ............................

....................... 20-24

-iii-

W. Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in violation of the

civil rights, especially in respect to the fact that he was

Law Case was Nolle Prossed and dismissed? ........................ 24-30

V.Was the Petitioner represented by Ineffective Counsel whos

ineffectiveness and misrepresentation that the Petitioner was

e

not

subject to deportation, resulted in the Petitioner's agreement to

Plead Guilty, which Pleas have now subjected him to deportatio

in Immigrations Removal Hearings? ...........................................

n

30-36

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

...36

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES.................................................

...37

41-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Apprendi v. New Jersey

530 U.S. 466 (2000)..............................

........................26

Barton v. Wilmington Parking

365 US 71581 s, ct.856 LED (1961).....

............................20

Bernhard v. State of Florida

Florida Supreme Court # 43335 decided 1/9

/74................26

Brady v. Maryland

3737 US (1963)...................................

........................17,

Bridges v Wixon

326 US 135,154(1945....................

....

.....................33

Dowbs-Morgan v. United States

765 F 2d 1534 (1 Ith Circ 1985)...........

...........................35

Florida Bar v. Karen Schmidt Cox

SC 962172001..................................

Gideon v. Wainright

......................23

372 us 335 (1963) ...................................

..................... 20,21,22

Hill v. Lockhart

474 U552(1985)....................................

.................34, 35

INS v. St. Cyr

533 U.S. 289,322(2001) .........................

................ 33

Kim me/man v. Morrison

477 11 S,365 LED 2d 405 S.Ct 2574 (19

86).....................34

McNann v Richardson

397 US 559771N 14 (1970)

34

Nixon v. Singletary

758 S 2d 618 (Fl 2000).. .........

..........

.

...

Padilla v. Kentucky

No

08008051 (2010)

....

.........

..

..

.....

RE: Winthrop

26

...

32

...

397 US 358 90S, Ct .........................

............................. .26

Strickland v. Washington

466 US 668104 5, Ct, 2051 (1984).....

..............................34.35

U.S. V. Classic

313 Us 299 61 1368 (1941) ................

.............................17,19

U.S. v. Russell

411 US 423 (1973)..............................

...........................1,16,19,24

STATUTES AND RULES

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constit

ution..........................2

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constit

ution............................2,21,23

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Con

stitution.........2,17,19,20,22,23,24

OTHER

18 U.S.C. Code 242..............................

Stare Decisis Doctrine ................

...........................2,3,13,16,19,23

.................................. 1,3,12,1

3,14,20,36

James Madison Report on the Virg

inia Resolutions of 1799,

from the Debates in the State Conven

tions on Adoption of the

Federal Constitution 555 (1836)..........

.........................................33

OPINIONS

On September 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida responded to the

Petitioner's Supplemental Petitions for Discretionary Review filed on August

31, 2018 and September 4, 2018 and treated the Petitions as "motions for

reinstatement pursuant to this Court's order dated August 17, 2018, said

motions are hereby stricken as unauthorized. (App. A).

The Supreme Court of Florida dismissed the Petitioner's case No: SCI8-1373

on August 17, 2018 stating "This Court lacks jurisdiction to review an

unelaborated decision from a district court of appeal that is issued without an

or explanation or that merely cites to an authority that is not a case pending

review in or reversed or quashed by this Court. (App.B)

The Florida Second District Court. of Appeal issued a Mandate on July 31,

2018. (App.C)

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a PER CTJRIAM Affirmed

on the Post Conviction Appeal # 2D17-533 on June 6, 2018. (App -D)

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a PER CURIAM,

Affirmed Opinion in the Petitioner's First appeal, Case No. 2D13-4892, on

August 26, 2015. (App.E)

JURISDICTION

The date on which the highest state court decided my case: September 4, 2018.

.This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. #1257(a)

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant

part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and

effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

-1-

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant

part" In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right.., to have

Assistance of Counsel for his defense".

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutions provides

In relevant part Due Process Rights in a criminal prosecution.

OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Stare Decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates the Court to follow historical

cases when making a ruling on a similar current or a future case. This

Doctrine is sacred to the integrity and sanctity of the Justice System. It

binds the Court to follow legal precedent set by pervious decisions. Notably,

the landmark cases cited for this Petition include the following Brady v.

Maryland 3737 US (1963), Gideon v. WainriMht 372 US 335 (1963), Padilla

v. Kentucky No. 08008051 (2010)

18 U.S. Codes # 241-242: Deprivation of rights under color of law states "It is

a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law, willfully, to deprive

or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States."

-2-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The Petitioner, Anthony Brian Bevan, is a native citizen of Great Britain, the

United Kingdom, He was born on May 30th, 1935 (age 83). He has medical

Melanoma Cancer and is currently under medical care for ongoing removals

of skin cancers. He has been a legal permanent resident of the United States

since December 21, 2962 (56 years) and has been married to an American

citizen for fifty years and together they have had two children, who were born

and raised in the United States. The Petitioner, has worked responsibly,

having small manufacturing companies and has held positions in sales. He

has several Patents, issued in the United States Patent Office. He has been a

volunteer Advocate for many years, providing service for those • unlawfully

charged with crimes. He has won several appeals in the Florida Second District

Court of Appeals to include enforcing the rights of citizens to obtain public

records.(App.F.) The Petitioner is currently preparing a presentation on

possible causes of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

Petitioner, Anthony Brian Bevan was initially arrested on 11J1I11,when he

drove his wife's auto on his own driveway easement while waiting for the

Code Enforcement Agent, in order to prevent a neighbor, Claudia Cowart,

.

from constructing a 20 foot high wall on part of his legal easement. There was

a construction crew who began the demolition of the existing wall and an off

duty Lee County Sheriff Deputy hiding on the neighbor's property. The

Petitioner was originally charged with disobeying an officer but the charges

were changed to Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (the auto)

without intent to kill and resisting/obstructing an officer without violence.

The Petitioner used his wife's camera and recorder to record the ongoing

incident in order to use for his defense. These items were confiscated by the

Sheriff and were placed into evidence. It was only years

-3-

BLANK PAGE

91

held position is sales.He has several U.S. Patents. He has been a

volunteer Advocate for many years providing service to those unfortunate

people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes. He has won several

appeals in the Florida Second District Court of Appeals to include Case no

86-1999 enforcing the rights of citizens to obtain public records. (App.F)..

The Petitioner is currently preparing a presentation on possible causes of

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

Petitioner Anthony Brian Bevan was initially arrested on 11/1/11, when

he drove his wife's auto onto his own narrow driveway easement while

waiting for the Code Enforcement Agent, in order to prevent neighbor,

Claudia Cowart from constructing a 20 ft. high wall (App.G).There was a

construction crew demolishing a pre-existing small wall and an off duty

Lee County Sheriff Deputy James Butler, hired by Cowart, was hiding on

the neighbor's property> Deputy Butler jumped out and onto the

Petitioner's vehicle, stating the Petitioner was disobeying an Officer. The

actual charges against the Petitioner were Aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon (the auto) without intent to kill and resisting /obstructing

an officer without violence.. The Petitioner used his wife's camera and

voice recorder to record the ongoing incident in order to use for his

defense. These items were confiscated by the Sheriff. It was only years

later that a copy of the Extra Duty Request Document was discovered

which identified that Claudia Cowart paid the Sheriffs Department for

the extra duty service of Deputy Butler. There was a handwritten note

which states "Detail will be paid entirely to Deputy, if it occurs" (App.

H.)

It was further discovered that the Sony digital camera and the Phillip

s

voice recorder were placed into evidence at the Lee County Sheriffs

Evidence Center and the Property Receipt listed that Deputy Butler,

ID

no: 05024 took possession of the Camera and the voice recorder on 11/1/

11

and then released the items which then obtained from the home of

Claudia Cowart on 11/2/11 and returned to evidence.(App.I) Another

Property Receipt was obtained which identified that the Phillips voice

recorder was DESTROYED on 6/27/14 without notification to the

Petitioner and/or his wife. (App. J). An Order to Preserve Evidence was

issued by Judge Volz on September 30, 2014, to Preserve the Evidence

after a Motion to Preserve the Evidence was requested. (App. K).

The Petitioner discovered that his Counsel, Attorney Thomas Busatta

was

an ex investigator for the Lee County Sheriffs Office and that he and

the

State Prosecutor, Christine Cummins, planned to hold a deposition of

191

Deputy Butler without any input from the Petitioner., Attorney Bussatta

was fired on February 7, 2012 for this and other factors in failing to

protect his client and he was also scheduled to be on temporary

suspension from the Florida Bar in another case. Depsite his being fired

and asked not to proceed with Deposition, Attorney Busatta and the

State Prosecutor still proceeded with Deputy Butler's deposition, even

though other attempts were made to stop the deposition. The deposition

transcripts revealed that many vital questions were not posed to Deputy

Butler, who called Attorney Busatta, "my friend" at one point. The

Petitioner had no representation and both Attorney Busatta and Attorney

Cummins completed the deposition which was later placed into the file by

the Petitioner. (App. L).

The Petitioner remained being held without Bond in the Lee County Jail

where he was denied his medications many times, and subjected to being

sent to seclusion despite requests made for Humanizing treatment by

family and friends. This jail has had a sordid history of several deaths in

recent years, some of which were litigated by the deceased families. (App

M). A Hearing was held before Judge Andrew Swett on March 4, 2013.

The Petitioner had a new Counsel with Criminal Attorney Thomas

Whitney and the Petitioner Pled" Guilty". He was released on Probation.

in

At the Hearing, Judge Swett asked the Petitioner. Do you understand

that if

you are not a U.S. Citizen that this plea may subject you to depor

tation?" The

:

"

answer by the Petitioner, with his Counsel, Attorney Christopher Whitn

ey

standing "Mute" by his side was "I understand that Mr. Whitney explained

that it would not be applicable in my case" (App.N)

There was a new arrest on May 10, 2013 at the safe house, where the

Petitioner was temporarily living to keep away

from

the "victims" following

the Plea Hearing. The Petitioner was charged with pushing a pregn

ant

female, who was the adopted daughter of the family where he was

temporarily living. The family had moved the daughter and two of

her

children into a small home next door to their home as problems had

arisen

with her and her then current boyfriend where they were living..

A verbal confrontation occurred between the Petitioner and the daugh

ter

over a mailbox issue on the morning of May 10th, 2013.. After the encou

nter,

the Petitioner returned to his temporary home. At 2 PM in the aftern

oon,

suddenly a Sheriff Deputy burst open the front door. The Petitioner

arrested and charged with resisting an officer without violence

was

There was no

warrant issued. He was then charged with pushing the pregnant femal

e. The

Petitioner was sent to the Lee County Jail and held without bond.

.

A Violation of Probation Hearing was held on June 24, 2013 before

Judge

Volz,. Judge Volz convicted the Petitioner who pled Not Guilty and

even

though the testimony of the witnesses were inconsistent with time

of the so

called occurrence and the time the Sheriff was called and other factor

s. The

Judge used a civil standard in determining the guilty verdict rathe

r than a

criminal standard of being a reasonable belief. The Petitioner was

sentenced

on September 9, 2013 to thirty six (36) months of imprisonment

(App.0)

-7-

It was much later that the Petitioner discovered that Judge Volz had been

the Chief Investigator for the State Attorney Office when the

Investigation was reopened 10 years after the death, and there was a

Grand Jury Trial, on the so called" suicide death" of Brad Jackman, who

was a young man shot at the Sheriffs Hunting Ground at the Babcock

Ranch. Some notable people involved in the death, included the Sheriff at

the time and the State Attorney at the time. This case that the Petitioner

and others became involved in included a major newspaper, This much

publicized case ultimately went to a Florida Grand Jury. Some

newspaper articles are attached to this Writ for the court's reference

which outline the social climate in this 20th Judicial Circuit at the time.

The articles include references to the Petitioner and his Advocating for

others to include the suicide Death investigations in the 1980's and the

along with the information on the Delbert Tibbs case, a man who the

Petitioner assisted in gaining his freedom who wrongfully accused and

convicted and was on Florida's Death Row in the 1970's. (App P). It

should be noted that the Petitioner is still investigating the Jackman"

suicide" as he was given the actual so called suicide note in open court

and this note is to this date at a University Forensic Lab.

There were errors in the documents on revocation of probation to include

that the Petitioner did not plead guilty but that he pled that

in

he was innocent of the charges against him. The errors were discovered

by the Petitioner's Public Defender Appeal Attorney who filed a Motion to

Amend the Order,with this being granted on 2/18/15 (App. Q). The New

law violation of 5/10/13 pushing incident, in case No. 13 CF 16047 was

DISMISSED by Judge Margaret Steinbeck in a 12/16/13 Hearing, after

the State asked that the case be Nolle Prossed .Judge Steinbeck stated"

So the charges in the 13CF 16047 case are dismissed, and that takes care

of that" (App. R).

The Petitioner remained incarcerated and served the remainder of the

thirty six months in a Florida State Prison with ongoing attempts being

made to vindicate him. The Appeal at the Florida Second District Court of

Appeals was lost as the Court issues an Order on 8/26/15 in Case No:

2D13-4892 of PER CURIUM AFFIRMED (App. E) The Petitioner next

filed a Post Conviction Motion 3.850, as a pro se in the Lower Court

which was denied. He then filed as a Pro Se in the Florida Second District

Court of Appeals and lost when the Appellate Court issued another PER

CURIUM AFFIRMED on 6/6/18 in Case No: 2D17-533. (App.D). A

Rehearing En Banc was also denied by that Court and on7/31/18 the

Court issued a Mandate reiterating their position. (App.C). The Petitioner

then filed a Motion for Discretionary Review with the Supreme Court of

Florida, The Clerk of Court issued an opinion dismissing the case on

BE

8/17/18, No. SC 18-1373 for" lack of jurisdiction to review an

unelaborated decision for a district court of appeal that is issued without

an opinion or explanation or that merely cites to an authority that is not a

case pending review"

.

(App.B). The Petitioners Supplemental Petitions

for Discretionary Review were also denied the Clerk of the Florida

Supreme Court who on 9/4/18 entered an Opinion stating "Petitioners

Supplemental Petitions for Discretionary Review were filed on August 31,

2018 and September 4, 2018 have been treated as motions for

reinstatement. Pursuant to this Court's Order dated August 17, 2018 said

motions are hereby stricken as unauthorized .(App.A).

The Petitioner has researched the authority of the Florida Supreme Court

to see why it can so severely restrict the peoples right to the Court. On

jurisdiction and found that the dramatic denial of accepting cases from the

citizens of Florida was the change made in the Florida Constitution in

Amendment Article V, Section 3. This Amendment change was placed on

the Special Election Presidential Preference Primary Ballot on 3/11/1980.

The wording on the ballot consisted of only one sentence to describe the

severe changes was "Proposing an amendment of the State Constitution to

modify the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court".

-10-

The "voters were not provided with any details of what the modification

of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and therefore had no knowledge

of the rights which would be taken away from them and that their access

to the Florida Supreme Court would become so stringent that justice

would be denied. .The amendment proposal of one sentence was allowed

to stand on the ballot was passed by the small number of voters who voted

in the Off Year special election. (App.S)

The Petitioners has provided Newly Discovered Evidence to the

Appellate Court and the Florida Supreme Court in his briefs, with the

discovery and then the Affidavits filed by 2 key witnesses in the Violation

of Probation and the new Case of pushing! resisting. Larry Cowan in his

Affidavit dated 12/1/2015 stated thatthis stepdaughter (the victim) 'Made

up the story that Brian pushed her and that she asked Tiffany to lie for

her"....."I am sad that I discovered that Savannah was a drug dealer and

drug used. Her drug abuse could account for her bizarre accusations

against Brian Bevan" Patricia Cowan, in her affidavit of 1/10/2016 stated

"After Brian Bevan went to jail my stepdaughter, Savannah Vasquez told

me and my husband Larry Cowan that she had made up the story that

Brian pushed her and that she asked Tiffany to lie for her". (App.T)

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Removal Proceedings

began once the Petition was released from incarceration with

-11-

Case No: A013-681-533. On 6/21/2016 a Motion for Continuance of the

Master Hearing was granted. Subsequent Hearings have been cancelled

with the next Master Hearing now scheduled to be held on 1/16/2019.

(App. U).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

The issues presented for review are of great and national importance and

will no doubt have a significant impact on not only the Petitioner but

citizens and residents of Florida and of the United States. and therefore

will have tremendous practical consequences. The Court has the authority

and the obligation to render Opinions where uniformity counts as per the

Historical cases where Precedent is set, when making a ruling on a

similar current or a future case. It is stated in the Stare Decisis Doctrine

that the Court is bound to follow legal precedent set by previous decisions.

The newly appointed U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Brett

Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Congress in

September of 2018, referred to the Stare Decisis Doctrine as the

foundation of Democracy in Article 3. He further stated that Precedent

established by the U.S. Supreme Court are the Law of the Land and

unless they are overturned cannot be ignored. The Petitioners Writ

-12-

of Certiorari addresses several Historical, Landmark Cases which have

set Precedent and qualify for review for the Stare Decisis Doctrine. The

Doctrine and the cases were also documented in the Petitioners Petition

for Discretionary Review to the Florida Supreme Court who declined to

accept his case. This Court has the authority to render Opinions where

there are Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law as in 18 U.S.C. Codes

#241-242 which states "It is a crime for one or more persons acting under

color of law, willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of

any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States". This

Court can review Constitutional Provisions of the 4th Amendment which

provides in relevant part "The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and

seizures shall not be violated." And in the 6th Amendment which

provides that in all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the

right. to have assistance of Counsel And in the 141h Amendment which

. .

provide in relevant part Due Process Rights.

Wherefore, the Petitioner respectfully demonstrates to this Honorable

Court that decisions made with the prior courts conflict with the decisions

of the Federal Courts and the rulings made by the U.S. Supreme Court

and meet the standards for Stare Decisis

-13-

QUESTION 1: Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, and/or in

violation of 18 U.S. Code -242. and/or in violation of his civil

rights and/ or was the Stare Dec isis Doctrine wrongfully ignored,

as evidenced by the Governmental Misconduct of the Spoilage

and destruction of the evidence?.

The Indisputable Facts that necessitate the posing of Question 1 are as

follows: Two vital pieces of evidence no longer exist. The original SIM card

in the Sony Digital Camera that had captured over 100 images of the

Petitioner's arrest, has been removed, from the Sony Digital Camera

and replaced with a "False" SIM Card, according to the Sheriff's Forensic

Expert (App J) Only a fraction of the captured images remain on the

.

False SIM card, of which many have been altered, manipulated and

spoiled.: The Phillips voice recorder was wrongfully DESTROYED on

6/27/14 as per the Sheriffs Property Receipt (App J) The trail of spoilage

.

and destruction of evidence began when the Petitioner was arrested on

11/1/11 when he drove from his home to park his wife's car to a location

on his easement driveway in an attempt to block the illegal construction of

20 ft high wall by his neighbor Ms. Cowart, on his easement (App. G) and

to await there, the arrival of a Code Enforcement Agent who had been

summoned to the scene. Before the Petitioner had time to switch off

-14-

the ignition, Deputy Butler appeared from behind a wooden fence, where

he had been hiding and jumped on the hood of the car. A Sony digital

camera and a Phillips voice recorder were used throughout the entire

incident by the Petitioner to record what took place within and outside

the car and the conversations that took place with the arresting officer,

who at one time was sprawled across the hood of the car banging his huge

weapon against the windshield, where the Petitioner was mere inches

away staring down the barrel of the gun. This terrifying image, along

with the Deputies threat to blow Petitioner's head off have been

eliminated with the destruction of the voice recorder and the removal of

.

the original SIM card. The 76 year old Petitioner was handcuffed and

taken to the hospital with chest pains after being tear gassed for over 45

minutes and thence removed through a broken side window of his wife's

car which was parked in his driveway, alongside of his garage. The

charges levied against the Petitioner were increased from disobeying an

Officer, an order to exit the car, was altered to Aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon (his wife's car) without intent to kill and resisting an

Officer with obstruction without violence and became Case No: 11 CF

[IWflJJ

It was only years later, after reviewing the Property Receipt from the

Sheriff's Department that the Petitioner became aware of the flagrant

-15-

destruction and spoilage of evidence in that the Property Receipt

document revealed that the Phillips Voice Recorder was marked as

"DESTROYED" on 6/27/14 and that the Sheriffs Forensic Unit noted

that the SIM card installed in the Sony Camera was a"FALSE" card and

most of the photographs were missing as only blank spaces were left. (app

J") A Motion to preserve the Evidence was filed once the destruction and

spoilage of evidence was discovered and was granted on 9/30/14. (App.

K).

The Petitioner refers to the following in his Writ to this U.S. Supreme

Court: U.S. Code 242 states "Whoever, under color of law, statute,

ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,

Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or

laws of the United States, or to difference punishments, pains, or penalties,

on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of color or race, than

are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title

or imprisoned nor more than one year, or both.", Likewise in the U.S.

Supreme Court Case U.S. v. Russell 411 US 423 (1973), the court held

"Due Process defense based on governmental misconduct is... where the

conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process

principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial

-16-

processes to obtain a conviction.... Government misconduct which violates

the constitutional due process right of a defendant requires dismissal of

criminal charges. LIKEWISE, ALL CHARGES IN THE CASE AT

BAR SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Supreme Court

Justice J. Rehnquist stated: 'There was an intolerable degree of

government participation." And in Brady v. Maryland 3737 USLED 3D

216(1963), the standard was set in this landmark US Supreme Court

case which is considered a Stare Decisis doctrine, when the Court ruled"

the suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused..

violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or

punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"

and in U.S. v. Classic 313 US 299 61 1368(1941) it was held that elected

officials who altered ballots were acting under color of law because they

committed the acts in the course of their employment. Color of Law has

been treated as the same thing as "state action" and is a violation of the

14th Amendment.

In Burton v.

Wilmington Parking 365 US 715 81 S. ct 856 LED 2d 45(1961) which held

"There is a state action whenever the State has so far insinuates itself into

a position of interdependence with the otherwise person whose conduct is

said to violate the 14th Amendment...

-17-

that it must be recognized as a joint participation in the challenged

activity. ".

In light of the above and foregoing, the Petitioner respectfully requests

this U.S. Supreme Court to accept his Writ of Certiorari in respect to

Question # 1 which has been written by a Pro Se in Good Faith.

QUESTION #2. Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause,

and/or in violation of his civil rights and] or was the Stare Dec isis

Doctrine wrongfully ignored, as evidenced by violation of 18 U.S.

Code 242 with a written bribe to a Government Official, to bring

about a false arrest?.

(App H) delineates that Deputy James Butler ID # 05024, the off duty

Sheriff deputy hired by Ms. Cowart; was bribed to effect the arrest of the

Petitioner Anthony Brian Bevan, The bribe is explicit in that The Extra

Duty Request Document had a stipulation added on in cursive hand

writing, that the "Detail will be paid entirely to the Deputy if it occurs." It

did occur.

..

the Petitioner was arrested on 11/1/11... Within 24 hours of

the arrest on 11/1/11, Ms. Cowart completed the bribery transaction by

issuing a second check for $195, that had a notation "remainder of 11/1

to 11/2. (App.H). The Petitioner refers to the following in his Writ to this

Court: U.S. Code 242 states "Whoever, under color of law, statute,

ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,

Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or

laws of the United States, or to difference punishments, pains, or penalties,

on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of color or race, than

are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title

or imprisoned nor more than one year, or both.", Likewise in the U.S.

Supreme Court Case U.S. v. Russell 411 US 423 (1973), the court held

"Due Process defense based on governmental misconduct is... where the

conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process

principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial

processes to obtain a conviction.... Government misconduct which violates

the constitutional due process right of a defendant requires dismissal of

criminal charges. Supreme Court Justice J. Rehnquist stated: "There was

an intolerable degree of government participation." In U.S. v. Classic 313

US 299 61 1368(1941) it was held that elected officials who altered ballots

were acting under color of law because they committed the acts in the

course of their employment. Color of Law has been treated as the same

thing as "state action" and is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

5011

In Burton v. Wilmington Parking 365 US 715 81 S. ct 856 LED 2d

45(1961) which held "There is a state action whenever the State has so far

insinuates itself into a position of interdependence with the otherwise

person whose conduct is said to violate the 14th Amendment... that it must

be recognized as a joint participation in the challenged activity.

".

In light of the above and foregoing, the Petitioner respectfully requests

this U.S. Supreme Court to accept his Writ of Certiorari in respect to

Question # 2 which has been written by a Pro Se in Good Faith.

QUESTION 3: Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, when

Governmental Misconduct occurred that denied his 6th

Amendment guarantee of counsel and the 14th Amendment Clause

of Due process, and/or in violation of 18 U.S. Code 242. and/or in

violation of his civil rights and/ or was the Stare Dec isis Doctrine

wrongfully ignored, especially in respect to Gideon v. Wainright

373 us 335 (1963)?.

The Petitioner discovered that his Counsel, Attorney Thomas Busatta was

an ex investigator for the Lee County Sheriffs Office and that he and the

State Prosecutor, Christine Cummins, planned to hold a deposition of

Deputy Butler without any input from the Petitioner., who was

-20-

incarcerated at the time. Attorney Bussatta who was fired on February

7, 2012 by the Petitioner and his wife, Jane Bevan who had been paying

the legal fees submitted by Attorney Busatta; for this and other factors in

failing to protect his client and for his failure to inform the Petitioner that

he was about to be suspended to practice law by the Florida Bar. The

record shows that he was indeed suspended. Attorney Busatta and State

Prosecutor Christine Cummins were informed in writing and in person

and in the court record, that Attorney Busatta had been fired and the

Petitioner requested that the Deposition be delayed until other Legal

Counsel could be found to represent the Petitioner's interest. In spite of

the situation, Attorney Busatta and the State Prosecutor still proceeded

with Deputy Butler's deposition. The deposition transcripts revealed that

many vital questions were not posed to Deputy Butler, who called

Attorney Busatta, "my friend" at one point. The Petitioner had no

representation and both Attorney Busatta and Attorney Cummins

completed the illegal deposition, the transcript of which was later placed

into the file by the Petitioner. (App. L).. The Petitioner refers to the

following facts in his Writ to this Court: and references : Gideon v.

Wainright 372 US 335 (1963)which is a landmark and historical U.S.

Supreme Court Case and meets the criteria established under the Stare

Decisis Doctrine, which held that the 6th Amendment guarantee

-21-

of counsel in a criminal case is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial

and as such applies to the States through the Due Process Clause of the

14th Amendment. The Petitioner, was deprived of Counsel by two

supposed opposing counsels, the State Attorney, Christine Cummins and

the fired Counsel, Attorney Busatta who had no right to represent the

Petitioner, The transcript of the Deposition shows that on page 1,

Attorney Busatta opened the direct examination of Detective James

Butler by stating "Good afternoon Detective. I'm Attorney Tom Busatta. I

represent the Defendant in this case, Anthony Bevan also known as Brian

Bevan" .The cross examination was conducted by Governmental Agent,

Prosecutor Christine Cummins. The illegal deposition was taken over the

personal objections of Jane Bevan, Trustee for the Petitioner Anthony

Brian Bevan The vocal objections of Jane Bevan, in front of witnesses

.

and Parties to the Deposition, and other employees from the State

Attorneys Office. Trustee, Jane Bevan asked both Attorneys Busatta and

State Attorney Cummins not to proceed. Two male persons from the State

Attorneys Office threatened to arrest Jane Bevan if she did not leave the

State Attorneys Deposition room located at the office of the State

Attorney. The illegal deposition was conducted and completed without

the Petitioner being represented by counsel in violation of Gideon v.

Wainright 372 US 335 (1963)which held that the 6th Amendment which

-22-

held that the 6th Amendment guarantee of counsel in a criminal case is a

fundamental right essential to a fair trial and as such applies to the

States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Christine Cummins, as an agent of the Government, committed

Governmental misconduct in violation of USC Coe 242 when she was

complicit in conducting an illegal deposition.. Florida Rules of Evidence:

under Discovery 3.220(2) state: "at any time during the taking of a

deposition.. upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in

bad faith... the court in which the action is pending may terminate the

deposition". In a Florida Supreme Court case, The Florida Bar v. Karen

Schmidt Cox SC 96217, 2001, the court stated: "The Public clearly

deserves protection from a Prosecutor who determines on, her own when

and how to follow the rules.... The Public expects and deserves fairness

and candor, especially for a Prosecutor who has the power and

responsibility derived from representing the government" The Petitioner

states that the State Courts were appraised of the situation on the

deposition of Deputy Butler but the Petitioner still was denied a fair

hearing despite the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court in the above

cited case of The Florida Bar v. Karen Schmidt C U.S. Code 242 states

"Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom,

willfully subjects any person in. any State, Territory, Commonwealth,

-23-

Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United

States, or to difference punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such

person being an alien, or by reason of color or race, than are prescribed for

the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned nor

more than one year, or both.". Likewise in the U.S. Supreme Court Case

U.S. v. Russell 411 US 423 (1973), the court held "Due Process defense

based on governmental misconduct is... where the conduct of law

enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would

absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a

conviction.. Government misconduct which violates the constitutional due

..

process right of a defendant requires dismissal of criminal charges.

Supreme Court Justice J. Rehnquist stated: "There was an intolerable

degree of government participation."

In light of the above and foregoing, the Petitioner respectfully requests

this U.S. Supreme Court to accept his Writ of Certiorari in respect to

Question # 3 which has been written by a Pro Se in Good Faith.

QUESTION 4: Was the Petitioner denied Due Process, in violation

of the 14th Amendment Clause of Due process, and/or in violation

-24-

of 18 U.S. Code 242 , and/or in violation of his civil rights,

Especially in respect to the fact that he was wrongfully

incarcerated for 3 years after his New Law case had been Nolle

Prossed and Dismissed?

The Petitioner temporarily resided in what was thought a" safe house".

After his release on Probation on 3/4/13. He was arrested again on

5/10/13, a new law case, for pushing a pregnant female, whose stepfather

referred to her as a Drug Dealer and User, A second charge was

resisting an officer without violence. The alleged "victim", Savannah

Vasquez was provided temporary housing along with two of her other

young children in a small house next door to her stepparents where the

Petitioner was residing. Issues and concerns began which included her

then boyfriend and following a verbal confrontation with the Petitioner,,

Ms Vasquez called the Sheriff and reported the Petitioner pushed her by

touching her on the shoulder when they were both in the front yards of

each home. Her childhood friend, who was in the back yard of the small

.

home collaborated the story. There were inconsistencies of time lines

between Ms. Vasquez and her childhood friend, and the stepparents along

with the time line of when the Sheriff was called, all of which was stated

and documented in the Violation of Probation Hearing which was held on

6/24/13 where The Petitioner pled his innocence.. Judge Edward Volz

-25-

presided and found the Petitioner Guilty of the Violation of Probation

and on 9/9/13 sentenced the Petitioner to 36 months incarceration with

the State Department of Corrections. (App. 0). Judge Volz did not use

the Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard which is used in most

criminal cases in Florida, stating there was probable cause to find the

Petitioner guilty. In Nixon v. Singletary 758 S 2d 618 (Fl 2000) which

.

noted that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protect the

accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of

every fact necessary to constitute the crime for which the defendant is

charged. The Re Winshp 397 US 35890 S Ct case has come to stand for a

broader proposition in criminal prosecution in that every essential

element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is

noted in Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 US 466(2000) and in Sullivan v.

Louisiana 508 US 275 (1993). In Bernhard v. State of Florida No 43335

decided on 1/9/74 Justice Roberts wrote: "I am compelled to find that the

lower court erred in revoking Appellant's probation.. .In arriving to this

conclusion, I have the benefit of hindsight which the trial judge did not

have in noting that all the charges on which Appellant was initially

arrested on or with which he was later charged were nolle prossed

subsequent to probation revocation and re-sentencing on on his prior plea

of guilty. ..Appellant's probation, was not later reciprocally reinstated

Kai

and Appellant remains in *504 prison despite the lack of a subsequent

conviction arising from the facts herein for violation of the law, the very

condition of probation he was alleged to have violated. I cannot help but

think revocation would not have occurred had all of the above

requirements of due process been observed, had Appellant been afforded a

preliminary hearing and had his final hearing been delayed until until

disposition of the charges pending before him as in Morrissey and

Gagnon."

The Petitioner contends that these Violation of Probation Hearings are

conducted with a Rush to Judgment as evidenced in the case at bar where

Judge Volz sentenced the Petitioner before the New Law Case was

scheduled to be heard before another Judge, Margaret Steinbeck, where

it was Nolle Prossed and Dismissed.

At the 12/16/13 Hearing before Judge Margaret Steinbeck in the new law

case, the State Prosecutor stated "The State has considered many things,

and at this point is entering a nol pros on this case. Mr Bevan is sentenced

to a DOG sentence in another case and we are happy for him to be on his

way to the Department of Corrections" Judge Steinbeck then stated" So,

the charges in 13CF16047 are dismissed and that takes care of that.. .so

this case is done" (App. R). Governmental Misconduct occurred when the

Prosecutor misled the Court to believe that the other case was

-27-

a completely different case from the one that Judge Steinbeck was

hearing. One could readily infer that maybe the other case a bank

robbery. However, the charges were identical to the charges being heard

by Judge Steinbeck which were the pushing of a pregnant female and

resisting arrest without violence.

However, It was not until 2015 that the Petitioner was told by 2 key

witnesses who had appeared at the VOP Hearing that they found out that

their Stepdaughter, "victim" and the victims friend had lied and given

false testimony at the VOP Hearing.The two witnesses Larry Cowan

,

and Patricia Cowan,the Stepparents of the alleged victim told and gave

Affidavits.. Larry Cowan in his Affidavit dated 12/1/2015 stated that his

stepdaughter (the alleged victim) 'Made up the story that Brian pushed

her and that she asked Tiffany to lie for her"....."I am sad that I discovered

that Savannah was a drug dealer and drug user. Her drug abuse could

account for her bizarre accusations against Brian Bevan'

J

Patricia Cowan,

her affidavit of 1/10/2016 stated "After Brian Bevan went to jail my

stepdaughter, Savannah Vasquez told me and my husband Larry Cowan

that she had made up the story that Brian pushed her and that she asked

Tiffany to lie for her". (App.T) The Petitioner, included the Affidavits in

his briefs to the Second District Court of Appeal as well as in the lower

court

FM

brief in his Post Conviction 3.850 Request with his asking for relief from

the charges brought against him. Both courts were aware of the Newly

Discovered evidence.

It appears that Judge Volz had an ulterior motive in his rush to

judgment and his banishment of the Petitioner into the Prison System. It

was some time after the Petitioner was incarcerated that it was

discovered that Judge Volz had been the Chief Investigator for the State

Attorney's Office when an Investigation was reopened 10 years after the

so called suicide death of a young man, Brad Jackman, who was found

shot at the Sheriffs Hunting Preserve at the Babcock Ranch in Charlotte

County Florida. Some notable people involved in the death, included the

Sheriff at the time and the State Attorney at the time. This case that the

Petitioner and others became involved in, was followed by a major

newspaper and became a much publicized case which ultimately went to

a Florida Grand Jury. Some newspaper articles are attached to this Writ

for the court's reference which outline the social climate in this 20th

Judicial Circuit at the time. The articles include references to the

Petitioner and his Advocating for others to include the suicide Death

investigations in the 1980's, along with the information on the Delbert

Tibbs case, a man who the Petitioner assisted in gaining his freedom who

wrongfully accused and convicted and was on Florida's

-29-

Death Row in the 1970's. by the very same State Attorney who was

involved in the "suicide" death of Brad Jackman. (App P). It should be

noted that the Petitioner is still investigating the Jackman "suicide" as

was given the actual so called suicide note in open court and this note is to

date at a University Forensic Lab.

.

In light of the above and foregoing, the Petitioner respectfully requests

this U.A. Supreme Court to accept his Writ of Certiorari in respect to

Question # 4 which has been written by a Pro Se in Good Faith.

QUESTION 5: Was the Petitioner represented by Ineffective

Counsel whose ineffectiveness and misrepresentation that the

Petitioner was not subject to deportation, resulted in the

Petitioner's Agreement to Plead Guilty, which Plea has now

subjected him to Deportation in Immigration Removal Hearings?.

Petitioner now references the following exchange that took place before

Judge Andrew Swett on 3/4/12: The Petitioner was represented by

Counsel with Criminal Attorney Christopher Whitney who stood by his

side throughout the Hearing and stood "Mute" Judge Swett asked the

Petitioner "Do you understand that if you are not a U.S. Citizen that this

-30-

plea may subject you to deportation?. The Petitioner responded "I

understand that Mr. Whitney explained that it would not be applicable in

my case. "(App.N)

Counsel, Attorney Christopher Whitney's explanation and advise was not

merely ineffective, it was devastating in that the Petitioner is scheduled

for a Master Deportation Hearing before an Immigration Judge on

January 16, 2019.

The Petitioner has been a legal immigrant to the United States since

December of 1962, over 53 years. He has been married to an American

citizen for 50 years, and together they have had two children who were

born and raised in the United States. He has owned several small

manufacturing facilities, employing Americans, holds Patents in England

and America, and is currently involved in a project on Sudden Infant

Death Syndrome (SIDS).

On 5/10/13, some two months after the Plea Hearing with release on

Probation,, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with a New Law

Case of pushing a pregnant female and resisting. arrest and after a

Violation of Probation Hearing, on 9/9/13, he was sentenced to serve 36

months incarceration in the Florida State Prison, where he continued to

fight in court for his exoneration. His New Law case was dismissed on

-31-

12/16/13 after the State filed a Nolle Prosse however his appeal was

denied with only a PER CURIIUM AFFIRMED opinion. The Petitioner

began to file Post Conviction Motion 3.850. These too have been denied

with only a PER CURIUM AFFIRMED by the Florida Second District

Court of Appeal. The Florida Supreme Court denied to accept his Request

for Discretionary Review, by stating they had no Jurisdiction. The

Petitioner was released after serving his time and at his release, he was

noticed to appear before the Immigration authorities. He is now in the

Immigration Court of the United States Department of Justice for

removal proceedings in Case No" A#013-681-533. His next hearing date is

scheduled for 1/16/19 for a Master Hearing. Before Miami Florida

Immigration Judge, Denise Lane who has allowed him to appear by phone

due to his current age of 83 and his medical issues.

This Petitioner now cites Historical and Landmark cases that have set

precedent on ineffective counsel relative to deportation and other issues.

Professional norms for years have required criminal attorneys to discuss

the immigration consequences of a plea agreement with the clients prior

to the plea hearing. In 2010

, the U.S. Supreme Court heard and rendered

a decision in what has become a Landmark case which meets the criteria

of Stare Decisis in Padilla v. Kentucky # 0800800(2010). The Court

determined that the counsel's misadvise regarding immigration

-32-

consequences of a guilty plea fell below the constitutionally required level

of effective assistance of counsel. There are many other significant and

historical cases In INS v. St. Cyr 533 US 289,322(200 1), the court

recognized that the severity of deportation and its importance to an

alien's decision whether to plead guilty to a crime cannot be understated.

In Bridges v. Wixon, 326 US 135L19451326 AT 164, the court stated that

the impact of deportation upon the life of an alien is often as great if not

greater than the imposition of a criminal sentence.

Recognizing that removal of a resident alien can be as severe a

punishment as criminal banishment, James Madison agued in opposition

to the Alien and Sedition Act.: "If the banishment of an alien., be not a

punishment and among the severest of punishments, it will be difficult to

imagine a doom to which the names can be applied. "See: James Madison

Report on the Virginia Resolution of 1799.from the Debates in the several

State Constitutions on the Adoption of Federal Constitution 555 (1836)

Although this James Madison Report was not a legal case per Se, it

certainly is a Historical Document that has set precedent since the

writings of the U.S. Constitution. In Bridges v Wixon the court echoed

Madison: "Though deportation is not technically a criminal proceeding, it

visits a great hardship on the individual and deprives him of the right

-33-

to stay and work in this land of freedom... .Meticulous care must be

exercised lest the procedure by which is deprived of that liberty not meet the

essential standard of fairness." It is noted that the 6th Amendment's

guarantee to the right to assistance of counsel is plainly not limited to

citizens but rather provides protection to the broader category of the

accused. The Amendment requires investigation and preparation, not only

to exonerate, but to secure and protect the rights of the accused and

failure to investigate and file appropriate actions is ineffectiveness.. In

another landmark and historical case that has set precedent, Kim melman

v. Morrison 477 11 S. 365 LED 2d 405 S. Ct 2574(1986) the court held that

the 14th Amendment, which applied the 6th Amendment to the States and

was thus the constitutional backdrop to both Strickland and Padilla.

Established the Constitution's protections for non-citizens, in our nation's

criminal justice system by requiring states to provide the protections of

equality and fundamental fairness to aliens as well as to citizens.. This

U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to counsel is

"

the

right to the effective assistance of counsel as noted in McMann v.

Richardson 397 U.S. 759, 771 N.14 (1970). And that right applies at trial

as well as during plea negotiations. See Hill v. Lockhart 474 US 52(1985).

And in Strickland v. Washington 466 us 688, 104 s.Ct. 2051 (1984) this

-34-

U.S. Supreme Court articulated a two prong test for assessing counsel's

assistance: First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance

was deficient. Second, the Defendant must show that he suffered

prejudice. This Petitioner states that he has met the standard set in

Strickland.in that the counsel's performance was deficient as noted in the

court transcripts of the 3/4/12 Plea hearing and he has now suffered

prejudice with his being in Immigration Court in Removal Proceedings

even though the New Law case where he was found guilty was dismissed

by the Court and Nolle Prossed by the State. Another historical case that

has set precedent on the matter is Downs-Morgan v. United States 765

F2d 1534(11th Cir. 1985) where the Court states the defense counsel's

misrepresentation of the risk of deportation may constitute ineffective

counsel. The Petitioner categorically states that if he had been fully

informed of the consequences of deportation when he Pled No Contest on

3/4/11, that he would not have done so but would have chosen to rather go

to trial on this case, which in his opinion, he could have won. See Hill v.

Lockhart 474 US 52(1985) where the Court stated "That there is a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, (the defendant) would

not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial". The

Petitioner may now be forced from the country he has called home for over

50 years, so the consequences are undisputed.

-35-

In light of the above and foregoing, the Petitioner respectfully requests

this U.S. Supreme Court to accept his Writ of Certorari in respect to

Question # 5 which has been written by a Pro Se in Good Faith.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above and foregoing, especially in regard to the Stare

Decisis Doctrine which must be upheld in all lower courts, which makes

this case of National Importance in as much as contained within this

Writ of Certiorari is the inherent advise to the lower courts of America,

"You are obligated to issue judgments in compliance with the Stare

Decisis Doctrine, dare not be in conflict for to do so will result in reversal

of Judgments by this Supreme Court of America."

RELIEF SOUGHT

Petitioner respectfully requests the United States Supreme Court to

accept the Petitioners Writ of Certiorari.

/

1

Lybmitted

C

Anthony

Brian Bevan