Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gregory Scott Savoy, Petitioner v. Craig M. Burns, et al.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

48 :, 84O

Case no.

Gregory Savoy

V.

FILED

Craig Burns, et al

FEB 2.22019

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT U.S.

'

OR G NA

On Petition

fora

Writ of Certiorari

to the

U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth circuit

---------------------------------------

PetItIon for a Writ of Certiorari

February 22, 2019

Contact: 703-402-8139

Pro Se In Forma Pauperis

Gregory $ott Savoy

DBA Greg Savoy

3 Onondaga Trail

Heçlgesville, WV 25427

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Questions presented;

Considering that "extreme legality is the worst law" (Cicero, "De

Officiis," 44 B.C.) and that there are victims and survivors of the

schizophrenia spectrum of disorders in America who have had no

recourse under law to secure from "the lost code of nature" (Hugo

Grotius, "Dejure bell ac pads "1625 AD.) any relief from "hard

bargains," (Hamilton, "Federalist," no. 80, 1788 A.D.) does it not

default to the justice of constitutional equity to provide them a

juridical path back to society or are they merely exo-constitutional

citizens forever lost?

GIVEN THAT the University of Pittsburgh determined that both

atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs cause a twenty percent

reduction of the volume of the cerebrum, and additionally

concluding that "the chronic exposure of non-human primates to

antipsychotics was associated with reduced brain volume:' a

white-collar RICO-like structure subsequently quashed this

scientific news about their 20 billion dollar industry that thrives by

selling these chemical restraints that are blessed by a U.S. judicial

deference to the judgment of "professionals--whose decisions are

presumptively valid" (Youngberg v. Romeo, U.S. Supreme Court,

1982)

IS THIS COURT happy with a decision in which clean-handed U.S.

citizens have their brains involuntarily reduced in size by twenty

percent while forcibly controlled or coerced under U.S. law and in

which no crimes have been alleged and no trials held?

Is equity the corrective function of the law and not something

different from the law? If not, what is it? Why is equity a named

partner in Section 2, Article III of the U.S. Constitution?

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Parties to the Proceeding

The following parties were selected by the U.S. Magistrate Judge for inclusion on

the docket for an ex parte proceeding in which this petitioner performed no

service of documents upon these parties for an ex pane proceeding;

Craig M. Burns, Tax Commissioner

Virginia Department of Taxation

1957 Westmoreland Street

Richmond, VA 23230

Peter Franchot, Maryland Comptroller

Office of the Comptroller

110 Carroll St.

Annapolis, MD 21411-0001

Dale W. Steager, Tax Commissioner

West Virginia State Department of Taxation

1001 Lee St. E

Charleston, WV 25301

As counseled along the way by the lower courts, there was no service upon these

entities ever (APPENDIX E, Order, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.)

These entities have now been served this petition because the clerk's office of the

U.S. Supreme Court did not engage on this topic and did not provide guidance.

This procedural controversy is one portion of the section called "Statement of the

Case" within this Petition for Certiorari, which follows, but is not at all the central

grievance raised in this petition.

This petitioner elects at this juncture to serve the executive branch because the

central grievance raised at the U.S. District Court was brought under the equity of

the U.S. Constitution, exposing unconstitutional U.S. statutes, and the United

States would have been included had this pro se plaintiff been involved in the

initial defendant selection convened sua sponte by the magistrate judge.

Under 28 U.S.C. §2403(a,) now proudly served is;

Noel Francisco, U.S. Solicitor General

Room 5616, Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

ii.

Pet. for writ Cert. (18-1710, 4th Cir.)

Table of Contents

OpinionsBelow .......................................................................................................................1

Jurisdiction..............................................................................................................................2

Supercedere Jurisdiction

3

Iterations

Cited: Constitutional Equity & Law, Statutory Law, and cases ..............................4

Quashed Authorities ...............................................................................................................7

Statementof the Case ...........................................................................................................8

32

Reason for Granting the Writ

Conclusion

45

Index to Appendices

Appendix A- The unpublished per curiam decision in case no. 18-1710 at the

Fourth Circuit, decision entered on October 25, 2018

Appendix B- The unpublished opinion of the United States District for the

Northern District of West Virginia, found as an "Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation," decision entered June 18, 2018

Anendix C- The unpublished opinion of the magistrate judge at the United

States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, found as a "Report

and Recommendation," decision entered June 1, 2018

Annendix D- Order advising the Petition for Rehearing En Bane is denied at the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, decision entered November 27, 2018

Appendix E- Order advising that service of documents need not be performed;

issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed June 28, 2018

Pet. for Writ Cert. (1-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

Petition for Certiorari

Petitioner in deference to God prays that a writ of certiorari issue from the

Supreme Court of the United States to review the judgments below.

Opinions Below

The opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case no. 18-1710

affirming the "Order Adopting Report and Recommendation" appears at

Appendix Aand is unpublished.

The opinion of the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of West Virginia, found as the "Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation:' appears at Appendix B and is unpublished.

The opinion of the magistrate judge at the United States District Court for the

Northern District of West Virginia, found as the "Report and Recommendation:'

appears at Appendix C and is unpublished.

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Jurisdiction

This case arrives from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

An unpublished per curiam decision in case no. 18-1710 at the Fourth

Circuit was entered on October 25, 2018, found at Appendix A.

A timely petition for Rehearing En Banc in case no. 18-1710 was denied in

the court's order of November 27, 2018, found at Appendix D.

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

Supercedere Jurisdiction

Acknowledgment of supercedere jurisdiction is prayed from this court

under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a,) and service has been fulfilled under Rule 29-4(b) of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not known by this petitioner

if the district court "certified to the Attorney General the fact that the

constitutionality of an Act of Congress was drawn into question;' as described

under Rule 29-4(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Petitioner lacks a view into those court procedures at the U.S. District Court.

However, the docket of the instant case does not indicate that the

unconstitutionality of the health care statutes of the United States were certified

to the Attorney General in regard to the federal inclusion of antipsychotic and

atypical antipsychotic medication (both comprised of phenothiazine) within U.S.

health care statutes, FDA approvals, and NIMH policy.

2

Savoy

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Iterations

Of a Petition to Redress a Single Grievance

Savoy I- March, 2011 to September, 2015Case no. 8827990043 at IRS Appeals before a quasi-judicial appeals officer, Case

no. 12316-12L at U.S. Tax Court, Case no. 13-0972 at the U.S. District Court for DC

Circuit, case no. 14-1901 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case

no. 15-5054 at the U.S. Supreme Court--which was a timely filing for a writ of

certiorari to the fourth circuit in the alternative as an extraordinary writ,

docketed as In Re Gregory Scott Savoy. The petition was tilled;

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS

OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIA SPECTRUM OF DISORDERS

IN AMERICA

Savoy II- May of 2018 to now

Savoy I cases (the Savoy I Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, supra, was

prominently presented to all courts in Savoy II) Case no. 3:18-cv-00086-GMG at

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Case no. 18-1710

at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Supreme Court of the United

States-- a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Savoy

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Cited

Constitutional Equity

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,

arising under this Constitution,..."

--Article III, Section 2, U.S. Constitution

Constitutional Law

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

--First Amendment, Bill of Rights

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

of law;..."

--Fifth Amendment, Bill of Rights

"...

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws,"

Fourteenth Amendment, Reconstruction

ri

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Statutes;

White Collar RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act)

Whoever. for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or

increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity,

murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon,

commits assault resulting in bodily injury upon, or threatens to

commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of any

State or the United States, or attempt or conspires so to do, shall be

punished...

--18 U.S.C. § 1959 (emphasis added)

.

White Collar Kidnapping

(a)Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps,

abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or

otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent

thereof, when— (1) uses. any means. facility, or instrumentality

of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of

the commission of the offense; shall be punished by imprisonment

for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person

results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

. . .

. .

--18 U.S.C. § 1201. Kidnapping (emphasis added)

Statutory Disability Rights honored by the States and Executive Branch

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United

States, as defined in section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by

reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in,

be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under

any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or

under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency

or by the United States Postal Service?"

--Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (emphasis added)

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Statutory Disability Rights Clarified for the Federal Judiciary

"An Act To restore the intent and protections of the Americans with

in enacting the ADA, Congress

Disabilities Act of 1990...

recognized that physical and mental disabilities in no way diminish

a person's right to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that

people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded

from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the

failure to remove societal and institutional barriers;

. . .

--ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Preamble

and "Findings and Purposes:' Sec. 2, (a)

findings, (2,) "in enacting the ADA,"

Extreme Legality

no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or

collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,

whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax

was assessed."

--26 U.S.C. 26 § 7421(a)

Cases

Aikens v. Ingram, case no. 08-2278, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Akermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950)

Rules

Version of Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before Amendment

and a version which was active on May 28, 2018 when this case commenced;

Rule 62(b) Stay Pending the Disposition of a Motion. On appropriate terms for

the opposing party's security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment—or

any proceedings to enforce it—pending disposition of any of the following

motions:

(4) under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order.

--

Savoy

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Quashed Authorities

Journalism

An excerpt from Andrew Solomon's article in the New Yorker magazine, March

17, 2014, "The Reckoning;' in which Adam Lariza's mother, Nancy Lanza, writes to

the attending nurse practitioner concerning the effects of an antipsychotic drug

(Lexapro) on her son, leading up to the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass

murder, to include her own murder;

Excerpt from article;

Nancy reported, "On the third morning he complained of dizziness. By

that afternoon he was disoriented, his speech was disjointed, he couldn't

even figure out how to open his cereal box. He was sweating profusely..

it was actually dripping off his hands. He said he couldn't think. He

was practically vegetative."

. . .

Research

National Library of Medicine/NIH PubMed I.D. #15756305

"The influence of chronic exposure to antipsychotic medications on brain size

before and after tissue fixation: a comparison of haloperidol and olanzapine in

macaque monkeys;" a study by the Department of Psychiatry, The University of

Pittsburgh, 2008

Excerpt from Abstract, emphasis added"However, we Observed a pronounced general shrinkage effect of

approximately 20% and a highly significant variation in shrinkage across

brain regions.In conclusion, chronic exposure of non-human primates

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Statement of the Case

"Tarry a little, there is something else:"

--Portia, Act IV, Scene 1, Venice, A court of justice,

"Merchant of Venice:" by William Shakespeare,

1600 A.D., London, Thomas Heyes, Publisher

The constitution only directs the judiciary to address two activities under

justice; law and equity.

This case hasn't arrived at this court at this juncture because of a

circuit-split, or because of the raising of an issue of national importance, but

merely because of chaos and discord in the lower courts in their handling of

equity.

That is not to say that the mishandling of equity is not of national

importance when it involves a multi-decade extrinsic fraud upon the national

courts by a RICO-like structure, but rather, the procedural mishandling of this

case by the lower courts has outright prevented that nationalized fraud upon the

courts from being presented to both the judiciary and it's monitor, the public.

Ptocedure to attain relief in this case, as dictated by the lower courts, is all

over the place and disorganized and not unific in a messaging that shuns the

affected 1% of the public, that's the victims and survivors of schizophrenia;

"Upon consideration of appellant's motion for leave to file ex

parte, it appears that appellant is requesting to file his motion for

stay on the public docket, but to be relieved of the obligation of

serving the motion on the defendants-appellees. Because the

defendants-appellees were never served with the complaint in the

district court, appellant is not required to serve them with a copy of

hiA motion to stay:"

91

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-17104th Cir.)

Savoy

--For the Court--By Direction Is/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk,

ECF-10, 612812018, case no. 18-1710, Appendix E

That Fourth Circuit decision all makes sense until one inspects the docket

for this ex parte emergency application at the U.S. District Court, a docket

inconsistent with that subsequent and identical ex parte emergency application

for a stay of proceedings at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That

one district court docket is in conflict with the captions of all filings by this

petitioner, a petitioner filing all district court documents and all appellate court

documents as "In Re Gregory Scott Savoy?' For this ex pane emergency

application, no defendants were ever listed or served by the plaintiff at this early

protective juncture of a fuller future action under equity. In a case brought by a

citizen with a grievance under the constitution, it is the magistrate judge that

selected (chose) and placed (bound) three of the possible states involved onto the

docket of an ex parte emergency application for a stay of proceedings to enforce

a judgment, not the plaintiff. The magistrate judge selected these three

defendants from a menu of aggressors from within a much larger RICO-like

structure, a menu as provided by this petitioner in support of equitable relief

under the constitution, with the magistrate judge modifying that docket without

even any consultation during any pretrial inter panes hearing between the

plaintiff and any of these "court-served" defendants--for these are defendants

that have now been electronically court-served solely by that one court itself, not

served by this petitioner. The court took an ex pane emergency action and

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

escalated it into an inter partes proceeding that only involved one consultative

party in a hearing never held at the district court; with that one consultative

party being the magistrate judge.

"The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy

of this Report and Recommendation to all counsel of record as

provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case

Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District

of West Virginia."

--Robert Trumble, "Report and Recommendation,

ECF-4, page 6, U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, case no.

3:18-cv-00086-GMG- Appendix C

Ex parte means ex parte and it means it can only be dismissed ex pane. It

was either discriminatory or "collusive" for the district court to advise those

states of the coming equity action against them--a tip off from the court itself. As

it is, for a petitioner defending his right to have protection from institutionalized

criminal behavior under the Constitution, asking the court for protection was

delicate business enough against this tacitly-defended RICO-like structure; a

RICO-like structure that continues today unabated, as blessed by the national

judiciary, continuing to peddle destructive antipsychotic drugs that have fully

disproven efficacy under PubMed research authorities.

After all, these defendants (states) are participants in an ongoing crime

under the constitution, a crime which was raised within this emergency

application under Savoy II, being this instant and fully appealed ex parte

emergency application for a stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment, and a

crime as previously raised by the more detailed, thoughtful, and revelatory

10

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Extraordinary Writ for Mandamus and Equitable Relief under Savoy I that was

passed over without prejudice at this court (case no. 15-5054, U.S. Supreme Court,

featuring a Petition for Extraordinary Writ which was firmly attached to the

presentation of ECF-1 at the U.S. district court, and quoted, actually, in that ECF-1

application.) One of the three states involved, the State of Virginia, already has a

proven written case history of disability malfeasance within the revelatory

documents of Savoy I, a case history of ignoring both statutory law and

constitutional law when victims or survivors of schizophrenia raise their rarely

heard grievances; with that judicial record of bank account confiscations by the

State of Virginia providing proof of the recurring imminent harm; all was

presented within the materials provided to the magistrate judge as attachments

to:ECF-1. All was presented as justification for a stay of proceedings to enforce a

judgement under Rule 62(b)(4.)

It was not a wise maneuver when the magistrate judge forwarded, by

electronic service, an "out of school" advisory that an emergency stay had been

initiated against the states and that it had been denied by a U.S. District Court,

essentially sending a message of "go ahead and take his money; we will not stand

in the way and we will not uphold any statutory laws that promote participation

and we will not uphold a constitutional First Amendment right to seek relief

under the equity of the constitution during the raising of grievances in a petition;

we will obfuscate; that petition right

...

oil

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

structure?' (no citation for this quote--it's merely a suppositional quote made

arguendo.)

Under equity, the whole purpose of an ex parteemergency stay of

proceedings is to secure immediate protection before any further damage can be

perpetrated by proven aggressors under their proper judgment previously

secured in a state court of law. Those state aggressors from the RICO-like

structure (a structure that emanates outward from several federal health care

bastions within the executive branch--FDA, NIMH, SAMHSA--responsible for

endorsing and peddling dangerous antipsychotics) can be ferreted out later as

defendants, based upon their contrition or based upon the voluntary relief that

might be offered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can most assuredly determine his

own defendants and trespassers in an action under equity, especially with the

executive branch always caught holding a bottle of antipsychotics during these

raids of logic.

First and foremost, though, the short-term blocking of irreversible

financial damages upon a proven pauperis survivor of schizophrenia was a

rightful procedure at the district court under diversity jurisdiction, as explained

in the first two pages of ECF-1 in the section called "Jurisdiction and the Stay?'

The only chance for this petitioner at gaining relief from the State of Virginia was

predicated on an emergency stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment under

Rule 82(b)(4) (as stated within ECF-1) so that a more articulate Rule 60(b)(6

motion under the "saving clause" (as stated within ECF-1) could be written

12

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

concerning a standing judgment from the Richmond City Circuit Court from the

year 2012 (which can be found as a late arriving document from a hostile

non-responsive state government--Virginia, a judgment attached to this case as

ECF 16-7, also being attachment #5 in the written text of the Petition for

Rehearing En Banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.) Instead,

the petitioner is now at this court with a chagrined demeanor, oddly out of

position to his original intentions under constitutional equity, original intentions

as stated clearly in that initial complaint at the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of West Virginia, ECF-1, a complaint in which there was a

section called "The Sequencing and Production" and a complaint in which it was

stated by this petitioner;

Alternately, the pending Motion to Grant Relief could cut

right to the heart of matters and request a first impression ruling

on extraordinary matters, right?

But in the meantime, cited below are just two examples from

the details that might be provided if a first impression ruling is not

pursued, the two examples also constituting the immediate causes

of the emergency stay, and therefore, needing to be covered ex

pane today because of the imminent harm.

--Greg Savoy, ECF-1, ECF page 12, written page #11

The two examples referenced in this quote were the intrusive taxation

cases of the states of Virginia and Maryland and their court and administrative

agency judgments--which firmly exist and which are not speculative in nature,

as incorrectly suggested by the magistrate judge in the R&R. The state of West

Virginia, the petitioner's current domicile jurisdiction, which was selected

13

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Savoy

(chosen) by the magistrate judge for involvement in this case and placed onto the

docket (bound) by soley the choices of the Magistrate Judge, is not even on the

radar yet and ultimately might not even require service by this plaintiff in any

future action under one of the two saving clauses under Rule 60.

West Virginia is mute currently on the statutory rights of schizophrenia

survivors to participate in the economy. But like all fifty states, they continue to

peddle a disproven and destructive substance. Their inclusion or position has yet

to be seen in the evidence that's been researched and presented by this

petitioner today. It's now up to them; it's free choice--as always allowed in God's

universe. But they should be advised that this plaintiff has a thirty year record of

being a recipient of God's miracles. Gambling is also a free choice. It remains to

beseen how wonderful the state of West Virginia is going to be in the matter of

anfipsychotics. It's now up to them to lead the way; it's their gamble in God's

universe.

But the chaos and discord didn't stop at the district court's sua sponte

configuration of case participants from the provided menu. Two more examples

follow-of chaos and discord at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

West ViEginia;

FIRST OF ALL; the magistrate judge misconstrued this plaintiff's work,

plaintiff's work that was far outside of res judicata under the "saving clause?' The

magistrate judge independently raised a sua sponte injunction controlled by res

judicata and not directly tied to any saving clause at all, with the magistrate's

14

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

work being a Rule 65 injunction which, profoundly, a magistrate judge is

forbidden to adjudicate according to the Magistrate's Act ['..except a motion for

injunctive relief:' as stated at 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A,)] which is fully underscored

by identical authorities also cited by the United States District Court Chief Judge

in the Order of Referral prior to the Chief Judge's adoption of that magistrate

judge's R&R, in which the Chief Judge handed off the court's duties for an

emergency action clearly brought under constitutional equity, and in which she

expressly cited the authorities that were to to be applied by the magistrate judge;

"pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A)," a quote found at ECF-3. The magistrate

judge construed himself into a forbidden corner, this petitioner objected loudly

and clearly and with great specificity in ECF-5, and then the Chief Judge

pretended there were no objections in the order adopting the R&R ("as done in

the R&R without objection;' 2nd full paragraph, page 3, Appendix B.) All federal

judges of the lower courts endorsed the Magistrate judge's short sighted paint

job. Exo-constitutional. We don't exist. Malign us to no detriment. No voice in

America.

SECOND OF ALL, the magistrate judge also stated in the R&R that there is

no case or controversy presented, which is instant cause for concern for all

victims and survivors of the schizophrenia spectrum of disorders in America.

• "Because plaintiff fails to present a case or controversy, it is

impropei, for this Court to address his claims or the law.

Acc&rdmgly, it is improper for this Court to address the merits of

Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, regardless of whether

Plaintiff meets any of the four parts of the Winter test."

15

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

--Robert Trumble, "Report and Recommendation,

ECF-4, page 5, U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, case no.

3:18-cv-00086-GMG

Aside from not even raising a TRO or a motion for injunctive relief (as

crafted sua sponte by the magistrate judge in contravention of the Magistrate's

Act,) this petitioner indeed raised an emergency application that presented a

court controversy in need of corrective relief under the equity of the

constitution--a controversy rivalling the historic ones presented to the Taney

court and the Waite court; it's a six decade national controversy involving a

lucrative scheme featuring unconstitutional psychiatric servitude upon a

judicially segregated grouping of Americans, a servitude that's attained by

wielding brain impoverishment drugs upon this segregated grouping of

Americans, all unconstitutional, all unethical, and all in violation of God's

requirements to maintain ongoing and coherent connections between humanity

and it's highly involved designer. The first to arrive and complain at the federal

courts has now arrived for a second time after full transit of the lower courts.

This pro se petitioner raised an airtight action brought under two rules

closely bound by implicit logical syntax, that's Rule 62b)4,) regulating stays of

proceedings to enforce judgments pending Rule 60 motions, and Rule 60(b)(6,)

the saving clause. Unstated anywhere in the magistrate's R&R, this

plaintiff/petitioner indeed raised in the application a recurring lien action by the

State of Virginia under a state court judgment. The State of Virginia is quite adept

16

Savoy

•Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

at executing this action upon this citizen; cited here from ECF-1 but not cited

anywhere in the magistrate's R&R;

"So, the first example of imminent harm; on April 20,2018,

the quasi-judicial case officer for the Virginia Department of

Taxation, Oscar Quijano, commanded today's applicant to

assemble and submit a great many years of state tax returns within

30 days OR once again have a full lien placed against the sole bank

account of today's applicant that holds subsistence income, rent

money, and minimal daily operating funds. The same mechanism

had happened previously in 2014 while today's applicant was fully

underwater and overwhelmed by maintaining a case that was

being pursued with the IRS at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th

Circuit"

--Greg Savoy, ECF-1, ECF page 13, written page 12

Petitioner provided the magistrate judge in written testimony under

penalty of perjury the facts of a State of Virginia fiasco in which this petitioner's

in forma pauperis funds (while actively litigating at the 4th Circuit!) were fully

locked up under an active judgment while petitioner was covering the Ferguson

riots (on the eve of the court decision concerning police officer indictments,)

during per diem work performed for the hard won client of a petitioner who is

certified with a significant disability--the client being the Reuters News Agency

(internet search words to confirm this ongoing per diem employment are "Greg

Savoy Reuters;") and this was all just months before arriving at the U.S. Supreme

Court as a proven in forma pauperis petitioner in 2015. The magistrate judge in

Savoy II was also provided a copy of that Extraordinary Writ from Savoy I that

was presèntètibaèk then to this court upon arrival in 2015 from the

unresponsive fourth circuit--arriving at this high court just as now and seeking

17

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

equitable relief just as now, and fully shunned just as now by the lower courts

under both law and equity, just as now. The magistrate judge was presented not

only the Extraordinary Writ in full form as an attachment to ECF-1, but with

important textual quotes from the writ within ECF-1, such as;

"And finally, antipsychotic medication, which seemed so

important in the early phase of psychosis, appeared to worsen

prospects for recovery over the long-term?"

--Dr. Thomas Insel, as Director NIMH, now former,

"Antipsychotics; Taking the Long View;" August 28, 2013

The Extraordinary Writ is the connective tissue in this "pound of flesh"

case ("Merchant of Venice;' Act W, Scene 1, Venice, A court of justice, supra.)

With quantum temporal assistance from the skilled William Shakespeare,

petitioner is keeping the merchant Antonio metaphorically alive in this section of

the petition because Antonio's unchosen extrinsic law predicament (storms at

sea that seemingly scuttled his entire fleet,) are unlike the chosen predicament of

Ackermann of "Akermann Rule" fame under a Rule 60 motion. Antonio's

unchosen predicament and his fateful outcome will be the strong closer for this

"Statement of the Case" section written by a likewise victim in Antonio's camp,

this petitioner, a victim of some unchosen predicaments (involuntary

commitments, involuntarily medicated, involuntary liabilities throughout life

after ingestion of antipsychotics and the "follow-on" removal of second

amendment rights, coerced under law by the IRS and state taxation departments

to perform unatitàinable acts or else have subsistence income confiscated,

WI

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

. prevented from joining the Delaware Air National Guard in 1987 as a public

affairs officer because of revoked 2nd Amendment rights, thus the government

denial of a rightful career path of national service that's typically, easily, and

statistically taken by many other Eagle Scouts.)

In the three decades before becoming a petitioner under the First

Amendment in 2015 (the Extraordinary Writ,) petitioner was a serene citizen,

peacefully hidden from all aggressors, a citizen who had fashioned an equitable

pathway to full recovery from schizophrenia without medication, defying the

odds for almost three whole decades and, back then, only fleetingly aware of

God's quantum assistance here and there. The only viable pathway available to

recovery in 1984 involved legally "escaping" from psych wards and state

hospitals, something that was not possible under state laws prior to the early

1980's. This necessarily created a full shunning by this petitioner of the federal

and state governments and the programs they mandated for the mentally ill,

including their "follow-on" disability entitlements and endless arts and crafts

programs at a kindergarten level, no less and no kidding; they were immovable

executive branch mandates in cooperation with the states that demanded full

compliance with lifelong ingestion of the suspect substance at the center of this

ease. If no ingestion of the substance then no public housing or otherwise

monetary assistance,all predicated on provision of psychiatrist

signatures--psychiatrists being full participants who also demanded drug

compliance. That act of "escaping" was fully disfavored by all medical

19

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

authorities; private, state, and federal; it still is today--and for clear reasons. If

everybody "escaped" from forced and coerced treatment the profitable business

model of the RICO-like structure would collapse. Society has been mesmerized

and polluted by the state-like propaganda of this RICO-like structure. During the

aftermath of the Sutherland, Texas church shooting both Fox News and MSNBC,

being oppositely charged polar forces of ideology, emblazoned their breaking

news screens with the fictional words, "Shooter escaped from a mental

Institution", proving the deep influence of the RICO-like structure on all

non-partisan American popular thought--it's nearly impossible on the streets of

America to know the fact that "mental institutions" were fully shuttered by the

early 1990's. This breaking news graphic, in an enlightened and sure-footed

society assisted by the members of a responsive judiciary, would have instead

stated "Shooter fled ICU that prescribed substance that reduces brain volume by

twenty peráent?'

Both Savoy I and Savoy II have now presented the work of Dr. Martin

Harrow, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago, School of

Medicine, Psychiatry Department, who longitudinally (20 years) followed

schizophrenia survivors who declined treatment. They had better recoveries and

did not relapse more often than those on antipsychotics for life, vindicating this

petitioner's rightful "escape" along with the approximately 25% of the afflicted

Americans Qibiéëlified treatment and "escaped? Here are his conclusions;

"Starting at the 4.5-year follow-ups and continuing thereafter, SZ

patients not on antipsychotics for prolonged periods were significantly

less likely to be psychotic and experienced more periods of recovery;

20

Savoy

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

they also had more favorable risk and protective factors. SZ patients off

antipsychotics for prolonged periods did not relapse more frequently."

--Dr. Martin Harrow, "Do all schizophrenia

patients need antipsychotic treatment

continuously throughout their lifetime? A

20-year longitudinal study," College of

Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago

PubMedlD# 22340278

In 1984, "escaping" wasn't done easily in a hostile society influenced by

this RICO-like structure. During four years time, from 1980 to 1984, petitioner

had attempted to flee from multiple involuntary commitments by two states in

which consumption of antipsychotics was always mandatory, was always the

first order of business, and was clearly, to this petitioner's personal estimation,

fully debilitating to the mind, restrictive of organic liberty, and a full blockade to

accessing a free unfettered life that was due acitizen in exemplary standing with

society (Eagle Scout, 1979, Del-Mar-Va Council, no convictions, no parking

tickets.) It was a legal mind-trap that few ever escaped back then, including the

famous mathematician and the highly esteemed father of game-theory (the

forerunner to the computer programs of "social media;') John Forbes Nash, jr.,

who no longer had "a beautiful mind;' especially after being forced to endure

brain-shrinking antipsychotics for two tortured decades--with no escape

provided by law during his passage through these institutions 10 years prior to

this petitioner's passage- -despite Nash's ongoing legal protests against

antipsychotics that were never mentioned once in the dutiful pro-antipsychotic

21

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Hollywood movie of the same name, "A Beautiful Mind;' a slick revisionist movie

that rewrote the history of John Nash on behalf of the RICO-like structure. Our

choices in life and our treatment choices were not considered or even allowed,

not ever; exo-constitutional; full removal from society; dismissed.

It's called involuntary for a reason. The word "involuntary" is an anathema

to a constitution originally grounded in pure liberty during simpler and more

behaviorally tolerant times in the greatest nation ever created on Earth so far.

Now, involuntary commitment involves being forcibly wrestled under control by

police and hospital staff, over-drugged into stupor states and comatose states,

placed into straight jackets when refusing the ingestion of these clearly

destructive "medications;" wrist, ankle, and waist-strapped to hospital beds, and

put-into externally locked isolation chambers, effusively called "padded rooms?'

All of this was done to a petitioner who held his lips tightly together in a rightful

refusal to ingest poison over four years time. Like it rougher? That's where the

mind comes into play as the last human frontier. The RICO-like structure

(comprised of a troika of Big Pharma, government, and psychiatrists;

"professionals" as this court called them in Youngberg v. Romeo, 1982) started

legal proceedings to commence ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) hoisting a

vicious "psych-op" threat against drug resistant patients, as done with this

petitioner, all done in order to achieve "drug compliance"--to bend the human

will in Orwell's metaphorical "Room 101?' There shall be no dissenters and

dissenters shall be punished heavily. It is America's dirtiest little secret and it is

22

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

a secret known only by the silenced victims of that dirty little backroom. secret.

It's all still done today. The "silenced population" comprise expertly hidden proof

of a full defiling of the founder's constitutional intents, all hidden away in

professionally locked ICU chambers with the press forever banned. That tactic of

involuntary commitment is the fastest route to picking a target, freezing it,

personalizing it, polarizing it, and leaving it on a pathway to everlasting

stigmatization and a cerebrum reduced in size by one fifth; total annihilation of

both those who hold "disfavored" thoughts and those who cannot hold thoughts,

swept up together in a profitable and sustainable scheme centered on poison.

Involuntary commitment was the primary operating function behind

Soviet control of its citizens prior to the conclusion of the Second Russian

Revolution in 1991. Petitioner is not suggesting an American government

conspiracy but rather a borrowirig of a government conspiracy to create a

public/private enrichment scheme. And the intended purpose of the RICO-like

structure is not relevant, arguendo; all that matters is the unconstitutional nature

of it all. Unconstitutional is a word known to the federal judiciary. It was all

clearly and convincingly conveyed to the magistrate judge in ECF-1; it was a

rightful demand upon the courts to produce emergency protection under the

equity of the constitution--emergency protection so that the parties involved can

sort it all out in a subsequent Rule 60 proceeding, with Rule 60(b)(6) being the

very last hiding spot of egalitarian equity under the natural law of God's

universe. And now, as of December 2018, Rule 62(b)(4) has gone away from

23

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

usage along with many other banned procedural tools of equity, sent off to

obscurity.

For this petitioner thirty five years ago, it took equal amounts of guile,

deception, resistance, evasion, survival and full faith in an unseen God to escape

and begin assembling the prima facie evidence presented here today (for a

second time;) a compilation of lifeworks achieved while being illegally sane (the

internet search words are "Greg Savoy Reuters";) exo-constitutional; non-citizen

while in attendance of national security events as ajournalist or standing just

feet from five U.S. Presidents on behalf of Reuters or other news stations; with

that evidence starting with a standing and breathing person who is himself proof

of full recovery from schizophrenia, one-hundred and ninety pounds of flesh

inextricably entwined with American antipsychotic-free blood that's not easily

separated from flesh in court proceedings ("Merchant of Venice" Act IV, Scene 1,

Venice, A court of justice, supra.) Assisted by unseen forces for over three

decadesuntil reaching a career pinnacle that would be coveted by any sane

American journalist, this fully "certified" petitioner has arrived at this court for

this rare presentation under equity in support of Dr. Harrow's conclusions, an

equity that operates as "cases shrouded in ancient lore and mystery?' On this

quote, see "Rule 60, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules--1946 Amendment;'

or alternately, on background, see the following pre-1946 precedents that are

provided there by this same prolific 1946 committee, a committee that made Rule

60 corrections to the 1938 rollout of the new FRCP--a rollout in which equity was

24

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

diminished to secret hiding locations by a codification movement intolerant to

God's equity;

Wallace it. United States (C.C..A.2d, 1944)142 F.(2d) 240, cert. den.

(1944)323 U.S. 712; Fraser v. Doing(App.D.C. 1942)130 F.(2d) 617;

Jones v. Watts (C.C.A.sth, 1944)142 F.(2d) 575; Preveden v. Hahn

(S.D.N.Y. 1941) 36 F.Supp. 952; Cavallo v. Agwilines, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.

1942) 6 Fed.Rules Sent. 60b.31, Case 2,2 F.R.D. 526; McGinn v.

United States (D.Mass. 1942) 6 Fed.Rules Sent. 60b.51, Case 3,2

F.R.D. 562; City of Shattuck, Oklahoma exreL Versiuls v.

Olivei(W.D.Okla. 1945) 8 Fed.Rules Sent. 60b.31, Case 3; Moore and

Rogers, Federal Relieffrom Civil Judgments (1946) 55 Yale L.J. 623,

631-653; 3 Moore's Federal Practice (1938) 3254 etseq.;

Commentary, Effect of Rule 60b on Other Methods ofRelief From

Judgment, op. cit supra. Cf Norris v. Camp (C.C.A.loth, 1944) 144

E(2d) 1; Reed v. South Atlantic Steamship Co. ofDelaware(D.De1.

1942) 6 Fed.Rules Sent. 60b.31, Case 1; Laughlin v. Berens (D.D.C.

1945) 8 Fed.Rules Sent. 60b.51, Case 1,73 W.L.R. 209.

--Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, 1946 Amendment

Not to sound like Shylock, but is not the absence of legs an automatic and

undisputable trigger to receive disability benefits in America? Does not a

quadriplegic person hobble along with the help of others to enter the courts, with

others stepping lively to hold doors open, with all the surfaces nicely leveled for

wheelchairs? Loss of mind is loss of the operating system that runs the entire

body, not just the legs. At petitioner's time of "escape" in 1984, schizophrenia was

ranked as the third most disabling handicap and it sat between paraplegia and

quadriplegia, yet no assistance was eagerly provided by society or the

government upon refusal of those debilitating "meds;" all doors were shut tight

against this petitioner; full discommendation. If no drug ingestion--then no help.

And forget the Delaware Air National Guard, just forget it.

25

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

No rational reading of the constitution supports this enforced and coerced

ingestion of a repurposed substance (phenothiazine) with striking purposes in

the not-so-distant past. "In 1935, DuPont launched phenothiazine as an

insecticide?' (https://marketbusinessnews.com/dupont-company-information)

A listing at the Encyclopedia Britannica exposes the illogic of using this

substance on the constitutionally protected citizens of America, unedited here

and just as it would be found by any enterprising high schooler in America

researching a school report;

"Phenothiazine, widely used anthelmintic (worming agent)

in veterinary medicine. Phenothiazine is an organic compound

effective against a broad range of parasites in cattle, horses,

poultry, sheep, and swine. A highly toxic drug, it is not

recommended for human use and is not effective in dogs or cats.

Some of the most useful antipsychotic drugs are derivatives of

Phenothiazine. They are widely used to treat the symptoms of

persons suffering from schizophrenia, psychotic depression, the

manic phase of manic-depression, and organic psychoses."

--Encyclopedia Editors at

https:/iwww.britannica.com/science/phenothiazine

citing "University of Maryland Medical

Center--phenothiazine overdose"

The multiple states involved, Virginia and Maryland, have begun to do

what the IRS did first; to intrude by force into the meager and petty holdings of

this one national survivor who has spoken up against that RICO-like structure, a

single person with a strong and amplified whistle in a crowd of people cheering

about their approval of american psychiatric care upon the others, not upon

themselves, psychiatric care by a RICO-like structure which includes portions of

26

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

-

-

Savoy

those same states who are the steady bulk contract purchasers of that poisonous

substance (all fifty states--so in what state shall petitioner find solace?) All fifty

states; that's exactly how you maintain a 20 billion dollar industry--by ripping off

taxpayers while proclaiming to keep them safe from us boogeymen. The lower

courts in Savoy II could not discern the illegalities present for the states. The

lower courts in Savoy II couldn't discern participation violations by the states

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; no controversy according to the

magistrate judge, the chief Judge, and the En Banc Fourth Circuit.

More importantly though, all the lower courts in Savoy II could not discern

the illegality under the U.S. Constitution of the RICO-like structure emanating

outward from the executive branch. It could have done so and then held the

executive branch accountable (see Marbury v. Madison for the authorities to do

so) by citing this widefield extrinsic fraud upon the courts, by defending the

constitution from a domestically attacking enemy (the RICO-like structure) by

raising their own sua snonte action under Rule Bo(d)(i) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure to declare the wholesale and intentional instigation of madness

under an enrichment scheme to be an unconstitutional act. Read the entry by

Nancy Lanza as she pleaded for help concerning Adam's newly prescribed

antipsychotic, Lexapro. The entry is found in its very own special section of this

petition called "Quashed Authorities" and it instantly corrects society's miscast

role for Adam Lanza as "the boogeyman;"

Nancy reported, "On the third morning he complained of dizziness. By

that afternoon he was disoriented, his speech was disjointed, he couldn't

even figure out how to open his cereal box. He was sweating profusely...

27

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

it was actually dripping off his hands. He said he couldn't think.

was practically vegetative."

. . .

He

-Nancy Lanza to the nurse practitioner as reported by

Andrew Solomon, "The Reckoning;' The New Yorker

Magazine, March 17, 2014

Your child? Any judge who has viewed this executive branch illegality

presented in Savoy I and Savoy II has an obligation to the U.S. Constitution and to

the public interests to intercede during any proceeding which has raised this

widefield fraud upon the courts, including this instant proceeding. As written by

the judiciary itself during the oddly prolific 1946 rules committee, the (d)(1)

saving clause under Rule 60 is reserved for mostly the court's use, not for

regular use by litigants. In a case that proves a fraud upon the courts, with a

standard of clear and convincing evidence met by the sum total of PubMed

research, journalism, and the executive branch countervailing authorities and

mea culpas presented in both Savoy I and Savoy II, that initial aggressor and

instigator in this case, the executive branch, should be informed by the courts

that "Thou shalt have justice, more than thou desirest' (Portia, "Merchant of

Venice;' court of justice, supra)

"And the rule expressly does not limit the power of the court, when

fraud has been perpetrated upon it, to give relief under the saving

claus&'

--Notes of advisory committee on rules, 1946 Committee

Savoy II has arrived at this court because the lower courts did not even

believe the clear illegality and the lower courts did not even extend the simple

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

emergency protection that was requested and Savoy II has now arrived timely at

the U.S. Supreme Court in record-breaking time because the petitioner with a

significant disability under statutory law did not relent, petitioner did not rest,

and there has been no imputation of a petitioner's litigative neglect such as in the

cases of Aikens or Akermann- -which are raised now just to reference, as a

contrast, this country's most infamous "saving clause" cases where the fraud

was intrinsic, not extrinsic. It's an extraordinarily powerful and influential

RICO-like structure; like nothing this court has ever voluntarily handled in this

century, like no other institutional misappropriation of the U.S. Constitution and

like something only previously encountered in the decades prior to

Reconstruction.

The stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment is now long overdue upon

this petitioner. Petitioner asked for protection within 24 hours and instead got

misdirection for more than 5,760 hours and the petitioner got no actionable

protection from those state intrusions, just full obfuscation of his constitutional

grievance; a grievance in which the Rule 60(b)(6) motion that's soon to be

presented will raise the disproportionate application of antipsychotics and

involuntary commitments upon African-Americans, which is now proven by

research to greatly exceed a proportional rate of citizen representation, uniting

an old cause of God's with the current one under equity. I raise this fact in honor

of the involuntarily committed Billy, last name unknown, my only friend in 1980

behind locked doors and forever remembered, revered, and held as the high

co

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Savoy

standard for happenstance friendship. For this petitioner as God's witness,

racism in that Tallahassee ICU was ripped wide open for this petitioner's easy

view; but for the press banned.

To provide a disabled petitioner with protection AFTER his financial

destruction is completed by the RICO-like structure is not logical sequencing, not

equitable justice, and fulfils the hardest of bargains doled out in our current

times; causing entrapment in a bureaucratic machine that creates

exo-constitutional citizens who are forever lost, who are forever null and void to

everyone walking around on this Earth, to not include our exalted God who

walks everywhere.

'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes

The thrOned monarch better than his crown;

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,

The attribute to awe and majesty,

Wherein dôthsit the dread and fear of kings;

But mercy is above this sceptred sway;

It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,

It is an attribute to God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God's

When mercy seasons justice.

--Portia, Act IV, Scene 1, Venice, A court of justice,

"Merchant of Venice' William Shakespeare, 1600 A.D.,

London, Thomas Heyes, Publisher

30

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Reason for Granting the Petition

"Equity is not legal Justice but a rectification of legal Justice:'

--Aristotle's Conception of Equity (Epieikeia,)

.Anton-Hermann Chroust, Notre Dame Law

Review, December 1, 1942

A crime under the constitution was raised at a U.S. District Court.

Emergency relief from that crime was first cogently requested under Rule

62(b)(4.) That emergency action was taken to provide plaintiff the time and

protection to then present a binary action under Rule 60(b)(6,) which provides

relief far outside the constraints of res judicata, relief from judgment(s) "for any

other reason that justifies relief?'

Petitioner argued in the Objections to the R&R (ECF-5) that a Rule 60

action can be thought of as being "always pending" once that bar of res judicata

has been overoassed by a superior raising of gross injustice. It all resides outside

of time, just as God does. That's the whole point of pure equity. Once time is

removed by that bar, the timing condition of "pending;' as raised by the Chief

Judge in the order adopting the R&R (Appendix B) is an inarticulate condition to

enable or disable equity and it becomes immaterial as a bar under gross

injustice. The moment that the petitioner had a needle forcibly jabbed into skin

under state care in May of 1980 and phenothiazine poison started invading his

bloodstream, dulling his mind, and distorting his soul from God's view, this

petitioner was due equitable relief, outside res judicata, relief from all the

31

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

participating states in that nationalized crime under a failed executive branch

dogma enforced by the courts themselves--a RICO-like structure.

Rule 62(b)(4) is tied forever to one rule and only one rule, Rule 60 writ

large. Petitioner followed proper civil procedure that was available on the day he

sought protection (May 28, 2018.) It was to be protection from a state that has a

proven track record of locking up the petitioner's bank account (to a proven

detriment upon a hard-won God-given career) and it was to be protection from

an additional state starting to climb up a similar intrusive collections ladder (the

states of Virginia and Maryland, respectively.) During Savoy I an identical state

action using the same exact judgment (issued by the City of Richmond Circuit

Court) occurred at the same exact time that petitioner was writing his

Supplemental Brief for case no. 14-1901 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. That fourth circuit case included a protest of the IRS posting to the states

of fraudulently derived 1040 forms acquired from the petitioner through

coercion [a case in which a challenge was raised under U.S. Code 26

§6330(c)(2)(A)(ii,) raising in a CDP hearing "challenges to the appropriateness of

the collection actions" upon a citizen with a significant hidden disability, a

disability codified by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, all raised to no avail

under law.] That intrusive Virginia state action occurred in the polluted

downstream waters of that initial IRS action and the Virginia action was

documented as occurring within the time frame of the writing of the Appellant's

Supplemental Brief for case no. 14-1901, a brief which had included direct

32

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

evidence from Reuters management (emails) that proved the Virginia state

actions severely hobbled this petitioner's coverage of the Ferguson decision, the

resulting riots, the fires, and the dangerous mayhem; all done without personal

funds available to operate safely as a freelancer; all done with the State of

Virginia being enriched by the petitioner's petty in forma pauperis holdings of

less than $1,400 in petitioner's single solitary BB&T bank account. This maligned

activity by the State of Virginia is all described in the Supplemental Brief from

Savoy I at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which, (by the way, in

passing, and incidentally,) also raised in that Supplemental Brief was the §2254

habeas corpus plight of petitioner's doppelganger Scoff Panetti on the eve of his

execution by the State of Texas; a crime upon a crime by the RICO-like structure.

If you failed to read it when Savoy I passed through this court, I encourage you to

do.so belatedly especially if the divine peace of the fifth circuit is of interest to

you or if you'd enjoy a warm family story related with faith about the Savoy

Family's former church friend, Senior Judge Walter Stapleton of the 3rd

Circuit--2014 American Inns of Court Professionalism Award, Justice A1ito

attending. (Appellant's Supplemental Brief, case. No. 14-1901, U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.) Petitioner is not name dropping; shame on those

who conclude so. Petitioner is stating lifelong concording authorities found

within God's meticulously arranged universe.

Because Rule 62(b)(4) leads only to Rule 60, and to Rule 60 alone, this hard

connection of Rule 62(b)(4) cannot be easily severed or ignored in a Magistrate's

33

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

R&R. There is a single emergency bell written into the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, perhaps emulating the divine providence of God, a highly involved

designer and incessant genetic tinkerer, a divine providence that prodded law

into being in the first place at some unknown juncture in history (as Aristotle

couldn't have been the first; it's simply got to be in our root genetic design.)

When one urgently calls out in finality to God for help it is no different than

asking a court to review a Rule 62(b)(4) emergency stay tied to a Rule 60(b)(6)

request to access the "grand reservoir of equitable power:' It is similar to a

passenger pulling the emergency stop cord on a steam locomotive during

rational and cautious days now long passed from society's grasp.

Recently, Chief Justice Rehnquist explained this old family of rules well at

this court and he saw how they function to serve the equity written pointedly

into the U.S. Constitution (after all, equity is a full named partner and it worked

hard to get there.) In United States v. Beggerly (U.S. Supreme Court case no.

97-731,) Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote about the jurisdictional bar of res judicata

within equity and the condition that needs to be present for it's suspension, with

underlined emphasis added here that supports this beleaguered petitioner's

stark positioning of extrinsic fraud as the driver of a gross injustice;

"Independent actions must, if Rule 60(b) is to be interpreted as

coherent whole, be reserved for those cases of "injustices which, in

certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a

departure" from rigid adherence to the doctrine of resjudicata."

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238,244

(1944).

34

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Savoy

--Chief Justice Rehnquist, United States v.

Beggerly (U.S. Supreme Court case no. 97-731,)

By the syntax of old rule 62, that "coherent whole" must include Rule

62(b)(4) a rule connected back from solely Rule 60, connected back from no

other rule. Without Rule 60 it couldn't exist. It is part of the coherent whole. The

Magistrate judge had no reasonable justification to ignore the Rule 62 law raised

and instead raise speculatively his own law under Rule 85, an injunction which

holds no direct and guaranteed pathway to the "grand reservoir of equitable

power," no direct lineage to Rule 60.

"The undersigned liberally construes Plaintiff's application as a

motion for injunctive relief."

--Magistrate Judge, "Report and Recommendation,"

ECF-4 for case no. 3:18-cv-00086-GMG, U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of West Virginia

Pulling the emergency cord on the steam locomotive became pointless.

How did a federal judge take a citizen's first amendment grievance under the

constitution and shunt the dome-view car onto a dead siding with rusted rails

among the weeds, providing not even a glancing view of the "grand reservoir of

equitable power?"

Answer; it was done by the same exact equity that this petitioner had

raised in expectations of equity being treated as a high science, a high science

described by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story;

"The principles of equity jurisprudence are of a very enlarged and

elevated nature. They are essentially rational, and moulded into a degree

of moral perfection which the law has merely aspired to... The great

branches ofjurisprudence mutually illustrate and support each other.

.

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

The principle of one may often be employed with the most captivating

felicity in the aid of another; and in proportion as the common law

becomes familiar with the lights of equity, it's own code will become

more useful and enlightened."

--Supreme Court Justice Joseph Black

"The Progress of Jurisprudence:' page 234 in "The

Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story,"

Boston: Little, Brown 1852

Under equity, in which laws can apparently be construed by the court

closer to, or further from, their original intent on a plaintiff's behalf or on the

behalf of an expansive RICO-like structure, the magistrate judge in this case

neglected to mention anywhere in the R&R that a crime under the U.S.

Constitution had been presented at the district court; not once described. Instead

the magistrate judge made some facts up, facts not supported by the record

presented in either Savoy I or Savoy If--or anywhere else in petitioner's easily

viewed public life as an award-winning national journalist ("Greg Savoy Reuters"

are the search terms,) a career showcasing an everlasting recovery from

schizophrenia under what can only be deduced as God's instructive care.

"Plaintiff claims that freezing his bank accounts might lead him to

relapse after 30 years in remission from schizophrenia."

--Robert Trumble, "Report and Recommendation,

ECF-4, page 2, U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, case no.

3:18-cv-00086-GMG

This relapse claim is found nowhere in the complaint. This is Hollywood

movie script stuff and the emotional hyperbole of court discrimination.

36

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Savoy

Petitioner is quite proud of his titanium recovery; there's no questioning that. So

how did we end up with such a fictional interpretation of the facts presented?

Here's the answer. "Brutus" and the "Federal Farmer" were essentially

America's first bloggers, stepping up anonymously with op-eds as the

constitution was being written. It was a constitution in which equity and law

could either be strictly separated, causing highly specialized sciences at

separated courts with separated authorities and separated jurisdictions (like the

Keeper of the King's Conscience under England's chancery or the Praetor in

Cicero's Roman time) or it could be stirred into a mish-mash porridge for the

new world masses. As Brutus complained in his advocacy papers, judges would

be able to "explain the constitution according to the reasoning spirit of it, without

being confined to the words or letter," with his prescient conclusion that judges

would be able "to mould the government into almost any shape they pleased:'

Here's the direct result of that judicial mish-mash; the American courts

have judicially molded (by ignoring the implicit words in the Fifth Amendment) a

federal government that supports drugging people by force With a destructive

substance formerly sold by DuPont as an insecticide in the 1930's—and it all

seems peacefully equitable beyond the locked doors that hide these crimes,

under a federal court deference to "professionals"--equitable to the state's

equitable needs alone, forget the right of the individual to a substantive due

process when us innocent citizens are strapped to the bed during involuntary

injection of a debilitating substance, a chemical compound called phenothiazine

37

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

by sober research scientists, a chemical compound never called phenothiazine

by the cash-giddy "professionals" who have repurposed and profitably marketed

this chemical compound as either "antipsychotics" or "atypical antipsychotics?'

No, it's a chemical compound initially used as an industrial dye in the late 1800's

during Joseph Story's rational and cautious time, many decades before DuPont ,

realized it also killed insects. And now it's proven to shrink brains--shrinking the

exalted passageway to God and from God. When a large bulk of souls was

removed from God's direct view did everyone think it would be allowed to

prevail in God's universe? Was it assumed that God is passive in the matters of

design?

I must now remind this court that this country has been painstakingly led

to the adoption in 1787 of a constitution that in no rational or no cautious reading

would ever allow the involuntary reduction of a citizen's brain volume by twenty

percent. If this petitioner is wrong, then this court owes this petitioner and all

others affected a detailed explanation. Two proceedings, Savoy I and Savoy II,

have now requested this explanation from the courts and from the executive

branch. The challenge stands.

Under Rule 80(d)(i,) anybody up for a little court action? It doesn't even

require consensus among the justices of this court. Any single judge or any

single justice can stop this illegality under the constitution. That's what's written

into the oath taken, to defend the constitution from domestic enemies. That's

what is also written for independent actions under Rule 60(d)(1.)

RF

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Savoy

"And the rule expressly does not limit the power of the court, when

fraud has been perpetrated upon it, to give relief under the saving

clause:"

--Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1946 Amendment

On this court's full authority under equity, search in prayer your faith to

receive additional direct authority. But additionally, for the spiritually timid or

the permanently disconnected, see the notes of the 1946 advisory committee for

citations of procedural precedent under Rule 60;

Dobie, Federal Procedure, pages 760-765, compare 639; and

Simkins, Federal Practice, ch. CXXI (pp. 820-830) and ch. CXXII

(pp. 831-834), compare §214. See also, Moore and Rogers, Federal

Relieffrom Civil Judgments (1946) 55 Yale L.J. 623. See also 3

Moore's Federal Practice (1938) 3254 et seq.; Commentary, Effect of

Rule 60b on Other Methods of ReliefFrom Judgment(1941) 4

Fed.Rules Sent. 942, 945; Wallace v. United States (C.C.A.2d, 1944)

142 F.(2d) 240, cert. den. (1944)323 U.S. 712.

--Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules- 1946 Amendment

The proven path to full recovery from schizophrenia is lined by the works

of high science and high faith under God's equity, not the works of government

under law. California records show that in the 1940's, before arrival of this

corrupt drug era that was formed up in the early 1960's under this RICO-like

structure, schizophrenia victims were returned to full employment within no

more than 6 years, and often much less (as presented in the writ of Savoy I.) Now

these same commensurate victims just soak up well deserved lifelong

entitlement funds upon the forceful and needless shrinkage of their cerebrums

39

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th dr.)

Savoy

under a outrageously profitable lifelong ingestion scheme (as presented in Savoy

II;)

"Cerebrum, the largest and uppermost portion of the brain.

The cerebrum consists of the cerebral hemispheres and

accounts for two-thirds of the total weight of the brain. One

hemisphere, usually the left, is functionally dominant,

controlling language and speech. The other hemisphere

interprets visual and spatial information."

--Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica

(at https://www.britannica.com/sciencelcerebrum)

referencing "dominance of the cerebrum" by

contributor Thomas L. Lentz, Professor of Cell Biology,

School of Medicine, Yale University

Because the several states have ongoing cooperation with the executive

branch in both taxation and the fraudulent RICO-like distribution of

antipsychotic medication during state interventions and involuntary

commitments, this specific citizen has adequately in two full proceedings under

the constitution (first in Savoy I and now under Savoy u) justified his equitable

relief from intrusive collection actions, garnishments, liens, and levy's and is not

to be prevented from entering the gates of the U.S. economy by means of

bureaucratic entanglement, bureaucratic harassment, and a public attachment to

"extreme legality" (Cicero, "De Offlciis7 44 B.C.) stating that no suit shall be

brought to restrain the collection of taxes (U.S. Code 28 §7421,) despite a converse

law delivered directly to the courts by Congress stating that all barriers to

participation must be removed (ADA Amendments Act of 2009; Findings and

Purposes.) When fully pursued law and colliding law is proven to not provide

IøJ

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

relief, then equity is called upon succinctly. And when equity can no longer

operate to correct law, then "gross injustice" blossoms under the law--seeding

mayhem in America; church shootings, school shootings, domestic strife, to

name just some of the vile aftereffects of the unconstitutional peddling of

antipsychotics, all peddled under the official guise of U.S. statutory law.

"For that which is equitable seems to be just, and equity is justice

that goes beyond the written law. These omissions are sometimes

involuntary, sometimes voluntary, on the part of legislatures;

involuntary when it may have escaped their notice, voluntary

when, being unable to define for all cases, they are obliged to make

a universal statement, which is not applicable to all, but only to

most cases ; for life would not be long enough to reckon all the

possibilities. If then no exact definition is possible, but legislation

is necessary, one must have recourse to general terms?'

...

--Aristotle's "Rhetoric," J.H. Freese, trans. Loeb

Classical Library, Harvard University Press (1926)

In conclusion, the district court should follow prescribed procedure raised

on May 28th, 2018 under the FRCP and grant the emergency ex parte stay of

proceedings to enforce a judgment and the court should bide it's time while a

Rule 60(b)(6) motion is carefully crafted by this disabled plaintiff.

"It should be noted that Rule 60(b) does not assume to define the

substantive law as to the grounds for vacating judgments, but merely

prescribes the practice in proceedings to obtain relief?'

--Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1946 Amendment

Under Rule 62(b)(4) of this family of Rule 60 rules (as raised cogently at

the U.S. District Court and as responsibly pursued by this petitioner with alacrity

41

Savoy

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

all the way to this terminus--despite a full fetterment and full shunning by the

lower courts) this specific citizen with a significant hidden disability is to be left

alone undisturbed to continue pursuing his proven pathway to recovery from

schizophrenia, which is neither a lucrative or desired position in society, nor

self-selected. Any survivor has to confront the degree to which their cognitive

capabilities were denigrated by these antipsychotics. That is to be a private

humiliation with no further state entanglement during the writing of a Rule

60(b)(8) motion, rightfully couched upon God's universe where time is God's

currency and where time does not apply to law and claim preclusion.

"Hard bargains" are neither a new thing on Earth nor unique to these

times.

"--there is hardly a subject of litigation between individuals, which

may not involve those ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or

hardship, which would render the matter an object of equitable

rather than of legal jurisdiction."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 80, Federal

Judicial Center website, history of equity

(www.c.gov/history/courtsijurisdiction-equity)

There is still much work to be done during this everlasting remission

under God's providence, such as the urgent articulation of a motion for

long-term relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and a resumption of petitioner's advocacy

work as a bond servant to God (see YouTube- "Schizophrenia Boot CampModule One.)

The cause is clear;

"These new data on the long-term outcomes for people with

"schizophrenia" remind us that 100 years after defining this

42

Pet. for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

disorder and 50 years after "breakthrough" medications, we still

have much to learn?'

--Dr. Thomas Insel, as Director NIMH, now former,

"Antipsychotics; Taking the Long view;' August 28, 2013

Where we go from here--is up to all of us within the choices we make as

individuals. That was the whole point of "The Merchant of Venice" and the long

studied effects of desire, will, and faith that led to it's writing.

In technicality, faith in God is not required to be seen by God and to be

assistedbyGod. The mission before us then is to restore the lost technical

connections with God caused by the reduction of the cerebrum by 20%, a

reduction in transmission clarity which, one must assume, caused mighty

consternation at an entangled location both very far from Earth and directly

alongside Earth; that location being quantum eternity.

"...the eye through which I see God is the same eye through

which God sees me;"

--Meister Eckhart, Sermons of Meister Eckhart, 1260

A.D. to 1328 A.D., translated into English by Claude

Field, 1909.

43

Pet, for Writ Cert. (18-1710 4th Cir.)

Savoy

Conclusion

The petition Iota writ of certiorari should be granted;

All truthfully related, one more time, under

penalty of perjury on February 18, 2019,

Gregory Scott Savoy (DBP

33 Onondaga Trail,

Hedgesville, WV 25427

44