Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ronald R. Myles, Petitioner v. United States

No:

v,

r fl fl fl r\r

n

i : H

Supreme Court, S.

FIL)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

OFFICE OFTFC1E<J

RONALD R MYLES, JR.

PETITIONER

V

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENT.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SIXTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................1A

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................ii

A LIST OF ALL PARTIES ..................................iv

OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS ........................v

REVIEW OF COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT ....................x

JURISDICTION ...........................................xi

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

Xii

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ................xliii

INDEX OF APPENDICES ....................................

xvii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................1

ARGUMENT...............................................5

CONCLUSION .............................................11

-IA-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATED THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE/

RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE, BY FUNCTIONING AS [A}N "APPELLATE COURT"

AND APPLYING {A]N APPELLATE REVIEW OF A STATE COURT JUDGMENT

RULING IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THEREBY SETTING A NEW APPELLATE

PRECEDENT THAT CIRCUMVENTS EACH STATES INDIVIDUAL PAREN PATRIAE

POWERS EMBEDDED IN 28 USC § 1738, FULL FAITH CREDIT ACT? DID THE

DISTRICT COURT VIOLATE THE APPELLATE POWER VESTED -IN OUR HONORABLE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THE UNION AGREEMENT OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA? AND '- IF SO, DOES A JUNE 17, 2016 (STATE SEARCH

WARRANT) "LACK SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION7"IN FEDERAL DISTRICT

COURT WHEN THE STATE COURT OF OHIO GAVE A RULING THAT NO SUCH

WARRANT EXISTED?

-1--

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

IF EDVIDENCE IS INHERITED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE PETITIONER RONALD R MYLES, JR'S STATE OF OHIO, AGGRAVATED.Q

ROBBERY CASE, 16-CR-0337, TO BE USED AGAINST HIM IN FEDERAL

DISTRICT COURT, DOES PRIOR STATE "RULINGS" IN CASE NUMBER

337, RECEIVE RES JUDICATAS PRECLUSIVE EFFECT IN FEDERAL

DISTRICT

COURT?

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HAS AFFIRMED IN THEIR

FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY, ON FEBRUARY 21, 2019, THAT THE STATE

COURT OF OHIO GAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT RULING IN RELATION TO

THE SEIZING OF MR MYLES PRIVATE PROPERTY, ON JUNE 17, 2016

AT HIS DAYS INN HOTEL ROOM, THAT THE JUNE 6 2016, STATE

WARRANT, WAS THE SOLE WARRANT IN MRMYLES STATE OF OHIO

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY CASE, NUMBER 337, AT THE JULY 21, 2016

STATE PRE-TRIAL. SHOULD THAT JUNE 6TH WARRANT RULING

HANDED DOWN BY THE STATE COURT, RECEIVE RES JUDICATAS "PRECLUSIVE EFFECT" IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT?

,

...

IF THE JUNE 6TH WARRANT "RULING" IS GIVEN RES JUDICATAS

"PRECLUSIVE EFFECT," BASE ON U.S.C. § 1738, FULL "FAITH

AND CREDIT ACT," DOES A JUNE 17TH, 2016 STATE WARRANT,

"LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION," IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT

COURT?

14) ONCE THE GOVERNMENT INHERITED EVIDENCE FROM MR MYLES STATE

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY CASE, #337, AS WELL AS ANY PRIOR RULINGS

IN THAT CASE, TO BE USED AGAINST HIM IN A FEDERAL INDICTMENT,

DOES THE ROOKER FELDMAN DOCTRINE BAR THE GOVERNMENT, FROM

RECEIVING A[N] APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE JUNE 6TH WARRANT

RULING BEING THE SOLE WARRANT IN THAT CASE?

-11-

15) DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECOME A PARTY OR PRIVY POSING

AS THE FIRST TO MR MYLES STATE OF OHIO AGGRAVATED ROBBERY

CASE #337, ONCE THEY TRIED TO APPEAL THE JUNE 6TH WARRANT

RULING, BY ASKING THE DISTRICT COURT TO APPLY A "GOOD

FAITH" EXCEPTION, TO A[N] ALLEGED JUNE 17TH STATE WARRANT.

THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE STATE OF OHIO'S RULING, AT THE

JULY 21, 2016 StAlE PRE—TRIAL? MONTANA V uNITED STATES,

(1979) 2

56) THE STATE OF OHIO HAS ADMITTED THROUGH WRITTEN MOTION, ON

NOVEMBER 6, 2018, (21 MONTHS AFTER FEDERAL CONVICTION AND

INCARCERATION), THAT THE STATE COURT OF OHIO, HAS NEVER

ORDERED MR MYLES PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM CASE #337, TO BE

GIVEN TO ANY PERSON OR ENTITY, AS SHOWN BY THE DOCKET SHEET

AS WELL, FOR CASE #337. HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT, LAWFULLY

OBTAIN MR MYLES PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM CASE #337, TO BE

USED AGAINST MR MYLES 21 MONTHS AGO, TO SECURE A FEDERAL

CONVICTION, WHEN THERE STILL HASN'T BEEN A FINAL DISPOSITION OR ORDEWOF TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY, FROM THE STATE

COURT?

17) IF THE GOVERNMENT USES EVIDENCE FROM STATE CASE, #337

DOES A JUNE 17TH STATE WARRANT, PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER

IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, IF THE STATE COURT HAS ALREADY

GIVEN A "RULING," THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST, IN CASE #337?

2 "A Final Judgment on the mertis (bars further claims) by parties orprivy

based on the same cause of actions."

-111-

A LIST OF ALL PARTIES

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

iv-

-

CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS

OF THE OPINIONS AND ORDERS

GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANTS PRO SE MOTION FOR A

JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, DOC #63, PG 14 UNPUBLISHED

"The Defendant here was arrested June lThh 2016

on what was at that time 'strictly a state ...'

warrant based on a state &6rhplaint for violations of solely state law. He was not arrested that day, on any federal warrant or violation of federal law; in fact no federal

complaint had been filed at that point. Because

the June 17th arrest was a state, rather than a

federal arrest."

STATE COURT OF OHIO, JULY 21, 2016

...

PRE-TRIAL UNPUBLISHED

The Def: (Line 18) So thè only warrant, the latest warrant, is

June 6th, 2016?

The Court: That was the latest one that was filed.

Excerpt from the January 31st, 2017 Federal Pre-Trial, Doc #126,

Page ID #1910 (Line 21)

The Court: So what I hear the Government saying is if its a matter

that we've already discussed and I've already ruled on,

their- position is you don't get another bite of the

apple. I'll go a little bit in a different direction.

Any rulings made, if they're wrong, I've been wrong before, the Court of Appeals cand decide that issue.

JUDGMENT ENTRY FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY

I, 2019, 4TH PARAGRAPH, PAGE 4 UNPUBLISHED

-v-

JUDGMENT ENTRY FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY

1, 2019, PAGE 4, 4TH PARAGRAPH UNPUBLISHED

"Evidence seized by state officers pursuant to a state search

warrant generally may be used in a federal prosecution, provided fiiat the warrant passes constitutional muster." See United States v Bennett, 170 F3d 632, 636 n.1 (6th Cir 1999)

THE HONORABLE JUDGE JACK ZOUHARYS, DISTRICT COURT DOCKET ENTRY

ON FEBRUARY 13, 2017, IN PART;

UNPUBLISHED

'Voir Dire held on 2/13/2017, as to Ronald R Myles (i).

Defen-

dant made an oral request to include this Court's ruling on his

jurisdictional motion to Dismiss on the Docket. This Court

.

will {n}ot re-visit that issue. It's ruling is reflected on

the (transcript) and is part of the record in this case."

JANUARY 31, 2017, FEDERAL PRE-TRIAL, DOC #126, PAGE ID #1887,

LINE 18, IN PART; GOVERNMENT RESPONSE/ REMARKS. UNPUBLISHED

:Montgomery County search warrant, including the Defendant's

hotel room and car was obtained in the jurisdiction where the

search occurred, which was Montgomery County Ohio. Marian

Count would have no access to these records.

THE GOVERNMENT'S APPELLEE BRIEF, CASE NO 17-3817, DOC #38,

PAGE 21, 1ST PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"...

the record reflects that both the state prosecutor and

court either misunderstood Myles's question or simply misspoke when the state court judge subsequently stated, in passing, that it was unaware of any warrant other than the June

6th arrest warrant.

-vi-

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE, FILED ON 2/1/2017, DOC #43, PAGE

ID #370, 3RD PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"In fact, a judge in Marian County would have no idea, what search warrants were obtained and executed in Montgomery County,

or any other county for that matter. Like, he would not have

readily ....available even search warrants filed in his own prefl

siding county, during a routine court appearance.

GOVERNMENT'S APPELLEE BRIEF, CASE NO 17-3817, DOC # 38, PAGE 11,

LAST PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"July 22, 2016, Myles filed a suppres motion in his state aggravated robbery case. The state court judge did not rule on t

the motion, however, because it was dismissed, the case without

prejudice, at the state prosecutor's request..."

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH CIRCUIT FINAL JUDGMENT

ENTRY, ON FEBRUARY 21, 2019, PAGE 2, LAST PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"The District Court next rejected Myles's motion to suppress

the evidence seized, noting that the June 6th and June 17th

warrants were not invalid for the aforementioned reasons. Alternatively, the court concluded that even if a deficiency

existed in either warrant 'Good Faith,' applied because law enforcement had not act unreasonably or in bad faith. See Her—

ing v United States, 555 U.S. 135, 142, 144-45 (2009).

—vii--

STATE OF OHIO MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

EVIDENCE: November 6, 2018 12:11 PM UNPUBLISHED

"Defendant alleges that the State is illegally holding $150,000

in cash and 2004 Mercedes Benz C Class vehicle which belonged

to Defendant.

SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FEBRUARY

21, 2019, PAGE 4, 3RD PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"'the Government was not a party to the state action. See

Kettering Health Network, 816 F3d at 415."

SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FEBRUARY

21, 2019, PAGE 4, 3RD PARAGRAPH:

UNPUBLISHED

"The Rooker-Feldman and res judicata doctrines do not apply because the state court did not address Myles's argument on the

merits and issue a decision. See Kettering Health Network, 816

F3d at 415, Berry, 688 F3d at 299.

SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FEBRUARY

21, 2019, PAGE 3, 4TH PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"In support of his argument that the Rooker-Feldman and Res Judicata Doctrines required the District Court to grant his motion

to suppress and return his property, Myles relies on the state

judge's purported "ruling" on - Jui21, 2016, that the June 6th

-viii-

warrant was the sole warrant.

He further argues that the state

court's "ruling" precluded application of the good-faith exception [June 17th state search warrant].

The Rooker-Feldman doc-

trine "bars attempts by a federal plaintiff to receie appellate

review of a state court deciâion in a federal district court."

SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FEBRUARY

21, 2019, PAGE 2, 2ND PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"He challenged the the validity of both warrants and asserted,

among other things, that the June 17th warrant, had not yet

beençiifU at the time of the search, as purportedly shown by

- -

a date stamp of June 24, 2016, and by a state judge's comment

at a pre-trial hearing - on July 21st, 2016."

SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FEBRUARY

21, 2019, PAGE 2, 3RD PARAGRAPH: UNPUBLISHED

"As to the June 17th search warrant, the district court concl'Zdf4l that law enforcement did obtain it on that date, shortly

after Myles arrest, but simply had not filed it in court until

2

June 24.

2 See both Docket State Docket Sheets, Appendix F and Appendix I, no June 17th

state search warrant appears on June 24th

-viii'-

REVIEW OF COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT

SIXTH CIRCUIT

The Federal District Court had juridiction under 18 USC §

3231 (R 39 Superseding Indictment, Page ID # 346).

On July 27, 2017, The Federal District Court entered FINAL

JUDGMENT against Defendant—Appellant, Ronald R Myles, Jr., (R

104, Judgment, Page ID #1693;(R 105 Amended Judgment, Page ID

# 1701).

JURISDICTION

The Sixth Circuit entered a FINAL -JUDGMENT against Appel—

lant, RONALD R MYLES, JR., on February 21, 2019. This Court

has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.0 § 1291.

Ix

—xi—

TABLE

.AflTHORITIES

PAGE NO

Rooker—Feldman Doctrine

DC Court of Appeal v Feldman, 460 US 462 (1983)

Rooker v Fid Tr Co, 263 US 413 (1923)

Doctrine of Res Judicata

Migra v Warren City Sch Bd of Educ, 465 75,- 80-85

( 1 984)

3

.........................................

Ohio Res Judicata Law

United States ex rel v Sheldon v Ketterin Health

Network, 816 F3d 399, 415 (6th Cir 2016)(quoting

Hapwood v City of Warren, 127 F3d 490, 493 (6th

Ci

2

§ 1738 State and Territorial Statutes and Judicial

Proceedings 'Full Faith Credit' .................

3

Montana v United States,

440 US 147, 153 (1979)

6

Midland Asphalt Corp v United States

489 US 794, 798 (1989) ........................

11

Caitlin v United States

324 US 229, 233 (1945)

10

United States v Bennett,

170 F3d 632, 636 n. 1 (6th Cir 1999)

10

r

1997)

......................................

Supreme Court Review,

28 U.S.C.S. § 1257(a)

—xii—

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE NO

Kettering Network,

816 F3d at 415 ..................................

9

Berry,

688 F3d at 299 .................................

9

Herring v United States,

555 US 135, 142, 144-145 (2009) ................

3

Paren Patriae Powers

—xiii—

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

- Under the Doctrine of Res Judicata,

federal courts must give the same preclusive effect to state

Res Jud:icata Doctrine_

court judgments as those judgments would receive in hte courts

of the rendering state. S Migra v Warren City Sch Dist Bd of

Educ., 465 US 75, 80-85 (1984).

Ohio ResJudicata Law' In Ohio, Res Judicata has four elements,

(1) a prior final, valid decision on the mertis by a court of

competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same

parties, or the privies, as the first; (3) ajc'ñd (action

raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the

first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous

action. United States ex rel. Sheldon v Kettering Health Network, 816 F3d 399, 415 (6th Cir 2016)(quoting Hapwood v City of

Warren, 127 F3d 490, 493 (6th Cir 1997)).

8.State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings;

full faith and credit

The Acts of legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession

of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated

by affixing the seal of cuh State, Territory or Possession

hereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of

and such State, Territory or Possession, of copies thereof,

shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United

States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation

of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists,

together with a certificate of a judge of he court that the said

attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial

proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the

same full faith and credit in every court with the United States

X1jjj—

and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from

which they are taken.

A FINAL JUDGMENT: On the merits bars further claims, by par—

ties or their privies, posing as the 1st based on the same

cause of actions. Montana v United States, 440 US 147, 153

(1979).

Midland Asphalt Corp: In criminal cases this prohibits Appellate Review, until (after) conviction and imposition of a sentence. Midland Asphalt Corp v United States, 489 US 794, 798

(1989).

Caitlin v United States: A decision is FINAL if it ends the

argument on the merits, and leaves nothing for the Court to do

but executed the judgment. Caitlin v United States, 324 US 229

233 (1945).

United States v Bennett:.-

-

-

--

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

Evidence seized by state offi—

-

cers pursuant to a state search warrant generally may be used

in a federal prosecution, provided that the warrant passes

constitutional muster. See United States v Bennett, 170 F3d

632, 636 n.1 (6th Cir 1999).

28 U.S.C.S. § 1257(a): 'states a final judgment from the highest court of a state, may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court by Writ of Certiorari.

Kettering Network: the Government was not a party0 the state

court action

-

See Kettering Health Network, 816 F3d at 415

xv—

-

Berry: See Kettering Health Network, 816 F3d at 415. The Rook—

er Feldman and Res Judicata do not apply because the state court

did not address the argument on the mertis and issue a decision.

See Berry, 688 F3d at 299.

—xvi—

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: United States Court of Appeals Decision ; 2/21/2019

APPENDIX B: SEáEë of Ohio, Aggravated Robbery Case, Case No:

16-cr-0337, Dismissed without Prejudice

APPENDIX C: State of Ohio Indictment, Case No: 16-cr-0337,

June 30, 2016, Indictment of Ronald R Myles, Jr

APPENDIX D: June 6, 2016, Arrest Warrant and Complaint, on

Ronald R Myles, Jr; CRA 1601375; Marion Municipal

Court

APPENDIX E: Federal Superseding Indictment, January 30, 2017;

Case No: 3:16-cr-251

APPENDIX F: Marion Municipal Court, Docket Sheet, Case No: CRA

1601375; June 6th warrant filed, no evidence of a

June 17th state search warrant, alleged by the Gov't

APPENDIX G: Federal Complaint, filed by FBI Agent, Matthew F

Komer, on July 25th, 2016, attempting to appeal the

June 6th warrant ruling, handed down in state court

APPENDIX H: States Memorandum Contra Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed on November 6, 2018, in Case

No: #337

APPENDIX I: Docket Sheet, for Aggravated Robbery Case, 2016cr-0337, State of Ohio v Ronald R Myles, once

again, no evidence of a June 17th state search warrant, alleged by the Gov't

APPENDIX J: The July 21st, 2016, State Pre-Trial Transcripts

pertaining to the Aggravated Robbery Case, #0337

confirming the June 6th warrant ruling handed down

in state court

APPENDIX K: Ruling on Suppression Motion and Return of Private

Property in Case No: #0337, filed on Dec 31, 2018

-xvii-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 17th, 2016, Ronald R Myles Jr., was arrested in

Dayton, Ohio, at a DaysiEnn, Hotel R5om, #133, on what was at

the time, solely a state complaint, for [a]n alleged Bank Rob—

bery by

a]n unidentified black male; on June 4th, 2016.

The basis of Mr. Myles arrest, on June 17th, stems from

a June 6th, 2016, state arrest warrant/complaint .2 Mr. Myles

was not-arrested on June 17th, on ANY federal warrant, or ANY

federal ëomplaint, NOR ANY federal charges, including indictment had been filed,

against Mr. Myles by the federal Gov-

ernment. This was admitted by the Government through written

motion, (See Goverment's Memorandum Contra, on Page 1

-

Cita-

tions of the Official and Unofficial Reports).

Mr. Myles was indicted by the State of Ohio Grand Jury,

on June 30th, 2016, concerning the Bank Robberies of June 4th

and June 17th, 2016.

On July '21st, 2016 after multiple arraingment hearings,

the State of Ohio held a pre—trial, concerning Mr. Myles Aggravated Robbery Case, #337, concerning the alleged Bank Robberies on June 4th and June 17th, 2016. Mr. Myles presented

questions to the State Court of Ohio, in regards to his private

property and what state warrants authorized the taking of his

private property, out of his Days Inn Hotel Room, #133 on

June 17th, 2016.

See Marion Municipal Docket Sheet, State Court arrest and complaint on

June 6, 2016 APPENDIX D & F

3 See State Indictment, #337 ; June 30, 2016 APPENDIX C

2

NC

The State Court (Ohio) gave a Final Ruling on the merits

at the July 21st, 2016 State of 'Ohio Pre—trial, that the June

6th, 2016 State arrest warrant was the sole warrant in the

case. That ruling on the merits, (June 6th sole warrant) was

confirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in their Final Judgment Entry on February 21st, 2019.

Mr. Myles claimed a Fourth Amendment violation, based

on the State Court's ruling, that the June 6th arrest warrant, was the sole warrent in the case, as that warrant did

NOT authorize the seizing of Mr. Myles private property.2

Four [4] days later:on July 25th, 2016, the federal

government filed a complaint (see Complaint, withthe federal District Court.)) The Government illegally obtained, Mr.

Myles private property, from the Marion Sheriff's Department, without a federal search warrant, or a State Court's

Final Property Disposition or Order of Transfer, to the Federal Government, from the State Court of Ohio. On August

3, 2016, the Federal Government illegally presented Mr. Myles

private property of which was governed by the State of Ohio

Constitution, to secure a Federal Indictment on Mr. Myles. *

On January 19, 2017, at a Federal Pre—trial Hearing

the Government commissioned the Federal Disrict Court against

Ohio's Res Judicata Doctrine, while violating the Rooker—

Feldman Doctrine, to funtion as [a]n Appellate Court circumventing the State of Ohio's State Parens Patriae Powers

The State Case wassubsequently dismisse&on Augist 26, 2016, see

'

State Case dismissal on Case #337 APPENXIXB

'Following the July 21st, 2016 State Pre—Trial, on Case #337

*This Indictment was later superseded on January 30, 2017 by Gov't. See

superseding Indictment APPENDIX E

2

2

-.

imbedded in 28 Usc § 1738 'Full Faith and Credit Act.' To apply [a]n Appellate Review of the June 6th warrant ruling

handed down by the State Court of Ohio, at the State Pre-Trial

on July 21st, 2016.

The District Court erroneously gave [a]n Appellate Ruling, and applied "Good Faith Exception," to [a]n' alleged

June 17th, 2016 state search warrant, against the State Courts

ruling. Mr. Myles is/was asking the Federal Disrict Court and

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, to apply the Res Judicata

and Rooker-Feldman Doctrines, to give Preclusive Effect to the

State Court's ruling, that the June 6th, 2016 was the sole

warrant, in Mr. Myles state case, #337.

Mr.Mylesws asking the, Cotii- s 1!to apply the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

to 'bar' the Government from seeking [a]n Appellate Review, of

the June 6th, being the sole warrant in Mr. Myles state case.

Mr. Myles is arguing that because of the state court's

ruling, that the June 6th warrant is the sole warrant in Mr.

Myles state case, #337. That Final Judgment on the merits,

would render a June 17th state search warrant, ("lacks subject matter jurisdiction"), in Federal District Court.

Mr. Myles is arguing that too allow the Government to

receive [a]n Appellate Review, of the state court's ruling

in a Federal District Court :.........7 violates 28 U.S.C.S §

1257(a), final judgments of the state may be reviewd by the

-3-

Supreme Court and sets a new Appellate Precedent that violates

the Union Agreement of the United States of America, established by Abraham Lincoln, by violating the State of Ohio Parens

Patriae policy embedded in state court rulings.

The Parens Patriae policy of each state, is the core

value, of what's Res Judicata Doctrine, Preclusive Effect is

desgined to protect. The June 6th warrant ruling being the

sole warrant in Mr. Myles state case, #337, was confirmed by

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In

their Final Judgment

Entry, February 21st, 2019.

The Federal Government inherited all of their alleged

evidence, from the State of Ohio's case against Mr. Myles,

Case #337 and as well, by law and statute, they also inherited state court -ruling Judgments, according to § 1738 'Full

Faith and Credit Act.' The violation of the Union Agreement,

of the Federal Government, seeking [a]n Appellate Review of

prior state court judgment rulings handed down in Mr. Myles

state case, #337, violating the Union Agreement, embedded in

the United States Consitution is the basis of Mr. Myles appeal

to the Supreme Court on the Certiorari.

The Federal Government ultimately utilized [a]n illegal

state search warrant "June 17th" to admit illegal evidence

in Federal District Court, to secure a federal conviction by

Jury, on Mr. Myles, on February 16th, 2017.

—4—

ARGUMENT

At the July 21st, 2016 State pre-trial in regards to Mr.

Myles State of Ohio, Aggravated Robbery Case, #337, Mr. Myles

questioned the Court about the seizing of his private property and questions were there any other warrants, after the

June 6, 2016, state warrant that permitted the seizing of his

property. The state court gave a final judgment on the merits

and subsequently stated "the June 6th 2016 arrest warrant,"

was the sole warrant in the case.

(This ruling by the state

of Ohio, was confirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

in their final judgment entry, on February 21st, 2019

While the Goverment may be at liberty to use evidence and

rulings, in Mr. Myles State of Ohio, Aggravated Robbery Case,

#337 to be used against him in their federal complaint, the

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bars attempts by federal plaintiff's

to receive Appellate Reviews of State Court judgments in

Federal District Court.

The Government commissioned The Federal District Court

on January 19th, 2017 Mr. Myles federal suppression hearing,

to function as an "Appellate Court" and apply a "Good Faith

Exception, to an alleged June 17th, 2016 State search warrant

that the State Court of Ohio, has already given a Final Judgment on the merits that it doesn't exist in Case #337. A Final

See July 21, 2016 State Pre-trial, Case No: #337, pg 6, line 18, 19

APPENDTX J

3 See APPENDIX A, PG3,( 53

2

-5-

Judgment on the merits bars further claims, by parties or their

privies, posing as the 1st based on the same cause of actions.

Montana v United States, 440 US 147, 153 (1979).

The Sixth Circuit erred in their judgment entry, on Page

4, ¶ 3, by stating the federal Government was not a party to

the State Court action, concerning Mr. Myles State Aggravated

Robbery Case, #337. Hoever, the Federal Government became a

privy posing as the first, the moment the Government inherited

alleged evidence from State Case #337 and appealed the June

6th warrant ruling, handed down by state court, with an alleged

June 17th State search warrant in Federal District Court.

This is one of the four elements of (Ohio's Res Judicata

Law). (2) A second action involving the same parties or their

privies as the first.

(The National Importance) surrounding the errors in the

District Court applying an Appellate Review, of the June 6th

warrant ruling handed down by the State Court of Ohio, sets an

ugly precedent and could be catastrphic for the United States

as a nation.

The power to appeal State Judgment rulings outside of

.

..

state jurisdiction, is vested in our Honorable United States

Supreme Court for a reason. Quoting 28 IJ.S.C.S. § 1257(a):

"states a final judgment from the highest court of • a state may

be be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court by Writ of

Certiorari. The Rooker—Feldman Doctrine is based on the nega-

-6—

tfve inference, that, if Appellate Court Review of such state

judgments is vested in the Supreme Court, then it follows that

such review may not be had in the lower federal courts.

For if each individual state, within the United States

discovered that they were having their State judgment rulings

and state Parens Patriae powers illegally appealed and overturned

in Federal District Cort, circumventing the independant powers

of each state, could cause a legal civil war, across the nation

and a national desire for some states to want to pull out of

(the Union) that unites the 50 states across America, through

our Honorable United State Constitution, with the Honorable

United States Supreme Court at the helm,

In fact, the Paren Patriae Powers of each individual state

within the United States, is the basis of Res Judicata's "Preclusive Effect," principle embedded in 28 U.S.C. 1738 "Full

Faith and Credit Act."

The records and Judicial Proceedings

of any such state, shall be proved or admitted in other courts

within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the

courts of such states, from which they are taken.

Under Res Judicata's Doctrine, Federal Courts must give

the same "Preclusive Effect," to State Court Judgments as

those judgments would receive in the Courts of the rendering

State (Ohio in this case).

Thus, at the July 21st, 2016 State pre-trial concerning

Mr. Myles State of Ohio Aggravated Robbery Case #337, if the

-7-

Government wanted to inherit evidence from the State of Ohio,

to be used against Mr. Myles in their Federal Complaint/Charge

the rulings at the July 21, 2016, State of Ohio pre—trial

...

transcripts from Case #337, was supposed to receive 28 U.S.C.

§ 1738 "Full Faith Credit."

When the State Court of Ohio gave a Final Judgment ruling

on the merits that the June 6th, 2016 arrest warrant was the

sole warrant, in the State case #337, that Final Judgment on

the merits was supposed to receive Res Judicata's "Preclusive

Effect," in Federal District Court.

The Rooker—Feldman Doctrine was suppose to bar attempts

by the Federal Government to receive an Appellate "Good Faith

Exception" Review, alleging a June 17th, State Search warrant

in Federal District Court.

(The National Importance)of causing a possible legal civil

war, and national desires of some states to want to pull out

of the Union, by settin a New Appellate Precedent in Federal

District COurt, circumventing each states individual Parens

Patriae Powers, is why a June 17, 2016 State Search warrant

alleged by the Government against the state courts ruling,

"lacks subject matter jurisdiction," in Federal District Court.

The Appellate Court also erred in their Judgment Entry,

Page 4, Paragraph 3, when they stated The Rooker—Feldman Doc—

trine and Res Judicata Doctrine, do NOT ápply bcause the State

—8—

LI1IIiJ

Court did NOT address Mr. Myles argument (his Suppresssion /

Dismiss Motion) on the merits and issue a decision. See Kett—

ering Network

,

816 F3d at 415; Berry 688 F3d at 299.

Mr. Myles was NOT asking for Rooker—Feldman or Res Judic—

ata Doctrines, to be applied to any motion, he filed withttihe

State of Ohio, because their was never a FINAL JUDGMENT/RULING

on any motion he filed with the State of Ohio, pertaining to

his Case #337.

This further lends the question, if the State Court NEVER

gave a fuling on Mr. Myles Suppression Motion, on Case #337,

how did the Government, legally inherit any evidence from Mr.

Myles State Case, #337, if the Judge have NEVER given a ruling

on his Suppression Motion, NEVER gave an ORDER of Property Transfer to the Government, nor a final disposition of the property

transfer, to the federal Government ?2

In fact, the Government has admitted during federal sentencing, to have no involvment in any forfeitures concerning Mr.

Myles Aggravated Robbery Case, #337. So how did the Government

legally use evidence, from State Case #337, in Federal District

Court, to secure a federal conviction on Mr. Myles?

Mr. Myles asked the State Court about the 'seizing' of his

private pr operty and the State Court of Ohio gave a FINAL JUDGMENT on the merits that the June 6th 2016, arrest warrant was

the sole warrant in the case. This State Court ruling was confirmed by the Sikhh Circuit Court of Appeals FINAL JUDGMENT

2See. States Court 'ruling on Suppression, Dec 31, 2018, Appendix K

'See State Docket Sheet, #337, no goverrment forfeiture or property request

pertaining to #337 APPENDIX I

Entry on February 21, 2019, Page 3, Paragraph 4.

That was the sole ruling handed down by the State Court in

Case #337, and the only ruling Mr. Myles is asking that the

Rooker-Feldman and Res Judicata Doctrine be applied to, if the

Government is going to inherit evidence from the (The State of

Ohio) to be used in their Federal Complaint, against Mr. Myles.

The June 6th warrant ruling could not only render a[n] alleged (June 17th State Search Warrant) to "lack subject matter

jurisdiction" in Federal District Court, but a June 17th State

search warrant would NOT pass constitutional muster, in relation

to 28 USC § 1738 "Full Faith and Credit Act,'" of State Court rulings, once the State Court gave a ruling "that no such warrant

exist!!" See Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY, Page 4, Paragraph 4 (State Warrants must pass constitutional muster) United States v Bennett, 170 F3d 632, 636 n. 1 (6th

Cir 1999).

When the State Court handed down the June 6th warrant, being the sole warrant in Mr. Myles Aggravated Robbery, Case #

337, State Case, the record reflects that the State of Ohio,

Mr. Myles and the State Court were all in [a]greement with this

"ruling" in relation to thereizing of Mr. Myles private property: "A decision is FINAL if it ends the argument on the

merits, and leaves nothing for the Court to do but execute the

judgment." Catlin v United States, 324 US 229, 233 (1945).

"In criminal cases this prohibits Appellate Review, until

-10-

(after) conviction and imposition of a sentence." Midland Asphalt Corp v United States, 489 US 794, 798 (1989).

Thus, NOT only was a "Good Faith Exception" Appellate Review, of the June 6th warrant, being the sole warrant in Mr.

Myles State Case, #337, a violation of the Rooker-Feldman, Res

Judicata Doctrines, in Federal District Court, rendering a[n]

alleged June 17th, State search warrant to "lack subject matter

jurisdiction," but Mr. Myles was also never convicted in State

Court on the charges of Case #337, which further bars a[n] Appellate Review .2 Midland Asphalt Corp v United States (1989).

CONCLUSION

The District Court applying a "Good Faith Exception" Appellate Review, with a[n] alleged June 17th (State Search warrant) against the State Court's ruling,3 that the June 6th, 2016

arrest warrant, was the sole warrant in the case violating the

78 U.S.C.S. § 1257(a) Supreme Court review of State Court Judgments, The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and Res Judicata Preclusive

Effect, imbedded in 28 USC § 1738 "Full Faith and Credit Act."

Is why the Petition for a Wfit of Certiarori should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, on this

2

/5"" day of April 2019.

See State Case Dismissal, Myles v State of Ohio, Agg Robb Case #337 1B

Violating the State of Ohio's Parens Patriae Powers and the Union

Agreement of the United States of America, which was established by

The Honorable Abraham Lincoln, Pres of the United States.

-11-