Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rubin R. Weeks, Petitioner v. Jason Lewis, Warden
Supreme Court briefJul 19, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:609124999 [P
1/1]
VT^RS'cT
VT;T
•v«*• -
$<. . J *■“ '
V
jk-
.. > **, <
- k*2f/
&SS«i
5vF> r-' ,;r
.J.Cr!»*-r.
-?•.►
.-f.
/ii
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 6/23/2019 8:37:48 PM EST, Letter ID: 609124999
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
ORIGINAL
Certiorari 1.
19-
11 k
Z'
*
Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
QJ V' -i- vv
JUL 1 9 2019
NO:
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RUBIN RURIE WEEKS -PETITIONER
VS.
JASON LEWIS, Warden of SECC,
JIM HOOD, Mississippi Attorney General,
CIRCUIT COURT OF CAPE GIRARDEAU
COUNTY, MISSOUR, - RESPONDENTS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
RUBIN RURIE WEEKS, Petitioner,pro se
300 EAST PEDRO SIMMONS DRIVE
SECC (4A-101) ( DOC REG. NO. 184303)
CHARLESTON, MISSOURI 63834
DEBBIE M. WEEKS, petitioner's wife
P.O. BOX 3694
GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI
wrongfulconvictedman@gmail.com
FILED
AUG - 8 2019
SUPREEMlFCTOURTLUfiK
mm
|
\
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:619994521 [P
1/1]
<w>
- ' - i
■ ■,, ;*$£*£*
V1'
' ■ ‘i^issr^siijSf*6*KX«~
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/16/2019 9:40:23 AM EST, Letter ID: 619994521
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404A0A101
Certiorari &.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
(1).Does Petitioner have the Fundamental Rights to be free from the Missouri State Court's void judgment that has
him restrained of liberty ?
(2). Does Petitioner have fundamental Rights to be free from the Mississippi Department of Corrections' void
detainer hold that has him restrained of liberty ?
(3). When States provide a remedy to challenge void judgments or void detainers without limitations on time to file
or raise the error, even if the time to file has expired "is relief discretionary or is relief mandatory" like this Court ruled
"that void judgments constitute no jurisdiction, they are simply void, and form no bar to recovery sought, even to
reversal , in opposition to them, and all persons concerened in executing such judgments or sentences, are
considered, in law, as trespassers" ?
(4). Does Petitioner have a fundamental Right to challenge the void judgment and void detainer under 28 U.S.C
and 2241 and 2243 since the Great Writ operation has always been the function to challenge the State's jurisdiction
to imprison a person ?
(5). Is the claim of the void judgment and void detainer having no legal force or binding effect and being nuil barred
by 28 U.S.C. and 2244 ?
(6). Does the Petitioner have fundamental Rights to be free from the Mississippi Parole Board arbitrary action by
waiting 22 years until June 8. 2015 to revoke the Mississippi June 7. 1991 parole for the August 22. 1988 (4) year
sentence which had expired on April 22. 1991 and after petitioner was arrested in Mississippi on November 2. 1991
under the September 16. 1991 MSDOC warrant which under 47-7-27 Miss. Code Ann 1991 required the parole
revocation hearing within 30 days ?
(7). Does Petitioner have a fundamental Right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment torture under a
void State Court judgment commitment order ?
(8). Does Petitioner have fundamental Rights that would Bar the States from placing him in " sovereignty place"
without the Due process of law 14th Amendment protection ?
(9). Can Congress ( National Legislation Body) or ( State Legislation Body) created statute or law - hold petitioner
in prison under Void judgment and void detainer where he is dying in torture from lack of adequate medical
treatments from spine and brain and leg injuries caused by a police brutal beating at the time of arrest just days after
a spine surgery ?
(I)
1
'1
-I
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:614105526 [P
1/1]
'•■"’7-' r^7TT^7:"’:!;v.rt
'••V- ' •
■ V.
&.
• ••
,/r*^.
V.-ViAiV-"-.-'
;r j
J 4___
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/3/2019 10:01:24 AM EST, Letter ID: 614105526
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
CERTIORARI &
LIST OF PARTIES
ALL PARTIES APPEAR IN THE CAPTION OF THE CASE ON THE COVER PAGE.
A LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING IN THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS THE SUBJECT OF
THIS PETITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
FOR PETITIONER :
RUBIN RURIE WEEKS, petitioner, pro se litigant
RUBIN RURIE WEEKS, # 184303
300 East Pedro Simmons Drive
SECC 4A-101
CHARLESTON, MISSOURI 63834
DEBBIE WEEKS, Wife of Petitioner
P.O. BOX 3694
GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI 39505
wrongfulconvictedman@gmail.com
KEVIN L. SCHRIENER, MISSOURI BAR NO. 35490,
LAW AND SCHRIENER LLC
141 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE
SUITE 314
CLAYTON, MISSOURI 63105
kschriener@schrienerlaw.com
Attorneys For Respondents:
FOR RESPONDENTS JASON LEWIS AND
CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASSISTANT ATTORNET GENERAL
STEPHEN D. HAWKE, MISSOURI BAR NO. 35242
P.O. BOX 899
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65102
Stephen.Hawks@ago.no.gov
AND
FOR RESPONDENT JIM HOOD
MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL
BRIDGETTE N. DAVIS, FEDERAL BAR NO. 10458MS
P.O. BOX 220
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39834
bdavi@age.state.ms.us
XI
77
rvw.- vT
r.:
r,
7 «-C l fc.
■r
4
■ s'TTaijirtn r1*—’ I fir%n
Tr* *
tsri.
Si
• i
{ , >
(1 'A
JIV,,'V
I
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625747698 [P
1/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/28/2019 6:04:56 PM EST, Letter ID: 625747698
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404A0A101
Certiorari 4.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINION BELOW.
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
V, VI, VII.VIIII
JURISDICTION
2
CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
3
4-8
ARGUMENT AND REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.
CONCLUSION
8-18
18
PROOF OF SERVICE/CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE,
19-20
INDEX OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX-A- EIGHTH CIRCUIT JUDGMENT APRIL 19 2019.
APPENDIX-B- DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER OCTOBER 15. 2019.
APPENDIX-C- EIGHTH CIRCUIT DENYING EN BANC REHEARING PETITION MAY 24. 2019......
APPENDIX-D- EIGHTH CIRCUIT MANDATE.
APPENDIX-E- DISTRICT COURT GRANTING FORMA PAUPERIES.
APPENDIX-F- DISTRICT COURT ORDER DENYING RULE 59 AND 60 B MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND OR
VACATE.
APPENDIX-G- DEPOSITION OF RUBIN WEEKS IN WEEKS V. BIRCH.
APPENDIX-H- MEDICAL RECORDS OF RUBIN WEEKS.
APPENDIX-I- AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY GARY ROBBINS.
APPENDIX-J- STATE APPEAL COURT OPINION IN WEEKS V. NIXON.
APPENDIX-L- RESPONDENT JASON LEWIS' MOTION TO DISMISS IN WEEKS V LEWIS.
APPENDIX-M- RESPONDENT JIM HOOD'S RESPONSE IN WEEKS V. LEWIS.
APPENDIX-N- MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESPONSE IN WEEKS V PRECYTHE.
APPENDIX-O- PETITIONER'S REPLY AND RECONSIDERATION IN WEEKS V. WALLACE STATE COURT.
APPENDIX -P- CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY COURT DOCKET SHEET.
APPENDIX-O- MISS. DOC PAROLE WARRANT SEPTEMBER 16. 1991.
APPENDIX-Q- RESPOKNDENT JIM HOOD SUPPLEMENT MOTION IN WEEKS V. MISSISSIPPI.
APPENDIX-R- SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT PLEA TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 22. 1988.
APPENDIX-S- MISS. DOC PAROLE WARRANT SEPTEMBER 16. 1991.
APPENDIX-T- MISS. PAROLE BOARD REVOCATION HEARING JUNE 8. 2015.
APPENDIX-U- ATTORNEY PHIPPIL GIBSON LETTER SEPTEMBER 1. 2011 STATES "I DON'T BELIEVE YOU
ARE A RAPIST RUBIN." GIBSON CONDUCTED THE November 2004 DNA TEST.
APPENDIX-V- MISS. DOC LETTER NOTICE OF JUNE 8. 2015 REVOKE OF THE JUNE 7. 1990 PAROLE AND MR.
WEEKS WILL BE RETURNED TO MISS.
APPENDIX-Y- DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISRICT OF MISSISSIPPI REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION
IN WEEKS V. RANKIN CO. SHERIFF 1983 ACTION AUGUST 1. 1995. FINDING ON THE NOVEMBER 2. 1991
POLICE BEATING.
APPENDIX-W- PETITIONERS MEDICAL EXPERT ON BRAIN INJURY.
APPENDIX-Z- MISSISSIPPI DOC WENSITE DOCUMENTS RUBIN WEEKS' BEING ARRESTED ON JUNE 17. 2015
FOR BOLIVAR COUNTY (10) SENTENCE FOR UTTETING FORGERY ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 23. 1988 AND
MISSISSIPPI DAILY NEWS SHOWING THE ARREST OCCURRED IN SCOTT COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI ON JUNE
17.2015.
APPENDIX-1- Affidavit of Rubin Weeks under oath statements not charged in Bolivar county, Mississippi with uttering
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625747698 [P
2/2]
'
••>nr'<'fv»T^77‘:
•'■SVjl
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/28/2019 6:04:56 PM EST, Letter ID: 625747698
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404A0A101
forgery or Coahoma County, Mississippi with uttering forgery in 1988-1989.
APPENDIX-2- MISSISSIPPI HIGHWAY PATROL ARREST REPORT STATES RUBIN WEEKS SERVED HIS
MISSISSIPPI PRISON TIME AT THE SCOTT COUNTY JAIL.
APPENDIX-3- AFFIDAVIT OF MISS. DOC. CHIEF RECORD OFFICER, JEWORSKI MALLETT STATES WEEKS
OWNS A TOTALL OF 403 DAYS TO MSDOC.
APPENDIX-4- ATTORNEY PHIPPIL GIBSON SEPTEMBER 24. 2004 CERTIFIED LETTET REQUEST THE MISS.
DOC TO REMOVE THE SCOTT COUNTY PAROLE VIOLATION DETAINET.
APPENDIX-5- MISSOURI PROSECUTING ATTORNEY LETTER TO DEFENSE ATTORNEY GARY ROBBINS
DECEMBER 9. 1991 TRYING TO INDUCE THE PLEA, MR. WEEKS HAD ONLY BEEN IN CUSTODY FOR ABOUT
28 DAYS.
APPENDIX-6- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT IN WEEKS V. BOWERSOX OCTOBER 15. 1995
2254 PETITION.
”7T? ?
"JSVP'.SJCf
■».v
■xi.-j-'
Li
. >> '
1.^
i *
■*
i. r
XV
' f -
Si'
'
^
^:r..7r-,
l
J
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:620127798 [P
1/2]
*•
-fit*?' **’**-'* *''-*^
I JSr
-_____ ___ ■— ^
I
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/16/2019 2:45:02 PM EST, Letter ID: 620127798
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 5.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
Page Number
Cases/Federal
Weeks v. Bridgman, 159 U.S. 541 ( 1895)
10
Elliott v. Lessee of Perisol, 26 U.S. 328 ( 1828 )
9. 10
YickWo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356( 1886)
10
Hudson v. McMilliam, 503 U.S. 1 ( 1992 )....
10
Hurtado v. Cal., 110 U.S. 516 ( 1884)
6
Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4 ( 1944)
10
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 478 ( 1965 )
10
10
Screws v. United States, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
12
Praiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 ( 1973).
12
Ex parte Ball man, 8 U.S. 4 (1807)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Marlinoz, 372 U.S. 144 ( 1963)
Insurance
Corp.
of
It.,
Ltd
v.
Compagnie
16
des
Bauxrtes
)
de
10
Guinee,
Cone v. Ball, 556 U.S. 449 (2009 )
12
Moore v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 ( 1976)
13
Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 ( 2008)
12
Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975)
10
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)
14
10, 18
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 ((1963)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 ( 1972 )
6
Charlotte v. For dice, 515 U.S. 39 ( 1995)
4
Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011)
6
U.S. v. Ruiz 536 U.S. 622 ( 2002 )
10
10
U.S. v. Cotton, 536 U.S. 625 (2002 )
United States v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 226 (1938)
10
456
U.S.
694
(
1982
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:620127798 [P
2/2]
vr*
.
IV/
-* -
3*^; ?"
&
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/16/2019 2:45:02 PM EST, Letter ID: 620127798
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Weeks v. Bowersox, 119 F. 3d 1342 ( 8th Cir. ) Cert, denied 522
)................................................................................................................. 8, 10, 16
Weeks v. Mississippi, 689 F. App'x 297 ( 5th Cir 2017)
U.S.
(1998
1093
6, 16
Weeks v. Birch, No. 1:17-CV-22-AGF ( U.S Dit. ( Mo.) E.D. Jan. 27. 2017).. 4
1
Weeks v. Lewis, No. 18-3358 (8tn Cir. 2018 )
Chitwood v. Dowd, 889 F. 2d 781 ( 8th Cir. 1989)
16
Stevens v. McClaughry, 207 F. 18 (8th Cir. 1913)......
16
Kelly v. United States, 29 F. 3d 1107 ( 7th Cir. ( 1994 )
10
United States v. Harris, 149 F. 3d 1304 ( Fed. Cir. 1998 )
... 10
McCarthy v. Warden, 168 Fed. App'x 276 (10th Cir) Cert, denied 543 U.S. 914, 126 S.Ct. 2949, 165 L. Ed 2d 968 (
18
2006)
13
Done v. Baker, 828 F. 2d 487 (8th Cir. 1987)
.... 13
U.S.ex rel. Mclnery v. Shelly, 702 F. 2d 101 ( 7th Cir. 1982 )
15
Stow v. Murashige, 389 F. 3d 880 ( 9th Cir. 2004 )
15
Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F. 3d 205 (2d Cir. 2008 )
Holmguest
v.
Larkins,
2014
U.S.
Dist.
Lexis
(
U.S.
Dist.
(
Mo.)
8
Nov.
13.
2014
12
In re Green, 39 F. 2d 582 ( 5th Cir. 1994).
12
Fransaw v. Lynaug, 810 F. 2d 518 ( 5th Cir. 1987 ).
VI
m
fee
aiifjppsi
).
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:620202000 [P
1/2]
gagg
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/16/2019 5:16:09 PM EST, Letter ID: 620202000
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 5.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
PAGE NUMBER
CASES/ STATE
Weeks v. State, 544 S.W. 261 ( Mo. App. W.D. 2017 )
14
Weeks v. State, 140 S.W. 3d 39 ( Mo. banc 2004 )
.4, 14, 18
Weeks v. State, 139 So. 3d 727 ( Miss. App. 2013)
.6, 18
Weeks v. Wallace, No. SC95661 ( Mo. Sup. Ct. May 24 2016) .... 14
Weeks v. Lewis, No. SD34849 ( Mo. App. S.D. January 30. 2017 )....14
Weir v. State, 301 S.W. 3d 136 ( Mo. App. W.D. 2010 )
10
Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W. 3d 439 ( Mo. banc 2002 )
12
Strictland v. Howell, 654 So. 2d 1387 ( Miss. Sup. Ct. 1995)
.8
Larimer v. Robertson, 800 S.W. S.W. So. 2d 154 ( Mo. App. 1990)... 18
State ex rel. Green v. Moore, 131 S.W. 3d 808 ( Mo. banc 2004).... 14
State ex rel. Devlin v. Sutherland, 196 S.W. 3d 593 ( Mo. App. 2006)... 8
Ellis v. State, 748 So. 2d 130 ( Miss. Sup. Ct. 1999 ).
6
Turnage v. State, 782 S.W. 755 ( Mo. App. S.D. 1989.
State ex rel. Morton v. Anderson, 804 S.W. 2d 25 ( Mo. banc 1991 )....7
Ridinger v. Mo.Bd. Probation and Parole, 189 S.W. 3d 658 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)
8
State ex rel. Langhlin v. Bowersox, 318 S.W. 695 ( Mo. 2010)..........9
Kansas City v. Stricklin, 428 S.W. 2d 721 ( Mo. banc 1968 )
14
PAGE NUMBER
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
14th Amendment.
12, 14
13th Amendment.
12
8th Amendment.
12
5th Amendment.
12
6th Amendment.
12
PAGE NUMBER
FEDERAL STATUTE
m
m
Vxx
s
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:620202000 [P
2/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/16/2019 5:16:09 PM EST, Letter ID: 620202000
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
28 U.S.C and 2241
2,3,6,12, and 13,14,15
28 U.S.C. and 2243.
3,14,15
28 U.S.C. and 2254.
18
28 U.S.C. and 2244.
3,16
28 U.S.C and 1257,
2
PAGE NUMBER
MISSOURI RULE AND STATUTE.
8
Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 91 habeas corpus.
541.033 RSMO
8
588.019 RSMO
8
544.250 RSMO
7
Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 23
8
8
Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 32
MISSISSIPPI STATUTE.
PAGE NUMER
47-7-27 Miss. Code Ann
16
11-11-3 Miss. Code Ann
,8
99-39-1 Miss. Code Ann
99-39-7 Miss. Code Ann
VXOll
f
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:614105540 [P
1/1]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/3/2019 10:01:26 AM EST, Letter ID: 614105540
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404AOA101
CERTIORARI#.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner Rubin Rurie Weeks, pro se litigant respectfully prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgment
below. Thereby, under the 28 U.S.C. and 1746 declaration Under "PENALTY OF PERJURY" Mr. Weeks declares
that he is being restrained of his liberty under a Missouri State Court void judgment and Mississippi DOC void
detainer. Where he is suffering cruel and unusual punishment of torture after being wrongfully convicted and
deprived of due process of law. Thereof, Courts below acted arbitrary vindictively against petitioner. Even though
State Courts and Federal Courts provide a remedy Rule for relief from void judgments. In which by this "Court's
doctrine relief from a void judgment is not discretionary matters, but are mandatory relief matters":
OPINIONS BELOW
FEDERAL COURT CASES:
The opinion/judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit appears at Appendix (A) to the
petition and is reported at Rubin Rurie Weeks v. Jason Lewis, Warden of Southeast Correctional Center (MODOC)
and Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General (MSDOC), Case No. 18-3358 (8th Cir. April 23. 2019).
The opinion/judgment has been designated for publication but not yet reported.
The opinion/judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri appears at Appendix (B)
to the petition and reported at Rubin Rurie Weeks v. Jason Lewis, Warden and Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney
General, et all., Case No. 1:17-CV-225-ACL ( Mo. E.D. October 15. 2018). DOC #43.
Thereof, the District Court on May 7. 2019 issued its Memorandum and order DOC # 44 denying the petition to
Alter or Amend the judgment or vacate the judgment under Rule 60 (b) (4). DOC # 43 and appears at Appendix (E).
The judgment/order has been designated for publication but not yet reported.
#»
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A 101 ID:614121243 [P
1/1]
*• *
«-*v
. r*v*
a
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/3/2019 10:33:00 AM EST, Letter ID: 614121243
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari^.
BASIS OFJURISDICTION
Seeking United States Supreme Court review of state prisoner Rubin Rurie Weeks being restrained of his liberty
under a void judgment and void detainer where he is suffering cruel and unusual punishment conditions of
confinement while the State government claims that a void judgment and void detainer claim is barred from relief
under 28 U.S.C and 2244 and can never be granted relief from void judgment in state court or federal court.
FEDERAL COURT CASES:
The date the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the 28 U.S.C and 2241 and 28 U.S.C
2243 Case was April 19. 2019.
The petition for rehearing En Banc and petition for rehearing by the panel was timely filed in this case.
The timely petition for rehearing En Banc and petition for rehearing by the panel was denied by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on the following date May 23. 2019, and a copy of the Order denying
rehearings appears at Appendix (C).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate in this case on June 17. 2019 and
appears at Appendix (D).
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C 1254 (1) and 28 U.S.C. and 2243 and 28 U.S.C. 2241 and
under 28 U.S.C and 1257 (A).
m
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:620206670 [P
1/1]
m.
*9**
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/16/2019 5:28:47 PM EST, Letter ID: 620206670
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 3
CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14th
U.S. Constitution Amendment 13th
U.S. Constitution Amendment 8th
U.S. Constitution Amendment 6th
U.S. Constitution Amendment 5th
28U.S.C and 2244
28 U.S.C and 2243
28 U.S.C. and 2241
3&F2-.0
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625443850 [P
1/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/27/2019 8:57:38 PM EST, Letter ID: 625443850
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 1.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE MISSISSIPPI VOID DETAINER:
Rubin Rurie Weeks was arrested on April 23. 1988, for a Scott County, Mississippi Burglary charge of trucking
company which was once owned by Mr. Weeks, but had been seized and taken by the IRS and sold. Petitioner was
placed in custody at Forest, Mississippi Scott County Sheriff Department Jail. On August 22.1988, the Scott County
Circuit Court sentenced Mr. Weeks to (4) years. In which was Mr. Weeks first conviction that petitioner served under
trustee/probation status in Scott County, Mississippi Sheriffs custody. See petitioner's Exhibit (309) Scott County
Circuit Court Plea Transcript at page (3) filed in the District Court in the present case. Thereof, petitioner earned time
credit under Mississippi law and was unconditionally released on June 7. 1990. See thus Court's ruling in Garlotte v.
Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 41-49 n.5 ( 1995 ) which cites to how Mississippi sentences are served.
In 1991, Mr. Weeks had underwent his 2d spine surgery. After having spine, and ankle and leg surgeries in
October 1983-85. See hereto attached as petitioner's Appendix (H) medical records of Rubin R. Weeks and
petitioner's Exhibit (N) Missouri Attorney General's admission of those injuries and surgeries in which was filed by the
government's response to Mr. Weeks Supplement complaint in Weeks v. Precythe, No. 1:17-CV-22-AGF ( E.D. Mo.
January 27. 2017 ) United States district Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 1983 proceeding pending Jury trial
in April 2020.
On September 16. 1991, the Mississippi Department of Corrections issued a parole violation warrant for the Scott
County, Mississippi four (4) year sentence only. No other prior convictions were listed. Therefore, on November 2.
1991, the Mississippi DOC Officers arrested Mr. Weeks under the September 16. 1991.DOC warrant. See Petitioner's
Appendix (O) MSDOC September 16. 1991 Parole Violation warrant. During this arrest, "the MSDOC officers brutally
beat Mr. Weeks because he could not get on his hands and knees and lay face down on the ground when directed to
do so by the officers." Mr. Weeks informed the officers that he court not physically do as they directed. The officers
ignored petitioner's plea. As to such arbitrary actions, Mr. Weeks suffered brain and spine injuries which crippled him
for life. See Petitioner' Appendix (K) Corizon Health Inc medical defendants Medical Expert Dr. Paul Adler's opinion
that states " that Mr. Weeks initially injured himself in 1992 and had several surgeries to try and correct those
significant injuries. Prior to his incarceration, he suffered additional injuries to his ankle and leg and spine and had
several surgeries". See Petitioner's Appendix (G) the Missouri Attorney Geneal's deposition of Mr. Weeks on
December 17. 2017 in the 1983 proceeding Weeks v. Precythe, supora. See pages 7-12 and 13-21 "where Mr.
Weeks states under oath to these factual claims."
On November 5. 1991, the Mississippi DOC Officials unconditionally released Mr. Weeks to the State of Missouri
/Cape Girardeau County, Missouri Sheriff Department "before Mr. Weeks was charged with a crime in Missouri." See
Weeks v. State, 140 S.W. 3d 39, 41-43 ( Mo. banc 2004 ) Holds: "that Mr.Weeks was arrested in Mississippi on
November 2. 1991 and three days later delivered to Missouri law authorities and in December 1991 Mr. Weeks was
charged with the Missouri alleged crimes." Here the State of Mississippi government "deliberately deprived Mr.
Weeks of doe process of law" by denying him a parole revocation hearing as required by 47-7-27 Miss. Code Ann
1991 and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481-489 ( 1972 ). See Godsey v. Houston, 584 So. 2d 389. 392 ( Miss.
1991 ). citing the authority of section 47-7-27 Miss. Code Ann "which requires a parole revocation hearing within 30
days after arrest and the Authority of section 47-7-29 Miss. Code Ann 1991 which requires the Parole Board if parole
is revoked "order the prisoner to serve the original sentence first." Here the MSDOC officials by arbitrarily actions
"denied petitioner's 14th Amendment rights to avoid liability and cost of medical care for Mr. Weeks."
In the Weeks v. State, 139 So. 3d 727, 729 ( Miss. Ct. App. 2013 ). The Mississippi Appeal Court that found "Mr.
Weeks had been arrested in Mississippi under the September 16. 1991 MSDOC parole warrant on November 2.
1991, but later released to Missouri law Authorities." "The Court ruled that Mr. Weeks had provided no evidence that
"his June 7. 1990 parole was revoked while he was still in Mississippi DOC custody before released to Missouri on
November 5. 1991." The Court noted that the Mississippi DOC on March 22. 1994 "filed the Scott County,
Mississippi parole detainer with Missouri DOC." Accordingly, the evidence submitted to the district court establishes
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625443850 [P
2/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/27/2019 8:57:38 PM EST, Letter ID: 625443850
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
that the Mississippi Sentence in question had expired by October 23. 1992.
In the 28 U.SC. and 2241 Habeas Corpus proceeding in Weeks v. Mississippi, 689 F. App'x 297 ( 5th Cir. 2017 ).
The Fifth Circuit directed Mr. Weeks to file the 28 U.S.C. and 2241 Petition where petitioner was incarcerated and
challenge the Mississippi DOC void detainer there in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri. During the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in Weeks v. Mississippi, suora. The
Mississippi Attorney General informed the district court "that Mississippi Parole Board officially revoked Mr. Weeks
Mississippi June 7 1990 parole on June 8. 2015." See Petitioner's Appendix (Q) Mississippi Respondent's motion to
supplement the motion to dismiss DOC # 15 in the Mississippi District Court.
Note: Cape Giradeau County Circuit Court on February 13. 1992 run the Missouri sentence concurrent with the
Mississippi Parole time left.
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625609792 [P
1/2]
You have received a JP&Y letter, the fastest way to get mail
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/28/2019 11:08:43 AM EST, Letter ID: 625609792
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 2.
--See Exhibit (303) the Cape Giurardeau County Circuit Court "Plea Transcript" at page 30-31. In which was filed in
the district Court in the present case.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CAPE GIRARDEAU
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT VOUD JUDGMENT ENTERED
FEBRUARY 13. 1992 FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE BOLLINGER COUNTY
CONVICTION AND IMPOSE THE SENTENCE THEREOF
"NO VALID INDICTMENT OR VALID INFORMATION"
TO PROSECUTE OR TRY THE RAPE CHARGE
The State of Missouri, on February 13. 1992, was precluded by the United States constitution to prosecute Rubin
Weeks for the "Bollinger County rape charge" in the Cape Girardeau county Circuit Court "without a valid indictment
or a valid information" being filed in the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County. This Court ruled in Hurtado v. Cal.,
110 U.S. 516, 538 ( 1884 ) Held: "States are not required to institute prosecution by "grand jury indictment" but States
are required to make a presentment". The 5th Amendment provides that "No person shall be held to answer a capital
crime or infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment. See Turnage v. State, 782 S.W. 2d 755, 760-61 (
Mo. App. S.D. 1989 ), held: "without a valid information or indictment there is no jurisdiction to proceed to trial or
sentence." Accordingly, under 544,250 RSMO 1991 Requires a "preliminary hearing to be held in the Magistrate
County Court having jurisdiction over the crime, to find probably cause to believe the prisoner is guilty and bond the
prisoner over to the Circuit Court." See State ex rel Morton v. Anderson, 804 S.W. 2d 25, 26-27 ( Mo. banc 1991 ),
holds: The prosecuting attorney lacks authority to file a felony information charging a crime without the Court
Magistrate finding probably cause and bonds the defendant over to the Court having jurisdiction thereof, the mere
filing a complaint does no confer jurisdiction upon the Court to adjudicate the offense." See Missouri Supreme Court
Rule 23.02-08 Holds: "No information charging the commission of a felony shall be filed against any person unless
the defendant shall first have been accorded the right to Preliminary hearing before the Court Magistrate in the
County where the crime is alleged to have been committed."
The Missouri Attorney General's response to the present 28 U.S.C. and 2241 petition challenging the Void
Judgment, "is contrary to the facts and law." See Appendix (L) Missouri Respondent's response: The (Missouri)
Respondent argued "that Mr. Weeks had a merit adjudication of the prior 28 U.S.C and ,2254 habeas claims in
Weeks v. Bowrrsox, 119 F. 3d 1342 ( 8th Cir. 1997 ), Cert, denied 522 U.S. 1093 ( 1998 ). As such capricious
argument, after the Government's arbitrary acts denied petitioner a fundamental fair consideration on the prior federal
habeas proceeding by withholding exculpatory evidence. Here again the (Missouri) Respondent misleads the district
court. See Appendix (6) the "District Court's Order and Memorandum entered on October 27. 1995 in Weeks v.
Bowrrsox, supora." In which shows the district court denied the habeas 2254 petition on procedural barred grounds
without a merit review." As such, the District Court restored the jurisdiction that was loss in the State sentencing
Court. In which was contrary to over a (100) years of this Court's principals Rulings "that a void judgment may be
collaterally inpeached and a void judgment is not time barred from attack".
"RUBIN WEEKS NEVER REQUESTED A CHANGE VENUE"
Under Missouri law 541.033 RSMO 1991 -2018, only the criminal defendant can request for a change of venue. If
the Circuit Court (Sua Spone) transfers a case to another county venue, the Court acts outside the Court's authority
and jurisdiction and violations the defendant's Six (6) Amendment rights. See Helmquest v. Larkins, 2014 Dist LEXIS
159560, Case No. 14-0684-CV-W-BCW-P ( W.D. Mo. November 13. 2014 ), quoting State ex Devlin v. Sutherland,
196 S.W. 3d 593, 595 ( Mo. App. E.D. 2006 ), "Missouri Courts ruling the same." " that only the defendant can
request a change of venue, if a circuit court sua spone transfers a criminal case to another county venue, the court
acts outside its authority and violates then defendant's U.S. constitutional rights and Missouri constitution rights article
1, section 18 (a)." Here the evidence establishes that Mr. Weeks never requested a change of venue to transfer the
Bollinger County rape cause to Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court. See Petitioner's Exhibit (297) Cape Giratdeau
County Circuit Court complete certified docket sheet Exhibit (298) Bollinger County Associate Court/ Circuit Court
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625609792 [P
2/2]
err*
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/28/2019 11:08:43 AM EST, Letter ID: 625609792
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404A0A101
certified docket sheet and Exhibit (304) Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court Plea Transcript. Each exhibit filed in
the District Court in present 2241 habeas case. See DOC # 1 petition, DOC # 2 memorandum and DOC # 19 motion
to supplement petition in order to show complete exhaustion of the void judgment claim and cruel and unusual
punishment conditions of confinement claim by the State of Missouri Appeal Court in Weeks v. Nixon, 544 S.W. 3d
261 ( Mo. App. W.D. 2017 ) transfer to Missouri Supreme Court denied and to submit to the U.S. District Court the
exhibits cited hereto. In which the district Court granted. See DOC # 19.
m
si
*i OF 2.0
ms
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:625698236 [P
1/2]
;.v'> 4
:«. .r ,
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To: Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/28/2019 3:34:28 PM EST, Letter ID: 625698236
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 3.
" FORMER CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY CIRCUIT "
COURT JUDGE NEGOTIATED GUILTY PLEA ON
FEBRUARY 13. 1992
As shown above,Rubin Rurie Weeks suffered a brutal beating by law enforcement officers on November 2. 1991
during the arrest. Accordingly, approximately (80) days later, the Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court former judge
Stephen N. Limbaugh deprived petitioner due process of law. When the Judge by initiating and participating in the
plea negotiations in order to place Mr. Weeks immediately into the Missouri Department of Corrections to avoid the
Cape Girardeau County Commissioner, Gene Huckstep who was the County Jail Administrator having to pay for the
$250,000 cost for the surgeries petitioner needed after being severely beaten. See Petitioner's Appendix (I) affidavit
of Trial attorney Gary L. Robbins, under oath statements certified before a Notary Public on December 12. 2003
States "On January 14. 1992, Judge Limbaugh asked me if there was "a deal" -- meaning a plea bargain. I
explained to him that the plea offer was for two consecutive life sentences and that was unreasonable. I told him that
the defendant did not need an attorney to get that and I would not be telling my client to plead guilty. The Judge
agreed that it was no deal and told me he was going to call Huckstep. I knew that to be Gene Huckstep who was a
County Commissioner and the Administrator of the Jail. On or about January 21. 1992, I received a letter from the
Cape Girardeau County Prosecutor dated January 15. 1992 , telling me that he had received a call from Judge
Limbaugh regarding the Rubin Weeks' case. According to the prosecutor, Judge Limbaugh told him that because of
the health conditions of Mr. Weeks, the Judge would be willing to allow us to plea bargain ... in order to move Mr.
Weeks out of the county Jail in the near future". Thereof, the Judge deprived petitioner of a trail by jury to present
exculpatory evidence in his defense to be tried in Bollinger County where the prosecution alleged the rape crime
occurred and to have a fundamental fair remedy to challenge the rape conviction.when the Judge acted in a manner
that violated the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution. Thereof, the February 13. 1992 conviction and
sentences judgment is void.
"JUDGMENT OF PRIOR AND PERSISTENT OFFENDER"
ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 13. 1992 IS VOUD
The Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, on February 13. 1992, "acted outside the Court's jurisdiction and
statutory power under 558.019 RSMO 1991-2019" when the Court convicted and sentenced Rubin Weeks as a prior
and persistent offender based upon the Mississippi alleged non violent crimes for uttering forgery entered in 1988. As
such, under Missouri law section 558.019 it requires that the defendant have three (3) prior convictions commitments
to the MODOC or another State's Correctional facility. Thereof, probation or work program trustee status does not
count as a prior commitment to the "CORRECTIONAL FACILITY". See Ridinger v. Mo. Bd. of Probation and Parole,
189 S.W. 3d 658, 668 ( Mo. App. S.W. 2006 )" In calculating the minimum amount of time a defendant must serve of
a correct sentence before being eligible for parole , only counts "previous" prison commitment under 558.019 RSMO."
3. ARGUMENT FOR CERTIORARI REVIEW
(1). Before the Courts below, Rubin Weeks has never been allowed the equal protection of the law or the protection
of equal laws as this Court ruled in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 367-374 ( 1886 ), "that no person shall be
deprived of life or liberty by any State arbitrary action which the Fourteenth Amendment prohibites and equal
protection of the law is a pledge of the protection if equal laws." See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 15-16 ( 1992 ),
"Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra at 370."
(2). Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 91.06 makes it the duty of every Circuit Court Judge, Appeal Court Judge
and Supreme Court Judge "to issue the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" for any person, regardless whether the application
for such a Writ is presented, where there is evidence from a Judicial proceeding before the Court that a person is
illegally confined." See Weir v. State, 301 S.W.3d 136, 139 ( Mo. App. W.D. 2010 ), "quoting the authority of Rule
91.06." See State ex rel. Laughlin v. Bowrrsox, 318 S.W. 3d 695, 702-04 ( Mo.Sup. Ct. 2010). quoting the authority
of Rule 91.06 the Court said: "the State or the defendant can not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a Court that
does no have it and if a criminal judgment was entered by a Court without authority to do so, such a proceeding
always should be found to be void," quoting Ex parte Kearney, 20 U.S. 38, 5 L.Ed. 391 ( 1822 ). Accordingly, the
State of Mississippi Supreme Court had made the same, ruling in Strictland v. Howell, 654 So. 2d 1387, 1388-89 (
f
•*
f ■
..■.’•ij'.-’A/L...
,1
7'-
U.
^
8 c>f-to
a ■ -
li 1 Vv«.t.
"'ll
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A 101 ID:625698236 [P
2/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Debbie Thompson, CustomerlD: 11503200
Date : 7/28/2019 3:34:28 PM EST, Letter ID: 625698236
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404A0A101
Miss. Sup. Ct. 1995), "quoting the authority of Miss. Code Ann 99-39-1 et seq." Accordingly, this Court ruled in Elliott
v. Lessee of Peirsol, 26 U.S. 328, 340-41 ( 1826 ), "IF the Court acts without authority, its judgments and orders are
regarded as nullifies. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no (bar) to recovery sought, even to a reversal,
in opposition to them. They constitute no jurisdiction , and all person concerned in executing such judgments or
sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers."
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:615919352 [P
1/2]
" 1
t '
i
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/7/2019 1:39:11 PM EST, Letter ID: 615919352
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404AQA101
Certiorari 13.
(3). This Court ruled in Tick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369-374 (1886), "The Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution is not confined to the protection of Citizens only. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the law. The equal protection of the law is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. The right to file a
Court Action stands as the most fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights are not loss for
prisoners. Especially, when the State government acts outside (its) statutory power, the government's actions are
purely arbitrary and acknowledge no restraint and purely outside the State Actors' discretion power". Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,15-16 (1992) Citing Tick Wo v. Hopkins, supra at 370.
(4) The law has been well established that "When States provide a Rule for relief from void judgments or void
detainers, the applicable relief is not discretionary matters, but are mandatory relief matters. This Court has ruled and
made it equally clear that if a prisoner is being restrained of his liberty under a void judgment, his right to be relieved
of that restraint is not barred by any limitation on time to file or raise the error, even if that time has expired. See U.S.
v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622. 628 ( 2002), Held: "Court of Appeals could reach merits of case to determine jurisdiction
regardless of whether claim ultimately found too authorize Appeal". See Insurance Corp. of lr., Ltd. v. Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701-702 ( 1982) "Jurisdictional defects, by contrast, cannot be procedurally
defaulted, As federal courts, we are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving our power solely from Article III of the
Constitution and from the legislative acts of Congress. We therefore cannot derive power to act from the actions of
the patties before us. Consequently, the parties are incapable of conferring upon us a jurisdictional foundation we
otherwise lack simply by waiver or procedural default". See United States v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 226, 229 ( 1938), Held:
Since lack of jurisdiction of a federal court touching the subject matter of the litigation cannot be waived by the
parties, we must upon this Appeal examine the contention". See Kelly v. United States, 29 F. 3d 1107, 1113 ( (7th
Cir. 1994) "Relief from Jurisdictional defects always available and cannot be procedurally defaulted". Harris v. United
States, 149 F. 3d 1304, 1308 ( Fed. Cir. 1998) (the same), and U.S. v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 ( 2002), "Subject
matter jurisdiction claim preserved though not raised at trial." See Menna v. N.Y., 423 U.S. 61, 63 n.2 ( 1975 ), "Plea
of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the state may not
constitutionally prosecute". See Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4, 64 S.Ct. 792, 88 L. Ed 1095 (1944) Held: "guilty plea
entered under a void judgment cannot be sustained". See Weeks v. Bridgman, 159 U.S. 541, 547-548, 16 S.Ct. 72,
40 L. Ed. 253 (1895), Held: "Judgment must be entered and confirmed which acted without authority in order to be
void".
(5). Here in the present case, Mr. Weeks' void judgment claim when judged on its face, establishes that this Court in
the habeas corpus proceeding of Weeks v. Bowersox,119 F.3d 1342, 1355 ( 8th Cir. 1997), cert, denied., Weeks v.
Bowersox, 522 U.S. 1093, 118 S.Ct. 887, 139 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1998) confirmed the lower Courts’ void judgments. In
which this Court ruled in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423, 83, S. Ct. 822 (1963), that "if the petition discloses facts that
amount to a loss of jurisdiction in the trial Courts, jurisdiction could not be restored by any Court decision above". It is
of the historical essence of habeas corpus that it lies to test proceedings so fundamentally lawless that imprisonment
pursuant to them is not merely erroneous but void".
(6). The larger principle here being, "Mr. Weeks is restrained of his liberty under the sentencing Court's void
judgment created by the lack of subject matter jurisdiction to try the particular Bollinger County rape case, "to enter
the conviction and impose the life sentence thereof and lacked authority to convict Mr. Weeks as a prior and
persistent offender and impose enhanced punishment sentences thereof upon the kidnapping charge and rape
charge".
As such lawless obtained by the State government's Arbitrary and capricious (Acts), the State law Actors argued and
claimed before every Court "that Mr. Weeks was procedural barred from habeas corpus relief. The Courts below
agreed with the States' void interest. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 504 (1965), "the State's compelling
interest may not be obtained by arbitrary and capricious Acts". See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 123-124
(1945) "It is equally valid to protect those rights plainly and directly secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, including
the expressly guaranteed rights no to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
(7). The State of Missouri by police torture beating and arbitrary acts, haled Mr. Weeks into the Cape Giratdeau
County Circuit Court, "upon a Bollinger County rape charge which the State was precluded by the U.S. Constitution
IffSBSSia
10 OP 0-0
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:615919352 [P
2/2]
rr
?*'■ •
rr
T^T.
•
t.
3
.
i.
&2L
/
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/7/2019 1:39:11 PM EST, Letter ID: 615919352
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
from prosecuting petitioner thereof and the very initiation against Mr. Weeks—thus operated to deny petitioner due
process of law in order to immediately place Mr. Weeks in MODOC Prison because petitioner needed medical
treatments for the serious physical injuries Mr. Weeks sustained during the arrest on November 2. 1991. See
Appendix (F) deposition of Mr. Weeks
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:616067989 [P
1/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/7/2019 8:33:00 PM EST, Letter ID: 616067989
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari fil.
"RELIEF FROM VOID JUDGMENT NOT BARRED UNDER"
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. 2241-2243
(8). In Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 274-275 ( 2008), this Court ruled that under the statute 28 U.S.C. and
2243 commands federal courts to dispose of habeas corpus petitions as law and justice required and gave
authorization to adjust the scope of the Writ in accordance with equitable and prudential consideration. As such
authorization, 28 U.S.C and 2241 (a)-(b) provides: The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a Circuit Judge, or district
Judge shall entertain an application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgement of a State Court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States". Accordingly, this Court ruled that States are independent sovereigns with plenary authority to
make and enforce their own laws as long as they do not infringe on federal constitutional guarantees", citing Danforth,
552 U.S. at 280, and see Praiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973), habeas corpus relief proper when State
had prisoner illegally confined by arbitrary actions", and see Ex parts Ballman, 8 U.S. 4, 75, 95 (1807) and Cone v.
Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009), "Federal courts can adjudicate federal constitutional claim on the merits when State
courts have failed to adjudicate it".
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROTECTION
(9). The 5th Amendment to United States Constitution holds: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of grand jury, and nor shall any person be subject
for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy.
(10). The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution holds:" The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
(11). The 8th Amendment to U.S. Constitution prohibites any amount of torture or cruelty.
(12).. The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution holds: "neither slavery or involuntary servitude, except
as a punishment for crime whereof the person (shall) have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States,
or any place subject to their jurisdiction".
(13). The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution holds: "All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State Shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United Sfates
nor (shall) any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law and protection of equal laws".
(14). Therefore, Rubin Rurie Weeks was born in the State of Mississippi on July 12. 1960, petitioner resides was in
Scott County, Forest, Mississippi and Gulfport, Mississippi all of his life, until Missouri State government law officers
removed Mr. Weeks involuntary on November 5. 1991 to the Cape Giratdeau County Shireff Department Jail in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri. Transpiring without extradition warrant being issued or signed by the Mississippi or Missouri
Governors. Thereof, on February 13., 1992 in the Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court, the Judge negotiated plea of
guilty which was induced under police brutal forced upon Mr. Weeks in the trial Court that lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to accept the plea upon the Bollinger County felony rape charge thereof and lacked authority to impose
enhanced punishment sentences upon Mr. Weeks for the Cape Giradeau Country Kidnapping Charge which has
been served in full without the enhancement punishment sentence from (15) years to (30) years. In which makes the
Cape Girardeau County (30) sentence for kidnapping charge void. See In re Green, 39 F 2d 582, 583 ( 5th Cir. 1994)
"unless defendant tried or convicted in District where crime occurred, Court lacks jurisdiction". See Peiffer v. State, 88
S.W. 439, 441 ( Mo. banc 2002) "Guilty plea does not waive a subsequent claim of a double jeopardy violation if it
can be determined from the face of record that the sentencing court had no power to enter the conviction or impose
the sentence". See also Fransaw v. Lynaugh, 810 F. 2d 518, 523 ( 5th Cir. 1987), "citing cases supporting that double
jeopardy attaches to a guilty plea upon acceptance of the plea".
(15).Therefore, Mr. Weeks being arrested in his home state of Mississippi on November 2. 1991, under the Scott
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:616067989 [P
2/2]
s
•
SZJSL %
“TfP
res. -
•t-’Sk
__-jlffatMi* i —r irmfliri.
__ >-*
•• •
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/7/2019 8:33:00 PM EST, Letter ID: 616067989
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
County, Mississippi probation/parole violation warrant issued September 16. 1991, being offically placed in MSDOC
custody thereof. The Mississippi DOC Administrative officials could not start the prison term time running again and
then stop the (clock) by unconditionally releasing Mr. Weeks to Missouri. See Moore v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 86-87
(1976), and Donn v. Baker, 828 F. 2d 487, 488-89 (8th Cir. 1987) " Parole violation warrant is executed when the
Official takes the parolee and returns him to the custody of DOC facility and that is what triggers the DOC
Commissioners constitutionally duty to provide the requires of due process of law". See U.S. ex rel Mclnery v. Shelly,
702 F. 2d 101, 102 ( 7th Cir. 1982), Held: "under 28 U.S.C and 2241 (d) a prisoner is not prevented from obtaining
habeas corpus relief when transferred either voluntanly or involuntarily out of State".
I3 oF 2.0
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A 101 ID:616468247 [P
1/2]
'
*■,
"1
j-fy
^ <Vr-
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/8/2019 5:26:29 PM EST, Letter ID: 616468247
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari M
"THE STATE GOVERNMENT MADE CONTRARY ASSERTIONS"
IN THE COURTS BELOW THAT A VOID JUDGMENT OR VOID
DETAINER WOULD BE PROCEDURAL BARRED IN THE STATE
OR FEDERAL COURTS IF NOT TIMELY FILED OR RAISED THE
PLAIN ERROE IN THE STATE POST-CONVICTION MOTION OR
IN THE HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C and 2241-2243-2254 PETITION
(16). Rubin Rurie Weeks has personally demanded that his Missouri Circuit Court void judgment claims and
Mississippi DOC void detainer claim that has petitioner deprived of his liberty in violation of his due process of law
protection rights under the 14th Amendment to United States Constitution be reviewed by every Court in which he
has pleaded for nearly 27 years. No Missouri Court has allowed Mr. Weeks to argue the void judgments claim on the
merits. See Appendix (1) Missouri Supreme Court summary denial of the habeas corpus petition (Rule 91) void
judgment claims in Weeks v. Wallace, No. SC95661 May 24. 2016) without prejudice and Appendix (2) the trial court/
circuit court of Mississippi county summary denial of the void judgments claim in Weeks v Wallace, No.
16MI-CV-00293 (October 31. 2016) and Appendix (3) the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District of Missouri
summary denial of the void judgments claim in Weeks v Lewis, No. SD34849 ( Mo. App. S.D. January 30. 2017).
Here the Missouri State Attorney General law Actors, argued the void judgment claim were barred by statute of
limitations pursuant to Mr. Weeks failure to timely file the post-coviction motion under Rule 24.035 or procedural
defaulted or the court lacked jurisdiction. The State Respondents never denied the void judgment claims or argued a
defense thereof. However, the State Respondents would have been without an argument and lacked interest thereof
on the merits. See State ex rel. Green v. Moore, 131 S.W. 3d 803, 806 ( Mo. banc 2004), Held: "Numerous other
decisions of this Court, as well as decisions of the United States Supreme Court, similarly recognize that jurisdictional
defects or defenses are not waived by entry of a guilty plea, citing United States v. Bruce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989),
and Hagan v. State, 836 S.W. 2d 459, 461 ( Mo.banc 1992), and Kansas City v. Stricklin, 428 S.W. 2d 721, 724-25 (
Mo. banc 1968), that jurisdiction of the subject matter... in either a civil or criminal action may be raised at any stage
of the proceedings, even after a plea of guilty, and for the first time in the appellate court, and whether the defendant
is challenging the Court's subject matter jurisdiction or the Court's jurisdiction to assess punishment in excess of that
provided by law".
(17). The Missouri Appeal Court in Weeks v. Nixon, 544 S.W. 3d 261 ( Mo. App. W.D. 2017), "Recognized Mr.
Weeks' void judgment claims and torture condition of confinement claims but circumvent the issue raised before the
trial court, where Mr. Weeks petition for declaratory judgment and ask the trial court to declare his rights under
Supreme Court habeas corpus Rule 91.06 to challenge the void judgment claims and under 42 U.S.C. and 1983 to
be free from the cruel and unusual punishment torture condition of confinement claims." The Appeal Court in affirming
the trial court summary denial stated: "We recognize that Mr. Weeks has unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief
in the past, and may face procedural obstacles if he seeks such relief in the future. He cannot use a declaratory
judgment action to avoid the procedural requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief. Id at n. 5. See Appendix (J)
at page 7.
(18). Likewise5Mr. Weeks challenged the Mississippi DOC void parole detainer in Mississippi State Courts. In which
was filed in Hinds County, Mississippi Circuit Court under Case No. 215-05-550CIV State habeas corpus action, filed
against the head Mississippi DOC Official, Parole Board Official and Mississippi Attorney General. See Appendix
(2)-(B) habeas corpus petition. The Circuit Court of Hinds County set on the petition for Approximately (10) years and
thereby summary denied it. The Mississippi Appeal Court affirmed the summary denial in Weeks v. State, 139 So. 3d
727 ( Ms. Appeal 2013). The Appeal Court recognized Mr. Weeks void detainer claim and 14th Amendment violation
claim, but ignored the Court's duty to protect Mr. Weeks from the State's arbitrary actions thereof, placed the blame
on Mr. Weeks and dismissed the Appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Even though Mr. Weeks file the petition in Hinds
County, Mississippi in which was the right Venue because the Mississippi DOC and the Parole Board offices are in
Hinds County, Jackson, Mississippi. See Appendix (2)-(C) Mandamus filed in Mississippi Supreme Court. In which
this Court ruled in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. at 488-89 "Petitioner must filed against
the State Respondent who issued the detainer.against the pre-trial detainee".
op 2,0
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A 101 ID:616468247 [P
2/2]
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date: 7/8/2019 5:26:29 PM EST, Letter ID: 616468247
Location : SECC
Housing : 00404A0A101
"FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT VOID JUDGMENTS"
DISTRICT COURT ABUSE OF DISCRETION
PURSUANT TO KENNEFY V. MENDOZA-MARLINOZ,
372 U.S. 144(1963)
(19). The petition filed in the district court under 28 U.S.C and 2241-2243 was upon a jurisdictional defect claims
based upon the trial court void judgment and Mississippi DOC void parole detainer. In which both claims are clearly
recognized under section 2241 petition. See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F. 3d 880, 887-88 ( 9th Cir. 2004), "Habeas
petition treated under 28 U.S.C. and 2241, not under 28 U.S.C. and 2255, because petitioner not in custody under
a valid state court judgment". See Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F. 3 d 205, 209 ( 2d Cir. 2008), 2241 claim proper
because petitioner challenged conditions of confinement".
1
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A 101 ID:616853495 [P
1/2]
* :/
-
' <' >
■,‘r.r*
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/9/2019 2:18:51 PM EST, Letter ID: 616853495
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari If.
(20). This Court ruled in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Marlinoz, 372 U.S. 144, 157, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644 ( 1963 ),
"that the united States was estopped to deny even an erroneous prior determination of a statute when the judgment
was void from the start". Id at 157. The Eighth Circuit established decision in Stevens v. McClaughry, 207 F. 18.
25-30 ( 8th Cir. 1913), citing to this Court's decisions upon state court and federal court rendered void judgments
stated: "The Supreme Court In re Bridges, 4 Fed. Cas. 98, 105, No. 1862, the prisoner had been tried and convicted
and sentenced for perjury by a state court without jurisdiction of the subject matter. He prayed a writ of habeas
corpus and discharge. Mr. Justice Bradley said: "It is contended, however, that where a defendant has been
regularly indicted, tried, and convicted in a "State Court", his only remedy is to carry the judgment to the court of last
resort, and thence by "Writ of Error" to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that it is to late for "habeas
corpus" to issue from a federal court in such a case. This might be so if the proceeding in the "State Court" were
merely erroneous but where it is void for want of jurisdiction, habeas corpus will lie, and may be issued by any
"Court" or "Judge" invested with supervisory jurisdiction in such a case". Id at 27.
(21)..Here in the present case, the States Respondents Lewis and Hood argument that the Missouri Federal District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, "where Mr. Weeks is restrained of his liberty under the void judgment and
void Mississippi detainer" lacked jurisdiction without the Eighth Circuit permission to file second petition, thereof, that
the void judgment claim and void detainer claim are barred by 28 U.S.C and , 2344. The State's contends was an
arbitrary act and contrary to this Court's decisions above. Therefore, the District Court's decision DOC # 33 at page
(5) -(6) was clearly a abuse of discretion agreeing with the State contrary argument "that Mr. Weeks void judgment
and void detainer claims ( legality of the detention) had been determined by the prior application section 2254 in
Weeks v. Bowersox, 113 F. 3d 1342 ( 8th Cir. 1997). However, Weeks v. Bowersox, supra, was dismissed by
procedural defaulted barred without merits determination. Thereof, the district court ruled that Mr. Weeks void
judgment and detainer claim could have been , decided in previous federal habeas action, however, this was contrary
to this Couryt's decisions that void judgment may be filed at any time, even if that time had expired in Elliott v. Lessee
of Perirsol, 26 U.S. 328, 440-41 (1828), " voud judgments constitute no jurisdiction, and form no bar to recovery
sought".
(22) The district court ruled that void the judgment and detainer claims were barred by 22 U.S.C. and 2244 but
stated the Eighth Circuit is silent on the issue, DOC # 33 at page (5). The Court failed to recognize that this Court had
already made it well established that void judgments are not barred by any limitations. As such, the District Court's
judgment is void because the Court deprived Mr. Weeks of due process and the fair opportunity to be heard on a void
judgment claim well established could not be barred. Therefore, Mr. Weeks could not have challenged the Mississippi
void parole detainer before June 22. 2015, because Mississippi Respondent did not issue the void detainer until (20)
years after the Mississippi Parole Board revoked the June 7. 1990 parole on June 8. 2015. See Appendix (Q)
Mississippi Respondent's supplement Motion filed in Weeks v. Mississippi, 689 Fed. App'x 297 ( 5th Cir. 2017)
before the district court, Id at DOC # (15). After arresting Mr. Weeks on November 2. 1991 under Miss. DOC
September 16. 1991 Scott County parole warrant. See Appendix (S) Miss. DOC warrant for Scott County August 22.
1988 (4) year sentence only. Miss. Code Ann 47-7-27 1990 required the due process hearing within 30 days. In which
had the Miss. DOC officials provided it, Mr. Weeks would have been able to show the Scott County (4) year sentence
was served in full and expired and that the Bolivar County November 23. 1988 (10) year sentence for uttering forgery
and Coahoma County July 18. 1989 (4) year sentence for uttering forgery was not Mr. Weeks convictions. See
Appendix (T) Mississippi Daily News shows that an Rubin Weeks was arrested in Mississippi on June 17. 2015 for
the Bolivar County November 23. 1988 (10) year sentence. See Appendix (T) Mississippi DOC website page that
shows Rubin Weeks arrest date June 17. 2015. Thereby, Mr. Rubin Rurie Weeks was on June 17. 2015 and is
incarcerated in the Missouri DOC for the last 27 years since February 14. 1992. See Appendix ( 9) Missouri DOC
face sheet February 14. 1992 entry date. Accordingly, the Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court Judge on February
13. 1992, run the Missouri life sentence concurrenlly with the Mississippi parole sentence time left. See Exhibit (304)
Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court Plea transcript at page 30-31 "Missouri sentence run concurrently with the
Mississippi parole sentence". See Chitwood v. Dowd, 889 F. 781 785-787 ( 8th Cir. 1989), Held: "that Chitwood had a
legitimate expectation he would be deprived of his liberty as determined by the Missouri State Circuit Court Judge
when the Court run his Missouri sentence concurrently with his Oklahoma State sentence under 558.026.3 RSMO
1991. In whish gives the Missouri State Judge Authority to run Missouri sentence concurrent with another State
sentence". Likewise, Mr. Weeks had the same legitimate expectations that his Missouri sentence was run
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:616853495 [P
2/2]
“S2ts
u»
asmfe
I
- hi. ..sogfiiiiSPSa. J'*Sf
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/9/2019 2:18:51 PM EST, Letter ID: 616853495
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
concurrently with his Mississippi parole sentence. Thereof, by the time Mississippi filed the Scott County parole
violation detainer with the Missouri Department of Corrections on March 22. 1994, the procedural requirements to flie
a timely post conviction motion in Missouri or Mississippi had expired.
n OF Z.0
RUBIN WEEKS 184303 SECC Building: 004 Complex: 04A Room:0A101 ID:617008655 [P
1/2]
i-
From : RUBIN WEEKS, ID: 184303
To : Kevin Schriener, CustomerlD: 8734071
Date : 7/9/2019 8:40:53 PM EST, Letter ID: 617008655
Location : SECC
Housing: 00404A0A101
Certiorari 181
(23). Therefore, the State of Mississippi having Mr. Weeks held in the illegal detention by arbitrary government
actions in violation of due process, "under a void parole detainer from a alleged sentence that has been expired since
April 22. 1991”. Thereof, the State Respondent, arguing procedural default defense, after deliberately waiting until it
was to late for Mr. Weeks to file under 28 U.S.C. and 2254 in a timely manner and have a fundamental fair
opportunity to be heard. Still the Mississippi State government, "has no legal interest in the detention of Mr. Weeks
under the void detainer because it is without legal force". See McCarthy v. Warden, 168 F. App'x 276, 277 ( 10th Cir.
), Cert, denied, 545 U.S. 914, 126, S. Ct. 2949, 165 L. Ed. 2d 968 (2006), "the State who arrest the prisoner first, has
primary jurisdiction over him, unless the State releases its jurisdiction to another State over the prisoner or dismissal
of the charges or the State sentence has expired". Thereby, each non-violent crime sentences from 1988 had been
expired by mandatory operating of law for ( 20) years prior to the Mississippi Parole Board arbitrary act on June 8.
2015 revoking the alleged June 7. 1990 parole. In which the Mississippi Respondent (DOC) told the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, in the 28 U.S.C and 2241 Habeas petition proceeding in Weeks
v. Mississippi, 689 Fed. App’x 297 ( 5th Cir. 2017) No. 3:15-CV-283-CWR-FKB at DOC # (8) at page (3) states It
appears the Mr. Weeks' probation has not been officially revoked. On the contrary, following his arrest on the
Missouri charges, MSDOC filed a detainer in Missouri and offered to extradite Mr.Weeks to Mississippi for revolution
proceedings. Here Mississippi Respondents circumvent and mislead the Court. The Respondent was right about Mr.
Weeks being on probation in Mississippi, but Mr. Weeks was arrested by Mississippi DOC officers on November 2.
1991, and placed in the Mississippi DOC facility under the September 16. 1991 DOC probation warrant.See Weeks v.
State, 140 S.W. 3d 39, 41-43 ( Mo. banc 2004), held: "Weeks arrested in Mississippi on November 2. 1991". See
Weeks v. State, 139 So. 3d 727 ( Miss. Ct. App. 2013). "Weeks arrested in Mississippi under the MDOC warrant on
November 2. 1991 and later extradited to Missouri". Thereby, Mr. Weeks did not seek to abort a the state proceeding
or to disrupt the orderly functioning of the State judicial processes" as argued by Mississippi Respondent Jim Hood at
DOC # (8) page (4). See Appendix (12) Mississippi Respondent Motion to Dismiss filed in Weeks v. Mississippi,
supra. Affirmively, Mr. Weeks was only seeking to be from from cruel and unusual punishment under a Mississippi
sentence that had been served in full and expired 20 years ago before he was unconditionally released to Missouri
on November5. 1991.
(24). The Missouri Respondents having obtained the Missouri conviction on February 13. 1992, by arbitrary
government actions and police torture force under plea agreement that Mr. Weeks would be provided medical
treatment for spine injuries that the State breached. As such, State government had Mr. Weeks convicted and
sentenced in the Cape Girardeau County, Circuit Court which lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the conviction
and impose the Judgment upon the Bollinger County rape charge and thereby lacked jurisdiction to inflict an
enhanced punishment sentence as prior and persistent offender against Mr. Weeks. Thereof, as the law has been
well established in State and Federal Courts "that void judgments cannot be brought back to life". See Larimer v.
Robertson, 800 S.W. 2d 154, 155 ( Mo. App. 1990). Therefore, "No State or Federal Court can restore the trial
Court's last of jurisdiction". See Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423 ( 1963). The only action that any State or Federal
Court could have rendered was to vacate the void judgment, order Mr. Weeks discharged from the Missouri
Respondent's custody under it and order Mr. Weeks discharged from the Mississippi void detainer hold thereof. As
such, no Court had the authority to affirm the Missouri state void rape conviction or sentence or the Mississippi void
detainer hold.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for all the state of Mississippi and Missouri government arbitrarily actions shown above and the facts
that Mississippi and Missouri State Courts placed Rubin Rurie Weeks into a sovereignty place without an 14th
Amendment right remedy to challenge it thereof and deliberately denied the medical treatment needed to correct the
spine injuries sustained by police beating which Mr. Weeks is dying in torture pain from today. Therefore, the United
States Supreme Court must grant Certiorari review, appoint counsel and allow this case heard, thereby, order
petitioner discharged from the Sovereignty place he is held illegally.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 8th DAY OF JULY 2019.
1
■rzzrrr:-:r?%.»—
IS 6F
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.