Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Larry Brandon Moore, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court briefJul 18, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

JUL 1 8 2013

IN THE

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Lan'v drardoA.

f\A tore

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

States eft

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Uai‘-fed 5fa+e.S

AjQff foils

fior

•tic. Four-f-i £ Ire n t-t

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

L *rry

$r4t\Jt>n

(Your Name)

FCiEfkten

(Address)

LvLoh.OH HHH3X

(City, State, Zip Code)

(Phone Number)

N\oCr'<.

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Does Article I of the U.S. Constitution

confer on Congress such authority as to have

enacted 62 Stat 683 et seq into positive law

thereby enacting, specifically, Title 18 of

third-party

United

States

Code

codification of prior laws which

.never

purported to be nor was intended to be law?

II.

Does Article I §.l of the U.S. Constitution

proscribe both Congress as a whole and the

individual members thereof, from delegating

to others,.be they lawyers, advisors,., interns,

independent citizens, government appointees,

publishing companies, business or industries .,

elected officials not part of Congress, or

any combination, organization, team or,groups

thereof the drafting of bills which can

become laws?

Which is, in turn, to ask: is

the drafting of bills, intended to become

law,

not

integral

and inrte-spensible

constituent part of Congress' law making

power?

V.*

If the answer to Question 2 is found to be no.,, then the question

of the limit of Congress' law making authority becomes suddenly

ambiguous.

In the case of such an event, Petitioner asks that

this

Court additionally answer

the following Supplemental

Question to both relieve this ambiguity and ensure that the

limits of Congress' power are well defined and established for

the nation and the people thereof as a whole.

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS)

What, if any, are the limits of Congress' and

its individual constituent members delagatory

■authority regarding their law making power

and what forms and methods, if any, should

and must be required and/or practiced and/or

followed by the recipients of such delagation

and what, if any, conventions should and must

such

created

the

resultant

bill(s)

delegation conform to?

LIST OF PARTIES

[

M\ parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

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

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

petition is as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

.11

CONCLUSION

.13

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Fourth Circuit Final Judgment [Doc. No. 53]

APPENDIX B - U.S. v Collins, 510 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2007)

APPENDIX C - Staff Requests Regarding B.O.P. Law Research Resources

APPENDIX D - Trial Court Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12 & 12.1]

& Denial [Doc. No. 14]

- APPENDIX E - Fourth Circuit Supplemental Brief [Doc . No. 30]

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

413 U.S. 548, 550 n.l (1973) .

510 F.3d 697 (7th Cir 2007) .

242 Fed. Appx. 362 (7th Cir 2007)

279- U.S. 813 (1929)

249 U.S. 397 (1919)

PAGE NUMBER

STATUTES AND RULES

18 U.S.C. 876

62 Stat 683

61 Stat 636

61 Stat 638

OTHER

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[t/f For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

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

is unpublished.

15 i/j’vov.v'eii

A to

■fee*

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appcndixthc petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

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

[Jfis unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

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

to the petition and is

Appendix

! or,

[ ] reported at

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

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the _

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

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

[ ] is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

For cases from federal courts:

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

was Ql-lX't?

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

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

and a copy of the

Appeals on the following date: -----------------order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

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

(date)

(date) on

to and including _

in Application No.

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

[ ] For cases from state courts:

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

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix---------[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

_____________________ , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix --------■ [ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) in

(date) on

to and including

Application No.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U. SConstitution: Article I, §1; Article III, §1

II.

The Act "June 25, 1948;

c. 645, 62 Stat. 638-84, 741"

III. The Act "July 30, 1947;

61 Stat. 636, 638"

IV.

c. 463-64, 649"

The Act "July 08, 1932,>

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Facts

This case originated in the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of North Carolina on a criminal,action

brought under 18 U.S.C. § 876. A pretrial motion to dismiss

and supporting memorandum [Doc. No s 12 & 12.1] was filed on

9/11/2017 challenging Congress authority to have, in June

25, 1948 enacted 62 Stat. 683 thereby causing to be enacted

This

U.S.C. .

Title

law

'into . positive

motion/memorandum sets forth an argument which necessarily

precipitates questions 1 and 2 in this petition.

II.

The District Court denied said motion on 9/14/17 [Doc. No.

14] relying solely on U.S. Civil Service Comm'n V National

Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFLCLO, 413 U.S. 548, 550 n. 1

(1973) and the incongruous statement "the defendant has

submitted no authority showing that 18 U.S.C. § 876 is

unenforceable."

III. On 9/28/17,

Petitioner

entered a conditional plea before

As part of the Plea Agreement

Magistrate Judge Keesler.

[Doc. No. 16], filed 9/25/17, the government permitted

Petitioner the right to appeal'the adverse decision [of Doc.

No. 12]"

IV.

On 7/09/18, following sentencing, Petitioner filed a Pro-Se

33], challenging the

[Doc. No.

Motion to Reconsider,

particulars of Doc. No. 14. This motion was denied without

prejudice on 7/12/18 [Doc. No. 40] for procedural reasons.

The arguments therein raised against Doc. .'No. 14 were

^•0—alleged in the Appellate Brief as part of Petitioners

The

In Support §§ 3-5] .

appeal [18-4480, Doc. No. 30

government did not challenge the claims raised therein.

The Court of Appeal's final judgment [18-4480, Doc. No. 53] ?

however:

(l)

Disregarded

Petitioners

challenge

that

U.S.

Civil

Service Comm'n V Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFLCLO

did not address at any point Petitioners original

claims, (re)citing it, without comment, as controlling 5

(2.)

(3)

Asserted a new case U.S. V Collins, 510 F.3d 697 (7th

Cir. 2007) as additional controlling precedence, and

Affirmed the District Court's findings.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Arguments

In the litigation of this case, two instances of case law

and on unsupported, ambiguous proposition have been set

forth in challenge to Petitioners position.

These are as

follows:

The proposition that "[Petitioner] has

authority

showing .that

U.S.C.

unenforceable." (see Trial Doc. No. 14)

II.

submitted no

876

U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n V Nat'l Ass'n of Letter

Carriers AFL-CLO, 413 U.S. 548, 550 n.l (1973)

U.S. V Collins 510 F.3d 697, 698 (7th Cir. 2007)

Of these, the first two have been refuted without meaningful

( see

contest in Petitioners filings in the lower Courts.

Trial Court Doc. No. 33 & 18-4480 Doc. No. 30, In Support

§§ 3-5)

III. Petitioner re-alleges

his

contentions/obj.ections

(l)

(2). Those being:

That U.S. Civil Service Comm'n V Nat'l Ass'n of Letter

Carriers AFL-CLO does not, at any point, address the

question(s) of law that Petitioner grieves; and

That it is Petitioners understanding that a Court of

Law Is bound to sustain Petitioners contentions,

without any such unreasonable requirements (As in I.A.)

when the governments counsel failed to provide any

argument based in law to refute Petitioners claim(s).

Petitioner wishes to further impress the point that

such

expectation

(i.A.)

applied by

the Trial

Court is ridiculous in the extreme; the mere suggestion

that a Petitioner must present authority concluding a

matter of law in his favor when that matter by all

appearances is (and has been repeatedly averred by Petitioner to

be) a novel question of law, can be called nothing save a

deliberate affront to. justice and an avoidance of his

arguments merits'No man can be reasonably expected to

produce authority on a matter which no Court has ever

directly addressed.

It . is significant that all

authority which Petitioner has presented in regards to this claim,

is disparate and assembled .from the substantial, diverse and

IV.

expansive body of U.S. Law and must be considered as a whole to

fully and clearly establish his contentions.

In regard to U.S. V Collins:

A-.

The 7 th Circuit decision corcemin-g the issue at

contest

this

case shows

itself

thorough

examination, to be strikingly brief (see Appendix. A ) ; a

coarse treatment at best 5 stating little more than the

quotation put forth in the 4th Circuit judgment in this

case [18-4480, Doc. No. 53]

In Collins, the part of. the opinion concerned relies on

the prior case U.S. V States, 242 Fed. Appx. 362 (7th

Cir. 2007).

This opinion is even more brusque: "This

case is unbelievably frivolous. We Affirm."

Petitioner, as an indigent inmate, without any support,

has only the limited access to legal filings that are

provided as a service under the B.O.P.’s Electronic Law

Library policy (1315.07).

Petitioner does not have access to the briefs

filed

either

Collins

States

and 'has

reasonable means to acquire said filings,

such, Petitioner can only address the opinion of

the 7th Circuit without any knowledge of exactly

what claim(s) was raised or the argument(s) that

was heard in support.

With (IV-C) in mind, both Collins and States are devoid

of any conclusions of law regarding the present issue.

They elucidate nothing.

They say nothing.

How can

such opinions,

lacking any substance or apparent

consideration

the

issue

at hand be

validly

recognized as

any form or precedent or even law for

that matter?

These opinions, in regard to this issue,

are meaningless j unexamined rhetoric.

They do not

control, in any way, in this matter.

«.

. I STATEMENT OF THE CASE

‘

In Further Support

In addition to Stephan v U.S., 319 U.S. 423, 83 S.Ct. 1135

(1943) cited in Docket Numbers 12 and 12.1 from the Trial

Court, the Act (July 9, 1947, ch 338,^.§1, 61 Stat 636; 638)

further supports (as a part of U.S.C. itself) the Prima

Facie nature of U.S.C. and th-e distinction between U.S.C.

and "the Law of the U.S."

Stat

636,

U.S.C.

112

(Statutes

Large;

contents; admissibility as evidence):

The archivist of the United States shall

cause to be compiled 5 edited, indexed and

published, the United States Statutes at

Large, which shall contain all laws and

current

resolutions

enacted

during

each

regular session of Congress... The United

States Statutes at Large shall be legal

evidence of laws, concurrent resolutions,

treaties, international agreements and other

treaties, proclamations by the President and

prepared

ratified

amendments

the

Constitution of the United States therein

in all courts of

the United

contained,

the

several

states

and

the

States >

territories and insular possessions of the

United States. (July 30, 1947)

61 Stat 638, 1 U.S.C. § 204 (Codes and Suppliments as

evidence of Law of the U.S. ...):

The matter set forth in the edition of the

Code of Laws of the United States concurrent

at any time shall, together with the , then

current supplement, if any, establish prima

facie evidence of the laws of the United

States,

general

and permanent

their

nature, in force on the day proceeding the

commencement of the session following the

last session the legislation of which is

included:

Provided, however, that whenever

titles of such Code shall have been enacted

into positive law the text thereof shall be

legal evidence of the laws therein contained,

in all courts of the United States, the

several States,

and the Territories and

insular possessions of the United States.

(July 30, 1947)

II.

U.S.C. has undergone many alterations over, the more than 70

years since -its supposed enactment ' into." positive taw* yet

these telling clauses about .its actual nature still remain

a part of it to this day:

that is that U.S.C. is not "legal

evidence" of law itself although its

"Legal Evidence" of law.

III. There is a

text must contain the

grave

and definite difference as there always

has been between the Laws that Congress is empowered to

enact and the codification U.S.C..

IV.

In all likelihood, it is probable that Congress did, in

fact, wish to enact U.S.C. into positive law, perhaps for

the sake of convenience and organization,

Such would

appear,

from

all

evidence,

to be

the

case.

thorough

investigation of the House & Senate reports to establish

this contention lies outside of Petitioners means, as he is,

as has been stated, and indigent inmate reliant entirely on

the law resources provided by the BOP.

(See Arguments V

(supra)). Such documents fall well outside the scope of the

legal resources provided by BOP policy (see Appendix B ).

If this supposition is correct, it is clear that no one then

(in 1947) or since challenged this as either an unlawful

delegation by Congress of- their law making authority nor on

the grounds that on indictment based on U.S.C./prima facie

evidence of law cannot satisfy the Sixth Amendments informed

clause nor, necessarily, confer criminal jurisdiction to any,

court.

VI.

Petitioner wishes to state, in the intent of thoroughness,

that upon information and belief, there existed a time

earlier in the countries history when U.S.C. was not

admissible for any reason in federal courts.

VII. Further, this Court, to Petitioners knowledge and belief,

made no reference to U.S.C. in any opinion prior to Ohio Oil

v Conway, 73 Led 972, 279 U.S. 813 (1929).

VII,i.As _ one

final

article

support

that

■’■Petitioner

following ' the

litigation

Petitioner quotes the following:

was

discove.r-ed by

his - appeal,

Congress

cannot

delegate

legislative

power

conferred by the Constitution to the extent of

authorizing

others

formulate

policies...

Weightman v U. S. , 142 F. 2d 188 (1944, CA1 NH);

Avant ________

v Bowles,

_ Em App , 139 F.2d 702; see also Nic

Kinley v U.S., 249 -U.S. 397, 39 S.Ct. 324, 6 L Ed

688 (191.9).

10.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The

challenge

raised

this

case

one

of . national .

importance due to the fact that U.S.C. is, and has been for

some time, universally accepted as the Laws of Congress

the Laws of the US.

Should this be, correctly, determined

to be a construct without force o_f Law

de.cad.ea o.f both

civil and criminal rulings would, necessarily trave to be

reevaluated . All of America would benefit from the widespread- revelation and the deep rooted implication it would

precipitate.

II.

All evidence Petitioner has access to and all of the feeble^

insubstantial content that government attorneys have put

forward in opposition to Petitioners assertion(s) can only

compel Petitioner to re-allege that this issue is a novel

. question of law that has never been meaningfully addressed

by a Court of Law.

III. This issue directly addresses.. the Constitutional bemuds which

the framers

the Constitution intended to be placed on

Legislature.

It requests that this Court exercise its

Constitutional authority to affirm and firmly enforce the

definite limits of Congressional delagatory power and to

admonish Congress for usurping, power never accorded it by

the Constitution, further,it is a plea to the judical power

of the U.S. to end the overreach and circumvention of the

Constitutionally protected rights of the American people,

whether

deliberate

otherwise,

by way

legislatorial

practices which lie outside of Constitutional intent; that

is to strictly and permanently cease Congress' heretofore

practice of delegating its law making powers

in any and

all forms

proper.

to any persons not duly elected to its body

11.

IV.

This is the only Court' capable of lawfully adjudicating this

As an

claim and insuring the relief Petition .'seeks,

interesting consequence of Article III provisions, all

lesser Courts of this land are creatures of Congressional

to the very issue that Petitioner

Legislative Acts,

Due

grieves, the Circuits and District Courts of the U.S. have 3

in modern times, become creatures, therefore, of U.S.C..

They exist by and through the supposed enactment of U.S.C..

into positive law and they derive- what authority they

We, thus, have the

exercise from U.S.C.'s provisions,

curious and problematic situation that were such a Court to

sustain Petitioners contention 3 it would necessarily and

consequently invalidate its own authority and thereby

It is therefore

nullify its own ruling as a matter of law.

not lawfully possible for any court, other than the

Constitutionally founded Supreme Court J to adjudge this

matter of law.

• s

12.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted

Date: ZzlA—Li

13.

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.