Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lynn Taylor, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Supreme Court briefSep 4, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

I.V

- -t36

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

SEP 0 k 20iS

IN THE

office of the CLFRK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Lynn Taylor

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

COP5 and USND-Amarillo

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

COP5

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Lynn Taylor

(Your Name)

2400 Wallace PACK Rd.

(Address)

Navasota. Texas 77868

(City, State, Zip Code)

(Phone Number)

QUESTIN(S) PRESENTED

1. Did the Northern District. Amarillo Division, abuse

it's descretion in not forwardinn the total "discovery'

of "unanswered admission, affidavit" to the Fifth Cir

cuit Court of Anneals that sunoorted the claim brounht

aqainst the Gov. attornev orosecutor Jim Yont7., for

consoirina a intentional scheme to offer fraudulent

material evidence into the courts mechcanism in order

to make a nexus to the contraband listed in the indict

ment? Too, the "exnansion of record" that hold the kev

to the truth of the matter?

2. Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Anneals abuse it's

descretion in not send Detitioners Rule 60 motion back

to the Northern District Court for abuse of descretion

and to be rule on in it's orooer statutory statue in

the headinn of the motion?

?. When a "aareement" between the Court and a defend

ant. have not been honored to represent "ownership" of

confiscated currency in oro-se at trial on the date

set- and later hold the trial in rem when the oro-se

netitioner was in the same olace civil action was ser

ved bv virture of "blue warrant" but came for netition

er to oro-se

of the court-?

reoresent in trial is that misconduct

4. Beina that oro-se oetitioner can't file ineffect

ive counsel on seld- did all of the nrosecutorial neaative avertment listed in his Rule 60 cause: him to

be ineffective as the weaker?

•S.

tr-

LIST OF PARTIES

[x] All 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:

NOTHERN DISTRICT, AMARILLO DIVISION

FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT np &PPMT.S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Northern Dist. -Amarillo Division 17-1000 Rule 60 motion construed as

sucessive petition. Mandated November 9, 2017-

APPENDIX B

5th Cir. .went along with- Dist. Court

APPENDIX C

5th'CirtoCourtoof Appeal si deneysoao eh banco panels .

17-1000

APPENDIX D

§ 1651 filed in 5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018

- construed as mandamus

APPENDIX E

5th Cir. denied 1651 April 10, 2019

18-11453

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Abdur Rahman/ 123 S.Ct- 594, 597, 537 U.S. 88

Adam v. United States,ex rel. Macann, 317, 269,273, 36 S.Ct. 236,

143 ALK 435, 82 L.Ed. 268, 271(1942)

American Mech. Eng's Inc. v. hydrolevel Crop, 456 U.S.556, 566

102 S.Ct. 1935, 72 L. Ed. 330 (1982)

Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3379, 89 L.Ed. 481 (1985)

Berger v. United States, 995 U.S. 78, 80, 55 S.Ct. 629

Braviin v. Estelle, 64 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir)

Chaney, 542 U.S. 389, 124 S.Ct. at 2590

Coleman v. Zant, 708 F. 2d 541 (11 Cir. 1983)

Donnelly v. dechristoforo, 416 U.S. 37, 94 S.Ct. 1869,

40 L.Ed. 431

East v. Scott, 55 F. 3d 996, 1001(5th Cir. 1995)

Gibbs v. Johnson, 154 F. 3d 553, 558 (5th Cir 1998)

Giglo v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763

766, 31 L.Ed. 104 (1972)

Glik v. Ansett. Asti. Ltd., 204 FRD 217, 218-19

DC 2001

Gonzales v. Crosby, 124 S.Ct. 2641

Hains v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. 521

Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F. 2d 1132, 1141(5th Cir.)

Hazel Atlas Glass v. Hartford Empire, 322 U.S. at 246,

64 S.Ct. at 1001-02 (1935)

13, 14

Jones v. kentucky, 423 U.S. 937, 96 S.Ct. 297

46 L.Ed. 270 (1975)

Kupferman v. Consol Research, 459 F. 2d 1072 (1972)

Luttrel

v. U.S.C.A.

§9(1980) 644 F. 2d 1115, 1119,

U.S.P.Q. 486

Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 598 , 12 , 35 L. Ed 870

(cite omitted)

Marshall v. Jerrio 446 U.S. 238, 242-43, 100 S. Ct. 1046

1013, 1014, 64 L. Ed.

182

Mooney v. Holoman, 294 U.S. 103, 110, 112 S.Ct. 340,341-42

79 L. Ed. 791 (1935)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Murphy , 205 F. 3d 813-14

Napue v. Illinois, 246, 269-70

, 3 L.Ed. 1217 (1959)

(Cite Omitted)

Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 454-55, 104 S.Ct. 2501.,

2514-15, 81 L. Ed 377 (1984)

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400

404-05, 85 S.Ct. 1068-69,

13 L.Ed. 923 (1965)

Ryland v. Shaprio, 708 F. 2d 978 (5th Cir 1983)

Schinter v. Estelle, 552 F. @d 593, 595 (5th Cir. 1977)

Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 322, 83 S.Ct. 745,

762, 9 L.Ed

(1963)

1. 5

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224-25, 87 S.Ct.

9126, 1930-31, 18 L. Ed. 1149 (1980)

West, 92 F.3d 1385, 1400 (5th Cir)

418 U.S. at 709 , 94 S.Ct. 3090

STATUE AND RULES

Fed. rule Civ Proc. Rule 60 (b)(3), (d)(3) and (b)(6)

Fed Rule Civ Proc. 36(a), 36(a)(1), 36 (a)(3)

Fed Rule Civ. Proc. §5

28 U.S.C. §2254, §2244 (b)(3)

2.5. request for admission

:§ 7 expansion or record

5 U.S.C. §551

ALL WRIT ACT §1651

Habeas Corpus

§1, §6. §7, §118, §121, § 109

TREATIES

E.g. 4 Pomeroy (Pemeroy, A Treaty on Equity Jurisdiction §1346 at

989 (Symons 5th ed. 1941)

Injunction Forign Judgment, Enforcement, A Board of Restaint

Yale 38 L.J. 261 (1928)

TREATIES

WHY A NEED FOR PROSECUTORIAL TIE? Duke L.J.

1171

I CANNOT TELL A LIE, A STANDARD FOR NEW TRIAL IN FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT

CASES.

J.W. Tunner - OUTLINE ON CRIMINAL LAW 13 n. 2.24 (16th ed. 1952)

1946 Yale L.J. 623, 653 to 659

Fed. Relief From Criminal Judgment, 1946, 55 Yale 623, 653 to 659

3 Moore Fed. Practice 1938, 3267 et. seq.

Survey & Purposal for general reform 60 Cal. Rev. 531, 557 (1982)

Rule

Of Civil Trail (By O'Conners 3.1 Exparte Communication

OTHERS

Texas Annex Code 37.09 (a)(2)

Black Law dictionary 316 ((th ed. 2009)

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

% U.S.C §551

U.S.C.A.

10(a)

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

[ ] For cases from federal courts: Northern Dist Asmrillo, 5th cir- coa

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

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

I or,

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

k ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

I or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

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

Appendix_____ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

I or,

[ ] 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

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[ ] 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 APfi.fl

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

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

Appeals 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

to and including _

(date) on

(date)

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

to and including____

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.__ A

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

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pettioner was convicted for Possession of a control substance- the lesser

included offense and possession of a fire arm by felon;

After the district court of nothern-Amarillo aiudicate the 28 U.S.C § 2254

the petitioner souqht a COA from the Fifth Circuit of Apoleas. Denied.

Petitoner file a "discovery, for expansion of records- admission accompany

with a affidavit. The petitioner sent "the "admission" to the Amarillo

Police Department to Finaerprint expert Jame People and the District Court

had there coov. The Affidavit nor the admission was objected to or answer.

When the tollinq was elasoed the petitioner sent that information to the

district which was in the possession of the Fed. Rule 60 motion. There afEer

the Rule 60 motion was forward on the Fifth Circuit of Appeals by the dis

trict court without the discovery results and as a second successive peti

tion §28 U.S.C,. § 2244 . The Fifth Circuit went alonq with the district

court and petitioner filed for a en banc panel- denied. Petitioner file

a 28 U.S.C. § 1651 . The Court construed it as a mandamus- denied.

Petitioner tried to qet the motion rule on in their Proper

statutory statue. This is the purpose of the Writ of Certiora.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

(1.) A Courts blanket denial of "discover" is a abuse

of descretion if "discovery is "indespensable to a fair

round of developement of facts". Coleman v. Zant, 708

F 2d 541, 547(11 Cir. 1983)quoting Townsain v. Sain,

372 U.S. 322, 83 S.Ct. at 761.

Pro-se petitioner brought a charge against the Gov. agent

attroney-prosecutor Jim Yontz, of knowningly use of Fraud

fraudulent material evidence in his "scheme" to obtain a

conviction. One of the fraudulent material evidence was a

purchase receipt" for ammunition, that was testified to as

haveing the petitioners signature on it. Under fross-examination the witness being a DEA

agent assist the prosecut

or recanted this statement and said there was no signature

on the receipt of the petitioner. (Officer Harrington).

Both

prosecutor

Jim Yontz and Harrington are officer of

the and carries weapons because of their position with the

government. They know that there is no requirement for a

signature on a purchase receipt. At days ends as petition

ers witness, Harring was recalled the next moring to finiah the cross examination. Upon the call and the question

ask , was petitioner signature on the receipt, the gov.

prosecutor objected, "there is no reason

for this, we

have already been through. Overruled. It was left uncorr^

ected. That showed that the item was of important to make

the only nesus to the weapon found three (3) rooms and a

flight os stairwell away from petitioner. Closer to the

person that stayed in the bottom of the resiednt.

(2.) Assisting Gov. agent, finger print expert Jame people

testified over and objection by pro-se counsel that the

fingert card pronts was the print taken off of the digi

tal scale found in the resident. My objection was over

ruled and the agent testified to that afffect. Petitioer

received the rtanscript some 18 months later and the ob

jection had be eradicated from the trans cript. The finger

print card to whow the discovery was direct to requesting

a expansion of record to the finger print card that cona signature given by petitioner pretrial to prove their

enhancement paragraph. The record will show in the pre

trial hearing that there was no conclusive prints, then

the prosecutor interjecting the fraudulent material evi

dence into the mechcamism of the court knowing that they

was false fraudulent entry. A "affidavit uncontested, and

a admissiom sent to the James People unanswered. IB&S

of the thrity (30) tolling elasped, the district court was

notified. Note: the 60 motion was still being reviewed.

There after the 60 motion was transferee! to the 5th Cir Court of Appeals and a second sucessive §2244 petition.

Note: None of the "discovery fore mention was forward to

the Court of Appeals.

In supra, 205 F, 3d 813-14 (5th Cir) a petitioner is

entitle to discovery to suppoct a claim of "prosecutorial

misconduct" even thoght it is under stood by the 5th Cir

Cout Of Appeals, it dose not lower the gate of discovery.

Thus where "specific" before the Court show reason to belive that petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed,

be able to demonstrate that his...entitle to relief, it

the duty of the court to provide the necessary facilities

and procedures for and adquate inquiry" Gibbs v. Johnson,

154 F. 3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 1998) cert, denied —U.S.---119 S.Ct. 1501, 143 L.Ed.^654 (1991).Rule 6 goverming 28

U.S.C. §2254 case, premits discovery only if goog cause is

shownand "establish a prima facie claim for relief" Harris,

89 S.Ct. at 1086. Additionly, petitioner allegation must

be specific to discovery under Rule 6. West v. Johnson,92

F. 3d 1385-1400(5th Cir.) The Courts own rules but neg

lect to sent the 60 motion for abuse of descretion. Evidence

is material when there is reasonable probability that a

different out come would have resulted. See Magistrative

"Report and Recommendation, pg. 7". Stating that the only

that convicted the petitionr Taylor was the figer prints.

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375,3379

87 L. Ed- 2d 481 (1985). Judge or "prosecutor, there work

ing if false and fraudulent is the same, in the eyes of

justice. The Gov. agent-prosecutor took these material

evidence knowingly to be false to make a nexus to conveict.

§2,5 Request for admission.

A party may request that a paryt admit to the truth of any

revelant none priviledge matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) and

request may refer to factual matter, ultimate legal issue,

genuiness of documents , Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(1), Glik

v. Ansett Asti.

Ltd. 204 FRD 217, 218-19 (DC2001).In Fed.

R. Civ. Proc. 5, if responding party dose not respond to

the

"admission" or object to the request, the matter is

deem law and evidence. Fed. R. Civ Proc. 36(a)(3) makes The

request deem admitted as evidence. Yet the Magistrative

did not froward the discovery request. A denial discovery

is supose to be viewed as a "abuse of discretion, East v.

Scott, 55 F. 3d 996, 1001 (5th Cir. 1995)(Quoting Townsain

v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 ,322, 82 S.Ct. 745, 762 L. Ed-(1963).

As the Court explained , that the need for information in

the criminal context is much weighter. because of the his

torical] commitment to the rule of law...is nowhere more

manifest in our view, that two fold aim[of criminal justic] is the guikty shall not escape and the innocent suffer' Id. at 708, 709, 94 S.Ct.

(Quoting Berger v.

United States, 995 U.S. 78, 80, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L. Ed.

1314 (1935). The light of "fundamental" and comprehensive"

need for every mans evidence in the criminal justice sys

tem , 418 U.S. 709, 710, 94 S.Ct. 3090.

In proving up fraudulent use by the gov. prosecutorial

team

to make that ©nexus" to the contrand the above had

to be explained. The scheme by the gather of the evidence

(prosecutor Jim Yontz sought to that type of low placing

the "courts" integrity to a impartial trial due to the ac

cuse by law. No one cares to ©expaned the record" where

the truth lies. The unanswer admission, uncontested affi

davit" should send a signal that something went wrong.The

Need For A Prosecutorial Tie.

Did the Court of Appeals 5th Cir. abuse it's own discret

ion by not return the Rule 60 motion back to the Northern

Cistrict Court. Note Rule 7 governing habeas corpuses, en

title a "expansion of record 7(b) exhibits written ad

mission, and affidavits maybe submitted and consider part

of the record. Rules to no avail.

The "All Writ Act"

28 U.S.C. § 1651 gave Federal courts

the Power to fashion appropriate mode and procedure, 394

U.S. at 299, 89 S.Ct. at 1090, including discovery to dis

pose- Habeas Corpus petition as law and justice requires

Id.

at 300, 89 S.Ct. at 1091 n. 7 . Accordingly, in 1976

it was promulgated and Congress adopted the rules govern

ing U.S.C. §2254 cases.

2. The gov. attorney-prosecutorial team

called a assitina aaent from Amarillo Po

lice Department Jame People (Report Repor

ter Jame pebble) a finaer print expert

that testified that the orint he qave the

prosecutor came off of the digital scale

found in the resident of thepefettionerThe day before the prosecurt in pretrial

discovery motion of petitioner, the re

sults was inconclusive.

On the acual day of the trial the officer

Jame People took prints from the petition

er for enhancement purposes. The prosecut

or offered this call into evidence as the

prints taken from the scale. The Affidavit

discussed in one (1) qiven by petitioner

and a admission to that fact which went

unanswered or obiected to. Under cross

examination the petition was not able to

qet officer People to recant and tell the

truth to the matter as the second officer

to be discuss DEA Harrinaton who recanted

15.

concerninq a purchace receipt. Futher, the

petitioner obiected to the prints at trial

and that objection had been taken out of

the report reporter when petitioner was .

able to obtain a transcript of record- The

"affidavit"was to that affect too.

Failure to discover feaud or perjury on a

cross examination is not a bar to the Fed.

R- Civ. Proc. Rule 60 (b)(d$28 U.S.C.A..

The entire "discovery" item - finaerorint

card that bares the sianature of the peti

tioner. The admisssion and supportino aff

idavit unanswered to or objected to and bv

the nothern district totally nealect to

forward the whole discovery request to the

Fifth Cir. Court of Appeals in the minimum

should raise a lot of suspicious.A Federal

Court must allow discovery and a evident

iary hearina, only where a factual dis

pute.

if resolved in the petitioners fav

or would entitle him the relief.

1355, 1367.

9. /

' M.

21 f. 3d

The second qov. attornev-orocutorial team

use was DEA officer Harrinaton. Officer

Harrington and the prosecutor conspired

with the "purchase receipt that was preto the iurv as havinq petitioner's signa

ture on it. The qun found in the resident

was a 25 colt automatic and the shall

found in the resident was a box of 25

automatic shall and 45 shell.the prose

cutor ofer the evident before the iurv as

his only nexus to he weapon. On cross-ex

amination the DEA agent recanted and said

there was no signature on the receiot-The

trial ended for the day- The petitioner re

called the DEA agent the next morninq.The

prosecutor "obiect" when have already been

throuaht that. This shows that he knew and

the refreashinq to the "jury was not in his

interest. Uncorrected to the iury.The pro

secutor is the gather of evidence and as

a office knew that no such reouirment is

necessiarv to purchase ammunition. He use

fraudulent material knowinqly to make a

nexus to the contraband.

19,

While a prosecutor may stick hard blows.

he is not at liberty to stick foul ones.

It is as much as his duty to refrain from

improper methods calculated to produce a

wronaful conviction throuah knowinalv use

of fraudulent material evidence and inter

ject them into the mechcanism of the judi

cial process deorivinq a defendant a fair

and impartial trial, which would be a

just one. Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 416

U.S. 6.17 . 40 L. Ed. 2d 431. 94 S.Ct.1868.

Petitioners assertion to the Court in his

Rule 60 ( b) ( d )^)notion was only charqinq

the prosecutorial as usino fraudulent

material evidence to make a prosecorial

tie. Ofetn a oro-se litiqant try to ex

plain and it looks as thouqh it is a new

issue but is the fruit of the poisonness

tree. Such fruit are at there sweetest

when they meet ones on objective in use.

conviction. E . c^. 4 Pomeferoy ( Pomeroy, a

Treaties on Equity Jurisprudence §1346 at

liB-

984, (Symons "5th ed. 1941)(Pameroy)(where the le

gal judgement was obtained or entered through

fraud or fraudulent material...the court of eqwill interfer...ana restrain proceeding on the

judgment which cannot consientiously enforceed;Note. Tnjunction-Forign Judgment Enforcements board

restraint. 38 Yale L.J. 261 (1928). Fed. Rule 60

(b)(d)(3) indeed provide the procedure for obtaing

any relief from a judgment shall be by motion pre

scribed in these rules or by independent action.

See Id. Comm. Note Arndt.(emphasis added).Note: A

priniciple is responsible for the acts of it's agents commited in the scope of there employment or

actual authority, t.s. American Soc'y of Mech.

Eng's Inc. v. Hydrolevel Crop. 456, 566, 102 S.Ct.

1935, 72 L.Ed^fcl330 (1982). The Rule 60 motion was

the proper way to present the prosecutorial team

scheme, "fraudulent Material" evidence to make a

Nexus to the contraband for in the petitioner's

resident.

A due process requires a showing of prosecutorial

involvement to the fraud. Jonesv. kentucky, 423

12.

U.S. 937, 96 S.ct. 297,' 46 I/:Ed. 270(1975)See,

"the objection made by the prosecutor" when the

petitioner re call the DEA aqent Harrington. (The

State's prosecutor objected on the grounds , we

have already been through that. The recant to the

fraudulent material evidence having the petition

ers signature on a "purchace receipt for ammununition. The gun found ih the resident was a 25

"colt auntomatic and the shell was

for a 25 auto-

matic" the prefect connection to complete the sch

eme. Carloson, Why A Need For Prosecotorial Tie?

(1996). Duke L.J. 1171. The 5th Cir. Court of Ap

peals long abided the prosecutor must have knowninq,-y used the fraudulent material evidence to con

vict a defendant. Do the "objection" send a mess

age that the prosecutor knew that the evidence was

fals and didn't try to correct it. he need that "

tie". The Court of Appeals truned blind eye to the

truth asserted by the petitioner?See, Mooney v.

Hoioman, 294 U.S. 103, 110, 112 S.Ct. 340, $§-42,

79 L.Ed. 791(1935)-;pre curiam (Hawkin v. Lynaugh,

844 F. 2d 1131, 1141, (5th Cir.)(Bravtin v. Estel-

203-

le, 64 F. 2d 392/ 395 (5th Cir. 1981). The Court went

against their own ruling. See General Notes, I CANNOT

TELL A LIE, THE STANDARD FOR NEW TRIALS IN FRAUDULENT

AND FRAUD CASES, mich. L. Rev. 1925 (1985). The prose

cutorial team their conviction by use of fraudulent

material evidence, conducts - acts of omission... In

case where a man is able to show that the conduct or

doing of others or self whether in form or inaction,

was voluntary, he (prosecutor jim Yontz, must be held

reliable for any results produced by... J.W. Tunner,

Kenny's outline on criminal law, 13 n. 2.24 (16 ed.

1952). I CANNOT TELL A LIE: The stanard for rules in

fraudulent cases...Napue v. Illonios, 264 269-70,

S.Ct 1173, 1174, 3 L. Ed. 1217 (1959) (citing omitted).

Prosecutorial misconduct - falsified, concealed, or

covered by tricks, schemes or divice a material

facts: If they are criminal offenes, hurt the in

tegrity of the Court for they are relied upon to

obtained the user objective, too , or use any false

writing or documents

knowingly the same to contain

falsity applied from the prosecutor"s prespective.

U.S.C.A. 10(a).

14.

i‘-

Even in the Texas Ann. Code, 37.09(a)(2), make or

use any type of record, document or thing with

falsity with intent to effect the course or out

come of a offical proceeding is a violation and

it's impeartiality. Many case have been turned be

cause of the us<£ of fraudlulent evidence. In §1946

Amendment-subdivision (b) by making fraud an expr

ess ground for relief, by motion and under the sav

ing clause, fraud maybe

urged as a basis for re

lief by independent a ction insofar as established

doctrine premitts. See Moore&Roger, Federal relief

from civl, criminal judgments, 1946, 55 Yale L.J.

623, 653, to 659; 3 Moores Federal practice 1938,

3267 et. seq.. And the rules dose give power to

the Court when fraud have been prepetrated upon it

by attorneys, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, to

give relief under the saving clause as illistrated

in this situation. See Hazel Atlat Glass Co. v.

Hartford Empire Co. (1944) 64 S.C.t. $997, 322

U.S. 288, 88 L.Ed 1250.

The Court of appeals denied the motion under Cro

sby.The saving clause in Crosby is there for ha

beas corpus. 125‘ S.Ct. 2641, 2645.

JE&-

See Marshall v. Holmes, where e judgment had been

taken aqainst a culpit in an underlying action as

a result of forqe , fraudulent material evidence

document- 141 U.S. 589, 12 S.Ct- 62, 35 L.Ed. 870.

The public welfare demands that it's agencies of

ublic justice

be not so impotent that they must

always be so mute and helpless victims deception

and fraudluent schemes and ect. Hazel Atlas, 322

U.S. at 246, 64 S.Ct. at 1001. Since prosecutors

attorneys .are officers of the Court, their con

duct if dishonest, would constitute fraud upon the

Court. Kupferman v. Consol research 459 F. 2d

1072, 1079 (1972), where it is held and attorney

miqht commit fraud upon the court, by institut

ing

and action " to which'he knew had a complete

defense". See the transcript where the shooting

took place and the culpit sceene throwing the gun

in the trash can. Same make and model. See

Comment Rule 60 (b)(d)(3); Survey and Purposal

for general reform. 60 Cal. Rev. 531, 557 (1982).

In Hazel Atlas at246, 247, 64 S.Ct. at 1001-02 (

holding that the party that present the fraudulent

24-

material evidence, cannot disclaime it's effective

ness after the fact) (intentionly uncorrected by

the prosecutor) after the fact. The prosecutor is

an enity and as such, it is the spokeman for the

government, Giqlo v. the United States, 405 U.S.

150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31:L.Ed. 104 (1972);

Schniter v. Estelle, 552 F. 2d 593, 595 (5th cir.

1977)( State law enforcement officer is oart of

the

prosecutorial team, his knowledge is impute

to the prosecutor. They work hand in hand to obtai conviction.

In Abdur Rahman,supra, when a pro-se petitioner

assert prosecutorial fraud, he is impugnimq the

integrity of the district court's judgment re

jecting his petitioner on the ground that the

State obtained it's conviction or judgment by

fraud, 123 S.Ct. 594, 597-98, 537 U.S. 88, 154

L. Ed. 2d 501 (2001). Petitioner is not bring a

new constitutional ruling or error. The Rule 60

motion was not a secussive petition and should

have been ruled in ti's proper statutory statue.

13.

The petitioner"s Rule 60 motion should have been re

turn ed to the district court for abuse of descretion.

ane the 1651 All Writ Act by the "substance stated inn

should have compled tHe Honor Cour of Appeals to recon

sider their posit and returned to the northern dis

trict court to adhere to the "discovery and assitine

admission and petitioner's affidavt" for they may have

merits. Comity should play a part in taking a man lib

erty and the records comfimed all stated in the Rule

60 Motion and §1651.

Petitioner reguest that the Honorable Court of the .

United States "Supreme Court" to "expaned the record"

for the truth lies their. Petitioer's "affidavit" to

the truth of the assiting agent act(Finger print ex

pert) lies there. They forget that the petitioner

trided the case and know what evidence was introduced.

The "affidavit was not objected to or contested.There

are sign in creation but only mean of understanding

will see the real message. It's presented

man prespective but it's the truth.

/18.

in a lay

3- When the "communication of the court" brea$ks

down who is at fault? The oetitioner claimed owner

ship) of the currency taken from him found in his

folded uo pants ,no contraband found in the area

or oetitioner- The State served discovery on the oe

titioner at the Potter Countv iail where he was beina

held by wav of olue warrant for oarol.e violation- In

answerincj the admission and interoqatories he claim

ownership and filed a motion to act in oro-se in the

matter- The court aureed and set a January 23. 2008

court date. When that date arrived oetitioner was not

transfered from the ootter county detention centerThere was never a court date set there after- The

petitioners trial court date came into olav and the

petitioner was transferd to the countv court house to

act as oro-se attorney. After beina found auiltv and

transfered to TDGT-Id. Some 18 months passed and the

petitioner filed a "default iudament in the civil

mater- The court return the default judament. stating

the civil had already been tried. The disposition of

that trial was sent to the resident address. when the

oetitioner was still house at the PCDC- The civil

*9.

action was held inrEem. disootion sent to the resid

ence of arrest when thev knew the oetitioner where about- Eighteen (&B) oassed before he knew what had

transpired- The court fioure out if petitioner trv

the case and then have a trial it would inter in the

workinq.;of::.a.double ieopardv claim- Bv their action

(countv attronev and prosecutor) thev scheme to hold

the civil trial in rem

to avoid that oositincu The

currenv was leaal and the entitioners- The admission

and interoaatories prove thatEven in "civil cases" a Court mav adoot prosedures

thet favors one oartv over another- See Marshall vJerrio Inc- 446 U.S- 238- 242-43. 100 S.Ct. 1016. 1013

1014- 64 L- Ed- 2d 182 (1980)- Fed R- Civ- Proc- Rule

60-204. fraud upon the Court suooortina relief from

a iudament is tvoicallv limited to eaerqious events

improper influences exerted on the court - affectina

the intearitv of the Court and it's abilitv to funct

ion partiallv- Fraud upon a Court confers -jurisdiction

on the court to set aside aiudnment where unsucessful

party have been prevented from exhabitina his side of

the case - bv fraud. deception practice on him bv his

ooooent, AS BY KEEPING HIM AWAY FROM COURT. A False

promise or a compromise: be keep in igorance by plain

tiff. Lutttrell v- U-S'C.A'- § 9 (1980) 644 f. 2d |115-

1119, U-S.P.Q. 486 Fed. Rules of Civil trails (by

O'Conners) 3.1 Exparte communication prohibited.

Exparte communication involves fewer than all part

ies who are legally entitled to be present doing

the discussion. See Black Law Dictionary 316 (

9th ed- 2009). The adminstrative procedure act

definds a exparte communication as an oral or

writen communication not on public record with re

spect to reasonable notice to all parties given.

5 U.S.C. § 551 (14). The end result prevented the

petitioner from filing a "double jeopard claim be

fore trial. A breach

of agreement on the weaker.

The trust the cOurt owe to the public vanished

by reneging in the agreement for pro se petition

er to act inpg^sona to his claim on the ownership

tov.the currecncy taken from him.

In Thompson, supra, the right to be present at a

proceeding is fundamental to the system of justice.

827 F. 2d 1258 [3]; Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S.

431,,454-55, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2514-15, 81 L. Ed.

377 (1984)(Steven cocurring in judgment); See Po

inter v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404-05, 85 S.Ct.

1065, 1068-69, 13 L. Ed. 923 (1965)( discussing

$a~

riqhts to confortation and the right to cross

to examination.) This include to be present at a

crucial stage of due course of law. Unite States,

v. Wade.,. 388 U.S. 218, 224-25, 87 S.Ct. 9126,

9130-31, 18 L. Ed. 1149 (1980). through deciet by

breaching and agreement that the peitioner could

repensent his claim to ownership to currency

confiscated on the date of January 23 2008 and

that adte never came: the civil action was did

March 2008 without the petitoner even knowing so

he could not tell his side of the story. Most importingly, they came to the same place where'the.

civil action was served to get me to try the

criminal trial. Petitioner was at the same all

the time by virture of parole warrant.

* **

4. Did the negative averment present in question 1. 2,

and 3 prevent the "pro-se counsel” from being "structual affected. Petitioner cannot filed ineffective coun

sel on self. Did the: "prosecurorial schemes of decept

ion in it's use of fraud, fraudulent material evidence

aletr the strategy to prove his innoce at trial?

1. Was prevented from proffing the evidence of anothers

M.O. from a shooting just before the raid. Cloest to

the contraband.

2. Presentation of a fake fradulent receipt that did

not contained the petitioner signature as assisting agent Harrington clain and recanted.

3. Use of a finger print card taken pretrial for en

hancement purposes in proving up priors.

4. Reneged on a breach of agreemnt to act pro-se in

ownership claim, and on the date of trial never picked

petitioner from the place he was served the suit. Pot

ter County Detention center, Same place they picked

the petitioner up to act in pro-se at trial in the

two (2) cause charged against him.Preventing a op

portunity to make a double jepordy claim by way of

10.07 habeas corpus.

Did the structual assertion of the prosecutor cause

the petitioner to be ineffective?underrChronic? 104

S.Ct. 2039, 466 U.S. 648.

#/*

CONCLUSION

Habeas Corpus §1, scope of flexibility, (5) flexibility

to ensure that miscarriage of justice in its reach are

suffice and corrected. (6) The Court must act on appro

priate showing , (7) §118, 121, is entitle to a full

opportunity for presentation of revelant facts.(proession of claim -power inquiry presentation of facts.

Habeas Corpus §109 - fashioning appropriate modes for

procedure. (12) The ALL WRIT STATUE (28 U.S.C. §1651)

extend to habeas corpus proceeding and authorize modes

of appropriate by analogy to exsisting rules or other

wise

in conformity with judicial useage: where their

duty requires it, this is inscapable obligation of the

Court.

The statue has served since its inclusion in substance

in the Orginal Judiciary Act, as a legistrative" ap

prove source of procedure instrument design to ach

ieve the rational in law, Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S.

266, 282, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356, 1359 (1948):

(Quoting Adam v. United States, ex rel. Macann 317

269, 273 , 36 S. Ct. 236, 143 ALK 435, 82

L.Ed. 268,

271 (1942). In Gonzales supra, there only one saver

clause and that is fraud upon the Court. 125 S.Ct. 2641.

24.

The Fed. R. Civ Proc. Rule 60 (b)(d)(3) was the appro

priate route to address the Gov. agent -prosecutorial

act of interjecting fraud and fraudulent material into

the

Courts mechcanism, making it impossible for pro

se counsel fair dealing of impartiality. Futher, in

Chaney supra, the decision to prosecute a case, for

example, is made by publis accountable prosecutor sub

ject to budggetary consideration and under a ethical

obligation, not only to win and zealously to advacate

for his clint but also to serve cause of justice. The

penal system mitigated by responsible exercise of pro

secution discretion. When that descretion falls short

for prosecutorial

personal objective to convict, then

the contrive tactic of using "known” false, fraudulent

material evidence, the trials Courts integrity to im

partiality to and accuse through the use of said

evi

dence, then "fraud" have been prepetrated upon it, by

its ayent and assistence.(emphasis of the writer. 542

U.S. 389, 124 S.Ct. at 2590. In the light of "funda

ment" and "comprehensive" need for every mans evidence

in the criminal justice system. 418 U.S. at 709, 94

S.Ct. 3090. As ^pro-se counsel" petitioners knows

25.

what was objected to, (supported by affidavit) and

knows that the fingerprint card introduce by gov.

agent-prosecurtorial was a fraudulent assertion as

prints coming off of a digital scale. The prints in

tro duce came from the pretrial taking for enhancement

purpose. The "expansion of the record" will clear and

produce the truth. The Rules 60 motion to the district

court was to the truth stated in this §1651 ALL WRIT

ACT. The 5th Cir COP should have sent it back to the

district court for abuse of discretion, and it had the

pwoer to correct as stated above.

The petitioner prayes that this Honorable Cort of the

United States (Supreme Court) expand the record, order

the COP send back to the district court, where the dis

covery have intentionly been lift out of the judicial

process. You have an unanswered "admission" and aunconted "affidavit"

to support the assertion of the

prosecutorial misconduct, that have total been elimi

nated from this litigation. It's a reason for that.

in the nature of Hains v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521.

All factual alligation must be excepted as true with

any other references

that can be drawned from.Ryland

v. Shaprio, 708 F. 2d 978 (5th Cir 1983).

26:

The petition for writ certiorari shoud be granted.

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.