Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Don Farley, Petitioner v. Carl Parson

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Don Farley,

Petitioner,

vs.

Carl Parson,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH

CIRCUIT

Don Farley

PO Box 135

Lakeview, AR 72642

251-604-1755

)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.

Was Farley denied his First Amendment Right of Free

Speech and Fourteenth Amendment of due process?

2.

Did the U.S. District Court fail to exercise reasonable

control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and

presenting evidence to make the procedures effective for

determining the truth?

3.

Did the U.S. District Court error in not allowing any of

Farley’s exhibits and exclusion of evidence?

4.

Was invasion of privacy proved for a political candidate?

5.

Did the District Court error in allowing irrelevant

information and evidence to be presented?

6.

Did the District Court error on impeaching Farley, for

arguing a false and fabricated document that had not been

presented, while Farley was on the witness stand testifying

against himself?

7.

Did the District Court error in not presenting proper

instruction as to First Amendment rights as to free speech?

8.

Did the Plaintiff meet the Court’s instruction on burden

of proof “the party who seeks to recover on a claim has the

burden to prove the note was false or that it caused him any

damages”?

9.

Did the District Court Error pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedures 26(3) and Federal Rule of Evidence 1002?

10.

Did the District Court error in proceeding with the trial,

allowing irrelevant evidence once Farley asked for a mistrial,

to be excused and was not in attendance?

i.

11.

Did Parson’s evidence and requirements meet the

criteria of this case?

12.

Were all of the objections by Plaintiffs counsel during

Farley’s opening and closing statements which caused a

tremendous amount of confusion acceptable to the Federal

Court Procedures?

n.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Parties to the proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals

of the Tenth Circuit were Petitioner, Don Farley, and,

Respondent, Carl Parson.

m.

1

RELATED CASES

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Case

Number 18-5125

United States District Court for the Northern District of

Oklahoma No. 16-CV-423-JED-JFJ

xv.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STAUTES AND RULES

First Amendment Rights of Free Speech

Fourteenth Amendment of Due Process

Federal Rule 60(B)(3)(4)

Federal Rule 61 l(l)_________________

US. App. D.C. 300, 333, 750 F.2B 970, 1002

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5l(D)(l)(2)(A)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (3)

Federal Rule of Evidence 1002

v.

Page 1

Page 1

Page 1-2

Pages 34Page 5~6

Page 6

PAGE

1,6

1, 6

1

1

9

2

2

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

The opinion of the United States court of appeals at Appendix

A to the petition and is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at

Appendix B to the petitioner and is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided

my case was January 13, 2020.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. §

1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED

1.

First Amendment Rights of free speech.

2.

Fourteenth Amendment of due process.

3.

Federal Rule 60 relief from judgment or order,

presenting documents, not original and had been altered

Rule 60(B)(3)(4).

4.

Federal Rule of Evidence 611(1) procedures effective for

determining the truth.

Page 1

5.

US. App. D.C. 300, 333, 7B0 F:2B 970, 1002 context of

political candidates.

6.

Federal Rule of Civil' Procedure 5l(D)(l)(2)(A) claim of

error and Fed. R. Civ.P. 51(D)(2) plain error Farley was

not aware that he had the right to object to Jury

Instructions.

7.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(3) disclosure of

evidence.

8.

Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 false promissory note.

9.

Burden of proof as to punitive damages.

10.

Irrelevant evidence.

11.

Did Plaintiffs evidence and requirements meet the

criteria of the case?

Page 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In reviewing the decision of the United States Court of

Appeals, 'Tenth Circuit, 1 thought it was a difference case that

the Appellee had sued me In District Court (l of 4 suits)

instead of the merits of case 18-5125. Although the decision

magnifies my claims and defense as to irrelevant to this case,

as it shows Appellee s quest of claims against Farley as really

being proof of his guilt of the accusations against Farley.

Parson knows the truth about the matters, particularly about

Leon Farley and Don Farley, the brothers relatioship, for over

forty years and the family’s ability to work things out, which

Parson has been against going on nine (9) years. Every

petition Parson has filed has been untruthful which makes it

plain to see why no one would want him for their state

representative; and therein lies the truth.

The note Farley sent to Mr. Ben Sherrer, the elected

representative of District 8, was a private political note which

contained information about Parson that was personal

knowledge of the Farley family. Twenty (27) months after Leon

Farleys death. Parson was able to convince Leon’s children to

perjure themselves and join him in the filing of a false probate

petition m return for assets, debt free, and big bucks in

punitive damages that he really wanted for himself. Parson

has used the same tactics in this case - having Leon’s children

lie on his behalf.

Parson so far has been successful in his claims against

Farley due to having counsel, Will Wright, who will use his

knowledge of the law to twist the facts and prey on Farley’s

inability to defend himself. Will Wright’s communications with

.barley lead barley to believe that they were pursuing the

merits of the claims in this case, but as you can see from the

decision of the 10th circuit, (Appendix A and Appendix E

errors), they relied on evidence presented from another case

that Farley objected to as bemg irrelevant.

Page 3

During discovery, Farley, for the most part was

following Wright’s lead until Farley realized Wright was not

following court procedures. Farley provided Wright with all

documents he requested prior to discovery cut off, but Wright

did not reciprocate. Farley had to make phone calls to Wright,

send letters and-file motions with the court to no avail (refer to

Appendix B, tab 4, 5, 6 and Appendix C). Wright refused to

cooperate with document requests and witnesses for deposition.

In preparing the pre-tnal order, Wright and Farley would

agree on the contents, then Wright would do something

different to the point where Farley gave up and refused to sign

the order. Reference appendix B, tab 5 where Wright blamed

Farley with inappropriate action and the Court went along

with him. Refer to Appendix B tab 4, 5, 6, also, appendix B, tab

17, page 60, line 16; Farley, while testifying on the witness

stand, Higgins submitted and questioned Farley about a lot of

documents that had not been produced or discussed at pretrial

conference or in the pretrial order. Farley objected, the Judge

overruled the objection and told Farley the exhibit needed to

come in, but none of Farley’s were allowed in, unless they were

on the pre-trial conference order.

Farley filed a motion for order to compel Plaintiff to

answer discovery requests and the Court denied the motion

(refer to 1/12/2018 TS No. 46&47 Appendix O'. From the

beginning, Wright and the Court had no respect and acted

burdened to have to deal with a pro-se action.

The Court would not allow Farley’s exhibit one which

had a letter from Kay Lee (who Parson claims as step mother)

stating Parson had been on drugs which would have proven all

of Farley’s claims except the statement that Parson had

cheated on his wife (refer to Appendix B, tab 6, exhibit

disclosure, fine #l).

Page 4

Will Wright presented as evidence a promissory note and

commercial guaranty of CDF, Inc. that Farley had signed off on

as-an officer, which was not an original. The document had

been cut & pasted with information from other documents.

The document had not been offered to Don Farley prior to him

being on the witness stand. Farley objected numerous times

until the Judge finally told Farley he was impeached. The

presentment was such a surprise as the document had been

subpoenaed in another case that had been quashed. Farley

was so taken back with this action that he went unconscious.

It was though all of the air had been sucked out of the jury

section as you could tell the jury thought Farley had been lying

to them. This is the reason Farley requested a mistrial, along

with not understanding the judge’s ruling that Farley was

impeached. Farley thought that it meant that he was through

and he wouldn’t be able to do anything further in his defense.

Farley respectfully requested to be excused from the

proceedings and the Court.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

1

The TJ.S. District Court failed to exercise reasonable

control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and

presenting the evidence, to make the procedures effective for

determining the truth and considering the defendant was pro­

se.

A. Jury Instructions

B. Sufficiency of evidence

C. Exclusion of evidence, final pre-trial order

D. Impeachment evidence

E. Punitive Damages

Page 5

The Court denied Farley’s Motion to Order Parson to

Compel discovery requests (refer to Appendix B TS 46 and 47,

1-12-2018.

2.

3.

Farley was not allowed to present his First Amendment

Right of Free Speech and Fourteenth Amendment of Due

Process.

4.

No jury instructions on First Amendment Right of Free

Speech and Fourteenth Amendment of Due Process.

5.

Claim of Error and plain error.

6.

Farley believes this Court and the attorneys had no

respect and felt burdened with having to deal with a pro-se

case and provided no toleration or consideration to this action.

7.

Errors that the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 10th Circuit

considered and relied upon outlined in the judgment as

“background”.

CONCLUSION

The truth still exists; the truth still matters! insistence that it

doesn’t is belligerence and a threat to our most fundamental

institutions and the foundations of our democracy. If we

continue to disregard it, everyone loses.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted this

2020.

day of

Don Farley

PO Box 135

Lakeview, AR 72642

(251) 604-1755

Page 6