Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Daniel Tekle, Petitioner v. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

Supreme Court briefMay 17, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

No,

2-o-iuz

MAY 1 7 2021

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DANIEL TEKLE,

PETITIONER,

VS.

STATE OF VIRGINIA,

RESPONDENT®

ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CENTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES OF COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CENTIORARI

DANIEL TEKLE

2500 N. VAN DORN STREET #202

ALEXANDRIA, VA 22302

Telephone: 703-278'3139E-Mail:

Daniel tekle@vahoo.com

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED/ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and

effects, against unreasonable searches and seizers, shall not be violated, and no

warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be

seized.”4th Amendment. The constitution placed a formidable barriers to an officer

to access my property without a court warrant. How then I become an offender while

an officer violated my constitutional right by pulling me out of my own vehicle

without warrant and be able to charge me? United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581

(1948).” A search is not made legal by what it turns up; in law, it is good or bad when

it starts, and does not change character from its success. P. 332 U. S. 595 ” “No federal

statute controls the validity of an arrest without warrant in a case such as this.

Pp. 332 U. S. 590-591”. A police officer does not have authority to knock on my closed

vehicle without warrant no matter whether the crime committed or not?

whether

any attempted exercise of a police power which resulting in denial

of equal protection is invalid”? “AD persons born or naturalized in the United States

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of United States and of the State

wherein reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shaU abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.’ nor shaD any State deprive any

person of life, bberty or property; without due process of law, nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” 14th amendment. Am I not

discriminated when the law enforcement officer denied to disclose his identity to me

would be able to implement the state law without discrimination? When I asked

detective multiple times whether the person I am communicating a police officer, he

denied to disclose his Identity. The officer violated equal protection of the law? ”...the

least deserving as well as the most virtuous.” When I am asking his identity I begging

the detective to give me the same kind of protection as he pretended to protect. Here

is what I asked “I wanted you to reassure me not about beer but are you 100% sure

there is no setup me in this sting? I mean I have seen ABC video before and it leave

me nervous?” Oct.30, 2016 at 8-57PM. Here and in the subsequent interaction, I am

begging for equal protection of law which he failed. Thus the court lacks the subject

matter jurisdiction.

whether the 4th amendment protect my life, liberty and property, if I was in

my own property? Can a person be convicted without being in a crime scene? The

simple answer is, “no.” One cannot be convicted of a crime without being in crime

scene or evidence. Without evidence and not being in crime scene one cannot be

neither convicted of a state nor a federal crime. Being in my own vehicle is a crime?

Was not my constitutional right protected in my own vehicle? If there is no evidence

against you, under the law, it simply is not possible for the prosecutor’s office to

obtain a conviction at trial. Any evidence gained in violation of 4th amendment is in

admissible. The Government lacks power to constitutionally to prosecute me because

the claim, challenged the government’s power to criminalize petitioner’s (admitted)

conduct.” Any evidence gathered with unlawful access to me and my property is in

admissible. In this case in violation of my constitutional rights of 4th amendment.

The claim is called into question the government’s power to constitutionally

prosecute him because the claim, challenged the government’s power to criminalize

petitioner’s (admitted) conduct.”

Whether the constitution defined state officials “any person”? A police officer

is not qualify the definition of “any person”. Constitution of united stated defined

those who work for state authorities either legislature, executive, or judicial

Authorities, officer or agent of State. Then how a detective be qualified both “any

person” and agent of State?

I was charged according to Virginia Code 18.2-374-3 “It shall be unlawful for any

person 18 years of age or older to use a communication system, including but not

limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic

means, for purpose of soliciting any person he knows or has a reason to believe is a

child less than 18 years of age for...”.Thus the charge code is invalid and the charge

code is void.” A void judgment mav be attacked at anv time bv a person whose rights

are affected. See El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194

(Tex. App."Houston [14th Diet.] 1994, no writ); see also Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No.

12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no pet. h.) ”

Whether the state permitted to discriminate citizens by age or sex? The officer

of state posted an ad on adult entertainment section of craigslist titled “teen seeks

LTR with older W4M”.The title of the ad discriminates society both by age and sex.

When an officer purposefully and deliberately targeting older men out of population

whether 14th amendment of equal protection of laws and civil rights action 1983

violated? The State Statue does not target older citizens over younger. It states that

“teen seeks LTR with older W4M”. “The element of intentional or purposeful

discrimination is necessary to establish a denial of equal protection of Law. This may

be shown, inter alia, by extrinsic evidence establishing a discriminatory design to

favor one individual or class over another.” @ Civil rights act 8. “In the landmark

case Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 83 the Supreme Court (118 US 356 - Supreme Court 1886)

held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment84 proscribes the

discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law.85 In a passage quoted by many

courts a century later, the Court stated* Though the law itself be fair on its face and

impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority

with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal

discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights,

the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.86 In

summary, Yick Wo prohibits state actors from wielding a facially neutral law as if it

were discriminatory on its face by selectively enforcing it against a certain class of

people.87 “While Yick Wo involved the narrower issue of the unequal application of

two city ordinances,90 the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

applies to “every form of state action, whether legislative, executive, or judicial.”91 In

line with this principle, the Supreme Court later indicated that discriminatory

enforcement is also a defense to a criminal charge.92 If the criminal defendant

successfully establishes this defense, the court must dismiss the case.93”- Thus facts

laid out here so waiting answer for justice void the judgment.

LIST OF PARTIES AND RELATED CASES

[ ] AH parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

BG 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 follows1-Loudoun county Circuit Court

2-The Supreme Court of Virginia

3‘United States District Court of the Eastern district of the VirginiaRichmond Division

4-United States District court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit-Richmond

Division

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A OPINIONS BELOW

B JURISDICTIONS

C CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

D STATEMENTS OF THE CASE

E REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

F CONCLUSION

IV INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Decision of United States court of Appeals 4th Circuit.

APPENDIX B

Decision of United States District Court for Eastern District of

Virginia

APPENDIX C

Decision of Supreme Court of Virginia- dismissed.

APPENDIX D

Decision of State Circuit Court-Sentence

APPENDIX F

Facts/exhibits.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Mitchell V. United States

313 US 80, 85 L ED 1201, 615 CT 873(1941)

Class V. United States

138 S. CT 798, U.S. Supreme Court 2017

Virginia code 15-2-1704

Power and duties of Police Officer

United States V. Montilla

870 F.2d 549 (U.S. Appeals 9th Cir.1989)

YickWoV.Hopkins,

118 US 356-Supreme Court 1886

United States v. Di Re

332 U.S. 581 (1948)

El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n,

Weisberg v. Minnesota

874 S.W.2d 192,194

29 F.3d 1271, 1279 (8th Cir. 1994)

United States v. Broce

488 U.S. 563, 575,109 S. Ct. 757,102

L.Ed.2d 927 (1989)

STATUTES

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

(Amended Crime Control)

2 42 U.S. Code § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of Rights

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

United States Constitution, Amendment I

United States Constitution, Amendment IV

United States Constitution, Amendment V

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORAI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ for certiorari issue to review the judgment

below.

OPINION BELOW

[ ] For cases from Federal courts*

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals appears at appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] Reported at_______________________________________

.»or,

[ ] Has been designated for publication but is not yet reported.

• or,

[X] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States Court of District appears at appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] Reported at_______________________________________

or,

[ ] Has been designated for publication but is not yet reported.

• or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state Court:

The opinion of the highest State Courts to review the merits appears at

appendix C

to the petition and is

[ ] Reported at________________________________________

.»or,

[ ] Has been designated for publication but is not yet reported

• or,

[ ] Is unpublished.

The opinion of the Circuit Court of Loudoun County of Commonwealth of

Virginia Court appears at appendix _D____ to the petition and is

t ] Reported at_______________________________________

[ ] Has been designated for publication but is not yet reported

.> or,

•or,

[ ] is unpublished.

VII

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from Federal courtThe date on which the United States Court Appeals decided my case

was

22nd February. 2021

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

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

On the following date.

j 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 invoked under 28.U.S. §1254(1)

[ ] For cases from State courtsThe date on which the Highest state Court decided my case was 8th August.

2018. A copy of that decision appear at Appendix_C_

[] A timely petition for rehearing there after denied on the following date:

______________ _ and a copy of that order denying rehearing appears

At appendix________________ .

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

And including

(date) on

(date) in application

No.____ A

The Jurisdiction of this court invoked under 28.U.S. § 1257(A)

VIII

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution* Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of press,

or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a

redress of grievances ”

United States Constitution- Amendment IV

“The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,

against unreasonable searches and seizers, shall not be violated, and no warrants

shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be

seized”

United States Constitution- Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public

danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in

jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

United States Constitution- Amendment XIV

“All persons bora or naturalized in the United States and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of United States and of the State wherein reside. No

State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

of citizens of United States; 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 laws.”

Alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. on equal protection grounds

“The element of intentional or purposeful discrimination is necessary to establish a

denial of equal protection of Law. This may be shown, inter alia, by extrinsic evidence

establishing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another. @

Civil Rights Act law 8. More than three times 1 begged the detective to identify

himself, he chose to lie thus he applied the law with partiality- the least deserving as

well as the most virtuous. “Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in

appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye

and an unequal [l 18 U.S. 356,374] hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal

discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights,

the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution ” The post

targeted men with old age only from society. Thus targeted men with specific age

group as crime could have committed with anyone including any age men and female.

Thus the charge itself is violated equal protection clause and invalid.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Though I was intrigued with the situation and encouragement from Detective, my

conscience alerted me and refused to get into the house the detective setup. Instead

I decided to leave the public parking lot without meeting the lured personality. After

realizing my refusal he detective and three other officers in violation of my

constitutional rights knocked on my car window as I am about to leave the parking

lot. Any evidence gathered in violation of 4th amendment is inadmissible. All my

petition denied because of my plea except the Appeals Court. The issue I raised is the

State violated my constitution rights.” “...a 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.” Menna, 423 U. S., at 63, 96 S. Ct. 241, 46 L. Ed. 2d 195,

and n. 2. Menna’s claim amounted to a claim that “the State may not convict” him

“no matter how validly his factual guilt is established.” Ibid. Menna’s “guilty plea,

therefore, [did] not bar the claim ” Ibid.” See also Class V. United States 138 S. ct

798, N.3 (Supreme Court of U.S 2017), United States V. Montilla , 870 F.2d 549,

February,1989 (U.S. Cir. Court 1989), United States V. Drew, 200 F.3d. 871 (U.S.

Appeals D.C. 1999).

X REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I, Daniel Tekle, currently released after serving 5 years from Haynesville

Correctional Center-Virginia and on Seven years’ probation. Currently locked in my

own house with a curfew set from 10:00PM to 6:00AM and my movement tracked

24/7, ineligible for work in other word I am destined for death. In order to live, have

to eat and work. I filed the appeal on time in extraordinary circumstance. And

Appeal court violated due process of 5th amendment in extra ordinary circumstances

of COVID19, State Governors Emergency declaration and Intuitional Lockdown. I

petition respectfully this court for writ of certiorari to review the judgement of United

States District Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit or dismiss/void based on multiple

violation of my constitutional rights as State lacked Jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the forging reason: Any evidence gathered in violation of 4th amendment is

inadmissible. The case has national repercussion about the truth of us went through

injustice. Throughout history police in collaboration with prosecutors purposefully

deceit an innocent citizens then threatened in cynical way offered guilty plea as a

leverage, leave the victim’s misery -after my background check I am ineligible to be

hired. In other words I am dead living to serve the State to create job opportunity for

probation officer (State). Then how a person live without work?

Most of counsel representing the victims chose to work for government as a paid

participant to trick or deceit their own client. My counsel pre-planned, exploited my

lack of knowledge and absence of recorded material of conversation or witness in

between us. He used his privilege to prey the innocent. He lied to me that he had

facts and evidences to overcome if I sign a guilty plea later to deny. Later he revealed

his true identity by becoming co-prosecutor of providing case-log compliment Exh-1

to prosecutor in response to my petition by Attorney General dated September 9,

2019. Being an experienced counsel on one hand counselling for plea bargain 5“30

years and on other hand a sentencing guide line of 1 year and 9 months to 4 years

and 10 months. Am 1 the only one complaining this kind of counselling? Later when

confronted they automatically resort to his lies. By that time it’s too late and the

existing system throw the burden on the victim by then counsel was out of picture. I

would suggest to this court within client counsel confidentiality, those conversation

should be recorded and in the case discrepancy, the record needs to be presented.

When the victim contends the truth the court squarely puts on the victim.

When the state purposefully ignored the constitution of United States and actively

engaged in collaboration with law enforcement procuring citizens from market place

to fund law enforcement, to pay for jails run by judges and to recruit cheap labor to

run their prison industrial enterprises with $.23 per hour for the benefit of few in

hierarchy. Today over 90% state Government and those linked to state fund served

with prison products. Having those people in their custody with lies and cheat, rob

the Federal funds for the pocket of few. As an evidence a person with BA and MBA

forced to attend GED in their custody. Who can challenge them? Instead of

unravelling the truth and giving justice to those who deserve, they engaged in lies,

deceits, manipulations and threats as admitted by Attorney General. When

challenged with facts instead of digging the truth relay on unrelated facts as “In

conducting the forgoing inquiry, the representations of defendant, his lawyer, and

prosecutor during the plea proceeding, “as well as any finding made by the judge

accepting the plea, constitute a formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral

proceedings.”Blackledge Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977).” A response from

Attorney General on September 9, 2019 page 21 #53.Now the only tool left Plea to

them.

Here is the fact in today's prison system. A single year data revealed that “Nearly

80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, hut just 2% of

them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while

the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center

analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.” BY JOHN GRAMLICH. Justice

Harlan's opinion for the Court stated that the defendant's “plea of guilty did not, of

course, waive his previous [constitutional] claim.” 390 U. S. 85, 87, n. 2, 88 S. Ct.

722,19 L. Ed. 2d 923,1968-1 C.B. 615.

Thus the state violated my constitutional rights and lacked jurisdiction. “Judgment

is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject

matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed.

Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b) (4), 28 U.S.CA., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 - Kiugh v.

U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).” “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning

and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no

respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte

Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J., concurring).”

(l) When the detective posted an ad on adult entertainment site “teen seeks

LTR with older W4M” he violated equal protection clause of Civil rights act,

14th amendment and Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

by targeting certain age group of society out of population specifically men

of older age. The title of ad and subsequent action against equal protection

of the law i.e. invidious discrimination. As he deliberately targeted

particular sex and age out of population specifically older men. The record

shows the State of Virginia at least a recipient of Federal assistant October

28, 1981, Serial No. J~97~24. The assistance not limited financially alone

but including any kind of training from Federal Government thus denial of

equal protection is invalid.

(2) When 1 asked the detective more than three times whether the person I am

communicating is a member of law enforcement he denied. In other words

I am begging him the same protection as the person he represented. When

asked specifically by not disclosing his identity, he violated equal protection

clause of 14th amendment by favoring one citizen over others treating me

differently than the person he intended to protect and not protected me.

Thus his act is invidious discrimination. "Therefore, any attempted exercise

of a police power which resulting in denial of equal protection is invalid.”@

Constitutional law 354.

(3) The detective not caught me in a crime scene as he provided, in this case

the house #303. As I refused to go into the crime scene and decided to leave

a public parking lot, then they caught me in my own vehicle in violation of

4th Amendment. If the facts on his side he would have said that he caught

me in the house he arranged. Now he claimed a predetermined place which

lacks specificity? The word is purposefully chosen and dubious to hide the

fact. Thus neither the crime committed nor I was in crime scene. Obviously

the crime would not be committed but to be valid crime, I would be in a

crime scene to meet whoever there. When he caught me outside the crime

scene in my own vehicle he acted in his official capacity. By then he is no

more minor but a police officer. Here the officers caught me in my own

vehicle violated 4th amendment. Thus State lacks jurisdiction as they

violated my constitutional rights. Michael C. v. Gresbach, 526 F.3d 1008

(7th Cir. 2008), Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967), People v.

Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d 60 (Ill. 1996), People v. Ramirez, 148 Cal.App.4th 1464

(Cal. Ct. App. 2007), State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431 (N.M. 1993), Hudson

v. Palmer,468 U.S. 517 (1984), Marron v. United States,275 U.S. 192

(1927), Dorwart v. Caraway,966 P.2d 1121 (Mont. 1998).

By definition of 14th amendment the detective is not “any person” rather a

member of the State governing body, thus the detective not qualified to be

“any person” by that the charge is unconstitutional. The United States

constitution defined those who are working for government as legislature,

executive, or judicial Authorities of State and those working from them as

stated “The prohibition of the amendments extend to the every

departments of state and every officer or agent by whom the power of the

state exerted”. It did not said them as “any person”. Thus the charge is

unconstitutional as the detective failed to be “any person”.

“Exparte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346 (1880). “A State acts by its legislative,

its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The

constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State,

or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever,

by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of

property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away

the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and

as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State’s

power, his act is that of the State.” Id. at 346-47, Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372

U.S. 726, 732 (1963)”. In the above explanation, no one working for the state

called “any person” thus the charge code is void.

(4) When the detective walk out of crime scene (house # 303) and knocking

through my driver side window of my vehicle the role of him being a minor

ended. At that point, he was not alone but with three other police officer

including a female. When he knocked in my car window, he declared himself

to me “Loudon county police officer” not a minor. That was the only point

we first come into contact while he was acting in his official capacity as

police officer. That is where he seized me and searched my property without

warrant where they violated my constitutional right of 4th amendment. If

not, let the state prove under oath with evidence. Thus The State lacks

jurisdiction to prosecute me. “A void judgment which includes judgment

entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject

matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an

order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either

directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C A. 7 HI. 1999).”

Thus 1 ask this court to dismiss or void the conviction as the state violated

my constitutional rights and lacked jurisdiction to convict me in their court

room. A judgement or order entered by a court lacks jurisdiction of the

subject matter is a nullity and may be impeached directly or collaterally by

all persons, anywhere at any time or any manner. Upon a statute being

declared unconstitutional on its face, conviction based there on void.” 62

va.App.793, Saunders V. Commonwealth, February 4, 2014. (Court of

Appeals of Virginia, 2014). ‘This cannot be ignored its fact recorded!

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked

jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner

inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b) (4), 28

U.S.C-A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 —Klugh v. U.S., 620 F. Supp. 892

(D.S.C. 1985).”

I was over 500 meters away and refused to go into crime scene yet caught

up in my own vehicle. I never saw the so called “girl” yet the officer caught

me in my car as I decided to leave- see the truth Exh. 11. The petition for

writ of certiorari either should be granted or altogether to issue a void

judgment as the State lacked subject matter jurisdiction in multiple

violations of constitutional rights.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel Tekle

17^ May, 2021

Facts and Exhibits Appendices

Charge code void: A detective is not qualified to be called "anv person” while using public

services-Time and toots

I was charged according to Virginia Code 18.2-374-3 "it shall be unlawful for any person 18 years of age

or older to use a communication system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks

or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for purpose of soliciting anv person he knows or has

a reason to believe is a child less than 18 years of age for...".Here my argument is that Detective Daniel

Troxell does not qualify the definition of "any person" as constitution of United States described those

who work for state either officer or agent of State thus anyone working for state not qualify the

definition of "any person". Accordingly a police officer is not "any person" as it was explicitly prohibited

to solicit a crime against the citizens of the United States. When I challenged the State's law, the

attorney General office of Virginia in response to 4th Circuit page 16 line 10 admitted that "Because

Tekle raised contentions involving matters of state law..." "Thus the legislature dearly did not intend

that the victim must be an actual child; the defendants' solicitation of sexual behavior from a person

that he believes is a child constitutes the behavior that the legislature intended to prohibit." But that

"any person" not a police officer otherwise should specify including state government.

"Tekie cannot overcome his sworn statements during the plea colloquy and his written statements in

the plea memorandum "A response from Attorney General on Tekle V. Clarke 180265 page 20, in

response to supreme court of Virginia on May 14, 2018. And plea constitute formidable barrier in

subsequent collateral proceedings.

&J.

•?

In response to my petition to the Federal court, the State of Virginia admitted that in their response

Tekle v. Clarke 3:18CV694 page 18 @#44 "In reviewing a habeas petition. Federal courts must presume

the correctness of State court's factual determinations unless the habeas petitioner rebuts the

presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." Green v. Johnson, 515 F.3d 290,299 (4th

Cir.2008).Yet I presented to the Federal Court that I did not went to crime scene (nor I met the person

in the house the officer provided), they ignored my response and concluded the way they wanted to

do. I never arranged the meeting place nor stepped out of my vehicle rather refused to leave the parking

lot. See my response dated 26th September 2019 page 28 line 12-14 and fact of evidence of email Exh.ll.

"I'm not coming to parking lot. Either vou come to me or just leave." Tue. Nov 1.2016 at 6:29PM

(The crime scene 75 plaza street Building J. House #303).

Just six minutes before caught up in my own vehicle wherever he lured said the above Statement. In

his own word he confirmed that I was not in crime scene and as long as I refused to go into "...just

leave". Accordingly in his own word I am free man as long as I refused to go into the so called "girl".

That I was not in the crime scene and whatever done thereafter is in violation of my 4th amendment

right. Thus I was not in crime scene where the supposedly "girl" lured. This place was arranged by Det.

Daniel Troxell see Exh 10 in my response to the Supreme Court of Virginia dated June 6th 2018, Tekle V.

Clarke 180265. However, I clearly refused to go the meeting place arranged by the Police officer and

caught up in my own vehicle, See the email exchange attached in Exh.ll. Neither the government

prosecutor nor the judges involved in this case proved that I was indeed in a crime scene in this case

house #303.Then how in the world without the crime scene and evidence of proof the judged against

me criminal. Neither I committed the so called crime nor stepped out of my own vehicle rather decided

to leave the public parking lot. See my refusal in the email interaction Exh.ll. Even the detective who

setup ail this incidence admitted in the criminal complaint that "On 11/01/2016, Tekle arrived at pre

determined location.... " if He would have caught me in the crime scene he would have stated the house

►

♦

as he meticulously designed to ruin my life. Neither He stated that he caught me in my own vehicle?

Why he ignored that fact and why the judges not interested in facts I presented to them. Thus I did not

committed the crime and the State does not have jurisdiction to pull out of my car and prosecute me.

In the proffer of fact sheet Mr. Tekle arranged a meeting place. When I encountered that neither I

arranged nor meet the detective where the address detective arranged The 4th circuit court acted as a

prosecutor instead of truly how we meet together, in defense of the State argued that "Thus, the proffer

of facts does not suggest that Tekle himself selected the meeting place, just that agreed to meet

Detective Troxell at the arranged place and time. Nor does the proffer of facts specifically state how

detective Troxell and Tekle eventually came into contact with one another."Tekfe V. Clarke 3:18CV694

at page 22. (4th Cir.2020).By admitting that statement this court unable to verify that how we meet?

This Statement particularly important to me

as none of them presented that I indeed meet the

detective in a crime scene (house #303). Besides none commitment of crime, I was not even in the crime

scene. Thus there is no crime without being physical present in crime scene. Therefore, I ask this court

to dismiss the case as they pulled me from Street against my constitutional protection. Further, the

court concluded that '"The Court discerns no unreasonable application of the law or unreasonable

determination of facts In the supreme Court of Virginia's rejection of this claim." Yet this court failed to

distinguish my claim that:

1) I never went to the crime scene (house #303), when knocked in my car acted as an officer.

2) The detective failed to provide equal protection clause while I asked him multiple times.

When the detective walk out of crime scene. He is no more minor, rather a law enforcement

The moment the detective walked out of the crime scene house #303, his role of being a minor ended

and there after acted in his official capacity. By extension he caught me from another state. While he

was in contact with me not alone but with three other officers. When he caught me in my own vehicle.

£3

he violated my 4th amendment right. Exh. 11. Any evidence obtained through that unlawful arrest, such

as a confession, will be kept out of the case. Nonetheless the state lacks jurisdiction, as they violated

multiple constitutional clause.

The State violated mv constitutional right of equal protection clause of 14th amendment

1 explicitly asked the detective more than three times Exh. 2 & 3 that the person I am communicating is

a member of a law enforcement, he denied. By denying to identify his identity, the detective violated

the equal protection clause of 14th amendment. According to the constitutional law@802 "The principal

purpose of equal protection clause to ensure that all citizens are not subject to arbitrary or

discriminatory state action, it relates the individuals and persons, "the least deserving as well as the

most virtuous." Thus the person he represented might be the least deserving and I might be the most

virtuous but being asked more than twice, by not disclosing his identity, he being a member of law

enforcement, he treated me differently than the person he intended to protect. Thus the state violated

my constitutional rights and lucks jurisdiction to hale into their court room and conviction. I ask this

court to dismiss/void the case as they lacks jurisdiction of subject matter.

The State lacked substantive evidence to convict me except guilty plea

In admitting the ineffectiveness of my counsel, the state Attorney General office stated in their

response to the Supreme court of Virginia Tekle V. Clarke 180265 dated May 14th 2018 page 14 #25 "

Manifestly. Tekle could have challenged the legality of detective Troxell's deceptive tactics rather than

pleading guilty" By stating that statement the State on its own term admitted that the government

deceived the citizens of United States. Thus in lacking substantive evidences and facts subsequently in

#26 " Tekle's plea resulted in self-supplied conviction which waived anv defenses other than those

based upon jurisdiction etc...." Thus they left with my guilty plea as they claimed the only weapon to

ruin my life. Toilett V. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258,267(1973). Now in rebutting their core argument "A plea

of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that, judged on its face, the charge is the one which the

state may not constitutionally prosecute." Class V. United States 138 S. ct 798, N.3 The Supreme court

of the United States, October 14th, 2017, United States V. Montilla, 870 F.2d 549, February,1989 (U.S.

Cir. Court 1989). As stated in my claim, "the claim does not focus upon case related constitutional

defects that occurred prior to the entry of guilty plea. The claim is called into question the government's

power to constitutionally prosecute him because the claim, challenged the government's power to

criminalize petitioner's (admitted) conduct." Any evidence gathered In violation of 4th amendment is in

admissible and the judgment is void.

Where officer of the state of Virginia violated the constitutional rights of citizens of United States and

without occurrence of alleged crime, not been in crime scene and without proof of evidence under

what circumstances does the state and its court be able to detain and sentence the citizens of the United

States? The constitution of the United States prohibits the State and its apparatus completely to

instigate crime. Neither of the dependents nor the judges involved in this case proved that I (Petitioner)

was indeed appeared in the crime scene. How State's multiple violation of constitutional rights ignored?

No Statute limitation for Constitutional violation (Due process!

Generally, a judgment In a criminal case may not be attached collaterally. However, a party may assail

a void judgement at anytime, by direct or collateral assault. A court lacks jurisdiction to enter a criminal

judgement if the judgement is predicated upon unconstitutional or otherwise invalid statute or

ordinance. A judgement or order entered by a court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter is a nullity

and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere at any time or any manner.

Upon a statute being declared unconstitutional on its face, conviction based there on void." 62

va.App.793, Saunders V. Commonwealth, February 4,2014. (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2014)

Opinion and Facts of Violation of constitutional Rights (Orchestrated, encouraged, lied.

judged and destroyed bv Government)

1.)

Orchestrated bv Government, Yet not proved

Orchestration simultaneously empowers intermediaries and provides the orchestrator soft influence

over them. It blends into delegation as orchestrators gain stronger control over their intermediaries.

supports and steers their actions. The assumption is that the orchestrator must select Intermediaries

based on their goals, and therefore may have to compromise on their capabilities. Given its lack of hard

control, the orchestrator depends on intermediaries that are intrinsically motivated to work in concert

with the orchestrator. This shifts the information problem from one of monitoring an agent's

performance to one of selecting an intermediary with similar goals in the first place. Often the

orchestrator must work with intermediaries that are partly or completely incapable of performing the

required tasks. The orchestrator will try to improve intermediary performance through appropriate

forms of support. Orchestration is viable because the large pool of potential intermediaries enhances

the prospects of finding one that Is both willing and able to advance the orchestrator's goals.

Orchestration's dependence on voluntary enlistment makes it vulnerable to intermediary incapacity:

the available intermediaries may be willing to advance the orchestrator's goals, but incapable of making

any useful contribution. From this perspective, orchestration appears more appealing, because it

creates webs of mutual dependence, reducing the likelihood of unilateral and extreme action. In sum,

the attractiveness of orchestration depends on both circumstances and perspectives. The Government

actors that lack the ability to delegate, or lack strong monitoring and enforcement capacities, will turn

to orchestration to achieve their goals. {If suitable intermediaries are available). Thus, I am victim of

the State of Virginia.

2.)

Encouraged bv government

I am not a monster that devouring kids rather the government ruined my life by orchestrating.

encouraging, expediting to see my misery. I never met anyone of that age in my entire life nor my DNA

or any crime found in my records. Government supposed to encourage and facilitate ways to success of

citizen's peace, security and advancement. In contrast the State of Virginia betting for demise of its

citizens. Being on a dating site by itself is nothing wrong but those encourage people like me and rejoice.

make family burden to society. Now I am ineligible to work while they rejoice. They did not worried for

tax payer's money. Here are the encouragements of innocent citizens:

a) Why you look for older, he answered "Well I've kissed a couple times. But boys my age are sooo

lame ya know" on Oct 28th, 2016 at 10:50PM. Then followed up "you have to take a lead." at

9:12PM.

b) When I encouraged the so called "Girl" to focus in her education, he answered "Are u a

doctor or something? U know a lot. My school work? Why u worried about that?" In

insisting me to come over quickly to ruin my life, he said "Are u only free after 5pm or

weekends then? Weekends are seriously the hardest be I usually go to my dads house In

Winchester." On Oct 29th, 2016 at 10:37PM.Exh. 13 &17.

3.)

The State government Lied and violated mv constitutional right of l8t, 4th. 5th. 6th.

and 14th Amendment.

When the government official lies about his identity, those lies violate constitutional protections

provided in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Specifically. I asked the detective more than three

times whether I am communicating with a member of law enforcement, he lied. This lies violated mv

constitutional rights equal protection of laws. Bv this he treated me differently from the person he

intended to protect, thus he violated the equal protection of the laws. If I was not asked his identity

that is another story. I asked his identity on Oct 30,2016, at 3:30PM, 8:57PM, 9:01PM, 9:08PM and Oct

31st, 2016 at 4:34PM?ln all those situation, he lied or denied to me. Exh.2,3 &4. The detective failed to

serve all group of without impartiality. Thus the charge is unconstitutional and the States lacks

jurisdiction to convict me. My email communication with anyone is protected by 1st amendment I did

not met physically or being In crime scene. Helen Norton, Government Lies and the Press Clause, 89 U.

Colo. L. Rev. 453 (2018).

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.

supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons

or things to be seized.''^** Amendment). They caught me up without warrant from mv personal

property (Vehicle).

I refused to go into crime scene and send an email titled "I'm about to leave? Then he answered "You're

freaking me out. I do not want to get kidnapped and stuff just come over to me?" on Nov. 1st 2016 at

6:26, then re-enforcing that truth, he said "I'm not coming to the parking lot. Either you come to me or

just leave" Nov 1st 2016 at 6:29PM. In his own statement, he affirmed my refusal to crime scene he

setup. Once he lost control, he and his three other colleagues methodically encircled and caught me in

my own vehicle in violation of 4th amendment. Thus the detective violated my 4th amendment right

pulling me from my own vehicle without court warrant. Exh.ll.Let the State prove with facts. If not.

they lacked jurisdiction.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment

or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when

in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense

to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of fife, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private

property be taken for public use, without just compensation."(5th Amendment).! never ever stepped

out of my own vehicle rather they caught me up from my own vehicle as I refused to go into crime

scene setup by detective. No proof that I was in a crime scene.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an

impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall

have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses

in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." (6th Amendment). Thus t did not

committed the crime by not being in a crime scene that is House#303.

4.)

Judged without evidence.

Judged without proof of evidence that I was in a crime scene. They used my lack of knowledge and

Ineffective assistance of counsel (working for government) that I plead guilty. My guilty plea is the only

evidence, the rest is protected by constitution of United States including my email communication (1st

Amendment) as long as I was not in crime scene.

5.)

Destroyed bv State Government lies waiting to perish as ineligible to be hired.

Today 1 and my whole family pay the price of the State's lies and deceit. Just run my back ground and I

am ineligible to be hired anywhere in USA. I was Imprisoned for 5 years, right now unable to get into

society and get viable job to help my family. Because of probation, I am prisoner in my own house

having a curfew from 10:00AM-6:00AM.Because of government orchestration, today I or part of my

family in one way or other burden to State or Federal Government or else to be perished. My misery.

lack of work is the State's rejoice. I became from bread winner to my family burden to society because

of government lies and deceit. Besides their lies and deceit, I do not have any kind of record. See States

own admission that "Manifestly, Tekle could have challenged the legality of Detective Troxell's

deceptive tactics rather than pleading guilty." see Attorney General's response to Supreme court

Virginia dated on 14th May, 2018, Tekle V. Ciarke 180265 page 14 at #25. On the same page #26 the

State said "Tekle's plea resulted in a self-supplied conviction which waived any defenses other than

those based upon Jurisdiction." With this statement they are admitting that the state deceived the

citizens of United States and complementing my argument that that my counsel's ineffectiveness. Yet

the Supreme Court of Virginia and Federal court ignored my plea

6.) The only available tool far State is mv Guilty plea (Ineffective assistance of counsell

that gained bv threat and coercive practice

They do not have any other tools in their bucket with the exception of my guilty plea which

orchestrated, supported by State and my own counsel (ignored my documents for their prosecutorial

favor) in violation of my constitutional rights. Let them prove that besides non-commitment of crime

that I was in crime scene, i was pulled out from my own vehicle thus the State lacks jurisdiction to puil

me into their court system to convict me.

7.) The State does not have authority to hale citizens to its Court room and convict

"There are exceptions to this rule, however, a person may despite a valid guilty plea, pursue a certain

type of claim that has been variously defined as a claim that attacks the state power to bring the

indictment at all, that protects the defendant's right not to be haled into court, and that the charge is

the one which the state may not constitutionally prosecute." Welsberg v. Minnesota, 29 F.3d 1271,

1279 (8th Cir. 1994). United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563,575,109 S. Ct. 757,102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989)

"We have done so far the well-established reason that a guilty plea does not waive the right of the

defendant to challenge the constitutionality of statute under which he is convicted. See "Menna v. New

York, 423 U.S. 61, 62 n. 2,96 S. Ct. 241,46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975)", United States v. Knowles 29 F.3d 947,

August 10,1994 (U.S. Appeals 5th & 11th Clr.l994).200 F.3d 871, United States v. drew, November 15,

1999.(U.S Appeals of District of Columbia,1999).

g/D

"A guilty plea, bv itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the

constitutionality"'

Class vs. United States

"In Class vs. United States "A written plea agreement set forth the terms of Class' guilty plea, including

several categories of rights that he agreed to waive. The agreement said nothing about the right to

challenge on direct appeal the constitutionality of the statute of conviction. After conducting a hearing

pursuant to Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the District Court accepted Class'

guilty plea and sentenced him. Soon thereafter, Class sought to raise his constitutional claims on direct

appeal. The Court of Appeals held that Class could not do so because, by pleading guilty, he had waived

his constitutional claims. Held: A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from

challenging the constitutionality of his statute of conviction on direct appeal, pp. 3-11.

There, Justice Ames wrote that a guilty plea does not waive the right to argue that "'the facts alleged

and admitted do not constitute a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth/" Ante, at 5 (quoting

Commonwealth v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209,210 (1869)). Does the Court agree with Justice Ames, or not?

Cite as: 583 U. S._(2018) 1"

Held: A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the

constitutionality of his statute of conviction on direct appeal. Pp. 3-11. (a) This holding flows directly

from this Court's prior decisions. Fifty years ago, in Haynes v. United States, the Court addressed a

similar claim challenging the constitutionality of a criminal statute. Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court

stated that the defendant's "plea of guilty did not, of course, waive his previous [constitutional] claim."

390 U. S. 85, 87, n. 2. That clear statement reflects an understanding of the nature of guilty pleas that

stretches, in broad outline, nearly 150 years. Subsequent decisions have elaborated upon it. In

Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21, the Court recognized that a guilty plea bars some "'antecedent

constitutional violations/ " related to events (such as grand jury proceedings) that '"occu[r] prior to the

entry of the guilty plea/ " Id., at 30 (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 266-267). However,

where the claim Implicates "the very power of the State" to prosecute the defendant, a guilty plea

cannot by itself bar it. 417 U. $., at 30. Likewise, in Menna v. New York, 423 U. S. 61, the Court held that

because the defendant's claim was that "the State may not convict [him] no matter how validly his

factual guilt is established," his "guilty plea, therefore, [did] not bar the claim." Id., at 63, n. 2

In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21,94 S. Ct. 2098,40 L. Ed. 2d 628, the Court recognized that a guilty

plea bars some "'antecedent constitutional violations. i » related to events (such as grand jury

proceedings) that "'occu[r] prior to the entry of the guilty plea.1" Id., at 30,94 S. Ct. 2098,40 L Ed. 2d

628 (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 266-267,93 S. a. 1602,36 L. Ed. 2d 235). However,

where the claim implicates "the very power of the State" to prosecute the defendant, a guilty plea

cannot by itself bar it. 417 U. S., at 30,94 S. a. 2098,40 L. Ed. 2d 628.

Likewise, in Menna v. New York, 423 U. S. 61,96 S. Ct. 241,46 L. Ed. 2d 195, the Court held that because

the defendant's claim was that "the State may not convict [him] no matter how vaiidiy his factual guilt

is established," his "guilty plea, therefore, [did] not bar the claim." Id., at 63, n. 2,96 S. Ct. 241,46 L. Ed.

2d 19. In more recent years, the Court has reaffirmed the Menna-Blackledge doctrine's basic teaching

that "'a 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.1" United States v. Broce, 488 U. S. 563,575,109 S.

Ct. 757,102 L. Ed. 2d 927 (quoting Menna, supra, at 63, n. 2,96 S. Ct. 241,46 L. Ed. 2d 19). Pp.

200 L. Ed. 2d, at 42-44

United States V. Montilla

"A claim that the applicable statue is unconstitutional or that the indictment fails to state an offense

are jurisdictional claims not waived by guilty plea."16 Fed.Appx.615: United States V. Nguyen, May 15,

2001(U.S Appeal 9th Cir.2001), 915 F.2d 549, Marzano V. Kincheloe, July 9,1990(U.S. Appeal 9th Cir.1989),

35F.Supp. 2d 1172: United States V. Tutor Intil., Inc. June 15,1998 U.S court of 9th 1998), 180 F.3d 514,

United States V. Spinner, March 25, 1999 (U.S. Appeal 3rd Cir.1999). The Indictment fails to state an

offense are jurisdictional claims not waived by the guilty plea. A plea of guilty to a charge does not

waive the claim that, judged on its face, the charge is the one which the state may not constitutionally

prosecute. United Sates Supreme court has limited the doctrine to cases in which the judge could

determine at the time of accepting plea, from the face of the indictment or from the record, that the

government lacked power to bring the indictment.870 F.2d 549, United States V. Montilla, February 6,

1989. (U.S. Appeals 9th Cir.1989).

The State lacks jurisdiction as they violated mv constitutional rights.

1-The state violated my constitutional rights as I refused to go into the supposedly crime scene which

is house #303 the detective provided. They lacked evidence and fact to claim that I was indeed in house

Number 303. After I refused and decided to leave the public parking lot they caught me in my own

Vehicle thus I never went to the crime scene and not committed the crime.

2-The detective being asked more than three times whether he is a member of law enforcement, he

denied to identify himself thus violated equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. He treated me

differently than the person he intended to protect. Thus the charge is invalid specifically I asked him

more than three times whether the person, I am communicating a member of law enforcement. By not

disclosing his identity, the law enforcement discriminated me while in enforcing the law.

3-The Detective is not "any person" as thus he is a member of state government, he is constitutionally

prohibited to instigate a crime against citizens of United States. Specifically detective does not qualify

the definition. Accordingly, those who work for state government defined as 'The Prohibition of

amendment extends every department of state and every officer or agent by whom the power of the

state exerted."

Based on those three accounts alone the State does not have Jurisdiction to drag me to their court room

and convict me. As facts speaks for itself neither the detective nor The Attorney general of the State

proved that they caught me in the crime scene house # 75 Plaza Street B-J House # 303.You cannot

prosecute someone without being present in crime scene or crime committed. Besides that I openly

asked the detective whether the person I was communicating online is a member of law enforcement

' or not, he denied to identify his Identity thus he treated me differently than the person he intended to

protect. Thus he violated my constitutional right over the other person. According to the 14th

amendment constitutional law states that "Therefore, any attempted exercise of a police power which

resulting In denial of equal protection is invalid."® Constitutional law 354.Thus the State violated my

constitutional rights and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute me In their courts room.

The Supreme Court of Virginia denied mv Habeas petition on guilty plea alone.

"In claim (III), petitioner contends the investigating detective, in collaboration with the police

department, the Magistrate, the commonwealth's Attorney, Loudoun County, and the judicial system,

violated petitioner's constitutional rights when the investigating defective pretended to be a girl under

the age of fifteen during his electronic interactions with petitioner. The court holds claim (III) is barred

because a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses antecedent to a

guilty plea. Peyton V. King, 210 VA, 194,196-97,169 S.E. 2d 569,571 (1969). Accordingly, the petition is

dismissed and the rule is discharged."

The Fourth Circuit Court-Richmond Virginia denied mv Habeas corpus petition and Transcript of

appealability.

Though I presented for the 4th Circuit court all the facts they too denied my petitions without proving

the facts as presented. In denial my petition, the court raised that its limitation of authority 'The

Antiterrorism and effective Death penalty Act ("AEDPA") of 1996 further circumscribed this courts

authority to grant relief by way of habeas corpus. Specifically, "[S]tate court factual determination are

presumed to be correct and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence." Further, "additionally.

under 28 U.S.C 2254(d), a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on any claim that

adjudicated on the merits in the state court unless the adjudicated claim:

(1) Resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the supreme court of United States; or

(2) Resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of facts in light of

the evidence presented in the State court proceedings".Tekle V. Clarke 3:18cv694 page 7,

April 30th, 2020 (U.S 4th Cir.2020).

In unpacking this argument neither the state Circuit nor The Supreme Court of Virginia proved in fact I

was in the crime scene. The only fact, they relied the guilty plea I accepted due to ineffective assistance

of counsel. Further the Federal court without looking the facts jumped into conclusion that "A guilty

plea constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects, including the rights to contest the factual

merits of the charges.) By citing United States V. Martinez, 424 F. App'x 208,209.But I repeatedly argued

to this court that neither I arranged the meeting place nor even stepped out of my own vehicle, rather

I decided to leave the public parking place, yet caught up in my own vehicle. Exh.ll. While assessing

the proffer of fact challenge "Nor does the proffer of Facts specifically state how Detective Troxell and

Tekle eventually came into contact one another." Despite the fact that the State violated my 4th

amendment right pulling me from my own vehicle without warrant, violation of equal protection of

laws (while the detective denied to identify his Identify when asked) and discrimination by age. Now I

am challenging that the State lacks authority to puli into their court's room to convict me. Weisberg v.

Minnesota, 29 F.3d 1271,1279 (8th Cir. 1994).

Federal Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit denied for filing time though I filed on time (from

date of 4th circuit decision April 30th -June 26.2020 to mv response is 54 davs.

The Federal Appeals Court denied my appeal for certificate of Appieaibility on filing procedural grounds

though I filed on time. The 4th Federal Court passed judgement in my case on April 30th 2020. They

actually printed and mailed out on May 1st, 2020 Exh.51.This is during the height of the State's

Government emergency declaration for COVID19 and complete institutional lockdown. The mail arrived

to the institution where I am at on May 6th, 2020 Exh.52. Though exactly, I do not know when I received

the actual copy, I submitted my appeal to the Prison booth on June 26th, 2020 Exh.53 &54 going through

extra length while the court itself in similar modifications. During lockdown and thereafter until I leave

the compound access to legal materials and counsel in completely closed. Yet I responded to the appeal

court at least within time frame 54 days (May 29 Memorial day & mailed on May 1st + June 26) the

actual mail was received by U.S Appeal Court on July 6th, 2020 Exh.55. This is due to the fact that the

State is under National Emergency declaration because of COVID19 and staff restriction in prison.

Besides that the institution's Money order processing Machine breakdown, the mail stayed until July

1st, and 2020.Exh.56-A & B. Still left on time. This is beyond my control, breaking extra-ordinary barrier

I still managed to follow the law. Due to my cry and urgency of matter, the institution went extra

ordinary steps and issued a check rather than regular Money order Exh.56-A &B. This could be easily

verified. I ask this court take into account the lists below and grant my petition:

1- I submitted to the institution's mail service on time on June 26th, 2020 within law.

2- The extra-ordinary circumstances of COVID and institution's Lockdown. This is

extraordinary circumstances and I trigger due process implications.

3- Due to Money order machine break down-check is an evidence instead of money order.

4- The State Government's Emergence declaration due to COVID19 staff restriction.

5- The judgment mailed on next day and May 25th, 2020 Memorial Day, thus 54 days.

6- During COVID19 Emergency lockdown all legal services in the institution closed.

7- That I do not have liberty to file electronically.

8- If submitted by an inmate confined in an institution, a document is timely filed if it is

deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing and is

accompanied by a notarized statement or declaration in compliance with 28 U. S. C. §

1746 setting out the date of deposit and stating that first-class postage has been prepaid.

Exh.57.

The charge code is unconstitutionai-The Detective is not "anv person"

My online interaction was with not with actual minor rather a police officer who is part and parcel of

State Government thus not qualify the definition of "any person". "The 14th amendment prohibits any

act by state which abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of United States, whether such act

by legislature, executive or judicial authorities of State. The Prohibition of amendment extends every

department of state and every officer or agent by whom the power of the state exerted." Constitutional

law @753.According to this statement by definition those who are working in any capacity not

considered as "any person" rather legislature, executive, officer or agent. Thus he is either officer or

agent of State government and thus not be qualified to be "any person". If he was indeed "any person,

he wouldn't be able to drag me to Loudoun county jail and be able to file a criminal complaint against

me. As the Governor of State of Virginia cannot claim himself as both Governor of the State of Virginia

and "any person" at the same time. Thus, he cannot be "any person" and an agent of the state at the

Bf?'

same time. When I challenged the charge, the Attorney General office of Virginia in response to 4th

Circuit page 16 line 10 admitted that "Because Tekle raised contentions involving matters of state law..."

By this definition, I challenge the constitutionally of the charge code definition and resulting conviction.

In reversing the prior judgement of in Manna v. New York "we have done so for the well-established

reason that a guilty plea does not waive the right of defendant to challenge the constitutionality of the

statue under which he convicted." Manna V. New York 423 U.S. 61,62-63 n.2,96 S. CT 241,242 N.2,46

L. Ed 2d 19(1975).Thus I ask this court to dismiss the charge as the detective constitutionally does not

qualify the definition of "any person".

The law enforcement violated the civil rights act law of Equal protection

When the detective posted an ad in adult entertainment section of craigsiist titled "teen seeks LTR with

older W4M" violated the civil right acts law. The law says "The element of intentional or purposeful

discrimination is necessary to establish a denial of equal protection of Law. This may be shown, inter

alia, by extrinsic evidence establishing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over

another. @ Civil Rights Act law 8. When the detective posted teen seeks LTR with older, he intentionally

or purposely identified to entrap the older men out of the population. The ad intentionally and

purposefully targeted particular age and sex older man out of population. But the statue not identified

by age and sex rather "any person". This action itself violates the civil action law of denial of equal

protection, thus it's invalid. Now because of his purposeful act while they rejoice in violating my right I

am In misery. Besides losing everything and served 5 years in prison, right now because of probation I

am prisoned in my house. Unable to get a job nor able to get away from my house from 10pm-6am.Thus

"Equal protection of the laws is the right of individual not merely of group of individuals, or of body of

persons according to their number." Mitchell V. United States (1941) 313 US 80, 85 L ED 1201, 615 CT

873.

Besides this being he is a member of law enforcement, he denied to disclose his identity in violation of

equal protection of law. Equal protection of 14th amendment may not prohibit state to classify citizens.

however, when asked the officer must identify his identity. By failing to identify his identity he treated

me differently thus equal protection of law violated. Thus the charge is invalid. And the State lacked

jurisdiction to puli me into their court system to convict me.

The merit of case has to be seen on the basis of facts and constitutional violation over states lies and

deceit. The larger picture the implication of constitutional violation of policing to the nations. I an

innocent yet succumbed to lies and deceit of state along bandits working for State.

06-1082 VIRGINIA V. MOORE DECISION BELOW: 636 S.E. 2d 395 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 052619

Does the Fourth Amendment require the suppression of evidence obtained incident to an arrest that is

based upon probable cause, where the arrest violates a provision of state law?

EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE CERT. GRANTED 9/25/2007

"contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as

determined by the US Supreme Court; or

"Based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the state court proceeding.

Nor do Class' claims focus upon case-related constitutional defects that "'occurred prior to the entry

of the guilty plea/" Blackledge, 417 U. S., at 30,94 S. Ct. 2098,40 L. Ed. 2d 628.

"This Court reversed. Citing Blackledge, supra, at 30,94 S. Ct. 2098,40 L. Ed. 2d 628, the Court held that

"a 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." Menna, 423 U. S., at 63,96 S. Ct. 241,46 L. Ed. 2d 195,

and n. 2. Menna's claim amounted to a claim that "the State may not convict" him "no matter how

6I 9

This holding flows directly from this Court's prior decisions. Fifty years ago, in Haynes v. United States,

the Court addressed a similar claim challenging the constitutionality of a criminal statute. Justice

Harlan's opinion for the Court stated that the defendant's "plea of guilty did not, of course, waive his

previous [constitutional] claim." 390 U. S. 85,87, n. 2,88 S. Ct. 722,19 L. Ed. 2d 923,1968-1 C.B. 615.

OPINION

The decision of United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Court's denial of a certificate of

appealability and dismissal on filing procedural ground reported and unpublished on 22nd February,

2021. Appendices A1

JURISDICTION

Decision by United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit a certificate of Appealability is denied

and appeal is dismissed on 22nd February, 2021 by Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge and the case

dismissed, and unpublished per curiam opinion. I invokes this court's Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1257

having timely filed this petition for a writ of certiorari within Ninety days of United States District Court

of Appeals for 4th District.

I exhausted both the State and Federal Courts in States. In times where police intend to lies and deceit,

prosecutors score points rather than justice and making deals with those counsel's engaged in abusing

their profession for monetary gain and judges rely on prosecutors than facts, society needs trust in their

government. When raised multiple times constitutional violations, judge give deaf ears, facts needs to

be told to those who stands for truth and fear the invisible God, be able to hear and serve justice to

those who in need. Thus the State court lacks jurisdiction and Federal courts failed to hear the truth.

6?-V

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.