Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jack E. Allen, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania

Supreme Court briefMay 13, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

•>

*• /'

CourtTuT

filed

. IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 1 3 2021

■^SOOHECLeRK

JACK E.ALLEN - PETITIONER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA -RESPONDENT

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MR.JACK E.ALLEN DA-0984

SCI-HOUT2DALE

SMART COMMUNICATIONS/PA DOC

P.O.BOX 33028

ST.PETERSBURG/FL 33733

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

I) DOES THE PETITIONER DESERVE ANOTHER TRIAL BASED UPON

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS?

ANSWER: YES

2) DOES THE PETITIONER CLAIM HIS TOTAL INNOCENCE BASED UPON

DNA EVIDENCE FOR EXONERATION PURPOSES?

ANSWER: YES

3) DID PETITIONER REQUEST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO CONDUCT

AN INVESTIGATION INTO FEDERAL CRIMES BEING COMMITTED?

ANSWER: YES

4) WAS BLOOD SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE FOR DNA

IDENTIFICATION OR OTHER INVESTIGATORY METHODS?

ANSWER: NO

5) DOES THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT HAVE SUCH RIGHT TO SUCH DNA

SAMPLES FOR EXONERATION PURPOSES IN CLAIMS OF HIS INNOCENCE?

ANSWER: YES

6) ARE THERE FORGED AND FALSIFIED RECORDS AND/OR INFORMATION

BEFORE THE COURTS TO FALSIFY A CONVICTION WRONGFULLY?

ANSWER: YES

7) DOES THE PETITIONER THINK IN THE FOREFRONT THAT SECTION

3521 OF TITLE 18 U.S.C.§ IS BEING USED TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST

THE PETITIONER?

ANSWER: YES

. 8) WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE AG AND THE PERSON BEING PROTECTED?

ANSWER: YES

9) SHOULD THERE BE AN EXHUMATION OF THE ALLEGED DEAD CORPSE

OF. PETITIONER'S WIFE,WHOM HE CLAIMS IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL?

ANSWER: TOTALLY YES

7■

10) DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT PROOF BY

DEFENSE WITNESSES AND LEGAL DOCUMENTATION?

ANSWER: YES

11) DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMENCE SUCH PLAIN ERROR IN SUCH

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS NOT ALLOWING THE PETITIONER NOT

GETTING A "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL" TRIAL UNDER THE SIXTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS?

ANSWER: TOTALLY YES

12) WAS THERE A "MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE"INVOLVED"

ANSWER: YES

13) WAS THERE SUCH "CAUSE AND PREJUDICE"TOTALLY INVOLVED?

ANSWER: YES

14) DID PETITIONER SEE HIS ALLEGED DEAD WIFE UPFRONT AT SCIHOUTZDALE/AND FACE TO FACE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS?

ANSWER: YES

15) DOES THE PETITIONER DESERVE SUCH GRANTING OF A GRAND JURY

INVESTIGATION INTO SUCH CRIMES AGAINST HIMV?

ANSWER: YES

16) IS THE PETITIONER FALSELY IMPRISONED UNDER FALSIFIED RECORDS

AND INFORMATION - AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS?

ANSWER: YES

17) ARE STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE,

AT HAND?

ANSWER: YES

18) DOES THE PETITIONER DESERVE A REMEDY FROM THIS HONORABLE

COURT FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

ANSWER: YES

(ii)

19) DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL OR AN ATTORNEY? ANSWER: YES

20) DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOSE HIS OWN COUNSEL

OR AN ATTORNEY OF CHOICE? ANSWER: YES

21) DID SUCH ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL APPOINTED BY- THE COURT

ABANDONED THE PETITIONER? ANSWER: YES

22) IS THERE MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT IN PETITIONERS CASE?

ANSWER: YES

23) WAS THERE ALOT

REASONABLE DOUBT FROM THE BEGINNING TO

THE END OF PETITIONERS CASE,AT HAND? ANSWER: YES

24) WAS EVIDENCE EXEMPTED FROM THE CRIME SCENE? ANSWER: YES

25) WAS ANY EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM THE CRIME SCENE? ANSWER:

NO.

(iii)

■>

■

LIST OF PARTIES

(X) ALL PARTIES DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CAPTION OF THIS 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:

A) MR.JEFF SESSIONS-U.S.ATTORNEY GENERAL

U.S.DEPT.OF JUSTICE

950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE/NW

WASHINGTON D.C.20530

B) PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL

15th FL,STRAWBERRY SQUARE

HARRISBURG/PA 17120

C) DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CLEARFIELD COUNTY

230 E.MARKET ST./SUITE 210

CLEARFIELD/PA 16830

D) U.S.DEPT.OF JUSTICE

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

CRIMINAL SECTION

950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE,NW

WASHINGTON D.C.20530

(IV))

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

OPINION BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED---STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASON FOR GRANTING WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

H-Ilf

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE

U.S.VS GONZALEZ-LOPEZ/548 U.S.140;126 S.CT.2557(U.S . 2006) 4

INDIANA VS EDWARDS/554 U.S.164;128 S.CT . 2379(U.S.2008).. . 4

COM VS BENNETT/593 PA 382;930 A.2d 1264(PA 2007)

42 PA.C.S.A.§9572

MICKENS VS TAYLOR/535 U.S.162;122 S.CT.1237(U.S.2002)

. 5

U.S.VS CRONIC^ / 466 U.S.648n26;104 S-CT . 20-39 (U .S .OKLA 1984)5

CUYLER VS SULLIVAN/446 U.S.135;100 S.CT.1708(U.S.PA 1980).5

STRICKLAND VS WASHINGTON/466 U.S.668;104 S.CT.2052(U.S.FLA.

1984.)........... ...................................................................

BUEHL VS VAUGHN/166 F.3d 163(3rd CIR.1999)

GIDEON VS WAINWRIGHT/372 U.S.335/83=S.CT.792(1963)

18 U.S.C.§§ 1001,& 1519.......................... ..............................

18 U.S.C.§§ 1017/& 1018

U.S.VS MOYER/674 F.3d 192;2012 U.S.APP.LEXIS 4083(2012).. 6

U.S.VS AGUILAR/515 U.S.593;115 S.CT.2357(1995)

BATTLE VS 0'SHAUGHNESSY/2012 U.S.DIST.LEXIS 143471(2012). 6

U.S.VS LAWTON/19 MJ 886(1986 ACMR)..

ANDERSEN VS.U.S.,544 U.S.696;125 S.CT.2129(2005)

PRATCHER VS LAWLER/2010 U.S.DIST LEXIS 128272(2010)

42 U.S.C.§14132(a)(2)

42 U.S.C.-§14132(b) (3) (C)

42 PA,C.S.A.§9543.1(a)(1)

COM VS HEILMAN/2005 PA.SUPER.19;867 A.2d 542(PA.SUPER.,

2005)

U.S.VS DAVIS # 690 F.3d 226(4th CIR.2011)

ALLEN VS U.S.ATTY GEN/JEFF SESSIONS & U.S.DEPT.OF JUSTICE

3: 20-cv-200-KAP............................................................................................

(vi)

■}

PAGE

GAMBRELL VS WARDEN,BROAD CORR.INST. ,2014 U.S.DIST.LEXIS

180856(4th CIR.2014)

OPPER VS U.S./348 U.S.84,75 S.CT.158(1954)

PHILHOWER VS METZGER/2018 U . S . DIST.LEXIS 124759(3rd CIR.

2018) . ......................................................................................................... .. •

McAUTHUR VS ALVES/2011 U.S.DIST.LEXIS 28247(2nd CIR.2011)

COM VS SCHWARTZ/615 A.2d 350(PA.SUPER.1992).

COM VS MEDER/416 PA.SUPER.273;611 A.2d 213(PA.SUPER.1992)

42 PA.C.S.A.§9543.1(a)(1)

DRAKE VS PORTUONDO/553 F.3d 230(C.A.2[NY] 2009)

CHRISTOPHER VS HARBURY/536 U.S.403;122 S.CT.2179(2002)

COM VS DEYELL/399 PA 563;160 A.2d 448(PA 1960)

THOMAS VS ASTRUE/674 F.Supp.2d 507(2ND CIR.2008)

COM VS SCHER/569 PA 284/803 A.2d 1204(PA 2002)

JENKINS VS ARTUZ/294 F. 3d 284/296n2(2nd CIR.2002)

SHIH WEI SU VS FILLION/335 F.3d 119/126(2nd CIR.2003)

U.S.VS APFELBAUM/445 U.S.115/100 S.CT.948(1980)

WILLIAMS VS PENNSYLVANIA/136 S.CT.1899;2016 U.S.LEXIS 3774

(2016)

U.S.VS EDWARDS/BROOKS/JOHN-BAPTIST/2011 U.S.DIST.LEXIS 133405

(2011)

CHARLES VS REHBERG/2012 U.S.DIST LEXIS2711(U.S.2012)

COM VS FRAMKLIN/2018 PA.SUPER.UNPUB.LEXIS 4322(PA/SUPER.2018) 11

18 U. S.C. §§§1621,1622,&1623......... .......................................

18 PA.C.S.A.§§§ '4902,4903/4904...........................................

18 U.S.C.§§ 1001, &1519.............................................................

BRISCOE VS VIRGINIA/559 U.S.32,130 S.CT.1316(2010) .

U.S.VS RAMOS-GONZALEZ,664 F.3d l(lst CIR.2011)

IN RE PAYNE/2015 PA. SUPER . 2 72,129 A.3d 546£PA^S.UPERtj2015:t)L.X12 12

7 £ 2 v : 7. - S f

,;; . 2'

' c c c c r -

^ V *. •

■-)

PAGE

COM VS WILLIAMS/2011 PA . SUPER .. 275 ;35 A.3d 44; 2011 PA.SUPER

LEXIS 4793(PA.SUPER.2011)

SAWYER VS WHITLEY/112 S . CT - 2514;505 U-S.333(1992). ....................

REED VS TEXAS/140 S.CT.686;2020U.S.LEXIS 1355(2020}...........

CALDWELL VS MAHALLY/2019 U.S.DIST.LEXIS 192046(3rd CIR.2019)

42 U.S.C.§14132(a)(2)/&(a)(3)

COM VS BURTON/2007 PA.SUPER.319;936 A.2d 52(PA.SUPER.2007)..

COM FAHY/558 PA.313,737•A.2d 214(PA.1999)

ORNELAS VS U.S . / 517 U.S.690/116 S.CT.1657(U.S.1996)

McQUIGGINS VS PERKINS/133 S.CT.1924;2013 U.S.APP.LEXIS 4068

(2013)

GUILMETTE VS HOWES/624 F.3d 286;2010 U.S.APP.LEXIS 21682;

2010 FED.APP.0333(6th CIR.2010)................................... ......................

COM VS MILLER/430 PA.SUPER.297/634 A.2d 614;1993 PA.SUPER.

LEXIS 3878(PA.SUPER.1993)

COM VS AUSTIN/394 PA.SUPER.146/575 A.2d 141(PA.SUPER.1990). .

COM VS MYERS/424 PA.SUPER.1/621 A.2d 1009;1993 PA.SUPER.

LEXIS 48(PA.SUPER.1993)

CABANA VS BULLOCK/474 U.S.376/106 S.CT.689/88 L.Ed.2d 704

(1986)

HARMON VS MARSHALL/57 F.3d 763(9th CIR.1995)

U.S.VS CANCELLIERE/69 F.3d 1116(llth CIR.1995)

UNITED STATES VS PUPO/841 F.2d 1235(4th CIR.1988)

(viii)

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY PRAYS

THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BE ISSUED/AND TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT BELOW.

OPINIONS BELOW

(X) FOR CASES FROM FEDERAL COURTS:

THE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TO THE PETITION AND IS

APPEARS AT APPENDIX

; OR

[ ] REPORTED AT NOT APPLICABLE

[ ] HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BUT NOT

YET REPORTED;OR

[X] IS UNPUBLISHED

THE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPEARS

AT APPENDIX

iOR

[ ]HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BUT NOT YET

REPORTED:OR

[X] REPORTEDL,ATi-3T-20-cv-200-KAP__________________ ■

;OR

[ ] IS UNPUBLISHED

(X) FOR CASES FROM THE STATE COURTS:

THE OPINION OF THE HIGHEST STATE COURT APPEARS AT

TO THE PETITION AND IS

APPENDIX

[X]

reported at

ZL UiM ZjOZI

; OR

[ ] HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION/BUT NOT YET

REPORTED:OR

[ ] HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED

(1)

JURISDICTION

[X] FOR CASES ON WHICH THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

NOT APPLICABLE

DECIDED MY CASE' WAS

[X] NO PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS TIMELY FILED IN MY CASE.

[X] THERE WAS NO PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME.

THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS INVOKED UNDER TITLE 28

U.S.C.§ 1254(1)

[X] FOR CASES FOR STATE COURTS:

[X] THE HIGHEST STATE COURT DECIDED MY CASE WAS ON

[X] THERE WAS NO TIMELY FILED PETITION FOR REHEARING/NOR ANY

EXTENSION OF TIME FILED FOR THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI IF AND

WHEN GRANTED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT.

[X] THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT ALSO DECIDED MY CASE ON______________

2020 FOR SUCH APPELLATE REVIEW

DAY OF

ON A PETITION FOR REARGUMENT.

THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS INVOKED UNDER TITLE 28 U.S.C.

1257(a).

(2)

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

THAT IT IS CONSTRUED THAT UNDER OUR NATIONAL CONSTITUTION

"THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION .

PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART:

'IN ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS OR SUCH

PROSECUTION,THE ACCUSED SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE i ii ,AS WELL AS.NOT VIOLATING THE DUE

PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

THAT ALSO UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IT ESTABLISHES THAT

THE ACCUSED WILL GO TO TRIAL UNDER BY THE JURY OF HIS PEERS

WHICH GUARANTEES "THE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL

JURY".

THAT ALSO UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND

FOR TWENTY-FIVE(25) YEARS THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN WITHOUT

ANY

' REPRESENTATION AS FALSIFIED RECORDS REFLECT THAT PETITIONER

HAS BEEN REPRESENTED,AND IF. SO,"ALL COUNSELS OR ATTORNEYS

APPOINTED,ALL ABANDONED THE PETITIONER" WHICH WOULD SHOW

SUCH "CAUSE AND PREJUDICE", AND TRULY A "MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE".

THAT UNDER BOTH TITLES OF TITLE 18 U.S.C.§ § 241,&242;AS WELL

AS TITLE 42 U.S.C.§§§ 1981-1986 PERTAINS TO BOTH CIVIL RIGHTS

AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS TOTALLY

VIOLATED IN SUCH PROJECTION OF CONSTITUTING FALSE IMPRISONMENT

BY AND THROUGH SUCH FALSIFIED RECORDS AND INFORMATION IN SUCH

VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAWS OF TITLE 18 U.S.C.§§1001,&1519.

THIS IS EXHIBITED UNDER APPENDIX

(RELATING

TO SUCH AUTOPSY AND HOSPITAL REPORTS,WHICH ARE FALSIFIED).

THAT SUCH DNA SAMPLES DOES PERTAINS TO THIS CASE FOR SUCH

EXONERATION AND PROVE THAT PETITIONER IS TOTALLY INNOCENT.THAT

SUCH TESTING OF SUCH SAMPLES WOULD VERIFY THAT SUCH SAMPLES

WOULD BE EXCULPATORY.SEE:

TITLE 42 U.S.C.§14132.

-J

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

THATLABOUT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS NOW,PETITIONER HAS BEEN TRYING

. TO GET A "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL" UNDER BOTH SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS ,U . S.CONSTITUTION,DO TO EXEMPTING PETITIONER

THE RIGHT OF AN ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL;EXPERT WITNESSES TO REBUT

PROSECUTIONS EXPERT WITNESSES/BY WHICH THIS:. IS BASED UPON NEW

EVIDENCE,BY AND THROUGH FIVE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

THAT TO DENY THE PETITIONER COUNSEL OR AN ATTORNEY FOR BOTH

TRIALS;ON APPEALS,AS OF RIGHT;ON PCRAS;WRITS,AND OTHER MOTIONS,

AND PETITIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURTS.ALSO SUCH ABANDONMENT

OF THE ALLEGED APPOINTED COUNSELS OR ATTORNEYS "DID IN FACT

ABANDONED" THE PETITIONER TO FEND FOR HIMSELF ALL THE WAY UP

TO THE HIGHEST STATE COURT.ALSO THE RIGHT TO CHOSE PETITIONERS

OWN ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL; IS A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER BOTH

• SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS,U.S.CONSTITUTION.SEE: UNITED

STATES VS GONZALEZ-LOPEZ,548 U.S.140,126 S.CT.2557(U.S . 2006);

INDIANA VS EDWARDS,554 U.S.164,128 S.CT.2379(U.S.IND.2008);COM

VS BENNETT,593 PA 382,930 A.2d 1264(PA 2007).

THAT AT "NO TIME" DID PETITIONER WAIVE SUCH RIGHT TO COUNSEL

OR AN ATTORNEY,NOR DID HE WANTED TO PROCEED PRO SE,BASED UPON

SUCH FACTS.THAT PETITIONER WAS VERY INCOMPETENCE TO HANDLE HIS

CASE ON HIS OWN ACCORD.THEREFORE,PETITIONER WAS FORCED TO

PROCEED PRO SE BY THE TRIAL COURT JUDGES VIOLATING HIS SOLEMN

RIGHTS UNDER THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION TO SUCH APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL FOR REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER IN BOTH TRIALS.SEE:

INDIANA VS EDWARDS,128 S.CT.at 2380.

THAT ALSO THE TRIAL COURT FORCED THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS UPON

THE PETITIONER'.WHEN THERE WAS SOO MUCH "CONFLICT OF ONTEREST"

WHICH DID EXIST THROUGHOUT THE TRIALS IN VIOLATION OF TITLE

42 PA.C.S-A.§9572(RELATING TO FORMER REPRESENTATION)/WHICH

ESTABLISHES THAT "NO COUNSEL OR ATTORNEY/WHO REPRESENTED HIS

CLIENT BEFORE IN ANOTHER TRIAL;ON APPEALS AND PCRAS CANNOT

REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT(PETITIONERSEE: MICKENS VS TAYLOR/

535 U.S.162/122 S.CT.1237(U.S.2002);UNITED STATES VS CRONIC/

466 U.S.648n26/104 S.CT.2039/80 L.Ed.2d 657(U.S.OKLA.1984);

CUYLER VS SULLIVAN/446 U.S.335/100 S.CT.1708/64 L.Ed.2d 333

(U.S.PA 1980);SEE ALSO:STRICKLAND WASHINGTON/466 U.S.668;

104 S.CT.2052/80 L.Ed.2d 674(U.S.FLA.1984).

THAT PETITIONER AVERS THAT WHERE THE "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"

EXISTED/IS AS FOLLOWS: 1) FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE

PETITIONER; 2) FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE CRIME SCENE; 3)

FAILED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PROSECUTIONS WITNESSES; 4)

FAILED TO FILE POST TRIAL MOTIONS; 5) FAILED TO PROTECT THE

RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER; 6) FAILED TO REQUEST A CHANGE OF VENUE;

DO TO A HOSTILE COMMUNITY/AND BIASNESS AND SUCH PREJUDICES

TOWARDS THE PETITIONER/AND ALSO PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY; 7) FAILED

TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE JURY FOR SUCH BIASNESS OR SUCH ILLWILL

TOWARDS THE PETITIONER; 8) THEIR EXPERIENCE AS A LAWYER FELL

BELOW PROFESSIONAL NORMS; 9) FAILED TO FILE AN APPEAL FOR THE

PETITIONER; AND MUCH MORE IN THIS CAPITAL CASE OF AN ALLEGED

MURDER.ALSO SUCH VIOLATIONS OF PA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT,

AS WELL AS/INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL.SEE:BUEHL VS VAUGHN/166

F.3d 163(3rd CIR.1999);WHEAT VS UNITED STATES/486 U.S.153(1988).

THAT WITH SUCH DENIAL OF COUNSEL/DID BRING SUCH HARDSHIP

UPON THE PETITIONER/WHERE THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.

SEE: GIDEON VS WAINWRIGHT/372 U.S.335/83 S.CT.792,9 L.Ed.2d 799

(1963).

(5)

THAT MANY FACTORS COMES ABROAD IN THIS CASE/AT HAND/BY WHICH

TO SOLICIT FORGED AND FALSE DOCUMENTS TO GET A CONVICTION IS A

HIDIOUS ACT AND ELICITS A CRIME WITHIN ITSELF.THAT SUCH FALSIFIED

RECORDS AND INFORMATION IS ALSO CONSIDERED PERJURY/AS WELL AS/

A.FELONEOUS CRIME AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.SEE: TITLE 18 U.S-C

§§ 1001/& 1519.

THAT AS EXHIBITED AT APPENDIX

(RELATING TO

THE AUTOPSY AND HOSPITAL REPORTS)/WHICH BOTH ARE VERY FALSIFIED/

ALONG WITH THE REGISTRY COPY OF THE CORONERS DEATH CERTIFICATE

AND THE DEATH CERTIFICATE FROM THE VITAL STATISTICS/DEPT.OF

HEALTH OUT OF NEW CASTLE/PA ARE ALSO FAKE AND FORGED.SEE: TITLE

18 U.S.C.§§1017 & 1018(RELATING TO GOVERNMENT SEALS WRONGFULLY

USED/AND SUCH FALSIFIED ENTRIES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DOCUMENTS).

SEE: UNITED STATES VS MOYER/674 F.3d 192;2012 U-. S . APP . LEXIS 4083.

(2012).

THAT SUCH FALSIFICATIONS OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION DOES

CONSTITUTE/IN ITS RELEVANCY/AN "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE".SEE:

UNITED STATES VS AGUILAR/515 U.S.593/115 S.CT.2357/132 L.Ed.2d

520(1995)/SEE ALSO BATTLE VS O1SHAUGHNESSY/2012 U.S.DIST.LEXIS

143471(2012).

THAT THERE ARE MANY FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING

TO ANY NAMES;RESIDENCES;BIRTH CERTIFICATES;DEATH CERTIFICATES;

OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFICATION/WHICH WOULD THROW OFF ANY TRUTH TO

ANY COURT OUTCOME/BECAUSE OF A FALSE BELIEF;BUT WHEN COURTS

USES SUCH TO CONVICT INNOCENT PEOPLE/THAN THERE IS AN ATROCITY

TO THE SYSTEM OF WHAT JUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE/AS TO BELIEVING

IN THINGS THAT ARE FALSE/NOT BELIEVING IN THE TRUTH/MAKING IT

A CRIME AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE.SEE: UNITED STATES VS LAWTON/

19 MJ 886(1985 ACMR);ALSO ANDERSEN VS UNITED STATES/544 U.S.696/

toe;

( 6)

THAT PETITIONER AVERS THAT DNA TESTING DOES PLAY A VITAL

ROLE IN WHICH EXONERATION OF THE PETITIONER IN SUCH CLAIMS OF

BEING INNOCENT.THAT SUCH DNA REQUESTS FROM THE LOWER COURTS

HAS BEEN ALWAYS DENIED THROUGHOUT THE YEARS/AS TO BEING

REFUSED,AS TO CONSTITUTE ANOTHER "OBSTRUCTION'OF JUSTIC£"AND

ELICITING AGAIN "CAUSE AND PREJUDICE",AND DEFINATELY A

"MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE",AS WELL.SEE: PRATCHER VS LAWLER,2010

U.S.DIST.LEXIS 128272(2010)(IN THIS CASE ARGUES ABOUT SUCH

ERRORS IN SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS).

THAT DNA SAMPLES WERE NOT TAKEN FROM THE CRIME SCENE.SEE:

TITLE 42 U.S.C.§14132(a)(2),AND IN WHICH DEFENDANTS(PETITIONER)

UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LOCAL AGENCIES UNDER TITLE 42 U.S.C.§

(b)(3)(C) HAS A RIGHT TO DNA(BLOOD) SAMPLES AND ANALYSES....

PERFORMED FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.THESE TESTS WOULD.EXONERATE THE

PETITIONER IN HIS CLAIMS OF BEING INNOCENT.THIS WAS BY-PASSED

BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA UNDER TITLE 42 PA.C.S.A.§

9543.1(a)(1)(RELATING TO DNA TESTING ON CERTAIN EVIDENCE BEING

RELATED TO ANY INVESTIGATION)(NOTE:NO INVESTIGATION OCCURRED

IN THIS CASE).SEE: COM VS HEILMAN,2005 PA.SUPER.19,867 A.2d 542

2005 PA.SUPER.LEXIS 108(PA SUPER.2005).SEE ALSO:UNITED STATES VS

DAVIS,690 F.3d 226(4th CIR.2011).id at 231(RELATING TO COLLECTION

OF DNA AT THE CRIME SCENE),WHICH WAS NEVER DONE IN PETITIONER’S

CASE.. Sze:

THAT PETITIONER CLAIMS ALSO THAT THE ALLEGED DEAD VICTIM

IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE AND WELL,WALKING AROUND,BY.AND THROUGH

FIVE WITNESSES,WHICH WAS NEVER CALLED TO THE STAND OR TO THE

COURT;LEGAL DOCUMENTS(DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)(RELATING TO FALSIFIED

RECORDS AND INFORMATION).THAT THE FIVE WITNESSES SAW THE ALLEGED

DEAD VICTIM WALKING AROUND.

SEE: PETITION TO REVEAL IDENTITY OF PROTECTED PERSON BY THE

U.S.ATTORNEY GENERAL IN VIOLATION OF MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT

CONTRACT WHICH WAS VIOLATED BY THE ALLEGED DEAD VICTIM)SEE:

ALLEN VS U.S.ATTY GENERAL/JEFF SESSIONS;U.S.DEPT.OF JUSTICE

. 3-20-cv-200-KAP(U.S.DIST.CT.3rd CIR.2020) Mt ExivkriL

THAT PETITIONER ARGUES AND

DOES AVER ABOUT THE "CORPUS

DELICTI"RULE,AS TO BRING FORTH THE BODY/BY WHICH PETITIONER NEVER

SAW HIS WIFES BODY/ONLY A PRETENSIOUS BURIAL AND FUNERALiTHROUGH

FALSIFIED RECORDS AND INFORMATION/AS TO MAKE HER DISAPPEAR,AS IF

SHE NEVER EXISTED.SEE: GAMBRELL VS WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORR-INST.

2014 U.S.DIST.LEXIS 180856(4th CIR.2014);OPPER VS UNITED STATES,

348 U.S.84,75 S.CT.158,99 L.Ed.2d 101(1954)(RELATING TO THE

CORPUS DELICTI DOCTRINE);PHILHOWER VS METZGER,2018 U.S.DIST.

LEXIS 124759(3rd CIR.2018).id at *8;ALSO McARTHUR VS ALVES,2011

U.S.DIST.LEXIS 28247(2nd CIR.2011);COM VS SCHWARTZ,615 A.2d 350

359(PA.SUPER.1992).THAT THE CORPUS DELICTI RULE WAS NEVER PROVEN

AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.SEE: COM VS MEDER,416 PA.SUPER.273,

611 A. 2d 213 ; 1992 PA.SUPER .LEXIS 1462 ( PA .SUPER . 1992 ) .'

THAT PETITIONER AVERS UNDER TITLE 42 PA.C.S.A.§9543.1(a)(1)

(RELATING TO TESTING ON CERTAIN EVIDENCE) BRINGS ON SUCH .i.uwu:*.

EXHUMATION OF THE ALLEGED DEAD CORPSE OF PETITIONERS WIFE,IF NOT,

AND IF REFUSED,THE PETITIONER MUST BE RELEASED,BECAUSE OF HIS

CLAIMS OF 1)-BEING INNOCENT; 2)NO CRIME DID EXIST; 3)-"CAUSE

AND PREJUDICE"EXISTED;4)-EXEMPTING BY PURPOSE,NOT TO DISCLOSE

THE BODY FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION,BASED UPON DNA TESTING;

(5)-SUCH PRESENTMENT OF A COVER-UP RELATING TO "RICO ACT"

VIOLATIONS;(6)-FALSIFIED RECORDS AND INFORMATION;(7)-FALSE

IMPRISONMENT UNDER.TITLE 28 U.S.C.§§1495 & 2513(2).SEE:

DRAKE VS PORTUONDO,553 F.3d 230(C.A.2[NY] 2009).

(8)

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES THAT BASED UPON SUCH CASE

OF UNITED STATES VS CYRIL’WECHT,484 F.3d 194(3rd CIR.2007) IN

WHICH THIS PATHOLOGIST SOLD CADAVERS TO OTHER DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

IN PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES,ESPECIALLY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY ALONE

IN WHICH THIS CASE IS BASED UPON.THAT SUCH EXHUMATION

PETITIONERS WIFE IS REAL,AND WOULD SHOW RELEVANCY TO SUCH DNA

TESTING FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION

INTO SUCH ALLEGED CRIME OR AN ALLEGED OCCURRENCE,WHICH WOULD SHOW

THAT "NO CRIME" DID NOT! OCCUR/WHICH WOULD BE BASED UPON MANY

ISSUES;CONTENTIONS/AND OR CLAIMS OF OVER FIFTY IN TRUTH TO SHOW

PETITIONERS INNOCENCE.

PETITIONER AVERS AND AGREES THAT BURIAL SITES ARE HOLY

AND ARE SACRED/AND SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED/BUT ONLY IN SUCH

CIRCUMSTANCES FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO SERIOUS CRIMES BEING

COMMITTED/MOST IN WHICH WOULD BE FOR IDENTIFICATION AND DNA

TESTING OR ANALYSES ON HOW THIS PERSON DIED.THAT SUCH ALLEGED

DEAD BODY WOULD BRING ON SUCH "CORPUS DELICTI"RULE ATTAINMENT.

ESPECIALLY THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF DEATH/NOT LYING WORDS OF OFFICIALS

SEE: CHRISTOPHER VS HARBURY/536 U.S.403/122 S.CT.2179;153 L.Ed .

2d 413(2002) .

THAT IN COMMONWEALTH VS DEYELL/399

PA 563/160 A.2d 448(PA

1960)/THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHES THREE ELEMENTS

OF A CRIME UNDER THE CORPUS DELICTI RULE(1)-THAT AN IDENTIFIED

PERSON IS DEAD;(2)-THAT SUCH DEATH WAS CAUSED BY A CRIMINAL ACT;

(3)-THE ACCUSED IS RESPONSIBLE.SEE:THOMAS VS ASTRUE/674 F.Supp.2d

507(2nd CIR.2008)(BASED UPON POST-HUMANOUS GENETIC TESTING)id at

514.

THAT PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE MAIN QUESTION IS:"WHO IS

BURIED IN THE GRAVE OF ONE TERESA GRAHAM ALLEN?"

/ rv \

THAT EXHUMATION IS INEVITABLE AND MUST BE INVESTIGATED/AND FOR

THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.SEE: COMMONWEALTH VS SCHER/569 PA

284/803 A.2d 1204;2002 PA.LEXIS I721(PA 2002).

PETITIONER AVERS/THAT IF THERE IS FALSIFIED RECORDS. AND

INFORMATION/WHICH DOES INFER AND DOES CONSTITUTE PERJURY/NOT

ONLY ON PAPER/BUT BY WITNESSES AND EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE

PROSECUTION/WHICH WAS NOT CORRECTED BY THE PROSECUTOR.THAT THE

U.S.-SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT A CONVICTION THAT

BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH KNOWING USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONIES . IS

FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR/AND MUST BE SET ASIDE.ALSO THE U.S.SUPREME

COURT JUSTICES DID OPINED.THAT "IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE

GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY PERMITTED THE INTRODUCTION OF-FALSE

TESTIMONIES/REVERSAL IS VIRTUALLY AUTOMATIC.SEE: JENKINS VS

ARTUZ/294 F.3d 284/296n2(2nd CIR.2002);SHIH WEI SuYflLION/335

F.3d 119/126(2nd CIR.2003).

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES THAT THE "CORPUS DELICTI"

RULE DOES APPLY TO ANY FALSE TESTIMONIES GIVEN/GIVING RISE TO

PERJURY CHARGES.SEE: UNITED STATES VS APFELBAUM/445 U.S.115/

100 S.CT.948/63 L.Ed.2d 250(1980)(ARGUING PERJURY PROSECUTIONS

ARE PERMISSIBLE);SEE ALSO WILLIAMS VS PENNSYLVANIA/136 S.CT.1899

195 L.Ed.2d 132;2016 U.S.LEXIS 3774(2016)(ARGUING ABOUT A

PROSECUTOR AND ALONG WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWING PERJURED

TESTIMONIES AND HAVING SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT PERSONALLY).

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES PERJURY IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE

ESPECIALLY BEFORE A GRAND JURY/OR ANY COURT PROCEEDINGS.SEE: .

UNITED STATES VS EDWARDS/BROOKS/& JOHN-BAPTISTE/2011 U.S.DIST.

LEXIS 133405(2011)^CHARLES VS REHBERG/182 L.Ed.2d 593;2012 U.S.

LEXIS 2711(U.S.2012).THEREFORE/ANY CONVICTION OBTAINED THROUGH

PERJURED TESTIMONIES VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

THAT PETITIONER AVERS/AND HAS ASSERTED/THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT

PERJURY BEING COMMITTED THROUGH DUE DILIGENCE/WHICH WAS OVER

RIDDEN AND BY-PASSED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE/WHO WAS TOTALLY BIASED

AND PREJUDICED TOWARDS THE PETITIONER.SEE: COMMONWEALTH VS ...

FRANKLIN/2018 PA.SUPER.UNPUB.LEXIS 4322(PA.SUPER.2018) .

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES THAT THE PROSECUTIONS

EXPERT WITNESSES HAD BACKED UP THEIR REPORTS AND OTHER INFO

AS TO COMMIT PERJURY ON THE RECORDS AND FOR THE RECORDS.ALSO

WHEN UP ON THE STAND IN FRONT OF A JURY IN SUCH VIOLATIONS OF

TITLE 18 PA.C.S.A.§§§4902,4903/& 4904/AS WELL AS/TITLE 18 U.S.C.

§§§ 1621/1622/& 1623 PERTAINING TO CRIMINAL STATUTES BY WHICH

THESE EXPERTS SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR SUCH A CRIME OR CRIMES

AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.SEE: PA RULES OF EVIDENCE/RULE 701

(RELATING TO LAY PERSONS OPINION)/COMPARED TO PA.RULES OF SUCH

EVIDENCE/RULES RULES 702/703*704 & 705(RELATING TO EXPERTS..

OPINIONS AND TO GIVE SUCH DATA AND SUCH INFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT

MATTER AT HAND)/MEANING THAT THEIR REPORTS ARE VERY FALSIFIED

THEREFORE/TENDERING FALSE TESTIMONIES/ALSO AS TO FALSIFY SUCH

REPORTS AND INFORMATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 18 U.S.C.§§ 1001/

& 1519.WITH THIS/THE U.S.SUPREME COURTS DECISION IS RETROACTIVE

AS TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.SEE: BRISCOE VS VIRGINIA/559 U.S.

32,130 S.-CT.1316,175 L.Ed.2d 966 ( 2010); ALSO UNITED STATES VS

RAMOS-GONZALEZ 664 F.3d l(lst CIR. 2011.) . SEE APPENDIX

(PERTAINING TO BOTH AUTOPSY AND HOSPITAL REPORTS AND

OTHER INFORMATION).

THAT PETITIONER AVERS THAT SUCH EXPERT WITNESSES BY THE

PROSECUTION CONSISTS OF THE BALLISTIC EXPERT;THE PATHOLOGIST:

AND DOCTORS AND SURGEONS AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE THE ALLEGED

DEAD PERSON/KNOWN AS PETITIONERS WIFE/AS TO DECLARE HER DEAD

FALSELY.

(ID

PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES/THAT HE IS VERY INNOCENT OF

SAID CRIME CHARGED.ALSO WHERE ALL ELEMENTS WERE NOT PROVEN BY

THE PROSECUTION.

THAT THIS CAPITAL CASE IS HINGED UPON GETTING A CONVICTION

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY /AND FOR PERSONAL - GAIN.

THAT WITH DNA TESTING OR ANALYSES OF THE ALLEGED DEAD

CORPSE OF PETITIONERS WIFE/AS TO COMPARE SUCH DNA SAMPLES

OR BLOOD TYPING OF HER SIBLINGS AND CHILDREN WOULD PROVE THAT

THE PETITIONER IS VERY INNOCENT/AS TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS

NO CRIMINAL ACT INVOLVED.SEE: IN RE PAYNE/2015 PA.SUPER.272;

129 A.3d 546;2015 PA.SUPER.LEXIS 856(PA.SUPER.2015);SEE ALSO

TITLE 42 PA.C.S.A.§9543.1(c)(1)(i),& 3(ii)(A)(RELATING TO SUCH

SPECIFIED EVIDENCE TO BE TESTED);COMMONWEALTH VS WILLIAMS/2011

PA.SUPER.275/35 A.3d 44;2011 PA.SUPER.LEXIS 4793(PA.SUPER.2011)

(ARGUING A.PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF TESTS OR ANALYSES OF DNA

SHOWING ACTUAL INNOCENCE).

THAT PETITIONER STATES AND AVERS/THAT THERE IS OVER FIFTY

(50) ISSUES/CLAIMS/AND CONTENTIONS/WHICH ARE TRUE AND IS OF

FACT/AND WHICH MOST ARE NOT ARGUED IN THIS PETITION/BUT ONLY

SPOKEN ABOUT/AND IN WHICH THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS READ AND

SEEN THROUGH EXHIBITS/THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER UPFRONT J BUT ONLY

TO IGNORE AND DENY SUCH OTHER WRITS OF CERTIORARI.

THEREFORE,THERE.IS A DEFINATELY "MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE",

/ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITAL CASE THAT WOULD WARRANT FEDERAL HABEAS

CORPUS REDRESS AND OUGHT TO INCLUDE MORE SITUATIONS THAN THOSE

CRICUMSTANCES IN WHICH PETITIONER COULD MAKE HIS CLAIM OF ---INNOCENCE.OPINED BY JUSTICES SOUTER:KENNEDY,AND THOMAS IN THE

CASE OF SAWYER VS WHITLEY/112 S.CT.2514;505 U.S.333:120 L.Ed.2d

269(1992) .

M 2)

THAT MOST SISTER STATES AND COURTS AGREE- THAT-WITH DNA

SAMPLES TESTING OR ANALYSES OF THE ALLEGED DEAD CORPSE OF

PETITIONERS WIFE/DOES PLAY A' VITAL ROLE IN PETITIONERS INNOCENCE/

BECAUSE OF PETITIONERS CLAIM "THAT THE ALLEGED DEAD BODY IN SUCH

BURIAL SITE/IS NOT THAT OF HIS WIFE TERESA GRAHAM ALLEN",AS TO

SUCH FACTS THAT PETITIONER NEVER SAW THE BODY OF HIS WIFE;WAS

REFUSED*TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL TO, SEE HIS WIFE BY POLICE OFFICERS/

AS THEY TOLD THE PETITIONER "NOT IN THIS TYPE OF CASE";NOR WAS

HE ALLOWED TO GO TO THE VIEWING OR FUNERAL/AS HE WAS REFUSED/BY

WHICH THE BODY WAS TOTALLY WITHHELD FROM THE VIEWING OF PETITIONER

WHICH DOES CASTS DOUBTS ON THE VERACITY AND SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC

AND FORENSIC VALIDITY OF THE BODY OF EVIDENCE.SEE:REED VS TEXAS/

140 S.CT.686;206 L.Ed.2d 236;2020 U.S.LEXIS 1355(2020).

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES/AND IS CERTAIN/THAT NO

DNA BLOOD SAMPLES WAS NEVER COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE;NOR

WAS SUCH DNA PRESERVED AT THE HOSPITAL;NOR TAKEN AT. AUTOPSY BY

THE PATHOLOGIST(VERY UNPROFESSIONAL) FOR COMPLETE TESTING OR

GIVE ANALYSES OF SUCH BLOOD SAMPLES FOR DNA TYPING FOR SUCH

IDENTIFICATION OR FURTHER INVESTIGATORY MEANS.THE COMMONWEALTH

DID NOT PRESENT ANY DNA EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME/OR THE BODY.SEE:

CALDWELL VS MAHALLY/2019 U.S.DIST.LEXIS 192046(3rd CIR.2019)/

WHICH IN THIS CASE PETITIONER CLAIMS HIS INNOCENCE.id at 16 &

26.

THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT/MUST ASK THEMSELVES/AS JUSTICES

"WHEN DID THE DETECTIVES OR POLICE OFFICERS COLLECT ANY DNA

BLOOD SAMPLES FROM THE CRIME SCENE?".SEE: TITLE 42 U.S.C.§14132

(a)(2) & (a)(3).ALSO THE JUSTICES MUST ASK THEMSELVES/"WHY WOULD

ANY POLICE OFFICER

TAINT’ THE CRIME SCENE BY WASHING AWAY DNA

EVIDENCE/GIVING MUCH DOUBT?,OR MUST ASK THEMSELVES "WHY WOULD

OFFICERS NOT COLLECT ANY DNA SAMPLES/BY WHICH THE PETITIONER...

/ 1 o \

CAN HAVE SUCH DNA SAMPLES TESTED FOR SUCH EXONERATION?/OR "IS

NOT COLLECTING DNA SAMPLES IN SUCH TAINT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN

TO KEEP THE PETITIONER

AWAY FROM SUCH DNA SAMPLES FOR TESTING?.

THAT,IF THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED,IT IS CALLED AN "OBSTRUCTION OF

.JUSTICE",IN ITS TOTALITY.SEE: COMMONWEALTH VS BURTON,2007 PA.

SUPER.319,936 A.2d 521(PA.SUPER.2007);COMMONWEALTH VS FAHY,558

PA.313,737 A.2d 214,223(PA 1999):ORNELAS VS UNITED STATES,517

U.S.690,116 S.CT.1657,134 L.Ed.2d 911(U.S.1996);McQUIGGINS VS

PERKINS,133 S.CT.1924,185 L.Ed.2d 1019;2013 U-S.LEXIS 4068(2013).

(IN THE CASE OF McQUIGGINS VS PERKINS,SUPRA ARGUES ABOUT SUCH

INNOCENCE,AND HOW NO REASONABLE JURY WOULD HAVE FOUND THE

PETITIONER(DEFENDANT) GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE).

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES,THAT NO DNA WAS TAKEN OFF

THE TRIGGER OF THE SHOTGUN,NOR ANY RESIDUE TAKEN OFF SUCH ....

CLOTHING OF THE PETITIONER FOR SUCH TESTING OR ANALYSES,WHICH

ALSO GIVES MUCH DOUBT.THAT WE KNOW THAT SCIENTIFIC AND FORENSIC

LABORATORIES TESTS SKIN CELLS FOR DNA IDENTIFICATION,ALONG WITH

SALIVA,AND OILS FROM OUR FINGERS,BY WHICH "NO FINGERPRINTS WAS

NEVER TAKEN OFF THE TRIGGER".THAT DNA CAN BE COLLECTED FROM

SUCH SALIVA;SKIN CELLS;AND OILS FROM OUR SKIN AND FINGERS FOR

TESTING AND TO ANALYZE SUCH FOR SUCH INVESTIGATION,WHICH WAS

NOT DONE IN THIS CASE,AT HAND.ANOTHER "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE"

DONE TO PETITIONER,AND IN WHICH SOLICITS SUCH "CAUSE AND .

PREJUDICE".SEE:GUILMETTE VS HOWES,624 F.3d 286;2010 U.S.APP.

LEXIS 21682;2010 FED.APP.0333(6th CIR.2010).

THAT PETITIONER HAS A RIGHT TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE IN

FRONT OF A COURTROOM,BY WHICH HE WOULD

SHOW UP FRONT OF ALL

THE EVIDENCE HE HAS,AND HIS FIVE WITNESSES,WHO WOULD STEP FORWARD

TO ESTABLISH PETITIONERS INNOCENCE.THAT THE SISTER STATES WOULD

nCPTMA'I'UTV

( i a\

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES THAT THERE IS ALOT OF

REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE/AT HAND.THAT

PETITIONER HAS ABOUT SEVENTY(70) ISSUES/CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS

WHICH FOCUSES UPON SUCH REASONABLE DOUBT/WHERE THE ELEMENTS WERE

NOT PROVEN BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OF FIRST DEGREE

MURDER.SEE: COMMONWEALTH VS MILLER/430 PA.SUPER.297/634 A.2d

614;1993 PA.SUPER.LEXIS 3878(PA.SUPER.1993).

PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES/AS FACT/THAT "NO EVIDENCE WAS

NEVER COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE"/NOR PRESENTED AT THE ..

PRELIMINARY HEARING TO ESTABLISH THAT A CRIME OCCURRED/OR WAS

COMMITTED/MUCH LESS THAN A MURDER.THAT THE APPELLATE COURT

STATED IN THE CASE OF COMMONWEALTH VS AUSTIN/394 PA.SUPER.146/

575 A.2d 141(PA.SUPER.1990)/STATED AND 'OPINED THAT THERE WAS"NO

SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT AUSTIN WANTED TO KILL THE

VICTIM.THAT SUCH ELEMENTS OF.FIRST DEGREE MURDER KNOWN AS 1)PREMEDITATION/WHICH IS A FULLY INFORMED INTENT TO KILL IN SUCH

PLANNING; 2) - AND "MALICE"/WHICH IS A HEATED ARGUMENT LEADING

TOWARDS HOSTILITY UPON THE VICTIM/WHICH THIS NEVER HAPPENED/

AT ALL;3)-ALSO "INTENT"/MEANING THAT THE WEAPON WAS AIMED AT

THE VITAL ORGANS OF THE VICTIM PURPOSELY/BY WHICH THIS NEVER

HAPPENED.SEE: COMMONWEALTH VS MYERS/424 PA.SUPER.1/621 A.2d

1009;1993 PA.SUPER.LEXIS 483(PA.SUPER.1993).

THAT THE COMMONWEALTH MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

THAT A CRIME OCCURRED/AND THAT, THE ACCUSED WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR

SUCH ACTION.THAT EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIME MUST BE PROVEN---WHICH NEVER WAS PROVEN/THEREFORE/LEAVING OUT THE "TRIER OF FACT"

WHICH WAS LESSENED BRINGING ON MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT.THAT ALL

THE COMMONWEALTH HAD WAS ONLY A "DEFECTIVE SHOTGUN"/AND WORDS

FROM THE PROSECUTORS LUNG WITNESSES COMMITTING PERJURY.

THAT THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE IS VERY

WEAK/WHICH BRINGS ON MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT.SEECOMMONWEALTH

VS ROBERTS,496 PA - SUPER - 428,437 A.2d 948(PA,SUPER.1981) .

PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES,THAT WITH THESE SEVENTY ISSUES,

CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS ALSO.BRINGS ON MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT,AS

TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WHICH BRINGS ON MUCH CONSTITUTIONAL

AND PLAIN ERRORS INVOKING SUCH REVERSAL IN PETITIONERS CASE.

THAT ALSO THERE WAS "NO MOTIVE" TO BRING ABOUT SUCH AN ALLEGED

MURDER,BY WHICH THERE WAS NEVER A CRIMINAL ACT COMMITTED BY

THE PETITIONER - THAT THE'JURY WAS NEVER INFORMED,NOR INSTRUCTED

ON SUCH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER,OR ANY LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE

IF ANY CRIME WAS COMMITTED,OR NOT.SEE: CABANA VS BULLOCK,474 U.S.

376,106 S.CT.689;88 L.Ed-2d 704(1986);HARMON VS MARSHALL,57 F . 3d

763(9th CIR.1995).

THAT PETITIONER STATES AND AVERS,THAT THIS IS "PER SE

REVERSIBLE ERROR*WHEN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE ARE

ALTERED TO BROADEN THE POSSIBLE BASES FOR CONVICTION BEYOND WHAT

IS CONTAINED IN THE INDICTMENTSEE: UNITED STATES VS CANCELLIERE

69 F. 3d 1116(11th CIR.1995):UNITED STATES VS PUP0,841 F. 2d 1235

(4th CIR.1988).

PETITIONER STATES AND AVERS, THAT THERE IS VERY MUCH ..

REASONABLE DOUBT IN HIS CASE,WHEREAS,SUCH REASONABLE DOUBT

ALSO DERIVED FROM NOT APPOINTING AN ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL TO

DEFEND THE PETITIONER,WHERE PETITIONERS COMPETENCY WAS AT STAKE

AS HE COULD NOT HANDLE HIS CASE ON HIS OWN ACCORD WITHOUT ANY.

REPRESENTATION TO DEFEND FOR HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,AND TO

SEE IF PETITIONER IS GETTING A "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL"TRIAL UNDER

THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS,UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

(16)

REASON FOR GRANTING THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI

THAT THE SISTER STATES DOES AGREE THROUGH THEIR OPINIONS

THAT ANY FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND ALLOWING ANY PERJURY

TO STAND BY WITNESSES AND EXPERT WITNESSES IS A STRUCTURED

"CAUSE

MANIFEST MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE/WHICH ALSO SHOWS SUCH

AND PREJUDICE"STANDARD # WHERE VIOLATIONS OF BOTH THE SIXTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS#BASED UPON SUCH DUE PROCESS OF THE LAWS#

AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

THAT THE LOWER COURTS WENT OUTSIDE THE JUDGMENTS AND THE

OPINIONS OF THE U.S.SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN MANY CASES IN SUCH

"FAIR

CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NOT GETTING A

AND IMPARTIAL" TRIALS#ESPECIALLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN JUST, TO GET

A CONVICTION FALSELY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY/THEREFORE#THE LOWER

COURTS WENT AGAINST SUCH RULINGS AND OPINIONS BY THE JUSTICES

OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S RULINGS AND OPINIONS AS

THE LOWER COURTS DID IN FACT OPEN THE DOORS TO SUCH STRUCTURAL

PLAIN/CONSTITUTIONAL AND REVERSIBLE ERRORS/0RIGRSDIEIOGCUR-1$

SUCH VIOLATIONS OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.

THAT WHAT IS SHOWN THROUGHOUT THIS CASE IS VERY MUCH

REASONABLE DOUBT#AS TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED # WHERE BOTH STATE

AND FEDERAL LAWS HAS BEEN BROKEN/ESPECIALLY RULES OF COURTS

ATTRIBUTABLE # AS TO NOT GETTING A FAIR AND JUST TRIALS#AND NO

REPRESENTATION OF AN ATTORNEYS OR COUNSELS FOR EITHER TRIALS#

WHICH BRINGS ON SUCH "CAUSE AND-PREJUDICE"#AND A DEFINATE...

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE DONE TO THE PETITIONER#AS THE SISTER

STATES DOES AGREE IN OVERTURNING PETITIONERS CONVICTION AND

SENTENCE IN THE REASONABLE ASPECT OF GETTING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

TRIAL BRINGING OUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

(17)

CONCLUSION

ARE

THAT FOR THE REASONS THAT

THAT PETITIONER AVERS AND STATES

SETFORTH IN THIS PETITION WITH RELIABLE DOCUMENTATION/-AS

PROOF OF WHAT. HAS HAPPENED AND REVEALING THE TRUTH BY THE

ATTACHED APPENDIX AND EXHIBITS FOREVER REMAINS AND HOPE THAT

THEIR HEART TO GIVE THE

THIS HONORABLE COURT WOULD FIND IT IN

PETITIONER A REMEDY/AS TO SOLVE THIS MATTER ONCE AND FOR ALL.

PETITIONER FOREVER PRAYS-

//JACK E.ALLEN DA-0984

SCI-HOUTZDALE

SMART COMMUNICATIONS/PA DOC

P.O.BOX 33028

ST.PETERSBURG/FL 33733

(18)

DECLARATION

I ATTEST TO THE FOLLOWING TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE

BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND THAT STATEMENTS MADE

HEREIN ARE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY UNDER TITLE

28 U.S.C.§ 1746.

DATE :J) sS

<JACK E.ALLEN DA-0984

SCI-HOUTZDALE

SMART COMMUNICATIONS/PA DOC

P.O.BOX 33028

ST.PETERSBURG/FL 33733

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.