Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rafael Lora, Petitioner v. United States

0

21-T7W

W\v D, P<\

I

ORIGINAL

Z\{ lo-C£-e>66qi - 062

IN THE

FILED

FEB 0 1 2022

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT mqK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Lo £~v4

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

Ulvv.\

S o-T

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Tfjg *t(\\^c1

\-Wci

dous^-V

LA\a\

or

fv

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Log-lA

(Your Name)

*~-HD Pence sVv&e~\~

(Address)

\VnT-\-e-~Vfr ^?vr

(*£ 'ZJb \

(City, State, Zip Code)

4^1-S'

(Phone Number)

RECEIVED

MAR - 1 2022

/ "1“

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

RAFAEL LORA,

Appellant,

No. 20-3586

(M.D. Pa., 3:16-CR-00091- 002)

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

received

FEB - 8 2022

Mil

Comes Now, Rafael Lora (Appellant) Pro se, and will humbly and respectfully

submit his Petition requesting for Writ of Certiorari, regarding his direct appeal to the

Third Circuit Court of Appeals and his denial of rehearing enbanc.

I. Question Presented :

On Direct Appeal, the Appeals Court denied, neglected, avoided, and failed to document

the appellants submitted evidence (appendix) and did the same for supporting case law,

completely showed signs of prejudice, and to be bias against the appellant, violating his

fair rights to justice, and to his fundamental constitutional rights, as it's clearly stated on

Franks vs. Delaware., Whitlock vs. Brown., United States vs. Basham.,...and many other

submitted case law to the appeals court, that The Fourth Amendment prohibits an affiant

in an application for a search warrant “to knowingly and intentionally or with reckless

disregard for the truth, make a false statement.” as well as, Due Process Clause requires

the Court's to vacate the conviction in “extreme cases in which the government's conduct

violates fundamental fairness.” United States v. Stinson, 647 F. 3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir.

2011)(citiation omitted). In other words, a conviction must fall where “ the conduct of law

enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the

government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction.” United states v. Russel,

411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L Ed. 2D 366(1973) “[Cjonvictions

premised on deliberately fabricated evidence will always violate the defendants right

to due process/9 Avery v. City of Milwaukee, 847 F. 3d 433,439 (7th Cir. 2017)(emphasis

added); see also Mooney v. Holohan. 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791

(1935)(explaining that the use of perjured testimony “ to procure the conviction and

imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice

as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation”); Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F. 3d

567, 580 (7th Cir. 2012). Moreover, misconduct of this type that results in a conviction

might also violate the accused's right to due process under the rubric of Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194,10 L. Ed. 2D 215 (1963), and Kvles v. Whitley. 514 U.S. 419,

115 S. Ct. 1555, 131 LEd. 2d. 490(1995).

II. The Appellant properly submitted in his appendix to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit fabricated evidence that was used against the

appellant/Lora by the government (fake lab report, unsigned) and Pg. 5 of the

affidavits with false statements, unsupported by any semblance of probable-cause

and which was used to obtain illegal search warrants, committing perjury in the

affiants actions.

III. The appellant also points out the fact that no real legal laboratory report exist on

the record, that there exist no chain of custody for this alleged “drug” and the district

judge never signed, sealed, dated or documented such evidence, meaning the judge

never saw this “drug” that the appellant was incarcerated for.

We have agents on the record giving full statements that there wasn't any

IV.

drugs in the package when it was delivered to the Peace St. residence, and that they

never saw it. (Doc. 202 at 8:13,39:9 and 57: 2-4), these same agents are also found

on the record, confessing that the appellant was never given his Miranda warnings.

The case was fabricated from the whole cloth, the appellant is actually innocent,

and the appellant is being denied relief despite having, and submitting all the indisputable

evidence found in the submitted appendix to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and by

the confession of the agents themselves, supra.

Therefore, as this Honorable Court can plainly see, the appellant is actually innocent,

and the evidence and case law need to be properly reviewed and documented, and it's of

extreme importance that a Writ of Certiorari be granted, in order for true justice and true

review of this matter be properly done.

*The Appellant is acting Pro se, is unlearned in the complex Federal Laws, and therefore, the appellant request that this

Honorable Court of Appeals, construed liberally pursuant to see: Haines v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 595, 30 L. Ed.

2d. 652 (1972). The appellant would also point out, that this humble appeal is of extreme, and extraordinary circumstances

where the appellant presents indisputable, and incontestable fabricated evidence on behalf of the government; where the

appellant points to evidence that is not found on or off the record, such as an official legal lab report, chain of custody, and

sealing order for the alleged “cocaine*’ from the Federal Court Judge in charge of this case. Where also, the appellant points

to confessions from the agents where the agents (Feil, Troy, and David Heinke) state that “NO” drugs, where ever present in

the “package”, and they never saw it, when it was delivered to the Peace St. residence on March 30'\ 2015.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

RAFAEL LORA,

Appellant,

No. 20-3586

V.

(M.D. Pa., 3:16-CR-00091 -002)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Comes Now, Rafael Lora (Petitioner) Pro se, and will humbly and respectfully

submit his Amended Petition with corrections, as requested by this honorable Court.

On March 1 st, 2022, This Court returned petitioner's submitted documents,

requesting redaction of names of minors, a concise statement of the case. Rule 14.1 (g)

and reasons relied on for the allowance of the Writ. Rules 10 and 14.1(h).

As requested, names of minors have been redacted.

A concise statement of the case. Rule 14.1(g) is as follows:

•

On March 17th , 2015, CBP officer Leung, claims to have examined a package to

which his states to have allegedly found a white powdery substance, and also claims

to have conducted (3) different Presumptive Drug Test to which he claims to have

come up positive for the presence of Methamphetamine. Officer Leung, fails to

submit any proof of his finding and submit a chain of custody regarding his alleged

finding.

• On March 19th, 2015, HSI Officer Michael T. O'Hagan, claims to have taken

custody of this alleged white powdery substance, but also, claims to have in his

possession “one thousand grams”, and amount Not stated or documented by

Officer Leung on the affidavits, but also states to have conducted further testings

for Methamphetamine (undermining Officer Leung), and one last one for Cocaine

where he affirms that this alleged illicit substance is indeed a narcotic, but never

sends his findings to the Crime Laboratory for proper confirmation, where this

officer, takes it upon himself to include false statements in the affidavits, and

fabricate a (Fake) laboratory report in order to Mislead the Courts and finally obtain

illegal Search Warrants; an act considered to be Purgery.

•

On March 30th, 2015, the officers using the illegal search warrants, rammed the

door down to the Peace St. residence without Knocking or announcing themselves,

violated the petitioner’s fifth amendment right to counsel while under custodial

interrogation, as the petitioner made it loud and clear that he wanted counsel present,

never administered the petitioner's Miranda Warnings, as proven by the record.

* On March 30th, the Petitioner/Lora was arrested, and for Four years from that day

he was on Pretrial release, to later be Coerced into an illegally obtained Plea

Agreement, and on June 20th, 2019, was requested for the petitioner to hand himself

in to the Marshall, and later incarcerated in the Lackawanna County Prison for 2

Yrs. Sentenced On 12/21 and later released from his incarcerated state on February

28th, 2021. The petitioner was charged with Conspiracy, on a Fabricated case, where

the District Court itself never saw or handled any substancial evidence, as none

exist on the record, but only fabricated and unsigned documentation, a violation of

the petitioner's Due Process rights. Therefore, all decisions from the lower courts

up to this point in time have been in collusion and with the government in order to

cover up this heinous crime committed against the petitioner/Lora.

The Reasons relied on for the allowance of the Writ. Rules 10 and 14.1(h)

The bias actions of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, are not so much that conflict

with a decision by a state court, but more seriously involve the Appeals Court neglecting

to acknowledge such decisions by other courts and completely turning a blind eye to these

controlling case laws in order to completely and utterly deny the petitioner, who's claim

is of Actual innocence from this case.

• The Third Circuit Appeals Courts review and decision on the petitioner's case was

and still is, fully bias, as none of the evidence was considered and documented. The

Appeals Court neglected the Appendix and supporting case Law in order to deny

the petitioner relief.

• The Third Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with multiple decisions from the

7th Circuit and up to the 9th circuit, regarding fabricated evidence, unsigned

documentation, false statements within the affidavits, and Purgery, as found in this

specific case. All of which would grant relief from this case, yet the reviewing court

turned a blind eye to these violations in order to please the lower courts bias and

prejudice decision and ruling.

• In this specific case, their exist NO laboratory report, NO chain of custody, or a

sealing order for the so called “white powdery substance”; the District Court never

handled such alleged evidence. There exist NO proof that the presumptive drug

field test where ever really conducted, yet the appeals Court denies the Petitioner

relief on direct. The petitioner submits Proof of the fabrication of this case by the

•

•

•

•

.

government and its agents to the courts, but no relief is afforded.

Fabricated Evidence will always violate the defendants Due Process rights, and

convictions of this type should be vacated as the Fundamental Constitutional rights

demands.

Please see, Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 913, 197, L. Ed. 2D

312(2017), and, Michel v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23638 (S.D. Cal.,

February 13,2018) on presumptive drug field test and the importance of submitting

any discoveries by the officers to be believed to be an illicit narcotic to the crime

laboratory, as well, as the in Effectiveness of such test. Also see, Franks v. Delaware;

United States v. Basham, 268 F. 3d 1199, 1204(10th Cir. 2001)(citing Franks, 438

U.S. At 171-72) where an affiant makes a false statement in an affidavit for a search

warrant, the warrant must be Voided.

The agents themselves on the record state that they never read the petitioner's

Miranda Warnings, but yet NO relief is afforded by the Courts. See, Miranda vs.

Arizona.

On the Appeals Courts decision on October 7th , 2021, the court states on page 5

“ While the waiver may be overcome by good cause, Lora has shown no good cause

for reconsideration here”. Lora, submitted fabricated evidence (unsigned) to the

court and points out the false statements found within the affidavits, and the fact

that NO actual real laboratory report exist, NO chain of custody or a sealing order

by the court exist is more than enough reasons to overcome and show good cause

for reconsideration and to vacate the conviction. Also, we have the agents testifying

on the record that NO miranda warnings where administered.

Those are more than enough reasons to consider a Writ, and the Petitioner hopes and prays

this court will grant such relief.

Re;

ly Submitted^

RafaerLora ((Petitioner) Pro se.

Sworn: Title 28 U.S.C § 1746, this day

, 2022.