Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jordan Monroe, Petitioner v. United States

-7954

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JORDAN MONROE

.

Supreme Court, U.S.

filed

Petitioner/

MAR 2 2 2022

v.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

- -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA#

Respondent#

PETITION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS

RECEIVED

APR - 1 2022

-• ■ i

JORDAN MONROE#

PETITIONER PRO SE

FCI OTISVILLE

P.O. BOX 1000

OTISVILLE# NY

10963

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Now Comes Jordan Monroe with a pro se motion to proceed in

Forma Pauperis.

Jordan Monroe, also known as Petitioner, hki been indigent

since the inception of the Government's criminal case in the

district court, and was assigned a Federal Public Defendar and

subsequently an attorney to replace the Federal Defender under

the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, in the

District of Rhode Island and also under §3006A in the appellate

court for the First Circuit.

Petitioner is currently confined to FCI Otisville in

Otisville , New York and has no financial means with which

to

r. '

hire representative counsel.

Currently due to Covid, the law library and all associated

material are unaccesable including Forms that may be needed for

filing.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to the Court on

or about December 8, 2021, requeating any and «U material

needed for filing in the Court. To date no such material has

arrived and or been delivered to Petitioner,

Petitioner is

again requesting the court forward any and all documents needed

to file with the court be forwarded to Petitioner at the

address listed below.

Petitioner respectfully requests the Court

grant this

motion and allow Petitioner to proceed in Forma Pauperis

1

Submitted, on this

day of March 2022.

Respectfully,

Jorditfi

nroe, #11272-070

PCI Ot sville

P.0. Bfox 1000

Otisvi/lle, NY

10963

P.S. Please mark all the mailed material as "Legal Mail"

and "Open in Presence of Inmate" as the BOP is not forwarding

original documents otherwise.

2

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JORDAN MONROE

Petitioner/

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent,

7D51 DTSD □□□□ TBbti 6277

7021 QTSD □□□□ TBbL 624b

r a1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JORDAN MONROE,

PETITIONER PRO SE

FCI OTISVILLE

P.O. BOX 1000

OTISVILLE, NY

10963

r • •-

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Is the warrant herein/ (PEX1)/ as a matter of law/ an

invalid search and seizure warrant that was issued to

search the premises of Petitioner's home?

2. Does a District Court's refusal to conduct a hearing to

determine the legality of the search and seizure warrant/

in spite of Petitioner's repeated objections/ when the

Petitioner had met the prima facie showing of an invalid

warrant/ violate Petitioner's Constitutional rights?

RELATED CASES

Groh v. Ramirez/ 540 U.S. 551 (2004)/ the United States Supreme

Court's current doctrinal decision with regard to facially

deficient warrants/ and what renders a warrant facially

deficient.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case

Page

1.

Groh v. Ramirez/ 540 US 551 (2004)

2.

Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 486, 481, 485 (1965)

6

3.

Mass v. Shepard, 468 U.S. 981, 988, FN.5 (1984)

6

4.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980)

6

5.

Gorton v. California, 496 US 128 (1990)

6

6.

Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 [2](1990)

6

7.

United States^v. Moss, 936 F.3d 52,59 (CAl 2019)

6

8.

United States v. Lafayette Academy, 610 F.2d 1, 5 (CAl

1/2/5/9

1979)

6

9.

United States v. Guarino, 1729 F.2d 864, 866-67 (1984)

6

10.

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily,436 U.S.547, 558-59 (1978)[7]

6

11.

Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 217 (1956)[2][3]

6

12.

United States v. Werdone, 883 F.3d 204 (CA10, 2015)

7

13.

Goulded v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 312-313 (1921)

7

15.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643

7

16.

Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699, 710 (1998)

17.

Powell y, Alabama, 287 U.S. 45,68 (1972)

(1961)

ii

7

7,8

11.

Toilet v. Henderson/ 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)

8

19.

Menna v. New^ork,

8

20.

Class v. United States, 200 L.Ed.2d 37 (2018)[4][5]

8

21.

Garza v. Idaho,203 L.Ed2d 77 (2019)[6] FN.4

8

22.

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 99 (1908)

8

23.

Collins v. Virginia, 201 L.Ed2d 9 (2018)

9

423 U.S. 61, 62 FN.2 (1975)

fi:r_

iH

iil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions

Sr

r •v

i

Related Case and Table of Authorities

ii^ixi

Table of Contents

iv

Case Numbers and Statements of Timeliness

1.0

1

Background

1

- •-

1.1

Execution of Warrant

1.2

Display of Warrant

1.3

Evidence Found

2

2.0

Federal Public Defender

2

2.1

Federal Publ£& Defender Terminated

2

2.2

CJA Lawyer Appointed

3

2.3

Shakedown

2.4

Ineffective Assistance Hearing

4

2.5

Continued Animosity

4

3.0

The Law

3.1

U.S. Constitution Rule 41(E)(2)(A),

Groh v. Ramirez

5

Deficient Particularity Requirements

5

Particularity, Supporting Case Law

6

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.0

4.1

4.2

1

2

3

5

Rule 41, Supporting Case Law

6

Due Process and Case Law

7

Overcoming Toilet V. Henderson

Denial of Due Process

8

8

Summation and Request for Relief

9

Motion on Outstanding Issues

10

Petitioner's Exhibits

Appendix A

iv

petition for writ of certiorari

Now Comes Jordan Monroe with a pro se Motion for Writ of

Certiorari/ seeking relief from a decision rendered by the

First Circuit Court of Appeals' decision Case No. 19-1869 and

191872 and from Case No. 1:16-CR-00055-PAS in the Rhode

Island

District Court.

On February 1/ 2022/ the Appellate Court for the First

Circuit denied the Petitioner's

Motion for Rehearing and En

Banc, thus per Court Rules, 90 days from the denial is May 1/

2022/ and therefore being filed before that datey this motion

is timely and should be heard.

This issue is"?a Constitutional issue of a guaranteed right

and is considered foundational to which cases have already been

decided in favor of the Petitioner.

1.0

BACKGROUND:

On May 10/ 2016,

Agent James V. Richardson (Government

Agent) procured what by all

appearances is a facially deficient

warrant which does not comply with

the particularity clause of

the Fourth Amendment,Rule 41(E)(2)(A) of the Fed Rules

of Crim.

Proc • / and the doctrine of Grofo y

. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551

(2004).

1.1

On May 12/ 2016 Agent Richardson executed said

warrant at the Petitioner's home/

house, dwelling at approx

6:05 hours. Agent Richardson claimed

that he had a search

warrant for the p^mises/and the

residents of the dwelling

aquiesced to the search by Government Agents

and local police.

1

1.2

After approx. 30 to 40 mins/ Agent Richardson

produced a single sheet of paper which he Claimed was a search

warrant.

In displaying the warrant# Agent Richardson folded a

part of the warrant over and covered the top portion of the

warrant with his fingers so as to obscure the blank area of the

warrant.

When the Petitioner attempted to examine the warrant#

Agent Richardson withdrew the warrant and placed it in the

right rear pocket of this pants.

1.3.

Incriminating evidence and statements were obtained

from the Petitioner while law enforcement were in the

Petitioner's home.

Petitioner was transported to the Rhode

Island State Police Headquarters# where interrogation

continued.

After some hours Petitioner was transported to

Donald W. Wyatt Detention facility where he was held in pre­

trial detention for 3 years.

2.0 The Petitioner's Federal Public Defender refused to

give Discovery material to Petitioner while in pretrial

detention and the Petitioner's then wife sent the Petitioner a

copy of the single page of the warrant that was left at

Petitioner's home.

See (PEXl# May 10# 2016 Warrant).

Petitioner then did some research and discovered that the

warrant did not comply with the particularity clause of the

Fourth Amendment per the holdding of Groh v. Ramirez# 540 U.S.

551 (2004)# See (PEX&fGroh v. Ramirez)# and subsequently

engaged jh heated debate

with his Public Defendar over the

warrant issue.

2.1

In October 2017# Petitioner notified 01in Thompson#

2

and the court that Mr. Thompson would be leaving the case due

to his failure to effectively assist the Petitioner with his

Fourth Amendment violation claim in Court.

In November 2017 a hearing was held in the District Court

and when asked by the judge, why counsel was being replaced,

the Petitioner made oral objection to the May

10, 2016 warrant

(PEX1) and explained why he thought it to be invalid. The judge

responded by saying "You're not a lawyer, you didn't go to law

school, you don't know w^t you are talking about," and refused

to examine the warrant.

2.2

Subsequently^ CJA lawyer George J. West was assigned

to the case to represent Petitioner.

Petitioner receiving Discovery from--Mr. West and when he

compared the warrant in the case file with that sent to him by

his wife, Petitioner discovered that they were exact in content

or lack thereof.

2.3

From Jafluary 2018 through December 2018, the

Petitioner engaged in heated debates about the warrant and its

validity and of the search of Petitioner's home on May 12,

2016.

Mr. West's default argument was that he was only here to

negotiate with the_ Government for the best terms he could

acquire for a plea agreement,

Mr. West sta t;ed on numerous

occasions that as a CJA appointed lawyer he was only being paid

$10,000 by the court and that that was not enough for him to

put forth a full defense and that if the Petitioner could come

up with the difference between the "lOGs" and his normal fee,

he would see what he could do.

3

Mr. West also stated that he does not get paid until after

sentencing/ and that Petitioner needed to hurry up and sign the

plea agreement.

2.4-

On December 11/ 2018 a hearing was held in the

r' •'

District Court where again the Petitioner objected to and

challenged the warrant (PEXl) verbally in court.

Mr. West acknowledged verbally that

(PEXl) was a

"General Warrant/" but that he had no interest in pursing the

-re.

issue because the judge had already made it clear that he

wanted a plea agreement on his desk by a certain date.

When Petitioner attempted to submit a motion to the court/

challenging in writing the warrant/(PEXlthe judge stated that

the Petitioner didc.not

have the right to "Hybrid Defense,"

- ' •-

and

that Petitioner.had no right to submit the motion to the court.

The judge also stated that if Petitioner terminated Mr.

West that he would have to proceed pro se at trial, as the

court would not appoint another attorney.

2.B

Argument continued

with Mr. West until May 201<| over

the validity of the facially deficient warrant, and the merits

of District Court's complying with the mandates of the Supreme

Court.

In January of-,2019, Petitioner mailed his motion to the

court regarding the facially deficient warrant (PEXl), and no

answer was forthcoming from the District Court.

From December 2018 through May 2019, Mr. West renewed his

badgering about his stipend from the court and his insistence

Petitioner pay the difference or sign the plea agreement. as he

4

-.-r

already promised the judge an answer by now.

3.0

THE LAW:

3.1

Under the Unisted States Constitution's Supremacy

Clause/ the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land/and it

dictates in Article VI that "judges in every state shall be

bound by . . . and that judicial officers both of the United

States . . . shall be bound by oath on affirmation to support

this Constitution (See PEX2 Hiearchy of Law)

Rule 41(€)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Crim ProC* (A) A

Warrant to search for and seize a person or property.

This

rule unambigously states "a warrant must identify any person or

property to be seized (See PEX3)„

And under the Doctrine of G&Otf

supra/

;fPEX4), the May

10, 2016 warrant (PEX1) is almost a carbon copy of the warrant

in Groh, supra/and is thus believed to be facially deficient.

3.2

The May 10, 2016 warrant (PEXl) is believed to be

facially deficient

1.

for the following reasons a listed in Groh.

The warrant did not list at all any items to be

searched or seized on the face of the warrant.

1.

The warrant did not incorporate by reference the

itemized list or attachments described in the warrant

application package.

3.

The warrant did not incorporate any other supporting

documents by reference.

4.

The affidavit and other supporting documents

(application package or attachments) were not attached to

the warrant and did not accompany the warrant during the

5

search.

5.

The warrant application,attachments and affidavits

-

were filed under seal (See PEX5) and were thus unavailable

to cure the facial deficiency of the warrant.

3.3

The Supreme Court stated in Groh thatv'the presumptive

rule against warrantless searches who's only defect was a lack

of particularity in the warrant^/lThe uniformily 'applied rule is

that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to

conform to the particularity rquirement of the Federal

Constitutions Fourth Amendments is unconstitutional."

See also

Stanford v. Texas, 379 US 486/ 481/ 485 (1965); Mass v.

Shepard/ 468 US 981/ 988/ FN.5 (1984)/ and with regard to

particularity/ Payton v. New York/ 445 US 573/ 585 (1980);

Horton v. California, 496 US 128 (1990); Minnesota v. Carter,

525 US 83, 88 [2](1990); United States v. Moss, 936 F.3d 52, 59

(CA12019); United States v. Lafeyette Academy, 6&b F.2d 1, 5

(1979); United States v.Guarino, 729 F.2d 864, 866-67(1984).

3.4

"Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

reflects the Fourth Amendments policy against unreasonable

searches and seizures."

See Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 US

547, 558-559 (1978) HN 7.

Since under the rules mandate. Rule 41 has the force and

effect of law, the government must adhere to it. See Rea v.

United States, 350 US

214, 217 (1956)[2] ". . . Rules

prescribed by this court and made effective after submission to

Congress . . . [3]"

The

District Court was obliged to redress

6

the constitutional wrong done to the Petitioner by an abuse of

the courts own process.

to law)

(Obliged = Force or compell according

See also United States v. Werdone/ 883 P;3d 204 (CA10

2015); Gouled v. United States, 255 US 298 (1921) 312-313" . .

. It is the duty of the trial court to entertain an objection

to their admission ..."

The Constitutional objection being

renewed/ the court should have inquired as to the origin of the

possession of the papers when they were offered in evidence

against the defendant; and Wise v.Henckel/ 220 US 556/ 558

(1911) and Mapp v. Ohio/ 367 US 643 (1961); Trupiano v. United

States/ 334 US

699 (1998) 710". . . it was error to refuse the

Petitioner motion to exc?«*de and suppress the property which

was improperly seized."

4.0

On no less than 3 occasions the Petitioner attempted

to vindicate his Fourth Amendment guarantee in the District

Court and was rejected by the court on each occasion.

In

Powell v. Alabama/ 287 US 45/68 (1972) the Supreme Court stated

that "notice and hearing are preliminary steps essentials to

passing and enforceable judgement/ and that they/ together with

legally competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the case/

constitutes basic elements of the constitutional requirement of

due process of law."

Where as here/the Petitioner has been denied opportunity

to be heard and his procedural due process rights have been

violated.

"Judgement without such citation and opportunity wants all

the attributes of a judicial detemination; it is judicial

7

unsurpation and oppression/ and never':cari-be upheld where

justice is justly administered."

4.1

Petitioner believes he has made a prima facie showing

that Petitioners procedural due process rights have been

violated and that this belief is supported by appropriate case

law/ and that the First Circuit Appellate Court's application

of Toilet v. Henderson/ 411 US 258/ 267 (1973) is an erroneous

applicaiton of law and is foreclosed by the decisions of the

Supreme Court in Menna v. New York/ 423 US 61/ 62 FN.2(1975)

where Toilet in FN2 was specifically and directly abrogated;

and

the very foundation of the Menna Blackledge, doctrine;

Class v. United States, 200 L.Ed.2d

37 (2018)[4][5] quoting

Blackledge at 43 "the very initiation of the proceedings" and

deprivation of hearing on the objection to the invalid warrant

operated to further "deprive the Petitioner of his procedural

due process." And in Garza v. Idaho, 203 L.Ed.2d 77 (2019)[6]

"a valid and enforceable appeal waiver only preclude challenge .

that fall within inilsscope.

And at FN.4 "Criminal defedants in

a Federal court have appellate rights under 18 USC §3742(a).

See (PEX6)

'i.-

As we see, as a matter of Black Letter Law, the Petitioner

is entitled to an appeal further negating the First Circuit's

application of Toilet..

4.2

When the constitutional issue being challenged, the

Fourth Amendment violation, is seen as denial of due process of

law. See Twining v. New Jersey,

211 US 78, 99 (1908) and in

Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45, 67-68 (1932) "it is not because

8

those rights are enumerated in the first eight amendments/ but

because they are of such nature that they are included in the

conception of due process of law."

And in Collins v. Virginia/ 201 L.Ed2d 9 (2018) "When it comes

to the Fourth Amendments very core, is the right of a man to

retreat into his own home and there be free from;unreasonable

government intrusion . . . physical entry^the home is the chief

evil against which it is directed. The Fourth Amendment draws a

fine line at the entrance to the house."

SUMMATION

For the reasons listed in the Petition/ the Petitioner

respectfully requests one of the following remedies flpcm the

Court:

1.

Vacate and remand for further determination as to the

validity of the warrant (PEX1).

2.

The Court will declare the warrant invalid under the

doctrine of Groh v. Ramirez/ 540 US 551 (2004) vacate and

remand for further proceedings.

3.

Grant any relief as the court sees fit as the court is

in a more superior position to decide what any other

appropriate remedy could be.

If the court determines that further proceedings within

the Supreme Court are warranted/ the Petitioner respectfully

requests the appointment of counsel under the CJA act as the

Petitioner is currently

being held at FCI Otisvile and is

indigent.

9

There are still outstanding issues beyond tbe validity of

the warrant (PEXl) in this case/ and keeping with the need for

judicial expediency/ the Petitioner moves to table these issues

for the time being/ as a favorable decision for the Petitioner

in this threshold issue would essentially moot all subsequent

issues, Petitoner is aware of the court's time constraint and

is cognicient that presentation at this point knowing that they

should become moot/ feels that they could and or would become

an unnecessary burden on the court.

Petitioner does respectfully request that if-' the court

does not reach a favorable decision that the Petitioner be

allowed to rebrief with the remaining issues.

Petitioner respectfully requests

relief on this threshold

Constitutional issue which is important as a Constitutional

guarantee to all citizens of this nation/ as the upending of

the Fourth Amendment which is at the very heart of the

Constitution were allowed to stand,

Respec frailly submitted on this

/1 day of March 2022.

-

IVK/

hroe/ #11272-070

Jordan

FCI Oti ille

P.O. Box'J 1000

Otisville/ NY 10963

10