Petition for Writ of Certiorari — David Louis Whitehead, Petitioner v. Traveler's Insurance Company, et al.

-833

Case No

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

FILED

JUL - 1 2021

DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD,

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S,

PETITIONER,

V.

US COURT OF APPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT

CASE NUMBER 20-3913

Dist. Ct. 20-CV-1140

TRAVELER'S INSURANCE COMPANY, GABRIELLE BAILEY,

ET AL

RESPONDENTS,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Come now Petitioner David Louis Whitehead, with his

WRIT OF CERTIORARI RELATING TO (1) DISQUALIFICATION OF

THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN RELATIONS TO HARVARD

UNIVERSITY AND JUDGE MERRITT GARLAND,

(2)ENJOINING

JUDGE MERRITT GARLAND,AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES,DUE TO PREVIOUS FRAUD ON THE COURT,

LACKING DUE PROCESS IN THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS

INVOLVING JUDGE GARLAND'S NOMINATION ASSOCIATED WITH

1

THE UNITED STATES SENATE,DENYING PETITIONER THE RIGHT

TO TESTIFY OPPOSING THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE GARLAND,

(3) QUESTION OF PROPER JURISDICTION BEFORE THE SECOND

CIRCUIT COURT FOR RELIEF (4)UNSEALING THE FBI'S

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT IN THE TOTALITY OF ALL ISSUES

INCLUDING ALLEGED MASSIVE COPYRIGHT THIEF AND

INFRINGEMENT WITH.OVER 107 OR MORE JUDGES ASSOCIATED IN

THE REPORT, AND 75 OR MORE FILMS ALLEGEDLY DISCUSSED IN

THE FBI'S REPORT BASED ON PETITIONER'S copyrights.

David Louis Whitehead

1906 Scott St.

Bossier, Louisiana 71111

Cell No. 318-820-5029

Email: Daouddavidlouis@yahoo.com

2

QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

• Whether the Second Circuit Court had jurisdiction

to hear the case: appeal or writ of mandamus.

• Whether the Second Circuit Court erred in denying

to convert petitioner's appeal to request for Writ

of Mandamus giving the court jurisdiction.

• Whether District Court Judge should recuse himself

due to his association with Harvard University and

petitioner's injunctive relief motion to enjoin

Judge Merrick Garland as Attorney General of the

United States, due to his association with Harvard

University Board of Overseers involving fraud on

the court in petitioner's related case and cases.

• Whether Judge Merrick Garland should be enjoined to

become Attorney General due to fraud on the court

involving petitioner related cases associated with

Harvard University(serving in this role as Attorney

General) pending this high court's judicial review.

• Whether the US Senate Judiciary Committee

improperly denied petitioner due process of law

refusing to allow him to testify opposing

Judge

Merritt Garland's nomination as Attorney General of

the United States during the Senate Confirmation

Hearings, in relations to the fraud on the court

associated with Harvard University as President of

3

Harvard's Board of Overseers with defendant's

witnesses and former employees, and others.

• Whether the circuit court should have unseal the

federal investigation (FBI) in part to determine

what copyrights were stolen if any, and Judge

Merritt Garland and others role in the cases.

• Whether there is an appearance of conflict of

interest relating to the District Court judge

presiding on the case.

An appearance is actually a

conflict of interest reguiring recusal.

4

Parties

Petitioner is David Louis Whitehead.

Respondents are Travelers Insurance Company and

Gabrielle Bailey.

5

Tables of Content

Questions Presented

Pages 3 & 4.

Parties to the proceedings

.. Page 5.

Tables of Authorities

Pages 9-10.

Petition for A Writ of Certiorari.......

Page 14.

Opinions Below,

.. Page 13.

Jurisdiction

Page 8.

Statutory Provisions Involved

Pages 11 & 12.

Statement of the Case

.. Pages 1-25.

Reasons for Granting The Petition.......

Conclusion,

Page 26-27.

.. Page 28.

6

1.The Second Circuit Court has previously granted

jurisdiction to other cases similarly to this one.

Whereas, the issue of injunctive relief request for

enjoining Judge Garland as Attorney General affords

jurisdiction in this matter involving the Circuit

Court.

2.The Second Circuit Court erred in its decisions

denying the conversion of the appeal to Writ of

Mandamus.

3. The Attorney General Question affords this high

court mandatory judicial review. Marbury v.

Madison, 1803.

7

Jurisdiction

This high court has jurisdiction for judicial review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1254 (1) as amended.

Petitioner paid for his appeal and district court fees.

8

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES

IBM, 687 F.2d 591 (2nd Cir. 1982)

Pages 14,22,23, 27.

Hazel Atlas, 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L.ed 1250

(1944) fraud on the court

Pages 16, 17, 24, 25.

Litkey v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,554

(1994)

("Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts

introduced or events...)

Page 19.

Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)

Page 11.

Turney v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927) Page

11.

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn, 436 U.S. 447, 462-68

(1978)

Page 12.

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 1954 Page 12.

Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813

(1986)

..page

12.

Marburyv. Madison, 1803

Page 7.

United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) ...pages 19,

25.

Boyle v. United States,

(07-1309

9

.pages 19, 25.

Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures, et al. 08-8010 (DC

Cir. 2009)

Page 19.

Whitehead v. Federal Communication Commission, et al.,

08-8016 (DC Cir. 2009)

Page 19.

In re: Virginia Elec. & Power Co, 539 F.2nd 357 (4th

Cir. 1976)

Page 22.

United States v. Beggerly,524 U.S. 38(1998)Pages 17,18,

19.

Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S.393 (1857) ...Pages 12,

Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193,

199 (1950)Page 19.

Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 613 (1949)

Page 19.

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. 486 U.S.

847 (1988)

Pages 18, 21.

Randolph Wolfson v. Colleen Concannon Louis Frank

Dominquez et al., no. 11-17634 (9th Circuit 2016) P.20.

Haines v. Kerner, U.S. 519 (1972)

Page 23.

Accord United States v. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d 633, 638 (2d Cir. 1995) (endorsing the

reasoning and conclusion of the First Circuit)

Pages 22, 23, 27.

In re IBM Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 926-27 (2d Cir.

1980)..............................................................

Pages 23, 26, 27.

Whitehead v. Clinton, et al. , llcv4031, W.D. Ark... P.19.

10

Bush v. Gore, 2000

pages 20,24.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163, U.S. 537 (1986), P.12.

Brown v. Board of Education, of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483

(1954)

.P. 12.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED

• U.S. CONSTITUTION, FIFTH AMENDMENT United States

Constitution in pertinent part provides: No person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law.

Pp. 25, 28

• U.S. CONSTITUTION, Amendment Thirteenth, United

States Constitution in pertinent part provides: Neither

slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a

punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been

duly convicted, shall exist within the United States,

or any place subject to their jurisdiction. P.12,25,28.

• U.S. CONSTITUTION, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1,

I United States Constitution in pertinent part provides

(P. 12, 25, 28: • No 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 the laws. • Litigants have mandatory

constitutional rights to appear before unbiased jurists

who should remain impartial to the parties in fact and

li

law involving cases. See in re; Murchison, 349 U.S. 133

(1955); Turney v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532

(1927); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn, 436 U.S. 447,

462-68 (1978); Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11,

14, 1954; Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Lavoie, 475

U.S. 813 (1986). Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S.

393, (1857) reversed via 13th and 14th amendments,

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163, U.S. 537 (1986), and Brown v.

Board of Education, of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and

Violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of

1866. Pages 25, 28.

• 28 U.S.C. SECTION 455 (a) states:

(1) Any Justice,

Judge or Magistrate of the United States shall

disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. • Title 28

U.S.C. Section 455 (b)

(4) pertains to pecuniary and

financial interest requires disqualification. • Title

28 U.S.C. Section 455 (a)

(b)

(1),

(2),

(3),

(4),

(b5i,ii,iii,iv), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and 3clc pertains

to conflicts, judicial bias and previous employment

associated with the litigation. Pp. 12,17, 20, 21, 24.

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 60 b, 60 bl, 60 b3,

60 b 6.

Pages 12, 17, 21, 24.

12

OPINIONS BELOW

2nd Circuit Court document 79, 04/09/2021(Exhibit A).

2nd Circuit Court document 80, 04/16, 2021(Exhibit Al).

2nd Circuit Court document 81, 04/30/2021 (Exhibit A2).

2nd circuit Court document 70, 03/11/2021 (Exhibit A3) .

US District Court Conn.document 21, 2021 (Exhibit B).

Also see attached Affidavit Exhibits (supporting

Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

13

Writ of Certiorari

Petitioner moves with his Petition for Certiorari on

several grounds:

(1) Recuse the district court judge,

pursuant to appeals case in re: IBM 687 F.2d 591 (2d

Cir. 1982)(Circuit Court granted jurisdiction contrary

to the appeals court decisions in this case);also see

Accord United States v. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d 633, 638 (2d Cir. 1995) (endorsing

the reasoning and conclusion of the First Circuit); In re IBM Corp., 618 F.2d 923,

926-27 (2d Cir. 1980) (2) Review appeal and Writ of Mandamus

relief for jurisdiction pursuant to in re: IBM 687 F.2d

591 (2d Cir. 1982) and other related decisions of the

Circuit court;

(3) Review jurisdictional issue of the

Circuit Court (4) Unseal federal (FBI) investigation

Report in part on massive thief and infringement of

copyrights;

(5) Review denial of Enjoining Judge

Merritt Garland as Attorney General of the United

States; and (2) Review whether Senate Judiciary

violated petitioner's due process rights to testify and

oppose Judge Merritt Garland's Nomination to become

Attorney General of the United States.

14

Statement of the Case

On or about 2016-17, Petitioner was injured in

Shreveport, Louisiana Library, receiving a head-neck

injury and later 10 weeks of physical therapy at the VA

Medical Center in Louisiana.

After receiving his injuries from the Library

Petitioner immediately attempted to received medical

treatment by Dr. Chad Harvard in Bossier, Louisiana.

Respondents Traveler's Insurance Company and Gabrielle

Bailey, advised Dr. Harvard and his office not to treat

the petitioner.

Subsequently, Petitioner went to the

Veterans Medical Center, and was diagnosed with a

strained neck injury, from hitting his head on a data

box, negligently mounted over the computer terminals.

Petitioner received 10 weeks of Physical Therapy from

VA Medical Center for his injury.

On or about 2017, Petitioner attempted to file suit

against Parish of Caddo, et al, in US District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana, however,

District Court Judge Dee D. Drell in Whitehead v.

Parish of Caddo, et al., 1: 17-00306, W.D., Louisiana,

would not allow petitioner to proceed on his personal

injury claims in federal court.

Moreover, the court

failed to recuse stating in the recusal order that he

did not own any so called Hollywood studio and/or

15

lender's interest.

Moreover, the court stated that he

did not have interest in Traveler's Insurance Company.

See (affidavit) attached Order in Whitehead v. Parish

of Caddo, et al, 17cv306, W.D., Louisiana. Also see

Judge Drell's 2018 for the filing year 2017 financial

disclosure statements showing Hollywood and Apple Inc

financial stocks, contradicting his filed order. 18

U.S.C. 1001 (false statement in legal proceedings). See

Whitehead v. Netflix Inc, et al., 17-cv225 W.D.

Louisiana.; Hazel Atlas, 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997,

88 L.ed 1250 (1944) .

After the dismissal of petitioner's cases by judge

Drell, petitioner conducted a pro se investigation of

the District Court Judge's bias. Petitioner learned

that the court filed a false statement on his Hollywood

studio and lenders interest.

In addition, the court

previously owned Traveler's Insurance, and held related

Insurance interest.

See attached 2018 for filing year

2017 financial disclosure statement of Judge Dee D.

Drell as Exhibit 2, in Affidavit.

During the same time period in 2017, Petitioner

submitted a complaint to the State of Connecticut,

against Traveler's Insurance Company.

The clerk's office failed to document the material and

returned the pleading (law-suit) without file stamping

the complaint.

16

/

On or about 2020, Petitioner contacted Clerk's Office

in the US District Court for Connecticut, inquiring

about his lawsuit.

The clerk's office responded that

the individual who was interacting with the petitioner

on the 2017 case, no longer worked (employed) with the

court. Ironically, petitioner learned later that he had

communicated with an officer of the clerk's office, who

remained employed for the District Court, which points

to fraud on the court, by the court, allowing another

independent action. See US v. Beggerly, 1998; Rule 60 b

3, and 60 b6. Hazel Atlas, 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997,

88 L. ed 1250 (1944).

II

Judge Drell having pecuniary interest in the related

(

cases and demonstrated judicial bias prohibited the

petitioner having access to the court. The court also

:

relied on sanctions barred associated with petitioner's

case in re: Whitehead v. White & Case LLP, et al.,

12cv-399, W.D. Louisiana filed against Judge Paul L.

Friedman, White & Case LLP, Judge Merritt Garland,

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Bank of America and others. The

court's sanctions filed against petitioner prohibiting

him from having access to the district court was based

on serious fraud on the court associated with Judge

Richard T. Haik and Magistrate Mark Hornsby.

Section 455 a, bl, b4.

17

28 U.S.C.

i

Both Jurists had pecuniary and organizational interest

in the petitioner's litigation styled in re: David

Louis Whitehead v. White & Case LLP, et al., 12cv-399.

This fraud on the court also affords petitioner a

second or third of fourth bite at the apple. See United

States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998); 18 U.S.C. 1962.

Judge Haik's conflicts in the petitioner's case were so

egregious that he was forced to retire, over US

Attorney Chief of Criminal Division attempts to hold

the court accountable for his illegal actions against

the petitioner's case and constitutional rights. Judge

Haik's sister's law firm in Dallas, Texas and Louisiana

had interest in the petitioner's litigation, and the

court was a Partner with a community Housing

association tied to defendant Bank of America's

employee Maurice Hannie of Keller Williams. Moreover,

Judge Haik held Verizon Communications financial

interest tied to Hollywood defendants. Magistrate

Hornsby held Bank of America financial interest and was

President of Harry v. Booth American Inn of Court with

5th Circuit Judge Carl Stewart. Judge Stewart's brother,

Richard Stewart Jr, is the principal lawyer for Verizon

Communication associated with Verizon FIOs and

Hollywood. Judge Stewart should have recused himself as

well. 3clc. Whitehead v. White & Case LLP, et al., 1230553 (5th Cir. 2012); Also see Liljeberg v. Health

Services Acquisition Corp. 486 U.S. 847 (1988) 108S. Ct.

18

2194;Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b(6); Ackermann v. United

States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950); Klapprott v. United

States, 335 U.S. 601, 613 (1949); United States v.

Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981; Boyle v. United States,

(07-1309).

Ill

In 2020, petitioner filed his complaint (Independent

Action) in Connecticut, as Whitehead v. Traveler's

Insurance Company, et al., 20-cv-1140. US v. Beggerly

1998.

The case was assigned to Judge Victor Bolden,

formerly of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,

In addition,

the court is deeply associated with Harvard University,

a defendant in the petitioner's cases in Whitehead v.

Clinton, et al., llcv4031, W.D. Ark, and Whitehead v.

White & Case LLP, et al., 12cv399, W.D. LA. See Litkey

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,554 (1994). In addition,petitioner case filed against Harvard University

relates to the acts of Judges Merritt Garland, Brett M.

Kavanaugh and Douglas Ginsburg, in re: Whitehead v.

Paramount Pictures, et al., 08-8010, Whitehead v.

Federal Communication Commission, Federal Election

Commission, Judge Paul L. Friedman, Walt Disney, et

al., 08-8016, and Whitehead v. CBS/Viacom, et al., 088015. The acts of Judge Merritt Garland and Judge

Kavanaugh were outrageous:

(1) Judge Garland presided

on the petitioner's cases as President of Harvard

19

University's Board of Overseers with defendant's

employees and witnesses in violation of the Federal

Statutes.

(2) Judge Kavanaugh was a member of

Bush/Cheney 2000, and represented Governor George W.

Bush in Bush v. Gore, 2000. White & Case LLP Attorney

George Terwilliger linked to Wallpark LLC and Judge

Paul L. Friedman, Attorney Amy Coney Barrett and other

attorneys represented Governor Bush in Bush v. Gore,

2000 tied to Judge Kavanaugh.

Defendant Judge Friedman's law firm White & Case LLP

represented Governor Bush in Bush v. Gore, 2000. As

stated in petitioner's moving petition for Certiorari,

Attorney George Terwilliger of White & Case associated

with Judge Friedman in White & Case LLP and Wallpark

Investors represented Governor Bush,in re: Bush v.

Gore, 2000, which automatically disqualified Judge

Kavanaugh and others from petitioner's case. However,

the court failed to recuse himself.

Moreover, judicial

panelist Judge Ginsburg held WB financial stocks

associated with Hollywood defendants and petitioner's

cases. 28 U.S.C. Section 455 a, bl, b4.

From 1994-2011, Judge Friedman was a General Partner

with White & Case LLP in Wallpark LLC investors and

Partners and former partners and spouses. The 9th

Circuit in Randolph Wolfson v. Colleen Concannon Louis

Frank Dominquez et al., no. 11-17634, (9th Cir. 2016)

20

prohibits federal judges as Partners with law firms and

their investors.

A federal judge can only be a partner

with family members.

White & Case associated with

Wallpark LLC investors and Judge Friedman and his

spouse violated the statutes and law.

28 U.S.C.

Section 455 a, bl, b4, b5i,ii,iii,iv,and 3clc.

18

U.S.C. Section 1962 C.

White & Case LLP and Wallpark LLC investors represents

some of the respondents named in petitioner's case

before Judge Friedman, a General Partner with White &

Case law firm and Wallpark LLC investors. 28 U.S.C.

Section 455 a, bl, b2, b4, b5i,ii, iii, iv, and 3clc.

Also see Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquistion Corp,

486 U.S. 847 (1988) S. Ct. 2194.

In short, the jurists, Judge Garland, Kavanaugh and

Ginsburg violated petitioner's constitutional rights to

a fair trial denying Judge Friedman's recusal when the

court was a General Partner with White & Case LLP and

Wallpark Investors LLC. 28 U.S.C. Section 455 a, bl,

b2. Rules 60 b 3, 60 b 6.

In conclusion, based on the above discussion the

District Judge presiding in Connecticut should be

recused associated with Harvard University.

21

IV

As stated, Connecticut District Court Judge is deeply

associated with defendant Harvard University and Judge

Garland's ties to Harvard, along with Judge Kavanaugh,

who was an adjunct Professor at Harvard Law school

ruling adversely against the petitioner having serious

conflict of interest.

District Judge denied

petitioner's motion to recuse himself from petitioner's

case filed against Traveler's Insurance Company, et al,

20-cv-1140. See attached Order denying recusal. See

Opinion B.

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal, and later

requested the Second Circuit Court to convert

petitioner's appeal to Writ of Mandamus for judicial

review.

However, other circuits allowed Mandamus and

appeal review.

See In re: Virginia Elec. & Power Co,

539 F.2nd 357 (4th Cir. 1976) (decision to recuse

reviewable by mandamus, and as collateral order

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), where it raises an

important legal issue that would otherwise escape

review).

More importantly, the SECOND CIRCUIT COURT

ALLOWED JURISDICTION AND APPEAL CONVERSION TO MANDAMUS

REVIEW IN CASE IBM, 687 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1982); Also

see Accord United States v. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d 633,

,638 (2d Cir. 1995)

(endorsing the reasoning and

conclusion of the First Circuit).

22

The case is essential to petitioner's petition for

certiorari and reversal. Also see IBM, 687 F.2d 591 (2d

Cir. 1982.

The Second Circuit Court failed to allow petitioner to

file his brief and issued a sua sponte decision (3

Judges) denying relief on jurisdictional grounds. See

attached Order of the Second Circuit Court.

Moreover,

the Second Circuit Court denied petitioner's motion to

convert his notice of appeal to a Writ of Mandamus.

IBM,

687 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1982) ; also see Accord United

States v. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d 633, 638 (2d Cir. 1995) (endorsing the reasoning

and conclusion of the First Circuit); In re IBM Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 926-27 (2d Cir.

1980).

Petitioner filed for rehearing and enbanc relief,

however, the Second Circuit Court denied relief,

including Mandamus interpretation of law.

Petitioner submits his petition for Writ of Certiorari,

and he believes and assert that the high court should

view petitioner's pleadings pursuant to Haines v.

Kerner, U.S. 519 (1972), and accept the materials with

the correct caption of the case (a document filed pro

se should be "liberally construed," in accordance with

the more lenient standard afforded to pro se litigants.

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007) . Even

with these relaxed standards, "a pro se complaint is

still subject to dismissal,").

23

V

Enjoin Judge Merritt Garland as Attorney General of the

United States

Judge Garland committed fraud on the court relating to

Petitioner's cases and Judge Friedman's recusal as

follows:

What did the court do to the petitioner?

Response: Judge Garland presided on petitioner's

appeals as President of Harvard University's Board of

Overseers with defendant's employees and witnesses

denying Judge Friedman's recusal and dismissing

petitioner's appeals.

Defendants witnesses and employees are material

witnesses in petitioner's civil action cases before

Judge Friedman.

Judge Garland should have recused

himself, but failed to do so. Rules 28 U.S.C. Section

455 a, bl, b2, b3, b4.

60 b, 3, and 60 b 6. Hazel

Atlas, 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L.ed 1250 (1944)

fraud on the court. Moreover, Judge Garland held

pecuniary interest in the litigation.

Judge Kavanaugh

also associated with Harvard University presided on the

case, after representing Texas Governor George W. Bush

in Bush v. Gore, 2000, along with White & Case LLP,

Wallpark LLC Attorney George Terwilliger and Judge

Friedman. Judge Friedman dismissed 11 of petitioner's

case for his clients, White & Case LLP, Wallpark LLC,

24

and his pecuniary interest and his spouse's financial

interest and her employer Nixon and Peabody's financial

interest.

Rule 60 b, 3, and 60 b 6. Hazel Atlas, 322

U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L.ed 1250 (1944) fraud on

the court.

18 U.S.C. Section 1962 C; United States v.

Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981; Boyle v. United States,

(07-1309).

The US Senate failed to allow petitioner to testify

and oppose Judge Garland, and the court's nomination

should have been challenged and enjoined pending due

process of law (5th and 14th) Amendment.

This court's

has jurisdiction on decisions of the Congress whether

constitutional or unconstitutional.

Petitioner was

treated by the Congress like Dred Scott. See Dred Scott

v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Further noting that

Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Slave owner himself,

wrongly interpreted the law on Africans as citizens in

the US States. The 55 founding fathers of the New

Constitution included African slaves as citizens even

though 3/5th for representational and taxation purposes.

The court should note that the Senate's denial of the

petitioner right to oppose Judge Garland was

unconstitutional violating the 5th, 13th, and 14th

amendments (Due process); Violation of section 1981 of

the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

25

To carry on in this way, clearly demonstrates fraud.

Judge Garland's nomination should be enjoined by the

high court.

Grounds for relief

Reasons to Grant Petition for Certiorari

A.District Court Judge failed to recuse

himself Due To Prior Knowledge of petitioner

and his cases and association with past

defendants. The court showed extreme bias by

denying petitioner's numerous motions on

jurisdictional grounds, but not the

respondent's motions, while matters were on

appeal. Moreover, the court lacked

jurisdiction to rule against petitioner's

motions due to fact that petitioner had

filed an appeal with the Second Circuit

Court. See In re IBM Corp., 618 F.2d 923,

926-27 (2d Cir. 1980); The circuit court

stated that it did not have jurisdiction as

well.

The matter was ping-pong activity in

the advantage of the respondents which also

shows judicial bias.

26

B. Second Circuit Court afford other parties

similarly situated as Petitioner judicial

review on jurisdiction, requiring the high

court to ask the lower court to afford

petitioner same jurisdictional review. See

IBM 687 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1982); also see

Accord United States v. Brinkworth, 68 F.3d 633, 638 (2d Cir.

1995) (endorsing the reasoning and conclusion of the First

Circuit).

C. Second Circuit Court denied Injunctive

Relief on enjoining the nomination of Judge

Merritt Garland as Attorney General due to

his acts against the petitioner.

Petitioner's Injunctive Relief motion

affords jurisdictional grounds for the

Circuit Court.

See IBM 687 F.2d 591 (2d

Cir. 1982) ; Accord United States v. Brinkworth. 68 F.3d 633.

638 (2d Cir. 1995) (endorsing the reasoning and conclusion of the

First Circuit); In re IBM Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 926-27 (2d Cir. 1980).

27

\

The high court should review whether the US Senate

Judiciary Committee failed to allow petitioner's a

hearing to testify against Judge Garland based on

democratic principles and full citizenship of the

petitioner's which repels concepts of slavery pursuant

to the civil war amendments 13th, and equal rights (14th)

amendment and DUE PROCESS (5th)and (14th); Violation of

section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

28

Conclusion

In conclusion, petitioner prays that the court will

grant his motion.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Louis whitehead

1906 Scott St.

Bossier, Louisiana 71111

29