Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Stephen Harmon, Petitioner

Supreme Court briefJul 25, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Case: 23-14, 05/30/2023, DktEntry: 10.1, Page 1 of 2

FILED %

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MAY 30 2023

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

STEPHEN HARMON,

No. 23-14

Applicant,

ORDER

EARL HOUSER, Superintendent,

Respondent.

Before: NGUYEN, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

The motion to file a “Corrected Page #3” (included in Docket Entry

No. 1) is granted.

The applicant is informed that the time limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D)

is hortatory, not mandatory. See Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 765 (9th

Cir. 2015).

The application to grant the district court authorization to entertain a

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is treated as an

application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas corpus petition. So treated and as supplemented by Docket Entry Nos.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the application is denied. The applicant has not made a

prima facie showing under § 2244(b)(2) that:

(A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable; or

F-’

Case: 23-14, 05/30/2023, DktEntry: 10.1, Page 2 of 2

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered

previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts

underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a

whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence

that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have

found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

To the extent that the applicant requests that this court consider, in the

first instance, whether he is entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b), we lack jurisdiction to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of

appeals “have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district

courts of the United States”); see also Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 838-40 (9th

Cir. 2013) (addressing merits of Rule 60(b) motion in first instance on appeal

from dismissal of Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive habeas petition);

Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1134-40 (9th Cir. 2009) (addressing merits

of Rule 60(b) motion in first instance on appeal from denial of motion for

reconsideration of dismissal of habeas petition).

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

No further filings will be entertained in this case.

DENIED.

23-14

In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska

Supreme Court No. S-18529

Stephen Joseph Harmon,

Petitioner,

Order

Petition for Hearing

State of Alaska,

Respondent.

Date of Order: 12/19/2022

Court of Appeals No. A-13760

Trial Court Case No. 4FA-13-02849CI

Before:

Winffee, ChiefJustice, Maassen, Borghesan, and Henderson,

Justices [Carney, Justice, not participating.]

On consideration of the Petitions for Hearing consolidated on 10/12/2022,

and the Response filed on 11/28/2022,

It is Ordered:

The Petitions for Hearing are Denied.

Entered at the direction of the court.

Clerk of the Appellate Courts

Meredith Montgomei

cc:

Court of Appeals Judges

Trial Court Clerk

Distribution:

Mail:

Hannon, Stephen Joseph

Email:

Simel, Nancy R.

;

Stephen Harmon

22301 West Alsop Road

Wasilla , Alaska 99654

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN HARMON

Plaintiff

)■

)

Court Case No.

)

EARL H0DSE1USD.QC. supj)>

Goose:.' Creek; Cor. Cnt.)

Defendant

)

Alaska SUPREME COURT No.18-529

Appeals Court No. A-13760

Trial Court No. 4FA-13-2849CI

Superior Court No. 4FA-S-92-2481CR.

? "MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

TO GRANT THE DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZATION TO HEAR AND

DETERMINE THE FED.RULE CIV.PROC.RULE 60(b)(4>Void Judgement and

Rule 60(d) entertain an independant action"

"LACK OF PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BY THE

COURTS" (ground/claim/cause )

15 Ipursuant to Rule 9 Second or Successive Petitions.

The Enclosed "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT WITH ATTACHED ATTACH-

MENTS[(#l/#2/#3) with Exhibits attached to] that outlines the

Request torthis Court from/by Petition Stephen Harmon and outline

the Relief requested this Court to authorize the District Court

to Hear and Grant based on the "SINGLE" ground/claim of LACK OF

PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BY THE ALASKA COURTS IN/

ON THE JUDGEMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED AND SHOWS IS VOID AND REQU^

IRES RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE .

SIGNED

Date

j&u

,2923-

Stephen Harmon Prose

Petitioner

I/Harmon certify the above and below is true and correct witht the attachments

and I mailed using the US MAI1 with 1st class postage affixed to mailings this

date also to the Court and Attorney Simel also, pursuant to USCS 1746

penalty of perjury.

Front Page

'•5

•

-t'

Stephen Harmon

22301 West Alsop Road

Wasilia, Alaska 99654

STEPHEN HARMON

Plaintiff

vs.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT

)

93-<4

Case No.

EARL"-HOD SJSHUBSfi . Supp. )

GoosfefCreekcCor.Cnt. )

Defendant

)

Alaska SUPREME COURT-No.S-18529

Appeals Court No. A-13760

Trial Court No. 4FA-13-2849CI.

Superior Court No. 4FA-S-922481CR

"MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT"

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT"S" and ORDER"S"

Pursuant to:

USCS FED. RULES CIV.PROC.R. 60(b)(4) VOID JUDGEMENT AND

ORDER;

Pursuant to:

USCS FED.RULES CIV. PROC.R.60(d) "entertain an Independant

Action to relieve a party from judgement,order or proceeding?.

and

BASED:on:

"Single Claim/Ground"

---- "Alaska Court(s)"LACKED PERSOANL JURISIDICTION"in/and

Over Plaintiff Harmon fcosmssue"any

Judgement/Orders (see Attached AtM5H+.;i

MENTS insupport) and

"LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION"

in/and over Plaintiff Harmon to issue

Judgements/Orders (see attached STiM(5H-

MENTS ;) and

€

Page 1

■i fc

"PLEASE APPLY STRONGEST EMPHISIS FOLLOWING":

A.)STATE of ALASKA "STATE -"COURT RUULES"/"STATUES" ; B.)FEDERAL COURT RULES

&FED.STATUTES and CASE LAW(FED) MANDATE the use/application of, SEAL/Process

to obtaiirfiHintain

VACTED IN A MANNER INCONSITENT WITH DUE-PROCESS

ftrscnal/Sii>ject Matter

& vhen dont is defined i

OF LAW" in/and over Plaintiff Harmon to issue

crime thus resulting in

Judgements/Orders(see Attached "ATTACHMENTS" in-

Support)and

"RESULTING IN THE DENIAL OF DUE-PROCESS" "TO"

"or"over Plaintiff Harmon in any Judgements/Orders

(see Attached 'ATTACHMENTS

inpsupport).

EXHAUSTION State of Alaska Highest Court (SUPREME COURT)

(see Attached

ORDER ^ATTACHMENT NUMBER " 1 "

" Denied and Failed to""address the Ground/Question"

Alaska Court (s) "LACKED PERSONAL AND SUBJECT/':

MATTER JURISDICTION" (see page 1 thru 15

and

ATTACHMENT NUMBER "2:&”3"~(seerpg.1 thru 7) "and"

"PRESENTED TO ALASKA SUPREME COURT "AND" "AS" "A"

"CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION" .

STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM SHOWING THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED

TO RELIEF:

1.) There has not ever been any "Prior" application filed by

the Plaintiff Harmon raiseing this Claim/Ground/Question

2.) The legality of Plaintiff Harmon's "detention

has not"

been determined by a judge or a court : of the United ...

States on a prior application for writ of Habeas or a

OffutL—

Rule 60(b)(4) Motion for Void Judgement/that the Court"s"

LACKED Personal and Subject Matter

fW'f A<JA

Vie*

ZzifiiWi* 'PpP'

NOTE: United States v Mierzanka (89 F.Supp.573)..."The Constitution guaranty

of due-process of law MEANS Notice and opportunity to be heard and defend before

a COMPETENT tribunal VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OF SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CAUSe7T,~

Page 2

3.) The ALASKA COURT"s" "were and are" MANDTED BY the Alaska

SUPREME COURT (in Fbks.N.Star Borough v Victory Ministries

of AK.Inc. 515 P.3d 111 AK.S.Ct. Aug.12.2022)

(reads relevant parts)."this issue cannot be waived

and can be raised AT ANY POINT DURING THE

LITIGATION. 77"

The Alaska Supreme Court Failed to/Waived to take notice or address

the LACK OF PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION claim/ground presented to

the Court and "REQUIRES"of the 9th cir and Fairbanks District Court

to hear and determine the "single Ground/Question".

4.) Harmon "IS NOT" "directly or indirectly" challenging the

•

'v:

constitutionality of the underlying conviction

; instead

Harmon has and i_s Challenging that the C0URT"S" LACKED ANY

"Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction" in/on or over

Plaintiff Harmon as presented in ATTACHMENTS NUMBER #2 &

NUMBER #3 that shows the STATE AND FEDERAL (court rules)

(statutes) and (case law) MANDATEING to obtain Personal

and Subject Matter Jurisdiction by the Courts in/over

HARMON and have not OBTAINED this Right/Privilage as out-

in the Court Rules/Statutes/Case Law MANDATES in the Att^

achements Numbers #2 & #3 that is required by statutes OR

the Court"S" LACK personal and subject matter Jurisdiction

and the Judgements and Orders ARE VOID and require being

Voided/nulified and Order , the Imediate and unconditional

iA 24

t. y:

^ ^

Release with Prejudice to the Plaintif Harmon.

*V>

26!

5.) The Federal Court "determined":

3 7

.1 d7

tre-

fJ *

..."RELIEF IS DUE" (HN#18)..."De Novo review of a Fed.

R.CIV.P.60(4) motion is appropriate because

a district court has no descretion with regard to

Rule 60(b)(4) motion, as it must grant the

motion IF jurisdiction is lacking...''

...(HN#17..."ANY Judgement entered against the defenadant over whom

the court does not have personal jurisdiction IS VOID..."

..."EMPHISIS FOLLOWING"

..."If a judgement is void for lack of personal jurisdiction, the

district court MUST GRANT the Fed.R.Civ. P.60(b)(4) motion,

"WITHOUT consideration of timeliness, unfair prejudice OR

exceptoional circumstances".."

Vinien.v Jeantot Marine Alliances,S.A. 191 F.Supp.2d 642

and in

Canales v Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884

(relevant part reads)

..."Finality of Judgement or Order

any conclusion that a C.O.A. is not required to appeal denial of

Fed.Civ.R.Proc.60(b) Motion APPLIES ONLY when purpose of motionIS TO REINSTATE Appellate jurisdiction over ORIGINAL denied

Habeas Relief..

Harmon presents that:

a.) this Motion is not to reinstate any prior Appellate

jurisidiction over any ORIGINAL Habeas denied "AS"

this Motion is "BASED ON" "NEW & INDEPENDANT ACTION"

b.) this motion shows Case of First Impression raised.

6.) The Records shows:

A.) The STATE had/has a legal obligation to correct any

False evidence when present and allowed to remain

in the Record (None compliance with SEALS/Process

Statute/Court rule mandates to use/apply or Court

Lacked Personal/Subject Matter Jurisdiction) and never

Page 4

Have corrected nor denied or disputed COURT"S" lacked

the PERSONAL OR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (see Attached

ATTACHMENT #2 on pages 14

an Attachment #3 on page 4 & 5)

"MANDATED BY THIS COURT "9th cir" of:

"Brown v Hayes 399 F.3d 972 (HN#2)"

EMPHISIS ADDED this court defined violation

of due process for failing to

do so by the state 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 t 1

B.) The "RECORDS" show's that I/Harmon have never been

issued any either a summons or a warrant issued/or s',

ordered and issued to Harmon as manadted in/by Alaska

Criminal Rule Warrant or Summons upon indictment or

information (a) (relevant part reads)

(a) Issuance of Summons or Warrant.

Upon the return of the indictment or filing of information

the court SHALL issue either a summons or a warrant for

each defendant named in the indictment or information..."

Harmon Presents:

a.) The Indictment attached as "ATTACHMENT #2- exhibit

letter "C" "SHOWS:

1.) that the Indictment was never recorded as require!

O-

swsk

? r

statue/process thus the Court never had obtained

or had any lawful Personal or subject Matter ju-

risdictio in/over Harmon or the Proceedings

2.) The Stamp is legaly defined as a "COUNTORFEIT"

STAMP from/by a trial court implies from; (see

Attachment #2 page 7 lines 17 thru 26) that defines

as a criminal act AND no jurisdiction either.

Page 5

Summation and Relief

1.) The Court of Alaska "have not" address or determined the

"Single claim/ground" filed to the Court of LACK OF PERSONAL

JURISDICTION and SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by the Court"s" of

Alaska in any Judgement or order and thus are VOID ones issued.

2.) The State had an legal obligation based on this Courts

9th cir determination in (Brown v Hayes) to correct the false

evidence filed/on record if that the Court did have Jurisdiction

and compliance with Statuetory/Court Rule MANDATES for use/app-

lication of

Matter Jurisdiction which resulted in the Denial of Due process

SEALS/Process to~obtain legal Personal/Subject

13 •j^y acting in a Manner inconsitent with due process of law.14

3.) The District Court does not have discretionary authority

in/on a Rule 60(b)(4) Void Judgement Motionr^^nust determine

it lacks or not.

4.) This is a case of First impression and the Claim/Ground

18| Question of Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiciton has

not ever been raised or filed or heard by any court in/on nor

had any by the Petitioner Harmon.

5.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals here in SHOULD GRANT

and ORDER the District Court of Fairbanks to:

a.) Accept this Fed Rule Civ.P.R.60(b)(4) &(D) Motion for

as a VOID JUDGEMENT and Independant action in/on the one

question/ground/claim Lack of Personal and Subject Mattel:

Jurisdiction "and”

Page 6

b.) Accept and Orders the District Court of Fairbanks to

"ACCEPT and Consider" the entire Motion herein with the

Attachments Attched (Attachment #1 &#2 & #3 with exhie;

bits attached to each) for its consideration and dete-

rimination of whether the Courts Lacked Personal and

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and if

Motion Rule 60(b)(4) Void Judgment Motion and void

the Judgement(s)/Orders of: (see list below) and-R'elief

of the imediate and unconditional release from -with

prejudice (as evidence/shows was intentional/knowing &

is a criminal act by the Court Officals as listed/ and

Mandated by Federal Stautes cited that shows intentional

intent to deny due process

inviolation of the United States Constitutoin: and its

right

Court and its Officals.

then Grant the

ft >

ATX-

fa ( l,y)j )

to Harmon and have held

privilages denied to Harmon in doing so by the

c.) Any furture this actions and or proceedings this Court

deems/concludes or the District Court of Fairbanks for

and in the advancement of interest of justice and Truth

and assistance in the ORDELY and LAWFULY operation of

Judicial Court/proceedings etc....

Petitioner Harmon respectfuly and prayerfuly submits this

23 Motion and Memeorandum in Support with Attachment's and prays

24 this

25 signed

Court GRANTS Relief to Harmon. .

*a<r-

Dated JLeen,202

Stephen Harmon pros Petitioner

26 I /Harmon certify that the above and attached is true and correct under penalty

of perjury and I mailed out these pleadings to the Court and Attorney Simel

this date also using the US MAil with first class postagef^ffipced pursuant to

[JSCS 1746 penalty of perjury. Dtae Js?^t^^20232-Signed

Stephen Harmonprose

htt

Petitioner

Page 7

Stephen Harmon

22301 West Alsop Road

Wasilla, Alaska 99654

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN HARMON

Plaintiff

)

Case NO.

33 M

EARL HOUSER,DOC.Supp)

Goose Creek Cor.Cnt.)

)

Defendant

Alaska Supreme Court No. S-18529

Appeals Court No. A-13760

Trial Court no. 4FA-13-2849CI

Superiror Court No. 4FA-S-92-2481CR

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

'•CORRECTED PAGE #3" TO THE PETITIONERS FILING OF DEC.25,2022

of a MOTION ASKING THE 9th Cir. to GRANT AUTHORIZATION TO

FILE THE RULE 60(b)(4) & (d) into the District COURT"

( mailed using US MAIL Trackin No.91i 4 9022 0078 9609 2961 43)

Comes Now PLaintiff Harmon and presents that I/Harmon inadver-

tantly left out the "QUALIFING STATEMENT and CASE LAW IN SUPPORT;

'now" (N0Wr: CORRECTED AND INSERTED in/on a CORRECTED PAGE #3 )

this

Error inadvertance left out bv Prose litigant is and

was an acident please forgive and accept this corrected page for

the Court to Correctly determine and consider the Motion.

Thank you for your patiance with Prose Litigant/help,

signed

Date Dec.28,2022

Stephen Harmon Prose

Petitionerpfodvd' 0~C

I/Harmon certify the above and attached "Corected:Page #3 is true

and correct and mailed out using the US MAil with first class

postage affixed to the mail and mailed

copy to Defendant Att-

orney N.Simel this date also Signed

Date Dec.28,2022 Persunat to USCS 1746 penalty of perjury.

Font Page

"CORRECTED PAGE 3"

3.) The Alaska Court'V-' "were and are" MANDATED

BY THE ALASKA

SUPREME C0URT(in Fbks.N.Star Bourough v Victory Minitries

of AK.Inc. 515 P.3d ill Ak.S.Ct Aug.12,2022)

(reads relevant parts)..." • • "this issue cannot be waived.."and

can be raised AT ANY POINT DURING THE

LITIGATION..'

The Alaska Court Supreme Court FAILED

to "TAKE NOTICE OR ADDRESS" but

waived" the "QUESTION" (ground/claim)g sthe-LACK ■ OF PERSONAL AND SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION presented to the Courtis"and "NOW" "REQUIRES"

OF THE

the "SINGLE" Ground/QUESTION".

corrected

parts 12

/p 13

9’tTuCir. and Fairbanks District Court to Hear & determine

4.) Harmon "is not" directly or indirectly" challenging the

corrected

parts

the Constitutionality "of:the renderlying conviction "of whether or

not"Harmon Is or isnot Guilty

of Charges resulting in the issuein

of the "Judgement and Committment 0RDER"(see attached

MENT #2-EXHIBIT LETTER "B") ; "iNgfEAD" Harmon "HAS AND IS" Cahallenging

the C0URT"s" LACKED "ANY" PERSONAL AND OR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDIC-

TION in or over the Plaintif Harmon as presented in see Attached as

ATTACHMENTS #2 & #3

Rules)(Statutes) and Case law-[Brown v Superior Court of L.A.-Attached as

ATTACHMENT #3 on page 4 lines 7 thur 13 also]) "MANDATING" to obtain Personal

and Subject Matter Jurisdiction by the Court in and over a "LITIGANT" such as

fermon and Have not OBTAINED this "RIGHT'/"AUTHORITY" MANDATED by COuyrt Rules

and STATUES by SATE OF ALASKA AND FEDERAL STATUE/COURT RULES (see Attached ATT-

DHEdENTS No.2 V#3 (outlines specificaly) and Resulting in if not Obtained/or

followed then Court does not obtain any LAwful Authority(Personal or Subject

as ATTACH-

that "SHOWS" the STATE OF ALASKA and U.S.FEDERAL (Court

Matter Jurisdiction in or over the Litigant or the proceedings.

5.) The Federal Court "determined"

"corrected PAGE 3"

corrected

In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska

Supreme Court No. S-18529

Stephen Joseph Harmon,

Petitioner,

Order

Petition for Hearing

State of Alaska,

Respondent.

Date of Order: 12/19/2022

Court of Appeals No. A-13760

Trial Court Case No. 4FA-13-02849CI

Before:

Winffee, ChiefJustice, Maassen, Borghesan, and Henderson,

Justices [Carney, Justice, not participating.]

On consideration of the Petitions for Hearing consolidated on 10/12/2022,

and the Response filed on 11/28/2022,

It is Ordered:

The Petitions for Hearing are Denied.

Entered at the direction of the court.

Clerk of the Appellate Courts

TV).7V^

Meredith Montgomery

cc:

Court of Appeals Judges

Trial Court Clerk

(~y

ftoOE-vsCg v "He. Cu

Distribution:

Mail:

Hannon, Stephen Joseph

Email:

Simel, Nancy R.

Stephen Harmon

22301 West Alsop Road

Wasilla, Alaska 99654

)

STEPHEN HARMON

Petitioner

STATE OF ALASKA

Respondant

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE

STATE OF ALASKA

SUPREME COURT NO.

Trial Court No. 4FA-13-2849CI

Court of Appeals NO. A-13760

PETITION FOR HEARING

"Case(cause) of First Impression"

^ Appealing' the Appeal Court ORDER DENING- NEW ACTION Rule 60(b)

MOTION VOID JUDGEMENT( ( "S")-Orders/Proceedings/Judgements J )

("to correct Clerical Errors Pursuant to App.R.519 also**

for "creating and Maintaing non-compliance with "Stautory" and

"Court Rules" "MANDATES" —"SEALS" and "PROCESS" resulting in

Denial of "ACCESS TO COURT/THRU/OUT OF COURT LAWFULY and DENIAL

OF DUE-PROCESS" GgQLdK/s (v-xvvmJaW'

‘ D_epcocess-Art.7(AK)Cbnst/14th Ansrri Fed.const. "and"

"EQLAL RIOTS HOICIICNS"- Act/Laec 11 RIGHTS CF AO3USE0^)cort3t./6th COBEand. U.S.Cbnst.

VRA and APP.R.513.3 CERTIFICATION

I certify that this document and its attachments do not contain

(l)the name of a sexual offense listed in AS.12.61.140 or (2)

a residence or business address or telephone number of a victim

of a witness to any offense unless it is address used to identify

the place of the crime or its an address or telephone number in

a transcript of a court proceeding and disclosure of the information

was order by the court. I furure certify pursuant to APP.R.513

that the font is a prestige 10 wheel using a Prison Typewriter

Swintec 2410.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUEMENT AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I-/Stephen Harmon Petitioner Frost, on. July 18,2022 "Filed"

(1)- "Case(cause) of First Impression",

Mead v State Op.No. 731 P.2d ALASKA 1971

..."Where a convicted defendant presents "important questions of

Substantial Criminal Law NEVER BEFORE DECIDED IN THE STATE, the Court

will consider the MERITS of the ISSUE even though the Petitoner had not

asserted his claim in Pr^°P. -Mgtions. • •

Page 1 of 15

AlViVtilvfllkiV H1

a "NEW ACTION” Civ.Rule 60(b)(1)(2)(3)(4)5)(6) VOID JUDGEMENT

MOTION and "NOTICE" pursuant to Appellate Rule 519 CLERICAL MIS

TAKES/ERRORS Requesting the COURT/Have COURT CORRECTED BY THE

•4

COURT for:

a.) "Denial to Access to"Court and Thru and Out of

Court LAWFULY; Because the Clerk of Court/Deput^.

and COURT OFFICERS (i.e JUDGE*s) "CREATING and

MAINTAINING" this Denial and Violation nf

C?Y\

b.)

for "NON-Complianctg""with" the Alaska Statutory

9r.:

MANDATES SEALS OF COURTS [AS.22.05.060, AS.22.07.10(

PROCESS-CT.APP., AS.22.10.080 PROCESS-CT.Superior land

with Alaska Court Rule MANDATES SEALS OF COURTS

[Admin.Rule 4(b)SEALS OF COURTS, Admin.Rule 46(b) Special

ORDERS of SUPREME COURT..."Rule makeing authority SHALL

Be Recognized...".3 )

Paired State Federal Law MANDATES SEALS OF COUR r , | s;

(State or Federal mandates);Signatues or COURT

OFIICERS. [18 USCS 505 SEALS of 00083*'y/OOMT CfFKEKS]

and

[28 USCS 1691 SEAL and Tesste PROCESS]

c.) for "any" "Court Clerk/Deputy or COURT OFFICERS’'

(i.e Judge- STATE

complying with "MANDATES" "is" a_ crimianl Act

and violation of denial of/^Due process/constitu-

tional Rights

eral Court"s" in 18 USCS505 SEALS of Court/Court

24:

or FEDERAL) Not compliance/

jjS?\v*cv p <

as; outlined for "STATE's and Fed

OFFICERS . C ' <&

gp0

d.) Resulting in the Complete Denial of Due Process

under Alaska Const.art.7/& U.S.Const 14th amend.

and 8th Amend -"EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE".

J&\ flLllil'IU'tf

2 o£ 1^^Cn>k ^

e.)THe Result/effect of denial(ed) of "Substantial

Rights

and intentionalv Created by the Clerks/Deputies

and then maintained

Judges) that is shown in the Admission to such

(iTe PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE) in:

1.) "phone Call" with Appellate "Clerk/Deputy" on

July 18,2022 (prox.11:00am)[phone calls from

prison are recored to verify this admission]

....". (nelvant part of call) • • • "they/Deputy clerk stated

"they"v>determined'">they'/ (Court/clerks office)

don't have to use/apply "ALL" the time the

SEALS/PROCESS oft think need to use, onLy^ra.

Special filing/mailing such as .."Certified"

mail and such..."

"which is, not" Harmless Error but Knowing! y

by the COURT OFFICERS (i.e

2.) "Court of Appeals COURT OFFICERS (fudges)"

"continued and maintained" the denial of law-

ful Access to Court/thru and out of it and

the Denial offTJue process, when and thru of

Petitioners Filing of "NEW ACTION Rule 60(b)

and NOTICE" in/on their(COURT)[see attached

Order of 8/30/22] Ruled in Plain Error of

.. .Because Harmon has not identified a "clerical

error" and because the Relief he requests (the ~‘

Voiding of the Indictment, Judgement and for his

imediate release fom incarceration) is not limited

to the correction of clerical error..."

23 I

24 iI

25 f

it is ORDERED the^Motion and Notice"^is denied.

Entered at the direction of the Court

(before Allard Chief Judge. & HArbinson &vTerrel 1

Judge) clerk of Appeals roin-t-Rvan Montpomery-Sythe

Chief Deputy clerk.

"C1'

/ <

NOTE:

I/Petitioner Harmon "ASK" this Court with Emphisi please

take NOTE

f this "ORDER appeling herein to this COURT^fneither)

was sent out of the Court/issed without the "Stautory and Court"

Mandated SEALS and PROC ESS to verify and validate that the ORDERS

ary lawfuly determined and issued and enforcable "from/by" the Cour:.

"SHOWING also continued "creation and maintaining" Clerical

Errors of ^-Denial ot Due process by the Violation of State and 7--. ■

"j ■«

Federal Statute and Court Rule Mandates for SEALS and PROCESS and

COURT OFFICERS and intentionaly plain Error "all" in violation of

this Courts "SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA" admin Rule 46.(b) MANDATES

• • ."rule

mined under and by Federal Law (18USCS505 SEALS OF COURT^'^to^Be^

a Crime for "either STATE or FEDERAL COURT OFFICER"S""; thus this

this is Plain Error and abuse of discretion and the continued in

by Assisting fjn the Creation of Clerical Errors and Maintaining

the non-compliance with MANDATES for lawful validation/verifyingY

access to the Court/to and before it lawfuly vzlidated/verified

and determined and then issued any Judgement/ORDER Proceeding

findings out of the Court/Court OFFICERS lawfuly and legaly bind-?

ing

under and by.

_________________

Denying the Reconsideration Motion on 9/19.22,

makeing authority SHALL BE RECOGNIZED..and is deter

--------------------------------------------------‘

“

---------- -

of Apeals Continued with Plain Error in

When^a Court"Clerk/Deputy" intentionaly/knowingly and then ad-

nitts to the noTcomplying with Manadates (Statutory/Court Rules)

)irectly mandated to them; -.They - are '-clericalErrors" and when a

Court OFFICER(i.e.Judge) manitains is_ Plain Error/should GRANT

------- -

—

----------

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

fTT'i 0 O i

Pa8e

4 of 15

£/

-f(VSLxS

July 18,2022 aprox.

(t>v^ C

time of 11:00am; I/Petitioner Harmon "called" the AlaskaClerk-s

Office (for the Appeals and Supreme Court"s") [(907)264-0612] and

spoke with a deputy Clerk [phone call was recorded by the prison

so is available for verification] who "shared "specificaly" the

following with me [put in as a "Affidavidt in filing also'in the

filing of Rule 60(b) Motion] when I/Harmon called to ask/inquire

as to/on

"SEALS" and

not been applying/using them on the "incoming""thru" and "out of"

the Court "as Mandated to"; to "Verify" and "Validate" that "any"

ifiling/Proceedings/Judgements/Orders "is/or/was" "LAWFULY"

"ACCEPTED" for filing/Lawfuly filed into the Court"; or that the

"Filings and or proceedings/Judgements/ORDERS" "WERE" Lawfuly

before the Court as well as the "Litigant" WAS Lawfuly before the

Court and Judges and thus "Could and did" "for" "lawful consider

ation and determination" and "if or not the Court/Judges" "were

hearing and determining" lawfuly to the Litigant/Issue/Cause

"lawfuly" and "then" "lawfuly issue "any" "Lawful and binding"

ORDER/Judgement.

A.) "If the Court"s"/Clerk"s" Office "HAD" the Court

B.) "WHY" They the Clerk's/Court"s" were not^and'had

for

The Clerk of the Court"s" (Suprme /Appellate)^Stated and then

.also Verified on JUly 18,2022 phone conversation with Harmon (see

"--------------

C«■

pg.16 of Rule 60(b) filing AFFDAVIDT line 24 thru 26) relevant

part ..."They/Clerks for the Court"s" Determined they did not

think they needed to or had too use/or apply SEALS or use the

PROCESS all the time/filings... This "Determination" violates

the "SPECIFIC" Statutes [A.S.22.05.060 SEALS OF COURT(a)(b)(c)]

r*i ’fraPage

5 of 15

and [A.S.22.07.100 PROCESS(a)] and[Administrative Rule 4(a)(b)(c)

SEALS of the Courts]and [Adminstrative Rule 46(b) Special ORPFR-S

of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and Presiding Judge;

ORDERS (b)](.. • l NoJORDER SHALL BE promulgated that is inconsitent with

or Alaska Rules of Court . The Vesting

^7 Alaska-Statutes

of all rulemaking authority ip the Alaska Supreme Court

SHALL BE RECOGNIZED..I

(

Mc.g,YV(A/tc7iU t)0Al

”5

- 6

The Petitioner Harmon shared the "Specific" PROCESS Statute

(A.S.22.0100) that it "MANDATES" the use/application in/thru and

and out of the Court in/on ever filing/Judgement/ORDER and the

Vtos mi

Clerk(deputy)/had no remark on that FACT (Phone call ended).

The Clerk of Court "do not" have any Rule makeing authority;

dtOy\pT~/

pursuant to "ANY" Alaska'Tta'tute or Court Rule and their "Candidec

acknowledgement" and admitance '....""THEY DETERMINED" they did nol

think they needed to..." shows the "intentional intent and then

implementation of Violating Alaska Statutes/Court Rules and this

Courts own MANDATE of Rule 46(b) in its entirlty :..N0T RECOGNIZED

the Supreme Court rule

authority or its.'.'SHALL BEV'MANDATE1.1

The Petitioner (check/verified "ALL" the filings/proceeding!

and ANY ORDERS by any Court i.e Trial/Appeal/Supreme}‘ and "NONE"

had the Mandated SEAL and PROCESS of the Court in/or on any thus

lawfuly "Shows(ing) a.) that Petitioner Has neveftbeen lawfuly

brought before any Court to date-Denial ofDue process; :nor

b.) had any Court to make any Lawful consideration and then make

any lawful determination in/on any Proceeding and then not ever

issue any lawful Judgement/ORDER that has any lawful binding e::::e

effect in/on Petitioner. Denied access to/thru and out of any 7:v

of 15

proceeding/Judgement/Orders in/of or by any Court in Alaska to

Date. Thus the Petitioner filed.into the Corut of Appeals a filing

of "NEW ACTION RULE 60(b) (1) (2^ (3) (4)T~5) (6) VOID JUDGEMNETS MOTIC N"

-and pursuant to Appellate rule 519~trETTTCAL Mistakes asking the

Court of Appeals to correct and filed in support of to SHOW of:

—~vj

i 1.) Court of Appeals ORDER of June 22,2022 [Attached as Exhibit letter

"A"] (SHOWING NO "Seal or Process of Court on the ORDER thus per

mandates of Statutes and Court Rule it is not lawfuly issued

determined or has any lawful binding effect on any one)

[Denial Of Due process and abuse of discretionary authority];

2.) Judgement and Committment ORDER [Attached as EXHIBIT Leteter "B"]

(SHOWING NO _________________________

"Seal or Process of Court on the ORDER thus per

mandates of Statutes and Court Rule it is not lawful issued

determined on has any lawful binding effect on any one)

[Denial Of Due Process and abuse of discretionary authority];

3.) Grand Jury Indictment [Attached as EXHIBIT Letter "C"](SHOWING NO

"Seal or Process of Court on the "Grand-Jury' Indictment "Filin?"

thus per mandates of Statutes and Court Rule it was never

lawfuly filed or Harmon ever lawfuly formally lawfuly charged

indicted or brought before the Court lawfuly to date and has

no lawful binding effect on any one/Harmon)[Denial of Due tv

process and abuse of discretionary authority].

that these "ALL" "proceedings and Judgements and ORDERS and the

Indictment" are invaild and void lawfuly for:

(A.) "NON-Compliance with MANDATED "Specificaly too" Clerks/

Deputies of Court (i.e Trial/Appeal/Supreme) of the: :

Statutory and Court Rule MANDATES use/application of

SEALS of Court and Process of:

foe ^

---- AS.22.05.060 SEALS CF COKT ,

-rr

AS.22.07.10OR0CESS(Cr.AEP).

AS.22.10.08L™0ESSCCr.Superiar)

Mnin R. 4(b)SEALS CF QJJKT ,v Mnm.R.46(b)Spevial CREEPS of SUEREME Cburt *

TB.) The "NON-compliance" with MANDATES, violates the U.S.Fed^

Law of 18 USCS 505 SEALS of C0URT"s"; signatures or

^ i||

wCOURT OFFICERS.*7

--------------,

'k! •••"Who ever forges the signature of^an/Uudge, register, or'other'

? v. -y l vvof ficer''o f ^any *'Court"of "the United States '6r any Teritory“or

- 'b <51

forges oF1-counterfeits7’"the^SEAL^of^ANY SUCH COURT7.' or knowingly

'd.

>xconcurs7Tn using any suchforgecTor counterfiet signature or

vx SEAL*,' for the purpose of auhtenticatmg ANY‘proceeding''or

v:J.TENDERS IlTEVIDENCE ANY SUCH PROCEEDING OR DOCUMENT wxtTT false

v 4 ft

or counterfeit signature of any such JUDGE, register, or other

officer or a false or" counterfiet of the'COURT,Subscribedd

or Attached Thereto "KNOWING SUCH signature"OR SEAL'to BE FALSE

OR'COUNTERFIET SHfU, BE FINH) under this title or InprisOTed

Not more than five [ears or both...”

Page 7 of 15

€%

The Appeals Court/Judges (Chief Judge Allard, Judge Harbinson,

Judge Terrell) "had" the above/enclosed information and requested

the correcting/void of proceedings/Juedgements/ORDERS and the

the Relief of imediate and unconditional release from any f'urture

inforcement of the Charges/Indictment and imediate and unconditi-

onaly release from imprisonment with Prejudice^.; but instead

--------

I.......................

—

—■

* -t

i—1

—

'in their ORDERS Dening this Filing and also in the Reconsidseration

Motion (i.e. Order enclosed appealing of [8/30/22] and [9/19/22]

"SHOWS11 the Court/Judges "INTENT and BIAS" to deny Petitioner V-

1ifr

LAWFULY and TIMELY; resulting in the Total denial of Substantial

Due process rights and privilages and not accord the Petitioner

Harmon "Access to" the Court/ "thru the Court" and "be heard”

the right to be heard according to the Law(s) of State of Alaska

or Federal laws of the United States and abused their disrecti-

onary authority and committed criminal acts and maintained the

Clerical Created and maintained denial of access to/thru/out of

the Court,,s">«~*

---------------- -—-------^

)£££&j

/Ccul^ c&j

This "intentional abuse of discritionary authority of denial

EQUAL PROTECTION and

of foundational substantial rights/due process is shown in/of

a.) ORDER of 8/30/22..."Because Harmon has not identified

”

a "clerical error..."

..."Motion and Notice is DENIED..."

and

b.) Non-compliance with "basic CANON MANDATES"of:

CANON 3(A)(B)(7)

(A)Primacy of Judicial Duites ..."A Judge1s Judicial Duties

includes the duties of the Judge's OFFICE PRESCRIBED

BY LAW...

~(B)Adjudicative Responsibilities

(7) A Judge SHALL accord to every person the right to be

1 j k[_______ ^

heard according to the law.. . (continues)

A Judge SHALL MAKE reseanable efforts to see that law

? kA clerks and other COURT STAFF carrying out similar functions

4 S?\ UNDER judge's supevision DO NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF

| SECTION. .7"

— —----------- — ----------- ----------.

Page 8 of 15

Alf 1

‘°’<£

4a*

ARGUEMENT

"case of First Impression" ^

The Alaska

Supreme Court "has" "specificaly" Prescribed and

"Manadated in the rule Prescribed" based off Statutes;

fqt the Clerk/Deputy Clerk" to use/apply in/on TTevery" filing i nt :>

thru and then out of the Courts to "lawfuly verify and validate"

if_the Filing is lawfuly filed with the Court to lawfuly hear/th'er

determine and issue any Judgement and or ORDER to be lawfuly issued cW3”'*/

and enforcable RCourt haveingV'persoanl and Subject Matter Juris

kjAuT^y

—»—*“■-

diction)! and whether or

"Mandates

“

’-------- - -

/ >/

not the Litigant is^Lawfuly before the

11 Court and Court has any lawful authority in/on or over the Litigant

12 or poceedings. When these Statutes and Court Rule Mandates are no

a oC_l.<Wyi>Y Q>iq\atHf

______ _

13 used or applied then/**Access to the^Court/thru/out of it", is denied

14 to the Litigant and is not lawfuly^/'for the Court to Hear/or de-te15 rmine the proceeding or case/cause

"\Q\

A.S.22.05.060 SEALS of the Court's

(prescribed by the Alaska^supreme Coui 1t-(

to "ALL" Clerks/Deputies pursuant to)

17 J&) Adminstration Rule 4 SEAL:S OF COURT (a)(b)(c)

18 (>(a)SEAL OF HE COURT 0F~APPEALS

J4- (b)SEAL OF THE TRIAL COURT

The SEAL of the Court of Appeals

The SEAL of the Trial Courts _is_

is a "Vignette of the Offical Flag

a 'Vignette of the Offical Flag

of the State""With" "the words"

of the STate""with" "the words"

20 $

"SEAL OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

"SEAL OF THE TRIAL COURT OF THE

STATE OF ALASKA" surounding the

STATE OF ALASKA" surrounding the

21 \J

Vignette'.'

"vignette".

A.S.22.07.100 PROCESS

I 1

Process of the Court of Appeals SHALL BE in the NAME of the State of

Alaska , signed by the Clerk or court or deputy clerk when issued.

/ I

SEALED with the SEAL OF THE COURT and returnable'ACCORDING TO THE RULE

* PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT?7 ^

"EACH"

tvV>i)y£ri

Court (i.e Dis trict/Tria^Appeal/Supreme)" has" their

(1)-Mead v State Op.No. 731 P.2d ALASKA 1971.. ."where a convicted defendant

___ important questions of substantial criminal law Never Before

(fefJdpd in_ the state, the Court will consider the merits oFThe issues

even though the Petitioner had not asserted^ his claim in prior-Motions..."

JnT“iTifl(i >iifiiit

M e 9 of 15

"own" "SEAL" that is_ Mandated to be applied/used in and on "ALL"

in/out of the Court and thru the Courts Business or it is not 5?

lawful to have/consider/determine or issue any ORDER/JUDGEMENT

nor is the Litigant Lawfulyfoefore the Court and the Court "does

Not" have any "personal or Subject Matter Jurisdiction".

sbfi/y’to'-----

The FACTS Showing the "ERRORS" are by the "Clerks/Deputies"

of the Court and are maintained by the Court(Judges) for not

compling with "specific" Statutes and Court Rules Directly mandat id

to the Clerks/Deputies shows when not complied with r,are" Clerica L

These ERRORS were "created" by the Clerks/deputies of the

.A |10 Errors.

Court; but MAINTAINED by the Court/Judges/Officers. Thus the

Rule 60 (b)VOID JUDGEMENT MOTTION authorizes such VOID filings

d | 13

and pleadings/Proceedings/procedures/Judgements and ORDERS; and

Appellate Rule 5TT~supports this Relief as they read/authorize

s ^ 15

J ^ 16

^ 4 17

u it

( 1^

Appellate Rule 519 Clerical Mistakes

..."Clerical mis take in judgements,orders 3OTHER PARTS^f the RECORD''s"

and arising FROM oversight or 0MMISSI0N

may be corrected BY THE APPELLATE COURT

any time or its own initiative and AETER

SUCH NOTICEy if any as the Court Orders

OR ON MOTION OF ANY PARTY and after such j

N0TICE~~if any as the Court Orders__71

tMUK-s.

.•

•c\<3\

\jS>i - YV

„

CIV.Rule 60(b) Void Judgement

.."(3) Fraud (whether hereintp__^

V denominated intrinsic or

extrinisic) misrepresentation

( N or other misconduct of an

r* adverse party;

(4) the Judgement is VOID

(5) .."or is no longer equitable

that the Judgement should

PV)

have proseptive application

(6)i'any other reason*'JUSTIFYING

RELIEF from the 0PEREATI0N

’ «

OF THE JUDGEMENT..."

l ..,"Thls^Il—does^hoigimit 'the l=L—^

C\ /olu r,r —-4.Power of the Court to enter6LcU*

\ or to RELIEVE A PARTY FROM

A JUDGEMENT, ORDER OR A PRO--------------_________ ^ CEEDING..."

Alaska Supreme Court "determined" STATE v MAXWELL 6.P_. 3d733

(HN#10) ..." this rule applies (without Jlimitations because a VOID Judgement CAN

NOT gain Validity simply by the tjv

Passage of time...

i«

10 of 15

A- „ - i

>4? *'

!C~~2r

jpv ? ^

The "Merits" of this case/cause "have not" been decided to dat ;

and the U.S.Supreme Court Determined in this Standard be met in Rule 60(b)

American Trucking Assn. V Freisco Trans. 358 U.S.133,79 S.CT. 170 3L.ED.2d 172

1958 U.S.LEXIS 1778

_j.."Rule 60(b) was designed to permit desirable legal objectives that a

case might be decided on their merits..."

4r(*U»J

---- —

1__.

The ^u-*-e makeing Power does not authorize (i . e. clerks/deputies

or lower-Court Judges to "rewite the Supreme Court Rules nor by

Judicial interpretation""as" the Clerks/deputies and Appellate

Court and Trial Court Judges have attempted.tfethis was and is

determined

L.ED. 2d 181

..."NO U.S. Judge has the power to rewrite rules by judicial interpretation^..w

irS. S.Supreme Court Haris v nelson394 U.S,SCtlQ82 22

and the U.S.Supreme Court has "Determined" a U._S. Court.. ,"A. court must adhere

fo statutory TEXT..."

Nasarallah v Barr 140 S.Ct. 1683. ..

This CourVfsupreme) has "determined" in Rodriquez v Rodriquez 908

P.2d 1007

..."It is abuse of discretion to deny the parties NOTICE...

When the Court Officers (i.e clerks/deputies and Judges) "didnot"

address and "take NOTICE" of the "specific" Statute and Court Rula

violations that were the Foundation and bases to continue to deny

Harmon Access to the Court and thru or out of it ever is a inten-

tional abuse of and denial of Constitutional due process to the

Petitioner Harmon completely and have shown that "opportunity to

Heardjbefore

in which the Court/Judges "had" the litigant and |>r6.cegdi'pgs/fili is

before it lawfulyy'fhus shown’s the Court/Tribunal "not" vested with

and defend before a_compentent Tribunal" let-alone

0< yWJ”

Jurisdiction of

(^0

iect Matter o

er o

the Cause.

Jnited States v Mierzanka (89 F.Sup.573)...The Constitution guaranty of due-T::

process of law "MEANS" notice and opportunity* to be heard "and^defend 7 I

Before a^ompetent ‘Tribunal, Vested with Jurisdiciton of Subject Matter

of the cause..."

(Page n of T5

The Petitioner present that the "Appellate Court and Trial Courlt"

warrants/the Prior decisions based on the "doctrine of Stare decis

as in Stefano v State 2012 Alas App.LEXIS 32 (HN#4)

Court Determined • • • " a litigant who wishes to attack a prior decision

of a APPEF.TATE OOURT must demonstratp

(TJ that the decision was errouness from its inceptioi

TThe Petitioner Harmon presents and believes demonstrated that fro

the "inception" on the Attachment EXHIBIT Letter "C" the Grand

Jury Indictment (see) i-e"Counterfiet Stamp" that is no where nea

meeting the minimum requirement for SEAL and Process pursuant to

Stautes and Court Rule mandates for filing/acceptance by the Cour

Thus Petitioner Harmon "was Never" lawfuly brought or indicted or

charged/tried or convicted and issued a lawful Judgement and conir

mittment Ordr (see Attachement EXHIBIT letter "B" with the Couht-

erfiet stamp) that is no where near meeting the minmimum requir

ement for SEAL and PROCESS pursuant toStatutes and Court Rules.

Mandates for filing/accepting by the Court thus the Petitioner yai

lever lawfuly before the Court for the Judgement and Committment

Order to considered and/then issued and lawfuly binding in/on the 1

Petition Statutorly/Court rule and by the Federal law standard

set out in 18USCS 505 SEALS and Federal law mandates for STATENS

Court; of: 28 USCS 1691 SEAL and Teste PROCESS

..."ALL writs and.PROCESS issuing‘FROM^A'COURT*k COURT^OF*'

Onited States SHALL BE UNDER SEAL of the Court and s^Tghed by

the Clerk thereof.. .TT~ ■

---- ^ ^ —........

the Current Appellate ORDERS attached Appelaing "Shows" there is

n°t any SEAL or PROCESS on any ORDER of the Appellate Court thus

do not come any where close to meeting the SEAL and PROCESS Rule

Wa v nlnumiT

t**t

Page

AtfP***^*

)f 15

Admin 4 mandates the CourtMs" are required to use/apply or filing

not lawfuly before the Court or the Litigant and denied access

to the Court and due process by the Court Officers (i.e clerks/dep

uties.Judges). thus the "Reversalble ERROR" for abuse of discreti-

onary authority by JUDGE(Trial Court-Appellate Court) by/when

.. . *'depriving(ed) substantial rights and seriously prejudiced by

lower court JUDGE for NOT complying with (Alaska Constitution, Statutes,

due-process, COURT RULES MANDATES

and

Roland v Monsen Op.No. 11603, P.3d 1036 (ALASKA 2006)

v__ ^.."a judgement or Order IS_V0ID." • • • "WHEN there was a_FAILURE to comply

with such requirements as are NECESSARY FOR THE VATTD EXERCISE OF

POWER BY THE COURT .

------------ ------- —---------- ----------------

There was and is a "Complete" failure to comply with such req<ylc

uirements (i.e . this Court^Rule making power Recognized also) as

145 tfqre and "ARE necessary for the Courts/Judges/Clerks-Deputies15

COURT OFFICER for the VAILD EXERCISE OF POWER TO DATE BY ANY.

The Relief is "VOIDING "ALL" Appellant/Petitoner Harmon filings

Including the Court of Appeals ORDERS* (Attachement EXHIBIT Letter "A")

;he Committment Judgement ORDER (attachment Letter "B" ) and Grnad Jury IndittvkViV

ifient (attachment Letter "C") requireing VOIDING and imediate unconditional

relief upon and after Granting the Petition for Hearing and RELIEF,

This Relief was/needed Granted..."to deter like conduct and preserve the

integrity of the PACT-FINDING PROCESS,

and Protect the diginitv of the Court..."

as out lined in/determined in Varilek v Bulke 2008 Alas.LEXIS 54 under litigants

standards.

■■

’

gjcUAoiV

1X3 «ft .

SVsuOvon

teC-

—

OONCLUSSION

Your Honors of this Supreme Court "there is No ORDER/Judgement

or proceeding" that is any where Near consitent with Alaska Statues

£>JC

dPage :13 of 15

‘

----

( \0\(Xs^S> (VVwOMK C?f~

. v *f(? /?>_^0

or Alaska Rules of Court/ The Clerks/Deputies and Court. Judges

are not "recognizing your Rule Makeing autjority" by and when

they "intentional and knowingly" state "they donthink they need to

use/apply SEAL and PROCESS "ALL time when this Court instructed

in Admintrative Rule 4 was Manadted; These are not Harmless Errors

but ERRORS that deny substantive rights and privilages and is denikd

¥1

intentional and knowingly thus is very prejudicial against the

Petitioner and should be applied in the VOID with "Prejudice'.' 1;/

ECup-t s’SESfSSte?

: The assisting in the denial of^due" process uy The Court OFFICERS

10 Judges with the Clerks/Deputies ijs also a^showing of the "entire"

and EQUAL PROTECTION <w

11 -ourt system is part to denial of/due process to Petitioner ahd

13-

Access to and thru and out of the Court; instead assisting in the

? r A**-*sCiA*

0?Wml*

illegal holding of Petitioner which not lawfuly been brougHT

)efore any court to date in/of Alaska Court system

G-VNL*

;^T

tfL.mi

pccM, .-=

One final note: The Respondant(state Attorney Simel/Taylor of

the Dept, of LAW) a.) have not emphisis have not to date in any

17 :filing/proceeding/ORDER/Judgement "denied" or disputed" or b.)

uft

Oppossed the FACTS or MANDATES/Court Rules Mandates nor that T:

Harmon/Petitioner was/is denied access to court and due process

^ 20 nor the Releif should not be granted.'Tursuant to FEDERAL

nO'}

------------------------ y ‘oV<Wgc/e/^~

jr 21

the Pros ecu toif^"ha§Alaj" an obligation to correct the record to

P M

O ^

reflect the truthful facts when were unsolicted False evidence,

was introducecTon its behalf to. the Trial Court^and^since^been^

maintained by the Re^sgondant/Attornies^unlawfuly

O i 25

broywn v Hayes~39^p972(9th cir)-»|and Sambrano v STATe^EXIS 228

3ased off U.S.Sct. Determination was mandated to correct or party

ft >

i/'

kwiWT1""

Page - 14 of 15

to the denial of Constitutional rights to Petitioner and "criminal

Acts" of/by the Court OFFICERS/Ti •e♦ clerks/deputies/judges) for

intentional violation of FEDERAL

SEALS OF COURT/OFFICERS ,(w)

r c^"

q>*JI

Constitutional law of 18USCS505

l S,1^S

For the foregoing reasons, this Court Should accept this T~:.

Petition under Alaska Appellate Rule 304(a)(b)(c) and because this

case/cause is a case of First Impression" and these Court OFFICERS

are intentionaly not recognizing the Supreme Court Rule makerng

authority and the ALaska Supreme Court determined in

Mead v State Op.No. 731 P.2d (ALASKA 1971)

..."where a convicted defendant presents important questions of

substantial law never before decided in the state, the court

will consider the Merits of the Issues even though the Petitioner

had not asserted his claim in prior motions..." \ \ ^

Respectfuly and Prayerfuly submitted this date of

16 : ;igned

Stephen Harmon Prose

Petititoner

I certify that the above is true and correct and ifurture certify that

I/Harmon mailed the pleading to the Attorney for repondant this date also.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

Mailed to

Clerk of Supreme Court

303 K street

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Attorney Nancy Simel(respondant Att.)

dept, of law

310 K street- Suite 702

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Page 15 of 15

Stephen Harmon

22301 west Alsop Road

Wasilla, Alaska 99654

STEPHEN HARMON

Petitioner

STATE OF ALASKA

Respondent

)

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE

STATE OF ALASKA

Supreme Court No. S-18529

)

Court of Appeals No. A-13760

Trial Court No. 4FA-13-2849CI

Superior Court No. 4FA-S-92-2481 CR.

PETITIONER HARMON's "SPECIFIC" REPLY TO Respondent's

IN & ON the "SPECIFICALY FILED" Nov.28,2022 FILING

9 OF: -----("Consolidated Response to Petitions for Hearing")

Note: Petitioner Harmon "recieved this Filng from Respon

dent on Nov.30,2022 Pm-evening legal mail @ Prison.

"AND"

"MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT of Discretionary Review"

"TO ACCEPT FOR:"

1.) FOR FILNG t'6/in and before the Court/Justices

and

2.) FOR COURT/JUSTICES consideration in/on and

the Petitoiner Harmon's "Petitions for Hearing;

"AS" Herein Reply and as the REPLY/presented

to be included in the Complete review of the

Petitions and Hearing_s and determination of

such relief.

Authorization — Pursuant to App.R. 3C6(c)RE5BCNSE relevant part reads:

..."..." the Party filing a petition for hearing may not

file a. Reply to the Response without leave of the

court of discrectionary review.Consideration of the

petition for hearing will not be delayed on account

of the filing of a motion for leave to file a reply.."

Harmon Reply's by showing the "Misrepresentation and Fraud"

uoo

25 upon the Court in the Respondent's Response of n©.28,2022 and the

2: Court

"should not ..."Reject on any bases the Petitioner's filin

Pettione for Hearing" as the Respondent has present to the Court

25 . to do as:

1.) The Respondent herein in their Response "have"

26 ■presented (2)two position/defense simply, to prevail and ask the

Page l

V ■

here of the Alaska Supreme Court and its Justices to:

1•)"on the one hand (see the respondents Response on pg.ll

2nd to

last paragraph and cont. on pg.12 reads in relevant part:"

"..."Harmon also seems to rely on federal statutes and cases[P.l atll-12]

but those statues

add cases do not govern how Alaska 's state courts

OPERATES..” I T

2.)"on the other hand (see the respondents Response on Pg . 1

thru pg. 10" "where" the Respondent/State of Alaska "HAVE" "RE-~ :

PEADLY"

governed by FEDERAL CASE (and statutes) operate..."BLAKELY..."

a.) "STATED and SHOWN WHERE" the Alaska Courts "ARE"

10 "Blakely" "IS A U.S.SUPREME COURT CASE- (i.e meaning it is a FED

11 ERAL CASE that Alaska has determines governs how/what "'.IS" opera-r

12 ing with-in the U.S Constitutional MINIMUM standards for a COURT

13 "ALASKA herein to operate and be governed by !!! thus the Respon14 dent is

asking the Court to apply a "2" standards to the Petit

15 ioner but not to the Respondent or Alaska Courts when concerns th

16 Respondent .

This is "misrepresentation and Fruad upon the Court

17 by the Respondent to deny substant(al) rights and due-process.

3.) The ALASKA APPELLATE COURT "HAS" determined ini

Burns v STATE '2007, Alas . LEXIS 139(HN#2) (HN#3) relevant parts

reads:

— "A STATE APPELLATE COURT _is_ obliged to apply FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW as it has been Interpreted "BY" the

U.S.SUPREME COURT. .7"

cont.

...". . ."until and unless the SUPREME COURT TELLS US TO DO

OTHERWISE..."

4.) Respondent again "misrepresents and ask this court to

"affirm the Appellate ERROERS/DENIAL and abuse of discretionary

2i authority to continue and deny Harmon his Constitutional "RIGHTS"

2( which:_is‘ prejudical and the COURTS (STATE & FEDRAL Specificaly-

S'1

Determined this and in STAUTES (STTAE or FEDRAL) also of:

Respondent

pg.ll last paragraph relevant part of Misrepresentation/

error and abuse of discretionary auth

ority of:

..."In any event,as the Court of Appeals recognized, the

relief harmon requests is not the correction of clerical

errors(such as reissuance of the documents with a seal)

but the voiding of the indictment,judgement, and his

imediate release from prison.see Harmon,No.A-13760,ORDER,

dated aug.30,2022...."

(a)-Alaska Court Rule 519 Clerical Mistakes "SPECIFICALY" authorize

such filing and Relief in the APPEALS COURT and not necessarly in

the Trial Court relevant part reads:

. • ."may be corrected BY THE APPELLATE COURT ANY TIME ..."

(b)-Alaska Rule 60(b) VOID JUDGEMENT

12 filing and Relief in the

"SPECIFICALLY" authorizes such

APPEALS COURT and not necessarly in Trial

13 Court relevant part reads:

.. ."This rule does not limit /the POWER of the COURT TO ENTERTAIN

AN INDEPENDAT ACTION OR TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM A JUDGEMENT,

ORDER OR A PROCEEDING

£c) The Appellate Court DID NOT Id etermine that Harmon "NEW

ACTION FILING" (seals/process) was necessary to be preseverd in

the Trial Court and Alaska Supreme Court determined that was not

necessary either because:

(1) when a litigant shows PLAIN ERROR as Harmon has; &

(2) "Mead v STATE Op.No.731 P.2d ALASKA 1971"

... Where a criminal defendnat presentsd important questions of

Substantial Criminal law never before decided ..in the STATE

the court WILL CONSIDER the MERITS of the ISSUE~eveh

though the Petitioner HAD NOT Asserted HIS claim in

Prior Motions..."

(d) The Alaska COURT OF APPEALS HAS decided significant Constitutional

and Legal Questions In error and resolved Harmon's Case incorrectly by:

(d)

(continued)

(1)

Clerical errors Defined®

(5) Id. Correction,Clerical Errors

a Clerical error is not neeesasrly one made by a clerk,

but such error be that of the Court or Judge, and if

carried into the JUDGEMENT the COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY

TO CORRECT TT.TT"

Benway v Benway,11945 Cal.App.LEXIS 695[CA(5)(5)]

(2)

DEFINED Functions of Court & Clerk-FINAL JUDEMENT-ENTRY and

Btxwn v Superior Ct of LA

REQUIREMENTS-Evience of such.

70CAL.App. 732(GA(3)

—"The Judgement

a Judicial act of the Court, and its

(3)M)

entry in the judgement book, which affords the Highest

REOORD-EVTDENCE of its existence, is but a ministerial

Act of the Clerk, and that which the Court permgLnvV1

Judicially, or orders to be performed, IT IS NOT TO BE

AVOIDED BY THE ACTION OR WANT OF ACTION OF & BY THE COURT'S

ministerial OFFICERS, the judgement IS THEN AS RENDERED

nFINIAL"(Iy)), THGIS DETERMINES THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES

TO THE ACTION OR PROCEEDINGS. "ITmTIS‘k"COMPLEIEnnWtMn

IT IS "ENTERED AND RECORDED BY THE CLERK "AS""REQUIRED"

~nBYmTTHE' ■■ 'STATUErrT.TT1

14 Alaska Statutes and Court Rules "MANDATES" the use/application &

15 Process of use/applicaiton of a COURT SEAL/PROCESS and never been

16 been complied with by the Clerks of ALL Courts/Judges or STATE

STATE OFFICERS

Court has/does DEFINE

and this is a denial of Due process the FEDERAL

when it:

(1) ALLOWS FALSE EVIDENCE and does not correct as in

---- Filing in the Appeals Court Rule 60(bl)lNEW ACTION

and did not oppose or corect in any filings to

Court of Appeals; nor

---- Filing herein the "RESPONSE" filed Nov.28,20222

"DOES NOT" correct or explain why does not which

is a denial of Due proces

CHARGES/SENTENCES fro PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT and VOIDING ALL

Judgement and Committment/Indictment and Appeals ORDERS to date.

Pursuant to: (HN#2). . ." It is the sworn duty Oof the Prosecutor to assure

that a defendant has a fair and impartial trial, &

Brcwn v Hayes 399 F.3d

DEFENDANTS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS

972(9thcir)

The STATE Violates a- criminal, defendant s RIGHT TO

not solicting FAT-SF.

1..

Page^'N

and REQUIRES the "RELIEF of REVERSAL

, \4

Bxwn v Hayes 399 F.3d 972(9th cir)

"evidence", IT ALLOWS FALSE EVIDENCE TO GO UNCORRECTED

"when" "it" ^APPEARS" ...

(HN#4)..."Due Process PROTECTS defendants AGAINST the knowing

use of ANY FALSE evidence by the STATE,

WHETHER IT BE by ^documen t,Tes tiinony'' OR ANY

OTHER FORM OF ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE...h

"REVERSAL IS VERTUALLY AUTOMATIC"

T: The "CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICAL PROCESS BY ALL COURT OFFICERS

and STATE" and MEETS THE'STANDARD/DEFINITION OF

CONDUCT" and effects the Complete execution of the Judgement's"

ORDERS and is not Harmless error; but effects substantial Rights

"EGRESIOUS-

10 of Petitioner Harmon. The ALASKA COURTS Lacked Personal and

Q--^ 11 Sub ject Mat-tar J_u.r-Ls.di.cJtion in/over Harmon in any way .Completely

—-----

‘

— —

■ .

^j/mVi2 Alaska SUPREME COURT CASE 2012 determined:

-^=p7Prejudical!!!

L-—

..."a judgement or order is void "when" the State in which the

s rendered had nof.jurisdiction Jbo subiect^^he

e subject matter^:o its control

—

or when *there was a failure^ to COMPLY WITH such REQUIREMENTS

AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE VALID EXERCISE-OF THE-POWER OF COURT

Alaska SUPREME COURT CASE 1969 determined:

..."Clerical Error for the purpose of this Rule (i.eRule 60(b))

may be made other than a clerk. . ."

smtL

1361%’

20 ALASKA SUPREME COURT CASE 2014 determined:

..."Rule 60(b) (4)V0ID JUDGEMENT Motion seeking relief from a VOID

Judgement; BECAUSE the VALIDITY OF A JUDGEMENT is STRICKLY A QUESTION OF

LAW, and QUESTION OF LAW 1 ’REQUIRES*1-1 'DE NOVO REVIEW"..."

Herber v Herber, 330 P.3ti 926 (ALASKA 2014)

24 ALASKA SUPREME COURT CASE determined: State v Maxwell 6.P;3d 733

.."this rule applies without limitations because a Void Judgement CANNOT

gain VALIDITY simply by the passage of time.T"25

CONCLUSION: the Court should Grant Petition for Hearing/Or/Oral Arguements or

Relief out right for Prima facia showing.

Dated Dec. / <2022

Page 5

■PTvmbtm**? PS

By *

iZt.r'] bl*

^_____

Stephen Harmon Prose Petitioner

I J

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska

Stephen Joseph Harmon,

Appellant,

Court of Appeals No. A-13760

Order

Date of Order: 8/30/2022

State of Alaska,

Appellee.

Trial Court Case No. 4FA-13-02849CI

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.

On 7/18/2022, Stephen Hannon filed a Motion and Notice to the Court

pursuant to Appellate Rule 519.

f-'

Because Hannon has not identified a “clerical error” and because the relief

he requests (the voiding of the indictment, judgment, and for his immediate release from

incarceration) is not limited to the con'ection of a clerical error,

It is Ordered: The Motion and Notice is Denied.

Entered at the direction of the Court.

Cleric ofjtjie Appellate Courts

Ryan Montgomery1 Sythe,

Chief Deputy Clerk

Couit of Appeals Judges

Distribution:

cc:

Mail:

Hannon, Stephen Joseph

Email:

Simel, Nancy R.

i f

<§)

NOTICE

Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska

Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of

Court ofAppeals Decisions (Court ofAppeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this

memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authorityfor any proposition

of law, although it may be citedfor whatever persuasive value it may have. See

McCoy v. State. 80P.3d 757, 764 (Alaska App. 2002).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

STEPHEN JOSEPH HARMON,

Appellant,

Court of Appeals No. A-13760

Trial Court No. 4FA-13-02849 Cl

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STATE OF ALASKA,

Appellee.

No. 7013—June 22, 2022

Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District,

Fairbanks, Michael A. MacDonald, Judge.

Appearances: Stephen Harmon, in propria persona, Wasilla,

Appellant. Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office

of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney

General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.

Judge HARBISON.

Stephen Joseph Harmon appeals the superior court’s denial of his motion

to vacate his 1993 criminal judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b). For the reasons

explained in this opinion, we affirm the ruling of the superior court.

- fcpptwflSv “<S,'

• . «■

» ~ ■ A- ^ v\

yjvfftl

v y\o

'Q P QxJd ^

", t

-4

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

AT FAIRBANKS, ALASKA

: STATE:OF ALASKA t

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEPHEN HARMON,

Defendant.

)

«a!eofAteslcaiFp(^ District

)

OC T 2 6 1993

Case. No. 4FAS92-2481CR

AtN :

.................... Cjertc, 1 rial Courts

'---------- ——Deputy

RECORDS REVIEWED

DOB: ^6-/dr3/55- /Mh&J

DOV: 5/7/92

NOV 03 1993

FAIRBANKS, AK

■TUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT

INITIAISj

Pursuant to a verdict of GUILTY, the defendant was convicted of:

Count

Offense

Statute Violated

Murder First Degree

Sexual Assault First Degree

AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A)

AS 11.41.410(a)(1)(2)

The defendant came before the Court for sentencing on October 14,

1993, with his counsel, Robert Noreen and Harry Davis, the District

Attorney present. The defendant was given his right of allocution.

IT IS ORDERED the defendant is hereby committed to the care and

custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections for

the following period:

Count

Sentence

Suspended

99 years

30 years

None

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

Counts I & II are

presumptive term.

consecutive,

Count

aggravated

The defendant shall not be eligible for parole for 99 years.

TT3

1 ftpwufty W

STttjCC/?

£*!*.**

V\o

M AO

t..

»/

jt.

*'S'.

State Vs. Stephen Hannon

4FAS92-2481CR

Date Signed

October 14, 1993

Effective Date

I certify that on

°f this judgment was: sent

District. Attorney^ —. ,____

CLERK:

kj,e

Exhibit

AK?fney

DOC

FCC

DPS

Juneau

MISC /

t iSfi

Niesje J'.^Stei

uger

Superior Court"Judge

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASR*> ^ Tria

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS

SEP o

STATE OF ALASKA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEPHEN J. HARMON,

Defendant.

Case No. 4FA-S92-2481

)

' )

)

INDICTMENT FOR:

Count is

Murder in th% First Degree

AS 11.41.100(a)(1)(A)

Count II:

Sexual Assault in the

First Degree

AS 11.41.410(a)(1)(2)

cr.

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

CERTIFICATION

(2ULS3 This document and its attachments do not contain

SSft.. oourt

file under an exception listed in As 12.61.130(b). This

information appears at page(s)

. This

document and its attachments do not contain the name of a

victim of a crime listed in AS 12.61.140.

W-

COUNT I

That on or about May 15 or May 16, 1992, at or near

Fairbanks,

in the Fourth Judicial District ntata

.. _ ■

STEPHEN J. HARMON did unlawfully and intentionallycausethedea^

of Brenda Keehr, by stabbing her with a knife.

death

contrarv

„Wh <o!i if an unclassified felony offense being

SL" i}‘luS!.(*Hl1 <A> “a

^ <lk<vs*>CT S

bodtor uo^ - ap*

4fc-f/oAT /Aa.e k.

* -fc 4 - * ^

*•

* 9 — fcfr*

%* &£-~*W ^ '•

Jt )0 - **$

Party and Attorney Listing

STEPHEN HARMON

265620,

Petitioner,

Stephen Harmon

[Pro Se]

Goose Creek Correctional Center

22301 W Alsop Road

Wasilla, AK 99623

EARL HOUSER,

SUPERINTENDENT

Respondent,

LEGEND:

(R) - Restricted Document

(L) - Locked Document

Docket

Date Filed

Entry #

Public Docket Text

01/04/2023 1

' Application for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Second or Successive Petition.

[Entered: 01/04/2023 02:38 PM]

01/04/2023 2

CASE OPENED. Application for Leave to File Second or Successive § 2254 Petition

has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit on 1/3/2023.The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-14

has been assigned to this case. [Entered: 01/04/2023 02:40 PM]

01/04/2023 3

SOS DOCKETING NOTICE. Application for Permission to File a Second or

Successive Habeas Corpus Petition has been opened and assigned the Ninth

Circuit case number 23-14.

All subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will be added to your file to

be considered at the same time the cause is brought before the court.

The case number and the title of your case should be shown in the upper right

corner of any correspondence to the clerk's office, and should be directed to the

above address pursuant to Circuit Rule 25-1. [Entered: 01/04/2023 02:48 PM]

02/09/2023 4

CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Stephen Harmon. [Entered: 02/13/2023

09:55 AM]

02/21/2023 5<i

CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Stephen Harmon. [Entered: 02/23/2023

09:38 AM]

03/06/2023 6

CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Stephen Harmon. [Entered: 03/08/2023

12:18 PM]

(typtrt0T)£

04/03/2023 7

CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Stephen Harmon. [Entered: 04/05/2023

11:10AM]

0p<wM~n—^

05/15/2023 8

05/15/2023 9 ^3

CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Stephen Harmon. [Entered: 05/17/2023

10:10 AM]

CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Stephen Harmon. [Entered: 05/17/2023

10:14 AM]

05/30/2023

10**

ORDER FILEDJacqueline H. NGUYEN, Michelle T. FRIEDLAND, Jennifer SUNG

The motion to file a "Corrected Page #3" (included in Docket Entry No. 1) is

granted.

The applicant is informed that the time limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D) is

hortatory, not mandatory. See Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 765 (9th Cir.

2015).

The application to grant the district court authorization to entertain a motion

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is treated as an application for

authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus

petition. So treated and as supplemented by Docket Entry Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9,

the application is denied....To the extent that the applicant requests that this court

consider, in the first instance, whether he is entitled to relief under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b), we lack jurisdiction to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of

appeals "have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts

of the United States"); see also Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 838-40 (9th Cir. 2013)

(addressing merits of Rule 60(b) motion in first instance on appeal from dismissal

of Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive habeas petition); Phelps v.

Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1134-40 (9th Cir. 2009) (addressing merits of Rule 60(b)

motion in first instance on appeal from denial of motion for reconsideration of

dismissal of habeas petition).

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

No further filings will be entertained in this case.

DENIED. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [Entered: 05/30/2023 04:30 PM]

Docket as of 6/14/2023 2:21 PM

11 wvl%

TO: Clerk of Court (Molly C.Dwyer

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

P.O.Box 193939

San Francisco, California

94119-3939

From: Stephen Harmon-#265620

Goose Creek Correctional Cnt.

22301 west Alsop Rd.

Wasilla, Alaska 99623

Feb.6,2023

CASE Number

Case T itle:

23-14

Harmon v Houser

pursuant to Your/Court Docketting Notice of Jan.4,2023 to me

..."ALL subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will added to your file

to be considered at the same time the cause is brought before the Court..."

I here in file/submitt "furture correspondence on this matter and

ask that it be added to the file for the Court/Justice to consider

and apply in their determination and decision/judgement please.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I/Harmon certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to USCS 1746

that the "Furture correspondance requesting the Court to acdeppt

and place in file for the Court/Justice consideration and

application"

is true and correct and I mailed out the filings with first class

postage affixed to each m^i^ing (Court Clerk and Attorney Simel)

this date also signed

Date Feb.6,2023

iXviQrO. I

Stephen Harmon

Prose

Mailed to 9th cir Court/Clerk

P.O.Box 1193939

San Francisco, CA. 94119-3939

bo<y^

Attorney Simel

Dept, of Law

310 K Street----Ste.702

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

<2<3<s*-

9^ ~ {H

dr-<£C\ Oc \V/yvum 1/ )4^

Attn: Clerk of Court "MOLLY C. DWYER"

and

Attn: (3)Three Justices/Judges "&SIGNED" to this Case for Review &

Determination

Officer of Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

POST OFFICE BOX 193939

San Francisco, Californis 94119-3939

From: Stephen Hatmon-#265620

Goose Creek Correctional Center

22301 West Alsop Road

Wasilla, Alaska 99623

Feb. 6th, 2023

RE:

Question(s)/Reminder(s)/Request(s) of: [include "specificaly" of:

-oncecthe-Court determine this filing?&d have issued

ORDER- Respectfuly REMIND THE COURT OF"

0RDER7REMIND THE CLERK TO "comply with"

the Federal Statute Mandates i_n Recording

and Serving/Mailing out to litigants the ORDER

on Parties From the Court to Comply with

Federal Statute 28 USCS § 1691

fl I

•••

'ALL" writs and process issuing from a Court "COURT OF United

States "SHALL BE,k "Under Seal oFThe Court l'AND""t?sijijf)n

by the CLERK thereof.7."

CASE NO.: 23-14

CASE TILILE:

HARMON v HOUSER

Dear Clerk of Court Ms.Dwyer and Justices assigned to this Case;

l.A)- Has the Court Inadvertently over looked the "Time limit"

Mandated (pursuant to 28 USCS § @-@-M-( 3 ) ( d ) -reads)': Tc"

• • • "(d) The Coiiirt of Appeals "SHALL" Gmat or deny the authorization

to file a second or succesive application not later than

30 - days AFTER the Filing of the Motion..

See attached (Dockett Notice Dated "Filed Jan..4,2023;)

the 30-day limit goes up to FEB.3,2023 and any thing after that

not Sytautorly authorized and not in compliance with Federal law

Question is that not Correct/True Your Honors?

Page 1

DEFINED and OBTAINED;

• • • "Functions of Court and Clerk,

and its entry in the Judgement BOOK, wich

affords the HIGHEST RECORD OF EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE, IS BUT A

ministerial ACT OF THE CLERK, and which the "COURT" performs JUDICIALLY

OR ORDERS TO BE PERFORMED.

IT IS NOT TO BE AVOIDED BY ACTION OR WANT OF ACTION OF AND BY THE COURTS

MINISTERIAL OFFICERS. The Judgement is_ then RENDERED Final.

"This Determines"o the ’EIGHTS" "OF" "THE" "PARTIES "TO" "THE" "ACTION OR

PROCEEDING".

IT IS COMPLETE""" """WHEN* mu ....HITniti. t.mtjgittm """ENTERED AND RECORDED"""

mill iimigY1 tint unit

STATUE• Hill

"BY" "THE" """CLERK""" """AS •nut inn 'REQUIRED

• Mill

NOTE: STATUTE MANDATE is 28 USCS§ 1691 SEALS AND TESTE "PROCESS" and when it is not

complied with the FEDERAL LAW MANDTES and DEFINES following of is a Crime

by ALL Parties (i.e. CLERK of Court, Judges,Officers etc...) in

18 USCS 505SEALS OF COURT'S. SIGNATURES or COURT OFFICERS

• • • "WHO EVER forges

the signature of any Judge, register OR OTHER OFFICER of an

COURT of the United States or any Teritory or forges or countorfiets the SEAL

of ANY such Court or knowingly concurs in using "SEAL" for the PURPOSE OF

AiriHENTICATION ANY PROCEEDING OR TENDERES IN EVIDENCE ANY SUCH PROCEEDING OR

DOCUMENT WITH FALSE OR COUNTERFIEI "'"'"SIGNATURE""" of ANY such Judge, register

or other Officer "OR" a False or counterfiet OF THE COURT SUBSCRIBED OR

ATTACHED there to knowing such signture or Seal to be false or counterfiet

ftlfll

SHALL BE' Hill fined under this Title or IMPRISONED not more than (5)Five year

or BOTH..."

c/>f

-O'*

<?■

CONCLUSSION/REQUST RELIEF

£<£

a.) Request your Honors "Imediate and Lawfuly Attention and reslution

in/on this Matter and Reolving as soon as possible please.

. "ORDER" the CLERK OF COURT (Molly C.Dwyer) to record and issue the

Court's Dteremination Order on this Filing pursuant to minimum

Federal law Stautory Requirements of SEAL AND SIGNTURE of COURT

(or with phot copy of signature STAMPED)* ???

ONE FINAL NOTE:

a.) I Harmon have a constituional RIGHT to due proces (Inherent/lawfuly

BORN raised in the USA);

b.) I Harmon have a constitutional RIGHT to due process (EARNED as

served and Honorably discharged from Service [stood in line of

fire when call to,"MOSA"]; I Harmon am being denied ALL these RIGHTS

and Privilages and is Prejudical and subtantial/Subtantive denial

respectful v net

\;mi

V\ r\ 1 r-k

MV. J

•'TTL.__ -j/i

iu^r

•

■t i

Case: 23-14, 01/04/2023, DktEntry: 3.1, Page 1 of 1

fYYeAAojfe ^

Office of the Clerk

VaCui^ ?k*t (^/

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Post Office Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

415-355-8000

ILED

g. 3

i £

Molly C. Dwyer

\Clerk of Court

JAN 4 2023

'uJ f-r

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U S. COURT OF APPEALS

O* )

DOCKETING NOTICE

J) ?

<*?/

23-14

Harmon v. Houser

Case Number:

Case Title:

Dear Petitioner(s)/Counsel,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your Application for Permission to File a Second or

Successive Habeas Corpus Petition, which has been opened and assigned the abovelisted U.S. Court of Appeals case number.

All subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will be added to your file to be

considered at the same time the cause is brought before the court.

The Ninth Circuit case number and the title of your case should be clearly visible on

the first page of any correspondence to the clerk’s office, and should be directed to

the above address pursuant to Circuit Rule 25-1 if not electronically filed in ACMS.

=r.-yvk./

iu<mV

j , .

lyjfcC /’led); Ovv

fiJO-

(sSiterA ICie^L ------ a*. 'i$g£

{brCJLQ\&JL

,c-J

\\ CUL CQ.'vfluJ "

yvov

Vd±~ewool

”"^3^

C-, -v-i- c»

^W/vvvuvi \I

J)i CeKcfjFk i' kWtn/«-\

^^-CI0DL]^

^ooHsr

"TW ae^wc

iXe.fi c'c£ Qe)

-jLx C<*c

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

P.O.Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

'All Subsequent Correspondance regarding this Matter will be

added to your file to be considered at the same time the

same time the cause is brought before the Court."

v BASED-on

Pursuant to CLERKS Docketting Notice of Jan.4,2023

_o "File fere"of4Thus Plaintiff Harmon, request this "Subsequent correspondance be aadded and considered please to file before

the court of enclosed of:

"to assist in CLEARIFING any Confussion and or misunder

standing "WHY" the Plaintiff filed this "NEW & Independant

Action 'Rule 60(b)(4) and (d) Void Judgement Motion "INTO" yyythe Ninth Circuit instead of the District "Courthirst". /

Case Number : 23-14

Case Title:

Harmon v Houser

To Justices and Staff .reviewing & Considering this Cause/

filing before you; Respectfuly ask you accept and consider the

following please to "clearify any misunderstanding or possible

confussion may have on""Why" filed with you/9th Cir. instead of

"first" into the”TTis trie t Court

—

jLtnpW

1.) I/harmon am a prose litigant not feanded in:the law;

2. ) I/harmon read/found no rule/statute or case law to help

iinHfrs1~ar1^ nri "whgrp" to file a "New-Independant Action"

RuleSO(b)(4) &(d) Motion "State Court Lack Personal and

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Ln/over Harmon/^nd/Matters:.

non-carpoarce with stautarv Mandates ^Seal/festee erodinc i

3.) "TKe QUESTION" "foundational Question’oTT

...'Whether or not the Court (Alaska(s)) "LACKS PERSONAL"

"Jurisdiction" min AND Iftffl SUBJECT MATTERTr~nJurisdiction

"in and over Harmon and cause(s)" "HAS NOT EVER"

"ANSWERED AND OR DETERMINED" "BY" "ANY” State of Alask a

or Federalk Court(s)" "BASED ON"

the COURT:

a.) Obatining and providing the "EVIDENCE" to show

the COURT has obtained any "PERSONAL AND OR SUBJUECT MATTER JURISDICTION" thru "ORIGINALLY" or

subsequent proceedings(judgment/Orders/Indictment

etc.) by/thru compliance with the "MANDATED"

Page

1 of 2

'fHo

<L'

Page 2 of 2

"AS"

"SEALS and TESTEE" REQUIREMENTS/MANDATES to use apply ___

MANDATED "BY"'STATUTES"'(STATE!;) and (FEDEEALY), or is a crime also;

4.) "BEFORE (lawfuly) a Court can or should "TRY" to lawfuly

-- consirder'^lTi “t^Ye^use* j,and'~ap'Dlicai;l-anrm>f ~;anyr^par t -o f

—

28 USCS§ 2'244Tb)T2)(B)(i) &/or (ii)

Petitioner Harmon presents the Court "should"/"NEEDS TO" consider

rtwinyy.j ewed

1-ig-hfe-—o4^‘the—e\L.ind^nce-<«as*«a».»»h ol&

below "first alsp" or the Court woud:'not be-addreKsIhg'and then

d^efminirrthe "FOUNDATIONAL" "QUESTION" "FIRST" "OF"

..."The Court(s) LACKED (never obtained nor maintained any)

PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION in over Harmon

and the"7 Caus~es ( Judgement s~~and ORDERS) STAUTORYLY* ..."

"ONCE" the "Foundational QUESTION is asked and answered by "A"

COURT and "Finds'1 there was not and is not any " personal Jurisdiction

and Subject Matter Jurisdiction as KEQUlRED~nBY" Statutory use/

application of SEALS and TESTEE (EVIDENCE) on the Documents/filings

orders or judgements for "EyiDENCE ot such auhthority(Jurisdiction)

then the standard set out in 28USCS 2244(b)(2)(i) &(ii) have "SHOWN"

following o|2 CvfVtX etvj? o^r /\bT Pk^CtOiU U

777"W(i)Y.

------------ vof:

"A"RULE 60(b)(4)' Void Judgernnenl'“&“(d)NEW & Independant Action Motion "shows" that "does not"

apply or needed to be met by the Plaintiff Harmon

• • • "the factual predicate for the claim could not have

been discovered previously through the exercise of

due diligence... '

"WHY"

Harmon "is not" an attorney ignorant oflaw.and

Harmon "filed a Rule 60(b)(4)V0ID JUDGEMENT Motion

.) tthere is no time limit to file and

.) a "Void Judement cannot gain validity by the

passage of time;

9c.) "see" Vintent v Jenot Marine Alliance, S.A.191

F.Supp. 2d 642 detemined

• • • • "if a.-judgement-is.void for lack of personal jurisdiction,

theTcourt must~gg5nt Federal Ciy.R.b0(4)MDlTUN;

"WITHOUT" consideration of timelness, unfair prejudice or

exceptional circumstances • • •

"Summation and Request/Relief "

_ 1.) Court (9th Cir/Justices) here inaccept above and filing of Rule 60(b)(4)Void

Judgement (d)New Independant Action Motion in consideration and apply in its

consideration of filing/cause before it on the "ONE QUESTION" asking the

Court to be allowed to have asked and answered 1 'SPECIFICALLY'' of:(by the Court)of:

— c "DOES THE 00URT HAVE (state of Alaska) LACK PERSONAL JURISDICTION for non-compliance

obtaining thru Statutory Mandated 1 'SEALS/Tes tee"-1 ’EVIDENCE'' and LACKS SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION Also in on the Filings/causes for non-compliance with/obtainig

tittu^StatutOEv. Mandated V'SEALS/TESTEE'’EVIDENCE'' T"IF FIND" does ggELACKS Personal

ana ouoject matter'TJurisdictioh ihen Grant the VoTding the ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS of: 3^

LS*^.-Attch-#l(12/19/22),Attehment #2 Exhibit Letter "B" and Exhibit "C'Vand with prejudice.

Respectfuly file date Feb2023

signed

<p(ruAA£) a ^_______________

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

P.O.Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

'•vV,

"SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDANCE REQUESTING TO CONSIDER BY THE COURT"

CASE Number:

Harmon

CASE Title:

Houser

Back ground for Request :

#1.)-This filing was DOCKETED on^xy\.Mf^t)^

by th CLERK OFFICE;

#2.)-The Federal Statue "MANDATES" in/pursuant to :

28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(d)

. .."(d) The Court of Appeals "SHALL" Grant or deny the authorization to file

a second or successive application not later than 30-days "AFTER" the

Filing of the Motion..."

#3. )-The United States SUPREME COURT Determined and INSTRUCTS (applies? to this Court

comply WITH) ofT

. ..""A" "COURT" "OF" "THE" "U.S.".. ."A OOPURT MUST ADHERE TO

"STATUTORY" "TEXT"..."

(Nasarallah v Barr 140 Supreme Court 1683)

#4.)-The United States SUPREME COURT Determined and INSTRUCTS (applies to this Court

comply WITH) of:

• • .""NO"

•T

"U.S.JUDGE" "HAS ft t ‘THE" "POWER" "TO" ''REWRITE'"'RULES"

"JUDICIAL

ft If

ttlft

•gY""19

nnERPRErmoN"..."

(Harris v Nelson 394 U.S.SUPREME COURT 1082 22 L.ED 2d 181)

#5.)-'‘TODAY’S Date IS: XY\o(CK SS\ ^^3

J REQUEST #1) I/Harmon ask/request this Court/Justices "imediate attention and resolution

J ■______ IJI? determiation" in/on this Filing ; Please. (?-the Court is inviolation ofFederal Law

■x

thus is or has brought the Court into "Question" has it not your Honors?)

t)REQUEST #2.) I/Harmon ask this Court to inforce the Compliance with Federal Statue

—

— . 28 U.S.S.§ 1691 SEALS AND TESTEE Mandated use and application on "ALL"

WRITS and PROCEEDINGS ; "when it issues the ORDER/Determination on this

filing nn Hasp N*

reads

•

"ALL" Writs and process issuing from a Court f Court of United States "SHALL BE"

under SEAL of the Court "AND"-SIGND BY THE CLERK THEREOF..."

-------- —

Page 1 of 2

<ai

This Request is BASED ON Federal Statute that DEFINES it a crime

"BY" the CLERK and Court Officers (i.e Judges includes also) reads:

18 U.S.C. 505 SEALS of Court's; SIGNATURES or COURT OFFICERS

• • • "WHO EVER forges the signature of any_ judge _j_ register or other officer of any

court of tile United States or an^ Teritory or forges or "OOUNTERFIETS" the

SEAL of any such Court, or KNOWINGLY CONCURS IN using any such forged or counterfiet

signature or Seal, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHENTICATING ANY PROCEEDING OR DOCUMNET

WITH FALSE OR COUNTERFIET Signature of any such Judge, register, or other

officer or a false or counter fiet of the Court, SUBSCRIBED or ATTACHED

THERTO Knowing such signature or Seal to be false or counterfiet. SHALL BE

fined under this title or IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BOTCH. C."

Based on the Request also: tc

(

■. 3S.Sv.-OL

Co.aaL

"(Ws

The ORDER/Decision WITHOUT compliancej also is nollawfuly filed or recorded

as mandatd by statute and thus the Court has not issue "either" any Order/Decision •+- J £

than has lawful" binding effect pursuant to

«) 1 y

& Xt

Federal Courts Determined that it is required of the Clerk and Court or

ORDER by the Court to be done so as to have authority/rights to the Parties

in Brown v Superior Court of L.A. Cal.App. 732 (Ca)(3)(3)(Id)

? 11

determined/reads:

<U £

»-

■%

• • • "FUNCTIONS OF COURT AND CLERK and its entry in the judgement BOOK, which

affords the HIGHEST RECORD OF "EVIDENCE" of its Existence, is but a

Ministrial ACT OF the Clerk, and which the "COURT" performs JUDICIALLY

OR ORDERS TO BE PERFORMED.

£ .1

•)

It is not to be avoided by action or want of action of and by the Courts -P v

•k _ r

Ministerial OFFICERS. THE JUDGEMENT IS THEM RENDERD FINAL.

"THIS DETERMINES" 'THE" "RIGHTS" "OF" "THE" "PARTIES" ’TO" "THE" "ACTION* .

"OR" "PROCEEDING"

IMIltjrp* Hill

MIMI

IS""" """COMPLETEIff Iff """WHEN* Will fffffV IS"" """ ENTERED •mil mittANDtil in

tint

’RECORDED""" """by* Will fftll The""" iffiffCLERKllllll tflfffAS""" """REQUIREDtit tit

tit it tgY""" fffttt

STAUTEfffitt • • • " (emphisis please add)

I/Harmon Respectfuly Request the Court's Imediate Attention and

resolution/decision in on this Filing please and compliance with

the SEAL and TESTEE

requriements for proceedings.

signed _

5*v«4kv

tepften Harmon

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

P.O.Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

"SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDANCE REQUESTING TO CONSIDER BY THE COURT"

CASE Number:

CASE Title:

Harmon

Houser

Back ground for Request :

#1.)-This filing was DOCKETED

by th CLERK OFFICE;

#2.)-The Federal Statue "MANDATES" in/pursuant to :

28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(d)

..."(d) The Court of Appeals "SHALL" Grant or deny the authorization to file

a second or successive application not later than 30-days "AFTER" the

Filing of the Motion..."

#3.)-The United States SUPREME COURT Determined and INSTRUCTS (applies? to this Court

comply WITH) of7

. ..""A" "OOURT" "OF" "THE" "U.S."..."A OOPURT MUST ADHERE TO

"STATUTORY" "TEXT"..."

(Nasarallah v Barr 140 Supreme Court 1683)

#4. )-The United States SUPREME COURT Determined and INSTRUCTS (applies to this Court

comply WITH) of:

Itfff

’BY' uni

* • • ""NO':' "U.S.JUDGE" "HAS" 'THE" "POWER" "TO" "REWRITE""RULES"

"JUDICIAL" "INTERPRETATION"..."

(Harris v Nelson 394 U.S.SUPREME COURT 1082 22 L.ED 2d 181)

#5.)-'Today's Date IS:

pr\(Yf 4^ friA

■A REQUEST #1) I/Harmon ask/request this Court/Justices "imediate attention and resolution

^determiation" in/on this Filing ; Please. (?-the Court is inviolation ofFederal Law

-x------------ thus is or has brought the Court into "Question" has it not your Honors?)

n REQUEST #2.) I/Harmon ask this Court to inforce the Compliance with Federal Statue

----------- 28 U.S.S.§ 1691 SEALS AND TESTEE Mandated use and application on "ALL"

WRITS and PROCEEDINGS : "when it issues the ORDER/Determination on this

filing on Case No.,.^~ii \ ^

’

reads • • • "ALL" Writs and process issuing from a Court £ Court of United States "SHALL BE"

under SEAL of the Court "AND" SIGNB BY THE CLERK THEREOF • • •

Page 1 of 2

This Request is B^SED ON Federal Statute that DEFINES it a

_ffl* the CLERK and Court Officers (i.e Judges includes also) reads:

18 U.S.C. 505 SEALS of Court's; SIGNATURES or COURT OFFICERS

.. /'WHO EVER forges the signature of any judge _j_ register or other officer of

court °f the United States or any Teritory or forges or "OOUNTERFIETS" the

SEAL of any such Court, or KNOWINGLY CONCURS IN using any such forged or counterfiet s

signature or Seal, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHENTICATING ANY PROCEEDING OR DOCUMNET

WLIH FALSE OR COUNTEKFIET Signature of any such Judge, register, or other

officer or a false or counter fiet of the Court, SUBSCRIBED or ATTACHED

THERTO Knowing such signature or Seal to be false or counterfiet. SHALL BE

_fined under this title or IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BOTH.,."

Based on the Request also:

0 3

3 dp

iA^e^Sic^/c<<Ld£cr'

IWs

cXJ

The ORDER/Decision WITHOUT compliance ( also is noTlawfuly filed or recorded

ct>

as mandatd by statute and thus the Court has not issue "either" any Order/Decision

than has rejlawful" binding effect pursuant to

'Ml

Federal Courts Determined that it is required of the Clerk and Court or

V ORDER by the Court to be done so as to have authority/rights to the Parties

•«4-n Brown v Superior Court of L.A. Cal.App. 732 (Ca)(3)(3)(Id)

«*>•

P* determined/reads:

• • • "FUNCTIONS OF COURT AND CLERK and its entry in the judgement BOOK, which

jr>

affords the HIGHEST RECORD OF "EVIDENCE" of its Existence, is but a

Ministrial ACT OF the Clerk, and which the "COURT" performs JUDICIALLY

OR ORDERS TO BE PERFORMED.

It is not to be avoided by action or want of action of and by the Courts

Ministerial OFFICERS. THE JUDGEMENT IS THEN RENDERD FINAL.

"THIS DETERMINES" "THE" "RIGHTS" "OF" "THE" ,T>ARTTF.q" "to" "THE" "ACTION"

"OR" "PROCEEDING"

•tyiijij* tint milt

inn

IS""" """COMPLETEHI Ilf /'""WHEN* tinv film jgiiii iiim ENTEREDnun tiiiiiANDmill

•RECORDED""" """BY1 Mill Hill ‘THE""" minCLERKmin minAS""" """REQUIREDmni

tint »gY1,,|f|

(tim

STAUTEmnt • • • " (emphisis please add)

I/Harmon Respectfuly Request the Court's Imediate Attention and

resolution/decision in on this Filing please and Compliance with

the SEAL and TESTEE

reauriements for proceedings

— T^S

jiaJc*

signed _

en Iiarmfcn

vaoc.

i “T j v/v// \j\ji

) i_y r\LL_i my.

iu. i,

\^»l £.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAY 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS .

STEPHEN HARMON,

No. 23-14

Applicant,

ORDER

EARL HOUSER, Superintendent,

Respondent.

Before: NGUYEN, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

The motion to file a “Corrected Page #3” (included in Docket Entry

No. 1) is granted.

The applicant is informed that the time limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D)

is hortatory, not mandatory. See Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 765 (9th

Cir. 2015).

The application to grant the district court authorization to entertain a

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is treated as an

application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas corpus petition. So treated and as supplemented by Docket Entry Nos.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the application is denied. The applicant has not made a

prima facie showing under § 2244(b)(2) that:

(A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable; or

waoc. £-kJ~ i ~r, \j\ji \j\ji

uiul.1 111 y .

v/. i , i aye c. wi e-