Petition for Writ of Certiorari — James Stuart Faller, II, Petitioner v. Department of Justice, et al.

No. 25-

Sn the

Supreme Court of the Anited States

of PIG DIN o

JAMES STUART FALLER, II,

Petitioner,

Vv.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

Respondents.

’

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

James Stuart Faller, IT

Petitioner Pro Se

P.O. Box 121

Edgefield, SC 29824

(706) 564 6265

jsfaller@jsfii.com

November 6, 2025

SUPREME COURT PRESS + (888) 958-5705 + BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether persistent and categorical judicial bias

and procedural disregard toward pro se litigants,

resulting in dismissal despite detailed factual pleadings

and sworn evidence, violates the guarantees of due

process and equal protection under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments.

2. Whether absolute and qualified immunity

doctrines should extend to state and federal officials

whose actions—including false indictments, fabricated

evidence, witness abduction, intentional Brady violations! and extrajudicial violence—constitute conduct

outside any lawful scope and undertaken in personal

or retaliatory capacities.

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1968).

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner

James Stuart Faller, IT

Respondents

United States Department of Justice

Unknown Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents

Unknown Internal Revenue Service Agents

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through Governor

Andy Beshear

iii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

No. 24-5955

James Stuart Faller II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

Department of Justice, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.

Final Order: June 25, 2025

Rehearing Denial: August 8, 2025

U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Kentucky, Louisville Division

No. 3:23-ev-526-BJB

James Stuart Faller, II, Plaintiff, v. United States

Department of Justice, Et Al., Defendants.

Final Judgment: October 1, 2024

Commonwealth of Kentucky, 40th Judicial Circuit,

Russell Circuit Court

Indictment No. 06-CR-00102

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Plaintiff, v.

James S. Faller II, Defendant.

Final Order: February 22, 2023

lv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED...........ceccccessceseeeeeereneees i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS .......cccccceeeeeeee il

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS ....0.......:ccccccesseceseessecesscerens ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES cuecuncnsrennumrvarcumeaces vil

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI............. 1

OPINIONS BELOW .........ccccccccesscceeessceenecceesserenseeeaee 1

JURISDICTION... cccccccescceceseceeeessssssssssserenseeees 2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED...... 2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........ccecccccesccsssseeseseseeeees 3

STATEMENTOF'THE,.CASE.....:sessmensesccmevcsncncweusasys 4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.......... |

I. The Petition Raises a Recurrent and

Unresolved Constitutional Issue: Whether

Judicial and Institutional Bias Against

Pro Se Litigants Violates Due Process and

Equal Protection .......cccccccccccsesscssccccesesestcerensnace 7

II. The Lower Courts’ Use of Immunity

Doctrines Conflicts with Precedent

Limiting Their Scope ..............cccseceseeeseeseeeeeeveee 8

III. The Case Offers Clear Record Evidence

and a Federal Question of Exceptional

Im portance csssaxsairiesessccteciccsitsesereerorscoonnentenranenes 9

IV. National Uniformity Requires Supreme

Court Resolution ............:::ccceessceeeeesssceersceeeees 10

REDIF SOUGELCT........ sccscsssssosenananateusnnanconerssenansss 11

Vv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Order, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit (June 25, 2025) 0... ceeeesecseeeeeee

Judgment, U.S. District Court for the Western

District of Kentucky, Louisville Division

(October 1, 2024) ssssssvcssssseussscsccaacentessansteesneises

Memorandum Opinion & Order, U.S. District

Court for the Western District of Kentucky,

Louisville Division (September 30, 2024)......

Order Dismissing Case, Commonwealth of

Kentucky 40th Judicial Circuit

(Notice January 19, 2023;

Entered February 22, 2028)........cccccssseseseeeees

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Indictment

with Prejudice (October 13, 2021) .........cc.

REHEARING ORDERS

Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

(August 8, 2025) sgesisvsssenccssszsrcsotsmvessememieonse

Page

v1

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Complaint, U.S. District Court for the Western

District of Kentucky Louisville Division

(October 12,. 2023) wssccccneseepuewenpueassscsmstaececimece, 40a

Ix. A. Letter from Senator Adrienne

Southworth to Justice Kavanaugh

(August 24, 2022) oo...cccccccccsccsccsecssccsecescessceseees 68a

Unsworn Declaration of John Doe

(February 17, 2021) ccsscsvsscesupasguruesscnieooen, 72a

Sworn Affirmation of Judge Ray Corns

(December 29, 2015)... .ececcsssesscessesseceseceesees 75a

Affidavit of Vincent Aprile

(April 20, 2006) sscvsswsusspusenaresecirvepsaeeneneoeemeceosrons 79a

Sworn Attestation of Robert L. Bertram

(June 12, 2007) ssissucacsvicerivitessencoeerconcenerrmeexoneecos 9la

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

403 U.S. 888 (1971) ceseccccsecsecsessesecsessecsessveseee 3, 10

Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83 (1968) oc ccecsesseceeeessessscecsenssececeees 1

Carlson v. Green,

446 U.S. 14 (1980) ceeccccccssessessessesessessessesseeseeeveees 10

Dennis v. Sparks,

4AQ U.S. 24 (1980) cceccccccsecsecsecsessecsecssesesecseseceseees 9

Egbert v. Boule,

B96 U.S. 482 (2022) ...ccccsessecsecsessesecseesecsessessesees 10

Forrester v. White,

484 U.S. 219 (1988) scccwsccisscancusseewenesnspensebsccerseots 6, 8

Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519 (1972) voce ccccececeeseeseversseeeees 6, 7

Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800 (1982) ........ccccssccsseecssecesvecseccceceeees 9

Marbury v. Madison,

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1808) ooo. eeeeeeeeseeeeeeseees 9

Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 819 (1976) oo. ccccccccccccccceceeccececeeeesseenscees 7

Pulliam v. Allen,

466 U.S. 522 (1984) .oececcescccsesseesecsesseesesseceeeveres 6, 8

Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349 (1978) v.ecceccccsessessessececsessessessececereeses 8

Vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. amend. V........ccccccccccccseeeeesseecesetseeceeseees 1, 2

U.S. Const. amend. XIV... ceeeeceseceeeceeeseeeecseeeece 1,3

STATUTES

2B U.S.C. § 1254 (1) ccecceccscsscossesssecsrsessssessesseseeseseeveseeves 2

A2 U.S.C, § 1983 .........0..coenssvecsssesscunancarcupsetoawiasaventsvhs 3

AZ U.S.C. § 198 Ssssssccssccecasssagsaccsseassenenencecennnrecepeeonereess 3

Federal Tort Claims Act ...........cccccccssesscccccseceseceseeececes 3

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Special Dedication: The undersigned became

associated with United States Justice Richard Posner

when Justice Posner began assisting pro se’s. Justice

Posner and the Petitioner (“Faller”) were first in contact

when Faller reached Justice Posner from prison as a

falsely convicted victim. Justice Posner was cited as

saying in multiple venues; “pro se’s are treated like

trash, not worth the Court’s time.” As will become clear

in this review, there is a substantial trend of horrific

mistreatment of pro se’s which has become deadly in

the instant matter. Sadly, Justice Posner has fallen ill

to Alzheimer’s. The instant Petition is dedicated to his

work and assistance to remedy what pro se litigants

suffer in the Judicial system in our great nation.

According to Justice Posner, “there has never been a

more profound example of why the laws need to be

revised regarding pro se’s and government and Judicial

misconduct,” than the instant matter. Simply put and

from direct experience, the current laws put forth by

this Court regarding pro se’s are rarely followed and

do not provide a remedy when violated. But for the

work and dedication of Justice Richard A. Posner, the

undersigned and many like him would be helpless.

—iR2—

OPINIONS BELOW

On June 25, 2025, United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit, issued an Order, which is un

published and is reproduced in the appendix at App. 1a.

The Opinion & Order of the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, dated

September 30, 2024, is reproduced in the appendix

at App.8a. The district court entered judgment the

next day on October 1, 2024. App.7a.

2

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1). The judgment of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was entered on June 25th,

2025, and a petition for rehearing was timely filed on

June 30th 2025, and was denied on August 8th, 2025.

App.38a. This petition is timely filed within 90 days of

the order denying rehearing.

2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. Const. amend. V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in

cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the

Militia, when in actual service in time of War or

public danger; nor shall any person be subject for

the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life

or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor shall private property be taken

for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are

citizens of the United States and of the state

wherein they reside. No state shall make or

enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor

shall any 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.

—~B—

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner James Stuart Faller II timely filed his

civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Kentucky (Case No. 3:23-cv-526-

BJB), asserting violations under Bivens, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983, 1985, and the Federal Tort Claims Act,

alleging decades of government retaliation following

protected whistleblower speech.

The district court dismissed for untimeliness and

failure to state a claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed

(Case No. 24-5955) (App.1a), holding that the claims

were barred by sovereign immunity, not cognizable

under existing Bivens contexts, and outside the statute

of limitations. The Courts below erroneously applied

time calculations pled by the Defendants, despite absolute proof that the matter was timely promulgated by

the Prose Plaintiff. The lower courts disregarded the

factual record presented by the pro se petitioner and

adopted the erroneous pleadings of the state.

The panel did not grant argument and declined

publication.

—Y—

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Petitioner is a whistleblower and was attacked in a coordinated effort of both state and Federal

actors, keeping the Petitioner under (7) seven separate

false indictments for more than (27) twenty-seven

years. The retaliation campaign included physical

threats and intimidation causing grave personal losses,

including the deaths of two children and Petitioner’s

spouse by continual attacks and threats of government

actors, refusal to provide medical care of the Petitioner

while in prison—intending on letting the Petitioner die.

The Petitioner alleged a continuous pattern of

misconduct by federal and state officials spanning

three decades, including (7) seven separate wrongful

indictments, fabricated charges, illegal searches, imprisonment without probable cause, threats, and the

resulting deaths and injuries to family members.

Despite detailed documentation and sworn affidavits from state and federal officials corroborating

misconduct, the courts below dismissed the action,

repeatedly invoking doctrines of sovereign and qualified

immunity without considering whether the underlying

acts served any legitimate public function. The district

court dismissed and ignored a corroborating letter

from a state senator submitted as part of the record

asking for Justice Kavanaugh to intervene with his

supervisory role over the Sixth Circuit due to what

became substantiated judicial misconduct. That letter

was repeatedly blocked and apparently never reached

the supervising Justice.

In the record, a letter from Kentucky State Senator

Adrienne Southworth to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh

requested supervisory review of petitioner’s cases due

to documented evidence of official misconduct. (R. 1,

Complaint, Ex. A; CA6 Docket No. 24-5955, T.R. 31,

Ex. 2.) (App.68a)

A key factual admission within the record demonstrates that even agencies of the same federal government recognized the unlawful nature of these actions.

Petitioner pleaded—and documentary record supports

—that the Augusta, Georgia FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia

intervened in 2020 to stop another “false, hostile arrest”

and “put an end to the carnage.” (R. 1, Compl. 3-4,

W.D. Ky. No. 3:23-cv-526-BJB; App.42a). The record

further recounts that after internal investigation, the

Augusta FBI declined participation in the Louisville

office’s directives, instead assuring Petitioner, “we

checked you out, you're a really good guy and you don’t

deserve any of this.” (Id. at 4; App.4a).

e The record’s acknowledgment that the

Augusta, Georgia FBI intervened to stop

unlawful arrests underscores governmental

recognition that Petitioner’s treatment violated basic due process protections. Yet the

courts below refused to credit or analyze that

evidence. (R. 1, Compl. 3-4; App.42a-43a)

Despite the intervention of the Augusta FBI and

United States Attorney, stopping Petitioner’s arrest

on a seventh false indictment, the Court below ignored

this Court’s directive in Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522

(1984) (limits on judicial immunity when declaratory

or injunctive relief justified) and Forrester v. White,

484 U.S. 219 (1988) (distinguishing judicial acts from

administrative misconduct).

This unique factual admission—embodied in the

district court record—confirms both the inter-agency

recognition of illegal acts and the refusal by one federal

office to continue a pattern of misconduct initiated by

another. Despite these critical evidentiary statements,

the courts below neither acknowledged nor evaluated

them, instead summarily dismissing the entire pleading under the doctrines of sovereign and qualified

immunity.

By disregarding these sworn allegations—supported by official correspondence and testimony—the

lower courts effectively transformed the judicial shield

of immunity into an instrument of impunity. The

decision leaves no forum available to review or remedy

misconduct that even federal law enforcement deemed

impermissible and unlawful.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision effectively immunizes

conduct that—if true—constitutes criminal acts under

federal law, and forecloses review because the plaintiff

appeared pro se, contrary to Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519 (1972). Extensive record evidence confirms

that when Petitioner attempted to retain counsel,

those attorneys were threatened—further evidencing

obstruction of access to courts.

—e—

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This petition raises constitutional questions of

national significance concerning (1) systemic bias and

procedural exclusion of pro se litigants in lower federal

courts, and (2) the continuing expansion of absolute

and qualified immunity doctrines beyond their lawful

and constitutional boundaries. Both issues demand

this Court’s review to restore access to justice and

preserve the essential limits of government authority.

I. The Petition Raises a Recurrent and

Unresolved Constitutional Issue: Whether

Judicial and Institutional Bias Against Pro

Se Litigants Violates Due Process and Equal

Protection

The record demonstrates that petitioner’s filings,

exhibits, and sworn statements were disregarded solely

because he appeared pro se. This practice, increasingly

common across circuits, conflicts with this Court’s

precedent that pro se pleadings must be “liberally

construed” and given meaningful factual consideration.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Dismissal

without analysis of evidence—especially evidence of

official retaliation—reduces the constitutional promise

of access to courts to a mere formality.

Lower courts’ hostility toward pro se parties has

become a structural barrier to justice that undermines

equal protection under the law. Where orders are

routinely issued “without oral argument,” as here

(CA6 No. 24-5955; App.1la), the system itself denies

bro se citizens procedural due process as required by

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The

fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard... ata meaningful time and in a

meaningful manner.”).

This Court’s review is warranted to reaffirm that

the Constitution does not permit judicial bias based

on representation status and that every litigant—

regardless of wealth or counsel—retains the right to

fair adjudication.

II. The Lower Courts’ Use of Immunity

Doctrines Conflicts with Precedent Limiting

Their Scope

The courts below relied on sovereign and qualified immunity to dismiss petitioner’s claims, even

where the alleged actions fell entirely outside lawful

authority. The Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicts with

this Court’s own clarifications in Forrester v. White,

484 U.S. 219 (1988), that judicial immunity does not

extend to administrative, investigative, or retaliatory

acts, and in Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), that

immunity cannot be used to bar prospective relief

where constitutional violations persist. See also: Stump

v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) clarifying the

contrast between protected and ultra vires acts.

The Petitioner presented unrebutted factual assertions that multiple officials fabricated evidence, initiated retaliatory indictments, kidnapped a key witness

and attempted unlawful arrests. The record recounts

that even federal agencies recognized these violations:

the Augusta, Georgia FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office

intervened in 2020 to stop a “false, hostile arrest,”

acknowledging petitioner “did not deserve any of this.”

(R. 1, Compl. 3-4, W.D. Ky. No. 3:23-cv-526-Bu B; App.

43a).

Such conduct cannot be considered discretionary

or protected by immunity—it is precisely the type of

extra-constitutional abuse these doctrines were never

intended to shield. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24

(1980).

By extending immunity to officials acting with

personal or retaliatory motives, the Sixth Circuit’s

decision transforms legal protections into impunity,

contrary to separation-of-powers principles and this

Court’s stated limits in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.

800 (1982).

III. The Case Offers Clear Record Evidence and

a Federal Question of Exceptional

Importance

This case presents a rare, documented instance of

one federal office (Augusta FBI) acknowledging and

halting illegal acts by another, and of a state

senator—Kentucky Senator Adrienne Southworth—

formally appealing to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh for

oversight due to confirmed corruption in petitioner’s

proceedings. (R. 1, Ex. A; CA6 T.R. 31, Ex. 2; App.68a).

The courts below ignored both documents despite

their relevance to petitioner’s constitutional claims of

government retaliation and denial of access to an

impartial forum.

These failures reveal a constitutional vulnerability

that this Court alone can resolve: when immunity and

institutional bias converge to foreclose review,

citizens lose every form of lawful remedy—contrary to

the principle articulated in Marbury v. Madison, 5

U.S. (1 Cranch) 187 (1808), that “where there is a legal

right, there must be a legal remedy.” Absent this

Court’s intervention, a rule of law emerges wherein

10

citizens wronged by federal officers have rights without

remedies, contradicting the constitutional maxim that

the United States is a government of laws, not of men.

IV. National Uniformity Requires Supreme

Court Resolution

This Court should grant review to resolve inconsistent applications of Bivens? and immunity doctrines

among the circuits following Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S.

482 (2022); "Bivens remains a viable remedy where

federal officials commit constitutional violations outside

the scope of authorized duties, as recognized in Carlson

v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).” The Sixth Circuit’s categorical expansion of immunity conflicts with the Ninth

and Tenth Circuits, which maintain that immunity

does not protect acts clearly outside the scope of

governmental duties. The Court’s intervention is indispensable to restore uniformity and to reaffirm that

government actors cannot evade accountability for

constitutional violations under the guise of immunity

or institutional deference.

For these reasons, the petition for a writ of

certiorari should be granted.

2 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

11

=

RELIEF SOUGHT

Petitioner respectfully seeks the issuance of a writ

of certiorari to review whether systemic disregard of

pro se litigants and the expansion of immunity violate

due process and the equal protection guarantees of the

Constitution of the United States of America. The

Petitioner also requests that he be allowed to argue the

instant matter. As Justice Posner so stated, “No one

has ever seen this kind of thing and you have somehow

overcome the attacks.”

Respectfully submitted,

James Stuart Faller, IT

Petitioner Pro Se

P.O. Box 121

Edgefield, SC 29824

(706) 564 6265

jsfaller@jsfii.com

November 6, 2025