Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Wesley Mark Sudbury, Petitioner v. United States

J.;

jh-.

No.

Supreme Court,

FILED

~

NOV - 3 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Wesley Sudbury______ — PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

United States of America

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

_______________ 9th Circuit Court of Appeals-------------------------(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Wesley Sudbury_______________________

(Your Name)

1255 E. Ridgemeadow lane #6b-------------------(Address)

Cottonwood heights, Ut 84047_____________

(City, State, Zip Code)

j(S01X834=2193__

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. Whether a mandatory statute enacted by Congress to protect an important

fundamental right titled Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or

oral communications, coupled with another mandatory statute titled Litigation

concerning sources of evidence, are being uniformly applied as Congress

intended.

2. When 18 USC 3504 is invoked, what is the burden on the defendant, and what

is the burden on the Government.

3. Have additional burdens to section 3504, not intended by Congress, been

given to defendants.

LIST OF PARTIES

b<] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

* United States v. Wesley Mark Sudbury, No. 12374820,9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judgment entered Feb 18,2022.

* United States v. Wesley Mark Sudbury, No. 9680, U.S. District Court for the District of

Hawaii. Judgment entered Sept. 27,2022.

* United States v. Wesley Mark Sudbury, No. 12931167,9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judgment entered June 6,2025.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

..-.2

JURISDICTION................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................................. .4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

................................................... Z

CONCLUSION................................... .............................................. ......................13

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

APPENDIX B Decision of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii

APPENDIX C Extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960)

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States,489 U.S. 794,798 (1989)

Gelbard v. United States, 408 US 41 - Supreme Court 1972.

United States v. Alvillar, 575F.2d 1316,1321 (10th Cir. 1978)

United States v. Apple, 915 G.2d 899, 905-06 (4th Cir. 1990)

Supreme Court case # 10-418 (under seal)

United Sates v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973)

United States v. See, 505 F.2d 845, 855-56 (9th Cir. 1974)

United States v. Vielguth, 502 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1974)

re Evans, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 310,452F.2d 1239,1247 (1971)

United States v. Toscanino, 500 F .2d 267 (1971)

5

6

7,9

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

STATUTES AND RULES

18 U.S.C. 3504

18U.S.C. 2515

*

I.

i

I

OTHER

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

1X1 For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix A----- to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at----------------------------------------------------—; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

XI is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix JB----- to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at--------------------------------------------------- —; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

XI is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

........ -..........

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the---------------------------------------------- ——— court

appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

....................

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

JURISDICTION

IX] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was 06/06/2025

_

DO No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

_ _ —, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix---------

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on--------------------- .—- (date)

in Application No. A--------The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. §1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was-----------------A copy of that decision appears at Appendix---------

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on---------------- (date) in

Application No. A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1.18 USC 2515. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications

"Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of

the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may

be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or

before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body,

legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a

political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in

violation of this chapter." 18 USC 2515.

2.18 USC 3504. Litigation concerning sources of evidence.

(a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand

jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the

United States

(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it

is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the

exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or

deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act;

(b) As used in this section "unlawful act" means any act the use of any

electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section2510(5)of this

title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any

regulation or standard promulgated pursuant thereto.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mr. Sudbury was a pretrial detainee in the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu, Hawaii for

seven years. He has no prior criminal record and was working sincerely with the THC Ministry,

founded and run by Codefendant Roger Christie, and Oklevueha NAC in spiritually minded

Ministry. The THC Ministry operated, providing religious ceremonies, along with medical and

spiritual Cannabis 2/2004-7/2010,6 years in downtown Hilo, Hawaii, with open

dialogue with local and federal law enforcement, and was seen largely as a benefit to the

community.

As an indigent criminal defendant, Sudbury was appointed a number of attorneys in those

seven years, but only his most recent attorney developed the discovery and found that three

affidavits filed in federal court, in application for search warrants to intercept and record

conversations, admitted the evidence used for the warrants was intentionally obtained unlawfully,

in intentional violation of federal statutes, and in intentional violation of state statutes.

Mr. Sudbury, through counsel, filed a motion for relief under Title 18 U.S.C. 3504(a)(1), as the

party aggrieved, and made the claim that all the evidence against him in this criminal proceeding

is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawfol act or because it was obtained by

the exploitation of an unlawful act.

This evidence was discovered in the three affidavits in support of the federal electronic

surveillance search warrants, sworn to by DEA Agent Sze. The affidavits indicated the only

information Agent Sze had, in applying for the search warrants, was information from a person

hired by (HCPD) Hawaii County Police Department, working for financial compensation only, as

an individual, to intentionally invade the private areas of the home and private areas of the

4.

church, and surreptitiously record conversations, photograph, and video, everyone there without

their knowledge or consent, knowing at the time that it intentionally violated Hawaii revised

statutes, and the Hawaii Constitution, and intentionally violated Federal Criminal Statutes, and

the Constitution of the United States. The affidavits admitted this was conducted without search

warrants, and without requesting any authority to apply for search warrants.

The affidavits admitted the evidence was unlawfully obtained by the person working for the

State as an individual, working for compensation only, and turned over to the DEA Agent to use in

applying for the three federal search warrants to intercept wire and oral communications.

The use of this evidence was prohibited by the Supreme Court, in the decision overturning the

silver platter doctrine, where evidence unlawfully obtained by the state was turned over the to the

United States to use in a federal case. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).

Mr. Sudbury moved the District Court, under Title 18 USC 3504(A)(1 )for an order requiring

that the Government shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful acts, that the DEA

Agent had admitted in the affidavits in support of the search warrants.

The Court issued an order denying the request. The order was confusing to Mr. Sudbury

because of certain specific statements the Court included in the order. These statements included

the court's addition of new requirements that were not included in the statute. Mr. Sudbury filed a

motion in which he requested clarification from the court as to specific statements the

court included in the order. This motion was also denied. Mr. Sudbury included in each motion a

request that the court certify the questions for interlocutory appeal. The court declined to certify

the orders for interlocutory appeal.

Mr. Sudbury filed an interlocutory appeal of a final order under the collateral order doctrine, or

alternatively for the court to construe the petition as a writ of mandamus.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal, and held, "the court lacks jurisdiction

over this appeal because the district court's order clarifying and denying reconsideration of its

order denying appellant's motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. 3504(a)(1) is not a final judgment or an

order that comes within the collateral order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1291; Midland Asphalt

Corp. v. United States,489 U.S. 794,798 (1989) (in criminal cases, finality requirement generally

"prohibits appellate review until after conviction and imposition of sentence").

Sudbury then filled an appeal to this court on the 19th day of May 2022. He consequently

was forced through trial despite his pleading that his trial be postponed until the result of his

appeal to this Court. Sudbury was quickly convicted on September 27,2022, as his Attorney had

been waiting to see the results as to what evidence would be admissible before preparing an

alternative defense. Due to this Sudbury's appeal to this court was moot, and promptly dismissed.

Sudbury then appealed to the 9th circuit, and after many extensions for time was

denied on June 6, 2025.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Unis case is one that contains a national controversy regarding one of our fundamental,

unalienable rights. The statutes in controversy are proof in themselves, for hardly has there been

so clear, comprehensive, and mandatory legislation been passed federally to gain supremacy

over a field. All the federal circuit courts have been back and forth on this issue in controversy

with themselves and other circuits, and also, the question remains as to their adherence to the

standard that was the intention of Congress, and The Supreme Court in Gelbard v. United States,

408 US 41 - Supreme Court 1972.

1. Uniformity of the Circuit Courts and are they following the intention of Congress

"In order to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications,

protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, and to prevent the obstruction of

interstate commerce, it is necessary for Congress to define on a uniform basis the circumstances

and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized,

to prohibit any unauthorized interception of such communications, and the use of the contents

thereof in evidence in courts and administrative proceedings." § 801 (b), 82 Stat. 211

"Title III has as its dual purpose (1) protecting the privacy of wire and oral

communications, and (2) delineating on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under

which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized. To assure the privacy

of oral and wire communications, title Hi prohibits all wiretapping and electronic surveillance by

persons other than duly authorized law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation dr

prevention of specified types of serious crimes, and only after authorization of a court order

obtained after a showing and finding of probable cause." S. Rep. No. 1097,90th Cong., 2d Sess.,

66 (1968).

To protect the integrity of the court and to protect privacy is the reason Congress specified that

they defined a uniform basis for electronic surveillance. The Tenth Circuit and Fourth Circuit differ

on the burden on the government. In United States v. Alvillar, 575F.2d 1316,1321 (10th Cir. 1978)

the 10th Circuit ruled with balancing between the allegations of the defendant and the

requirements of the Government, though providing the Government with significant burden to

follow through with substantial evidence that they had thoroughly checked. In United States v.

Apple, 915 G.2d 899, 905-06 (4th Cir. 1990), the 4th Circuit took an easier approach on the

Government and allowed them to "fulfill" their burden with a simple letter to suffice as a denial.

This also was the same question in a more recent Supreme Court case # 10-418 (under seal)

which came out of the 4th Cir. in 2011, again, was the burden placed on the government great

enough, and what is the standard uniformity?

The D.C. Circuit and the 9th Circuit both split among themselves on the burden on the

defendant. The 9th Circuit in both United Sates v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973) and United

States v. See, 505 F.2d 845,855-56 (9th Cir. 1974) demonstrated a strict requirement on the

defendant to trigger 3504. Though, in United States v. Vielguth, 502 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1974), the

9th circuit reversed course. It now followed a much lighter trigger by using the "mere assertion"

trigger.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has concluded that the government’s

obligation to affirm or deny the occurrence of electronic surveillance under section 3504(a)(1)'is

triggered... by the mere assertion that unlawful wiretapping has been used against a party.' In re

Evans, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 310,452F.2d 1239,1247 (1971). The Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit has agreed. United States v. Toscanino, 500 F .2d 267 (1971). This construction adopts

the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute predicating the government's obligation to

affirm or deny upon a simple 'claim of inadmissibility. It is supported by the legislative history,

which suggests that subsection (a)(1) was added to give to persons under interrogation the legal

right to require on mere motion that which the Department of Justice informed Congress it had

been affording voluntarily without demand- namely, an examination by the government of its files

to determine whether any wiretaps or eavesdropping had occurred.

8.

v. IM4

.S. 41, 56,92 S.Ct. 2357,2365,33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972):

*

"Subsection (a)(1) (of Section 3504) was added at the suggestion of the

Department of Justice. At that time the Department followed the

practice of searching Government files for information about wiretaps

and eavesdropping. The Department advised the Senate Judiciary

Committee that while it had been 'conduct(ing) such examinations as a

matter of policy even in cases where no motion had been filed ...

defendants should be assured such an examination by a specific

requirement of law rather than hav(ing) to rely upon the continued

viability of a current policy.' Id., at 553. The Senate report on 3504

explained that'since (subsection (a)(1) requires a pending claim as a

predicate to disclosure, it sets aside the present wasteful practice of

the Department of Justice in searching files without a motion from

defendant"

r

The lack of uniformity with section 3504 has been recurring since it was enacted. These are just

a few examples of the seeming confusion that has occurred over what it was that Congress

intended, or in other words, what is the mandatory protocol for 3504-2515 to be applied?

2. When section 3504 is invoked, what is the burden on both the defendant and the government.

"Subsection (a) (1) was added at the suggestion of the Department of Justice. At that time the

Department followed the practice of searching Government files for information about wiretaps

and eavesdropping. The Department advised the Senate Judiciary Committee that while it had

been "conducting] such examinations as a matter of policy even in cases where no motion ha[d]

been filed ... defendants should be assured such an examination by a specific requirement of

law rather than havpng] to rely upon the continued viability of a current policy." Id., at 553. The

Senate report on § 3504 explained that "since [subsection (a) (1)] requires a pending claim as a

predicate to disclosure, it sets aside the present wasteful practice of the Department of Justice in

searching files without a motion from a defendant." S. Rep. No. 91-617, p. 154 (1969).

"places upon the Government an affirmative duty to answer a claim that evidence is

inadmissible because of unlawful investigative conduct." "The first requirement [of § 3504], that

the Government admit or deny the occurrence of the alleged invasion of the defendant's rights,

actually places or codifies a burden upon the Government, rather than the defendant." Hearings

before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary on S. 30 et al., 91st Cong.,

2d Sess.,84,104(1970).

The burden between the two parties seems relatively clear. Although the Circuit Courts have

flin flnnnorl and nnnflin+nd aarh afhar cinna fhoco efofiifac uiara ansrtarl ac chnuin ahawa

Supervisory guidance to as to more specific guidelines to each party would help to unify the righto

solidified in 3504 and 2515.

3. Additional burdens to the Defendant not provided for in the Statutes.

"The first requirement [of § 3504], that the Government admit or deny the occurrence of the

alleged invasion of the defendant's rights, actually places or codifies a burden upon the

Government, rather than the defendant." Hearings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House

Committee on the Judiciary on S. 30 et al., 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 84,104 (1970).

How much discretion is given to a judge to determine whether or not a claim under 3504 is

viable? The defendant is asking the government to fulfill its burden under the defendants

substantive right. How many extra burdens can the Court add to the defendant, according to the

wording and intent of the statute?

4. The Instant Case

This case is the perfect vehicle to address all of the conflicts and lack of uniformity between

the circuits. It contains all of the elements of conflict discussed above. Sudbury made a specific

showing, demonstrating how he became aware of the unlawful act. He showed how According to

the affidavits of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Clement B.K. Sze, the

(CS)Confidential Source worked for financial compensation only, paid by HCPD. The CS was

assigned duties by HCPD. He was directed entirely by HCPD, supervised entirely by HCPD, and

the CS reported only to HCPD. It appears the CS worked at entering the private areas of the

home of Roger Christie and Sherryanne Christie, and in the private areas of their ministries, and

surreptitiously photographing, videoing, and recording conversations of everyone present for a

period in excess of five (5) years, with no knowledge or consent of anyone present. This

information and evidence were used in his application for search warrants to record the

conversations on the phones of Roger Christie and Sherryanne Christie triggering the mandatory

provisions under section 2515 thus making the search warrant to record conversations unlawful

and a crime, and then also making all who were intercepted by that wiretap subject to an unlawful

act, granting standing to all who were unlawfully intercepted.

18 USC 2515. Prohibition of use as evidence

"Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of

the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may

be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or

before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body,

legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a

political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in

violation of this chapter." 18 USC 2515.

Sudbury has shown that the CS, under direction, control, and supervision of HCPD,

intentionally violated Hawaii’s eavesdropping statute, which is a violation of a criminal statute, and

intentionally violated federal criminal statutes prohibiting the acts that were committed by the CS.

HCPD also knew that the specific assignments of the CS intentionally violated state and federal

civil statutes as well.

All the evidence against Wesley Mark Sudbury was the result of those recorded

conversations. As a result of these facts Wesley Mark Sudbury does have standing to raise the

illegally obtained evidence in the case of Roger Christie and Sherryanne Christie that resulted in

the charges against Wesley Mark Sudbury.

The Defendant, Wesley Mark Sudbury, would show that he has achieved his burden under 18

USC 3504, and the United States has not achieved their burden in their opposition.

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii disagreed with this. The Court ruled

that Sudbury had not made a case of standing. The Court allowed the Government's assertion

that it property fulfilled its obligation by its opposition, putting in a statement that there had been

no illegal act. The Government checked with no agencies and gave no proof of ever checking

into the allegations of Sudbury. Both burden issues are at hand, the Defendants and the

Governments. Sudbury was never allowed to discover the evidence to prove his substantial

claim, the government was not required to respond according to the mandatory provisions of law,

in complete disregard of the mandatory nature of section 3504. This ruling should rightfully be

overturned.

Sudbury’s case conflicts with every circuit in every way. He was given extra burdens not

included in the statute, and extra burdens to all the circuit cases Sudbury is aware of. The burden

on the Government was in complete disregard of the mandatory statute. The Government was

not required to even respond.

"Virtually all concede that the use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance techniques

by private unauthorized hands has little justification where communications are intercepted

without the consent of one of the participants. No one quarrels with the proposition that the

unauthorized use of these techniques by law enforcement agents should be prohibited.... Only

by striking at all aspects of the problem can privacy be adequately protected. The prohibition, too,

must be enforced with all appropriate sanctions. Criminal penalties have their part to play. But

other remedies must be afforded the victim of an unlawful invasion of privacy. Provision must be

made for civil recourse for damages. The perpetrator must be denied the fruits of his unlawful

actions in civil and criminal proceedings. Each of these objectives is sought by the proposed

legislation." S. Rep. No. 1097, supra, at 69 (emphasis added).

This Statement from the Senate shows how important these provisions of law regarding illegal

Government surveillance are to privacy, Congress, and our nation. There needs to be supervision

to provide guidance to provide uniformity, so that our right to privacy can be protected, the courts

can be protected, and this substantive right can be protected. I Pray, unify the protocols to the

application of these important provisions of law, let them be known for what they are. Do this for

niirCnurtc r»i ir CSH-ranc and all arrncc nnr nafinn

12.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: 11/02/2025