Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Douglas Dean Scyphers, Petitioner v. Washington

Supreme Court briefDec 9, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

DEC - 9 2025

OFFICE of the clerk

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DOUGLAS DEAN SCYPHERS

PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

STATE OF WASHINGTON. - -

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

The Court Of Appeals/ Division Three/ of Washington State

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Douglas Dean Scyphers

(Your Name)

D.O.C. no. 404358, GB 42 - 3u,

C.R.C.C.z 1301 N. Ephrata Ave.

(Address)

Connell/ Washington/ 99326-0769

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A________________________

(Phone Number)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) . Does evidence qualify as newly discovered and

material under federal standards when a defendant

discovers evidence post-trial - including

statements from the issuing judge that he did not

sign or authorize a search warrant/ that no

original warrant exists/ and no application was

filed - corroborated by court records/ requiring

invalidation of the warrant/ suppression/ reversal

of convictions/ and void all further proceedings

after the warrant ?

2) . Does a search warrant bearing only a facsimile

signature of a judge/ without evidence of actual

authorization or an original document/ satisfy the ,

Fourth Amendment's requirement for issuance by a

neutral magistartez particularly where the judge

later disavows it ?

3) . May a defendant reasonably rely on the facial

validity of a search warrant bearing a judge's

facsimile signature/ issued by. a Judicial Officer/ .

without pre-trial investigation into its

authenticity/ where no basis for doubt existed

until post-trial revelations ?

4) . Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process

Clause require suppression of evidence and reversal

of convictions where post-trial evidence reveals

that state actors may have fabricated a search

SCYPHERS, Writ

iii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED cont.

warrant by affixing a judge's facsimile signature

without autorization ?

5). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and this Court's

precedent's, must federal courts grant an

evidentiary hearing on a state prisoner's Fourth

Amendment claim when state courts denied one,

despite credible post-conviction evidence that the

search warrant was invalid and not discoverable

pre-trial ?

. ,

. .

SCYPHERS, Writ

iv.

LIST OF.PARTIES

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

RELATED CASES

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 14-1-02950-1/

Spokane County Superior Court/ Judgment entered/ December 17, 2017.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers/ No. 35851-8/ Court of

Appeals, Div. Ill, Judgment entered, July 9, 2020.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 37953-1, Court of

Appeals, Div. Ill, Judgment entered, April 27, 2021.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 14-1-02950-1,

Spokane County Superior Court, Judgment entered, June 17, 2021 and

Oct. 4, 2021.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 14-1-02950-1,

Spokane County Superior Court, Judgment entered, May 31, 2022.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 38943-0, Court of

Appeals, Div. Ill, Judgment entered, Jan. 11, 2023.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 101656-5, State

Supreme Court, Judgment entered, March 15, 2023.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 101656-5, State

Supreme Court, Judgment entered, June 6, 2023.

- State of Washington v. Douglas ,D. Scyphers, No. 14-1-02950-1,

Spokane County Superior Court, Judgment entered, Sept. 12, 2023.

(2nd CrR 7.8 and 1st CR 59).

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 14-1-02950-1,

Spokane County Superior Court, Judgment entered, Dec. 20, 2023.

(bifurcated 2nd CR 59).

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 39987-7, Court of

Appeals, Div. Ill, Judgment entered, Dec. 20, 2023.

SCYPHERS, Writ

iv.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 14-1-02950-1,

Spokane County Superior Court, Judgment entered, Jan. 5, 2024 and

Jan. 11, 2024 (2nd CR 59 and 3rd CR 59).

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 102688-9, State

Supreme Court, Judgment entered, May 8, 2024.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 40224-0, Court of

Appeals, Div. Ill, Judgment entered, Sept. 5, 2024.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 103495-4, State

Supreme Court, Judgment entered, Feb. 7, 2025.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 104052-1, State

Supreme Court, Judgment entered, April 9, 2025.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 41141-9, Court of

Appeals, Div. Ill, Judgment entered, May 15, 2025.

- State of Washington v. Douglas D. Scyphers, No. 104227-2, State

Supreme Court, Judgment entered, Oct. 7, 2025. (and on June 17, 2025).

SCYPHERS, Writ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pg.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

viii

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. THE EVIDENCE QUALIFIES AS NEWLYDISCOVERED,

IS MATERIAL, AND REQUIRES THE SEARCH WARRANT

INVALIDATION, SUPPRESSION, AND REVERSE ALL

CONVICTIONS.

2. WASHINGTON STATE'S RULINGS ARE IN TENSION WITH

THIS SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENTS ON THE FOURTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

3. THE STATE COURTS ERRED IN DENYING SCYPHERS AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DEVELOP THE FACTS,

REQUIRING FEDERAL REVIEW ON THE MERITS.

4. CERTIORARI IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT A MISCARRIAGE

OF JUSTICE IN SCYPHERS CASE.

23-

5. CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

INDEX TO APPENDICES (App.)

APPENDIX A - Wash. St. Supreme Ct., Ruling on the Motion to Modify.

APPENDIX B - Wash. St. Court of Appeals, Div. Ill, Ruling.

APPENDIX C - Wash. St. Supreme Ct., Commissioner's Ruling.

APPENDIX D - Wash. St. Court of Appeals, Div. Ill, Cert, of 'Finality

SCYPHERS, Writ

vi.

APPENDIX E - Judge Price's December 1/ 2021 letter.

APPENDIX F - Judge Price's January 6, 2022 letter.

APPENDIX G - Judge Price's docket for June 2, 2014t with court letter,

dated July 10, 2023.

APPENDIX H - Search Warrant dated June 2, 2014.

APPENDIX I - Wash. St. Court of Appeals, Div. Ill, Ruling the evidence

was discoverable pre-trial by both parties.

APPENDIX J - Motion to Modify Commissioner's Ruling, filed Aug. 15, 2025.

SCYPHERS, Writ

vii.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

pg-

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES:

BELL v. MARYLAND,

378 U.S. 226, 238-39, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822 (1964)

BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES,

523 U.S. 614, 620, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998)

BRADY V. MARYLAND,

373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)

CARMEL v. TEXAS,

529 U.S. 513, 557, 120 S.Ct. 1620, 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000)

CARNLEY V. COCHRAN,

369 U.S. 506, 516, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962)

. 24

CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES,

585 U.S. 296, 348, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018)

COLEMAN v. THOMPSON,

501 U.S. 722, 749-50, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991)

CONE v. BELL,

556 U.S. 449, 469-70, 129 S.Ct. 1769, 173 L.Ed.2d 701 (2009)

COOLIDGE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE,

403 U.S. 443, 449, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)

COOTER & GELL v. HARTMARX,

496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)

CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER,

563 U.S. 170, 170-73, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011)

GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES,

145 S.Ct. 529, 532, 221 L.Ed.2d 259 (2025)

GROH v. RAMIREZ,

540 U.S. 551, 557-60, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004)

12, 15

HAMPTON V. UNITED STATES,

■

425 U.S. 484, 489-90, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976)

SCYPHERS, Writ

viii

Pg.

HOUSE V. BELL,

547 U.S. 518, 536-39, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006)

11, 14

ILLINOIS V. GATES,

462 U.S. 213, 223, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1985)

JACKSON v. VIRGINIA, (incorporated with § 2254/AEDPA)

443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1970)

KEENEY v. TAMAYO-REYES,

504 U.S. 1, 10, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992)

KYLES V. WHITLEY,

514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)

11/ 13

MAPP v. OHIO,

367 U.S. 643, 655-660, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961)

McDonald v. united states,

335 U.S. 451, 455, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed.2d 153 (1948)

McQUIGGIN v. PERKINS,

569 U.S. 383, 386, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013)

MESSERSCHMIDT V. MILLENDER,

565 U.S. 535, 536, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012)

MINCEY v. ARIZONA,

437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)

NAPUE v. ILLINOIS,

360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959)

PAYTON v. NEW YORK,

445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)

RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS INC. V. VIRGINIA,

448 U.S. 555, 574, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980)

SCHLUP V. DELO,

513 U.S. 298, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995)

11, 14

SGRO V. UNITED STATES,

287 U.S. 206, 210, 53 S.Ct. 138, 77 L.Ed.2d 260 (1932)

STONE V. POWELL,

10, 21

428 U.S. 465, 494-95 & n.37, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)

STRICKLER V. GREENE,

527 U.S. 263, 289, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)

12, 13

THOMPSON v. LOUISVILLE,

362 U.S. 199, 204, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960)

TOWNSEND v. SAIN, (incorporated with § 2254/AEDPA)

372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963)

21, 22

23, 25

UNITED STATES V. BAGLEY,

473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)

UNITED STATES v. LEON,

468 U.S. 897, 906, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)

UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL,

411 U.S. 423, 432, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973)

UNITED STATES v. SANDERS, (superseded in part)

373 U.S. 1, 15, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed’.2d 148 (1963)

UNITED STATES V. VENTRESCA,

380 U.S. 102, 105-06, 111-12, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)

WEARRY V. CAIN,

577 U.S. 385, 136 S.Ct. 1002, 194 L.Ed.2d 78 (2016)(per curiam)

UNITED STATES V. GIGLIO,

405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR,

529 U.S. 420, 432-38, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)

YOUNGBLOOD v. WEST VIRGINIA,

547 U.S. 867, 870, 126 S.Ct. 2188, 165 L.Ed.2d 269 (2006)(per curiam)

SCYPHERS, Writ

'u.s. circuit court cases

Pg-

ALAIMALO V. UNITED STATES,

645 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2011)

ARON v. UNITED STATES,

291 F.3d 708, 715 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2002)

COX v. CITY OF JACKSON,

811 Fed.Appx. 284, 291 (6th Cir. 2020)

13, 14

GRIFFIN V. JOHNSON,

350 F.3d 956, 961-63 (9th Cir. 2003)

UNITED STATES V. BARNES,

895 F.3d 1194, n.2 (9th Cir. 2018)(citing PARKS, 136 Wn.App.

232, at 238-40)

13, 24

UNITED STATES V. HARRINGTON,

410 F.3d 598, 601 (9th Cir. 2005)

’

13-14

UNITED STATES V. HUBBARD,

96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1996)

UNITED STATES V. RUNNELS,

143 Fed.Appx. 799, 801 (9th Cir. 2005)

WASHINGTON STATE COURT CASES

In re Pers. Restraint of GREENING,

141 Wn.2d 687, 699-700, 9 P.3d 206 (2000)

KURTZ V. FELS,

63 Wn.2d 871, 874-75, 389 P.2d 659 (1964)

STATE V. IBARRA-CISNEROS,

172 Wn.2d 880, 884-85, 263 P.3d 591 (2011)

STATE v. PARKS,

136 Wn.App.232, 238-40, 148 P.3d 1098 (2006)

13, 24

STATE v. WINTERSTEIN,

167 Wn.2d 620, 624, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009)

SCYPHERS, Writ

xi.

Pg.

STATE v. YOUNG,

123 Wn.2d 173, 179, 867 P.2d 593 (1994)

15, 25

STATUTES AND RULES

1 Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure,

State Remedies, § 7.1, Full and Fair Proceedings, n.l, n.8.

4, 19, 21

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2) - (e)(2)(A)(ii)

4, 11, 19

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule8(a)

CrR 7.8

CR 59

CR 60

F.R.Civ.P. 8(e)

F.R.Civ.P. 10(c)

F.R.Crim.P. 33(a)

23, 26

RCW 10.73.090

RCW 10.73.100(1)

4, 11

U.S. Supreme Court Rule10(a)-(c)

SCYPHERS, Writ

xii.

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

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

[x] For cases from state courts:

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

Appendix b___ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[x] is unpublished.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Three

appears at Appendix ®__ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[xl is unpublished.

SCYPHERS, Writ

court

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

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

was'_____ _ __ :________ :-------

[ ] 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:

i, 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.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[x] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was June 17/ 2025..

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix —£----[x] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

October 8 / 2025, 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.

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

SCYPHERS, Writ

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: .

FOURTH AMENDMENT: The right of the people to be ■

secure in their persons/ houses/ papers/ and effects/

against unreasonable searches and seizures/ shall

not be violated/ and no Warrants shall issue/ but

upon probable cause/ supported by Oath or affirmation/

particularly describing the place to be searched/ and

the persons or things to be seized.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:' ... 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

protections of the laws.

WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION:

Declaration of Rights'

ARTICLE ONE, SECTION THREE, Personal Rights: No

person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law.

ARTICLE ONE, SECTION SEVEN, Invasion of Private

Affairs or Home Prohibited: No person shall be

disturbed in his private affairs, or his home

invaded, without authority of law.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULE 10(a)-(c).

SCYPHERS, Writ

FEDERAL STATUTE:

TITLE 28 U.S.C.S., SECTION 2254: State Custody,

Remedies in Federal Court: (d)(1) Resulted in a

decision that was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of

the United States; or (d)(2) Resulted in a decision

that was based on an unreasonable determination of

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding; and

(e)(A)(ii) A factual predicate that could not have

been previously discovered through the exercise of

due diligence.

STATE STATUTE:

REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON (RCW) 10.73.100, Collateral

Attack, When One Year Limit Not Applicable: The time

limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 does not' apply to

a petition or motion that is based solely on one or

more of the following grounds: (1) Newly discovered

evidence, if the defendant acted with reasonable

diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the

petition or motion.

FEDERAL RULES:

1 FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, State

Remedies, § 7.1, "Full and Fair" Proceedings: see

n.l and n.8; See also, U.S.C. Sec. 2254 Cases R. 8-

Evidentiary Hearing, Rule 8(a).

SCYPHERS, Writ

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner, DOUGLAS DEAN SCYPHERS, was convicted by

a jury on December 17, 2017, in Spokane County

Superior Court (Cause no. 14-1-02950-1), of multiple

charges based on evidence seized from his home

pursuant to a search warrant dated "June 2, 2014

10:39 a.m.", bearing the facsimile signature of

Judge Michael P. Price (App. H). Scyphers was

sentenced on January 26, 2018, and his direct appeal

was finalized on July 9, 2020 (Washington State

Court of Appeals, Division III).

Post-conviction, while seeking discovery, Scyphers

received leters from Judge Price dated December 1,

2021, and January 6, 2022 (Apps. E-F). In these

letters, Judge Price stated he had personally

reviewed the court file and found: (1) he never

signed any warrants or court orders in Scyphers'

case in 2014 or any other year; (2) the case was

never assigned to him; and (3) no original warrant

exists. On July 10, 2023, Scyphers obtained Judge

Price's docket for June 2, 2014, from the Superior

Court Administrator (App. G), showing no entries

for Scyphers, no warrant application, and no

warrant issuance.

Based on this evidence, Scyphers filed his first

collateral attack challenging the warrant, on March

10, 2022, under a CrR 7.8 motion (denied). Subsequent

filings, including additional 7.8 motions, motions

SCYPHERS, Writ

for reconsiderations (CR 59's), CR 60 void motion,

and personal restraint petitions (PRP's),

proceeded through the Washington Court of Appeals

and Supreme Court, finalizing on February 7, 2025.

On April 9, 2025, No. 41141-9-III, Scyphers filed

another PRP that was finalized in the State

Supreme Court on October 7, 2025, No. 104227-2

(Apps. A—D).

Key timeline of events (incorporated by reference

from prior state filings):

- June 3, 2014: Warrant served on Scyphers at his

home.

- August 22, 2014: Information filed.

- September 8, 2014: Arraignment.

- January 13, 2017: FRANKS hearing challenging

warrant staleness (denied).

- December 17, 2017: Jury conviction (four counts

hung and dismissed).

- January 26, 2018: Sentencing.

- July 9, 2020: Direct Appeal finalized (ANDERS

brief filed by counsel).

- April 19, 2021: Motion to compel and contempt for

discovery, No. 37953-1-III. (remanded).

- June 17, 2021 and October. 4, 2021: Orders

compelling discovery.

- November 11, 2021: Scyphers requests warrant copy

from Judge Price, due to no discovery turned over.

SCYPHERSj Writ

- December 1/ 2021: Judge Price letter stating in

pertinent part:

"I have personally reviewed the Superior Court

File under this cause number [14-1-02950-1] and

have specifically searched for a warrant which

this Judicial Officer may have signed in this

case in either 2014 or 2015. In fact/ NO WARRANTS

WERE SIGNED IN ANY FASHION IN 2014 or 2015/ or,

for that matter/ in any other year that I was

able to discover in my review of the file. As

such/ I am providing this correspondence to you

without any enclosure since AN ORIGINAL WARRANT

signed by this department in 2014 or 2015 DOES

NOT EXIST." (emphasis added)(App. E).

- December 31/ 2021: Discovery received/ which

included warrant; sent warrant copy to J., Price.

- January 6, 2022: Judge Price letter stating in

pertinent part:

"[Y]ou request yet again for this Court to

conduct another search for a warrant - While

there are multiple Orders in the Superior Court

File signed by Judicial Officers to include

Judge Tompkins/ Judge Sypolt/ Judge Cozza, Judge

Harold Clarke III/ and Judge Moreno/ this case

was never assigned to my department and I SIGNED

NO WARRANTS or Court Orders in this case AT ALL. -

As before/ I am providing this correspondence to

you without any enclosure since THE WARRANT YOU

SEEK signed by my department DOES NOT EXIST."

(emphasis added)(App. F).

SCYPHERS, Writ

CHALLENGES TO THE WARRANT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE

(letters and docket):

- March 10, 2022 - June 6, 2023: First collateral

attack under CrR 7.8; followed by PRP,

discretionary review, and motion to modify:

denied as untimely.

- February 8, 2023: CR 60 motion as void; denied.

- July 10, 2023: Received Judge Price's docket for

the. warrant dated June 2, 2014 (App. G).

- July 24, 2023: Refined and filed second CrR 7.8;

set for oral arguments.

- September 13, 2023:(CrR 7.8) and October 15, 2023

(CR 59): Oral arguments; denied as untimely and

denied a reference hearing (denied counsel).

- October 23, 2023 - February 7, 2025: Filed

additional CR 59 motions, appeals (denied counsel),

CR 60(b) void motion:, PRP's, discretionary reviews,

and motions to modify; each denied as untimely.

Also ruled deficiencies were discoverable by both

parties pre-trial (App. I, at 4).

- April 9, 2025: Refined and filed third PRP, No.

41141-9-III; denied as untimely (App. B).

- May 29, 2025: Discretionary Review in State Supreme

Court, No. 104227-2. Deputy Commissioner denied

as untimely (App. C).

- August 15,2025: Motion to modify commissioner's

ruling, No. 104227-2 (App. J).

- October 7, 2025: State Supreme Court denied the

SCYPHERS, Writ

motion to modify and denied a reference hearing/

No. 104227-2 (App. A).

The state courts consistently dismissed all claims

as untimely, ruling the evidence (letters and

docket) was not "newly discovered", and was

discoverable pre-trial with due diligence (by both

parties), despite Scyphers' reasonable reliance on

the warrant's appearance of facial validity. No

reference hearing was granted to assess credibility

or merits. These rulings conflict with the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments, as the original warrant

does not exist, no application, and is unsigned

and unauthorized - it is not just invalid but void,

violating federal and state constitutions.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

Scyphers respectfully urges this Court to grant

certiorari under Sup. Ct. R. 10(a)-(c), as this

case presents critical questions of federal

constitutional law of profound national importance

amid rising concerns over warrant transparency and

government misconduct. The Washington State courts'

rulings conflict with this Court's Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment precedents, denying Scyphers'

meritorious claims for a full and fair hearing on

new, material, post-conviction evidence that

undermines the validity of the search warrant

SCYPHERS, Writ

underlying his convictions, thus warranting federal

review to safeguard judicial accountability

nationwide. See STONE v. POWELL, 428 U.S. 465, 49495 & n.37 (1976)(federal courts must hear Fourth

Amendment claims not afforded full and fair state

litigation). These issues of national importance

involve: the integrity of judicial warrants,

reasonable reliance on official documents, and

newly discovered evidence. Certiorari is warranted

to resolve tensions with the state rulings and

federal law.

CORE FACTS: Judge Michael P. Price twice stated:

he did not sign the search warrant bearing his

facsimile signature, no original warrant exists,

no application was filed, and is corroborated by

his June 2, 2014 court docket (Apps. E-H). This

evidence was discovered post-trial.

Per F.R.Civ.P. 10(c), Scyphers incorporates by

reference this Writ's Statement of the Case, his

recent state PRP, motion for discretionary review,

motion to modify, and all relevant filings since

March 10, 2022, as inclusive, as if fully cited

and argued herein. Furthermore, Scyphers alleges

the following:(HAINES v. KERNER, 404 U.S. 519, 52021 (1972)(per curiam)(unanimous)(pro se complaint

must be held to less stringent standard than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.)).:

SCYPHERS, Writ

10.

1. THE EVIDENCE QUALIFIES AS NEWLY DISCOVERED,

IS MATERIAL, AND REQUIRES THE SEARCH WARRANT

INVALIDATION, SUPPRESSION, AND REVERSE ALL

CONVICTIONS.

The state courts erred when dismissing Scyphers'

post-conviction petitions as untimely (Apps. A-D),

ruling that the evidence discovered after his trial

on December 17, 2017 - two letters (December 1,

2021; January 6, 2022; Apps. E-F) from Judge Price

and his docket (July 10, 2023; App. G) - could have

been found pre-trial with due diligence. This

posture directly conflicts with this Court's

precedents. The evidence qualifies as newly

discovered under state and federal standards for

timeliness exemptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

(1),(2) - (e)(2)(A)(ii), and RCW 10.73.100(1). See

SCHLUP v. DELO, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995)(new

evidence innocence gateway if it undermines

confidence in conviction); Building on SCHLUP,

e.g., HOUSE V. BELL, 547 U.S. 518, 536-39 (2006)

(Holding: new evidence undermining the prosecution's

case can warrant relief).

The evidence is material, as it invalidates the

warrant, suppresses all seized evidence, voids all

further proceedings, and undermines confidence in

the verdict. KYLES v. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419, 434

(1995)(materiality standard). Scyphers reasonably

SCYPHERS, Writ

11.

relied on the warrant's facial validity pre-trial,

with no basis for him or his trial counsel to

investigate behind the facts (App. J, at 8-9, KURTZ

v. FELS). The state court's conclusion that this

evidence was not "newly discovered" and should have

been found through "due diligence", is inconsistant

with STRICKLER v. GREENE, 527 U.S. 263, 289 (1999)

(no duty to discover undisclosed evidence where

reliance is reasonable); See also GROH v. RAMIREZ,

540 U.S. 551, 557-60 (2004)(search warrant facially

invalid - breached Fourth Amendment requirements).

The letters dated December 1, 2021, and January 6,

2022 (Apps. E-F), reveal Judge Price's personal

investigation of the court file: he states

unequivocally that he ""signed no warrants or

court Orders in this case at all" in 2014 or any

other year, and "an original warrant signed by this

department - does not exist"". This directly

contradicts the June 2, 2014 search warrant

bearing his facsimile signature (App. H, at 5).

Corroborating this, Judge Price's docket for that

date (discovered July 10, 2023; App. G) lacks any

reference to Scyphers, a warrant application, or

issuance - violating transparency norms. See

RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA, 448 U.S.

555, 574 (1980)(transparency allows the public to

keep a watchful eye over the judicial system). The

state courts erred, Scyphers cannot discover

SCYPHERS, Writ

12.

documents that do not exist (Apps. E-F). See

THOMPSON v. LOUISVILLE, 362 U.S. 199, 204 (1960)

(a conviction based on a wholly devoid record is

unconstitutional). See also UNITED STATES v.

BARNES, 895 F.3d 1194, n.2 (9th Cir. 2018)(citing

PARKS, 136 Wn.App. 232, at 238-40)(Holding: "the

court's docket contains no record of a judicial

finding of probable cause - there should have

been a judicial finding of probable cause on the

record - We hold that making such a finding is not

only a "best practice" but also a constitutional

obligation of the issuing court - warrant invalid

and suppress.").

This evidence meets all five factors for newly

discovered evidence: (1) it would likely change

the trial outcome by voiding the warrant and

suppressing the evidence; (2) it was discovered

post-trial (December 17, 2017); (3) it could not

have been discovered pre-trial with due diligence,

as Scyphers reasonably relied on the warrant's

facial validity (See STRICKLER v. GREENE, 527 U.S.

263, (1999)); (4) it is material (See KYLES v.

WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)); and (5) it is

not merely cumulative or impeaching because the

new evidence undermines the State's case-in-chief

as void. See COX v. CITY OF JACKSON, 811 Fed.Appx.

284, 291 (6th Cir. 2020)(void proceedings after a

void warrant). See UNITED STATES V. HARRINGTON,

SCYPHERS, Writ

13.

410 F.3d 598/ 601 (9th Cir. 2005)(five-part test/

new evidence). The evidence is new and material/

undermining Scyphers' convictions and creates a

"gateway" for review. Building on SCHLUP and HOUSE

e.g., McQUIGGIN v. PERKINS, 569 U.S. 383, 386

(2013)(Holding: gateway claims overcome AEDPA time

bars if new evidence shows no resonable juror

would convict); COLEMAN v. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722,

749-50 (1991)(Holding: failure to consider the

claim will result in a "fundamental miscarriage

of justice."). Scyphers overcomes the statutory

1-year time limit with the newly discovered

evidence, where suppression of the evidence - no

reasonable juror would convict Scyphers.

2. WASHINGTON STATE'S RULINGS ARE IN TENSION WITH

THIS SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENTS ON THE FOURTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.'

The state court's rulings for Scyphers conflict

with this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

This evidence renders the warrant void ab initio,

not merely invalid, as Judge Price denied signing

it, no original warrant exists, and no application

or issuance is recorded. A warrant requires a

neutral magistrate's actual authorization, without

it, it is void. See COX v. CITY OF JACKSON, 811

Fed.Appx. 284, 291 (6th Cir. 2020)(""A direct

attack on an unsigned warrant would have been

SCYPHERS, Writ

14.

successful" becuase "if a warrant does not meet

procedural and constitutional requirements, it is

invalid" - "And, [a] void warrant invalidates all

subsequent proceedinqs emanating from the warrant."");

See GROH v. RAMIREZ, 540 U.S. 551, 557-60 (2004)

(warrant unconstitutional and void without proper

issuance; magistrate interposed between citizen

and police - MCDONALD, 335 U.S. at 455); COOLIDGE

v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 403 U.S. 443, 449 (1971)(warrant

void if not issued by magistrate); This violates

the Fourth Amendment's 'Briteline Rule'. See SGRO

v. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 206, 210 (1932)

(government abuse of the Fourth Amendment "should

be liberally construed in favor of the individual");

ILLINOIS v. GATES, 462 U.S. 213, 223 (1983)

(suppression of evidence). Under Wash. Const., Art.

1, § 7, there are stricter protections: STATE v.

YOUNG, 123 Wn.2d 173, 179, 867 P.2d 593 (1994)

(Wash. Const, provides greater protections than

Federal Const.); STATE v. IBARRA-CISNEROS, 172 Wn.

2d 880, 884-85, 263 P.3d 591 (2011)(attenuation

doctrine); and STATE v. WINTERSTEIN, 167 Wn.2d 620,

624, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009)(inevitable discovery

doctrine incompatible with Wash. Const.). This

demands suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree,

under the exclusionary rule. YOUNGBLOOD v. WEST

VIRGINIA, 547 U.S. 867, 870 (2006) (per curiam)

(reversal required when new evidence casts case

in a different light); and MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S.

SCYPHERS, Writ

15.

643, 655-660 (1961) and UNITED STATES v. LEON,

468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984)(exclusionary rule). The

State cannot be afforded a "good-faith" exception

to exclusion, when Judge Price denies signing the

warrant, corroborated by court docket, making

reliance on it unreasonable. MESSERSCHMIDT v.

MILLENDER, 565 U.S. 535, 536 (2012)(Holding: no

good-faith exception when the warrant is "so

faicially deficient"). (See APP. J, at 6-7).

Scyphers' Due Process under the Fourteenth

Amendment and Wash. Const., Art. 1, § 3, was also

violated: the state introduced evidence from an

apparently fabricated warrant, depriving Scyphers

of a fair trial - NAPUE v. ILLINOIS, 360 U.S. 264,

269 (1959)(state cannot use false evidence to

convict - nor allow it to go uncorrected when it

appears). The state court ruled the warrant

deficiencies were discoverable before trial with

due diligence by both "parties", and the court

allowed it to go uncorrected, denying relief (App.

I, at pg. 4) - CONE v. BELL, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70

(2009)(even "if" it was "discoverable", withholding

evidence can violate due process if it affects

trial fairness); Did the State fail in its duty to

disclose material evidence to Scyphers pre-trial?

See BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); UNITED

STATES v. BAGLEY, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); GIGLIO v.

UNITED STATES, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)(state has a

SCYPHERS, Writ

16.

duty to disclose favorable evidence). Without this

evidence/ no reasonable juror would convict Scyphers

as it directly supports the charges. See WEARRY v.

CAIN/ 577 U.S. 385 (2016)(per curiam)(Holding:

newly "revealed" material evidence undermined the

conviction; the State's withholding violated Due

Process; and no jury would convict). The evidence

is newly discovered/revealed/ material/ credible/

and corroborating. See GRIFFIN v. JOHNSON/ 350 F.3d

956/ 961-63 (9th Cir. 2003)(Holding: petitioners

may present evidence that need not be newly

discovered/ but it must be "newly presented" after

trial/ aligning with the SCHLUP test).

The state appellate courts improperly assessed

credibility - deeming Judge Price and his docket

unrelaible - usurping the trial court's role. See

CARMELL v. TEXAS, 529 U.S. 513, 557 (2000)(J.,

Ginsburg, dissent)("the purpose of corroborating

evidence is to show that [Judge Price and his

docket] is a reliable witness and worthy of credit")

(emphasis added); JACKSON v. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S.

307, 318-19 (1979)(trier of fact is to determine

the record of evidence and the credibility of

witnesses); See also REED v. RUNNELS, 143 Fed. Appx.

799, 801 (9th Cir. 2005)(citing UNITED STATES v.

HUBBARD, 96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1996)(the

reviewing court must respect the exclusive

province of the fact finder to determine

SCYPHERS, Writ

17.

credibility of witnesses/ resolve evidentiary

conflicts/ and draw reasonable inferences from

proven facts.)). The jury was never presented this

evidence - it undermines the verdict/ convictions/

and Scyphers ability to present a defense in trial.

The state courts rulings conflicts with federal law

and is an abuse of discretion. COOTER & GELL v.

HARTMARX CORP./ 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)(a court

abuses its discretion if it based its ruling on an

erroneous view of the law or clearly erroneous

assessment of evidence). The state courts failed to

follow federal law and placed procedure over

substance, as attested by the state's rulings

disregarding the new evidence - disavowing the

warrant (Apps. E-G). BOUSLEY v. UNITED STATES, 523

U.S. 614, 620 (1998)(the distinction between

substance and procedure is 'to assure that no man

has been incarcerated under procedure which creates

an impermissibly large risk that the innocent will

be convicted'.).

3. THE STATE COURTS ERRED IN DENYING SCYPHERS AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DEVELOP THE FACTS,

REQUIRING FEDERAL REVIEW ON THE MERITS.

The state courts' refusal to grant an evidentiary

hearing in Scyphers' case directly conflicts with

established federal law and Supreme Court precedent

SCYPHERS, Writ

18.

governing federal review (App. A). Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)-(e) and the rules governing § 2254

proceedings, a federal court must hold an

evidentiary hearing where Scyphers presents newly

discovered, material evidence that was not

previously available and where factual disputes

exist that cannot be resolved on the existing

record. See rules governing § 2254 cases in federal

courts: Rule 8(a)(requires an evidentiary hearing

if facts are in dispute); see also, 1 Federal

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure, State

Remedies, § 7.1, Full and Fair Proceedings: n.l and

n.8 ("pre-existing standard" still encompassed as

applicable to the state, even after AEDPA; and

limiting federal hearings but mandating them for

undeveloped facts due to state process failures).

The "PRE-EXISTING STANDARD":

See § 7.1, n.8: "Prior to its amendment in 1996

[AEDPA], 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) explicitly stated that

"a full and fair hearing" in state court is a

prerequisite to federal deference to state court

findings. Although the current version of the

statute (28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(2), 2254(e)) no

longer contains that language, the statute's

requirement of "resonable" state court factfinding

procedures, Id. § 2254(d)(2), encompasses the

preexisting standard. See infra § 20.2b.")(emphasis

added). See also, Apps. A, and J, at 6-9.

SCYPHERS, Writ

19.

In federal habeas cases/ it is well-established

that Scyphers' newly discovered evidence - which

directly undermines the validity of the search

warrant used to convict him - constitutes a

primary justification for requesting an

evidentiary hearing. ARON v. UNITED STATES/ 291

F.3d 708/ 715 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2002)(petitioner

need only allege specific facts entitling him to

relief for a hearing). "Courts must grant a

hearing if the petitioner alleges resonably

specific/ non-conclusory facts/ that/ if true/

would entitle him to relief. Id.",. The record here

speaks for itself. It is not "conclusively" against

relief/ and the new evidence is neither refuted by

the record nor inherently incredible. Rather/ it

presents a clear factual dispute as to whether the

search and seizure was lawful/ whether Scyphers'

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated/ and whether the prosecution's evidence

was the fruit of an unauthorized/ and void warrant?

The criteria for granting an evidentiary hearing

include: (1) Existance of factual disputes that

cannot be resolved on the record; (2) Relevance and

materiality of new evidence to the petitioner's

claims; and (3) Potential for relief if the factual

dispute is resolved in favor of the petitioner.

(See App. J/ 6-8).

In this casez the lower courts denied Scyphers any

SCYPHERS, Writ

20.

opportunity to develop the facts through an

evidentiary hearing/ even though the new evidence

(Judge Price's admissions and docket) was not

available before trial/ was not discoverable

through due diligence/ and goes to the heart of

the constitutional validity of Scyphers conviction.

The denial of a reference hearing prevented full

and fair consideration of these critical/ factual

disputes (App. A). This is contrary to the

principles articulated by this Court in TOWNSEND

v. SAIN, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963)(a federal evidentiary hearing is required when state

procedures are inadequate or the material facts

were not fully developed - state findings are not

binding), and KEENEY v. TAMAYO-REYES, 504 U.S. 1,

10 (1992)(state courts must provide a full and

fair hearing on federal claims, or federal courts

must do so). See also, STONE v. POWELL, 428 U.S.

465, 494-95 & n.37 (1976)(federal courts must

hear Fourth Amendment claims not afforded full

and fair state litigation). See 1 Federal Habeas

Corpus Practice and Procedure, State Remedies,

§ 7.1(a)("requires that state post conviction

proceedings must provide prisoners with WHATEVER

fact-finding procedures are necessary to afford a

full and fair hearing on ANY disputed and

controlling factual issue in the case - [including]

evidentiary hearings.")(emphasis added). Scyphers

persistently and diligently pursued his federal

SCYPHERS, Writ

21.

claims in state courts, as evidenced by the courts

records and was denied the development of his facts

(App. A). See WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR, 529 U.S. 420,

432-38 (2000)(federal courts must hold evidentiary

hearing where petitioner was diligent but state

courts failed to develop the record).

By refusing to permit Scyphers fact development on

these constitutional issues, the Washington courts

failed to meet the standards required under federal

law. Consequently, federal review - including an

evidentiary hearing - is necessary to ensure

justice and resolve the disputed facts that are

central to Scyphers' claims for relief. See CULLEN

v. PINHOLSTER, 563 U.S. 170, 170-73 (2011)(Holding:

federal review requires deference, only if state

proceedings were reasonable). The state's rulings

have denied Scyphers due process. TOWNSEND

underscores federal due process. It was later

codified and refined in AEDPA, but its core due

process rationale remains fully in tact protecting against arbitrary state procedural

default, and aligning with the Fourteenth

Amendment's guarantee of fundamental fairness.

In Scyphers case, he has met the higher burden

imposed by Washington's standard of "actual and

substantial prejudice" when he presented material

post-trial evidence, which far exceeded the less

SCYPHERS, Writ

22.

stringent prejudice standard in TOWNSEND,

warranting de novo federal review of Scyphers

claims. Therefore, there is "good cause" to

revisit the search warrant because: (1) Scyphers'

petitions are timely, based on newly discovered

evidence, (2) Scyphers was not afforded a "full

and fair" hearing on the merits and the issue has

always been dismissed on erronoeous procedural

grounds, (3) Scyphers was prejudiced by an unfair

trial using false evidence, which led to his

conviction, absent this evidence, no jury would

convict, and (4) justice requires Scyphers' claims

to be resolved on the merits. See F.R.Crim.P 33(a);

F.R.Civ.P 8(e); SANDERS, 373 U.S. at 15 (1963)(ends

of justice are served by reaching the merits);

ALAIMALO, 645 F.3d at 1050 (2011)(ends of justice).

4. CERTIORARI IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT A

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN SCYPHERS CASE.

This case presents a clean vehicle for review, as

the facts highlight broader implications for anyone

in Washington or similar jurisdictions. Without

intervention, such abuses could erode Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment protections nationwide. Search

warrant applications and supporting documents, is a

critical transparency issue of national importance,

specifically where their absence undermines

judicial accountability and enables fabrication -

SCYPHERS, Writ

23.

i.e./ the mystery of how the facsimile signature

of Judge Price got on a warrant he said he never

signed? Which is corroborated by the judge's

docket/ showing no court reference to any court

documents for Scyphers.

In Scyphers case/ the complete lack of records -

prevents public verification/ eroding trust in the

judicial processes/ and facilitating the Fourth

Amendment violations. The missing application voids

the warrant entirely. UNITED STATES v. VENTRESCA,

380 U.S. 102, 105-06, 111-12 (1965)(emphasizing

that warrant affidavits (applications) must be

based on oath and probable cause); BARNES, 895 F.3d

at n.2 (citing PARKS)(no record of probable cause unconstitutional)); See also, CARNLEY v. COCHRAN,

369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962)("Presuming waiver from a

silent record is impermissible. The record must

show the [application and the warrant] - anything

less is not a waiver.")(emphasis added).

The state courts rulings are sending a clear

message: the Executive Branch has the power to

circumvent judicial authority to invade homes

without oversight. UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL, 411

U.S. 423, 432 (1973)(outrageous conduct bars

conviction); HAMPTON v. UNITED STATES, 425 U.S.

484, 489-90 (1976)(government misconduct (e.g.,

fabricating evidence) can violate due process and

SCYPHERS, Writ

24.

bar conviction/ even without entrapment). This

leaves many warrants unscrutinized/ heightening

potential risks of further government misconduct/

in violation of Due Process and Fourth Amendment

privacy rights. In an era post - CARPENTER v.

UNITED STATES, 585 U.S. 296, 348 (2018)(privacy

rights are evolving), (e.g., GONZALEZ v. UNITED

STATES, 145 S.Ct. 529, 532 (2025.) (citing

CARPENTER, 585 U.S. at 309 (2018)("courts today

confront questions about how to apply the Fourth

Amendment to a new phenomenon.")), scrutiny

demands clearer judicial transparency to prevent

fabrication and protect Fourth Amendment rights

nationwide. Granting certiorari would deter similar

abuses across federal and state systems and

reinforcing democratic checks on law enforcement.

This Court's guidance is essential to harmonize

judicial transparency with Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment principles, ensuring that transparency

serves as a bulwark against governmental

overreach in all 50 states. The state courts'

procedural bars denied Scyphers a full and fair

hearing, abusing discretion under broader state

protections: STATE v. YOUNG, 123 Wn.2d 173, 179,

867 P.2d 593 (1994); In re Pers. Restraint of

GREENING, 141 Wn.2d 687, 699-700, 9 P.3d 206

(2000). Federal review is essential in this case.

See TOWNSEND v. SAIN, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963).

SCYPHERS, Writ

25.

There is a public interest in preventing the

government from evading judicial oversight for

warrants, to invade peoples homes - See PAYTON v.

NEW YORK, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)(Holding: reinforces

the sanctity of home searches, requiring valid

search warrants).

Justice demands certiorari in this case: Granting

review will correct the state courts' errors,

restore confidence in warrant processes amid

national transparency crises, and resolve these

critical constitutional questions on the merits preventing similar fabrications that threaten homes

and liberties across the nation. See MINCEY v.

ARIZONA, 437 U.S. 385, 393, (1978)(public interest

in warrantless searches). This Court's

intervention applies essential checks and balances,

protecting all of the people. See BELL v. MARYLAND,

378 U.S. 226, 238-39 (1964)(this Court has the

power to correct errors as justice requires); and

F.R.Crim.P. 33(a)(vacating judgments if justice

so requires). This Court should: grant review on

the merits; declare the evidence is newly

discovered; invalidate the search warrant;

suppress the evidence; void all proceedings;

vacate convictions; and determine fabrication,. See

MacCLELLAND v. CELLO P'SHIP, 609 F.Supp.3d 1024,

1042 (2022)("justice delayed is justice denied".)

(citing DIETRICH, 14 F.4th at 1095 (9th Cir. 2021)).

SCYPHERS, Writ

26.

5. CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted/

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rule 33.1/ I certify this

document contains 4,918 Swords.

Executed on this

AT:

7th day Of

Franklin County;

December

, 2025.

Connell/ WA. 99326.

1/ DOUGLAS DEAN SCYPHERS/ hereby declares under

penalty of perjury/ under the laws of the United

States/ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746/ that the

-foregoing

[oing is-krue

■ue anj

an^Kconrect.

DOUGLAS'DEAN SCYPHERS,

DOUGL.

[ERS / proPetitioner

Douglas D. Scyphers

DOC # 404358

Coyote Ridge Corrections Center

GB 42 - 3u

1301 N. Ephrata Ave.<

P.O. Box 769

Connell/ WA. 99326-0769

SCYPHERS, Writ

27.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.