Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Scales v. Nevada

Supreme Court of the United States

ANNIE MAE SCALES,

Petitioner,

STATE OF NEVADA AND MICHAEL STACK,

Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ANNIE Mae SCALES

1310 79th St.

Newport News, VA 23605

(757) 224-0239

UN

“>

aA“

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Were the petitioner’s due process of law Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments violated when she was

deprived of her liberty for 7 days because she refused

to go use the bathroom and record how it felt (“mas-

turbate”), petitioner was never arrested, never read

Miranda rights, petitioner was tried and convicted

10-13-99, put in jail 4-14-00, then only at that time was

she booked and fingerprinted?

Were the Petitioner’s rights under Sixth Amendment

Confrontation Clause violated when she met her

court ordered lawyer on the day of the trial, peti-

tioner attempted to give him evidence that would

have dismissed the case?

Was a bail of 50000-50000-100000 excessive and vio-

lated Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punish-

ment for refusing the court order of masturbation?

Were Petitioner’s Equal Protection Under the Law,

Fourteenth Amendment violated when Petitioner saw

the police report for the first time 7-21-00, after case

closed and Petitioner learned that the white woman

who filed the stalking charges did not live or work in

the alleged crime scene area?

Did the State of Nevada impose a 50000-50000-100000

excessive bail for Contempt of court without proving

its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the convicting

judge, whom the law gives immunity except where

no crime was committed decided the verdict, peti-

tioner did not have a Trial by Jury?

ee

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........... i

TAD CR AUTEUR 665 bc cicdecscenccavacvoce iii

CITATION TED GPR io sce naeve in yunanceeaoses |

FU NE 60 4:65 cs ekaeks weds bass Ree eka 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. ........<sccseeee 1

STATEMENT CP TEER CARB. cies cicccwasadeuas 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT..............55 8

CONCAAMISOS 6.0. 0evackiussulciee eee 16

APTENTICSS 6.6ciisadciges eee eee 1A

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 53 L.Ed.2d 982, 97

le Rp fs, SPP TTTT TT errr err Terre

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1880) ....

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, 92

S.Ct. 2726, reh. den., 409 U.S. 902, 34 L.Ed.2d

SER a sc ceksacévesientenescass

Gannett Co. v. Depasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 61 L.Ed.2d

608, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 5 Media L.R. 1337 (1979) ...

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, 96

S.Ct. 2909, reh. den., 429 U.S. 875, 50 L.Ed.2d

Se ee COMED cc Sau ues dusesedceecsee

Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848, cert. den., 454 U.S.

816, 70 L.Ed.2d 85, 102 S.Ct. 93 (CAS Fla. 1981) .

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 57 L.Ed.2d 522, 98

S.Ct. 2565 (1978), reh. den., 439 U.S. 1122, 59

Lal Gl, SO Diheks BUGS CESTE). cc ccccscccceess

Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 49 L.Ed.2d 929, 96 S.Ct.

2950, reh. den., 429 U.S. 875, 50 L.Ed.2d 158, 97

to Age to ae eer

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 29 L.Ed. 438, 91

oe A eg | SR reer ee ree ae

People v. McKenzie, 34 Cal.3d 616, 194 Cal. Rptr.

Sy ED SU COU CEUOD vecncccovsccencssecsscs

Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 49 L.Ed.2d 913, 96

S.Ct. 2960, reh. den., 429 U.S. 875, 50 L.Ed.2d

Be Or Ps BT CAMPO ei cen ecesececessesscaces

Page

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053 (CAS Fla. 1978)

Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 49 L.Ed.2d 974,

96 S.Ct. 3001, reh. den., 429 U.S. 890, 50 L.Ed.2d

173, G7 SAR. ZEB CUGIGS) i sce cccsccessecssanes

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 8 L.Ed.2d 758,

82 S.Ct. 1417, reh. den., 371 U.S. 905, 9 L.Ed.2d

BGG, GD DAL. BE COPED 6 a oss a csvcdscvncacsews

Rossana v. State, 113 Nev. 375, 934 P.2d 1045 (1997)

State v. Chighizola, 281 So.2d 702 (LA 1973)......

United States v. Gebbie, 185 FRD 516 (SD Ohio

United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 91

L.Ed. 884, 67 S.Ct. 677, 19 BNA LRRM 2346, 12

CLs BA. © Siar CRUD pcccccnsctcsdanccevess

United States v. Nilsen, 482 F. Supp. 1335 (DC NJ

ETE POT TT TTT IT Prep errr re rie ee

Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 49 L.Ed.2d

SOR, SS DCE. ZOTO (RGF s ncn scvcscsccacsacesss

OTHER MATERIALS

Encyclopedia of the AMERICAN CONSTITU-

TION, McMillian Pub. Co............... 8, 11,

Page

coae Oe

12, 14

CITATION TO OPINION

The United States Court of Appeals dismissed the

case 12-06-01 and sent a letter dated January 24, 2002, a

petition for writ of certiorari should be directed to The

Supreme Court, 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC

20543, (202) 479-3011. The style of the case was Scales v.

Stack. The letter is reproduced in the Appendix. The

dismissal from the District Court of Nevada is also repro-

duced.

JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction of the case because the

United States Court of Appeals wrote a letter giving the

Court jurisdiction. By statute the Court is authorized to

grant certiorari in any case that is from a federal court of

appeals. The District Court of Nevada dismissed the case

October 12, 2001, but sent a letter dated August 24, 2001

writing Scales’ name wrong and misspelling her name on

the same page. Showing how apathetic the District Court

was.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide

respectively, neither the federal government nor the state

shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with-

out due process of law.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that a person

accused of a crime shall be informed of the charges

agairist him or her an have the assistance of a lawyer; To

be confronted with witnesses against him or her and

given a chance to present her case.

The Eighth Amendment excessive bail shall not be

required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and

unusual punishment inflicted.

Fourteenth Amendment no state shall deny to any

person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION

OF THE LAWS.

ee ee

—

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Scales’ son Leonard K. Scales, who was stationed at

China Lake Naval Base in Ridgecrest, CA called and

informed her that she had a certified letter from the

District Attorney's office in Las Vegas on 5-20-99. It was a

warrant for her arrest for the crime of Stalking signed by

Judge Jennifer P. Togliatti. Scales had been living in Cali-

fornia City, CA with her brother John Jarrett since

2-20-99. 5-13-99, Dr. Shreck’s nurse Julie called her

brother’s home. Scales called back and said “tell Julie to

stop calling here.” How did they know who called if they

hadn't called Scales first. Scales’ son got a signed state-

ment from Roger K. Staten, mail clerk stating that letter

had just been made known to them.

Scales will use the Court Report to state what hap- |

pened. But first, Scales saw the police report written by |

Stack on 7-21-00 after she’d been tried and convicted

10-13-99, put in jail 4-14-00. Stack wrote that Michele

Lentz was the victim, not Dr. Shreck. On that same police

iii ail

report that Strack wrote, Mrs. Lentz didn’t live or work in

the alleged crime scene area. Mrs. Lentz was Scales

accuser.

1-20-99, criminal complaint filed-stalking. (C.P. 1)!

Who was Scales stalking. 1-20-99, was on a Wednesday.

Dr. Shreck was off on Wednesdays and Mrs. Lentz

worked for Dr. Pitterman. 1-22-99, Defendant not present

in court-Summons in LIEU of arrest (C.P. 1) Scales was

employed at El Jens Convalescence. Mrs. Lentz came into

the facility 1-19-99, touched the medication cart. Scales

was fired 1-30-99, no reason given.

Scales moved to California 2-20-99, not knowing any-

thing about these charges against her. 2-25-99, initial

arraignment-Defendant not present in court-BENCH war-

rant 2000/2000/4000. (C.P. 1)

Scales returned to Las Vegas to squash the warrant.

6-3-99, initial arraignment continues-Defendant present

in court. (C.P. 1) When Scales was given the ridiculous

charges all of the police officers ran out of the courtroom

laughing. (See charges on page ?) Dr. Shreck had sent

Scales two referral forms to Dr. Ruppert’s office. One for

her to have a mammogram and this one on page ? for her

to see Dr. Stein. He paid for it, note the insurance com-

pany USA Health Network. Dr. Shreck is a wealthy white

doctor and Scales is a black female. The State of Nevada

was teaching Scales a lesson, “BIGOTRY.” 6-4-99, Defen-

dant present in court-Plea not guilty, set for trial, 8-4-99.

(C.P. 1) 8-4-99, Scales came to court prepared to present

1 Reference to the Court Report will be in format of (C.P. 1,

2, 3 or 4) page number.

the referral form and ask Dr. Shreck what had happened

to him. Scales didn’t do anything to him. The case

should’ve been dismissed. 8-4-99, Defendant didn’t check

in with Public Defender prior to court-Court orders

Defendant to call Public defender one week before trial.

(C.P. 1) The state took away Scales right to represent

herself.

10-13-99, Judge Jennifer P. Togliatti introduced Scales

to her lawyer, Mr. Rustley in court. Then she sent him to

courtroom 4 to get a bad check. Scales has never written a

bad check in her lifetime.

10-13-99, Defendant present in court-STATE WIT-

NESSES: Michael Stack and Robert William. (C.P.1)

Where was Mrs. Lentz she filed the charges. Stack testi-

fied to gifts that Scales had given Dr. Shreck, 12-31-97.

Scales got Dr. Shreck’s permission before she bought

anything. Plus C. Lalli, prosecutor dropped a pair of

slacks to the floor that had been altered and worn. Scales’

court ordered lawyer couldn’t give her a defense even if

he’d wanted to. Four letters and five photos were booked

into evidence. Scales had written Dr. Shreck because of

that repeat mammogram. But the letters were meant to be

amusing. We are adults. If Dr. Shreck would’ve read his

own mail he would’ve done exactly what the prosecutor

C. Lalli did, LAUGH.

There was a statement in the records signed by Dr.

Shreck, dated 7-1-98. The Location of occurrence had

been wiped out and stamped over by the police. Of

course, Scales was living in Oak Harbor, WA from 6-22-98

to 10-9-98. Then Scales moved Harvey, LA. If Scales had

eT a Ee Te

wanted to stalk Dr. Shreck, she would've stayed in Las

Vegas.

10-13-99, court finds Defendant guilty-court orders

Defendant to have a psychiatric evaluation done before

sentencing, order to be done, if not done court will place

Defendant into custody to have done - Defendant

ordered to have no contact with Dr. Shreck and Ms. Lenty

and Dr. Shreck’s office to include by mail, phone, Electro-

inc Device, Posting messages or Skywriting. (C.P. 2)

“SKYWRITING” Scales left the courtroom knowing why

Mr. Rustley was sent to get a bad check. Dr. Shreck was

told that Scales was committing criminal acts. Who

wouldn’t believe Stack, he was the police.

Mr. Rustley called Scales 10-15-99, and gave her an

appointment for her to see a doctor 1-3-00. Scales moved

back to California. 12-13-99, Scales called Mr. Rustley and

left messages for him to reschedule that appointment.

Scales wouldn’t have the money to stay in Las Vegas from

1-3-00 until sentencing 1-14-00. Plus Scales had a small

claims court date for 1-10-00. Scales never heard from Mr.

Rustley.

1-13-00, Scales returned to Las Vegas and went

straight to see Mr. Rustley. He’d never received any mes-

sages. Scales also asked Mr. Rustley how to file an appeal

for the second time. Mr. Rustley being very sarcastic,

“Judge Togliatti will tell you in court tomorrow.” 1-14-00,

Judge Jennifer P. Togliatti yelled something about

“Impulse Control.” 1-14-00, Defendant present in court -

sentenced to Legal Rehabilitation Services by correspon-

dent - no contact with Dr. Shreck. (C.P. 2) Scales went

back to California, to return to Las Vegas 4-14-00. When

she received that correspondent, she was instructed to go

use the bathroom and record how it felt. “MASTUR-

BATE.”

Scales immediately returned that correspondence and

wrote Shane Emerick. She called Legal Rehabilitation Ser-

vices to let everyone know why she’d returned that corre-

spondence. 4-14-00, Defendant present in court -

Defendant told Legal Rehabilitation Services she wanted

to file an appeal and didn't complete the counseling

packet - Defendant did not contact Public Defenders to

notify them. (C.P. 3) Scales has a copy of the letter sent to

Shane Emerick. Defendant says Public Defender didn’t

have her in the computer. (C.P. 3) 4-13-00, Scales went

over to Public Defenders’ office; the clerk showed Scales

on the computer where she wasn't a present client but

they had Scales in the computer for a closed case in July,

1998. So the State of Nevada accused Scales of a crime

July, 1998 assigned her to the Public Defenders’ office,

tried and convicted her, closed the case all while Scales

was living in Oak Harbor, WA. Read the police report

Stack wrote. The police were investigating Scales while

she was living in Oak Harbor, WA.

4-14-00, court remands Defendant into custody and

sets contempt hearing — Bail 50000 /50000/100000. (C.P. 3)

Scales is an Insulin Dependent Diabetic with a history of

High Blood pressure in jail “NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.”

Scales became as sick as she could be. 4-18-00, Scales

requested to see the doctor. Her blood pressure was taken

for the first time, it was 160/120, a medical emergency.

4-20-00, Scales was released from 100000 bail to OR. She

returned to California to do another correspondent given

to her in court 4-20-00 by the Public Defender.

7-20-00, Defendant present in court - Legal Reha-

bilitation Services completed - case closed. See page 2.

Scales wrote all through that packet, “getting to the

Supreme Court to find out what the crime was.” “False

imprisonment,” etc.

7-21-00, the Public Defenders’ office gave Scales Dr.

Shreck’s home phone number, home address and his

social security number. 1-14-00, NO CONTACT WITH

DR. SHRECK. (C.P. 2) The alleged crime was Stalking and

they gave Scales his home address, phone number and

social security number. There was “no appeal on the

case.” The State wanted to give Scales a criminal record.

But all they did were violate her civil rights.

8-4-99, the judge gave Scales a direct court order to

call the Public Defender. Scales called on 10-6-99 and was

given to Mr. Rustley. She called Mr. Rustley 10-8-99 and

again on 10-11-99 trying to give him her evidence that

would’ve dismissed the case. Mr. Rustley called Scales

back 10-12-99 not to set up an appointment but to let

Scales know that they would all be there reading letters.

When Scales saw the evidence for the first time,

7-21-00, it didn’t include any letters only sentences taken

out of content written by Mrs. Lentz. Four letters were

booked into evidence, the District Attorney, C. Lalli were

reading letters in court. Scales has the right to see and

read every one of those letters.

The State didn’t have a crime. Scales earned a BS

Degree in Justice and Public Safety in 1989. Plus remem-

ber that old saying, “experience is the best teacher.” In

1986 Scales had an altercation and she ended up in court.

But the judge knew that she was telling the truth. His last

| sss... ae

words were “You don’t have to come back, unless you

just want to see me.” By the way, Judge Phelphs died and

the police changed the outcome of that case. But they

made one mistake. They entered a plea into the court

records two days before Scales actually appeared in

court.

¢

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

1. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide,

respectively, that neither the federal government

nor the state may deprive persons of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law. The United

States Court of Appeals and the District Court of

Nevada dismissed the case. No crime was commit-

ted. The State of Nevada was just teaching Scales a

lesson. The United States Court of Appeals wrote

Scales a letter stating to just move on to the

Supreme Court. The District Court of Nevada wrote

Scales’ name wrong and misspelled it on the same

page. No serious court on this land would do that.

There are avenues available to seek federal judicial

review of the decisions of the state court in criminal

cases, one is a convicted defendant has taken whatever

appeals are available to him or her under state law.? The

Constitution guarantees Due Process of Law, “no free

man shall be imprisoned without Due Process of Law.”

No crime was committed. In Rossana v. State, 113 Nev.

375, 934 P.2d 1045 (1997). To prove the crime of aggra-

vated stalking pursuant to NRS 200.575, state must show

2 Encyclopedia of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, pg.

521.

a ae

not only that defendant engaged in intentional conduct

that caused specific result, but also that defendant threat-

ened victim with intent to cause victim to be placed in

reasonable fear of death or substantial bodily harm. What

happened to Dr. Shreck. Scales moved to Oak Harbor,

WA, from 6-22-98 to 10-09-98, then she moved to Harvey,

LA. Scales was never arrested, never read Miranda rights.

Stack testified to gifts Scales left for Dr. Shreck, 12-31-97.

Scales asked Dr. Shreck before she bought anything. Four

letters and five photos were booked into evidence. Signif-

icance; Scales was presented with photos of wrapped

gifts and wasn’t shown any letters at all. United States v.

Nilsen, 482 F Supp 1335 (DC NJ 1980). Timeliness or

staleness of information establishing probable cause must

be measured by nature and regularity of unlawful activ-

ity. What was the unlawful activity? The slacks had been

altered and worn, a tagged place on them, brought into a

court of law to prove the crime of stalking.

2. Scales’ rights under the Sixth Amendment confron-

tation clause were violated when she met her court

ordered lawyer for the first time on the day of the

trial. She attempted to give him evidence that

would’ve dismissed the case twice in court.

Most of the evidentiary requirements of a fair trial

are now subsumed under the confrontation and com-

pulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment, which

as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment are

applied to the states. The accused person is permitted to

confront and question witnesses for the prosecution.

Scales had as evidence a referral form Dr. Shreck sent to

her. Scales attempted to give the referral form to Mr.

10

Rustley. The state gave Scales a direct order to call the

Public Defenders office. Scales even tried to hire a private

lawyer, they all refused. The State of Nevada was teach-

ing Scales a lesson. United States v. Gebbie, 185 FRD 516

(SD Ohio 1999). Trial courts may permit criminal defen-

dants to waive their Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel. Scales could’ve done a better job

defending herself. 4-13-00, the Public Defender didn’t

even have Scales as a client. Gannett Co. v. Depasquale, 443

U.S. 368, 61 L.Ed.2d 608, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 5 Media L.R. 1337

(1979). Sixth Amendment’s guarantees to accused rights

to speedy trial, public trial, trial by jury, to notice of the

accusation against him, to confront witnesses, and to

have assistance of counsel. Scales met Mr. Rustley on the

day of the trial. Scales was given the police report written

by Stack and the evidence where Mrs. Lentz wrote, taking

sentences out of content by the Public Defenders, that

she’d never seen before 7-21-00. So Mr. Rustley wasn’t

suppose to defend Scales. People v. Mckenzie, 34 Cal.3d

616, 194 Cal. Rptr. 462, 668 P.2d 769 (1983). Defendant

was denied effective assistance of counsel where appoin-

ted public defender failed to participate in trial of defen-

dant. C. Lalli gave Dr. Shreck a letter to read in court. Dr.

Shreck hadn’t seen that letter before. Scales asked Mr.

Rustley to let her see that letter, he just ignored her. State

v. Chighizola, 281 So.2d 702 (LA 1973). Persons charged

with misdemeanor, conviction of which could result in

their imprisonment, have right to be assisted by counsel

during every critical stage of their prosecution.

11

3. Scales’ rights to be free of cruel and unusual pun-

ishment, excessive bail not imposed was violated

when the state of Nevada put her in jail under

50000/50000/100000 bail for refusing to go mastur-

bate and record how it felt.

“Today the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment

which, although not physically barbarous, involve the

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, or grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the crime.”3 The

Eighth Amendment provides that “excessive” bail not be

imposed. Scales is an Insulin Dependent Diabetic with a

history of high blood pressure. The State of Nevada put

her in jail under 50000/50000/100000 bail. Coker v. Geor-

gia, 433 U.S. 584, 53 L.Ed.2d 982, 97 S.Ct. 2861 (1977).

Punishment is “excessive” and unconstitutional if it (1)

makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of

punishment and hence is nothing more than purposeless

and needless imposition of pain and suffering. Scales was

released 4-20-00 from 100000 bail to O.R. Hutto v. Finney,

437 U.S. 678, 57 L.Ed.2d 522, 98 S.Ct. 2565 (1978), reh. den.,

439 U.S. 1122, 59 L.Ed.2d 83, 99 S.Ct. 1035 (1979). Eighth

Amendment’s ban on conflicting cruel and unusual pun-

ishment made applicable to states by Fourteenth Amend-

ment, proscribes more than physically barbarous

punishment; it prohibits penalties that are grossly dispro-

portionate to offense, as well as those that transgress

today’s broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized

standards, humanity, and decency.

3 Encyclopedia of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, pg.

525.

12

On basis of due process clause of Fourteenth Amend-

ment, cruel and unusual punishment clause of Eighth

Amendment is fully applicable to states. Robinson v. Cali-

fornia, 370 U.S. 660, 8 L.Ed.2d 758, 82 S.Ct. 1417 (1962),

reh. den., 371 U.S. 905, 9 L.Ed.2d 166, 83 S.Ct. 202 (1962);

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, 92 S.Ct.

2726 (1972), reh. den., 409 U.S. 902, 34 L.Ed.2d 163, 93 S.Ct.

89 (1972); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, 96

S.Ct. 2909 (1976), reh. den., 429 U.S. 875, 50 L.Ed.2d 158, 97

S.Ct. 197, 97 S.Ct. 198 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S.

242, 49 L.Ed.2d 913, 96 S.Ct. 2960 (1976), reh. den., 429 U.S.

875, 50 L.Ed.2d 158, 97 S.Ct. 197, 97 S.Ct. 198 (1976); Jurek

v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 49 L.Ed.2d 929, 96 S.Ct. 2950 (1976),

reh. den., 429 U.S. 875, 50 L.Ed.2d 158, 97 S.Ct. 197, 97

S.Ct. 198 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280,

49 L.Ed.2d 944, 96 S.Ct. 2978 (1976); Roberts v. Louisiana,

428 U.S. 325, 49 L.Ed.2d 974, 96 S.Ct. 3001 (1976), reh. den.,

429 U.S. 890, 50 L.Ed.2d 173, 97 S.Ct. 248 (1976).

4. Scales’ rights to equal protection under the law,

Fourteenth Amendment was violated when she saw

the police report 7-21-00, after being tried, con-

victed, put in jail. Her accuser a white woman didn’t

live or work in the area of the alleged crime scene.

Scales was never questioned by the police, never

arrested, never read Miranda Rights.

No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdic-

tion the EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS.*

Stack never questioned Scales, she recognized him as the

4 Encyclopedia of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, pg.

757.

ee

13

man following her everywhere. Scales was afraid. Why

was this strange man following her. He would get on the

bus with Scales and get off with her. Then someone else

would take over. Scales realized on 10-13-99, that these

were policeman, when Stack was called as a witness.

Stack wrote that Mrs. Lentz was a victim in the police

report that Scales saw for the first time 7-21-00.

“Returned victims call.” “Her cell phone broke up and we

were disconnected, called her back and left my number.”

“Spoke to victim.” “It sounds as though actions by the

suspect have intensified to the point that this may be

aggravated stalking.” What actions, why didn’t Stack

arrest Scales. “12-14-98, booked gifts into evidence.”

Stack booked evidence that had been altered and worn. Is

this a corrupt, racist policeman. “Phone Lentz, suspect

was gone from Desert Springs Hospital when police

arrived last week; additionally, victim received numerous

hang up calls over the weekend and was advised on trace

procedures.” Why would Desert Springs Hospital call the

police. Scales wrote the Administrator and asked, no one

responded. Scales never called Mrs. Lentz except on the

job for a patient complaint. Racism prevails here. Mrs.

Lentz didn’t live or work near Desert Springs Hospital.

One great purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to

raise colored race from that condition of inferiority and

servitude in which most of them previously stood, into

perfect equality of civil rights with all other persons

within jurisdiction of states. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S.

339, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1880).

EQUAL PROTECTION clause of Fourteenth Amend-

ment is principally designed to protect negros against

14

discriminatory action by states.5 Palmer v. Thompson, 403

U.S. 217, 29 L.Ed. 438, 91 S.Ct. 1940 (1971). Fourteenth

Amendment, like other Civil War Amendments, was pri-

marily designed to outlaw racial discrimination by states

(per Black, J., as Circuit Justice J] Karr v. Schmidt, 401 U.S.

1201, 27 L.Ed.2d 797, 91 S.Ct. 592 (1971).

5. Contempt isn’t mentioned in the Constitution but

the court has to explain how it came to exercise such

power. The Supreme Court has imposed some con-

stitutional limits: in criminal contempt the judge

must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. Even if the contempt had been direct for the

judge to inflict serious penalty the contemnor has

had a trial by jury.

Scales tried to follow every order given to her by the

court. But to instruct a 50-year-old female to go use the

bathroom and record how it felt, Masturbate was way

beneath Scales. Any citizen of the United States over the

age of 21 chooses his or her own sexual desires, but that

is a private entity. The State of Nevada was teaching

Scales a lesson. No crime was ever committed. Incarcera-

tion of those individuals who cannot pay established

money bail, without meaningful consideration of other

possible alternatives, infringes on both due process and

equal protection requirements. Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d

1053 (CAS Fla. 1978). Scales’ bail was set at

50000 /50000/ 100000. Courts which have returned convic-

tion for contempt mu&st, in fixing amount of fine to be

5 Encyclopedia of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, pg.

492.

15

imposed as punishment or as means of securing future

compliance, consider amount of defendant’s financial

resources and consequent seriousness of burden to partic-

ular defendant. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S.

258, 91 L.Ed. 884, 67 S.Ct. 677, 19 BNA LRRM 2346, 12

CCH LC # 51239 (1947).

The judge in this case sent the warrant to California

for stalking a person in Las Vegas. She was the trial

judge, the convicting judge, the sentencing judge. She put

Scales in jail under 50000/50000/100000 bail. She intro-

duced Scales to her court ordered lawyer, she gave the

direct order taking away Scales’ right to defend herself.

The law gives judges immunity. Judge’s actions do not

amount to “judicial acts” where it is beyond reasonable

dispute that judge acts out of personal motivation and

uses judicial office as offensive weapon to vindicate per-

sonal objectives and where it further appears certain that

no party has invoked judicial machinery for purpose at

all; such nonjudicial acts are not cloaked with judicial

immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harper v.

Merckle, 638 F.2d 848 (CAS Fla.), cert. den., 454 U.S. 816, 70

L.Ed.2d 85, 102 S.Ct. 93 (1981). NO CRIME WAS EVER

COMMITTED. Just before Judge Jennifer P. Togliatti put

Scales in jail, she’d read letters. Scales wants to read those

letters, maybe she can explain.

The NEVADA STATE BOARD OF NURSING used

this conviction as basis for denying Scales renewal of her

LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSING LICENSE. Scales has

been an LPN for 25 years. She never had one patient

complaint.

16

CONCLUSION

ee

This petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

ANNIE Mae SCALES

1310 79th Street

Newport News, VA 23605 |

(757) 224-0239 |

1A

APPENDIX

General Docket

US Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

01-16882 Scales v. Stack, et al

ANNIE MAE SCALES

Plaintiff-Appellant

Vv.

MICHAEL STACK; KATHRYN J. MOURNING;

LAS VEGAS POLICE DEPARTMENT;

CONNIE GONDULLA

Defendants-Appellees

Docket as of February 19, 2002 11:20 p.m.

» » »

11/14/01 Order filed: (PROSE) A review of the record

demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction

over this appeal because the 8/24/01 “notice

of intention to dismiss” challenged in the

appeal is not a final or appealable order.

(CITES) Consequently, this appeal is dis-

missed for lack of jurisdiction. All other

requests for relief are denied as moot. (Pro-

cedurally Terminated After Other Judicial

Action; Jurisdictional Defects. Andrew J.

KLEINFELD, M.M. MCKEOWN, Raymond C.

FISHER) [01-16882] (dg)

»* » *

2A

2762 El Dora Cir.

Unit B

Las Vegas, NV 89146

Confidential

Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals

Dear Ms. Catterson,

I have to move. Please contact me at the above

address. I’ve been here with my sister for two years. I

have to move back to Las Vegas. I don’t have a choice.

[Illegible], well I cannot live in fear.

I have a question. I read this information packet. I am

supposed to send 10 copies of my brief and 5 copies of

the excerpts of records [illegible] DO NOT send excerpts,

not addressed with the District Court. I tried to send

evidence to the District Court they addressed [illegible]

numerous letters to the Court. So I am sending one copy

of my evidence. I am pleading with the Court. I am not a

lawyer. But you don’t ask anyone to go [illegible] and

when they refused they go to JAIL. Something is very

wrong here. RACISM.

Please excuse my handwriting. I am diabetic, it is

hard. My sister won’t let me use her computer it is fixed

now.

Sincerely,

Annie Mae Scales

/s/ Annie Mae Scales

3A

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

95 Seventh Street, P.O. Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

October 12, 2001

TO: Annie Mae Scales

Apt. #1

1676 Ontario Drive

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

[If they received the letter with my change of address

why did they send this to my California address.]

FROM: Office of the Clerk

By: Donna Gilmour, Deputy Clerk

RE: Receipt of a Deficient Brief of appellant on

10/11/01.

U.S. Court of Appeals Docket Number: 01-16882

Short Title: Scales v. Stack

The referenced brief cannot be filed for the following

reason(s):

4A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ANNIE MAE SCALES, _ )

eae ) Case No.

Plaintiff, ) CV-S-01-0437-DWH (PAL)

vs. ORDER

MICHAEL STACK, ) (Filed Oct. 12, 2001)

Defendants. )

)

The Court informed Plaintiff that this action would

be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure unless she provided proof of service

upon all de. ndants by September 24, 2001. Notice #3.

Plaintiff has not filed the required proof of service within

the allotted time, nor has she filed any documents show-

ing why good cause exists to excuse the failure to comply

with Rule 4(m)’s 120-day time limit.

Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal (#5), but the

Court has not previously entered an order or judgment.

The Notice of Appeal (#5) has no effect on this Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DIS-

MISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to com-

ply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of Oct., 2001.

/s/ David W. Hagen

DAVID W. HAGEN

United States District Judge