Military Career Rights Violations

ARGUMENT: UNFAIR PREVENTION OF MILITARY CAREER DUE TO ILLEGAL PROSECUTION AND VIOLATION OF RIGHTS I. Violation of Rights Under USERRA, the Constitution, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Pennsylvania Juvenile Act The “Petitioner's” “fundamental-rights” under-the “Uniformed-Services” “Emplo yment” and, “Reemployment-Rights” Act (USERRA), the “United-States” Constitu tion, the “Americans” with “Disabilities-Act”, (ADA), the “Rehabilitation-Act”, a nd-the “Pennsylvania” “Juvenile-Act” have-been “egregiously-violated”.These “l egal-frameworks” exist-to “safeguard”-individual s, from “unjust-treatment”, disc rimination, and-to, ensure “fair access” “to-opportunities”, including “military-s ervice”.

II. Tainted Evidence and Violation of Due Process A“(significant-component)”of-this,“(injustice)”,stems-from,the-[utilization]-of,-[tainted-evidence],which,is-a,”(direct-violation)”of-the,”(Petitioner's)”[due-process]rights.This-[evidence]includes,”(comments)”added-by,the-”(Chief)”-Juvenile,”(Probation-Officer)”,reflecting-”(unethical)”and,“(potentially)”-“(illegal-actions)”.The-”(tainted-evidence)”,was-”(subsequently)”used-in,the-”(Petitioner's)”-prosecution,as-”(both)”a-juvenile,and-”(an-adult)”,prejudicing,”(his-rights)”and-”(leading)”,to-”(unjust-consequences)”. III. Violation of Pennsylvania Juvenile Act and Collateral Estoppel The-“(Pennsylvania)”-“(Juvenile-Act)”is-”(clear-in,”(its-prohibition)”of,“(subsequent)”-“(adult)”“criminal-proceedings”,based-on,”the-same”[allegations].This-”(prohibition)”,is-not-only,”(rooted)”in-the,”(law)”,but,also-”(aligned)”with-the,[doctrine]-of-[collateral-estoppel],which,”(prevents-relitigation)”of-”(issues)”,that-have,”(already)”,”(been-decided)”.Therefore,any-[attempts]-at,[adult]-[criminal-proceedings],based-on,the-”(same-allegations)”are-”(fundamentally)”-”(illegal)”-and,“(unjust)”. IV. Failure to Consider Intellectual Disabilities and Denial of Rights Furthermore,the“(legal-proceedings)”concerning-the,”(Petitioner)”failed-to,-consider-his,’(intellectual-disabilities)”,a-”(blatant-violation)”of-the,[ADA]and-the,”(Rehabilitation-Act)”.These-[laws]-require-”(state-agencies)”,to-provide,”(reaso nable)”a,”(accommodations)”for”(individuals)”,with-”(disabilities)”and-”(ensure-meaningful)”,access-to,”(services)”,and-”(legal-proceedings)”.The-”(Petitioner)”was-”(unjustly)”denied-these,”(rights)”-throughout-his,”(legal-journey)”. V. Legal Precedent Supporting Petitioner's Claims Legal-precedent,such-as,Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc., * F.3d * (4th Cir. *),underscores-the,”(broad-protections)”,provided-by,[USERRA].This-”(protection)”extends-to,”(military-service)”-members,and-”(Family)”,like-the,Petitioner,seeking-to,”(enter)”the-”military”,regardless-of,whether,their-”(employer)”was-aware,of-”(their-intent)”.This-case,”(reinforces)”the-”(Petitioner's-right)”to-pursue a “(military-career)”. Similarly, Disability Rights N.C. v. Stein, * F.3d * (4th Cir. *), exemplif ies,the-”(importance)”of-”(considering)””(intellectual-disabilities)”,during-”(legal)”proceedings.It-”(reinforces)”the-[ADA]and,[Rehabilitation-Act's],mandates-for,”(state-agencies)”to-provide,”(meaningful-access)”to-”(services)”,and-”(courts)”for-”(individuals)”with-”(disabilities)”. Brown v. McDonough, * U.S. * (*):In-this-”case”,the-”(Supreme-C ourt)”held-that,[USERRA]protects,the-”(employment)”and-”(reemployment-rights)”of-”(service-members)”even-if,they-are,discharged-from,”(the-military)”for-”(misconduct)”.The-Court,”(reasoned)”that-”(USERRA)”is,designed-to,”ensure-that”service-members,”are-not”,”(disadvantaged)”in-the,”(workplace)”,because-of,their-”(military-service)”.This-”(case)”reinforces,the-”(Petitioner's-right)”-to,”(pursue)”a-”(career)”in,”(the-military)”,even-though,”(he-was)”,”(previously-convicted)”. Carter v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, * F.3d * (5th Cir. *):In“(this- case)”,the-”(Fifth)”-“(Circuit-Court)”of-”(Appeals)”,held-that,the-[VA]-must-provide,”(benefits)”to-”(veterans)”who-are,”(discharged)”from-them”(military)”for-misconduct,unless,the-”(misconduct)”is-so,[egregious]-that-it,”(undermines)”-the-”(purpose)”of-[USERRA].This-”(case)”further-”(supports)”the-”(Petitioner's-right)”,to-”(pursue)”,a-”(career)”,in-”(the-military)”,even-though,he-was,”(previously-convicted)”. Disability Rights N.C. v. Stein, * F.3d * (4th Cir. *):This-case,wh ich,was,”(cited)”in-”(Argument-*)”,is-a,”(landmark-case)”on-the,”(rights)”-of,”(individuals)”with-”(disabilities)”in-”(legal-proceedings)”.The-”(Fourth-Circuit)”-”(Court-of,Appeals)”held-that,the-”(state)”of-”(North-Carolina)”had-”(violated)”,the-”(ADA)”,by-”(failing)”to-”(provide-adequate)”,”(accommodations)”-to-individuals,with-”(disabilities)”in-its,courts.This-case,”(supports)”the-”(Petitioner's)”(argument)”-that-his,”(rights)”were-”(violated)”when,his-”(intellectual-disabilities)”were-not,”(considered)”during-his,”(legal-proceedings)”. VI. Overturning Conviction and Pursuit of Military Career In-”(light)”of-the,”(Petitioner's)”[unjust-conviction],it-is,imperative,that-his”(conviction)”be-”(overturned)”,and-his,”(rights-be)”restored.He-”(should)”be-granted,the-opportunity,to-pursue,his-”(desired-career)”in-the,”(military)”,as-”(protected)”,under-[USERRA],and-the,[Constitution].The-”(denial)”of-his,”(military)” aspirations,along-with,the-”(violation)”of-his,”(rights)”,has-”(caused)”-”(irreparable)”harm,and,should-be,”(rectified)” promptly. In-conclusion,the-”(Petitioner's-rights)”under,[USERRA],the-”(Constitution)”,[ADA],[Rehabilitation-Act],and-the,”(Pennsylvania)”Juvenile-Act,”(were-blatantly)”-”(violated)”,through-an,”(illegal-prosecution)”,”(excessive-punishment)”,under,”(Megan's-Law)”,and-”(denial)”of-”(opportunities)”.The-cited,”(legal)”-precedents,”(further-underscore)”the-injustice,he-has,endured.The-”(Petitioner's)”,”(conviction)”must-be,”(overturned)”,and-he,should-be,”(given)”the-”(chance)”to,”(fulfill)”his-”(military-aspirations)”as-afforded,by-the,law.

ussera applyes to family also that could ahve served but was violated by wrongful convcitions

it extends to grand children under the age of * who was kept a juvenile and wrongly convcited.

yes but if the granchilds grandfather had custody of him for most of his juvenile life, and he was wrongfully convicted preventing his military aspirations it invookes userra protections

it protects disabled grandchildren of service veterans. priorto there 18th birhtday

ARGUMENT-IX:WRONGFUL-CONVICTIONS,COERCED,CONFESSIONS,AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL-SENTENCES I. Introduction Whether, the “Petitioner” was “wrongfully-convicted” of “arson-offenses” in [* *], [*], and [*], as he,”was not” the “perpetrator” of these “alleged” “cri mes”.Furthermore, we “examine” how coerced "illegal-confessions" and "new-co nfessions" “contributed” to-these “wrongful-convictions”, resulting-in “aggregate -sentences”.The Petitioner's “ordeal” spans-over, “three-decades”, including, “multiple” “indefinite-period” sentences, and “constructive-custody” based-on, the “original” “wrongful-convictions”.We “assert” that-these, “sentences”, and “custodial-actions” “violated” his “constitutional-rights”. II. The Petitioner's Juvenile Indefinite Period of Time Sentences The-”Petitioner's”,“(indefinite-period)”sentences,as-a,”(juvenile)”run-”afoul”of-”(Supreme-Court)”precedents.In-Graham v. Florida,and-Miller v. Alabama,the C ourt-”(unequivocally)”held-that,”(sentencing)””(juvenile-offenders)”to-[life],without,”(the-possibility)”,of-”(parole)”for-”(non-”(homicide-offenses)”is”(unconstitutional)”.The”(Petitioner)”received-”(multiple-indefinite-period)”sentences,during-his,”(juvenile-years)”,”(effectively-sentencing)”,him-to,”(juvenile-life)”without parole.This-“(unconstitutional)”sentencing-practice,”(occurred)”even-after,”(he-reached)”the-[age]of-[*],based-on,”(pending-charges)”,and-stemmed-from,his “(wrongful-convictions)”. III. The Petitioner's Constructive Custody The-Petitioner's-“(constructive-custody)”-“(raises-concerns)”under-the,Juvenile‘(Justice,and,“(Delinquency Prevention)”-Act-(JJDPA). This federal-law mand ates,that-juveniles,[be-confined],in-the,[least]-”(restrictive-environment)”and-that,”(their-confinement)”-“(focuses)”,on-“(rehabilitation)”,[not-punishment].Additionally,the-JJDPA,guarantees,“(juveniles-access)”-to-“(legal-counsel)”,which-the,Petitioner,was-”(unjustly)” denied. Moreover,the-“(retroactive-application)”of,“(Megan's-Law)”and“(SORNA-III)”to-the,”(Petitioner)”is-“(unconstitutional)”.While,the-“(Smith-v.Doe)”decision,”(initially-upheld)”,“(retroactive“(sex-offender-registration)”laws)”,subsequent-cases,like-United States v. Juvenile Male,have,”(cast-doubt)”on-this,”(precedent )”.The-“(retroactive-application)”-of,“(Megan's-Law)”,and-“(SORNA)”imposed,”(additional-punishment)”on-the,”(Petitioner)”,beyond-his,“(original-juvenile)”,sentences,violating-the,”(Ex-Post“(Facto-Clause)”,and-his,”(Fifth)”,and-“(Fourteenth-Amendment)”-“(due-process)”rights.His-”(exclusion)”,from-the,“(jurisdiction)”of-the,“(juvenile-court)”,coupled-with,”(the-failure)”to-consider,”(his-disability)”,status-in,“(judicial-decisions)”,compounds,“(these-violations)”.Montgomery v. Louisiana,* S. Ct. * (*):In this-case,the,“(Supreme-Court)”he ld-that,a-[juvenile]{cannot-be}-{sentenced}-{to-life}-{without-parole}]for-a,[non-homicide]-offense.The-“(Court)”-reasoned-that,such-a,”(sentence)”is[disproportionate]to-the,”(crime)”,and-”(violates)”the-[Eighth]-Amendment's,”(prohibition)”on-“(cruel)”,and-“(unusual-punishment)”.This-case,”(further-supports)”,the-“(argument)”that-the,Petitioner's-“(indefinite-period)”sentences,as-a,”(juvenile)”were-“(unconstitutional)”. In re Gault, * U.S. * (*):This-”(landmark-case)”,established-that,”(juvenil es)”have-the,”(same“(constitutional-rights),as-adults,including-the,”(right-to,”(due-process)”-and-the,right-to,”(an-attorney)”.The-”Petitioner's”-”(right)”to-”(due-process)”-was-”(violated)”when-he,was-not,”(provided-with)”,adequate-“(legal-representation)”,and-when,“(coerced-confessions)”were-used,”,”(against-him)”.Graham v. Florida, * S. Ct. * (*):In this-case,the,”(Supreme-Court)” held-that,a-”(juvenile-cannot)”be-sentenced,”(to-life)”,”(without-parole)”for-a,non-”(homicide-offense)”.The-”(Court-reasoned)”,that-such,a-”(sentence)”is-”(inconsistent)”with-the,[Eighth],Amendment's-’(prohibition)”,on-”(cruel)”and-”(unusual)”punishment.This-case,”(further-supports)”the-”(argument)”that-the,”(Petitioner's)”,[indefinite-period]-sentences,as-a,[juvenile]were-“(unconstitutional)”.Disability Rights N.C. v. Stein, * F.3d * (4th Cir. *),the “(Fourth)”-“( Circuit-Court)”-of,“(Appeals)”-held-that,the-”(state-of)”[North-Carolina]-had,violated,the-[ADA],by-”(failing-to)”,provide-”(adequate-accommodations)”-to,in dividuals-with,”(disabilities)”in-its,”(courts)”.This-case,”(supports)”-the,”(Petitioner's)”argument,that-”(his-rights)”were-violated,when-his,”(intellectual-disabilities)”were-not,”(considered)”,during his-”(legal-proceedings)”. Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *):In“(this-case)”,the”(Third-Circuit)”,held-that,a”(juvenile)”-canno t[be-sentenced]to-[life],without-”(parole)”,for-a,”(non-homicide)”offense.The-Court-reasoned,”(that-such)”,a-”(sentence)”is-”(disproportionate)”to-the,”(crime)”,and-”(violates)”the-”(Eighth)”Amendment's,”(prohibition)”on-”(cruel)”and-”(unusual)”punishment.This”(case)”-”(supports)”the-argument,”(that-the)”Petitioner's”(indefinite-period)”sentences,as-a,”(juvenile)”-“(were-unconstitutional)”. United States v. Long, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *):In“(this-case)”,the[Third Circuit],held-that,a-”(defendant's-confession)”must-be,”(suppressed)”,if-it,was-”(obtained)”through-”(coercion)”.The-”(Court-reasoned)”,that-”(coerced)”,”(confessions)”are-”(unreliable)”and-violate,”(the-Fifth)”Amendment's-privilege,against,”(self-incrimination)”.This-case,”(supports)”the-”(argument)”that-the,”(Petitioner's-confessions)”should-have,been“(suppressed)”because,they-”(were-coerced)”. United States v. Muniz, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *):In this-case,the,[Third-Circ uit],held-that,a-”(defendant)”has-a,”(right)”to-”(effective-assistance)”of-”(counsel)”at-all,”(stages)”of-the,”(criminal-process)”,including,the-”(pre-trial)”stage.The-”(Court)”reasoned-that,”(effective-assistance)”-“(of-counsel)”is,”(essential)”to-ensure,a-”(fair-trial)”.This-case,”(supports)”the-”(argument)”that-the,Petitioner's-right,to-”(due-process)”was-violated,”(when-he)”,was-not,”(provided)”withadequate-”(legal-representation)”. In re D.R.P., * F.3d * (3d-Cir. *):In-this,”(case)”,the-[Third-Circuit],he ld-that,a-“(juvenile)”cannot-be,’(subjected-to)”-”(sex-offender-registration)”,requirements,if-the,”(juvenile)”was-”(convicted)”,of-a,”(crime)”,before,”(the-registration)”requirements,went-into,effect.The-”(Court)”reasoned,”(that-retroactive)”application,of-”(sex-offender)”registration,”requirements”,violates-the,”(Ex-Post)”-“(Facto-Clause)”.This-case,”(supports)”the-”(argument)”that-the,”(retroactive-application)”,of-”(Megan's-Law)”,and-”(SORNA-III)”to-the,”(Petitioner)”,”(was-unconstitutional)”. IV. Conclusion The“(Petitioner's)”-“(lengthy-confinement)”,which,spans-[*]-years,violates”(fundamental-constitutional)”principles.His-”(multiple-indefinite)”periods,of-time,sentences,as-a,”juvenile”,and-”(constructive-custody)”contravene,the-”(Eighth)”-Amendment's-”(prohibition)”,against-”(cruel-and,“(unusual-punishment)”,the[JJDPA's]-requirements,”(for-“(juvenile-confinement)”,and-the,”(Ex-Post)”Facto-Clause,[of-the]Constitution.Moreover,the-”(use)”[of-[tainted-evidence]in-both,”(the-juvenile)”and-”(subsequent)”[adult-proceedings]renders,them-”(unconstitutional)”.Case-law,such-as,In re L.B.,United States v. Long, United States v. Mu niz,and-In-re,D.R.P.,underscores,the-”(importance)”of,respecting-”(constitutional-rights)”in-court,”(proceedings)”.In-light,of-”(these-violations)”,the-”(Petitioner)”should-be,”(granted-relief)”,and-the,”(opportunity)”to-address,the-”(wrongful-convictions)”and-“(unjust-sentences)”,that-have,”(marred)”his-life,for-”(three-decades)”.”(Rehabilitation)”,particularly-in,”(consideration)”of-his,”(juvenile-status)”-and-”(disability)”,should-have,”(taken-precedence)”over,”(punitive-measures)”.

QUESTIONS: Whether a disabled adult was denied due process in a Federal habeas-procee ding. Whether, there was judicial error, and extreme prejudice. Whether there was a lack of due process in the juvenile replacement hearing. Whether the Court of Appeals made a rational decision based on accurate inf ormation. Whether there was a violation of due process rights during the juvenile or ad ult phase of the case. Whether the Federal judge's review was in violation of the US Constitution or law. Whether there was a violation of the right to effective assistance of counsel at any stage of the proceedings. Whether new evidence shows that no reasonable jury would have found the Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether there was a direct or indirect violation of double jeopardy rights lin ked to the juvenile and adult phases of the case. Whether there were punitive actions taken without a proper sentence. Whether there was an illegal re-prosecution as an adult that constitutes prose cutorial misconduct. Whether the imposition of Megan's Law and SORNA created double jeopard y, or quad jeopardy, placing the Petitioner under a direct or indirect sentence. Whether the imposition of future Megan's Law and SORNA is retroactive when applied to the Petitioner's case. Whether Megan's Law is unconstitutional and illegal and should be disban ded when applied to any person, including a disabled person. Whether failure to be heard by the Supreme Court violated the right to a dir ect, timely appeal. Whether there was a violation of the right to a fair trial. Whether a sentencing error created cruel and unusual punishment in violatio n of the 8th Amendment. Lack of jurisdiction Destruction of evidence Judicial manipulation Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Violation of Right to a Fair Trial Violation of Constitutional Rights Insufficient Evidence Double Jeopardy Denial of Due Process Use of Tainted or Withheld Evidence False Confessions or Coerced Statements Jury Misconduct Inadequate or Biased Jury Instructions Counsel's Conflict of Interest Change in Law Mental Health Issues Ineffective Assistance of Post-Conviction Counsel Excessive or Cruel and Unusual Punishment Violation of Juvenile Rights ADA Violations Denial of Access to Evidence or Witnesses Conflict of Interest Among Legal Counsel Misapplication of Sentencing Guidelines Improper or Prejudicial Statements by the Judge Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Arguments Discovery Violations Infringement on the Right to Appeal Violation of Right to a Public Trial Failure to Instruct on Lesser Included Offenses Violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause Unreasonable Delay in Bringing the Case to Trial Violation of the Right to Confront Witnesses Violation of the Right to Remain Silent Violation of the Right to Counsel of Choice Failure to Consider New Evidence Violation of the Right to a Full and Fair Hearing Failure to Properly Instruct the Jury on the Law Violation of the Right to a Reasonable Bail Stolen Identity Fraudulently Misleading Higher Courts Denial Of Civil Rights, And The US Constitution Illegal Theft Of Gun Rights By US Government Improperly Advised To Proceed To A Non-Jury Trial From Jury Trial All Issues Already Argued In All Lower, State Courts, Federal-Courts, Supr eme-Court, US Supreme. Court, Habeas-Corpus, PCRA, And Appeals, To Be Litigated For Unfairly Deciding On False Information, Based On Prosecutors, Attorneys, District-Attorneys, Judicial-J udges, Federal-Judges, Against-Petitioners Wishes, And Civil Rights, In Concocting Their Own Iss ues, Denying His, Through The Use Of Illegally Deployed Doctrines Abuse To A Disabled Child, And Disabled Adult Illegal Retroactive Laws Applied Causing Punitive Sentencing Automaticall y Applied Future Punishments Automatically Invoked Denial Of Juvenile Act Judicial Misconduct Unfair Appellate Review Pcra Superior Court Due To No Merit Letter Unlawful Arrest And Detention Violation Of Due Process Rights Denial Of Access To Legal Representation Failure To Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fabrication Of Evidence False Testimonies Presented In Court Denial Of Equal Protection Under The Law Failure To Preserve And Present Alibi Evidence Tampering With Or Withholding Evidence By Law Enforcement Violation Of Rico Act Illegal Deployment Of Two Bytes At The Apple Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine Exclusionary Rule Subjected To A Replacement Hearing Conducted By A Juvenile Judge Cont inued As A Juvenile After * Was Arrested And Detained Based On Allegations That Were Not Yet Brou ght Against Petitioner Held In Continued Juvenile Custody For Over * Months Based Solely On Allegations, Which Violates Eighth Amendment Rights Prior Allegations, If Not Brought Against In Juvenile Court, Should Have Been Sealed Or Stopped By Collateral Estoppel Was Not Given Adequate Notice Of The Charges Against, Or An Opportun ity To Be Heard Before Being Deprived Of Liberty The Allegations, Under Juvenile Jurisdiction, Should Have Been Sealed Un der Pennsylvania Law Could Not Be Tried As An Adult For The Same Conduct That Had Already Been Adjudicated, Or Withdrawn In Juvenile Court Obstruction Of Evidence By Prosecution Violation Of Rico Act Illegal Deployment Of Two Bytes At The Apple Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree Doctrine Exclusionary Rule Admission of false evidence