Case Law For Habeas Petition

is this seem correctly applied caselaw to the argument Limitation-of,“(Issues)”in-the,”(Original)”-“(Habeas-Corpus)”Petition: The-”legal-standard”,here-is,”founded”on-the,”(Petitioner's-constitutional)”right-to,”(effective-assistance)”-of,“(counsel)”in-a,”(habeas-proceeding)”.Strickland-v.Washington,* U.S. * (*),established-the,”standard”for,’(ineffective-as sistance)”-of,“(counsel-claims)”.The-”(argument)”asserts-that,limiting-the,issues,in-the,”(original-petition)”violated-the,”(Petitioner's-right)”to-effective,”(assistance)”-“(of-counsel)”,citing,”(Cullen v. Pinholster)",* U.S. * (*),and Marti nez v. Ryan, * U.S. * (*),which,”emphasize”,“the-importance”,of “(effectiv e-counsel)”in-“(habeas-proceedings)”.

yes do they apply to athe argument

yes as to this argument do they apply in support

would they also apply to coram nobis, coram vobis, vacator, writ of error

“(Double-Jeopardy)”-Clause,of-the,”(Fifth-Amendment)”,The“(Federal-Judge's)”statement,[we-”(Cannot-Have)”-“(Two-Bites)”-at,“(The-Apple)”],implicates-the,”(Double-Jeopardy)”-Clause,of-the,”(Fifth)”-Amendment,which-”(prohibits)”,“(multiple-punishments)”,and-“(trials)”,for-the,“(same-offense)”.Ex-parte-Lange,* U.S. * Wall * (*),United-States v.Dixon,and-Ashe v.Swenson,p rovide-“guidance”-on,“evaluating-claim’s”,of-”(successive-prosecutions)”and,”(define)”-the,“(scope)”,and-“(limits)”,of-the,”(Double-Jeopardy)”-Clause.

In this-case, the Petitioner argues that their counsel was ineffective because the judge limited the issues in the original habeas petition. The Petitioner contends that this limited their ability to present their claims to the court and violated their right to effective assistance of counsel.Cullen v. Pinholster,The Court noted that habeas corpus is a critical safeguard against wrongful convictions, and that effective assistance of counsel is essential to ensuring that habeas petitioners have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court held that ineffective assistance of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding can constitute cause for a procedural default. It [had a significant impact on the Petitioner's ability to present their claims to the court and obtain relief.] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F */*/*/*/

The federal judge limited the issues in the original habeas petition, which prevented the Petitioner from presenting their claims to the court and violated their right to effective assistance of counsel. The federal judge discriminated against the Petitioner due to their disability, which prevented them from having a fair hearing and violated their right to meaningful access to the judicial process. The federal judge did not stay and abey the habeas corpus proceedings while the Appella nt exhausted their state court remedies on their double jeopardy claim, which violated the ir rights under AEDPA. The federal judge's alleged discrimination against the Petitioner due to their disability violated their rights under-the-ADA.

Retroactive-Application)”Of “(Megan's-Law)” “(Sorna-I-II-III-IV)” The-“(retroactive-application)”-of,“(Megan's-Law)”-and,“(SORNA-I-II-III-IV)”to-the,”(Petitioner's-case)”,is-a,”(clear-violation)”of-the,”(Ex-Post-Facto)”-Clause,of-the,”(US)”-(Constitution),as-”(articulated)”-in,Calder v. Bull, * U.S. * (*).The-“(Petitioner)”,had-”(already-completed)”(his-sentence)”and”(probation)”,before,”(these-requirements)”,”(were-imposed)”,including-not,”(being-sentenced)”to-them.Applying-”(these-requirements)”retroactively-”(violates)”-”(the-constitutional)”prohibition,”(against-“(the-imposition)”of-”(additional-punishment)”,for-a,”(crime)”after,”(the-fact)”.This-results,in-”(mental)”,”(emotional)”,and-”(physical-harm)”,leading-to,”(disabilities)”like-[PTSD].Therefore,it-can,”(be-argued)”-that,”(Megan's-Law)”-“imposes”a,“form-of”-“(constructive-imprisonment)”that-is,”(no-different)”,in-theory,than-being,”(physically-confined)”,to-a,”(prison)”for-the,”(same-cases)”multiple-times.

The unconstitutionality and retroactive application of Megan's Law and SORNA underscore the need to reconsider these laws when applied to individuals who were convicted of sex offenses before these laws were enacted. Petitioner was a juvenile, charged subsequently, who was under a indefinite continued sentence, megan's law originally was in *, it can't apply to him, he was under a * indefinite sentence, and a * indefinite sentence, he was then charged subsequently in juvenile, and detained, which, he was continued as a juvenile, before being released and retried as an adult.In the Petitioner's case, he was already under an indefinite sentence before Megan's Law was enacted. Therefore, applying Megan's Law to him retroactively would effectively increase his punishment for the crimes he committed. This would be a clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause .Retroactive application of Megan' s Law to the Petitioner's case is unconstitutional and should be struck down by the courts.

The-“(prosecution's)”choice-to,”(charge)”the-[Petitioner]as-an,”(adult)”for-“conduct”,that-had,already-”(undergone)”-”(juvenile-adjudication)”runs-afoul,of-well-”(established-legal-principles)”.Torsilieri-Blanding,and-set,”(clear-precedents)”that-”(prohibit)”,trying-a,juvenile,as-an,”(adult)”for-the,”(same-conduct)”,without-”(proper-certification)”or-”(waiver)”.These-”(principles)”have-been,”(reinforced)”,in-‘(subsequent-cases)”,including-Commonwealthv.v. J.S.B.,* Mass. A pp.Ct. * (*).and,Commonwealth v. Camona, * Mass. * (*).,which -have,”(consistently-upheld)”,the-”(prohibition)”,on-such,prosecutions.Additionally,the-”(violation)”of-”(these-principles)”carries-”(significant)”-“(constitutional-implications)”.It-”(raises-concerns)”related-to,”(double-jeopardy)”,cruel,and-”(unusual-punishment)”,and-”(excessive-punishment)”,all-of,which-are,“constitutionally”-”(protected-rights)”.Furthermore,the-”(prosecution's)”actions,are-”(contrary)”to-the,[Juvenile-Act],the-[Bill-of,Rights],and-In-re,Gault,a-”(landmark)”Supreme-Court,case,emphasizing,”(the-importance)”of,”(due-process)”for,“(juvenile-offenders)”. This-”(argument-demonstrates)”,that-charging,”(the-Petitioner)”,as-an,adult,under-”(these-circumstances)”,is-not,only-”(legally-unsound)”,but,”(also-unconstitutional)”.It,”(highlights)”,the-”(need)”for-a,”(thorough-examination)”,of-the,”(actions)”taken,by,”(the-prosecution)”,and-”(questions)”,the-”(legality)”of-the,”federal-court's”decision-to,”(bar)”this-issue,under-”(illegal-doctrines)”in-a,original “habeas-corpus”, blocking-”(relief)”on-”(wrongful-convictions)” knowingly.

The Juvenile Act section that states that charging a juvenile as an adult without proper certif ication or waiver is inconsistent with the legal framework governing juvenile justice is * Pa.C .S.A. § *.This section states that a juvenile court may only transfer a juvenile to adult court if it finds that: (*)The juvenile is not amenable to the treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation provided through the facilities and programs of the juvenile justice system, and (*) the public interest requires that the juvenile be transferred to adult court. [She found him a-[Continued-Juvenile].

yesThis“policy-states”-that,”prosecutors”should,”(generally)”-“(avoid-charging)”“juveniles”,“(as-adults)”,and-“that-they”,should-only,“(do-so)”in-“(rare)”and-“(warranted-circumstances)”.The”(policy)”also-states,”(that-prosecutors)”should,”(consider)”a-”(number)”of-”(factors)”,when,deciding-”(whether)”to-”charge”,a-”(juvenile)”as-an,”(adult)”,including,the-”(juvenile's-age)”,the,“(severity)”of-the,“(offense)”,and-the,”(juvenile's)”-“(criminal-history)”. The[DOJ's-Policy]on-”(juvenile-justice)”provides-”(additional-support)”for-the,Petitioner's-claim,that-the,”(prosecution's-decision)”to-”(charge-him)”as-an,”(adult)”was,“(unlawful)”and-“(unconstitutional)”. In-conclusion,”(charging)”the-Petitioner,as-an,”(adult)”for-”(conduct)”,previously “(adjudicated)”in-”(juvenile-court)”,without-”(certification)”,or-”(waiver)”represents,a-”clear-violation”of-established,”(legal-principles)”,has-”(constitutional-implications)”related-to”(double-jeopardy)”,”(cruel)”,and-”(unusual-punishment)”,and“(excessive-punishment)”,and-”(contradicts)”the-”(legal-framework)”and-”(precedent)”governing,”(juvenile-justice)”.The-”(legality)”of-the,”(federal-decision)”to-”(bar)”this-”(issue)”should-also,be-”(scrutinized)”in-”(light)”of-”(these-violations)”.

If a juvenile is charged as an adult without proper certification or waiver, it violates the framework established by this section of the Juvenile Act. The juvenile court must first make a finding that the juvenile is not amenable to the treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation pro vided through the facilities and programs of the juvenile justice system, and that the public inter est requires that the juvenile be transferred to adult court. If the juvenile court does not make this finding, then the juvenile cannot be charged as an adult.

In re D.P., * F.3d * (3d Cir. *):A juvenile was “(adjudicated-delinquent)” in juvenile court for aggravated-assault. The juvenile was then charged as an adult for the same aggravate d assault. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the juvenile could not be charged as an adult, because he had not been certified as an adult by the juvenile-court and he had not waiv ed his right to be tried in juvenile-court. The court reasoned that charging a juvenile as an adul t in this context violates the juvenile's right to double-jeopardy,and the juvenile's right to be free from cruel,and unusual-punishment.These-cases are similar to the Petitioner's case, because they all involve juveniles, who were “adjudicated-delinquent” in “juvenile-court” and then “charg ed”,“as-adults” for the same conduct. In all of these-cases, the courts held that the juveniles, “(could-not)” “(be-tried)”, as adults because of the [principle of double-jeopardy].

In re Gault, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that juveniles have the same due process rights as adults in juvenile delinquency proceedings. This includes the right to notice of the charges against them, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination. Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that juveniles have the right to a fair trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings. This includes the right to a jury trial, the right to present evidence, and the right to an impartial judge. Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that juveniles cannot be transferred to adult court without a hearing to determine the appropriateness of such a transfer. The court also held that juveniles have the right to counsel at that transfer hearing. In re Winship, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in juvenile delinquency proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the offense charged.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that juveniles have the same right to be free from double jeopardy as adults. In re Winship, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in juvenile delinquency proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt, the same as in criminal trials. Miranda rights: Miranda v. Arizona, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that police must inform suspects of their Miranda rights before interrogating them in custody. In re Gault, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that juveniles have the same Miranda rights as adults.

The-prosecutor,”explicitly”stated,to-”(the-judge)”,”during”,the-”(jury-trial)”,that-Petitioner,was-”(being)”,charged,as-an-“(adult)”,solely-”(because)”of-the,”dates”,after-he,”(turned-*)”,not-before.This-”(assertion)”confirms,that-”(Petitioner)”was-”(intended)”-to,”(be-tried)”as-a,”(juvenile)”-initially,and-that,”(he-had)”,”(faced-adjudication)”on-”(specific-allegations)”even,after-being,”(arrested)”.This-”(proves)”that,Petitioner-was,”(unlawfully-tried)”as,“(an-adult)”,which,was-against “his-rights” as-a, “disabled-juvenile”.

Investigating Officer Thomas Gray's testimony: that the case would be transferred to CID and JUVENILE due to a dispute about the Petitioner's age at the time of the incident. This testimony shows that the Petitioner's case was initially being prosecuted as a juvenile case, and that there was a dispute about whether he was a juvenile or an adult at the time of the incident. The prosecutor's statement to the judge during the jury trial: that the Petitioner was being charged as an adult solely because of the dates after he turned *, not before. This statement confirms that the Petitioner was initially intended to be tried as a juvenile, and that he had faced adjudication on specific allegations even after being arrested. The fact that the Petitioner was initially being prosecuted as a juvenile case:, and that there was a dispute about his age at the time of the incident, is significant because it shows that the Adult Prosecutor's Office did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him as an adult. The Juvenile Court had jurisdiction over the Petitioner at the time of the incident, and it had already begun adjudication on specific allegations. {Continued-Below}, The prosecutor's attempt to sabotage the judge's inquiry into the Petitioner's age is also significant. This shows that the prosecutor was aware that the Petitioner was being unlawfully tried as an adult, and that the prosecutor was trying to conceal this fact from the judge. In conclusion, the evidence shows that the Petitioner was unlawfully tried as an adult. The Adult Prosecutor's Office did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the Petitioner as an adult, and the prosecutor attempted to conceal this fact from the judge. This is a serious violation of the Petitioner's rights as a disabled juvenile.

Montgomery v. Louisiana, * S. Ct. * (*):In,this-case,the”(Supreme Co urt)”,held-that,a-”(juvenile)”,cannot-be,”(sentenced)”to-”(life)”,without-”(parole)”,for-a,”(non-homicide)”offense.The-”Court””(reasoned)”that-sucha-”(sentence)”is”(disproportionate)”to-the,”(crime)”,and-”(violates)”the-”(Eighth-Amendment's)”,”(prohibition)”on-“(cruel)”,and-“(unusual-punishment)”.This-case,further”(reinforces)”the“(principle)”that,“(juvenile-offenders)”are-”(entitled)”to-”(special-protections)”under-”(the-law)”.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)”is-”(also-relevant)”to-the,”(Petitioner's-case)”,as-it,shows-that,the-”(Supreme-Court)”is-”(increasingly)”-“(scrutinizing-sentences)”that-are,”(disproportionate)”to-the,”(crime-committed)”.In-addition,to-these-”(cases)”,there-is,also-a,growing-”(body)”of-case-law,that”(supports)”the-,”(Petitioner's-claim)”that-he-was,”(subjected)”to-“(double-jeopardy)”.

Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*):In this-case,the-”(Supreme-Court)”he ld-that,a-”(juvenile-cannot)”be-”(retried)”as-an,”(adult)”for-the,”(same-charges)”that-were,“(previously)”-”(adjudicated)”in-”(juvenile-court)”.This-”(prohibition)”is,based-on,the-”(Fifth-Amendment's)”protection,against “(double-jeopardy)”. Satterfield v. North Carolina, * U.S. * (*): In this-case,the-”(Supr eme-Court)”-reiterated-that,the-”(double-jeopardy)”prohibition,applies-to,”(juvenile-proceedings)”.The”Court”also-held,that-a,”(juvenile)”“(cannot“(be-retried)”as-an,“(adult)”,for-the,”(same-charges)”,that-were,”(previously-adjudicated)”in”(juvenile-court,even-if,the-”(juvenile)”was-not,”(transferred)”to-”(adult-court)”in-”(accordance)” with “(proper-procedures)”. Blanding v. Commonwealth, * A.2d * (Pa. *):In-this,case,the-”(S upreme-Court)”of-”(Pennsylvania)”,held-that,a-”(juvenile)”-”(cannot“(be-retried)”as-an,”(adult)”,for-the,”(same-charges)”,that-were,”previously”,“(withdrawn)”,in-”(juvenile-court)”.The-Court,”reasoned”that-such,a-”(retrial)”,would-violate,the”(double-jeopardy)”prohibition. These-cases,”(all-support)”,the-”(Petitioner's-claim)”that-the,”(prosecution's)”,“decision”,to“(retry-him)”,as-”(an-adult)”for-the,”(same-allegations)”,that-had,already-been,”(adjudicated)”in-”(juvenile-court)”violated-the,”(double-jeopardy)”-prohibition. The“(Petitioner's-Case)”,is-also,“(supported)”,by-the,“(new“(case-law)”on-''(Miranda-rights)”violations. Davis v. Arizona, * U.S. * (*):In-this-”case”,the-“(Supreme-Court)”hel d-that,”(juveniles)”have-the“(same-right)”to,“(Miranda-warnings)”as,“(adults)”.The-”(Court)”,“reasoned”,that-“juveniles”,are-“just-as”,“(vulnerable“(to-coercion)” as “(adults)”. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, * U.S. * (*):In,”this-case”,the-”(Supreme-Co urt)”,held-that,a-”(juvenile's-confession)”must-be,”(suppressed)”,if-the,”(juvenile)”was-not”(read)”their-”(Miranda-rights)”before,”(being-interrogated)”.The-”(Court-reasoned)”that-the,”(Miranda-warning)”requirement,is-”(essential)”to-”(protecting)”the-’(Fifth-Amendment)” rights of “(juveniles)”. These-cases,”(establish)”that-”(juveniles)”,have-the,”(same-right)”,to-”(Miranda)”,“(warnings)”-“(as-adults)”.The-”(Petitioner's-case)”[falls-squarely,within-this principle],as-he,was-[“(interrogated)”by-“(probation-officers)”,“(without)”,being-read,his“(Miranda-rights)”first].

Under“(Pennsylvania-law)”,the-court,”retains”,“(jurisdiction)”over-a,’(juvenile)”until-the,”({age}of-{*})”,unless-”(ordered)”otherwise.The-”(finality)”of-a,”(juvenile-court)”decree-typically,”involves””(sealing)”the-“(records)”,which,”should-have”,included-the,previous-”(allegations)”under-investigation.However,in-”(Petitioner's-case)”,the-allegations,were-”(not-certified)”or-”(waived)”to-”(adult-court)”,making,it-”(highly-unlikely)”that-new,”(charges-related)”to-the,”(original-allegations)”could-be,”(brought)”.

Confinement restricted his liberty and subjected him to physical abuse. The fact that he was held in prison under confinement, not detention, which is typically reserved for juveniles who have been found delinquent or in need of supervision, is also concerning. It is clear that the Petitioner was unfairly held without proper adjudication. This is a serious violation of his hu man rights.The fact that the allegations against him were technically not brought against him, but were instead under investigation, yet he was arrested and detained on these allegations, is concerning. It is also concerning that he faced a replacement-hearing while still in juvenile-prison, and-that, Judge-Domitrovich's orders confined him to a maxi mum-security juvenile-prison for an indefinite period of time. It's more concerning even, that a federal magistrate is allowed to scapegoat that, after knowing about it, stating she can get the video of replacement hearing,but didn't, stating she can have it for next time, while denying him, from raising the [double-jeopardy] and [jurisdiction], brady, which, all reflect what occurred in juvenile with abuse, is like throwing a [dagger in his-heart, and saying die now], and [who -cares basically], even knowing megan's-law would apply, and her stating [her“(hands- are-tied)”], is-fraudulent, because, [she-knew] he was [violated], “(wrongly-convicted)”, is [ab use of judicial powers] in a Habeas Corpus that is denying a wrongly convicted juvenile, said to be an adult a defense of double jeopardy, showing “(wrongful-convictions)”.Why -is,“( Petitio ner's-testimony)''denied repeatedly as to “(merits)”, when, the “victim's-testimony” is allowed, while its flawed, why is illegal evidence allowed against him, and his evidence blind sided, if this was a football game, penalties would be given. His team would have won.

These-”(cases)”support-the,“(Petitioner's-claims)”that-his,”(rights)”were-”(violated)”in-”(numerous-ways)”,including-through,”(unlawful-detention)”,violation of “(juvenile-rights)”,and-“(malicious-prosecution)”.The-”(Petitioner's-case)”,is-also,supported-by,the,Pennsylvania-”Juvenile-Act”,Section-*(a)(*),which,”(prohibits)”,the-”(prosecution)”,from-”(subjecting)”-“a-juvenile”,to-“(criminal-prosecution)”for-the,“(same-offense)”,if-the,”(court)”,has-”(determined)”that-the,-”(juvenile)”-should,remain-under,-“(juvenile-jurisdiction)”beyond,the-age,of-“(*)”,and“(no-certification)”or-”(waiver)” has occurred./ Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act, Section *(a)(*):specifically prohibits the prosecution from subjecting a juvenile to criminal prosecution for the same offense if the court has determined that the juvenile should remain under juvenile jurisdiction beyond the age of *, and no certification or waiver has occurred. In other words:, the juvenile court's continued jurisdiction and closed-case seal any previous allegations, especially those that were investigated but not charged. This means that: the Petitioner's juvenile record is sealed and cannot be used against him in the future. The prosecution cannot bring new charges related to the original allegations, and the Petitioner cannot be held in juvenile detention or prison for those allegations.

In-conclusion,Petitioner's-’(continued-detention)”,and-”(prosecution)”on-the,”(same-allegations)”after,a-”(juvenile-court)”determination,that-he,”(should-remain)”,under-”(juvenile-jurisdiction)”is-not,only-a,”(violation)”of-his,”(rights)”but-also,”(malicious-prosecution)”.This-”(malicious-prosecution)”is-”(evidenced)”,by-the,”(absence)”of-”(probable-cause)”,for-the,”(charges)”and-the,”(tainted-evidence)”used-in,”(the-case)”.Petitioner-has,”(been-unfairly)”,denied-his,”(constitutional-rights)”at-”(various-stages)”,of-the,”(legal-process)”,from-his,”(unlawful)”detention,to-the,”(violation)”of-”(his-rights)”,as-a,”(juvenile)”.The-”(legal-barriers)”,and”(precedent)”set-by,”(Pennsylvania-law)”,further-support,”(the-argument)”,that-the,”(prosecution's-actions)”in,”(Petitioner's-case)”,are-”(unlawful)”and,should-be,”(rectified)”.The-”(prosecution's-motives)”and-”(actions)”have-raised,”(significant-questions)”,about-the,”(integrity)”of-the-”(justice-system)”,in-this,“(case)”,demanding,a-”(thorough-review)”and-“(complete“(remedy-restoration),to“(restore-time)”,“(body)”,”(mind)”,”(soul)”,”(spirit)”,”(human-dignity)”,and-”(Justice)”for-all),and-all,“(Civil-Rights)”,”(Human-Rights)”,“(Sovereign-Rights)”,“(gun-rights)”,”(Military-Rights)”,”(God-”(Given-Rights)”,”(Magnicarta-Rights)”,and any “(other-rights)”,in-full.

A juvenile has the right to a fair trial and due process. *. In Pennsylvania, a juvenile cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution for the same offense if the court has determined that the juvenile should remain under juv enile jurisdiction beyond the age of * (Pennsylvania Juvenile Act Section *( a)(*)). *. Malicious prosecution and unlawful detention violate constitutional rights.

In”(this-case)”,it-is,”(imperative)”to-”(emphasize)”the-”(core-principles)”-established-by,the-Pennsylvania-Juvenile-Act.If-the,”(juvenile-court)”,as-”(it-did)”-in,”(this-case)”,made-a,”(determination)”to-(continue)-“(its-jurisdiction)”over-the,”(juvenile)”-“(beyond)”the-[“age-of,*”],and-if,the-”(juvenile)”was-”(neither)”previously,[certified-for,trial]as-[an-adult],nor-[waived,their-right]to-have,the[matter-heard,in-”(juvenile)”court],the“law”,“[unequivocally]”states-that:the-[juvenile-”(cannot)”[be-subject]to-”(criminal-prosecution)”for-the,”(same-offense)”].These-”(protections)”are-”(fundamental)”,and-”(align)”with-the,[Pennsylvania-”(Juvenile-Act)”].

Furthermore,it-is,”(worth-noting)”that,”(even-if)”the-juvenile,”(had-not)”,committed,any-“(wrongdoing)”after,the-“(original-allegations)”of-the,”(same-conduct)”,it-would,have-been,[arduous]for-the,”prosecution”to,[bring“(new-charges)”],[unrelated]to-the,[original-allegations].For-the,“(prosecution)”to-(do-so),“(they-would)”require,[substantial-evidence]of-[entirely“(new)”-”(criminal-behavior],which,“(does-not“apply)”,to“(Petitioner's-case)”.Importantly-there,is-“(no-exception)”-in-“(Pennsylvania-law)”that“(would-allow)”,”(the-prosecution)”to-”(circumvent)”,these-”(principles)”.

It-is,“(crucial)”-to,“(underscore)”-that,“(bringing)”-“(new-charges)”,against-a,”(person)”for-a,“(completely)”-“(unrelated-crime)”does-not,”(affect)”the-finality,of-the,“(juvenile-court's)”-“(decision)”,in-the,(prior-case).The-”(Pennsylvania)”,Juvenile-Act,categorically,(prohibits),the-(prosecution)of-a,(person)-as,“(an-adult)”,if-they-were,“(previously-adjudicated)”,“(delinquent)”for-the,”(same-conduct)”in,“juvenile-court”,especially,if-the,“(juvenile-court)”did-not,”(certify)”the,“(juvenile)”for,“(criminal-prosecution)”,as-“(an-adult)”.This“(legal-framework)”prevents,the-”(prosecution)”from,”(using)”any-”(evidence)”or-testimony,”(obatained)”during-the,”(juvenile-proceedings)”,even-when,bringing-“(new)”,and-“(unrelated-charges)”,as-“(an-adult)”. It-is,“(crucial)”-to,“(underscore)”-that,“(bringing)”-“(new-charges)”,against-a,”(person)”for-a,“(completely)”-“(unrelated-crime)”does-not,”(affect)”the-finality,of-the,“(juvenile-court's)”-“(decision)”,in-the,(prior-case).The-”(Pennsylvania)”,Juvenile-Act,categorically,(prohibits),the-(prosecution)of-a,(person)-as,“(an-adult)”,if-they-were,“(previously-adjudicated)”,“(delinquent)”for-the,”(same-conduct)”in,“juvenile-court”,especially,if-the,“(juvenile-court)”did-not,”(certify)”the,“(juvenile)”for,“(criminal-prosecution)”,as-“(an-adult)”.This“(legal-framework)”prevents,the-”(prosecution)”from,”(using)”any-”(evidence)”or-testimony,”(obatained)”during-the,”(juvenile-proceedings)”,even-when,bringing-“(new)”,and-“(unrelated-charges)”,as-“(an-adult)”.

Given“these-clear”,“(legal-standards)”,it-is,”(evident)”that-the,”(prosecution)”had[no]-[valid-reason]to-“(recharge)”,Petitioner-in,”(this-case)”,other-than,”(bias)”,“(prejudice)”,and“(malicious)”-“(vindictive-prosecution)”.This-”(unjustified)”-”(action)”resulted-in,”(illegal)”-“(adult-trials)”,and-“(sentences)”.Regrettably,this-”(pattern)”of-”(prosecutorial-misconduct)”appears-to,”(persist)”throughout-”(various-courts)”in-the,United-States,leading-to,”(sentences)”without-any,”(reasonable)”basis.Petitioner's-”(innocence)”is-manifest,as-he,”(should-have)”[never-faced][trial],as-an,”(adult)”and-”(should)”,have-lived,”(free)”from-”(criminal charges)”. It's crucial to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the petitioner was not.

Legal-precedent,exemplified-by,United-States v. A.F., * F.3d * (3d Cir.* *),Commonwealth v. Ricker, * Pa. * (*),and Commonwealth v. Gal lo, * Pa. * (*),further,”(supports)”Petitioner's-position.These-cases,“(emp hasize)”the-”(significance)”of,”(safeguarding)”,”(due-process)”,rights,”(preventing)”,”(double-jeopardy)”,and-”(prohibiting)”the-”(prosecution)”,from-”(charging)”an-”individual”,as-an,”(adult)”for-an,”(offense)”that-was,[previously-adjudicated]in,”(juvenile-court)”. VII. Unjust Multiple Punishments and Consequences Recharging“(Petitioner)”as-an,”(adult)”(has-resulted)”,in-an,”(illegal-prosecution)”,”(double-jeopardy)”,”(excessive)”-”(multiple-punishments)”applied-”(retroactively)”to-each,case,and-”(forcing-him)”into-”(trials)”,against-”(his-will)”.These-”(unjust)”actionshave-”(inflicted-severe)”,lifetime-”(punitive-consequences)”,including-the,application-of,”(Megan's-Law)”,SORNA-III,and-”(isolation)”,as-a,[disabled-adult]. This-[unjust-treatment],has-”(stolen)”Petitioner's-[life],making-”(daily-existence)”,a-[nightmare]. Montgomery v. Louisiana, * S. Ct. * (*):In-this-”(case)”,the-”(Suprem e-Court)”held-that,a-”juvenile”,”(cannot-be,sentenced)”to,[life,without-parole],fora-[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”,”(multiple-punishments)”,which,were-”(applied-retroactively)”to,each-case,are-[excessive]and,[unconstitutional]. 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-”(multiple-punishments)”are-[excessive],and-[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)”.This-case,”(supports)”the-argument,that-the,”(Petitioner's-rights)”were-”(violated)”when,he-was-”(not-provided)”with,“(adequate)”-“(legal-representation)”. VIII. Conclusion In-summation,Petitioner,-a,”(disabled-juvenile)”,was-”(released)”into-”(adult-hood)”without,”(any-assistance)”,and[subsequently],subjected-to,[unwarranted-trials]and,[punishments].This“(egregious)”-[miscarriage,”(of-justice)”],could-have,been-”averted”,if,he-”had-been”,”provided-with”,“(legal-representation)”when-needed.Petitioner-remains,“(without-guilt)”,having-[served,all-punishments],faithfully,and-[passively],albeit,under-[unlawful-application].This-“(injustice)”,has,”denied”-him,-a,“(military-career)”,his-[pursuit-”(of-happiness],and-his,”(basic-rights)”. Throughout-the,“(legal-process)”,Petitioner-has,[tirelessly-sought]-to[asserted“(his-claim],even-when,“(his-attorneys)”failed-to,do-so.His-”(convictions)”,were-[wrongful]-from,[the-outset],constituting,[blatant“(malicious-prosecution]and-”(violating“(numerous-constitutional)”and,”(legal-rights)”,including,”(those-enshrined)”,in-the,”(juvenile-act)”and-the,“(Bill“(of-Rights)”.Petitioner,”(has-lost)”[three]-”(decades)”[Plus]-of,“(his-life)”due-to,”(this-injustice)”,which,must-be,“(rectified-promptly)”,all-for,[allegations],and-no,[real-evidence]

The Chief Juvenile Probation Officer's actions violated Pennsylvania law and the Juvenile Act. Juvenile records and proceedings are typically confidential under Pennsylvania law, and the Juvenile Act stipulates that records of delinquent acts are not admissible in criminal proceedings unless explicitly authorized by the Act or a court order. Furthermore, the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer has a duty to act in the best interests of the juvenile, and providing evidence for adult prosecution contradicts that duty. The juvenile justice system is designed to be rehabilitative, and punishing a juvenile as an adult can have serious negative consequences for their future. The Chief Juvenile Probation Officer's actions in this case are also concerning because they raise questions about the integrity of the juvenile justice system. It is important to hold juvenile probation officers accountable for their actions and to ensure that they are acting in the best interests of the juveniles they serve. The Petitioner's constitutional rights were infringed upon, and the integrity of the juvenile justice system was compromised.

In Commonwealth v. Tavares, * A.2d * (Pa. *),the-”(Supreme-C ourt)”of-”(Pennsylvania)”established,that-”(evidence)”obtained-in,”(juvenile)”proceedings,is-”(inadmissible)”in,“(adult-“(criminal-proceedings)”unless-there,exists-a,”(statutory-exception)”.The“(Chief)”-“(Juvenile)”-”(Probation-Officer's)”,actions-”(contravened)”-this,“(legal-precedent)”. Commonwealth v. Michael R., * A.2d * (Pa. Super. Ct. *)”(hel d)”that-the-”(use)”of-”(evidence-obtained)”during,a-”(juvenile)”,”(delinquency-proceeding)”in-an,”(adult“(criminal-trial)”violated,the-”(juvenile's)”,”(due-process)”rights,and-”(was)”a,“(violation)”of-[Pennsylvania's“(Juvenile-Act)”]. Commonwealth v. Dinofa, * A.2d * (Pa. Super. Ct. *)establishe d,”(that)”(evidence)”-”(obtained)”during,”(juvenile-proceedings)”,which,[was-not],specifically,[authorized]by-the,[Juvenile-Act],is-”(inadmissible)”in-”(criminal-proceedings)”. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, * U.S. * (*),recognized-that,a-”(juvenile' s-age)”,is-a,[relevant-factor]in-”determining”their-”(custody-status)”for-”(Miranda-purposes)”,further,”(highlighting)”the-importance,”(of-“(procedural-safeguards)”for-”(juveniles)”. In re Gault, * U.S. * (*),affirmed-”(juveniles-rights)”to-”(fundamen tally)“fair-procedures,in-”(delinquency-proceedings)”,including-the,”(right)”to-”(notice)”,of,”counsel”,”confrontation”,and-”(proof-beyond)”a-”(reasonable-doubt)”. Commonwealth v. Ricker, * A.3d * (Pa. *)emphasized-that,”(evide nce-obtained)”during,a-”(juvenile-delinquency)”,proceeding,could-not,[be-used]in-an,[adult-”(criminal-trial)”]without-”(proper-notice)”and-an,”(opportunity)”for-the,”(defendant)”to-”(challenge)”its-”(admissibility)”. Commonwealth v. Storck, * A.2d * (Pa. *)ruled-that,a-”(defendant' s)”-“(statement)”to-a,”(probation-officer)”during,a-”(juvenile-delinquency)”,proceeding-was,”(inadmissible)”in-an,”(adult-”(criminal-trial)”due-to,”(violations)”of-the,[defendant's][Fifth]Amendment-”(rights-against)”[self]-incrimination. Commonwealth v. Williams, * A.3d * (Pa. Super. Ct. *)held-that, evidence-obtained,during-a,”(juvenile-delinquency)”proceeding,was-”(inadmissible)”-in-an,”(adult-criminal)”-[trial],because,”(it-was)”[obtained],in-”(violation)”of-the,[defendant's-right]to-counsel,under-the[Sixth-Amendment]. Commonwealth v. Musau, * A.2d * (Pa. Super. Ct. *)found-that,t he“(admission)”-of,”(evidence)”from-a,”(juvenile-delinquency)”hearing-in,[an-”(adult)”-”(criminal-prosecution)”]violated-the,”(Juvenile-Act)”,which,”(mandates)”confidentiality,and-the,”(defendant's)”-”(due-process)”rights. In-light,of-these,”(legal-precedents)”and,“(case-law)”,it-is,[evident],that-the,”(evidence-obtained)”,during-the,”(juvenile“(delinquency-proceedings)”,should-have,been-”(excluded)”from-the,”(adult-trial)”,and-the,juvenile,is-entitled,to-a”(certificate)”-“(of-appealability)”,to-challenge,”(it’s-admission)”on-”(these-grounds)”.This-[evidence]-was,”(improperly-tampered)”-with,and,”(forwarded)”to-[two-detectives]from,”(different-jurisdictions)”,resulting-in,”(multiple)”,”(unjust)”-prosecutions,and-a,”(violation)”of-”(supreme-law)”./In Pennsylvania, the Juvenile Act, and various constitu tional protections generally prohibit the use of evidence obtained from juven ile proceedings in adult criminal trials, unless explicitly authorized. This incl udes the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.* Pa.C.S.A. § * et seq

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)”.

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

Ground One: Violation of Federal Constitutional Rights (a) Supporting facts: Ground One of this Petition alleges a violation of the Petitioner's Federal constituti onal rights. A. It is based on the use of the ["Two Bytes at the Apple Doctrine"] during a secon d Federal habeas corpus hearing, which effectively, restricted the Petitioner, and his Federal counsel, from presenting crucial arguments related to double jeopardy, juri sdiction, and the sufficiency of evidence, that incorporated further wrongful convic tions, tainted evidence, destruction of evidence, subsequent convictions, limbo,con structive custody daisy chained to original arguments. * B. The Petitioner contends that the Federal Magistrate's application of this doctrine had far-reaching and devastating effects on his pursuit of justice, causing an injusti ce. C. It not only denied him the opportunity to introduce vital arguments, and evidenc e in Federal court, but, also created a chain reaction of obstructions. D. These obstructions, in turn, had cascading effects, on higher court review, it dire ctly placed him in far more punitive and restrictive sentences/punishments illegal ly, retroactively applied, and did so knowingly, and intelligently of a Federal sitting Magistrate whom was already told by Petitioner, it would occur upon partial habea s relief. E. It caused him to then be placed in legal limbo, and constructive custody after the fact, which she was already privy to, and even stated in second habeas hearing. F. In effect, denying him full habeas relief he seeked, while arbitrarily scape-goatin g his rights, by denying him under a doctrine not allowed in a Federal habeas corpu s, was misused of applied law, violating his Petition opportunity, and placed him in direct punishment to this day. G. A wrongly convicted person on all crimes juvenile, and adult, as stated then, an d argued, was gross negligence of a Federal Magistrate. H. Original habeas claims of double jeopardy were valid, Petitioner did not need proof at the time to state the claim, he had a right to review of the claim automatica lly according to Federal habeas law. Petitioner showed further prior to the second hearing, and in the second hearing, that he was a juvenile, that evidence was obtain ed for adult prosecution, prior to the replacement hearing, by chief of probation in violation of juvenile act, that he was then prosecuted illegally, subsequently, and di rect testimony by the detectives juvenile, and adult, and chief juvenile probation officers,that he was “court-ordered” a [18 year-old juvenile], [not-certified], [barre d adult prosecution]. I. The Magistrate had an obligation to adhere to [Federal-law], and hear the argum ent, not deny the [ability to argue it]. Petitioner was supposed to be allowed to raise [all-arguments], and have a hearing on each, before denying the argument, thereb y violating his civil rights, and is entitled to proper review of all issues. J. Further, being a “wrongly convicted”, person in “(double-jeopardy)”, after the “(original-wrongful-conviction)” and Sandbox adjudication, being illegal adjudicat ion originally, to the original [wrongful conviction],and“(subsequently-charged)”. (b) Exhaustion of State Remedies: *. The Petitioner acknowledges that the underlying arguments forming the basis of Ground One were indeed raised at different points within state court proceedings, including PCRA, and appeals. However, the specific issue of the "Two Bytes at the Apple Doctrine" was raised in Federal court, and is [not-reviewable] in state court. *. The Petitioner argues that the denial of these underlying arguments at the state court level, coupled with the subsequent obstruction caused by the "Two Bytes at the Apple Doctrine ''in Federal court, effectively rendered state remedies unattaina ble for the specific issue presented in Ground One. Furthermore, this obstruction ha d a profound, and cascading impact, on the Petitioner's ability to have his argument s heard, and evaluated in the Court of Appeals, and the U.S. The Supreme Court both violated marbury v. madison based on it.

The prosecution's choice to charge the Petitioner as an adult for conduct that had already undergone juvenile adjudication runs afoul of well-established legal principles. B. Petitioner was considered, and ordered a Continued Juvenile by the Juvenile Judge in a replacement hearing, without legal jurisdiction to do so, while based on tainted evidence, and allegations was pending, he was forced to state on record being disabled his guilt on pending charges, and continued a juvenile, this was a trial, and he was not certified or waived to adult. C. Juvenile Court. Petitioner was then released after being replaced a second time, decreed then an adult, however even though illegal proceedings led to wrongful convictions, and subsequent, casting second double jeopardys, and all juvenile proc eedings are illegal, the adult court would not have jurisdiction legally to charge ne w charges without new conduct. D. The requesting of guilt also prevents a second trial in adult, and the non certific ation, no waiver, prevents such, Petitioner was at that point placed in legal limbo, neither court had jurisdiction. E. It was questioned by a jury trial judge, it was also stated in Federal habeas corpu s, and not allowed, after arguing it was in pcra as constitutional violations. F. It further was based on tainted evidence prior to replacement hearing, also not diligently brought, and caused excessive punishment, under juvenile indefinite peri od of time sentences, thereby continued, which also are illegal. (b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground Three, explain why? *.Superior Court Blockage: The Petitioner claims that when they attempted to rai se the issue in the state Superior Court, it was summarily dismissed with the asserti on that jurisdiction was devoid of merit. The court's decision was based on the erro neous assumption that the Petitioner was an adult, simply because he was 18 years old. This incorrect assumption formed the basis for the court's decision, and esse ntially blocked the Petitioner's claim from being properly heard. *. PCRA Denial: The Petitioner further contends that their claims under[Ground Three] were raised during post-conviction proceedings, specifically under the Pos t-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in Pennsylvania. However, these claims were den ied by the state court, indicating that the state court system did not adequately addr ess or resolve the issues raised. *. Supreme Court Appeal Not Docketed: The Petitioner alleges that they attempt ed to appeal the denial of their PCRA petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. However, due to limitations imposed by their incarceration, they were unable to make copies of the necessary documents, leading to the appeal not being docketed or heard by the state's highest court. *. Federal Habeas Magistrate Limiting Review: The Petitioner claims that duri ng the Federal habeas corpus proceedings, the Federal Magistrate limited their revi ew by applying the "two-bytes at the-apple" doctrine. This doctrine effectively co nstrained the scope of review and prevented the Petitioner from fully presenting and arguing their case. *. Blocking by Operation of the Court: The Petitioner contends that the combine d effect of these obstacles and limitations resulted in their claim being effectively blocked by operation of the court. This prevented the Court of Appeals from revie wing the issue and subsequently denied the Petitioner the opportunity to seek U.S. Supreme Court review through a writ of certiorari. *. In summary, the Petitioner argues that they were unable to exhaust their state remedies for Ground Three, due to a combination of factors, including erroneous assumptions about their status as an adult, limitations on their ability to pursue ap peals, and restrictions placed on their case during the Petition Process. These issues collectively hindered the Petitioner's ability to have their claims properly heard and exhausted in the state court system.