Double Jeopardy Legal Concerns

Jim

Double Jeopardy (* U.S.C. §*): Prohibits subsequent prosecutions for the same-offenses, where punishment has already been imposed.the state charged, the individual after a juvenile disposition for the same act, it violat es this clause, not only for lack of jurisdiction, and double jeopardy, includ ing wrongful conviction, but because, he had a denovo trial, and because, he was targeted after another subsequent adult charge, further, placed in double jeopardy, due\-to, split-charges, being the exact-same, while lacking jurisdic tion, and charging within limbo, again lacking jurisdiction.

Plaintiff was illegally, and unfairly maliciously prosecuted, and tried for juve nile allegations, the allegations wasn’t brought in juvenile, and the juvenil e-court, already, gave a verdict, multiple-verdicts, finding him a continued [*], year old Juvenile, placing an new “indefinite-period” of time senten ce-on him, without options, and being a “disabled-person”, not taken into consideration. Plaintiff was adjudicated under the replacement hearing, informal review, an d the Deposition, they are the same, he had for other indefinite-sentences, he was not certified, or waived to adult-court, and the allegations, were not brou ght, before juvenile release of jurisdiction, nor was he technically, even released from jurisdiction of juvenile. The adult crimes, are illegal charged is illegal, and further vindictively, and maliciously prosecuted, after a jury trial judge-stated, he was possibly still juvenile, and should be remanded-back, while, the prosecutor used the victim on the stand, to clarify he was an adult, by not allowing her to talk about prior juvenile events. The jury trial judge stated further, was it possible he was a Juvenile, while the jury was being sw orn in. By using the victim as a pawn, he subverted the judges clarity on the matter, in the attempt to clear it up. Plaintiff was a disabled Juvenile tossed out without education, and no age, he clearly was not an adult. Cleary shouldn’t have been even held in the juvenile justice system at all also. Being forced to see his probation officer * times, after the fact should be clear, he was still a juvenile, under some form of supervision, until he was charged, regardless of the court order, releasing jurisdiction, the orders are illegal orders, anyway because, of the wrongful-convictions, double jeopard y, and non brought allegations sealed under juvenile, including being tainted. Plaintiff was not brought to trial for [*] months approximately, this is illega l, while being held in prison, denied bond, paroled by prison, but denied paro le by the same non jury trial judge.

whats the pa law here that is violated

The prosecution had in its possession the juvenile-records, or portions they retrieved, that included, the tainted-evidence, they used against him to charge, and change the information multiple times on a phishing expedition of finding the correct-dates to make him-guilty, that was tainted by the chief juvenile “probation-officer” in the fax with the dates.

that would be what violation

Megan-Law-* Retroactively-Applied. Wrongly-Convicted. Wasn’t sente nced prior to it. No Board Review. Forced to sign, imprisoned, within priso n failure to initially sign, Department of Corrections. Sorna *-* Retroactively-Applied expo-facto. Wrongly Convicted Wa sn’t sentenced prior to it, No Board Review. Disabled Person, Forced unto it against will for illegal trial, and tainted evidence, from juvenile allegatio ns not brought. Sorna-Three Lifetime *-* Retroactively-Applied Expo-Facto. Wron gly Convicted . Wasn’t sentenced prior to it, No Board Review. Disabled Person, Forced unto it against will. Applied Automatically, Expo-Facto. Megan's-Law,Sorna-Iii/Iv In All Other States Automatically Applied. Wrongly-Convicted. Wasn’t sentenced prior to it, No Board Review. Disabl ed-Person, Forced unto it against will. Excessive Punitive Punishment, ap plied automatically, Expo-Facto.

this is illegal in pa correct which law

Constructive-Custody and limbo , Based on Wrongly-Convicted, illegal Punishments, Torture, Suffering Mentally, and Physically. Excessive Punitive Punishm ent. Illegal-sentences applied.

which laws are violated

Federal Court Order: */*/*, Finding Case No: * Of * August 9th-11th, * Actually Innocent Of Charges, Magistrate Second Recomme ndation, And Report. The Federal magistrate unfairly denied using “two bytes at the apple doctrine”, his other proper issues of double-jeopardy , jurisdiction, and actual-innocence, including Brady-violation, were-dumpe d, for being-barred, and waived, not intelligently, there was an-argument, she then gave a choice, between the two. The doctrine doesn’t bar such Double-jeopardy, claims of a wrongly-convicted person, or jurisdictiona l. She illegally used the tainted evidence, tainted hermitage-house record s against Plaintiff, including in finding him-innocent, and denying him-re lief, causing further punishment, she was made aware-of prior in second evidentiary-hearing while [she-was] aware of his disabilities. Causing Pun itive Megan's law I,II,III automatically with Sorna3, and Sorna * Lifetim e to apply, after the fact, retroactively expo-facto causing a sentence of compounded torture knowingly.

which laws violated by deployment of two bytes at the apple here.

no for a federal judge in a habeas corpus to deny an issue out of two issues because of deploying two bytes at the apple to prevent him from raising the double jeopardy claim, forcing him to take ineffective assistance of counsel.

it violatesw habeas corpus and aedpa

set-up for adult-prosecution that was illegal based on tainted evidence, and had no jurisdiction, and was in fact double jeopardy, a juvenile * in pa who had a replacement hearing as a juvenile, and continued a juvenile, who then was released from juvenile jurisdiction cannot be charged with new charges based on alllegation that had a denovo trial in replacement hearing because she ask guilt, and lack of jurisdiction based on wrongful convictions.

Juvenile Act (* Pa. C.S. § *. Disposition of child he was not waived or certified.

yes but how is it a violation of Juvenile Act (* Pa. C.S. § *. Disposition of child

if that occurs it placed him in limbo and constructive custody where he could be later charged as an adult is illegal.

yes he couldnt be charged with new crimes based on the same pending juvenile allegations in adult, that was prior to replacement hearing finding him a juvenile, prior to his release and closure from juvenile.

so its double jeopardy in adult

so if they then split the charges into two informations with the same charges based on the same facts but different dates, that would be double jeopardy, because it gave two sentences at one trial, and two cases at one trial.

so its a violation of those correct

what law would be violated by the split

and that would violate pa juvenile act also, since he was in limbo and constructive custody from juvenile and the charges in adult was based on juvenile allegations and evidence.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT C.A. No. *-* IN RE: JAMES ROBERT TICE, Petitioner Present: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges Submitted are: (*) Petitioner’s application pursuant to * U.S.C. § * to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition; (*) Petitioner’s letter dated December *, *; (*) Petitioner’s “Response to Show Cause Order”; (*) Petitioner’s “Response-Letter to Show Cause Order Re: ‘InCustody’ Status for * U.S.C. § * Petition”; and (*) Petitioner’s “Second Response Final Supplement to Show Cause Order” in the above-captioned case. Respectfully, Clerk ________________________________ORDER_________________________________ Petitioner’s application is denied. To the extent that Petitioner seeks to use the application as a vehicle to challenge habeas rulings made by this Court and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania over a decade ago, he may not do so. The application otherwise appears to seek permission to file a habeas petition that would attack several unrelated, decades-old convictions, including juvenile convictions. But it does not appear that Petitioner is still “in custody” with respect to any of those convictions. See Piasecki v. Ct. Com. Pl. Bucks Cnty., Pa., * F.3d *, *- * (3d Cir. *) (“A federal court has jurisdiction to entertain a [habeas] petition . . . only if the petitioner was in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court when the Case: *-* Document: * Page: * Date Filed: */*/* petition was filed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Pet’r’s Second Resp. Final Suppl. to Show Cause Order, at PDF p. * (* letter from Pennsylvania State Police, informing Petitioner that he is “no longer required to register as a sexual offender with the Pennsylvania State Police” and “no longer required to verify or report a change of [his] address, employment, schooling or other required information to the Pennsylvania State Police”). Furthermore, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that (*) Petitioner could meet the “in custody” requirement, and (*) Petitioner needs our permission to attack each of the convictions at issue here (except for his conviction for sex-related offenses, it does not appear that he has previously attacked his convictions in a federal habeas petition), we would conclude that he has failed to meet the standard for relief under * U.S.C. § *(b). That is, Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that his proposed habeas petition relies on (A) a new rule of constitutional law that the United States Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, or (B) new and diligently discovered facts that, “if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty of the underlying offense[(s)].” * U.S.C. § *(b)(*); see * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(C). To the extent that Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel, “emergency review,” and other, miscellaneous relief, those requests are denied. By the Court,

the court of appeals is violating what law

can i challenge the court of appeals order denying habeas corpus.

its a second habeas corpus in court of appeals. i can still challenge the order.

how would i challenge in a request to court of appeals

this is a wrongly convicted person 34 years.

how i n the 3rd circuit would i create the enbanc motion

according to there order it violated and conflicts with what us supreme court law, including applying rectroactive expofacto megans law and sorna after sentencing.

what law states he can file a rehearing in banc for a second habeas corpus order denying it.

but he can file one

which rule grants him that right for a second habeas corpus order denying him to file an enbanc

hat supreme court laws us that state its illegal to apple expofacto rectroactive megans law or sorna laws in the united states

in pa which laws state its illegal to apply rectroactive expofacto

new laws for us

new laws as for united states megans law and sorna rectroactive and expofacto

what is the presedent cases for that