Wrongful Conviction Legal Challenge

This petition for writ of coram nobis & Vobis, & Vacator seeks to vacate the wrongful convictions on two separate charges stemming from the same act, constituting double-jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Unite d States Constitution and Article I, Section * of the Pennsylvania Constitutio n. Supporting facts A. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as when a Petit ioner has obtained the reversal of their conviction on appeal, or when the prosecu tion has appealed a hung jury. B. In this case, the Petitioner was found guilty of two state cases that were otherwi se identical, other than the dates. The Magistrate judge found the Petitioner innoce nt in part on one case, but not the other. This is a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, because the Petitioner is essentially being punished twice for the same offe nse alone as an adult. C. The Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this issue, but there is some case la w that suggests that it may be a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. For exam ple, in the case of Albernaz v. In The United States, the Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated when a Petitioner was convicted of two separate felonies for the same act of robbery. D. In the present case, the Petitioner was essentially convicted of two separate felo nies for the same act, even though the Magistrate judge found him [innocent in part ] in one case.The Supreme Court would find that this [violates the Double Jeopardy Clause]. The "Blockburger '' test, which states that two offenses are different if each requires proof of an element that the other does not, was not used, nor could be due to lack of jurisdiction. The charges are identical, and stem from the same act; it would be considered double jeopardy under the "Blockburger" test. Also called the same-elements test. Examination of the statutory elements to determine whether multiple criminal charges arising from the same course of conduct are sufficiently similar that a conviction for more than one offense violates the US Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause (Blockburger v. United States, * U.S. * (*); see also Grady v. Corbin, * U.S. *, *-* (*), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Dixon, * U.S. * (*)). Under the Blockburger test, the government can only prosecute an individual for violating two different statutory provisions arising from a single course of conduct if each offense requires the government to prove an element that it does not have to prove for the other offense. If the test is not satisfied, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions and additional punishment. United States v. Dixon overruled the "same-elements" test by establishing that double jeopardy can occur even when the two offenses don't share the same legal elements. This was a signif icant departure from the Blockburger test. Based on the petitioner's description, if the charges are identical, arise from the same act, or transaction, and led to consecu tive sentences, from one trial, it's considered double jeopardy. The a ctual charges stemmed from Juvenile, not adult, therefore it was only one transa ction, further barred by lack of jurisdiction, so technically even a block burger test cannot be util ized even, the same charges were retried in adult court without certification or wai ver. The adult court clearly did not have jurisdiction to prosecute at all on any case, it clearly placed him in a limbo and constructive custody, and coul d not prosecute any case during that also.The transition of cases from juvenile to adult court witho ut proper certification or waiver is illegal according to: - Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act (* Pa.C.S. § *) - Case law such as Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*) - Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*) which prohibits double jeopardy in juvenile proceedings. In re T.S., * A.3d * (Pa. *): The court held that a juvenile cannot be certified to be tried as an adult after the juvenile court has conducted an adjudicatory hearing. - Pennsylvania v. Batts, * A.3d * (Pa. *): The court held that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is unconstitutional United States v. Davis, * F.3d * (5th Cir. *) The charges were identical, and stemmed from the same act, but were split into two dockets based on different days. Constituting double jeopardy in itself. The char ges, which originated in juvenile court, and were later brought in adult court under two different dockets, constitute double jeopardy, after he was sequestered in a def acto trial guilt, and because there was no certification or waiver, further they lacked jurisdiction, because of double jeopardy in *, and original wrongful convict ions. *. Double Jeopardy: Violation: Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I, Section * of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Details: Prosecution of the same charges under two different dockets after a wrongful juvenile court conviction constitute double jeopardy. Similar-Case: In re T.F., * A.2d * (Pa. *) involved double jeopar dy in juvenile proceedings, where subsequent charges stemmed from acts already adjudicated upon. *. Illegal Detentions: Violation: Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution (unreasonable search and seizure), Fourteenth Amendment (due process), and potentially Pennsyl vania Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Details: Detainment based on allegations under investigation without proper legal proceedings is considered unlawful. Prolonged "limbo and constructive custody" due to the judge's actions raise concerns. Similar Case: Commonwealth v. Davis, * Pa. * (*) explored unlawful detention in PA, when pre-trial confinement exceeded what's necessary for investigation. *. Judicial Misconduct: Violation: Violates various provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct for Pennsylvania, depending on specifics. Details: "Replacement judge" asking for an off-the-record admission of guilt before assuming the case could be considered misconduct and raise concerns about coercion, pressure, and ethical breaches. Similar Case: While not directly comparable, Pennsylvania Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zimmerman, * F. Supp. * (E.D. Pa. *) illustrates potential consequences of judicial misconduct. *. Due Process Violations: Violation: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (due process clauses) and Section * of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act (court's jurisdiction and powers). Details: Lack of proper hearing or transfer process from juvenile to adult court, and extended limbo with unclear legal status, raise due process concerns. Similar Case: In re Gault, * U.S. * (*) established fundamental due process rights in juvenile proceedings, including fair hearing and legal representation. *. Constructive Custody and Limbo: Violation:Extended legal issues related to detention, and due process if the individual's freedom, was significantly restricted despite no formal charges. Double Jeopardy: The prosecution of identical charges under two different dockets after a previous wrongful conviction, in juvenile court for the same act constitutes double jeopardy. Case Law: In re T.F., * A.2d * (Pa. *), which established double jeopard y protection in juvenile proceedings, for subsequent-charges arising from the same act. Blockburger Test: Although the charges have different dates, they lack distinct elements required by the Blockburger-test, further solidifying the double-jeopardy, claim. This highlights the repetition of punishment for the same act, and the dates was a catapult of injustice concocted to further throw this fact off by * later chang es to the information consecutively done over an 18 month window. *. Lack of Jurisdiction and Illegal Detentions: The transfer from juvenile court to adult court lacked proper certification or wai ver procedures, violating Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act and case law like Kent v. Un ited States, * U.S. * (*). Detaining the Petitioner based on allegations under investigation without proper legal proceedings constituted unlawful detention. Prolonged "limbo" with unclarified legal status, and restricted freedom due to the judge's actions, further raised concerns, about unlawful detention, and due proc ess violations. *. Judicial Misconduct: The "replacement judge" requesting an off-the-record admission of guilt before assuming the case raises serious concerns about coercion, pressure, and potential judicial misconduct, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct for Pennsylvania. *. Due Process Violations: The absence of a proper hearing or transfer process from juvenile to adult court violated the Petitioner's due process rights under the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amen dments and relevant Pennsylvania laws. The extended "limbo" with unclear legal status exacerbated due process violati ons. *. Wrongful Convictions: The combined effect of double jeopardy violations, lack of jurisdiction, improp er transfer, detention issues, judicial misconduct, and due process violations signifi cantly weakens the legal basis for the convictions. These substantial legal and procedural errors render the convictions wrongful an d warrant their vacatur. E. The issue in this case is important because it raises the question of how far the Double Jeopardy Clause goes to protect individuals from being punished multiple times for the same offense. If the Supreme Court finds that the Double Jeopardy Clause is violated in this case, or any case before, it could have a significant impact on the way that criminal cases are prosecuted. In addition to the legal arguments, there is also a strong moral argument to be made in favor of protecting defendants from being punished multiple times for the same offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause is a fundamental right that protects individua ls from the [oppression of government]. It is important to uphold this right to ens ure that justice is served fairly, and equally. Focus on identical charges: While mentioning the "different dates" for the charge s, they remain otherwise identical in nature, and stem from the same-act without question. This further strengthens the double jeopardy argument. Expand on Blockburger test: The charges "fit" within the Blockburger test frame work, highlighting that each offense doesn't require proof of an element the other doesn't, further solidifying the double jeopardy claim. *. Double Jeopardy: Prosecution under two identical dockets: Charging the same offenses, eve n on different dates, and dockets, after a wrongful juvenile court conviction constitutes double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution. Same act, different punishment: Being found innocent in part for one case but not the other, essentially punishes the individual twice for the same act, further strengthening the double jeopardy claim. Lack of Blockburger test applicability: Due to the identical nature of the charges, and lack of separate elements required for each, the Blockburger tes t for differentiating offenses is not met, further highlighting double jeopardy. *. Lack of Jurisdiction and Illegal Detentions: Improper transfer from juvenile to adult court: The absence of proper certification, or waiver procedures for transferring the case from juvenile to adult court violates Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act and case law like Kent v. United States. Detention based on uninvestigated allegations: Detaining the individual based on allegations under investigation without proper legal proceedings constitutes unlawful detention. Limbo and constructive custody: Prolonged "limbo" with unclarified legal status due to the judge's actions raise further concerns about unlawful detenti on and due process violations. *. Judicial Misconduct: Pressuring for off-the-record admission: The "replacement judge" requesti ng an off-the-record admission of guilt before assuming the case raises concerns about coercion, pressure, and potential judicial misconduct. Violation of Code of Judicial Conduct: Depending on the specifics, this action could violate various provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct for Pennsylvania, impacting the case's validity. *. Due Process Violations: Absence of proper hearing or transfer process: Lacking a proper hearing for transferring the case from juvenile to adult court violates the individual's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and relevant Pennsylvania laws. Extended limbo with unclear legal status: The prolonged period of "limbo" with unclear legal status and limited freedom could further raise due process concerns. *. Wrongful Convictions: The combination of potential double jeopardy violations, lack of jurisdiction, improper transfer, detention issues, judicial misconduct, and due process viol ations together significantly weaken the legal basis for the convictions. Based on these issues, there is a strong argument that the convictions should be vacated as wrongful due to procedural errors and legal infringements.

GROUND-SIXTEENTH WEAPON OWNERSHIP RIGHTS WAS ILLEGALLY SEIZED, TAKEN UNLA WFULLY AGAINST HIS WILL, AGAINST HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, AND HAS NOT BEEN RESTORED AT ALL. WHO WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED ON ALL CASES, ALL CHARGES, JUV ENILE, AND ADULT, * YEARS, AND COUNTING VIOLATED SECOND AMENDMENT THAT NO LAW SHALL ABRIDGE. ● The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Second Ame ndment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. This right is not absolute, but it is a fundamental right that is protected by the Constitution. ● The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Fourth Amen dment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the government cannot take someone's property, including their weapons, without due process of law. ● The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Fifth Amendm ent protects people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due pro cess of law. This means that the government cannot take someone's weapons witho ut giving them a fair hearing. ● The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Fourteent h Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws to all people. This means that the government cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Supporting facts A. Petitioner's Second Amendment rights, which guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, have been unlawfully violated. This violation occurred when the Petitio ner's weapons were seized without due process, and despite being wrongfully conv icted on all charges in both juvenile, and adult cases, these rights have not been restored. Both the Federal Judge and the Attorney General violated. B. The Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, was also violated when the government took the Petitioner's weapons without proper legal procedures, or hearings. C. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment's protection against deprivation of life, libert y, or property without due process of law was violated when the Petitioner was wro ngfully convicted, and subsequently had their weapon ownership rights taken awa y. D. Lastly, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law was violated, as the Petitioner's rights were not restored on the basis of their innoc ence, which should protect them from discrimination based on their legal status.

the record of charges prevents it denying it to petitioner unfairly taking htem based on a charge on a record is illegal

GROUND-SEVENTEENTH UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENTS IN JUVENILE, AND ADULT OF A WRONG FULLY CONVICTED PERSON, IS A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ,THE CONSTITUTION, THE JUVENILE ACT, AND IS CRUEL, AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT COMPOUNDED WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES, EMOTIONAL INJURIES, MENTAL INJURIES ACCRUED. Supporting facts A. Petitioner, who was wrongfully convicted in both juvenile and adult cases, has been subjected to unlawful imprisonment’s. These imprisonments not only violate the Petitioner's civil rights but also contravene the principles enshrined in the Unite d States Constitution, and the Juvenile Act. B. The prolonged and unjust incarcerations constitute cruel and unusual punishme nt, which is explicitly prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Co nstitution. This violation is further compounded by the physical injuries, emotional injuries, and mental injuries suffered by the Petitioner while in custody. C. The Incarceration was punitive, vindictive, illegal, wrongful, unfair, and comple x. D. Imprisoned, abused, beaten, threatened, suffered, massive cruelty, placed in har m's way, in a multitude of magnitude unjust situations. Still continuing for a term of 34 years and counting. (b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground XVII explain why? *. Because of legal limbo, and constructive custody, with futuristic sentences auto matically imposed.

GROUND-EIGHTEENTH WRONGFUL CONVICTION ORIGINALLY OF * ARSON FIRE AND SAN DBOX FIRE Supporting facts Petitioner did not commit the crimes, and has direct confessions automatically is wrongful convictions as stated in state at trial, sentencing, throughout state proceed ings, and federal *, and *.: If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground XVIII explain why? *. Because of legal limbo, and constructive custody, with futuristic sentences auto matically imposed. *. The state remedies have been confusing on Ground XVII due to the continued legal complexities, including legal limbo, and constructive custody, that make it ch allenging for the Petitioner to address the issue of unlawful imprisonments through state channels, because there is no method to do so, and being denied continually.

GROUND-TWENTY-SECOND VIOLATION OF INTERSTATE COMPACT AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO BEING TAKEN OFF IN PA OF MEGAN'S LAW AND SORNA * LIFETIME, WHERE PETITIONER WILL BE ARRESTED ON NEW FUTURE CHARGES AND SUBJECTED TO FURTHER PUNISHMENT AUTOMATICALLY AGAIN ST HIS WILL IS A VIOLATION OF A WRONGLY CONVICTED PERSONS, WHO SHOULDN’T HAVE A RECORD AT ALL. IS AUTOMATIC /FUTURE-E NTRAPMENT Supporting facts A. The Interstate Compact Agreement under Megan's Law and SORNA is an agree ment between states aimed at sharing information about sex offenders and ensuring that they are properly registered and monitored. The compact also contains provis ions that restrict the travel of sex offenders across state lines. B. The right to travel freely is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. This right encompasses the ability to move between states without being subjected to harassment or arbitrary arrest. C. The Petitioner was notified by the Colorado state police Megan's Law unit that, upon entering their state, he would be arrested and imprisoned within a certain time frame. This notification came after Pennsylvania removed him from Megan's Law registration. However, his charges remained on record, effectively placing him und er automatic detainment, charges, and sentencing for potential future offenses in all states of the United States. This situation is illegal and unjust, as it restricts the free dom of a wrongly convicted person who should not have any record based on a cha rge by a government that shouldn't exist with refusal to take off. D. Furthermore, these restrictions hinder the Petitioner from traveling internationa lly, effectively violating his civil rights. This situation has caused significant harm to the Petitioner, isolating him and subjecting him to torture and undue hardship, which he was not sentenced to but has experienced automatically causing limbo an d constructive custody. Megans Law and Sorna is illegal by the United States Constitution, because it is a bill of attainder created illegally in violation of the constitution. This has brought grave torture, and isolation to him not sentenced to after the fact. (b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground [XXII] explain why? The Petitioner could not exhaust state remedies on Ground [XXII] due to the unique circumstances of legal limbo, and constructive custody, which automatica lly imposed futuristic sentences, making it impossible to pursue state remedies while directly imprisoned by these laws under a life sentence.

II. Unlawful Juvenile Status Classification B. One of the fundamental violations in this case is the unlawful classification of Petitioner as a juvenile when Petitioner had already turned 18 years old. This misc lassification does not merely raise concerns but [unequivocally-violates] Petiti oner's [constitutional-rights]. Despite reaching the age of majority, Petitioner was sub jected to the juvenile justice system [without proper legal justification]. This unequivocally violates Petitioner's constitutional rights, particularly those concern ing equal [protection under the law] and the [right to a fair trial as an adult].

GROUND-TWENTY-SIX FEDERAL TESTIMONY IS DIRECT EVIDENCE EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED TO PROVE INNOCENCE Supporting-facts All State, and Federal transcripts, on camera video, audio, is direct evidence for the purpose of a Federal habeas corpus, habeas appeal, coa motion, and certiorari. It cannot be excluded against Petitioner's wishes, and any statements by witnesses on the record, that proves facts of innocence, or juvenile, are valid to prove actual and factual, procedural innocence, wrongful convictions, he as a juvenile and not an adult, he was disabled, and can be used. Testimony:TRANSCRIPT *. Trial Counsel Testified in Federal Hearing *. He talked to “Bill-Madura”, about “(the-dates)” from may-to (August-*), in his testimony,along “(with)” [alot] of other things. It was proven he did not speak to him. *. When asked at page-(*), question-(*), *. (Q)-*. Now, Jim Consistently told you during your representation of him, that he did not commit any of the charged crimes. *. (A)-That's true. *. (Q)-He maintained,that-he-had, never,at [any-time] [sexually-assaulted] his niece, [Jennifer], is this correct. *. (A)-[That's-True]. *. Counsel Did Not Speak about this case until [October of *]. *. It shows from the Discovery, He had the [Exhibits], the [Hermitage-House] Fax, from what [Commonwealth has Given to Him], those records doesnt show where he was going. *. He stated that Jim showed him a letter from Madura, where he called Madura. *. He kept Stating: [Jim had prior behavior, which is not true]. He testified previously that [he knew] Jim was being given home visits to both sisters, then Ma dura told him Hermitage House did not want Jim to go on home visits. To karens, because there were children at karens. Because they had [concerns of Jim's past be havior] around her children. Talking about the [* accusations], being the [same] as [*’s] accusations. He stated they were aware of him going to hermitage hou se, that those visits may have been unapproved. *. He stated further that [Karen] would need a babysitter, so the sisters would say Jim can come over, and babysit, and things. *. He stated: Jim Told Him that hermitage house didn't want him going there. *. He stated [Karen] would [go out at night]. *. This is “fraudulent-testimony”,because he [never spoke to a bill madura], Jim never had [prior-behavior], the visits were not un-approved, he had [automatic approval] carried over from [STS], and [granted by hermitage-house] as a stipulation of him moving-there. While they attempted to get him to babysit in [*] with his-girlfriend, and again in [*] at various times, while he was [*], there was [no other time frames] for this to have occurred. In * shortly before *, she attempted this. His “(representation)” is-”(flawed)’, as to both cases at one trial, as it's the same “Attorney-representation”. *. Chief Juvenile Probation Officer’s Testimony *. Stated in Federal Evidentiary Hearing *. That they had a Juvenile Record on Jim. *. They stated that: see page (*) Question-(*) answer (*), *. Question: Is it fair to say that Jim, had been “(Adjudicated-Delinquent)”, and placed in-their Custody. *. Answer: That is Correct! *. They testify to keeping those records from different placements. *. It stated: *. Page (*) (Q)-*: Now it's fair to say, that the Juvenile, who has been adjudica ted delinquent, can be kept in custody. of a juvenile probation beyond the juveniles' *-th Birthday. *. (*) That is Correct! *. (*) Did That in fact happen with [Mr-Tice]. *. (*) Yes it Did! *. (*-*) *. (Q) In august, their office was contacted,made aware of allegations Jim allege dly may have assaulted his niece. *. (A) That was correct. *. Page (*,*) *. (*)-Hermitage House terminated Placement *. (*)-He was placed in Edmund L Thomas, and YDC at New Castle through the [Court-Process]. *. (A-*) Highly Secured *. (A-*) Specifically for Juvenile Offenders *. Page (*-*)-(A-*, (*)) It's a goal, and philosophy of the juvenile court to get some semblance, family environment, so he can go home, original goal. *. Page-(*)(A-*) *. Court Summary: *. (Q)is a presentence investigation report to help judges make accurate decisions. *. P-(*) *. (A-*): Probation officers would do the court summaries, presentence for upco ming court hearings. *. Page-(*) *. (Q-(*)After Jim was terminated from Hermitage House and, they took him out, they had communications with Erie Detectives, who was investigating, the allegati on he answered (Yes We-Did). *. (A-(*)Replaced into YDC September *, *. Page-(*) *. (Q-(*)but was placed at hermitage house February 25th, of *. Not January of *. *. Page-(*) Placed in, Edmund L Thomas Detention Center August-22nd *.(A-(*) Blakely called for dates [after 18th birthday], from hermitage house, when erie [detectives asked him] for information. *. Page-(*) *. (Q-A)-(A-*) No Contact with Mother, Ordered by Judge Anthony, and DD. *. Page-(*)(Q-*)(A-*): Order Making it different for Jim than a (Normal Juvenile). *. Page-*-(Q-A): struggled to find for years, discharge Jim, to discharge out of placement with them. *. They never asked Jim what he wanted. *. P-(*) (A):For years he had contact with both sisters. *. This is false, Jim had no contact with Karen since her accusations until *. *. P-(*)(Q): It States visits ordinarily began at *:* on friday, ended at *:* sunday.[this doesn't mean it was so with karen]: *. P-(*)(A-*): Exhibit [WW] was redacted with [P.S I think He did it] -an d,[visits since turned [*]]. This was [chief juvenile probation officers writing]. *. *-(A-*): [For purposes of Adult charges] is his writing, he turned it over to the officer. *. Page-(*)[*-A]: states:[please expedite] as [I need to go back to Court] with Ji m on */*/*, to [replace him], [juvenile-court] has [time frames very strict]. Presc ribed by law, he needed to be as [quick as possible]. *. Page-(*) (Q-*,*): shows chief juvenile probation officer fax’s exhibits, Please expedite, [P.S. I think He did it].That dates would have [helped aid in the investigation], for [Adult-Charges], that the [Investigators] were [possibly] [investi gating possibilities]. *. P-*(*): Mr Patton: that the question was in support for brady claim, exculpato ry as to [one of the dates charged] [he couldn't of been there], that was [not pas sed onto the defense], and that the [juvenile probation was part of the pros ecution team].because,[juvenile probation was providing, helping the investig ation],[the criminal investigation]. *. Page-[*]: *. (Q-*)-(A-*):at this-point, in-proceedings the [adult proceedings] would have [superseded that], if he was [actually charged] as [an-adult] is false to the petiti oner. *. P-(*)(Q-*)(A-*).Showing his understanding was for [allegations] of [inde cent assault], that date was for the purpose of [adult charges], and that his inform ation would help them. Exhibit [VV] Progress Report. *. P-(*)(A-*): that he can't recall, forwarding to attorney, as records go through motion court, there was no motion by counsel. *. That the [“case” “(was closed)”] that could have [been discarded], he didn't t know if it was [released to counsel], exhibit [VV]. *. Page-*(Q-*): couldn't [testify to a certainty] on whether [Jim] would [have been home], and felt that he may not [even have been there], when he [was suppo sed to]. *. Page-(*)(A): there was some indication in the record there were [mixed-vis its], and conversation with [pam-marsh], showing [mixed-visits] exhibit-[SS],but there is [no documentation] to [back this statement].

DALE WELLMAN TESTIMONY *. Page(*) *. (*-*) On last Homevisits. Jim had Disagreements over the issue of supervi sion. *. Q(*)(A-*)No it's not always possible to be *% accurate. *. Q-*) Is it. *. Page-(*)(*)(A6) he couldn’t verify that for a fact, if Jim was at his sisters on dates he was allegedly home. *. Page-(*)(Q19, A1)Doesn't know if it occurred. *. Page-*(*-*): He stated Jim Had Homevisits August 9th, to 10th, from his prog ress report, [yet Jim proved he was innocent]., in Federal Court, [undermines th e other dates] in [hermitage house reports]. *. P-(*)-Q9,A12): that is correct, so he [didnt know for a fact whether or not] [he was there or not] on [August 9th, to 11th]. *. Counsel Conceded Claims was Defaulted *. Two claims in the amended petition,but there were exceptions to procedural default, here focused on miscarraige of justice,he can show cause, and prejudice, so conceding was wrong, placing issues in jeopardy. Notes: * Affidavit of Probable Cause *. The Victim was interviewed by police, rape crisis, district attorney, several times over 2 years, almost without any knowledge of any adult in the house. *. Warrants show (*-*-*) thru (*-*-*). The Dates were changed multiple times after this original to charge adult charges illegally. *. If Jim, Petitioner was in the house, her mother slept next to her, she had knowle dge Petitioner would have been in the house. The original information portrayed Petitioner was 19 years old, when he was */* turning 18 years old, and kept a juvenile. *. Further states, she was *, she was *, information is invalid, due to that. *. Petitioner was rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in motion for judgeme nt of acquittal. *. Denied Federal, and commonwealth constitutions,Mitigating factors existed, rehabilitation needs, and age. and is an error. They just admitted he was innocent, and that they illegally used evidence against him for adult prosecution, without it being in adult is illegal. *. Video: On Camera Hearing Juvenile Replacement Hearing Defacto Trial ask guilt on pending allegations. *. Court lacked jurisdiction.

Did you see the inconsistencies nad inaccuracies

yes did you see them in the testimony

whic hones

* statutes set forth a specific limitations period. Whether your claim is barred by the statute of limitations is a legal question which may require you to do some legal research. You should make sure your claim is not time-barred before you file a lawsuit a wronglu cvonvicted person under collateral punitive measures can sue becasue there is no time bar limitation in pa, as he has a right t oclear his name.

yes that is correct

in criminal cases therefore bring civil federal lawsuit * is correct and no time bars

like what

in pennsylvania there is no time limitations to file a civil * *, * ,lawsuit for a wrongly convcited person stil suffering