Petition for writ of certiorari from state courts to U.S. Supreme Court

[gator1]

The FIRST requisite is that any constitutional or federal complaints must have been duly raised and preserved at the trial court level. They cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

The complaints must then be duly raised again at the appeals court level. If the appeal was timely filed with no fatal errors, the appeals court should answer that complaint. If the appellant has issue with the appeals courts opinion, then

The complaints may be raised again in a petition for review to the state supreme court. Though in states with intermediary appeals courts, state supreme court review is discretionary, and they may simply decline to hear the case. Which is their right.

If denied review at the state supreme court, the complaints may be raised in a petition for writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court.

That said, the odds are less than 1/100 of certiorari being granted and the case reviewed. Per the Supreme Court website, "the court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases".

This competing against petitions filed by the many of the best and brightest attorneys and legal teams in the country. In this scenario many perfectly valid complaints are returned with nothing more than a one page response stating Certiorari Denied.

At which point all avenues of appeal will have been exhausted. While at this point one could conceivably have standing to turn to the federal district court for relief, federal abstention doctrines and sovereign immunity and absolute judicial immunity issues will almost certainly result in the case being dismissed. At which point it is really really over.

Which boils down to an incontrovertible fact that, with the exception of less than one percent of cherry picked cases, once a state supreme court has declined to review a case, its over.

 

[justmore]

It depends on your locality whether a local attorney will know anything about federal appeals procedure. There are numerous attorneys in my locality that do.

Check out 28 USC �1291 and 28 USC �1257 and USSC Rule 10. The USSC hears a variety of cases but I am getting the idea from your postings that yours is not one that will make the grade.

So, all of the many law professors and experienced attorneys you have spoken with seem stymied by your questions? Really? Perhaps you might look at how you are addressing them. If your attitude toward them is anything like the attitude you've displayed here, they are probably too smart to answer without getting paid first.

Just to give you an idea, the "local attorneys" in my locality are those who are good friends with the judge and prosecutor in this case. Their 'representation' of their clients consists of taking their money to help their clients plead guilty and pay the same fine or do the same jail time they would if they had just not hired an attorney at all.

I will check out those sections.

I'm not expecting the Supreme Court to actually hear my case. It's a matter of well-settled constitutional law, and I doubt the Supreme Court is going to waste it's time to hear a case that simply relies on it's earlier rulings, even if a state Supreme Court is overruling them. My hope is that the Supreme Court grants cert, and then just issues a quick ruling reversing and admonishing the state court for getting it wrong. If nothing else, the Court might do so since the case is going to be very straightforward and only a few pages.

Even if the Supreme Court denies cert, I wouldn't mind having the case go to a Court of Appeals, but don't know how to get it there yet. The Fifth Circuit has a sketchy record on Constitutional rights too, but not in cases when the case law is this clear. Even Federal District Court would work. I simply need to get the case before an at least somewhat neutral court that will uphold US Supreme Court case law.

The law professors and attorneys are stymied not by my attitude, but, as far as they have expressed to me, by the bizarreness of the rulings in this case, which, as I mentioned, completely contradict the US Supreme Court. Apparently even very experienced appeals attorneys are surprised when high courts go so far as to blatantly defy the US Supreme Court in order to get a desired outcome for the state. Courts usually follow precedent and stare decisis, especially on rulings from the US Supreme Court when they are directly relevant to the case, even when a few judges lodge their token dissents or concur despite a personal preference that the case law were different.

The FIRST requisite is that any constitutional or federal complaints must have been duly raised and preserved at the trial court level. They cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

The complaints must then be duly raised again at the appeals court level. If the appeal was timely filed with no fatal errors, the appeals court should answer that complaint. If the appellant has issue with the appeals courts opinion, then

The complaints may be raised again in a petition for review to the state supreme court. Though in states with intermediary appeals courts, state supreme court review is discretionary, and they may simply decline to hear the case. Which is their right.

If denied review at the state supreme court, the complaints may be raised in a petition for writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court.

That said, the odds are less than 1/100 of certiorari being granted and the case reviewed. Per the Supreme Court website, "the court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases".

This competing against petitions filed by the many of the best and brightest attorneys and legal teams in the country. In this scenario many perfectly valid complaints are returned with nothing more than a one page response stating Certiorari Denied.

At which point all avenues of appeal will have been exhausted. While at this point one could conceivably have standing to turn to the federal district court for relief, federal abstention doctrines and sovereign immunity and absolute judicial immunity issues will almost certainly result in the case being dismissed. At which point it is really really over.

Which boils down to an incontrovertible fact that, with the exception of less than one percent of cherry picked cases, once a state supreme court has declined to review a case, its over.

I'm aware of the appeals path, but still not completely sure if I can appeal to the Supreme Court from a case that has only been denied cert. at the state Supreme Court, not heard and affirmed.

As stated above, I'm not looking for the US Supreme Court to grant cert. and actually hear my case, as if it even requires oral argument - I simply want them to grant cert., review the case, and issue a ruling, which probably involves taking one look at it, which will be the shortest petition they have ever read because the issue is incredibly simple, granting cert., reading a brief, which will also be really short, and reversing it without breaking a sweat.

Even sending the Supreme Court a cert petition is more of a required formality before appealing to the Federal Court of Appeals, though I'm not sure how to do that for such a case. Failing that, I do plan to appeal to Federal District court, but can't find how to do so for cases where the Appellant isn't in custody. What's the equivalent of a petition for writ of habeas corpus but without the requirement of being in custody?

 

[FlyingRon]

You can *ALWAYS* petition for cert. How far your petition gets depends on the undivulged circumstances. As pointed out only about 1% of such petitions get heard and frankly given your situation (denied review by the state courts), absent some very specific legal aspect, your chances are FAR less likely to be heard.

Not knowing if or how you'd file even in federal court, indicates you have ZERO chance of prevailing at the any federal appellate level.
There's no problem in finding unbiased attorneys at the federal level. There's no part of the US where they are all in bed with the courts/prosecutors (frankly, there's no individual state where I believe this is true statewide).

 

[quincy]

The USSC will (potentially) review cases when state courts have disregarded past Supreme Court decisions. But there is just not enough disclosed here to even guess at whether justmore should even bother pursuing his case.

Whenever it is claimed that everyone involved in a case, from law enforcement to the prosecutors to the attorneys to the judges, are corrupt, I tend to doubt the facts as presented. And this doubt comes even though I work in an area where corruption has been exposed at all levels in the past.

I think the odds of a writ of certiorari being issued by the USSC Justices are slim to none. justmore needs an attorney (if he can find any in Mississippi who are not in bed with the judges and the police and the prosecutors) and who, in addition, knows federal appeals procedure , to review his case to see where exactly he stands legally.