PETITION FOR REHEARING OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
BY FOURTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
COMES NOW Petitioner Pro-Se to request and move this full Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Council to conduct a fair review in compliance with holdings and rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, where this Fourth Circuits [many] prior rulings or Orders do not abide and comply to the Supreme Courts holdings on the U.S. Constitution and those rulings (or) holdings handed down by the Supreme Court that Judge Cacheris and this Circuit Court have not abided by, nor conformed to over the past decade, pursuant to its rulings and repeated denials after 1998.
It strongly appears that this Fourth Circuit Judicial Committee has failed and did refuse to properly, fairly or correctly rule on any or all of Fioranis facts, evidence and 45 exhibits that makes a clear and convincing showing on a standard of review against all misconduct committed by District Judge James Cacheriss proven and exposed by Petitioner, herein with his 45-exhibits, but ignored by this Judicial Misconduct Committees Memorandum and Order issued by Chief Judge Wilkins.
Indeed, Petitioner requests the full Judicial Misconduct Committee to fairly review, read and comply with or to all U.S. Supreme Court rulings, contrary to any orders or rulings issued by Judge Cacheris, whereby in several appeals, Judge Cacheris was affirmed specifically by the Fourth Circuit, but overruled on many Constitutional questions (appeals) that do contradict and are contrary to each of these Judicial Misconducts (many) Orders dismissing many factual and meritorious complaints filed with this Judicial Committee, that is always ruled opposite the J.C.C.s Canons 1, 2 and 3, as it is now, per the Memorandum and Order.
This Fourth Circuits Order written by Chief Judge Wilkins has never rendered, nor issued any fair, constitutional or justified reviews against any judges criminal or (civil) misconduct under the Judges Canons of Conduct, (JCC), before 2003, 03-9042, and after 2000, where many Supreme Court holdings reversed this Circuit Judges rulings on, inter alia, (1) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; (2) Miranda warnings; and, (3) many prior and currently, the Supreme Courts year-0ld holding, In re.: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 546 U.S. _____; 126 S.Ct. 2554, (2006), which is now before this Courts Judicial Misconduct Committee on either a reversal of that corrupt district judges rulings after 1998, and where Petitioner, (Defendant) has made a showing that the judge was a direct and indirect participant in the collaboration or conspiracy, under Virginias criminal code 18.2-22.
-------------------orders, or for referrals to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S.
Senates Judiciary Committee and the Governments Ethics Office, U.S. Department of Justice that affirms many aspects of the U.S. Constitution, but reverses [those] acts that are contrary to orders and rulings by a district court and/or Circuit Courts unconstitutional ruling(s) in this case.--------------------
Therefore, currently all facts, exhibits and evidence are contrary to and specifically adverse to the Supreme Courts many prior holdings that has reversed or proved unconstitutional rulings were issued by lower courts, directly relating to this Circuit Courts Memorandum and Order issued by Chief Judge Wilkins, dated June 21, 2007. This Memorandum and Order are contrary to those Supreme Court holdings that reverse the elements of 28 U.S.C. 352(b)(1)(A)(ii), (claims related to the merits of [a corrupt judges] decisions must be dismissed), and (iii), (factually unsupported claims must be dismissed).
II. FACTS AND EXHIBITS SHOWING JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT FOR REVERSAL
1. No Petitoner can get a fair and impartial review of all of these judicial misconduct complaints given to this Court on and after November
2. In or about November 2006, Petitioner filed with the District
Court his first Complaint under the Supreme Courts ruling per many other
Constitutional Rights violations and Due Process or Equal Protection violations held by the Supreme Court when(ever) a district court judge Cacheris, Glen Trimper, G. David Hackney did knowingly, purposely, per the Courts words, erroneously denies any Defendant his choices of counsel like Judge Cacheris did and continued to do, as evidenced and exhibited in the District Courts own docket sheet(s).
3. Petitioner provided in his first issued complaint 45-exhibits that
directly bears on Petitioner's claims, facts, evidence and exhibits not properly
fairly or accurately reviewed by any impartial judges in this Circuit Court. Just like a lawyer cannot or will not fairly review and show corruption by another lawyer in an ineffective assistance of [defense] counsel claims. A judge cannot fully and accurately or fairly rule against one of his other judges for clear-and-convincing evidence of judicial misconduct, as in this case.
4. On January 22, 2007, Judge Cacheris issued a ruling, some 60 days after the issuances of Petitioner's first complaint regarding the many
illegal acts, unethical methods and unconstitutional conduct committed by
District Judge Cacheris, AUSA David Hackney and Glen Trimper, the district
courts appointed counsel who disregarded Petitioner's own paid counsel,
hired and paid for by his family to represent him against these deliberately falsified accusations, manufactured bits of evidence and concocted affidavit from which a misguided magistrate judge issued three search warrants on an affidavit that totally lacked any such probable cause under our Supreme Courts and Constitutional principles for a legitimate search or seizure.
5. Chief Judge Wilkins failed too in a judicial misconduct complaint, (JMC) 03-9042 and JMC 07-9035 to avoid finding for very accurate and concise judicial complaint showing unethical conduct and nconstitutional
violations committed by a corrupt judge Cacheris in both 03-9042 and 07-9035. Under the JCC, Canon 1, 2 and 3, No judge can cause prejudice,
4. Petitioner's own facts, exhibits and evidence make a showing,
clearly and convincingly adverse to Judge Cacheris 1998 criminal and unconstitutional acts, jointly and collectively a part of AUSA David Hackney and Cacheris approval to deny Petitioner's own paid choices of counsel Richard Gardiner and Larry Dube, by Cacheris appointing Glen Trimper as an appointed defense counsel, did violate Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right, held by the Supreme Court in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, that reversed all of Cacheris unconstitutional orders, memoranda and rulings issued in and after November 1998.
5. It is for these factual exhibits, evidence and facts, repeatedly ignored by this Fourth Circuit in and after 1999, when this Circuit ignored, and allowed Trimper to commit many acts and criminal, or unethical conduct now before the Virginia State Bars Attorney Misconduct Committee, reviewing the same 45 exhibits this Court got that illustrates that at no time can any judge to rule against a judge or court to rule against an attorney on criminal acts and unethical conduct clearly proven by a non-lawyer, party, as illustrated by this Courts many unethical and unconstitutional denials and dismissals.
III. FACTS AND REASONS FOR REVERSAL OR REMOVAL FROM THIS ENTIRE CIRCUIT COURTS MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE FOR BIAS, UNFAIRNESS, PREFERENTIAL JUDGES TREATMENT AND PREJUDICIAL
Petitioner moves this full Circuit Courts misconduct committee to reverse on the many prior Supreme Court rulings issued by that High Court that Chief
Judge Wilkins repeatedly failed to review, failed to comply with and refused to find against a corrupt district court judge on each of those 45-exhibits, facts and evidence that should reverse many wrongful and unconstitutional convictions on facts and exhibits showing strong evidence that the district court and circuit court are corrupt.
1. Chief Judge Wilkins erred in his Memo and Order where he says, Complainant alleges . . . district judge who presided over his criminal and post-conviction proceedings for . . .seven years has abused his power, position, and authority failing to make lawful decisions on complainants allegations his court-appointed counsel collaborated with the prosecutor to threaten and coerce his to plead guilty. (Memo. Order p.1). And,
2. Chief Judge Wilkins also erred when he continues, Complainant maintains . . .district judge improperly prevented complainant from obtaining relief on his claims and . . .this Courts order on judicial complaint 03-9042 recognized as much [sic] but failed to identify an appropriate remedy. (Memo. Order p.1). And,
3. Chief Judge Wilkins did also err when he continued, Complainant has filed multiple post-conviction challenges raising similar issues to those raised in 03-9042 and in this judicial complaint, and relief has been denied in the district court and on appeal. (Memo. Order p.2)
4. Chief Judge Wilkins continued to err, proving that this Circuit Court of Appeals does repeatedly, and at all times ignore any and all High Court rulings that do make and reveal judicial misconduct against a district or circuit court judge, when that judge or court fails to carry out any of the Judicial Canons of Conduct Ethics handed down by the Supreme Court and Congress under Canon(s) 1, 2 and 3, which do specifically relate to this corrupt district judges past nine years of misconduct and unconstitutional and Due Process violations against Fioranis provable claims and factual allegations. (Memo. Order p. 2).
5. Chief Judge Wilkins continues, Complainant attempts to assign an illegal motive to the judges rulings by alleging that the judge knew that court-appointed counsel and the prosecutor forced complainant to plead guilty, knew that certain facts to which complainant pled were false, and knew that perjured testimony was presented to the grand jury. (Memo. Order p. 2).
IV. SUPREME COURT REVERSED FOURTH CIRCUITS COMMITTEE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Chief Judge Wilkins erred in and after 1999, when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to reverse Fioranis conviction on the [many] adverse holdings against a corrupt district judges many unconstitutional rulings, memoranda and orders that do repeatedly ignore all adverse, reversible orders issued by both the district court and this Circuit Court, illustrated by Chief Judge Wilkins Memorandum and Order.
Evidence and exhibits clearly prove that Cacheris was also involved in the defendants' being threatened, coerced and placed under duress by being forced to sign 2 legal documents, (hereafter, Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts, PA and SOF). That specific set of facts was discovered in or about 2005, when Fioranis two paid-attorneys, Gardiner and Dube reviewed, read and investigated all facts that would conclusively prove force, duress and further show that district judge Cacheris had to know.
Those facts were revealed when Gardiner and/or Dube read both PA and SOF together. This Court also failed to find, contrary to VSBs attorney misconduct investigator, that when an attorney lies under oath, failing to tell the truth and failing to disclose, and many other aspects of, and under VSBs and ABAs Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Those specific, 45-exhibits provided to both the corrupt district judge Cacheris and this Fourth Circuit Court, found independent documents and court (District Court) files documents that conclusively prove, all contrary to Chief Judge Wilkins Memorandum Order, pp. 1-3., stated in the above-numbered errors committed regularly by the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, lead by Chief Judge Wilkins, as exhibited daily by each Fourth Circuit ruling and order issued.
Petitioner's paid attorneys, Gardiner and Dube found Trimper and AUSA
David Hackney with District Judge Cacheris were in a criminal conspiracy when Gardiners investigator in or about October 1998, learned from three (3)
grand jurors, one being the lead juror, that Cacheris was overseeing the grand jury, per those jurors, and each of those jurors, among probably many others knew that what AUSA Hackney had his witnesses testify to was intentionally false, manufactured and manipulated, as Ms. Morrison told Mr. Gardiner and the Investigator when interviewed to learn of what Hackney and/or IRS agents Want and Davies scratched out and over before it was presented to the grand jury, that would had supported Fioranis many (times) claims of innocence of any trumped up crimes.
It is those pieces of facts and evidence that a corrupt judge, like Cacheris would want to conceal by his blocking, hindering and preventing defendant's paid attorneys from ever getting a hold of. Under the Supreme Courts ruling in Brady v. Maryland, (citation omitted), holding, exculpatory evidence renders a judges withholding of that evidence, abuse of power, (aka, discretion) and a violation of the defendants Constitutional Rights, among his/her Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law.
Accordingly, Chief Judge Wilkins Memorandum and Order prove that at no time did, nor would the Fourth Circuit reverse on clearly unconstitutional rights and due process of law on the Fourth Circuits friend a district judges deliberate violations of withholding exculpatory evidence from the Defendant and his paid-counsel.
Gardiner and Dube read and discovered specifically that Judge Cacheris did
know of, about and had known Trimper and Hackney had threatened, coerced
and used duress against the defendant, condoned by Trimper, his court-
appointed attorney and AUSA G. David Hackney that paragraph 6 of the PA
and 12 paragraphs of the SOF were deliberately false, misleading and concocted did not mesh. The words in the PA says, The accompanying Statement of Facts signed by the defendant is hereby incorporated into this Plea Agreement. Defendant adopts the Statement of Facts and agrees the statements are accurate in every respect and . . . the United States would have proved those facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Petitioner met with an U.S. Assistant Deputy Attorney General over the
period from 1998 to 2005, with help to defendant's familys paid attorneys,
Gardiner and Dube. They found district judge Cacheris knew of and was told
and Cacheris was informed of those at least 12 materially false, willfully inaccurate and deliberately manipulated statements in the SOF written by
AUSA David Hackney and endorsed by Trimper and approved by Judge James Cacheris who was told of the force and coercions used to get defendants to
plead guilty on charges that are never crimes on and after November 3, 1998.
At all times Cacheris did nothing and held no special hearings, sua sponte, to properly uphold the laws of the United States by his demanding, sua sponte, punishing Trimper and Hackney. Instead, Cacheris did absolutely nothing to correct any or all of his criminal acts under Virginias and Federal laws.
Chief Judge Wilkins ignored, as did his many Circuit Court Judges that the U.S. Supreme Court held in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000),
Under the unreasonable application clause, a federal habeas court may grant a writ if the court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the Supreme Courts decisions, but unreasonably applies that incorrect principle to the facts of a prisoners case. See also. Taylor v. Williams (citation omitted); Mickens v. Taylor, (citation omitted);
In the Supreme Courts holding, In re.: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687 sets forth the familiar tw0-prong test for evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of [court-appointed] counsel. To prevail, Petitioner must establish both (1) that defense counsels performance was constitutionally deficient, and (2) that the deficient attorneys performance prejudiced the defense sufficiently to undermine the reliability of the trial. . . . That first element requires Petitioner to show that counsels representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688.
Third, this Circuit Court continued to ignore, failed to rule on and against the district judge Cacheris, where, adverse to this Circuits investigations whatsoever, VSB is investigating the many refusals, ignoring and deliberately manufacturing facts or documents the defendant's attorneys sought to get, but were dismissed by this Fourth Circuit's Appeal Order on June 30, 1999.
The Supreme Courts holding in: Penson v. Ohio, (citation omitted), (The
Court ruled that whenever an attorney fails, refuses or ignores conducting any such investigations on behalf of his client, that act alone is ineffective assistance of counsel.) Defendant and his paid attorneys, Gardiner and Dube were repeatedly denied by district judge Cacheris from ever being allowed to be choices of counsel, adverse to the Sixth Amendments, choice of counsel. See. (Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 522-23.)
The Supreme Court ruling reversed district judge Cacheris direct participation
of his blocking, hindering, (or abusing his position, power and authority), adverse to the Codes of Judicial Canons of Conduct rendered to any other
Circuit Court judge, judicial misconduct, strongly appearing to be hidden, concealed and blocked by Judge Wilkins Memorandum and Order in both 03-9042 and 07-9035 render this Circuits Order a clear basis of judicial bias, favoritism against a complainant, and this Circuits repeated failures to properly oversee a corrupt district judges years of crimes and constitutional rights violations against the complainant and apparently endorsed by a judicial misconduct committees many failures to find or not wanting to see misconduct.