Supreme Court of the United States

Home , Ex Parte

Ufl[1\fL

FFILED 13 2018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK 'I IN THE SUPREME COURT U.S..S

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALEX A. CAMPBELL -PETI11ONER (Your Name)

VS.

UNITED STSTAE OF AMERICA _ RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ALEX A. CAMPBELL (Your Name)

USP TERRE HAUTE P.O. BOX 33 (Address)

TERRE HAUTE IN 47808 (City, State, Zip Code)

- (Phone Number) QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Must a judge who had a improper ex parte communication with the prosecuting team off-docket, with no in camera review,

and directed the prosecuting to withhold material of facts from the defense during the improper ex parte communication have to recuse himself from the trial or may the judge consistent with

28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455 and the Due Process Clause, of the Fifth Amendment to the United states Constitution continue to preside

over defendant's trial? - Whether trial attorney's service were beneath the constitutional floor for failing to present relevant material of facts

in motion to compel recusal of district judge and appellate coun-

sel failure to present significate and obvious issue on appeal of improper ex parte communication ineffective assistance? Whether judge should recuse himself from presiding over de-

fendant's "Section 2255 Petition" when petitioner has raised issues in the petition that are disputed facts and conflict of in-

trest between petitioner and the judge, or may the judge con-

sistent with 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution continue to preside

over petitioner's "Section 2255 Petition"? Whether a defendant be denied Due Process of the Court of substantial constitutional violation claims, but lack the in-

telligence and ability to properly present the claims to the court pro se and can not afford an attorney at cost? \

LIST OF PARTIES

M All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case. on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED CASES PAGE NUMBER Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 11289 1144-45 (D.C. 2003)...... Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 1996)...... 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984)...... 1 1 14 1?— United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 768 (7th Cir. 2011).... 9 United States v. Bremers, 195 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 1999)...... A' United States v. Neff, 10 F.3d 1321, 1323 (7th Cir. 1993)...... 9 United States v. Popoola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989).... 1/ William v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. CL. 1899::February 29, 2016.... 7 Withron v. Larkin, U.S. 35, 47, 95 S. Ct. 1465 43 L.Ed 2d 71.2

(1975)...... 7 STATUS AND RULES 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455(b)(1) 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Fed. R. Crim. P. 43 The Rules Of Judicial-Conduct, Judicial-Disability Proceedings OTHER U.S. Const. Fifth Amendment U.S. Const. Sixth Amendment U.S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW...... 1

JURISDICTION...... CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...... 3 STATEMENTOF THE CASE ...... REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...... 7-IJ CONCLUSION ...... i2.

INDEX To APPENDICES

APPENDIX A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND PETITITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RECUSAL OF DISTRICT JUDGE, A1-A13; APPENDIX B UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ORDER AND MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF TRIAL JUDGE, B1-B6; APPENDIX C EXCERPTS FROM DISTRICT COURT HEARING TRANSCRIPTS C1-C6;

APPENDIX AFFIDAVIT D1-D4.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

D4 For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix to the petition and is a miscarriage of justice (no Opinion gave [J]usttrdter of denied by the Appeals Courts) repo ; or, I } has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, 4 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix to the petition and is a miscarriage of justice (no opinion just a Order of denied by the district court). I I reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, is unpublished.

[ ] For eases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix to the petition and is [I reported at ; or, [] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, t is unpublished.

court The opinion of the - appears at Appendix to the petition and is [ ] reported at ; or, [] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [I is unpublished. 1. JURISDICTION

[]d For cases from federal courts: The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was October 17, 2018

[ J No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[3 A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of , and a copy of the - Appeals on the following date: order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ I An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including (date) on ______(date) in Application No. _A______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). Th I s petition is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date: and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[1 An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including (date) on ______(date) in Application No. _A______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Th' Fifth Amendment to the United states Constitution prov- vides in relevant part: "In all criminal prosecution, the accused is entitle to afair trialof a impartial and unbias judge and jury. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion provides in relevant part: ';'In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall ... have Assistance of Counsel for his defense." The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Due

Process Clause According to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455(b)(1), provides in relevant Part: "The judicial code 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) is directed to the judge and is self-excuting. It requires the judge to disqualify himself if he has personal bias or prejudices concerning the party. The lanuage impose a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed."

3. H

- / STATEMENT OF THE CASE On or about January 17, 2011, the prosecuting team, off the Docket Entry, no Notice to the defense, and no in camera review., during the improper ex parte communication with the judge of petitioner's criminal trial. The judge and prosecuting team dis- cussed the case, reviewed disputed evidentiary material of facts involved with the trial. Ultimately it was decided by the judge to direct the prosecuting team to withhold the disputed material of facts from the defense. See Appendix C1-C6(Excerpts From District Court Hearing Transcripts) and See Appendix D1-D4(Aff i- davit).

Petitioner's first -trial ended in a mistrial due to conflict of interest, unrelated to the improper ex parte communication (trial attorney prior relationship with gov.'s witness). The court appointed petitioner a new attorney but continue to with-: hold the facts of the improper ex parte and the disputed evidentiary material fact from the defense. In preparing for thesecond trial, defense motion to the court several times for all "Brady" material to be turned over. However, the motions were denied by the judge and several unfavorable remarks were made by the judge directed toward petitioner aswell suggesting that petitioner was guilty of the charges before trial was under-way. Because of the judge's continous unfavorable remarks as to petitioner being guilty before trial by the jury. The defense motion for the judge to recuse himself from the trial based on his bias remarks the 41 judge refused to recuse himself. Petitioner defense file a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel recusal of the district judge with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. However, peti' tioner's attorney failed, or recklessly knowingly did not include the discovery of the improper ex parte communication and the with -held disputed material of facts that the prosecutingteam.alleged the judge directed its to withhold from the defense, was not men- tion in the motion for recusal. See public record -.In.rd the. I1ffeôf Alex Campbell, Case No. 12-1020 (7th Cir. 2012). 3. Petitioner-Campbell was convicted of among other things, sex trafficking, following a jury trial and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. United States v. Alex A. Campbell, No. 10 CR 26. Campbell's conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Alex A.Campbell, 770 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2014). Before the filing Of Petitioner-Campbell's direct appeal, petitioner- Campbell rquested and pleaded for his attorney to raise among other things the improper ex parte communication the court appointed attorney refused to raise any of petitioner-Campbell's requests and raised all frivilous issues. 4. On or about March 13, 2016, petitioner-Campbell filed a. petition in complaint of the district jcourt judge's misconduct with the Cheif judge of the United States Court for the Seventh Circuit and with the Judicial Council for the Seventh Circuit. See public record filed Case No. 07-16-90025. Fl 5. On January 14, 2016, petitioner-Campbell, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence(Section 2255 Petition). See public records: United States v. Alex A. Campbell, Case No. 16- Cv-632. In petitioner's Section 2255 Petition [he] raised eight grounds amongs other grounds the improper ex parte communication between the prosecuting team and the judge. • 6. On August 31, 2018, petitioner filed a motion with the District Court, requesting the judge to recuse himself from presiding over petitioner's Section 2255 Petition. See Appendix B4- B6 of recusal motion filed docket entry [36]. On September 11, 2018, the United States district judge denied petitioner's motion for recusal, ici1opiiioii.or:I'!emorandum-g ofLaw. See Appendix Bi. Also on October 9, 2018, the district judge denied petii: tioner's motion to appoint counsel during proceeding of petition of writ of mandamus to compel recusal of district court judge. See Appendix B2. On Sept. 09, 2018, petitioner filed petition for writ of mandamus to compel recusal of district judge with the United States Court ofAppeals-for the Seventh Circuit. See Appendix A3-A13(CaseNo. 18-3016). Petitioner also filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal, A motion requesting to appoint counsel during proceeding of petition for writ of mandamus to compel recusal of district judge.. See Case No. 18-3158. On- October, 1, 2018, the United States Court Of Appeals for the. Seventh Circuit, denied petioner's motions.w.1thoi1:ary.0p1nion or Memorandum of Law. See appendix A1-A2.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The.Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has entered a final Order of "Denied" in the instant case that is so far apart from the exceptance and usual course of judicial proceedings. Its ruling in this case is contrarin to its ruling in other similar cases, and various establish circuits and this Court's recent ruling in such cases as e.g. Withron v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47,

95 S. Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed 2d 712 (1975) and in light of 136 S. Ct. William v. Pennsylvania::February 29, 2016. This Court power is necessity for guidance to an erronously Order in this case.

In the opinion of Justice Kennedy delivered this Opinion of this Court: "Under our precedents [*LEDHR1] there are objective standard that requires recusal when "the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." Withron v. Larkin, U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456 43 L.Ed 2d 712 (1975). Appling Case:556 U.S. 868:: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. March 3, 2009. In the William v. Pennsylvania case, this Court stated no judge can preside over its on case where [he] is involved.

I. PETITIONER'S ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS REQUIRMENTS OFRECUSAL 28 144 AND 455(b)(1)

Petitioner attempted to resolved the disputed matter of law for recusal of the judge by way of: 1. trial attorney who know-: ingly and recklessly withheld important relevant material of facts from the motion submitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse the trial judge during defendant's trial. For had not defendant's trial attorney not withheld the relevant material of facts from the motion for recusal of the trial judge, the outcome of the Court of appeals would have been different other-then "Denied"; 2. Petitioner wrote several letters to [his] direct appeal attorney requesting and pleading for [his] attorney to raise the recusal matter as a merit during [his] direct appeal but defendant's attorney was defiante and raised frivolous issues on the behalf of defendant's direct appeal harming petitioner;3.

Petitioner filed complaint-s- in the matter of the improper ex parte communication to the: Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of

Appeals, Judicial Council, and to the Judicial Conduct Commitee, all the above supervisory position titles refused to address the disputed matter that called- for recusal of the district judge; 4.

Petitioner raised the issues in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for relief. The same judge that abuse his discretion and denied petitioner a fair impartial and unbias trial refused to recuse himself from presiding over petitioner's Seët6n2255.Petition. II. SIMILAR CASES RULINGS The prosecuting team on this case states:" petitioner was not harmed in anyway due to the improper ex parte communication." 1. The judge gained knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts during the improper ex - parte communication; 2. reviewed material that was altered by the prosecuting team that cause [him] to form a prejudge mindset of defendant to be guilty for trial begun; 3. the judge directed the prosecuting team during the improper communication to withheld relevant material of facts pertaining to - I

- J S

-I

5'- -

• ; • .-. .-

-S. the case away from the defense; 4. It was a critical stage of defendant's trial and defendant had a constitutional right to be present, which violated the Due Process Clause. In the case of Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1144-45 (D.C. Cir. 2003)(Judge' impartiality reasonably questioned because judge engage in ex parte communication and stated opinion about case. Also see 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); see e.g. Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256,258 (7th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)Q 455 recusal required because judge recieved off-record briefing on relevant facts from appointed panel of experts); Murray v. Scott, 253 F. 3d 1308,

1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (§ 455 recusal required because judge was counsel of record in earlier related case and may have knowledge of disputed facts).

In the above cited authority cases are minor and fair. to say p0ss1b1e1m1staken1y improper ex parte communication, the Court's ruling were favorable to the defendant. However in this case the improper ex parte communication were knowingly and recklessly of the prosecuting team to pursue the judge in violation of docket entry proceedings and in camera review. In the case of United States v. Benabe, 654 F. 3d 753, 768 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed 2d 353 (1970) decided by this Court Compels the conclusion that disqualification under § 455(a) is required. Also see United States v. Neff, 10 F.3d 1321, 1323 (7th Cir. 1993) The government ex parte off the docket denied defendant the right to be present. Defendant has no way of even knowing what was said during the improper ex parte or if other ex parte hearing be- -9 or, S - •1 ------I

• If tween the judge and government exsist. On review, the Cout held that it was a violation of Fed. R. Crirn. P. 43 and therefore the

conviction was vacated and remanded for new trial.

III. CONTINOUS OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW The Seventh Circuit Court's decision denying petitioner's writ of mandamus to compel recusal of the district judge has mis- takenly overlooked relevant: documented records, witnesses, and

supporting affidavits that support petition for recusal. Because of the continous of denial to address the improper ex parte com-

munication the district judge that denied petitioner a fair and impartial trial, denied petitioner's Section 2255 Petition and petitioner's request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA).

Which is a continous of violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend. Const. of the United States.

Under 28 U.S.S. § 455(b)(1), a Judge must disqualify himself if he has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts that will be disputed at trial. The motion for recusal, court documents witnesses, and supporting affidavits show that the district judge has this knowledge and must have, therefore, recuse himself under § 455(b) (1). Like the recusal statutes, the Due Process Clause forbids both partiality in fact and the appearance of partiality by a jug.

As the Supreme Court noted in William v. Pennsyania, 136 S. Ct.

1899::February 29, 2016.

Disqualification for public perception of possible bias is essential to integrity of judiciary.

_40- - - - STANDARDS

THE RULES OF JUDICIAL-CONDUCT, JUDICIAL-DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS: "(h) Miscond. Cognizable Misconduct: (1) is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, Misconduct includes, but not limited to: (C) having improper discussion with parties or counsel for one side in a case." Commentary on rule 2 (h) miscond. Cognizable misconduct: (2) is conduct occuring outside the performance of official duties if conduct, might have a prejudicial effect on substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the court among reasonable people.

28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides that the court shall grant the petitioner a hearing "unless the motion and the files and the records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is en- titled to no relief." The court may deny a hearing if the petitioner's allegations, viewed against the record, fail to state; a claim for relief. United States v. Popoola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, to earn the right to a hearing the petitioner must allege specific facts which if true, would entitle him to relief. See Popoola, F.2d at 812.

To suceed on a § 2255 motion based on allegations of ineffective of counsel, a petitioner must show both deficient per: formance and prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466, 689 (1984).

-/1-

Petitioner's defense counsel's representation fail outside the scope of reasonable legal assistance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S. Ct. 674 (1984). Petitioner's constitutional rights of the Fifth, Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendment should not be sacrificed, waived, or denied because of defense counsel's representation service were beneath the constitutional floor. A reversal in conviction, alternatively vacate the district judge's Order denying petitioner's Section 2255 Petition or a remand for hearing in this case on the improper ex parte communication would maintain and promote a widespread of public trust and confidence in the United, states judicial system.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted

Respectfully submitted, Z

Date

12. F'