The Honorable Supreme Court of Nevada

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY

3 PETER J. HELFRICH ) 4

5 PLAINTIFF ) WRIT OF MANDAMUS

8 V. ) CASE NO.: CR-34173

9 ) 10 JUDGE KIMBERLY WANKER ) 11

12 RESPONDENT ) 13 ______14

19 Comes now, Plaintiff PETER JASON HELFRICH, IN PROPER

20 PERSON, pursuant to Rules 94 and 97 and petitions this court to 21

22 issue a Writ of Mandamus to order the Honorable Judge Wanker to

23 be compelled to accept Plaintiff Helfrich's Pro Se (thus 24 appealing her Denial) In Forma Pauperis Application(SEE 25

26 Exhibits: A, B, C, D) pursuant to RULE 39. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA

27 PAUPERIS, regarding CASE NO.: CR-34173 (SEE EXHIBIT:______). 28

29 Plaintiff has the Constitutional / LEGAL right to proceed In

30 Forma Pauperis, as Defendant has previously been approved by 31

[Summary of pleading] - 1 THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY Judge Tina Brisebill (SEE EXHIBIT:______), Judge Wanker 1 2 (SEE EXHIBIT:______), THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (SEE EXHIBIT:______) In Forma Pauperis status, when it suited 4

5 them to 'saddle' Plaintiff Helfrich with a mentally ill,

6 incompetent attorney by the name of Harold Kuehn (SEE 7

8 EXHIBITS:______

9 ______), Harold Kuehns 'Drinking Buddy', Chris Arabia, 10 who refused to perfect Peter J. Helfrich's appeal (SEE 11

12 EXHIBIT:______), and lastly, David Neely, who once

13 again without any repercussions from Judge Wanker was allowed to 14

15 refuse a direct order of the court to perfect Peter J.

16 Helfrich's appeal (SEE EXHIBIT:______). Now 17 that Plaintiff is pursuing a civil matter before the court in 18 19 which crimes were committed, Plaintiff is being unlawfully 20 refused the Legal right to do so, by Judge Wanker; thus 21

22 committing Obstruction of Justice, Misprision of Felony , under

23 18 USC 4 (SEE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; as well as 24

25 EXHIBITS:______), warranting the

26 prayer to a higher court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, hence 27 resolving all issues. 28

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS 1 2 To better enlighten one of the history of obvious abuses of 3 discretion and authority, Judge Wanker's bias, and refusal to 4

5 follow Federal, State and Constitutional law, a brief history of

6 these two parties 'relationship' / 'history' should add merit to 7

8 this request.

9 Upon an Appeal of Domestic Battery (SEE 10 EXHIBITS:______11

12 ______

13 ______14

15 ______

16 ______) 17 Peter J. Helfrich was awarded David Neely Esq. {fourth overall 18 19 Public Defender to 'jump ship', so to speak, since the initial 20 trial; third thus far that refused a DIRECT ORDER by Judge 21

22 Wanker to perfect Defendant's Pro Se Appeal} [ PLEASE REFERENCE

23 DOCUMENTS TENDERED ON FILE WITH THE HONORABLE NEVADA SUPREME 24

25 COURT REGARDING CASE #: ; EXHIBIT:____ ] by the

26 Honorable Judge Wanker for the sole purpose of perfecting 27 (CURRENTLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS MANDAMUS 'PLAINTIFF'; NOT 28

29 'DEFENDANT') Defendant's already scripted appeal, to which Judge

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY Wanker has already commended Defendant PUBLICALLY IN COURT / ON 1 2 VIDEO for scripting. (SEE EXHIBITS:______) 3 On 8-27-2012, at approximately 10:37 am – 11am, David Neely 4

5 Esq. & Defendant met to discuss said aforementioned appeal brief

6 in a meeting room near the Justice Court area, located at the 7

8 fifth Judicial Court of NYE County, located on East Basin Ave.

9 Mr. Neely refused to perfect Defendant's appeal. Mr. Neely, 10 with numerous expletives laden in his responses said such things 11

12 to Defendant as: “You have absolutely no fucking clue about the

13 laws; how to write an appeal, nor do you have grounds for an 14

15 appeal! I've been doing Domestic Battery cases for years. CRAZY

16 BITCHES get their asses kicked all the fucking time DUDE! All 17 the fucking time, I'm telling ya; I see these nut case bitches, 18 19 and I've read your appeal... SHE IS A FUCKING NUT JOB FOR SURE!”. 20 Mr. Neely wanted Defendant in essence to shred Defendant's 21

22 appeal brief, metaphorically burn it and basically go home and

23 give up. His only “angle” was appealing on the grounds of 24

25 “Jurisdiction”, as he put it, yet after skimming the brief /

26 transcripts, he said that “angle” was not going to work. 27 If this is the level of “Quality” indigent Defendant's are 28

29 assigned regarding “Defense”, this experience once again (After

30 the mentally insane, “off his meds” Harold Kuehn (SEE Exhibit: 31

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY B; Colony insurance vs. Harold Kuehn); his drinking buddy “Chris 1 2 Arabia” metaphorically took off on his 'Magic Carpet' as soon as 3 he realized Defendant was another victim of friend, Kuehn; and 4

5 now a man {Neely} who has yet to take a case to trial since bell

6 bottoms were in style {See Exhibit C}) proves Defendant's best 7

8 chance for a proper appeal is once again in his own hands; and

9 gladly so. 10

13 ARGUMENT 14

15 The obvious patterns of biased, Obstructions of Justice,

16 partiality, added to the fact over 50 Plaintiffs currently 17 seeking relief (potentially thousands after the Department of 18

19 Justice finishes its investigations) by means of a Qui Tam suit

20 vs. Judge Wanker, Judge Brisebill, Judge Jasperson, Judge Lane, 21

22 (SEE EXHIBITS:______) enforce a pattern of

23 misconduct by the entire class of corrupt Judges that arrogantly 24 believe “What happens in Pahrump is by their will, and will stay 25 26 in Pahrump”. 27 Plaintiff has the Constitutional / LEGAL right to appeal 28

29 (as well as holding onto the legitimate right to pursue a civil

30 matter in a proper court 'Proceeding as Poor', in regards to the 31

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY essence behind this Mandamus) Pro Se In Forma Pauperis, as is 1 2 his prayer (Faretta v. California: 422 U.S., 806, 95 S. Ct 2525, 3 45 L Ed. 2D 562, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 83 (1975)). Plaintiff's earned 4

5 distaste for such a (in)breed in NYE County of over paid, over

6 regarded Judas parasites is well noted, well proven and well 7

8 documented (See Exhibits:______, Letters From / and

9 to / Department of Justice). Given the circumstances, Peter J. 10 Helfrich requests his Constitutional right to have Judge 11

12 Wanker's unjust ruling / DENIAL of In Forma Pauperis overturned

13 by this Honorable Court, and allow Justice to be served, by 14

15 recusing her from CASE NO.: CR-34173, and having an Honorable

16 Judge from Clark County reside over CASE NO.: CR-34173. 17

22 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23 RULE 39. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24

25 1. A party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis shall file a

26 motion for leave to do so,

27 together with the party's notarized affidavit or declaration (in

28 compliance with 28 U. S.

29 C. §1746 ) in the form prescribed by the Federal Rules of

30 Appellate Procedure, Form 4.

1 See 28 U. S. C. §1915 . The motion shall state whether leave to

2 proceed in forma

3 pauperis was sought in any other court and, if so, whether leave

4 was granted. If the

5 United States district court or the United States court of

6 appeals has appointed

7 counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, see 18 U. S. C. §3006A ,

8 or under any other

9 applicable federal statute, no affidavit or declaration is

10 required, but the motion shall

11 cite the statute under which counsel was appointed.

12 2. If leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sought for the

13 purpose of filing a document,

14 the motion, and an affidavit or declaration if required, shall

15 be filed together with that

16 document and shall comply in every respect with Rule 21. As

17 provided in that Rule, it

18 suffices to file an original and 10 copies, unless the party is

19 an inmate confined in an

20 institution and is not represented by counsel, in which case the

21 original, alone,

22 suffices. A copy of the motion, and affidavit or declaration if

23 required, shall precede and

24 be attached to each copy of the accompanying document.

25 3. Except when these Rules expressly provide that a document

26 shall be prepared as

27 required by Rule 33.1, every document presented by a party

28 proceeding under this

29 Rule shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2 (unless such

30 preparation is

1 impossible). Every document shall be legible. While making due

2 allowance for any case

3 presented under this Rule by a person appearing pro se, the

4 Clerk will not file any

5 document if it does not comply with the substance of these Rules

6 or is jurisdictionally

7 out of time.

8 4. When the documents required by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this

9 Rule are presented to

10 the Clerk, accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule

11 29, they will be placed

12 on the docket without the payment of a docket fee or any other

13 fee.

14 5. The respondent or appellee in a case filed in forma pauperis

15 shall respond in the

16 same manner and within the same time as in any other case of the

17 same nature,

18 except that the filing of an original and 10 copies of a

19 response prepared as required

20 by Rule 33.2, with proof of service as required by Rule 29,

21 suffices. The respondent or

22 appellee may challenge the grounds for the motion for leave to

23 proceed in forma

24 pauperis in a separate document or in the response itself.

25 6. Whenever the Court appoints counsel for an indigent party in

26 a case set for oral

27 argument, the briefs on the merits submitted by that counsel,

28 unless otherwise

29 requested, shall be prepared under the Clerk's supervision. The

30 Clerk also will

1 reimburse appointed counsel for any necessary travel expenses to

2 Washington, D. C.,

3 and return in connection with the argument.

4 7. In a case in which certiorari has been granted, probable

5 jurisdiction noted, or

6 consideration of jurisdiction postponed, this Court may appoint

7 counsel to represent a

8 party financially unable to afford an attorney to the extent

9 authorized by the Criminal

10 Justice Act of 1964, 18 U. S. C. §3006A, or by any other

11 applicable federal statute.

12 8. If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari,

13 jurisdictional statement, or petition for

14 an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may

15 deny leave to proceed in

16 forma pauperis.

17 18 (Faretta v. California: 422 U.S., 806, 95 S. Ct 2525, 45 L Ed. 19 2D 562, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 83 (1975)). SENSE OF FAIRPLAY SHOCKED IS 20

21 NOT DUE PROCESS (CONGRESS BARRED)(Galvan v Press, 347 US 522, 74

22 S Ct 737, Groban 352, US 330, 77 S Ct 510, Kinsella v United 23

24 States, 361 US 234, 80 S Ct 297, Bodie v Conneicut, 401 US 371, 25 91 S Ct 780, Ross v Moffitt, 417 US 600, 94 S Ct 2437, United 26 States v Salerno, 481 US 739, 107 S Ct 2095). 27

28 DISCRIMINATION AS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (5TH AMENDMENT)

29 (LYING V CASTILLO, 477 US 635, 106 S CT 2727, BOWLING V SHARPE, 30

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY 347 US 497, 74 S CT 693, UNITED STATES V MORENO, 413 US 528, 93 1 2 S CT 2821). 3 NON – LAWYER PRO SE DEFENDANTS MAY NOT BE HELD TO SAME STANDARDS 4

5 AS PRACTICING LAWYERS (SEE HAINES V. KERNER 92 SCT 594, POWER

6 914 F2D 1459 (11TH CIR 1990) HUSLEY V. OWNES 63 F3D 354 (5TH CIR 7

8 1995), PUCKETT V. COX (456 F2D 233 (1972 SIXTH CIRCUIT USCA),

9 CONLEY V. GIBSON, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) “The Federal Rules 10 rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which 11

12 one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept

13 the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a 14

15 proper decision on the merits”.

16 18 USC 4 Misprision of Felony (current through Pub. L 112-1173 17 {see Public Laws of Current Congress}: “ Whoever, having 18 19 knowledge of the actual commissions of a Felony cognizable by a 20 court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as 21

22 possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in

23 civil or military authority under the united States, shall be 24

25 fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,

26 or both. Source (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 27 103-322. title XXXIII 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 28

29 2147.) Historical and Revision Notes: Based on title 18, U.S.C.

30 1940 ed, 251 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, 146, 35 Stat. 1114). 31

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY Changes in phraseology only. Amendments: 1994-Pub. L. 103-322 1 2 substituted “fined under title” for “fined not more than $500”. 3 18 USC Chapter 73, 1510: Obstruction of Criminal Investigations; 4

5 1514: Civil action to Restrain harassment of Victim or Witness;

6 1515: Definitions of certain Provisions / General Provisions; 7

8 1518: Obstruction of Criminal Investigations of Health Care

9 Offenses; 38 USC 7265 – Contempt of Authority. 10 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 11

12 13 1. Bryan A Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, p.980, 8th Ed., St. 14 Paul, USA, 2004 15

16 2. A.T. Markose: Judicial Control of Administrative Action in 17 India, p364 18 3. RK Choudhary's Law of Writs; Mamdamus 19 4. Vice-chancellor, Utkal University v. SK Ghosh, AIR 1954 SC 20 217: 1954 SCR 883 21 5. Godiand's case, referred to in Widdrington's case, 1 Lev 22 and R.v. Askew, 5 Burr 2186 23 6. Blackstone, 3 Com 100: High on Extraordinary Legal 24 Remedies, Sec. 1 25 7. See, e.g., Humane Society of the United States v. State Bd.

26 Of Equalization, 152 Cal. 27

28 8. Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where

29 discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously 30 or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey 31

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W. 2D 943. In such instances the 1 2 abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus will 3 lie when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest 4

5 injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W. 2D 943, as well as when

6 an official refuses to act when they have a duty to act and 7

8 refuses to do so.1. Bryan A Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary,

9 p.980, 8th Ed., St. Paul, USA, 2004 10

11 9. A.T. Markose: Judicial Control of Administrative Action in

12 India, p364

13 10. RK Choudhary's Law of Writs; Mamdamus

14 11. Vice-chancellor, Utkal University v. SK Ghosh, AIR

15 1954 SC 217: 1954 SCR 883

16 12. Godiand's case, referred to in Widdrington's case, 1

17 Lev and R.v. Askew, 5 Burr 2186

18 13. Blackstone, 3 Com 100: High on Extraordinary Legal

19 Remedies, Sec. 1 14. See, e.g., Humane Society of the United States v. 20

21 State Bd. Of Equalization, 152 Cal

22 CONCLUSION 23

25 Discriminating against Plaintiff's wishes to Proceed In 26 Forma Pauperis should be abolished due to the circumstances 27 28 listed above, as well as a prayer of action to bring those 29 (I.E.: Judge Wanker) breaking the very laws they took an Oath to 30

31 respect and Defend; a plea for swift action to reprimand and or

IN AND FOR CARSON CITY remove Judge Wanker from office, as well as seeking penalties 1 2 that fit her wrongdoings, should apply. If the appeal is denied, 3 for whatever reason, Plaintiff reserves the right to appeal to 4

5 the 9th Circuit and beyond, as he has the right to do so under

6 the Laws that Govern United States Citizens, under the 7

8 Constitution.

21 Most Respectfully Submitted, 22

24 Peter Jason Helfrich 25 Signed:______26 27 Dated:______28

1 2 Notary:______3 Dated:______4

7 CC: Washington FBI, Eric Holder / Department of Justice, Nevada 8

9 Attorney Generals Office, Agents of Homeland Security, Global

10 Media, and all other Government agencies currently investigation 11 Nye Counties deep seeded corruption. 12

[Summary of pleading] - 14