Petition For Rehearing

No. 18-9369

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner Wade Travis Webb is the Plaintiff and Appellant.

Respondents County of Pima; Former Sheriff Clarence Dupnik; Former Sheriff Chris Nanos; Sheriff Mark Napier; Detective Jeffrey Castillo; County Attorney Barbara LaWall; Unknown Parties, are the Defendants and Appellees.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS…………………………………………………………………………. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………. ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………………………..iii

JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HELD TO HIGHER STANDARD………………………………6

ASSESSMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………6

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

APPENDIX

EXCERPTS FROM MOTION TO REMAND TO GRAND JURY FOR

REDETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE………………………………………………….1a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASE

United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983)…………………………………. 5

AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Fourteenth Amendment…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Charters of Freedom………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1-2

Chief Justice Warren Burger Quote………………………………………………………………………….. 2

The American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 Report

(https://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-infrastructure-a-d-2017-3)………….. 7

Comes Now Petitioner Wade Travis Webb (“Petitioner”), pursuant to Rule 44 of the Supreme Court of the United States, and presenting his Petition for Rehearing in this matter, states as follows:

JURISDICTION

The Court denied Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari on October 7, 2019. Petitioner presents this Petition within 25 days after the Court’s denial of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. As such, the Court has jurisdiction over this Petition pursuant to Rule 44.1.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Wade Travis Webb’s entire life was just written off by the United States of America.

The United States government does not have the authority to write law-abiding, tax paying, productive citizen’s lives off as if a human being is nothing more than a piece of garbage to be thrown out with the trash.

The mindset of the United States government has shifted horribly since the foundation was laid 240 years ago by the founders.

To sum up the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights involves three central components:

  1. Unalienable rights or natural rights, or whatever term is preferred, of human beings will be protected in the United States which include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness among many others.  The United States will not negatively interfere with these rights as no country’s laws can override those rights.
  2. The United States government will attempt to protect its citizens from foreign threats so that its citizens rights as human beings will not be interfered with.
  3. The United States founders did refer to a higher power, also known as God, multiple times calling this higher power the Creator.  The United States founders appealed to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions.  Finally, the United States founders relied on the protection of divine Providence which is a declaration of dependence on the Creator.

Chief Justice Warren Burger defined the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution rather succinctly stating that “The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.”  The documents are intertwined as the United States Constitution does not exist without the Declaration of Independence.

ARGUMENT

Petitioner Webb has raised disturbing concerns regarding overreach by the government that should be of the utmost importance to the United States as its citizens are being unnecessary harmed by the government.  One would think that cases involving abuses of the rights previously mentioned as well as Constitutional rights violations would take precedence above all other matters, but the United States has now proven otherwise with this case as a prime example.

Petitioner Webb has already detailed the facts.  To sum it up, Webb was arrested and subsequently indicted on a felony charge in Pima County, Arizona involving multiple people from both the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and the Pima County Attorney’s Office which was dismissed 84 days after he was arrested and 74 days after he was indicted.

Webb was 38 years old and a noncriminal but was treated like a criminal even though he did not commit a crime and is still being treated like a criminal as he has been denied Justice for 5.5 years and his life is a living hell.  Webb suffered significant emotional damage and financial damage which ruined his life while Pima County was playing around with a United States citizens life.  Webb lived in Kentucky and Pima County was aware of that.

An indisputable fact is that the felony “stalking” charge was dismissed but after Webb made multiple allegations of Constitutional rights violations, including the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, challenging the Grand Jury hearing by filing a motion to remand to grand jury for redetermination of probable cause. (Appendix A) Pima County did not defend these allegations but instead moved to dismiss in open court two weeks later.

Webb is a flawed human being just like everyone else and he makes mistakes but has maintained his position that there was premeditated malevolent intentions prior to the criminal case and leading up to the Grand Jury hearing.  Webb’s defense attorney came to the same conclusion and disclosed this ill intent theory with facts when filing the motion to remand to grand jury for redetermination of probable cause. (see App. A)

Webb did not “stalk” anyone and the evidence shows the stalking in this case could be opposite as well as the crime committed as Webb’s life was in danger. Webb has also maintained that discovery in this case is critical to reveal much more information regarding all parties involved.

A logical inference is that Webb does have “probable cause” that his rights as a human being were violated as well as his Constitutional rights as a United States citizen as Webb’s allegations were not defended but instead Webb suffered all of the damage while Pima County suffered zero damage.

The Defendants in this case walked away as if nothing ever happened.  Webb would not knowingly damage someone and walk away.  Webb would take responsibility for damaging a human being that did not deserve it.  Pima County is not of the same moral fiber as Webb.  Pima County is void of morals and ethics even though they claim differently on their websites.  Pima County’s actions tell the truth as their websites are just words.

Webb was facing a near impossible task to bring the Defendants to justice as he was unfamiliar with law and after the criminal case did not have the resources to hire an attorney, so Webb was forced to go at it alone.

After Webb’s encounter, it is deeply concerning that law enforcement and prosecutors can destroy human beings lives at will with no consequences even lacking probable cause that the citizen even committed a crime.  In Webb’s case, bias and unfairness, among others, were claimed at the Grand Jury hearing and this can happen to anyone.

2,000 years ago, another person’s life was written off that did not commit a crime and one would think, especially in the United States, that this would be intolerable.  But the United States has learned nothing and continues to make the same mistakes.

There are no statistics on how many cases are dismissed after a challenge of probable cause as in Webb’s case.  The number should be zero though which would indicate that law enforcement and prosecutors did their jobs correctly the first time.  However, as Webb has already pointed out previously if it was just 1 in 1,000 felony cases per year then that would equate to at least tens of thousands of cases over the years where a citizen was damaged at the hands of the government with no justice as the people in the same socioeconomic class do not have the resources or the time to legally retaliate.

Webb cited a number of cases previously in which the United States claims that the Grand Jury system is so important to protect the innocent from unwarranted and malicious persecutions that it serves as an invaluable function in society to stand between the accuser and the accused but cannot be relied upon without a thorough and effective investigation.

One of Webb’s case citations which are the words of this Court stated that “The grand jury has always occupied a high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law – so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution.” United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 423 (1983)

Webb expected to get a fair shake in the United States, but the United States has failed to protect its own citizens basic human rights.

Webb, as with many others, was dependable on the United States to allow him to fight for his rights but the United States has made its position clear.  The avenues are there but it is matter of the United States allowing its citizens to use those avenues for justice.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HELD TO HIGHER STANDARD

The federal government is held to a high standard than its citizens.  Citizens cannot arrest anyone, cannot charge anyone with a crime, and cannot attempt to prosecute anyone with the intent of putting that person in prison.  It is the federal government’s responsibility to protect its citizens rights as the federal government is held to a fiduciary standard.

The original intent was for the government to protect the citizens from the government negatively interfering with their lives.  However, over time this has flipflopped and now the government protects itself from its own citizens at the expense of the citizens’ rights.

The United States is failing its citizens and needs to reverse course immediately.

ASSESSMENT

Higher Power:  You have been on that planet for 44 years now as a citizen of the United States.  What is your assessment?

Petitioner:  The United States is not doing what it stated it would initially would when the country was formed.  They are taking upon themselves to write good people off and they do not care.  They have gotten too big for their britches.

Internally they are self-destructing and whether they can repair themselves is in serious doubt.  Many people seek some sort of divine intervention, but the truth is the United States has created every single internal problem they have by themselves with no outside influence.

They are running a two-party system that does not work just as they were warned about by their first president in his farewell address.

They have run up a massive debt of almost $23,000,000,000,000 with no end in sight.  They have known Social Security benefits, which are promised to their citizens, would be underfunded for decades but have done nothing.  Their infrastructure is collapsing.  The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. infrastructure a D+ in their latest report card and estimates the U.S. would need to spend $4.5 trillion, which they do not have because they are broke, by 2025 to address the problem. (https://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-infrastructure-a-d-2017-3)

This list goes on and on but the most troubling of all these issues is that the United States government is consciously passing these massive problems on to the children of their nation.  The children are innocent, but the United States actions prove that they do not care even though they lie and say they do just like they lie and say they care about human beings most basic of rights.

The United States is on an unsustainable path.  They will destroy themselves.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Petition for Rehearing and grant Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted.

OCTOBER 28, 2019