2 – Question Presented

The question presented is considered the most important part of a writ of certiorari as it is the first thing that is looked at.  It is the very next page after the cover page.


A check on the government’s power to prosecute its own citizens minus no check does not equal zero.

A check on the government’s power to prosecute its own citizens minus viable means to hold the government accountable equals zero.

Petitioner Webb, a 44-year-old noncriminal, made formal accusations of multiple violations after Webb was indicted on a felony.  It was then dropped but lasted 84 days and Webb suffered significant damage as this occurred in Arizona and Webb’s home state was Kentucky.

This Court has stated that a Grand Jury is “a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused…to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice or ill will.” Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390 (1962)

This is contradictory.  The grand jury system is very important to the criminal justice process to protect the innocent from being damaged but then again it is not important enough for consequences if it fails.

Is this approach inherently flawed as it allows the government to damage citizens at will while subsequently denying citizens their fundamental right to seek legal justice if there is probable cause of Constitutional violations?

My question stems from what is written by the pima county attorney’s office on their own website when describing the criminal justice process. A small portion states – “For a case to go forward, the Grand Jury must make an independent determination that probable cause exists.  This is a check on the power of the government to prosecute its citizens.”

I called foul at the grand jury hearing for constitutional rights violations by the prosecutor’s office and the pima county sheriff’s department that resulted in a false indictment by submitting a motion to remand to grand jury for redetermination of probable cause.

My opponents backed down after the formal accusations and dismissed the case two weeks later at the first available opportunity thereby not defending these accusations but this still lasted 12 weeks destroying my life in the process.

My opponents made a conscious decision to attack my liberty and freedom with the intent of putting me in prison for 3.5 years.  If they are going to do it then do it.  Don’t back down.

Once my opponents backed down, I moved in to implement the consequences of failing the check as fast as I was capable of doing but I was forced to represent myself and it was held against me even though my opponents put me in that position.

The united states, as well as the state of arizona, expects a self-represented litigant to be just as familiar with the law as someone that has graduated from law school and has relevant experience.  They both say it is not held against someone for not being a lawyer but that is a straight up lie as I have seen cases that expressly state that.  Furthermore, I am living proof that it is held against someone because both arizona and the united states did just that.

The united states is condoning this abhorrent behavior as this is a major issue affecting an untold number of citizens.  There are no statistics on how big of an issue this really is but   especially vulnerable are poorer people who cannot defend themselves against unwarranted attacks.  We should be the people that the united states are going out of their way to protect but instead they turn their backs on us because we are poor.

It is unbelievable how stacked the deck is against poorer people and the way this is functioning is as unfair and unjust as it can possibly be.  There must be consequences.  There is no other way to establish balance between unwarranted prosecutions with probable cause of constitutional violations than for the citizen to hold the violators accountable via a trial, either judge or jury, to determine if a citizens constitutional rights were violated during the criminal justice process.

The united states has 100% dropped the ball on this one.