Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News has filed a “Petition for rehearing” with the U.S. Court of Appeals asking for reconsideration of their panel’s decision that affirmed the District Court’s decision to bar Brian from getting his discovery materials to prove his actual innocence.
This is in regards to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that was filed in April, 2017. The records requested via the FOIA is the criminal case discovery evidence (the prosecution files) of the case United States v. Brian David Hill in the Middle District of North Carolina, federal courthouses (Winston-Salem, and Greensboro). Document #125 on up are the 2255 motion civil case files of Brian David Hill v. United States where Brian is attempting to overturn his “wrongful conviction” on the claims of actual innocence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and due process deprivation.
The Assistant U.S. Attorney had attempted to dismiss his 2255 motion on the ground that Brian has not provided any evidence or anything showing actual innocence while ignoring all evidence, affidavits, and misc. evidence material including the prosecution’s own discovery evidence case files which point towards fraud on the court by the Government. After Brian filed evidence further proving that the U.S. Attorney’s witness named Kristy L. Burton of the Danville Virginia federal Probation Office had lied multiple times on the stand at a federal court hearing, which is subornation of perjury and fraud on the court by the Government, they had attempted to sweep it all under the rug by filing a “motion for pre-filing injunction“. Brian had responded to that motion, and had reported this criminal activity to the FBI. Brian had informed U.S. Senator Tim Kaine’s office and other Congresspeople about the FBI covering up the perjury, and revealed that the FBI has lied or mislead the office staff of U.S. Senator Tim Kaine.
The grounds Brian has raised for the “Petition for rehearing” is based on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where another panel of judges at the Court of Appeals can review over the decision of the deciding panel, if such decision contradicts the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Also if decisions conflicts with federal law or even the American Bar Association rules governing all attorneys that are licensed to practice law, the earlier decision in a case could be overturned and overruled by the next group of circuit Judges.
In English, to simply what I am talking about, is that if a group of Judges in any Appeals Court lets the District Court make unconstitutional decisions and decisions that conflict with the higher Court (the Supreme Court), the “Petition for Rehearing” or “Rehearing en banc” allows a separate group of Judges in the Court of Appeals to review over the decision of the other group of Judges that made the decision that is in conflict with the Supreme Court precedent.
Brian is stating in his “rehearing” petition that the U.S. Attorney Office had bullied Brian, had engaged in “LEGAL TERRORISM”, and has violated the ethics rule and the Supreme Court case law of Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.
It appears that Brian had used the American Bar Association ethics rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. It appears that those rules were adopted by the North Carolina State Bar and Virginia State Bar. It bars the state or federal prosecutor from engaging in behavior which blocks a criminal defendant they had prosecuted, from getting access to any evidence in their custody or possession which will prove the actual innocence of a particular criminal defendant that they had prosecuted in the past. The State Bar and American Bar rules go beyond Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, because the case law may or may not apply 100% to post-conviction investigations. So the American Bar created this rule to combat against defiant prosecutors that don’t want to exonerate their wrongfully convicted felons as people who are innocent that did not commit the crime they were convicted of. Thus their felony would have to be set aside or vacated.
The North Carolina adopted rule stated that the prosecutor and the Court would need to conduct an investigation on the wrongful conviction of the criminal defendant that they prosecute, as well as providing both the defendant and the Court access and copies of the discovery material if such material is pertinent to proving actual innocence.
AUSA Ramaswamy has obstructed justice by covering up, concealing, or destroying evidence that they were made aware of, what would prove the actual innocence of Brian David Hill.
The last of the petition was that Brian had warned the Court of Appeals about the “pre-filing injunction” as a consequence or repercussion of Brian losing his FOIA lawsuit. He stated that him losing the FOIA lawsuit is one of the factual basis arguments the Government is claiming in his 2255 motion case, as to why they are pushing for pre-filing injunction to engage in “bullying”, “legal terrorism” and are pushing Brian towards suicide with their bullying. Brian has also brought up that he may “call hundreds of phone numbers” at The White House, begging each staffer to get the President to pardon Brian for his actual innocence outside of the “Pardon Attorney” working for the “U.S. Department of Justice/InJustice”. I have created a petition at The White House petition website asking 100,000 people to sign the petition to have Brian pardoned for his false guilty plea, not just to protect him from a “perjury trap” over his false guilty plea on June 10, 2014, but that pardon can also persuade the U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster to accept Brian’s 2255 motion for an evidentiary hearing instead of considering dismissal of Brian’s actual innocence claims over his “false” guilty plea. The petition will expire on August 19, 2018, and I hope I won’t have to create another pardon petition over and over again. So please sign it as it already has over 1,280 signatures at this time.
Here are the documents you can read regarding the new developments of his ongoing FOIA lawsuit appeal: