Whether malicious and vindictive prosecution threatens the criminal justice system

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; Malicious and vindictive prosecution threatens the very foundation of che criminal justice system. Wasn't the judicial system built on fairness, the right to a fair trial; the right to a trial of one’s peers; the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty? It appears the majority decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, overlooked the far-reaching impact of this malicious prosecution by state actors, and more 7 importantly the devastating deprivation of liberty it played in this petitioner’s trial. , it is for this sound reason in isolation ine petitioner apoears before this .Court, the one tribunal vested with the judicial power of the United : States, noting with certitude adequate relief cannot be obtained in any _ other form or from any other court on the subject matter heretofore. . Since his sentencing on July 12, 2013 to nine(9) years in feceral custodial detention, he nas filed no less than 21 motions and petitions — for reargument of his maliciousiy prosecuted judicial contest. His six-day jury trial was in part orchestrated by a vindictive and biasec federal judge who deplorably basks in the tainted notoriety of being branded with the moniker, “Hang-em High Henry”. The question must persist, to what degree does such a “label” on a federal judge add to the integrity of this country’s administration of justice? Granting a jucge judicial powers, who openly seeks celebrity status with lives at stake only aacs insult to the injury this chancellor has unnecessarily produced, in order . , to keep his self-chosen “bad reputation” intact. This case admittedly satisfies the legal demand for malicious prosecution under both state and federal law. The petitioner was subjected to judicial proceedings, for which there was no probable cause. His accusers instituted or continued the proceedings maiiciously; the proceedings were terminated in the accusors’ favor, and there was an injury to the petitioner. It’s in the spirit of this understanding that the petitioner profounds these two questions, both with direct constitutional implications. = (1). Whether, in fairness to judicial proceedings, can an attorney of record brazenly ignore his client's instructions during the Direct Appeal process and not violate his federal constitutional right of effective assistance of counsel? : It appears the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, has interpreted important facts with federal law that calls for an exercise of this court’s supervisory power, With that, the petitioner proceeds in presentment of nis second question. ; (2). Whether a federal judge can use his position of authoritative legal power to control a malicious prosecution to support his own personal gain as supported by the irrefutable fact that FBI witness ; tampering was allowed and the “honorable” judge restrained a fatally defective indictment, magnifying fraud dpon his own court? "RELIEF SOUGHT WITH COPY OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN