No. 19-8310

Michael R. Haynes v. Colette S. Peters, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-04-20
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 5th-amendment administrative-rule civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process federal-courts legal-fiction liberty-interests
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2020-05-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a U.S. citizen can be denied U.S. constitutional rights through fraud or unlawful extension of authority

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Petitioner's question on U.S. Courts refusal to provide him due process review of his 2016 rights and liberty interests under well established federal laws via this courts holdings and other federal court holding(s), his 5" and 14" amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, presents important issues that extends far beyond U.S. constitutional liberty interests and rights of parties in this very unique and interesting case when the Petitioner is further incarcerated via application of invalid law to his criminal conduct, fraud contributes to denial of said due process review to be free of imprisonment after 3/12/2016 via lesser ODOC custody of leave and to petition in two year intervals for a change in his confinement via mandatory language in state statute, specific language in administrative rule. Can a U.S. Citizens, Petitioner, be denied US. Constitutional rights by way of fraud and or by an the unlawful extension of authority via legal fiction? 2. Do jurists of reason in this court hold lawful authority to review this unique and interesting question on U.S. Courts refusal to provide Petitioner due process review of his 2016 rights and liberty interests via this courts holdings, well established federal laws,Petitioner's 5" and 14" amendment rights under U.S. Constitution. When important issues extend beyond parties U.S. constitutional rights can this court issue a corrective and lawful order that honors all U.S. Citizens, Petitioner's, Constitutional rights and or explore reasons it may disagree with U.S. court resolution pertaining to the above? Page I U.S Supreme Court No. M 6825517 LISTED PARTIES All parties in this unique and interesting case appear in caption of the cover page. RELATED CASES The only related cases are Michael Robert Haynes v. Director of Department of Corrections Colette Peters Board member of Oregon Board of Parole Post-Supervision, Jerri Taylor, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution No # CV 160577 Circuit court of Oregon for county of Umatilla[ER 6

Docket Entries

2020-05-26
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.
2020-04-24
Waiver of right of respondent Colette S. Peters, et al. to respond filed.
2019-12-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 20, 2020)

Attorneys

Colette S. Peters, et al.
Benjamin Noah GutmanOregon Department of Justice, Respondent
Benjamin Noah GutmanOregon Department of Justice, Respondent
Michael R. Haynes
Michael Robert Haynes — Petitioner
Michael Robert Haynes — Petitioner