No. 19-8777

In Re Garvester Bracken

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2020-06-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: article-iii article-iii-jurisdiction criminal-procedure due-process judicial-determination jurisdiction probable-cause removal standing trial-court-jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

WHETHER IN ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAVING NOT BEEN PERSONALLY PRESENT DURING ANY STAGE OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS DID THE TRIAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AND ENTER JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW?

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD POSSESSED JURIDICTION IN ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE COURT OF JUDGE TO HAVE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE ESTABLISHING'THAT AN OFFENSE OR VIOLATION OF LAW HAD OCCURRED?

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD POSSESSED JURISDICTION IN ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAVING NOT BEEN ACCORDED A FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT IN ORDER TO PLEAD TO ANY CHARGES FOR WHICH HE STANDS CONVICTED?

WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAVE JURISDICTION CONFERRED TO REMOVE AND TAKE COGNIZANCE OF AN ARTICLE III COURT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WHEN A STATE IS NAMED PARTY?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-the-trial-court-had-jurisdiction

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2020-06-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-05-13
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.

Attorneys

In Re Garvester Bracken
Garvester Bracken — Petitioner