No. 24-7445

In Re James Michael Fayed

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2025-06-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: 18-usc-3142 bail-revocation case-of-first-impression false-imprisonment fourth-amendment fruit-of-poisonous-tree
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 18 USC§ 3142 is binding on lower courts and whether a district court's deliberate disobedience of mandatory bail provisions constitutes false imprisonment and taints subsequent evidence under the Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No-01) IS NOT 18 USC§ 3142 (also known as the Congressional Bail Reform Act of 1984) and -ALLprovisions therein, Binding and Obligatory law upon the lower courts, via United'States Supreme Court (and) U.S. Court of Appeals-9th CCA, within (their) Appellate jurisdiction? No-02) IF a U.S. District Court deliberately wilfully and KNOWINGLY disobeys & ignores the mandatory provision(s) of. 18 USC§ 3142, provision's requiring and demanding pre-trial release (based upon 'as charged in federal court-) & instead, REVOKES bail previously granted at a bail hearing three days prior, ruling in CLEAR ERROR with prejudicial intent (as shown on the record), IS NOT [that] now 'false imprisonment'? No-03) IS NOT any/all evidence obtained as a Direct-Result (and) deriving from a deliberate, willful & knowingly 'false imprison ment' which was done in an entirely unlawful manner & procedure, NOW "tainted" as being subsequent : from.,an unlawful seizure.-of person(s) violating 4th Amd. (US Const) & 'Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine? No-04) IF petitioner can find NO similar or 'on-point' case or incident in entire Lexis-Nexis database (or) in entire jurisd iction of the 9th CCA, -WHEREa U.S. District Court wilfully, deliberately and knowingly disobeyed and ignored mandatory law of the .higher courts (mandatory law'AS OUTLINED on the record in prior bail hearing) IS NOT that a case of FIRST IMPRESS ION? No-05) IF (a) case presented before this.,Supreme Court of the United States meets the three general requirements of this court -ANDthe five general requirements of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th CCA for ISSUANCE of WRIT relief, should not that.relief be granted? END OF QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-08-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-26
Reply of petitioner James Michael Fayed filed. (Distributed)
2025-08-12
Brief of The People of the State of California in opposition submitted.
2025-08-12
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2025-07-11
Rescheduled.
2025-07-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 18, 2025.
2025-07-10
Motion of The People of the State of California for an extension of time submitted.
2025-07-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 17, 2025 to August 18, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-06-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-05-27

Attorneys

James Michael Fayed
James Michael Fayed — Petitioner
James Michael Fayed — Petitioner
The People of the State of California
Idan IvriOffice of the California Attorney General, Respondent
Idan IvriOffice of the California Attorney General, Respondent