No. 25-6171

Aldo DiBelardino v. Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-11-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights due-process fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment grand-jury law-enforcement
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2026-01-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the systematic manipulation of grand jury authority violates due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and whether the federal judiciary's suppression of the People's Fifth Amendment right to directly access and petition grand juries effectively amends the Constitution without lawful process

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Does the systematic manipulation of our grand jury authority —contrary to its constitutionally intended role as a "protector of citizens [the People] against arbitrary and oppressive governmental actions," as affirmed in United States v. Williams (1992) —violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ’ due process guarantees, as evidenced by: o the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ’ October 24, 2024 rulings in Nos. 24-1269 and 24-1843, o the ongoing law enforcement abuses exemplified by the Rolin Hill homicide cover-up, and o the sustained lawfare campaign against President Trump and affiliated People? 2. Has the federal judiciary ’s suppression of the People ’s Fifth Amendment right to directly access and petition our grand jury—originating with the 1946 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure —effectively amended the Constitution without lawful process, violating due process and barring the People from initiating “ex mero motu ” grand jury proceedings with plenary subpoena power to secure justice? 3. As affirmed in Printz v. United States (1997), does the sheriff, as the highest constitutional law enforcement officer in each county or equivalent, have the authority and duty to safeguard the People ’s right to grand jury oversight as an essential mechanism for restoring due process, securing constitutional rights, and ensuring government accountability? 2 Related Cases Per Rule 12.4 this single petition covers the following judgements; • Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 24-1269 o Dibelardino v. Miyares, No. (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2024) o Virginia Beach Circuit Court CL20-5287, CL22-2014, CL22-2015, CL22-5417 • Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 24-1843 o Virginia Beach Circuit Court CL24-1585, CL24-2865, CL24-5843 o Virginia Beach General District Court GC24-7297 3

Docket Entries

2026-01-20
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 10, 2026, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2025-12-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
2025-12-16
Waiver of right of respondents Mark S. Smith and Roger J. Griffin to respond filed.
2025-12-16
Waiver of right of respondent Kristi A. Wooten to respond filed.
2025-12-10
Waiver of right of respondent Peter V. Chiusano to respond filed.
2024-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2025)

Attorneys

Aldo DiBelardino
Aldo DiBelardino — Petitioner
Aldo DiBelardino — Petitioner
Kristi A. Wooten
Julie S. PalmerHarman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Respondent
Julie S. PalmerHarman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Respondent
Mark S. Smith and Roger J. Griffin
William L. Mithcell IIEccleston & Wolf, P.C., Respondent
William L. Mithcell IIEccleston & Wolf, P.C., Respondent
Peter V. Chiusano
James Arthur Cales IIIFurniss, Davis et al., Respondent
James Arthur Cales IIIFurniss, Davis et al., Respondent