RECORD NO.

0242-21-3

In The

Court of Appeals
Of Virginia

Brian David Hill,

Appellant,

v.

Commonwealth of
Virginia Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

MARTINSVILLE
(Writ of Error Coram Vobis)

PETITION FOR APPEAL OF APPELLANT

Brian David Hill – Ally of Qanon

Founder of USWGO Alternative News
310 Forest Street, Apt. 2
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
(276) 790-3505

Pro Se Appellant – JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com

JusticeForUSWGO.NL

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... iv to v

I. STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER

AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION ............................................................ 9

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .................................................................. 10

III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 26

IV. Assignments of Error ..................................................................................... 28

V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 28

A. Argument ............................................................................................ 28

i.
The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment (Case no.
1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of Contents) denying
the Petition/Motion as a matter of law or abused discretion in
overlooking the evidence of factual element fraud/defects by the
Commonwealth Attorney’s criminal prosecution by the counter
evidence filed Pro Se which proves Fraud upon the Court by the
Commonwealth Attorney and either corruption or incompetence
by Martinsville Police Department. That deprived Appellant of
Due Process of Law and Equal Protection under the Laws in the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ..................... 29

ii.
The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment (Case no.
1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of Contents) denying
the Petition/Motion as a matter of law or abused discretion in not
holding an evidentiary hearing/proceeding in regards to the
cumulative evidence filed Pro Se which proves Fraud upon the
Court by the Commonwealth Attorney and showing factual errors
and prosecutorial defect. That deprived Appellant of Due Process
of Law and Equal Protection under the Laws in the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ....................................... 34

ii
 iii. The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment
(Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of
Contents) denying the Petition/Motion as a matter of law
or abused discretion in not recognizing that the United
States Supreme Court held that all Courts have an inherit
power to correct errors upon its Record of
Judgments/Orders and to vacate Fraudulent Begotten
Judgments if they believe that a prosecution of a criminal
or civil case was based on Fraud and evidence surfaces
showing multiple defects of the elements of such criminal
prosecution by the Commonwealth of Virginia........................ 43

VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................48

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................50

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................51

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE .........................................................52

iii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES/CITATIONS

Page(s)
CASES

Carey v. Piphus,
435 U.S. 247, 266–67 (1978) ........................................................................ 35

Carey v. Piphus,
435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978) .............................................................................. 36

Chambers v. Nasco , Inc.,

501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) .................................................................................. 41

Chambers v. Nasco , INC,

501 US 32, 115 L. ED 2d 27, 111 S Ct 2123 (1991); Courts §18 “inherent or
implied powers”, as well as Courts §225. 1; Equity §47 .............................. 43

Commonwealth v. Cano,
87 Mass. App. Ct. 238, 240 (2015) ............................................................... 35

Commonwealth v. Goodreau,
442 Mass. 341, 348 (2004) ............................................................................ 35

Commonwealth v. Zheng,
110 N.E.3d 1220, (Mass. App. Ct. 2018) ..................................................... 35

Copeland v. Commonwealth,
525 S.E.2d 9, 10 (Va. App. 2000) ............................................................... 40

Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky,
10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................... 45

Fuentes v. Shevin,
407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972) .................................................................................. 35

Haas v. Commonwealth,
283 Va. 284, 291 (Va. 2012) ......................................................................... 35
iv
Harris v. Bornhorst,
513 F.3d 503, 521 (6th Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 45

Jamborsky v. Baskins,
247 Va. 506, 509, 442 S.E.2d 636, 637 (1994) ............................................ 36

Jamborsky,
247 Va. at 511, 442 S.E.2d at 638 ................................................................. 36

Johnson v. Commonwealth,
273 Va. 315, 325, 641 S.E.2d 480, 486 (2007) ............................................ 35

Ladd v. Lamb,
195 Va. 1031, 1035, 81 S.E.2d 756, 759 (1954) .......................................... 36

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) ......................................................................... 43

Long v. Virginia Employment,

Record No. 2123-91-2, 2 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 20, 1993) ................................ 46

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.,

446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980) .............................................................................. 35

Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) .............................................................................. 36

Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976) .............................................................................. 36

Morales v. Commonwealth,
525 S.E.2d 23, 24 (Va. App. 2000) ............................................................... 40

Moses v. Commonwealth,
611 S.E.2d 607, 608 (Va. App. 2005)(en banc).......................................... 40

Neighbors v. Commonwealth,
274 Va. 503, 504 (Va. 2007) ......................................................................... 45

Neighbors v. Commonwealth,
274 Va. 503, 505 (Va. 2007) ......................................................................... 44

Nelson v. Adams,
v
 529 U.S. 460 (2000) ................................................................................ 35-36

Price v. Commonwealth,
201 S.E.2d 798, 800 (Va. 1974) .................................................................... 40

Romick v. Commonwealth,
No. 1580-12-4, 2013 WL 6094240, at *2 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2013)
(unpublished) ........................................................................................... 40-41

Taylor v. Taylor,
159 Va. 338, (Va. 1932) ................................................................................ 46

Turner,
282 Va. at 247, 717 S.E.2d at 121 ................................................................. 35

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Virginia CONST. Article I. Bill of Rights Section 11...........................................26, 32

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV .....................................................................................26, 32

STATUTES

Title 18 U.S. Code § 1519 ....................................................................................... 14

Virginia Code § 18.2-387 ............................................................................30, 39, 40

Virginia Code § 18.2-372 ....................................................................................... 41

Virginia Code § 8.01-675.3 ...................................................................................... 2

Virginia Code § 8.01-677 ................................................................28, 29, 43, 45, 47

Virginia Code § 16.1-106 ........................................................................................ 44

Virginia Code § 17.1-513 ........................................................................................ 44

RULE
vi
Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia: Rule 5A:12 ................................................ 1

Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia: Rule 5A:12(a)............................................ 3

Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia: Rule 5A:12(g) ......................................... 18

American Bar Association, “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor”; Rule 3.8 ..... 8

Rules of the Virginia State Bar; State Bar Rule 3.8 ................................................... 8

vii
 Brian David Hill, (the “Appellant” or “Petitioner”) files this Petition for

Appeal pursuant to Rule 5A:12 of the Rules of this Court. The appeal was timely

filed.

There is no transcript as the Clerk of the Circuit Court had pretty much said

in my request to the Circuit Court for Transcripts for the Court of Appeals of

Virginia:

Citing from record: “Your record was submitted to be processed on:

01/29/2020 11:00:15” The record stated that “No transcript or statement of facts will

be filed and therefore the record is being sent as is. THIS APPEAL WAS

TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY"”. Petitioner had attempted to file a letter

with this Court and the Lower Tribunal known as the Circuit Court of Martinsville

(the “Trial Court”), asking the Trial Court to produce Transcripts of all criminal case

hearings, but the Trial Court does not seem to have any Transcripts for any of the

hearings. Therefore, Appellant has done his part and will rely mainly on the Record

on Appeal and the paper filings in Record for this Petition for Appeal.

The statement of the facts “statement of facts” that is in this “Petition for

Appeal” to the Court of Appeals of Virginia as “II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS”

will cite the exact pages of the record in regards to the statement of the facts.

Appellant is aware from the past filings of the Respondent that the Commonwealth

of Virginia will disagree with the Appellant’s statement of facts and produce their

8
own version. Well Appellant will produce his truthful and factual statement of the

facts pointing to the filings in the Record on Appeal to support the statement of facts

that will outweigh even the Commonwealth’s version of the statement of facts and

again those facts by Appellant will be proven by citing the exact areas of the record

prior to the final judgment of the Trial Court. The Petitioner will show exactly from

the record where the “Assignment of Errors” refers to.

I. STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER

AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Brian David Hill, (the “Appellant” or “Petitioner”) petitions for being allowed

to perfect the appeal from a final judgment in a civil/criminal case that had entered

a final Judgment which had denied Petitioner’s Motion/Petition to Correct an Error

by petitioning the Circuit Court of Martinsville (“Trial Court”) for a Writ of Error

Coram Vobis/Nobis (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 744, Page 741 with Table of

Contents, “ORDER - DENIED DEF WRIT ERROR CV”), which such final

judgment (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 744, Page 741 with Table of Contents) was

filed o n April 10, 2020, in the Trial Court by the Honorable Judge Giles Carter

Greer. The Clerk of the Trial Court didn’t file the Order in the Table of Contents for

this petition under 0242-21-3 but the Order was added by the Deputy Clerk of the

Court of Appeals of Virginia but cannot reference the Table of Contents area so a

different case number referencing the exact same order is being used, using case no.

1294-20-3 record for that order. The notice of appeal was ti m el y filed (Pages 214

9
through 217) on April 21, 2020. Appeal is authorized as timely pursuant to

Virginia Code § 8.01-675.3, if the Petition for Appeal is granted by this court.

Appellant will demonstrate the matters of judicial error (assignments of error) and

abuses of discretion by the Trial Court which have resulted in Unconstitutional

errors, defects, and evidence which was overlooked at the time of the Final Judgment

by the Trial Court, constitutional issues, factual issues and errors, and matters of law

in the appealed case including a substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of

a constitutional right affecting the errors in the Judicial record regarding the

wrongful criminal case conviction or a debatable procedural ruling. There is no

appointed counsel in this appealed case. The case being appealed is CR19000009-

00/CL20000089-00, Civil Case for Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis. Appellant

proceeds Pro se and had filed his initial “AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE”, so

Appellant requests that the Appeals Court review the Record pages cited from the

case in this Petition and Appellant confirms that he has reviewed over the Record in

this Appeal thanks to the Deputy Clerk. Record proves the claims and are relevant

to the arguments.

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The Commonwealth will have their own “Statement of the Facts” as is their

right, but the Appellant will present its Statement of the Facts based upon evidence

on the record that was not impeached and was not suppressed as evidence prior to

the Final Judgment, but was clearly overlooked and was not addressed by the Trial

Court prior to disposition. New evidence is in the Writ of Error Coram Vobis final

10
judgment which is clearly more evidence than evidence overlooked in the judgments

entered in Appeal cases no. 1294-20-3 and 1295-20-3. This appeal petition raises

evidence and factual issues which could not have been raised in cases no. 1294-20-3

and 1295-20-3 even though the Petitions in those appeals raise substantial factual

and evidence issues in those appeals as well. Each Appeal Petition shows a defective

prosecution in its own respect. This one will focus on the Writ of Error Coram

Vobis/Nobis defects and frauds of the prosecution by the Commonwealth of

Virginia.

The pages cited in the Record are with one (1) page included which is the

“TABLE OF CONTENTS” (“TOC”) produced by the Clerk: “CAV: 03-05-2021

07:01:45 EST”. A one-page difference. So, if the page cited for example is 201, then

the Trial Court record should be 200 without the Table of Contents, but the PDF File

of the Trial Court record will say 201 when it includes the Table of Contents which

is 1 page. Appellant is following the page of the entire PDF file record with the

TABLE OF CONTENTS included, so the page count will be 1-page more than the

page number of the record, 1-page off.

The facts that were presented to the Trial Court are as follows:

1. On September 21, 2018, Officer Robert Jones of Martinsville Police

Department had charged Appellant Brian David Hill with the crime of

Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387. See pg. 4 of 961,

ARREST WARRANT (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 4, 3-page difference

with TOC). Under Page 6 the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (Case no.

11
1294-20-3, Page 6, 3-page difference with TOC) was filed as an

Affidavit supporting the criminal charge against Appellant. It said in

part of the COMPLAINT: “When the male was detained he was read

Miranda and started talking about a black male in a hoodie made

him get naked and take pictures of himself.” That was part of the

elemental basis for why his charge had stuck in the Trial Court and

stuck in the General District Court on December 21, 2018 was because

they were given the impression that Brian could not have proven the

man in the hoodie was real, the judge didn’t believe there was a man

wearing the hoodie, and that the Officers acted like they searched for a

man wearing the hoodie but never updated the Court in writing as to

whether they were able to locate the man or not, so Appellant assumes

they never found him. However, Appellant had new evidence that

proves factual defects in the original arrest warrant noted above. The

Record on Appeal from case no. 1294-20-3 can be brought up in this

appeal since the Judicial Officer had filed the Order in case no. 1294-

20-3, in the criminal case no. CR19000009-00, the Writ of Error

Coram Vobis/Nobis was filed as a motion but the Clerk opened up

Civil case no. CL20000089-00 for Coram Vobis but the Order was

entered under criminal case no. CR19000009-00. So, both records will

be cited in this Petition for Appeal as it is relevant and part of the

Record on Appeal, and Writ of Error Coram Vobis is referring to

12
 correction of the Errors of the Judgment entered by the Trial Court.

2. The facts by Officer Robert Jones who filed such charge and

COMPLAINT are contradictory to new evidence filed by Appellant

which had shown blatant corruption by the leadership of Martinsville

Police Department, and such corruption alleged was photographs of a

sealed manilla envelope. Their job is to look through any evidence

submitted to them in person or even by mail. The photographs cited in

the Record are COLOR photographs and were filed by Appellant in

color but the Trial Court transmitted only one photo in black and white

under Page 38, but the original was in color to show the details of the

evidence in support of such Petition/Motion. All others were filed in

color which is appreciated by Appellant. See Pages 38, through 42 of

227. The evidence proved that an envelope which was signed for by

Martinsville City Chief of Police G. E. Cassady, somehow managed to

end up in the possession of Appellant after being signed for under

“RESTRICTED DELIVERY”. So that proved Martinsville Police

Department had refused to do its duty and they had refused to open up

the envelope and investigate its contents which may include evidence

of a crime or evidence pertinent to a criminal investigation. It proved

negligence and lack of any real investigative effort in the criminal case

of Brian David Hill. Brian is a citizen of Martinsville at the time of his

arrest and is still a citizen of Martinsville. It proves incompetence, and

13
is technically considered corruption in refusing to open up an envelope

mailing directed at Martinsville Police Department and they refused to

even determine what evidence was in the envelope being directed at

their Police Department. So, the Police acted as though Appellant were

wrong or lying because they never could find a man wearing a hoodie

when they never even made an effort to open up an envelope full of

potential evidence. That means a Police Department which is under the

jurisdiction of Appellant and where Appellant was found naked and

arrested for indecent exposure and took testimony from Brian David

Hill, refused to even look at any hard evidence such as

papers/documents. It is corruption because the Police Department failed

to do its job, failed to do its duty in investigating any evidence mailed

to them. Appellant had shown evidence that he clearly wanted an

investigation and had submitted the letter asking for an investigation

into the issues he felt he wanted to report to the Police Officer Robert

Jones. See Pages 58 (Exhibit 0) through 70. Appellant clearly had the

pure belief that he was being targeted by somebody or a group of

people, possibly in retaliation for the FOIA Lawsuit and 2255 Motion

for requesting acquittal for his Federal charge and wrongful conviction.

See photocopy of his 2255 Motion on Case no. 1294-20-3, Pages 364

through 375, Page 361 through 372 with Table of Contents. The

Commonwealth Attorney had the envelope and they as well refused to

14
 even open the envelope and investigate its contents, and are just as

CORRUPT as the Martinsville Police Department because they rather

play lawyer-games and mind games and just claim that since

Appellant was represented by counsel, ineffective counsel, any

evidence reported to the Police Department must be ignored, ha-

ha, sorry, take a hike. The Commonwealth Attorney did have the

envelope as the photograph in Page 39, the envelope with the addresses

in the front, it said “Turned over to CA 8/7/2019 1455hrs” So they just

turned it over to the Commonwealth Attorney, they ignore it just like

the Chief of Police of Martinsville, they both ignored it on record, and

give it to Brian’s lawyer who does nothing with it. All of the corrupt

lawyers working together to deprive Appellant of fair and equal access

to justice in our Courts. How depressing. There are good lawyers too,

not all lawyers are corrupt, but the Commonwealth clearly is when

evidence is ignored when it may be very important to a case. See State

Bar Rule 3.8, also referencing Rule 3.8 in the American Bar

Association, “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor”. When a

Prosecutor refuses to investigate evidence turned over to him/her by

Police then that lawyer is refusing to investigate anything at all and is

not willing to seek the truth but is seeking a conviction. That is such a

disregard for the truth. A fraud upon the Court itself.

3. Appellant had filed various evidence pieces that were overlooked by

15
the Trial Court and was never known to the General District Court on

December 21, 2018, the TRIAL that was held in the General District

Court where Appellant was found guilty and Appellant had timely

appealed the case to the Circuit Court of Martinsville (“Trial Court”),

the State Court of Record. Appellant had produced evidence to the

Court and the Commonwealth Attorney proving that Appellant was not

actually medically cleared but was prematurely released by the Hospital

while giving the impression that he was medically cleared. Simply

releasing him from the Hospital is not enough to prove for a fact that

Appellant Brian Hill was indeed medically cleared enough to have ever

been put in a situation to be held culpable for the incident on September

21, 2018. Not just that but the Commonwealth Attorney was served a

copy of the evidence and papers/photographs included in Appellant’s

petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis. See Pages 34 through 36

of the record. They also knew of the photographs and they had

possession of that envelope which was photographed but was never

opened. The Trial Court never asked for any forensic examination of

that manilla envelope in Appellant’s possession, the Trial Court never

asked to actually see the envelope to see for themselves that it was

never opened. Pages 42 thorough 71 detail different Exhibits showing a

letter directed to the Police Chief G. E. Cassady and asked for it to be

given to Police Officer Robert Jones who charged Appellant with

16
indecent exposure to attempt to give him a valid explanation with proof

from Medical Records and Government Research Documents

explaining about symptoms of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning to attempt

to explain to Officer Robert Jones why Appellant was out there naked

at night. Carbon Monoxide had been documented to be the cause of

hallucinations, psychosis, impulsiveness, and other erratic behaviors.

Effects can be different from person-to-person but it would be a more

believable explanation than talking about some guy in a hoodie.

However, the Police Department never knew of any of this because

they never even opened the envelope to look through it and thoroughly

investigate the statements and evidence submitted by Appellant. The

letter was in the envelope as the photocopy of the letter shown in Page

59 of the Record shows two important areas, “Certified Mail tracking

no.: 7017-2680-0000-5750-9122”, and “Return receipt tracking no.:

9590-9402-3527-7275-7497-41”. Page 39 had shown the exact same

Certified Mail tracking number as shown in the letter. Pages 41 of the

Record shows the exact photocopy of the Certified Mail tracking

number (same as the envelope and letter) and the Return Receipt

Tracking Number with the handwritten signature of G. E. Cassady the

Chief of Police of Martinsville, the City of Martinsville at the time.

There is another thing that should be brought up here. See Case no.

1294-20-3 of the Record, 3-page difference with TOC, Pages 141

17
 through 205 of the Record. That would be 64 pages total. There may be

a one-page difference in Pages 141 through 205 of the Record in case

no. 1294-20-3, but it is the photocopy of the Exhibits referenced in this

Writ of Error Coram Vobis Petition/Motion under Pages 60 through 62

of the Record in this Appeal.

4. It is a fact on the record that Brian Hill was released from the Hospital

on September 21, 2018 from 4:04AM to 5:11AM under pages 199

through 205 of 961, Case no. 1294-20-3. Appellant was not at the

Hospital for a lengthy time to make a decent determination on whether

Brian was in fact medically cleared or not. The Commonwealth who

prosecuted the case did not know that for a fact that they filed a Motion

for Reciprocal Discovery (Pages 243 through 244 of 961, Case no.

1294-20-3) after Brian’s pro se filings. Commonwealth said in their

responsive Discovery request pleading that they wanted any

documentation of “…the existence of which is known to the Attorney

for the Commonwealth, and any relevant written reports of autopsies,

ballistic tests, fingerprint analysis, blood, urine and breath tests, other

scientific reports, and written reports of a physical or mental

examination of the Defendant or the alleged victim made in connection

with this particular case.” So, the Commonwealth of Virginia didn’t

even know for a fact themselves whether Brian was medically cleared

that they asked for reciprocal discovery. If they did get the evidence,

18
the very same Medical Record that was filed by Appellant pro se in

CORRESPONDENCE, pages 199 through 205 of Case no. 1294-20-3,

then they know that the Hospital had decided to refuse to conduct the

Laboratory testing including alcohol levels and had just decided to

release Brian to “Jail/ Police” on Page 204, Case no. 1294-20-3. The

Hospital had clearly skirted their responsibility, had committed medical

neglect knowing that Brian was going directly to Jail and could not

contact his private physician, it was incompetence. The Medical Record

also shows that they never tested his Type 1 Diabetic blood sugar when

they knew he was diabetic (pg. 200, Case no. 1294-20-3). That also

does not make him medically cleared when they never even tested his

blood sugar level knowingly sending him out to face a Magistrate

Judge for his charge of Indecent Exposure without ever checking his

blood sugar. A big medical NO!-NO! on record. Also, on Page 146 of

the record, Case no. 1294-20-3, zoom in closely at the words, “Sinus

Tachycardia”, and “105bpm” which is beats per minute. A resting

blood pulse should not be over 100 or is considered Tachycardia, an

abnormally high heart rate. Then see Case no. 1294-20-3 Page 152,

“TRANSIENT CARDIAC DYSFUNCTION IN ACUTE CARBON

MONOXIDE POISONING”. That document mentions of the same

term “bpm” and explains what it means. Then it also said that “First

responders arrived within 30 minutes and found her to have sinus

19
tachycardia with a heart rate of 100 beats per minute”. From the

Medical Record in Page 146 of the record, it is clear that Brian had a

history of Tachycardia and had similar abnormal readings multiple

times at the Hospital on the day of his arrest for Indecent Exposure

after being at the Hospital for an estimated 1 hour or less there, not

enough time to fully check his health to make sure that he was truly

medically cleared, they did not. Around 4:09AM the “Pulse 119”,

around 5:01AM “Pulse 106”. Those readings were actually worse than

the “Sinus Tachycardia” reading on Page 146 of the record. So,

wouldn’t Brian’s health be worse than when he was in the Hospital on

“Sunday, November 18, 2017”, according to Page 144, Case no. 1294-

20-3 of the record. Brian actually was Hospitalized with “Sinus

Tachycardia” for having a resting blood pulse of “105” but yet on

September 21, 2018, his blood pulse was actually worse than the last

time he was admitted in the Hospital but they never actually did any

laboratory tests when they clearly should have when considering his

behavior described by police and didn’t even understood that Brian was

suffering under Tachycardia and they “Discharged to Jail/Police” on

4:52AM according to their report. None of it makes any sense, they

released a patient knowing that Jail has the worst Medical Care, they

released him while he suffered under Tachycardia and they never

checked his blood sugar knowing that was he was diabetic before they

20
discharged him and not even giving him an hour at the Hospital. Hardly

gave any time to actually give any thorough medical clearing. Then on

Page 203, Case no. 1294-20-3, it said: “Differential diagnosis: fracture,

sprain, penetrating trauma, et al. bdh ED course: Cleared from a

psychiatric standpoint by Behavioral Health. patient will be discharged

to jail.” That actually does not say the words “cleared” from a regular

medical standpoint and they could not legally say so when evidence

showed that Brian had Tachycardia readings that were actually higher

than Brian’s last Hospital stay in 2017. That is all in the Record prior to

the final conviction of Brian David Hill for Indecent Exposure. So, it is

a FACT that Brian was not medically cleared and that the Arresting

Officer and his affidavit under Criminal COMPLAINT on Page 6 was

wrong when the evidence had shown that Brian was not medically

cleared at all. There were Laboratory tests being ordered on Page 205

of the Record in Case no. 1294-20-3. See from the Record it said that

“The following items were deleted from the chart, and then 04:52

09/21/2018 04:52 Discharged to Jail/Police.” So, they used his arrest

as an excuse to cancel the Laboratory Tests and then the blood

vials reportedly destroyed and evidence spoliated, which is evidence

destruction, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE under 18 U.S. Code § 1519

since Appellant was on Federal Supervised Probation. The

Commonwealth knew that evidence was being destroyed, evidence that

21
 would have proven that Brian was suffering under some kind of

chemical or substance which would explain his psychiatric episode he

had suffered while he was taking photographs of himself in the nude.

Anybody in the Court who saw the photographs submitted as Exhibits

from the Commonwealth can tell that he was acting as though he were

on drugs or some narcotic or substance. It all makes sense. The

Commonwealth can disagree with this medical FACT all he wants to

but the evidence is evidence and the FACTS are the FACTS and were

never refuted. Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 286 also brought up the

“Sinus Tachycardia” arguments. Then on Page 287 of Case no. 1294-

20-3, said “So Brian's heart beats were at extremely high or even

possibly dangerous levels (high risk of a heart attack or a stroke)

showing signs that something was wrong with Brian's body which can

also attribute to his confusing mental state.” That was cited in

Appellant’s “Motion to Request an Insanity Defense — Sanity at the

time of the Offense”, Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 285. However, this fact

of not being medically cleared by irrefutable Medical Records and was

argued pro se by Appellant were overlooked by the Trial court and

overlooked by the Defense counsel aka Appellant’s court appointed

lawyers.

5. When Appellant had filed his Motion to Withdraw the Appeal in the

Trial Court which is Pages 422 of 961 of the Record in Case no. 1294-

22
20-3, Page 434 the Trial Court Judge only considered his “Motion to

Withdraw Appeal” as exactly that, a technical withdraw but did not

consider it as a “guilty plea” in fact the Trial Court never entered in

that Brian actually plead guilty, he did not plead guilty, it was

marked out by the Judge at the time the conviction was entered.

There was no guilty plea by Appellant. Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 434

written this: “Other: DEF CHANGED HIS PLEA TO GUILTY AND

AFFIRMED JUDG GDC, PAY COURT COSTS.” Yes, Appellant is

showing the true strikethrough, the Judge had stricken the words

“CHANGED HIS PLEA TO GUILTY AND” with what appeared to be

a black marker pen. So, the Judge of the Trial Court did not consider

that Appellant honestly decided that he was guilty because in his

Motion with Withdraw Appeal he said that he did not waive his

actual innocence or legal innocence, he did not plead guilty by any

stretch of technicality. He felt that his counsel was giving him bad

advice or was ineffective. He may not have uttered the actual words

“Ineffective” but did mention those words in his Page 436 (Case no.

1294-20-3) “MOTION TO VACATE FRAUDULENT BEGOTTEN

JUDGMENT”. So shortly after the final judgment, he did object to his

ineffective counsel with those technical words uttered in writing prior

to the Notices of Appeal. In fact, Brian said there were some meddling

or unethical interference or issues being raised by the Public Defender

23
Office after they were relieved as counsel of record by the Trial Court.

See 383 through 386 of 961 in Case no. 1294-20-3. In Brian’s motion

to withdraw appeal he made some very concerning claims that were

overlooked by the Trial Court in regards to ineffective counsel by

possibly meddling over interference by former appointed counsel by

claiming: Page 430 (Case no. 1294-20-3): “He has other routes to

prove his legal innocence and overturn his conviction in the General

District Court. Brian doesn't to have to deal with any drama coming

from the Martinsville Public Defender office over what one of Brian's

friends had posted at JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com back in June

or July 2019”. The Trial Court overlooked the facts that the Public

Defender Office may have interfered with any potential future

counsel whether appointed or persuading a private attorney to

represent him pro bono in some form of unspecified retaliation

campaign alleged by Appellant. Even said in his claim that “but then

removed those from the blog posting out of concerns from Brian's

family that it would put a target on all of our backs.” So, there was fear

that Brian or his family would be targeted if “one of Brian's friends”

didn’t remove the blog post. So, there was clearly some unethical

behavior going on and connected with the Public Defender Office

of Martinsville even after they had filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel (Page 381, Case no. 1294-20-3), they still had some form of

24
 unethical influence which is a conflict of interest and may violate

ethics. There was clear unethical behavior sounding activity going on

but was also overlooked by the Trial Court. Then Brian made

statements which was likely why Attorney Jones was appointed to this

appeal by making statements such as “Brian is having to consider

asking for a non-local Virginia attorney away from the Bible belt and

away from the Public Defender office”. Again, that sentence was in

Page 430 of the Record, Case no. 1294-20-3. However, this fact of

dealing with unspecified unethical influence by former counsel were

overlooked by the Trial Court and no evidentiary hearing was

conducted over those claims.

6. The Statement of FACTS herein had shown factual evidence, prima

facie, from the Record pages itself that the Commonwealth Attorney

and Police Department had defrauded the Court and misled the Court

on material facts which had created Errors of the Record and Judgment

where Coram Vobis/Nobis would be necessary to correct: (1) that

Martinsville Police Department had no intention of ever

thoroughly investigating any of Appellant’s claims when they

wouldn’t even open up an envelope with evidence without even

understanding the contents of that envelope and how it is

completely relevant to the Indecent Exposure case and Police

Report and non-thorough investigation over the incident, and

25
 further contradicts the elements of the “CRIMINAL

COMPLAINT” before the Police had quickly charged Appellant and

arrested him for Indecent Exposure. It proves that Police were not

credible enough to make a determination and claim on whether there

was a guy in a hoodie found or not.

7. Any other STATEMENT OF FACTS, the Appellant will allow the

Commonwealth Attorney for Appellee to retain and stipulate their

version of the facts of the civil/Criminal Case. Appellant will let them

stipulate their facts and side of the story but Appellant’s FACTS under

paragraphs 1-6 are of Appellant’s side of the story that was never

brought up by Defense Counsel but was brought up Pro Se by the

Defense prior to the Final Judgment (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 744,

Page 741 with TOC). However, if Appellant disagrees with any of the

claims by the Commonwealth Attorney then he will file his respectful

reply or bring up his disagreements in any Oral Argument pursuant to

Rule 5A:12(g).

Anyways, there is U.S. Supreme Court case law, other case law including by the

Supreme Court of Virginia, and Constitutional issues that explains why Appellant

believes that the Trial Court made errors in the state case, the assignments of error

are stated below:

III. ARGUMENT

26
i. Standard of Review

A Trial Court’s decision to deny Appellant’s Petition/Motion “INITIAL

FILING - WCN” (Page 2) and then entered that final judgment (Case no. 1294-20-

3, Page 744, Page 741 with TOC, “ORDER - DENIED DEF WRIT ERROR CV”)

is reviewed for abuse of discretion and for the Errors specified in the Assignments

of Error by Petitioner in asking the Court of Appeals to grant such Petition and allow

Petitioner/Appellant to perfect the Appeal in asking this Court to order a reversal of

the Final Order (ORDER - DENIED DEF WRIT ERROR CV) and order and remand

the Trial Court for further proceedings to address the issues of “Fraud on the Court”

by Officer of the Court named Glen Andrew Hall, the Commonwealth Attorney, and

the Trial Court not addressing the errors of the charge and wrongful conviction of

Appellant. The errors are so systemic throughout the entire criminal case that Writ

of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis or any motion or petition asking for any relief is

necessary for the ends of justice, and to protect the Due Process rights of Appellant

under the XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution and Virginia CONST.

Article I. Bill of Rights Section 11.

When reviewing the final order of denying the Petition/Motion (Case no.

1294-20-3, Page 744, Page 741 with Table of Contents) of Appellant requesting

Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis without addressing any of the issues of “Fraud”

by the Commonwealth Attorney, and without addressing the issues such as

systemic faulty elements of the original charge by Martinsville Police Officer

Robert Jones and Commonwealth Attorney Glen Andrew Hall, Esq., such

27
order that was imposed by the Trial Court and its reasonableness, Appellant asks

for granting of this Petition for Appeal so that this Court can review over the Final

Judgment for abuses of discretion and/or by Appellant showing the Assignments of

Errors, and then make an order and remand.

The issues of fraud and such grave elemental failures should have been

investigated by the Trial Court instead of denying that Petition/Motion since the

Motion had asked to correct the Errors in the final criminal conviction order (Case

no. 1294-20-3, Page 434, Page 431 with Table of Contents) for the issues of

fraudulent elements and also since it had stated from the record that Appellant had

not entered a plea of guilty but had simply technically withdrawn his appeal.

That order was entered on the 18th day of November, 2019.” There is no guilty plea,

ever, throughout the entire criminal case. The Writ of error Coram Vobis/Nobis

addressed more elemental decay from the original CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.

Criminal elements decaying in a criminal case are not facts and are not probable

cause supporting the arrest, charge, and wrongful conviction of Brian David Hill on

December 21, 2018, by the General District Court (Case no. 1294-20-3, Pages 45-

46, Page 48-49 with Table of Contents). Therefore, the Trial Court erred to not even

correct its final conviction on November 18, 2019.

IV. Assignments of Error

ii. Argument

28
 i. The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment (Case no.
1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of Contents) denying the
Petition/Motion as a matter of law or abused discretion in
overlooking the evidence of factual element fraud/defects by the
Commonwealth Attorney’s criminal prosecution by the counter
evidence filed Pro Se which proves Fraud upon the Court by the
Commonwealth Attorney and either corruption or incompetence by
Martinsville Police Department. That deprived Appellant of Due
Process of Law and Equal Protection under the Laws in the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The assignment of error was that the Trial Court had errored and/or abused its

discretion in denying the Appellant’s Petition/Motion “INITIAL FILING - WCN” (Page

2) for requesting Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis which was filed Pro Se then entering

the final judgment on Record in Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 434, Page 431 with Table of

Contents. That is overlooking the evidence filed by Appellant throughout the Coram

Vobis case showing defects in the FACTUAL ELEMENTS (FACT FRAUD) of the

entire prosecution against Brian David Hill since Page 6 (CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,

no. 1294-20-3) and wrongful conviction as of December 21, 2018. Evidence was clearly

overlooked and should have been addressed before denying relief in that ground as it

wasn’t just on the ground of Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis under Virginia Code

§ 8.01-677 but also under the inherit legal and Constitutional powers of a Court to

correct clerical errors, errors of fact and correct any frauds upon/on the Court as

the facts could have been realized had the evidence filed on the Record not been

overlooked. Very important evidence and facts were overlooked. There should have

been an evidentiary hearing to look over all of the pro se evidence filed by Appellant

and sort all of this out before making a final decision on Appellant’s Motion/Petition as

29
it isn’t just over the Writ of Error statute under Virginia Code § 8.01-677 but also over

a Court’s inherit or implied powers not under a statute, that is the clear error here.

Defects brought out in “II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS” (Pages 3 through 16

of Petition for Appeal), Paragraphs 1 through 6. It was overlooked and Appellant did

not have legal counsel appointed to his Petition/Motion for Writ of Error.

There are errors of fact and conflicts on the Record and frauds on the Court. The

Writ of Error Coram Vobis Motion/Petition (Pages 2 through 71) brought new evidence

to the Trial Court’s attention than what was even filed with Appellant’s Motion to

Vacate Fraudulent Begotten Judgment “MOTION - VACATE FRAUD BEGOTTEN

JUDG” (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 433 through 459, Pages 436 through 462 with Table

of Contents).

The letter that was attempted to have been mailed to the Chief of Police of

Martinsville asking that it be investigated or looked into by Sergeant Robert Jones of

Martinsville Police Department, brought up various good information showing that

laboratory results were never done which is medical neglect and had shown a difference

between Appellant’s Hospital visit on November 19, 2017 (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page

141 through 147, Pages 144 through 150 with Table of Contents) and his Hospital visit

on September 21, 2018 (Case no. 1294-20-3, Pages 195 through 202, Pages 198 through

205 with Table of Contents) prior to being arrested by Martinsville Police and discharged

to Jail. That was referenced and used in the letter to the Chief of Police in Pages 62 and

63 of the Record and Pages 61 which has a description of blood pouring out of Brian’s

head which is supported by the Hospital Record (Record said and I quote “Head
30
Laceration/ Open wound of head”) of November 19, 2017 concerning Brian David Hill.

The point of this “Assignment of Error” was that the original Police Department

who charged Brian Hill with indecent exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387 had no

idea about residue of Carbon Monoxide in Brian’s home, had no idea about the actual

threatening greeting card reported by Brian, and had no idea about the tachycardia

readings and had no idea that laboratory tests were never done in the first place.

It had shown a lack of a real investigation, a shoddy investigation at best,

incompetence. Brian was charged very quickly and would not have given the Police

enough time to actually look for a man wearing a hoodie. Around 5:35AM the arrest

warrant was created and issued against Appellant. In Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 200, 197

without Table of Contents, Brian arrived at the Emergency Room around 4:04AM. Not

long ago after Appellant was handcuffed by Police. So not many hours had gone by

before the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT was filed and thus the Police Department had no

further obligation to investigate Appellant’s claims about a man wearing a hoodie, they

just get the Commonwealth Attorney Glen Andrew Hall involved ready to prosecute

against Appellant at all costs, AT ALL COSTS. The Police Department was clearly

incompetent and was ready to charge him quickly. Any claim by the Commonwealth

Attorney that the Police were unable to locate a man wearing a hoodie is pure hogwash.

Even in murder/homicide cases, police detectives are given 48 hours to quickly find the

murderer. They set up no checkpoints on the record, they probably didn’t even interview

or interrogate nobody. They just made their assumptions very quickly and arrested

Appellant because it was easier to charge him with Indecent Exposure rather than fully
31
investigate his claims and ask his mother about the threatening greeting card mentioned

in the letter to Martinsville Police on Page 62 of the Record. It said and I quote from the

Record of the Letter: “Exhibit 7) Three anonymous greeting cards (possibly with an

intent to annoy, harass, or intimidate) and one anonymous threatening greeting card

from an unknown assailant or assailants who sent the four mailings from Tennessee with

no return address. Total of 20-pages.” The Commonwealth Attorney spent no effort on

the Record to investigate the threatening greeting card. The greeting card could have

been analyzed by a hand writing expert at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It

could have been tested by special forensic testing for thumb prints, DNA, anything as to

who the writer could be. The Martinsville Police and the Commonwealth Attorney

failed to do any of that, just charge him with an offense and ignore him, ignore any

evidence he files and ignore any evidence of a crime, ignore it all, too bad so sad

take a hike, lawyer-games. Matthew Clark was part of those mind games too as he

ignored the envelope and never did anything with it either. It is probably better that he

didn’t attempt to open the envelope as that is physical irrefutable evidence of an

envelope filled with evidence papers were never even opened by Martinsville Police and

neither of the Commonwealth Attorney Glen Andrew Hall.

Overlooking the evidence is a serious error and is a serious issue when

dealing with a final Judgment from a Trial Court, especially a wrongful conviction

of an innocent man. Brian David Hill is clearly innocent and such cumulative

evidence proves that. When the charge doesn’t fit, the Court must acquit.

Appellant never even pled guilty on Page 434 of his criminal case. It is very easy to

32
overturn this wrongful conviction with enough evidence countering the narrative

of the Commonwealth Attorney’s prosecution.

The possibilities are endless here, many more arguments could be made but it is

clear that a lot of evidence was overlooked by both Martinsville Police Department and

the Commonwealth Attorney so they have no credibility to claim that they could not

find a guy/man wearing a hoodie who Appellant alleged had threatened him when

evidence demonstrates that Martinsville Police and their Commonwealth Attorney

won’t even open up an envelope with evidence inside. A lot of things seem wrong with

the final Judgment in this case and the way the errors keep piling up on the Record and

are being defended. The lack of reviewing over all of the evidence materials filed by

Appellant seems to violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment

XIV.

Citing Amendment XIV of United States Constitution:

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (citation partially
omitted)

Citing Article I. Bill of Rights, Section 11. “Due process of law; obligation of

contracts; taking of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases”

of Virginia Constitution:

“That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or

property without due process of law…” (citation partially

33
 omitted)

His liberty was taken away. He received more supervised release sentence, 9

months of Federal Imprisonment, see Pages 390 through 391 with TOC of Case No.

1294-20-3. Unless the errors are corrected and the frauds are dealt with by the Trial

Court of Record, then Appellant will wrongfully face further deprivation of his freedom

and liberty by use of frauds, errors, and deceit, even though it is a conditional liberty.

Therefore, Appellant is still entitled to Due Process of Law in the Virginia Courts even

for a misdemeanor. He is entitled to effective counsel, fair and equal access to the

Judicial process, the adversarial system. State Courts must give equal protection under

the law. That includes the Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. That

includes Due Process where all evidence must be looked over and scrutinized, and not

ignored or overlooked when making a final decision affecting the life, liberty, and

freedom of a criminal defendant who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven

guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ii. The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment (Case no.
1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of Contents) denying the
Petition/Motion as a matter of law or abused discretion in not
holding an evidentiary hearing/proceeding in regards to the
cumulative evidence filed Pro Se which proves Fraud upon the
Court by the Commonwealth Attorney and showing factual errors
and prosecutorial defect. That deprived Appellant of Due Process
of Law and Equal Protection under the Laws in the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The assignment of error was that the Trial Court had errored and/or abused its

discretion in denying the Appellant’s Petition/Motion “INITIAL FILING - WCN” (Page

34
2) for requesting Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis which was filed Pro Se then entering

the final judgment under Record in Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 434, Page 431 with Table

of Contents, when the Trial Court held no evidentiary hearing/proceeding in regards to

the cumulative evidence filed Pro Se which proves Fraud upon the Court by the

Commonwealth Attorney. The Court should correct the errors of fact. When the errors

of fact show that there aren’t enough facts to sustain a criminal conviction, then the

entire conviction is null and void. There are no guilty pleas entered by Appellant. The

Judgment is weak and is erroneous. The new evidence could not have been brought on

Direct Appeal so the Petition/Motion for Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis brought up

the newly discovered evidence showing a fact fraud that Police did not seem interested

in investigating anything to do with a guy wearing a hoodie when they refused to have

even open up an envelope with potential evidence sent by Appellant under restricted

delivery.

The Appellant does not feel it is necessary to copy, paste, and reiterate all of the

evidence pages of the Record on Appeal brought out in the 1st Assignment of Error.

Read the FACTUAL ISSUES and EVIDENCE ISSUES in Assignment of Error:

“i. The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page

431, Page 434 with Table of Contents) denying the Petition/Motion as a matter of law

or abused discretion in overlooking the evidence of factual element defect by the

Commonwealth Attorney’s criminal prosecution by the counter evidence filed Pro Se

which proves Fraud upon the Court by the Commonwealth Attorney and either

corruption or incompetence by Martinsville Police Department. That deprived

35
Appellant of Due Process of Law and Equal Protection under the Laws in the Fourteenth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

Also again citing “II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS” (Paragraphs 1 through 6,

Pages 3 through 16 of this Petition for Appeal).

The Trial Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before it disposed the

case as it had deprived Appellant of Due Process of Law.

Haas v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 284, 291 (Va. 2012) (“the Court of Appeals is

vested with authority to refer a case brought under this chapter back to the circuit

court for an evidentiary hearing if, in its discretion, it deems that the facts require

further development, it is not required to do so. The Court of Appeals is vested with

broad discretion in determining whether the facts require further development. Turner,

282 Va. at 247, 717 S.E.2d at 121; Johnson v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 315, 325, 641

S.E.2d 480, 486 (2007).”)

Commonwealth v. Zheng, 110 N.E.3d 1220, (Mass. App. Ct. 2018) (“As such, an

evidentiary hearing should have been held regarding the details of what the

defendant was advised by counsel. See Commonwealth v. Goodreau, 442 Mass. 341,

348 (2004) (if substantial issue is raised by motion or affidavits, evidentiary hearing

should be held); Commonwealth v. Cano, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 238, 240 (2015) (same).”)

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972). At times, the Court has also stressed

the dignitary importance of procedural rights, the worth of being able to defend one’s

interests even if one cannot change the result. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266–67

(1978); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Nelson v. Adams, 529 U.S.
36
460 (2000) (amendment of judgement to impose attorney fees and costs to sole

shareholder of liable corporate structure invalid without notice or opportunity to

dispute).

The Court of Appeals should review over Affidavits on Pages 72 through 97 of

the Record including Endorsement of filing. They had raised such a substantial issue

that an evidentiary hearing should have clearly been held as a matter of facts and law.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “Parties whose rights are to be

affected are entitled to be heard.” Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863).

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978). “[P]rocedural due process rules are

shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the

generality of cases.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976).

Jamborsky v. Baskins, 247 Va. 506, 509, 442 S.E.2d 636, 637 (1994). A

mandatory provision in a statute is one that connotes a command and the omission

of " 'which renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void, while a

directory provision is one the observance of which is not necessary to the validity of

the proceeding; and a statute may be mandatory in some respects, and directory in

others.' " Ladd v. Lamb, 195 Va. 1031, 1035, 81 S.E.2d 756, 759 (1954) (citation

omitted). See also Jamborsky, 247 Va. at 511, 442 S.E.2d at 638 (holding that the

twenty-one day period in the transfer statute under former Code Sec. 16.1-269(E) is

directory and procedural and not mandatory and jurisdictional). However, the denial

of a transfer hearing and the opportunity to present evidence deprived the

accused of a substantive right and the constitutional guarantee of due process.

37
Id. at 509, 442 S.E.2d at 637.”).

There is clear and convincing evidence that Martinsville Police had refused

and failed to investigate exculpatory evidence of the threatening greeting card, the

Carbon Monoxide evidence, and refused to even interview expert witness Pete

Compton. See Page 46 with the informal Affidavit from Pete Compton. Says “Case

1:13-cr-00435-TDS, Document 221-16, Filed 11/20/19, Page 3 of 3” on the bottom

of filed Document in this WCN case. Nothing was investigated, nothing was to be

presented. Appellant was clearly wrongfully convicted by fraud and refusal to

investigate any evidence ever proffered by Appellant. All they ever sought was an

unfair criminal conviction, a fraudulent conviction. Brian wanted the Police to

investigate, even before he was charged with Indecent Exposure, but the Police

FAILED HIM, they failed him. The Police failed him and the Court of Appeals must

understand that they had failed to do their duty which is investigate crimes and

investigate any evidence regarding a crime whether it be a cold case or hot case.

Detectives ignoring evidence is non-professional behavior, it is essentially a

misconduct, a corrupt act. A dereliction of duty.

There was clear and convincing evidence raising the issues that Appellant was

not medically cleared by being released prematurely. Appellant had demonstrated

from the Record on Appeal that there were two Hospitalizations of Appellant

documented. There is a difference of treatment concerning Brian David Hill between

dates November 18, 2017 (Record No. 1294-20-3, Pages 143 through 147, 3-page

difference with TOC) and September 21, 2018 (Record No. 1294-20-3, Pages 198

38
“Exhibit 10”, through Page 205, 3-page difference with TOC). The Hospital staff

were more thorough, more responsive, and more caring on November 18, 2017, and

it was the same Hospital, located at the same exact address in the city of Martinsville.

When Appellant came in with abrasions after being handcuffed by Martinsville

Police, the Hospital Staff treated him very poorly because of the police telling them

about the so-called “indecent exposure” incident, almost as if to create stigmatization

so that they wanted the Hospital to throw him out and have him arrested as quick as

possible with no laboratory results. The treatments between those two dates had

shown that this is not the normal Emergency Room procedure with what had

happened on September 21, 2018. Both were physical injuries. Both were in the

Emergency Room (ER). Yet on September 21, 2018, they were very adamant on

saying that Brian was naked/nude and taking photos of himself in that Medical

Record and then made multiple entries about releasing him to “Police/Jail” acting as

though Appellant deserved being arrested and Jailed immediately and shown lack of

compassion. It is medical neglect and such medical neglect destroyed evidence

of the only hope of Brian David Hill being acquitted from the very beginning of

any potential indecent exposure charge under Virginia Code § 18.2-387. The

discharge of Appellant on September 21, 2018 is not normal typical and legally

acceptable Emergency Room procedures when Police expect a thorough

examination of a criminal suspect prior to releasing him to Law Enforcement

custody. They just wanted to dump him into the Jail system as quick as they could

knowing that they never tested his blood, they never checked his diabetic blood

39
 glucose readings and released him with high resting blood pulse ox multiple times.

He had similar issues exhibited on his visit to the Emergency Room on November

18, 2017 (Record No. 1294-20-3, Pages 143 through 147, 3-page difference with

TOC). They released a man knowing that he was not medically cleared and no

laboratory testing was done.

There is clear and convincing evidence warranting an evidentiary

hearing and all of that evidence should have been debated, argued, and

discussed as to why Brian was not medically cleared and was arrested super

quickly not giving Martinsville Police Investigators any time to do their own

thorough investigation before simply deciding that Appellant was guilty and

push for his charge and conviction by the corrupt Commonwealth Attorney.

It is a fraud on the court that the Commonwealth Attorney continued trying

to convict Appellant of Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387 under

an element that was disproven by pro se filings that Appellant was “psychologically

and medically cleared” as stated on Page 6 of the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.

It is a fraud on the court that the Commonwealth Attorney continued trying to

convict Appellant of Indecent Exposure under Virginia Code § 18.2-387 under an

element that was disproven by pro se filings and case law that the Commonwealth had

prosecuted the Appellant in General District Court on December 21, 2018 with no

evidence of intent by Appellant. The law requires evidence that Appellant acted

intentionally to make an obscene display or exposure of his person. The Commonwealth

shown no such evidence and would have likely shown no such evidence in the Trial
40
Court either had Appellant been given effective counsel and had taken the matter to trial.

Even though the arguments are limited due to the General District Court not being

a State Court of Record and not having any Transcripts, the Appellant still argues that

the General District Court of Martinsville had erred on December 21, 2018 (Page 42,

No. 1294-20-3), in finding that the evidence before it was sufficient to find that

Appellant violated Virginia Code § 18.2-387 because the evidence fails to show that

Appellant acted intentionally to make an obscene display or exposure of his person. That

statute provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very person who intentionally makes an

obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public

place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself,

shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” Va. Code § 18.2-387 (emphases added).

“The ‘obscenity’ element of Code § 18.2–387 may be satisfied when: (1) the

accused admits to possessing such intent, Moses v. Commonwealth, 611 S.E.2d 607,

608 (Va. App. 2005)(en banc); (2) the defendant is visibly aroused, Morales v.

Commonwealth, 525 S.E.2d 23, 24 (Va. App. 2000); (3) the defendant engages in

masturbatory behavior, Copeland v. Commonwealth, 525 S.E.2d 9, 10 (Va. App. 2000);

or (4) in other circumstances when the totality of the circumstances supports an inference

that the accused had as his dominant purpose a prurient interest in sex, Hart, 441 S.E.2d

at 707–08. The mere exposure of a naked body is not obscene. See Price v.

Commonwealth, 201 S.E.2d 798, 800 (Va. 1974) (finding that `[a] portrayal of nudity is

not, as a matter of law, a sufficient basis for finding that [it] is obscene’).” Romick v.

Commonwealth, No. 1580-12-4, 2013 WL 6094240, at *2 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 19,
41
2013)(unpublished)(internal citations reformatted).

While the evidence may show that Appellant was naked in public, as stated above,

nudity, without more, is not obscene under Virginia law. Rather, “[t]he word `obscene’

where it appears in this article shall mean that which, considered as a whole, has as its

dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is a

shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory

functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially

beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and

which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific

value.” Va. Code § 18.2-372 (emphasis added). While Virginia does not appear to have

established a clean definition of criminal intent, Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as

“[a]n intent to commit an actus reus without any justification, excuse, or other defense.”

In summary, in order to show that Appellant violated Va. Code § 18.2-372 by

committing the offense of indecent exposure under Virginia law, the Commonwealth

was required to prove, among other things, that Appellant had the intent to display or

expose himself in a way which has, as its dominant theme or purpose, appeal to the

prurient interest in sex, as further defined above, without any justification, excuse, or

other defense. The Commonwealth failed to do so. Rather, the Commonwealth’s

evidence, presented through its own witnesses, showed Appellant as someone who was

running around naked between midnight and 3:00 a.m. and taking pictures of himself

because he believed that someone was going to hurt his family if he did not do so.

(Record No. 1294-20-3: Pages 82 and 83 of CORRESPONDENCE, Pages 81 through

42
126 of CORRESPONDENCE, Federal Affidavits filed in Trial Court in 2019).

iii. The Trial Court erred by entering the Final Judgment (Case no.
1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of Contents) denying the
Petition/Motion as a matter of law or abused discretion in not
recognizing that the United States Supreme Court held that all
Courts have an inherit power to correct errors upon its Record of
Judgments/Orders and to vacate Fraudulent Begotten Judgments if
they believe that a prosecution of a criminal or civil case was based
on Fraud and evidence surfaces showing multiple defects of the
elements of such criminal prosecution by the Commonwealth of
Virginia.

The assignment of error was that the Trial Court had errored and/or abused its

discretion in denying the Appellant’s Petition/Motion “INITIAL FILING - WCN” (Page

2) for requesting Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis which was filed Pro Se then entering

the final judgment under Record in Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table

of Contents, when the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that all Courts have inherit or

implied powers to entertain a motion or petition for a writ requesting that the Court

vacate a Judgment that it may believe was precured by Fraud, or an judgment that was

based upon errors that the Court had not known at the time such Judgment was made

when prosecuted by a defective prosecution, malicious prosecution with faulty facts and

systemic element decay in the criminal elements from the original CRIMINAL

COMPLAINT. The Trial Court erred by not exercising its own inherit powers, not even

having an evidentiary hearing asking what all of the evidence was about and why

Appellant had filed such evidence and what it signified for whatever relief that was

requested as a matter of law, as a matter of fact, and for the ends of justice to have been

met. Even the Supreme Court of Virginia had made rulings regarding a “court’s” inherit

43
power to vacate a judgment or disturb a sound judgment upon later evidence surfacing

showing that the judgment was procured by fraud, a faulty prosecution, a defective

prosecution.

The Petition/Motion was validly filed under § 8.01-677 and the inherit power of

a Court to correct clerical errors, errors of fact and correct any frauds upon the Court

(These powers are “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested

in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious

disposition of cases. That it has long gone unquestioned is apparent not only from the

many state court decisions sustaining such dismissals”) Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). See “Chambers v. Nasco, INC, 501 US 32, 115 L. ED 2d

27, 111 S Ct 2123 (1991), Courts §18 “inherent or implied powers”, as well as Courts

§225. 1; Equity §47 “power to vacate fraudulent judgment”, “this Court has an inherent

power to investigate a fraud upon the Court and to vacate an earlier judgment upon proof

of such fraud.”

It said from the very Pleading under Page 2 of the Record and it said “the criminal

defendant in this case files this motion for writ of error coram vobis in this Circuit Court

to correct the errors and frauds perpetuated on this Court and the General District

Court.”

All Courts have a Constitutional and legally inheritable right to vacate any

judgment it feels is later a victim of fraud on the court. Also, Courts have an inherit right

and a right under § 8.01-677 to correct any proven Errors upon its own record to maintain

the truthful, factualness, and integrity of the Court itself, without such a Court would
44
fail as non-credible and not trustworthy. They do not need to wait for Congress or the

State Legislature to pass a law or rule allowing a Court to do this. Courts for decades

have different rulings in different jurisdictions over the fraud upon the court case law

authorities.

See the quoted paragraph in Page 3:

Page 3 WCN: “Petitioner files evidence that shows that the

Commonwealth of Virginia had lied about the facts of the case in
regards to what they filed in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,
opposition brief filed on 02-24-2020, under CAV #0128-20-3. That is
a fraud upon the Court, a final judgment of presumed guilt procured
by fraud. One fact was that the police were never able to locate the
guy wearing the hoodie. An Exhibit will be introduced in attachment
showing that the Martinsville Police Department refused to open an
envelope full of evidence (See Exhibit 1) that would have likely
changed the course of investigation with the threatening greeting card
and the carbon monoxide cumulative evidence. Instead of
investigating the evidence, the envelope was kept sealed and
transferred to the Commonwealth's Attorney Glen Andrew Hall and
then was secretly transferred again to Matthew Scott Thomas Clark
who never informed Petitioner that he received the envelope that was
meant for Martinsville Police Department, that the Police Department
ignored the evidence and refused to investigate any evidence. Such
incompetence and dereliction of duty by a so-called professional law
enforcement agency.” (citation reformatted)

Neighbors v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 503, 505 (Va. 2007) (“10. The circuit

court's restriction of Code § 16.1-106 to only monetary cases in the case at bar was

erroneous. There is no restriction to an appeal of a petition for a writ of error coram

vobis from the general district court to the circuit court because it is a non-monetary

civil proceeding. Accordingly, the appeal of the denial of a writ of coram vobis is within

the jurisdiction of a circuit court under Code § 17.1-513 and the circuit court erred in

45
determining it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the judgment of the general

district court. 11. Code § 8.01-677 makes clear that the limited purpose of a writ of

coram vobis is to correct only `clerical error" or certain "error in fact." The writ

of coram vobis should not be; used for any purpose other than to correct a clerical error

or error in fact. This limited application has not been extended to serve as a writ of

error to bring the original judgment under review, or to permit a change of a defendant's

plea after trial.”) Brought up in page 5 of the Record.

Neighbors v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 503, 504 (Va. 2007) (“1. The writ of error

coram vobis, or coram nobis, is an ancient writ of the common law. It was called coram

nobis (before us) in King's Bench because the king was supposed to preside in person in

that court. It was called coram vobis (before you — the king's justices) in Common

Pleas, where the king was not supposed to reside. The difference related only to the form

appropriate to each court and the distinction disappeared in this country when the need

for it ended.”) Brought up in page 5 of the Record.

Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503, 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (“In Demjanjuk v.

Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), we held that the prosecutors, in failing to read

reports in their possession that turned out to be exculpatory, "acted with reckless

disregard for the truth and for the government's obligation to take no steps that prevent

an adversary from presenting his case fully and fairly." Id. at 351-54. "This was fraud

on the court in the circumstances of this case where, by recklessly assuming

Demjanjuk's guilt, they failed to observe their obligation to produce exculpatory

materials requested by Demjanjuk."”)

46
 Long v. Virginia Employment, Record No. 2123-91-2, 2 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 20,

1993) (“In Jones, the Virginia Supreme Court differentiated between intrinsic and

extrinsic fraud for purposes of determining how a judgment procured by fraud may be

challenged. The Court stated that intrinsic fraud includes "perjury, forged documents, or

other incidents of trial related to issues material to the judgment." 224 Va. at 607, 299

S.E.2d at 508. On the other hand, extrinsic fraud is "conduct which prevents a fair

submission of the controversy to the court." Id. Essentially, Long alleges that a Glaser

employee, Nancy Floyd, perjured herself before the commission. TheJones Court clearly

defined perjury as intrinsic fraud. Thus, Long's allegation, if believed, constitutes

intrinsic fraud.”)

Taylor v. Taylor, 159 Va. 338, (Va. 1932) (“The solution of the question lies in

determining whether the plaintiff procured his judgment by fraud on the defendant and

on the court, and whether the situation thereafter arising will permit, on the weighing of

equities, the granting of relief.”)

Taylor v. Taylor, 159 Va. 338, (Va. 1932) (“5. JUDGMENTS AND DECREES

— Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud — Extrinsic or Collateral Frauds. — The acts for

which a court of equity will, on account of fraud, set aside or annul a judgment or decree

between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, relate to frauds

extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried by the first court, and not to a fraud in the matter

on which the judgment or decree was rendered.”)

The Statement of the Facts, Paragraphs 1 through 6, Pages 3 through 16 of this

Petition for Appeal, makes very good points of evidence, on the errors and defects of
47
the entire prosecution, and the law.

Errors exist throughout the Record in the General District Court and Trial Court

of Record. There are factual errors. Errors showing maybe even a lack of probable cause

with lack of medical clearing and Police ignoring evidence mailed to them. The Trial

Court did not know in their Final Judgment on November 18, 2019 (Record No. 1294-

20-3, Pages 434, 3-page difference with TOC) of the Police Department refusing to open

a sealed envelope mailed to them (Pages 37 through 40), signed for by the Chief of them

(Page 41), and was addressed to them. How can any reasonable Judge or Trier-of-fact

believe a Police Officer who arrests somebody quickly and terminates an investigation

by letting the lawyers handle it, when that is very shoddy investigative work? Lawyers

should not get involved in a case or controversy until after an investigation is thoroughly

conducted to prevent a MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, a wrongful conviction of an

innocent man when such is erroneous and not compassionate. Courts should be fact

finders and are about the truth. The Writ of Error Coram Vobis/Nobis is appropriate in

such matters such as fact fraud or fact errors. Courts don’t even need the Writ of Error

Coram Vobis statute or any statute under Virginia Code § 8.01-677, when all Courts

have a Constitutionally given inherit power to manage their own affairs, correct the

errors upon its own record, and resolve any frauds upon the court that can be proven

with clear and convincing evidence and matters of law.

CONCLUSION

Appellant asserts 3 Assignments of Error as to why Petition for Appeal

should be granted for the Constitutional rights, factual errors, and legal errors

48
involved.

For the foregoing reasons stated above, the Appellant urges this Court to

grant this Petition for Appeal and allow the Appellant to perfect his appeal if it is

so ordered by this Court in pushing for an order and remand to vacate the final

order/judgment (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 741, Page 744 with Table of Contents,

“ORDER - DENIED DEF WRIT ERROR CV”) denying Appellant’s

Motion/Petition asking for the Trial Court to grant a Writ of Error Coram

Vobis/Nobis to correct all errors and frauds upon the Court on a wrongful or

erroneous judgment (Case no. 1294-20-3, Page 431, Page 434 with Table of

Contents) wrongfully convicting Appellant of Indecent Exposure on November 18,

2021 in the Trial Court.

49
 REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

As this appeal raises important constitutional and evidence issues which

were believed overlooked, due process of law which could have broad effects on those

accused of state crimes, the Appellant requests oral argument.

Respectfully Filed/Submitted on April 1,

2021,

BRIAN DAVID HILL

Pro Se

Brian David Hill – Ally of Qanon

Founder of USWGO Alternative
News
310 Forest Street, Apt. 2
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
(276) 790-3505
Pro Se Appellant

50
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This brief complies with type-volume limits (word limit 12,300), excluding
the parts of the document exempted by Rule 5A:12(e) (cover page, table of
contents, table of authorities, and certificate):

[ X ] this brief contains [11,242]

words.

[ ] this brief uses a monospaced type and contains [state the number of]
lines of text.

2. This brief complies with the typeface and type style requirements because:

[ X ] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using

[Microsoft Word 2013] in [14pt Times New Roman]; or

[ ] this brief has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [state

name and version of word processing program] with [state number of
characters per inch and name of type style].

Dated: April 1, 2021

Brian David Hill – Ally of Qanon

Founder of USWGO Alternative News
310 Forest Street, Apt. 2 Martinsville,
Virginia 24112
(276) 790-3505
Pro Se Appellant

51
 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of April, 2021, I caused this “PETITION

FOR APPEAL OF APPELLANT” to be printed then hand delivered to the

Commonwealth of Virginia and City of Martinsville through the Commonwealth

Attorney’s Office of Martinsville City and the original was filed with the Clerk of

the Court of Appeals of Virginia by Virginia Court eFiling system (VACES) through

Assistant/Filing-Representative Roberta Hill which shall satisfy proof of service as

required by Rule 5A:12(b) stating that “a copy of the petition must be mailed or

delivered to the Commonwealth’s attorney or the city, or county, or town attorney,

as the case may be.” And the proof that such pleading was delivered will be attached

to this “Petition for Appeal” shall satisfy the proof of service was required by Rule

5A:12(b):

Glen Andrew Hall, Esq.

55 West Church Street, P.O. Box 1311
Martinsville, Virginia 24112 or 24114 (for P.O. Box)
Telephone: 276-403-5470
Fax: 276-403-5478
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Appellee

The reason why Brian David Hill must use such a representative/Assistant to
serve such pleading with the Clerk on his behalf is because Brian is currently
still under the conditions of Supervised Release for the U.S. District Court
barring internet usage without permission. Brian's Probation Officer is
aware of Roberta Hill using her email for conducting court business
concerning Brian Hill or court business with the Probation Office in regards
to Brian David Hill. Therefore, Roberta Hill is filing the pleading on Brian's
behalf for official court business. Brian has authorized Roberta Hill to file the
pleading.
52
If the Court wishes to contact the filer over any issues or concerns, please
feel free to contact the filer Brian David Hill directly by telephone or by
mailing. They can also contact Roberta Hill at [email protected] and
request that she forward the message and any documents or attachments to
Brian David Hill to view offline for his review.

Brian David Hill – Ally of Qanon

Founder of USWGO Alternative News
310 Forest Street, Apt. 2 Martinsville,
Virginia 24112
(276) 790-3505
Pro Se Appellant

JusticeForUSWGO.NL
JusticeForUSWGO.Wordpress.com

53