JusticeForUSWGO.Wordpress.

com

Ally of QAnon – Justice – God – Jesus – No Corruption

OFFICE OF USWGO,
Brian D. Hill

November 2, 2021

Hon. Scott S. Harris, Clerk

Supreme Court of the
United States
1 First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Re: Brian David Hill, Petitioner,

v. United States, No. 21-6036

Dear Mr. Harris,

In Response to the U.S. Solicitor General’s office filing a Waiver of

right to respond unless the Court requests a response as stated in
the waiver letter dated October 25, 2021. The Petitioner in the
above-captioned case respectfully requests that the Court delay
distribution of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the above-
captioned case to the Justices; and request or order a response
from the Attorney for Respondent for the Party: United States of
America.

The acting United States Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher,

Esquire had filed on record that they are the counsel of record, which
represents the Respondent: United States of America in the case for
the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the instant case. They are
essentially filing the formalized automated yet formal waiver letter
(the “standard waiver letter”) with many Certiorari petitions and
Mandamus petitions to make it appear that Petitioner’s petitions are
insignificant to make it appear that the Petition should be denied as
per the usual procedure with a majority of Certiorari petitions.

The copies of the Petition were scheduled for distribution to the

Conference set for the date of Friday, November 12, 2021. Petitioner
again requests two things from the Clerk’s Office of the Court, under

1
Rule 15.5. First of all: Petitioner would like the distribution to the
Conference delayed until the United States responds to the
Certiorari Petition, since they agreed to do so if requested by this
Court from their waiver letter. If the Petitioner has to file a Motion
for Leave of Court to request that this Supreme Court request or
compel the Government to respond to Petitioner’s petition with an
opposition brief; then Petitioner needs an additional 14 or 21 days to
file such a motion. That is if required by the Rules of this Court.
Second of all: Petitioner wishes the Government to file an opposition
brief or proper response instead of the standard waiver letter which
is exactly the same as some automated formal letter mailed by the
staffers of the members of the U.S. Congress who do not wish to
respond personally to constituents. Yes, The same automated formal
letter when they don’t actually write a personalized response but
simply some template created type formal letter by staffers mailed
to many constituents but does not actually have any personalized
response. It is exactly that, a standard formal letter by the
Government acting as though this case is insignificant to be denied
without an opinion as with many Certiorari petitions. Petitioner is
NOT stupid. Petitioner is aware that the Government is trying to
throw the Petition for this case under the bus like so many others,
like nobody matters to the Corrupt U.S. Attorney Offices.

Petitioner has compelling reasons why the Government should in

fact file an opposition brief or response, so that if the Petitioner
catches the Government in any falsehoods or wrongful legal
arguments, then Petitioner can file a reply (Petitioner plans on filing
a reply to any opposition brief) again asserting why Certiorari
should be granted in the above-captioned case.

First reason, the U.S. District Court had inappropriately deprived

and blocked Petitioner from proving his factual innocence. They
would not appoint an attorney to represent Petitioner at all in his
2255 case. This Certiorari petition is Petitioner’s only remedy left in
regards to his Constitutional rights under Habeas Corpus and no
remedy is left if the Petition is not granted. Petitioner was deprived
of forensic experts. Petitioner was not allowed to prove his
innocence. Petitioner was not allowed any evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner was not allowed to have an independent computer
forensic expert analyze the computer seized by Law Enforcement in
regards to Petitioner’s criminal charge. Petitioner was blocked from
having any expert witnesses conduct forensic examinations and
testify. Petitioner was blocked from having any independent mental
health and medical experts to conduct forensic evaluations and
testify, despite his uncontested motion asking for an independent
mental health evaluation in regards to his false confession.
Petitioner was blocked; Petitioner was not allowed a lawyer to help
prove his Factual Innocence. Unless the petition is granted as it had
stated, Petitioner will not be allowed to prove his Actual Innocence
2
for the rest of his life. That is not right and violates his
Constitutional rights. This keeps an innocent man, a virgin, on the
Sex Offender Registry, possibly for most of his life to the rest of his
life if the state law changes regarding the time-period of mandatory
registration with no allowed grandfather clause to protect him.

Second reason: Petitioner had filed under Document #169 in the

2255 case, uncontested claims that Respondent had defrauded the
entire Court. All the way from the false guilty plea coerced by
ineffective counsel and to the Government’s fraud on the Court
throughout the prosecution phases including the Supervised Release
Violations. This was all brought up on appeal, but none of it
mattered. The Appeals Court completely erased this Supreme
Court’s holding under McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013).
The Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit completely erased and
overwritten this Supreme Court’s holding by using newer case law a
year later such as Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83
(4th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Whiteside v. United States conflicts with
this Court’s past rulings. They completely overwritten the Actual
Innocence exception to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) under this Court’s holding in 2013 under
McQuiggin v. Perkins. How can a lower Court just decide to
overwrite the Supreme Court and make decisions that are
completely contrary to this Court’s holdings under the Law?

Third reason: Government had defrauded the Court. Remember

what was in pages 13 through 17 as marked on the bottom of the
Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Government did not contested
the fraud allegations that U.S. Probation Officer Kristy L. Burton
had lied under oath in a Supervised Release Violation hearing. The
Government did not contest the fraud allegations that they forced
Petitioner to falsely plead guilty or face 20 years in prison with
ineffective counsel to cover up their fraudulent prosecution. The
Document #169 claim in the Certiorari petition citing that: “The SBI,
that is the State Bureau of Investigation and through their Case File
(forensic report) reported files/images/videos of interest but there
was NO affidavit verifying/confirming whether each such file could
have been actual child pornography. In addition to that, the SBI case
file said that 454 files had been downloaded with the eMule program
between July 20, 2012, and July 28, 2013, while my computer was
seized on August 28, 2012.” So according to the Government’s own
evidence paperwork claiming that for 11 months and 8 days
supposed illegal files were downloading to Petitioner’s computer
when not in Petitioner’s custody on the record. The Certiorari
petition and the record all support this claim. They had 21 days to
respond to a motion under Local Rule 7.3 of the Court. They never
disputed Petitioner’s contentions of fraud. Petitioner is entitled to
relief no matter what the Respondent argues in its reasoning and
defense. Even after Petitioner falsely plead guilty due to coercion
3
from the ineffective counsel all documented in the record of the 2255
case, the Pre-Sentence Report acknowledged Petitioner had no
victims. The report admitting that the so-called supposed child
pornography was of an unknown series, which contradicts the claim
of the police detective Robert Bridge of Reidsville, NC of files being
downloaded from eMule, which were known to him. So the
Government should be compelled or requested to respond to all of
the fraud which had been perpetuated upon the U.S. District Court
by the party: United States of America, and that fraud carried on to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Respondent defrauded the Court. They know that they did. That is
why the Respondent did not contest the Petitioner’s motions under
“Documents #169, #199, #206, #217, and #222” (page 17 of
Certiorari Petition). It is because they had the discovery evidence;
it came directly from the Government, and directly from the U.S.
Attorney Office aka the Government. Their own evidence said it was
downloading for 11 months and 8 days when in Law Enforcement
custody. That is admission to evidence planting and tampering.
That is obstruction of justice, manufacturing evidence. Then their
own discovery evidence having no affidavit and no affidavit of any
forensic specialist. Did not even comply with North Carolina
forensic standards or rules. All of that was documented in the 2255
case, and what was cited from the record of what was argued in the
Certiorari petition.

Therefore, it is in this Court’s best interest as well as in the best

interest of justice to compel a request to respond from the Counsel
of Respondent. The Government should respond to Petitioner’s
petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Therefore, Petitioner requests that Clerk of this Supreme Court

request the Respondent: United States of America to file an
opposition brief or response to the Certiorari Petition. Not just some
standard waiver letter. The Government cannot get away with its
fraud and depriving a criminal defendant of being permitted to
completely prove his Actual Innocence. Petitioner should not be
blocked from proving factual innocence as outlined in McQuiggin v.
Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013).

Therefore, Petitioner requests from the counsel of the Respondent:

Brian H. Fletcher, Esquire, which is the acting Solicitor General
that they respond to the uncontested fraud arguments and Actual
Innocence claims in the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari. So that
the Petitioner can file his reply brief and prove to this Court that the
record supports granting the Writ of Certiorari. That the interest of
justice supports granting the Writ of Certiorari. That this Court’s
best interest is preserving their holding under McQuiggin v.
Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013); and overwrite or overrule the
4
 contradictory case law of Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180,
182-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc). It is best that this Court preserve
its original holdings concerning the Actual Innocence exception to
the four commencement dates for the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus
due to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”).

Petitioner will direct Roberta Hill ([email protected]) on the

same day of this letter to email/contact Brian H. Fletcher, Esquire
([email protected]), Counsel for Respondent, and
Petitioner will also mail a copy (in a prepaid envelope mailed,
though Petitioner has limited resources due to living off of his
Supplemental Security Income disability) of this letter to Brian H.
Fletcher, Esquire. Petitioner is not aware of whether counsel for the
Respondent opposes, supports, or has any other position as to this
letter. Therefore, the Clerk can directly request a response from the
Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner will direct Roberta Hill to mark the
email with read receipt request to confirm instant receipt.

Petitioner does request that this letter be placed on the Supreme

Court’s public docket in PDF Format for case no. 21-6036 and send
a mailing acknowledging receipt of this letter. Thank You for your
time and attention to this matter. God bless you.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________
Brian David Hill
Pro Se
Ally of QANON
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel.: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: c/o: Roberta Hill at
[email protected]

5
Tracking number: 7019-1120-0002-2387-1583

Cc:

Brian H. Fletcher, Esquire (Counsel of Record) Acting Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Email: [email protected]