Habeas Corpus docketed in the U. S. Supreme Court

(images and document, below)

Just a little background on the Habeas Corpus:

It was first served (January 27, 2012) before the subsequent trial (February 9, 2012) which should never have been held until the Habeas Corpus was heard), and ignored.  It was then submitted to the US District Court, US Court of Appeals, and, the Florida Supreme Court (all, March February 10, 2012).  The District Court never responded.  The Appeals Court violated their own rules and treated it as if it were insignificant.  The Florida Supreme Court denied jurisdiction (May 30, 2012).  This left only the United States Supreme Court, if the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus still exists in our Constitution and country.

The Demand for Habeas Corpus was then submitted to the United States Supreme Court (November 26, 2012), and has since been resubmitted five times, culminating in my receipt of the attached Docketing notification.  However, the matter will go before the Court, and the Demand, as submitted is attached hereto.

There are some peculiarities, however, in that the Demand was submitted to Justice Antonin Scalia, as the Justice assigned to the Circuit wherein Larry Mikiel Myers is detained, this consistent with 28 USC 2241-2243, and Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, in that a clerk directed it to the entire Court by docketing it, as he did.

28 USC 2243 requires that the "court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted."  "Forthwith" means immediately.  Further, that same section provides that "The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.  It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed."  This is less than a month, though the rerouting by a clerk will delay this to perhaps many months, leave it to the politics of the entire Court, and, deny that basic right that has been sought for over 16 months.

Finally, Rule 20 requires that the caption of this Writ be "In Re [name of petitioner]", which is on the Demand, and in fact, Larry Mikiel Myers.  However, the attached letter has captioned the case as "In Re Gary Hunt", though I am not the petitioner, as the law, and rules, allow another to act on someone's behalf.  Can you imagine if the caption of a case bore the name of the attorney rather than the person aggrieved?

Even so, the case has been docketed, and that, in itself, is cause for sober consideration.

Docket 13-5008 Letter (PDF)

Demand submitted to and Docketed by the Supreme Court - Docket 13-5008  (PDF) (8 MB)

Return to Habeas Corpus - Main Page