Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Daniel Littlepage v. Tim Shoop, Warden

IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 20-3890 · judgment November 19, 2020


Certiorari denied · October 4, 2021

Questions presented

  1. Is the Petitioner's Due Process Rights Violated Due to the Violation of O.R.C.’ 2945.06 requiring a Three-Judge Panel for Aggravated Murder?

  2. Is the Petitioner's Due Process Rights Violated Due to the Violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(3), requiring a Three-Judge Panel for Aggravated Murder?

  3. Is Due Process Violated when the Court accepts a "Guilty" Plea before explaining Crim.R. 11, especially Crim.R. 11(C)(3) for Aggravated Murder as required?

  4. Is Due Process and Q.R.C. 2967.28 Violated by Imposing PostRelease Control (PRC) in a Aggravated Murder Case for which Parole is the only eligibility for Petitioner?

  5. Is Due Process Violated when the Trial Court Fails to inform the Petitioner of the Elements of the Charge and Specification to which he pleads to in an Aggravated Murder Case?

  6. Is a Plea Knowingly and Intelligently made when the Trial Court Fails to inform the Petitioner of the Elements of the Charge and Specifications in a Aggravated Murder Case?

  7. Is a Plea Knowingly and Intelligently made when the Trial Court Imposes Two (2) conflicting sentencing sanctions, (PRC) and Parole in a Aggravated Murder Case? (A Due Process Vio­ lation) g.IIs the Petitioner Entitled to Plead Anew when the Trial Court Imposes sentencing sanctions that are contrary to law in an Aggravated Murder Case? (A Due Process Violation)

  8. Is Due Process Violated when Petitioner At Sentencing States that he Wants to Withdraw his "Guilty” Plea and it is left Out of the Unsigned Sentencing Transcripts? 10. Is the Petitioner Entitled to Plead Anew when the Sentencing Transcripts have been Altered and are Unsigned as required? (See Page 25 of Trial Transcripts Labeled Appendix G_ Herein)

  9. Does the Criminal Behavior of a Trial Judge who Executes Fraudulent Orders (See Appendix I) Herein) Prove Bias, Par­ tiality and Corruption?

  10. Does the Illegal Creation and Execution of Appendix I) Here­ in Violate 28 U.S.C. 47 and Due Process?

  11. Does a Judge lose their Immunity when they Craete Fraudulent Orders with N£ Authority or Jurisdiction? (See Appendix I) Herein)

  12. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here in, is the Judge Guilty of "Using Sham Legal Process" A Vio­ lation of O.R.C. 2921.52?

  13. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here in, is the Judge Guilty of "Impersonating" A Violation of O.R.C. 2921.51?

  14. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here' ia> is the Judge Guilty of "Falsification" A Violation of O.R.C. 2921.13?

  15. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here in, is the Judge Guilty of "Forgery" A Violation of O.R.C. 2913.31?

  16. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here m, is the Judge Guilty of "Identity Fraud" A Violation of O.R.C. 2913.47?

  17. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here in, is the Judge Guilty of "Conspiracy" A Violation of O.R.C. 2923.01? 20. Once 28 U.S.C. 47 is Violated as is Proven in Appendix D Here in, is the Judge Guilty of "Fraud Upon The Court"?

  18. Once a Judge Instructs the Clerk to Mail his Fraudulent Order (See Lower Left Corner Of Appendix D Herein) is he "Guilty" of Mail Fraud A Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1342?

  19. Once a Judge Instructs the Clerk to Mail his Fraudulent Order (See Lower Left Corner Of Appendix D Herein) is he "Guilty" of Using Mail To Defraud A Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1342?

  20. Once a Judge Instructs the Clerk to Mail his Fraudulent Order (See Lower Left Corner Of Appendix I) Herein) is he "Guilty" of Conspiracy To Commit Mail Fraud A Violation of 18 U.S.C. 371?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Daniel Littlepage

For respondent
Benjamin Michael Flowers
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 04 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jul 29 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
  3. Jul 21 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop to respond filed.
  4. Jun 16 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 23, 2021)