In Re Leonard Nyamusevya

Under the due process and equal protection under the law rights and justice for all; thus, Petitioner is entitled to the protection under the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430—431 (1823), to give back and restore to Petitioner his real property, which was taken on 11/29/2022, without compensation.

Following the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823), under the due process and equal protection under the law rights and justice for all; thus, Petitioner is entitled to the protection under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019), to set aside the 11/29/2022, “taking” of Petitioner’s real property that is located at 2064 Worcester Court, Columbus, Ohio 43232, which was “taken” without compensation, and without any mandatory and statutory required “Final Judicial Report” under Ohio Revised Code: O.R.C. § 2329.191(B)(7); and without any mandatory and statutory required and perfected “Certificate of Judgment or a Certified Copy of Judgment” under O.R.C. § 2329.02(H).

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019), under the due process and equal protection under the law rights and justice for all; thus, Petitioner is entitled to the U.S. Supreme Court to order the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Federal District Court of Northern District of Illinois to set aside the 11/29/2022, “taking” of Petitioner’s real property, and to expeditiously give back and restore to Petitioner his real property. Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823).

A “Supplemental Final Judicial Report” (Exhibit 7) attached in Appendix D is unconstitutional, wrongful, discriminatory, unlawful, draconian and unauthorized under the whole of American laws and statutes; consequently, the 11/29/2022, enforcement of the Supplemental Final Judicial Report against Petitioner and his real property, to usurp, seize, deprive, confiscate and “take” Petitioner’s real property without compensation is a prohibited “taking” in violation of the 5th Amendment Taking Clause and the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution, and a violation of Petitioner’s protected federal constitutional right.

The 11/29/2022, prohibited “taking” of Petitioner’s real property without compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment Taking Clause and the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution is “unamerican,” unconstitutional and prohibited. Where all other Courts failed to give back to Petitioner his real property; therefore, based on the attached evidentiary facts, existing federal laws and statutes, appellate Courts’ precedents, and the 5th and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court should restore and give back the real property to Petitioner. Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823).

Petitioner’s son: Former U.S. Marine Simeon Underhill Bihesi, was wrongfully killed on 09/02/2024, in Cook County, in Forest Park, in Chicago, in the State of Illinois, as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants; thereafter, Petitioner is continuously hunted down to be killed by Defendants. Petitioner demands the U.S. Supreme Court to follow in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430—431 (1823), to give back and restore to Petitioner his real property. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019).

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest Court of last resort in the federal and civil judiciary system of the United States of America. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. Federal Courts’ cases, and over all States Courts cases that turn on questions of U.S. constitutional or federal laws and statutes. It also has original jurisdiction over extraordinary writs, and those cases in which a State shall be Party. The lower Federal Courts lacked the power to disregard, ignore and reject that most importantly and of a particular regard, in 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted itself the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the U.S. Constitution.

In this case at bar, an invalid, draconian, under color of state law, wrongful, prejudicial, discriminatory, unauthorized, fabricated, unlawful and unconstitutional “Supplemental Final Judicial Report;” which was enforced on 11/29/2022, against Petitioner and his now deceased son, nullified and invalidated the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions and federal and Ohio laws and statutes, and O.R.C. § 2329, et seq., and violated a provision of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions and Bankruptcy Act.

There is no authority in the United States Supreme Court precedents and in the Supreme Court of Ohio’s precedents to rewrite the Ohio statute O.R.C. § 2329.02(H) (Exhibit 10) attached in Appendix D, and O.R.C. § 2329.191(B)(7) (Exhibit 11) attached in Appendix D, known as Ohio Revised Code to allow the 11/29/2022, enforcement of an invalid, draconian, unlawful, prejudicial, wrongful, under color of state law, fraudulent, fabricated, discriminatory, malicious, reckless, unauthorized and unconstitutional “Supplemental Final Judicial Report” (Exhibit 7) attached in Appendix D, against Petitioner and his son.

Currently, in the U.S. Supreme Court, each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases argued before the Court. When in the majority, the Chief Justice decides who writes the opinion of the Court; otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the task. In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019), the Chief Justice was assigned to write the opinion of the Court, and kept undisturbed the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823), to set aside the 11/29/2022, “taking” of Petitioner’s real property; and to order the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Federal District Court to restore and give back to Petitioner his real property; thus, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Federal District Court must comply.

The U.S. Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the Court of last resort for Petitioner and those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring the equal protection under the law and justice for all. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. The unauthorized and unconstitutional “Supplemental Final Judicial Report” violates the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

The U.S. Supreme Court had decided whether an Act of U.S. Congress or U.S. Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of Mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). The U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents are the law of the land. Defendants’ 11/29/2022, under color of state law, invalid, draconian, unconstitutional, discriminatory, prejudicial, unlawful, wrongful, unauthorized and lawless enforcement of the “Supplemental Final Judicial Report” against Petitioner and his son is an unconstitutional act not in accordance with the law, and violates the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

The lower Federal Courts lack the power to ignore, reject, refute, contradict, contravene and disregard that today, in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019) and Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430—431 (1823) are guiding, binding, instructive and controlling law of the land and precedents.

The U.S. Supreme Court established that any act that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution could not stand. Defendants’ 11/29/2022, enforcement of wrongful, draconian, under color of state law, discriminatory, unconstitutional, fabricated, unlawful, prejudicial and unauthorized “Supplemental Final Judicial Report” is an act that is contrary to both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions and cannot stand; hence, the U.S. Supreme Court established its authority to strike down Ohio laws found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ “Supplemental Final Judicial Report” is in violation of the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution and cannot be enforced against Petitioner and his real property.

While entering its decision, on 04/06/2026, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (see Appendix A) knew, should have known and disregarded the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430—431 (1823), and the 5th and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution and the instructive, binding and controlling U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019), which was decided on 06/21/2019; and in Cedar Point Nursery, et al. v. Hassid, et al., 594 U. S. (2021), which was decided 06/23/2021, which protect and guaranty Petitioner’s protected federal right to real property ownership, and which “cannot” be discriminatorily and prejudicially taken away or deprived to affect Petitioner, in violation of Petitioner’s protected federal right.

While entering its decision, 04/03/2026, the U.S. Federal District Court (see Appendix B) knew, should have known and disregarded the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823), and the 5th and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution and the instructive, binding and controlling U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019), which was decided on 06/21/2019; and in Cedar Point Nursery, et al. v. Hassid, et al., 594 U. S. (2021), which was decided 06/23/2021, which protect and guaranty Petitioner’s protected federal right to real property ownership, and which “cannot” be discriminatorily and prejudicially taken away or deprived to affect Petitioner, in violation of Petitioner’s protected federal right.

Therefore, to block prejudicially, unconstitutionally and discriminatory racial injustice against Petitioner under the rule of law and based on the evidentiary facts in the records; thus, being the highest Court of last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court should enter a Decision to expeditiously restore and give back to Petitioner his real property, in aid to its jurisdiction, see Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823), or alternatively should Order the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Federal District Court of Northern District of Illinois to expeditiously restore, return and give back to Petitioner his real property, in aid to its jurisdiction. Petitioner will “indefinitely” appear and fight before the U.S. Supreme Court “until” the U.S. Supreme Court restores, returns and gives back to Petitioner his real property, in aid to its jurisdiction. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019); Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430-431 (1823).

Defendant First American Title Insurance Company is a resident of the State of Illinois; consequently, Petitioner is entitled the right to sue Defendants in the State of Illinois. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ 04/06/2026, decision (see Appendix A), and the U.S. Federal District Court’s 04/03/2026, decision (see Appendix B) contradict, reject, disregard, contravene, ignore and conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019) and the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430—431 (1823); consequently, Petitioner lacks any adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

Petitioner’s real property was fraudulently, wrongfully, under color of state law, discriminatorily, prejudicially and unconstitutionally “taken” without compensation, on 11/29/2022, in violation of the 5th Amendment Taking Clause, to cause the 09/02/2024, wrongful death of Petitioner’s son (Appendix E), in Chicago; therefore, following the Court’s decision in Callender v. Marsh, 18 Mass. 418, 430- 431 (1823) and observing the Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al. 588 U. S.(2019), the U.S. Supreme Court established a precedent of last resort as follows: