In Re James Smythe

2 I. Is the U.S. Government’s Means ofito Detaining, Active Method(s) and 3 Form(s) of Custody, Ongoing Surveillance, and Enhanced Interrogation of 4 Petitioner a Violation of Petitioner’s First and or Fourth Amendment Rights? 5 IL Is the U.S. Government’s Means ofito Detaining, Active Method(s) and 6 Form(s) of Custody, Ongoing Surveillance, and Enhanced Interrogation of 7 Petitioner Cruel and Unusual Punishments Inflicted in Violation of Petitioner’s 8 Fifth, Sixth, and or Eighth Amendment Rights? 9 III. Is the U.S. Government’s Custody and or Custodial Treatment a 10 Violation of Petitioner’s Statutory Rights (viz., 18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C. § 1201, 11 18 U.S.C. § 2236; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521; 18 U.S.C. § 4001; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 12 U.S.C. § 2000dd, &c.)? 13 IV. What Article I Legislative Act(s) of Congress, Article II Executive Act(s) 14 of the President, and or Article III Order(s) of the Judiciary enabled, and are 15 currently sustaining, Petitioner’s Custody and Custodial Treatment? 16 V. What Article, Section, and Clause of the U.S. Constitution Grants Trial 17 or Appellate Court Judges the Lawful Authority or Permissible Discretion to 18 obstruct, preclude, or disclaim purview of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus by personally defining, and thereby judicially declaring against the grain 20 of alleged claims and available evidence, that a U.S. Citizen is not in U.S. 21 Government Custody (i.e. only by the unchecked personal belief(s) and ipse 22 dixit(s) of the Judge)? P. 1 1 VI. Did the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and or Court of 2 Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit violate stare decisis and or 3 vexatiously burden Petitioner’s Constitutional Right(s) by precluding his sole 4 pathway to resurrect his Civil Liberty(s) from Custody’s bond? 5 VII. Under this Court’s Doctrine of interpreting Pro Se pleadings with 6 benevolence, did the Court of Appeals itself have an independent Constitutional 7 or Lawful Duty to grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus or issue an Ordei’ to Show Cause 8 why the Writ should not be granted? 9 VIII. In what ways, and to what extent pursuant to each way named, if any, 10 does the Supreme Court acknowledge, assess, and or incorporate the applicable 11 and relevant letter and spirit of 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 12 et seq. in defining, interpreting, and applying this Court’s Pro Se Complaint 13 Doctrine? 14 IX. Is there Statutory Inadequacy in, or stare decisis deficiency regarding, 15 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254-2255—viz., “under sentence,” e.g.—that restrains or truncates 16 the necessary utility oi' plain meaning textual scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 such that, 17 in circumstances like those described herein, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and 18 thereby that which it affords, are suspended too far from reason’s reach? 19 X. In light of the Fifth Circuit granting Mandamus in In re Google LLC, Case 20 No. 25-40788 (5th Cir. 2026) to Control and Enforce Venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 21 1390-1413, did the District of Columbia Circuit create an impermissible or 22 untenable Circuit Split by denying Writ of Mandamus in Petitioner’s case? P. 2 1 XI. Does the Supreme Court recognize any point or threshold at which a 2 Judicial Act or Decision—or its ratio decidendi—becomes so arbitrary, absurd, 3 incongruous, or unreasonable, or so disagreeable, foreign, offensive, or contrary 4 to Natural Justice and or Law’s most Precious Principles that Absolute 5 Immunity—or the exigencies which require its sanctuary—becomes the greater 6 threat, offense, or harm to the Constitution than precisely that which Absolute 7 Immunity is declared to obviate, confront, or remedy? 8 XII. If all of the elements of judicial misconduct are established on behalf of 9 the two relevant lower courts (D.D.C. and D.C. Cir.) such that the nature, scale, 10 and or scope of bias and prejudice, and the substantial disadvantage(s) they 11 caused Petitioner, are irreversible and will necessarily infect any remanded 12 process with error of constitutional dimensions (i.e. remanding this matter to the 13 Federal District Court with jurisdiction precludes the possibility of fundamental 14 fairness), then does this Court create, de facto or de jure, a manifest miscarriage 15 of justice the District Court has no jurisdiction to surface and correct? 16 XIII. If the Supreme Court decides to hold an evidentiary hearing in the 17 above-named case, or appoints a Special Master to do so, then would Rule 28.8 18 bar and or prohibit Petitioner as a non-attorney proceeding Pro Se from necessary 19 oral argument and or hearing participation? If so, is this evidence and or proof 20 that Rule 28.8 omits and or lacks a necessary exemption clause for extraordinary 21 circumstances that are reasonably foreseeable (i.e. is Rule 28.8 inadequate and 22 or unconstitutional as it currently stands)? P. 3 1 PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES 2 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 12.6 and 14.1, Pro Se Petitioner, James 3 F. Smythe, submits the following certification: 4 A. Parties 5 Petitioner is James F. Smythe. 6 Respondents are Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), Defense 7 Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”), Department of Defense 8 (“DOD”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Federal Bureau of 9 Investigation (“FBI”), National Aeronautics and Space Administration 10 (“NASA”), and National Security Agency (“NSA”). 11 B. Rulings and Related Cases 12 I. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s (“D.D.C.”)— 13 Chief Judge James E. Boasberg presiding—a priori determinations 14 denying Mr. Smythe’s Motions/Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 15 II. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s 16 (“D.C. Cir.”)—Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Gregory G. Katsas, and 17 Bradley N. Garcia presiding—Denial of Mr. Smythe’s petition for Writ of 18 Mandamus requesting the enforcement, and or independent granting, of 19 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 20 III. This case relates to D.C. Cir. Case Nos. 26-5302 and 26-5166. This 21 case also relates to D.D.C. Case Nos. 25-cv-02778-JEB, 25-cv-02780- 22 JEB, and 25-CV-02781-JEB. P. 4