Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability

Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY
To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement of facts
described in item 4 (below). The Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings,
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on what to include
in a complaint (Rule 6), where to file a complaint (Rule 7), and other important matters. The
Rules are available in federal court clerks’ offices, on individual federal courts’ Web sites,
including www.ca4.uscourts.gov, and on www.uscourts.gov.
Your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be typewritten and must be legible.
,IILOLQJE\HPDLO\RXUFRPSODLQWDQGDQ\DWWDFKPHQWVPXVWEHLQ3')IRUPDW Please email to
4CCA-JudicialComplaints@ca4.uscourts.gov.
In the alternative you can mail it to Clerk, United States Court of Appeals, 1100 East Main
Street, Suite 501, Richmond, VA 23219-3517. Do not put the name of any judge on the
envelope. Only the original is required to be filed if mailed.
Brian David Hill
1. Name of Complainant: _________________________________________
Contact Address: 310 Forest Street

_________________________________________
Apartment 2
_________________________________________
City, State, Zip: Martinsville, Virginia 24112

_________________________________________
Email address: c/o: Roberta Hill at rbhill67@comcast.net

_________________________________________
Daytime telephone: ( _____ 790-3505

276 ) ____________________________
2. Name(s) of Judge(s): Thomas David Schroeder, William Lindsey Osteen Jr.

________________________________________
Court: Middle District of North Carolina

_________________________________________
3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge(s) in a particular lawsuit or
lawsuits?
[ ✔ ] Yes [ ] No
If “yes,” give the following information about each lawsuit:
Middle District of North Carolina
Court: ___________________________________________________
1:13-cr-435-1, 1:17-CV-1036
Case Number: _____________________________________________
19-7755, 20-6034, 20-7737
Docket number of any appeals to the Fourth Circuit: ___________________
Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit?
[ ✔ ] Party [ ] Lawyer [ ] Neither
Page 1 of 2
If you are (were) a party and have (had) a lawyer, give the lawyer’s name, address, and
telephone number:
Was not appointed a lawyer in 2255 civil case
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
4. Brief Statement of Facts. Attach a brief statement of the specific facts on which the
claim of judicial misconduct or disability is based. Include what happened, when and
where it happened, and any information that would help an investigator check the facts. If
the complaint alleges judicial disability, also include any additional facts that form the
basis of that allegation.
5. Declaration and signature:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this complaint are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
(Signature)__________________________________ 10/25/2021
(Date)__________________
Page 2 of 2
COMPLAINT DATED OCTOBER 25, 2021
In The
United States Court of Appeals

For The Fourth Circuit
STATEMENT OF FACTS REGARDING

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Brian David Hill – Ally of QAnon

Founder of USWGO Alternative News
310 Forest Street, Apt. 2
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
(276) 790-3505
Pro Se Appellant JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com

JusticeForUSWGO.NL/Pardon
Filed October 25, 2021, through c/o Roberta Hill by rbhill67@comcast.net
i
I. INTRODUCTION AND RULE 35(b)(1) STATEMENT
Petitioner Brian David Hill (“Petitioner”) requests investigation and the
appropriate sanctions by this Judicial Council against the foregoing Judge(s) listed in
the foregoing Statement of Facts and the COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY submitted to the Judicial Council of the Fourth
Circuit on October 25, 2021, by the c/o Roberta Hill by the email address of
rbhill67@comcast.com filing this complaint to the Judicial Council on Petitioner’s
behalf.
This is pursuant to the authority of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of
1980 (“Act”), under 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, and Rules for Judicial-Conduct and
Judicial-Disability Proceedings (“Rules”), as amended on March 12, 2019.
Here are the statements of FACTS referencing the Exhibits attached thereto.
All are included in the PDF files submitted in the email by Roberta Hill. Petitioner
cannot use email due to his federal probation conditions and does not use the internet,
but his family member can email documents to the Federal Courts and Administrative
Offices when authorized to do such (such as when the Court or Council allows a
document or complaint to be emailed instead of mailed in paper form). Such as for
example Roberta Hill emailing the monthly probation reports to Brian Hill’s
Probation Officer or filing in the Virginia Courts electronic filing system to conduct
1
authorized court business on behalf of Brian David Hill.
Here are the Statement of Facts as to why this COMPLAINT and all attached
Exhibits should be thoroughly investigated as to why Judge William Lindsey Osteen
Junior, and Thomas David Schroeder may have committed misconduct or disability
in the performance of their duties under the color of law. If the Judges have ever
engaged in any criminal activity and it may ever be proven, then those Judges should
be sanctioned and given the appropriate punishment if such criminal activities are
ever proven. Especially if Attorney L. Lin Wood’s public statement regarding the
blackmail videos are proven true.
1. Judge Thomas David Schroeder refuses to enforce the Local Rule 7.3
equally upon his Court on all officers of the Court and all parties. That rule
was passed by the Local Rule-making committee for the Middle District of
North Carolina. Local Rule 7.3 says outright that any valid motions with
briefs which were uncontested, meaning undisputed, are ordinarily granted
by the Court without further notice. When a judge enbforces that rule on
Petitioner but not the Respondent to ensure equal footing, that shows
partiality, selective enforcement of the Court’s own rules, or both. It is
discrimination when Petitioner is directed to file a response to the U.S.
Attorney’s motion in 21 days as prescribed by presumably Local Rule 7.3
(See pages 3-5 of EXHIBIT INDEX, known as EXHIBIT 1), and that if
Petitioner doesn’t respond by the deadline, then the Respondent’s
contentions are undisputed, and the Court may rule against Petitioner
2
against him (See EXHIBIT 1). However, when six of Petitioner’s
contentions in his motions are uncontested and undisputed as a matter of
law and/or matter of fact, his motions are discriminately DENIED and then
wrongfully labeled as meritless and frivolous even though Petitioner’s
uncontested motions were well evidenced, well-grounded in the law. The
uncontested motions filed in case no. 1:13-cr-435-1 during the pending civil
2255 action were docketed under Documents #151, #169, #199, #206,
#217, #222.
Citation of LR 7.3 MOTION PRACTICE; paragraphs (f) and (k):
(f) Response to Motion and Brief. The respondent, if opposing a motion, shall file a
response, including brief, within 21 days after service of the motion (30 days if the
motion is for summary judgment; see LR 56.1(d)) (14 days if the motion relates to
discovery; see LR 26.2 and LR 37.1). If supporting documents are not then
available, the respondent may move for an extension of time in accordance with
section (g) of this rule. For good cause appearing therefor, a respondent may be
required to file any response and supporting documents, including brief, within
such shorter period of time as the Court may specify
(k) Failure to File and Serve Motion Papers. The failure to file a brief or response
within the time specified in this rule shall constitute a waiver of the right thereafter
to file such brief or response, except upon a showing of excusable neglect. A
motion unaccompanied by a required brief may, in the discretion of the Court, be
summarily denied. A response unaccompanied by a required brief may, in the
discretion of the Court, be disregarded and the pending motion may be considered
and decided as an uncontested motion. If a respondent fails to file a response
within the time required by this rule, the motion will be considered and decided as
an uncontested motion, and ordinarily will be granted without further notice.
2. Judge Thomas David Schroeder’s unconstitutional and/or unethical
discrimination is obvious. The rules and laws are enforced on Petitioner
Brian David Hill, but those same rules and laws are not enforced upon the
3
U.S. Attorney Office in the exact same case and in the exact same way. The
Local Rule 7.3 did in fact say that uncontested motions with briefs with
undisputed claims and evidence exhibits are ordinarily granted without
further notice. So, the Petitioner is compelled by the Rules to respond or
lose the case or that the motion is granted in the Respondent’s/Movant’s
favor. Yet when Respondent refuses to respond at all, there are no sanctions
against the Respondent and neither any legal victories for Petitioner. This
doesn’t make any sense that the rules are all being conducted on a one-sided
basis, a one side scale which is broken justice. No Federal Judge is
supposed to have a one-sided Courtroom or a one-sided litigation always
favorable to the U.S. Attorney Office. That isn’t following the U.S.
Constitution’s legal standard that all judges and triers of fact (jurists) must
always remain impartial throughout a civil case and/or criminal case. It is a
Judge’s obligation under 28 U.S. Code § 455 to recuse himself/herself from
a case when exhibiting any symptoms of a “personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party”, or “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding”; as well as any proceeding in which his
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned”. Judge Schroeder had
refused to recuse himself but instead had doubled down and exhibited more
discriminatory or biased or prejudice type behavior. Impartiality no longer
exists in the civil case of Brian David Hill v. United States of America
under civil case no. 1:17-CV-1036, and criminal case no. 1:13-cr-435-1.
4
Petitioner tried to resolve the issue first by filing the Document #195:
“MOTION entitled "Motion to Disqualify Judge" filed by BRIAN DAVID
HILL. Responses due by 10/21/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope - Front
and Back) (Civil Case number: 17CV1036) (Garland, Leah) (Entered:
10/01/2019)”. The Judge denied that motion and remained in the case while
further conducting discriminatory and/or prejudice and/or bias type
behavior against Petitioner. It is discriminatory when the Court’s own Local
Rules prescribed and had been passed by the Rule-making committee is
only enforced on civil Petitioners in a civil/criminal 2255 case but is not
being enforced equally on all officers of the Court who were trained as
lawyers to obey all rules of the Court. That any rules not obeyed can lead
to sanctions. This judge refuses to sanction an officer of the Court who
defrauded the court and refuses to enforce the same Local Rules on the
officer of the Court, the same rules enforced on Petitioner. It is
discriminatory when a Judge always takes the side of the U.S. Attorney
Office. Judge Schroeder does not always take the side of the U.S. Probation
Officer when that officer does not lie about Petitioner under oath. For
example, When United States Probation Officer Kristy L. Burton had lied
on the stand in Federal Court on June 30, 2015, in front of Judge Thomas
David Schroeder, See Document Declaration — Document #137, “"fifth
Additional Evidence Declaration" filed by BRIAN DAVID HILL re
128 Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3

5
Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8
Certificate of Service, # 9 Envelope - Front and Back) (Civil Case
number: 17CV1036) (Garland, Leah) (Entered: 12/06/2017)”. Judge
Schroeder was okay with her perjury, permitted her perjury before his Court
even though perjury is defrauding the court aka fraud on the court. Yet
when U.S. Probation Officer Jason McMurray of Roanoke, Virginia, had
testified under oath on September 12, 2019, he was treated differently than
with Kristy L. Burton. The Judge didn’t like how Jason McMurray would
not lie on the stand against Brian David Hill. In fact, Jason McMurray’s
testimony in 2019 was treated less important or more differently than the
testimony of Kristy L. Burton in 2015. His discrimination has injured
Petitioner repeatedly (over and over again) over the years, that Petitioner
felt that he had no choice, no other recourse but to file a Petition in the U.S.
Supreme Court requesting Writs of Mandamus and/or Prohibition to nullify
all of Judge Schroeder’s excesses in jurisdiction by his defective orders.
See Exhibit 2. Exhibit pages 6-59.
3. It is obvious that something is wrong here, that Judge Schroeder has ignored
the Local Rules of his own Court when favorable to Petitioner, but always
wishes to enforce the rules on Petitioner with any possible threats of
sanctions if Petitioner files anything not well-grounded in law. So, his Court
is always set to punish Petitioner and threaten to punish Petitioner, keep
throwing him in jail over and over again, while allowing the Corrupt U.S.
6
Attorney Office to break Court Rules, defraud the Court repeatedly, and/or
just not follow Court Rules. This Judge even allowed repeated patterns of
fraud to be perpetuated upon his Court and its record. So, he will allow one
lie after another, one fraud after another against Petitioner. Then not allow
Petitioner to prove otherwise even when he has the proof of his claims.
Either not allow Petitioner to prove otherwise or just not accept otherwise.
Petitioner’s uncontested motions under Documents #151, #169, #199,
#206, #217, #222. All were filed in the civil 2255 case but were not actually
filed in the docket of civil case no. 1:17-CV-1036 itself but was mainly
used as a reference civil case number but kept all civil 2255 case filings
under criminal case no. 1:13-cr-435-1. So, the documents can be found
there but were filed in the 2255 case and/or while the 2255 civil case was
pending at that time. It is obvious that this Judge is ignoring the law when
favorable to a criminal defendant and 2255 case civil Petitioner. It is all
one-sided which warrants automatic recusal under 28 U.S. Code § 455.
However, he refuses to leave the case, refuses to leave residing over
Petitioner’s criminal case and any 2255 motions Petitioner may ever file in
the future. Judge Schroeder controls the entire case and continues injuring
Petitioner over and over again without any means of relief or remedy. See
Document #195, Motion to Disqualify/Recuse.
4. The misconduct or disability is simple. Judge Schroeder does exhibit
selective enforcement of the rules and laws, prejudice, bias, and/or

7
discrimination against Brian David Hill the Petitioner. Judge Schroeder
knows that Petitioner has Autism Spectrum Disorder a mental disability and
yet has repeatedly and actively discriminated against Petitioner which
violates his Federal Civil Rights. This discrimination is odd and is not the
normal behavior of a rule enforcing and law obeying Federal Judge. Which
leads Petitioner to the remaining statement of facts below which Petitioner
would like to file in this COMPLAINT requesting investigation,
intervention, and possibly prosecution against the Hon. Thomas David
Schroeder, and/or the Hon. William Lindsey Osteen Junior. This is where
both judges come in and the investigation needs to be conducted to resolve
the issue which will be cited below. Judge Schroeder ignores the Actual
Innocence exception to AEDPA under the U.S. Supreme Court’s
controlling law of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, (2013). Judge
Schroeder ignores the inherit or implied powers of Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32 (1991); when favorable to the Petitioner. Judge Schroeder
ignored the jury trial right in the ruling of United States v. Haymond, 588
U.S. ___ (2019). His discrimination is obvious that he does not want
Petitioner to ever be afforded any legal victories in which can relieve
Petitioner of being defrauded against, of having the fraudulent criminal
conviction overturned. This Judge does not want to follow the Haymond
decision of giving Petitioner a jury trial for his supervised release violation.
He completely ignores the Supreme Court case laws when they are not
8
favorable to the U.S. Attorney Office. It is all discriminatory and Petitioner
does not see how he had not shown this in just this one COMPLAINT. It is
discrimination which violates Federal Criminal Code such as deprivation
of due process of law, and impartiality of all jurists. When any judge or
official attempts to deprive an American citizen of his constitutional and
civil rights under the color of law, then even a Federal Judge is violating
criminal code such as Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law under
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242. The U.S. Department of Justice had
argued that this Federal Law includes judges as well. Petitioner’s family
gave him the link to cite in this COMPLAINT such as:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Citation of TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 and Department of Justice’s
interpretation of the law cited herein:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law
to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only
done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts
done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while
the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official
duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include
police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as
judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as
public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward
the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the
victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term,
or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the
9
resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully
subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt
to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years
or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
ATTORNEY L. LIN WOOD’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF OFFICIALS

AND JUDGES ENGAGED IN BEING TARGETS OF BLACKMAIL
VIDEOTAPE RECORDINGS OF ALLEGED CHILD RAPE AND MURDER
Disclaimer: Brian David Hill the Petitioner does not have access to the physical
or digital blackmail videotapes mentioned by Attorney L. Lin Wood. It is
obvious that Attorney L. Lin Wood had proclaimed that he has the access to the
physical or digital blackmail videotapes. He cannot review over the blackmail
footage as that may violate federal law by viewing such material as videotapes
of child rape may constitute child pornography by legal definition, however this
evidence of the blackmail videotapes is retained by this attorney according to
his claim, and he claimed to keep them under an encryption key and is careful
as to who he will disclose the encryption key to. This Judicial Council should
take note that any claims regarding L. Lin Wood by the Petitioner are of only
10
of Petitioner’s assumptions or perceptions of what Attorney Lin Wood had
claimed himself on Twitter or any other public statement in regards to
blackmail. Petitioner does not know which judges or officials are on the
blackmail videotapes but had inquired as to whether any of the Federal Judges
involved in Petitioner’ case could have been involved in the blackmail tapes or
is not involved in the blackmail tapes.
5. It is obvious that when a Federal Judge does not wish to conduct
impartiality and he is allowing a repeated pattern of fraud upon his Court
which contaminates the entire record as questionable and non-credible. It
is obvious when actual discrimination occurs where a Judge cannot and will
not afford equal protection under the laws, will not provide equal
application of the Court’s local rules, and will not provide equal application
of the law. It is obvious when a Federal Judge is depriving Petitioner of his
Constitutional and Legal rights including Due Process of Law guaranteed
by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Court’s local rules under the color
of law. It is obvious that something is wrong here and that the fraud goes
deeper than just the U.S. Attorney Office. The fraud goes beyond just the
U.S. Attorney Office. It is possible collusion with the fraudster and
subornation of a perjurer. Working together to keep the fraud going.
6. This leads me to produce to this Judicial Council, a copy of a letter filed
with the U.S. District Court Clerk’s office. A 16-page letter regarding the
service of the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition on the

11
Judges Hon. William Lindsey Osteen Junior, Hon. Thomas David
Schroeder, and Hon. Magistrate Joe L. Webster. See Exhibit 3, Exhibit
Index pages 60-76. It doesn’t just serve the purpose to service the three
copies of the Mandamus relief petitions with the Clerk’s office to forward
to the appropriate Judges of the Court, but also to assert the tweets of
Attorney L. Lin Wood, asserting that any of the Court’s judges may or may
not be blackmailed with child rape and murder.
7. Attorney L. Lin Wood had claimed publicly that “the blackmail targets are
approached with a gun, a child, & a camera. The target is ordered to rape
the child on video. The target is then ordered to shoot the child on video.
The target is then owned & controlled by the blackmailers until blackmail
evidence loses its value.” Statement made on 2:22 AM - Jan 4, 2021.
8. Attorney L. Lin Wood had claimed publicly that “Many issues in our world
may be tied to blackmail scheme I described tonight, including bizarre
behavior of officials & judges in recent election. @realDonaldTrump
must appoint special prosecutor to thoroughly investigate. We need
answers. We must investigate. For the children.”
9. Attorney L. Lin Wood did mention the word “judges” in regard to the child
rape and murder blackmail scheme. Petitioner was angry that Roger Stone
failed to have U.S. President Donald John Trump to grant him a full
unconditional pardon to reverse the wrongful conviction by Hon. Thomas
12
David Schroeder prior to leaving office in January, 2021, Petitioner filed a
letter with Attorney L. Lin Wood inquiring on the blackmail videotapes.
Asking if certain named individuals were being possibly blackmailed with
child rape and murder. The names in such inquiry letter with Lin Wood are
the named suspects of Chief Judge Thomas David Schroder, and former
Chief Judge William Lindsey Osteen Junior of the Middle District of North
Carolina, as well as other named individuals. See Exhibit 4, pages 77-85
of Exhibits Index. They are only suspects in that letter and Petitioner was
inquiring to see if they could be in the blackmail scheme videotapes. Some
of the claims made in that letter may sound crazy but Petitioner did receive
anonymous text messages including threatening text messages meant to
intimidate and made claims and somehow knew things that could not have
been possibly known publicly, so Petitioner assumed it may be the
Government intelligence agencies named in that letter. That’s off-topic but
the main issues in this COMPLAINT are Petitioner’s request and inquiry
to Attorney L. Lin Wood to inquire as to whether the Hon. William L.
Osteen Junior and Hon. Thomas David Schroeder may or may not be in the
claimed blackmail tapes.
10. Attorney L. Lin Wood had not sent a written response to that letter in
Exhibit 4 and no response had ever been made by Attorney L. Lin Wood
in response to that Exhibit 4 letter as far as to the knowledge of Petitioner.
So, Lin Wood is not confirming or denying whether or not the Federal
13
Judges named, and other individuals may or may not be in the blackmail
videotapes of child rape and murder. The blackmail scheme mentioned and
described by Attorney L. Lin Wood in his various tweets referenced in the
Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 letters.
11. Petitioner does not have subpoena power. Petitioner does not have supreme
investigative powers compared to that of a Law Enforcement Agency.
Petitioner does not have the powers of the U.S. Attorney Office. Petitioner
does not have the power and authority to compel Attorney L. Lin Wood to
answer Petitioner’s inquiry on whether any of the individuals involved in
his criminal case may or may not be in the blackmail videotapes.
12. The Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit may have the subpoena power,
the investigator(s) can serve a subpoena or Warrant or Order on Attorney
L. Lin Wood to produce any records or videos involving whether the Hon.
William L. Osteen Junior and Hon. Thomas David Schroeder may or may
not be in the claimed scheme of the blackmail tapes mentioned by Lin
Wood in his tweets.
13. Lin Wood’s statements regarding judges and officials are vague. They do
not restrict itself to simply one level of Government here. It can mean
Federal, State or Local. It can mean Federal Judges, State Judges, or Local
Judges. It can include any class of politicians or Judges. That is why
Petitioner is making sure to mention the Lin Wood blackmail claim and
14
information in this COMPLAINT, because an investigation is needed and
warranted in this situation. Especially “for the children”.
14. The Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit can compel an order to mandate
that Attorney L. Lin Wood turn over all blackmail videotapes to determine
whether the Hon. William L. Osteen Junior and Hon. Thomas David
Schroeder may or may not be in the claimed blackmail video tapes, and
whether they may or may not be in such videotapes.
15. In the event if it is ever proven as to whether the Hon. William L. Osteen
Junior and Hon. Thomas David Schroeder may or may not be in the claimed
blackmail tapes, then this creates a serious issue regarding an officer of the
Court being possibly engaged in criminal activity so heinous that law
enforcement must arrest those Federal Judges if they had ever been placed
in such a blackmail scheme operation where they could have been
compelled to rape a child which is statutory rape, and murder the child
which is murder of a child. Both are serious crimes, and one is considered
a SEX OFFENSE when the murder of the child was done after the rape, it
aggravates the sexual offense of rape of a minor.
16. Petitioner is attempting to figure out whether both named Judges were
being blackmailed because that would explain why Petitioner kept failing
in his criminal case, why his civil 2255 case didn’t work out.
17. It is the biggest fraud on the Court when a judge may have been bribed,
15
blackmailed, or threatened into making an adverse decision in a criminal
and/or civil case. In fact, it deprives a Federal Court of due process of law,
and entitles the victim to relief and remedy, no matter what. It deprives a
Federal Court of jurisdiction; it is in absence of lawful jurisdiction.
18. Petitioner only wishes to file this COMPLAINT to attempt to prove
whether the Hon. William L. Osteen Junior and Hon. Thomas David
Schroeder may or may not be in the claimed blackmail tapes since Attorney
L. Lin Wood’s claim of judges being blackmailed are so vague that it can
include any Judge inside of the United States of America. Petitioner would
like this ongoing issue to be resolved once and for all. If those judges were
blackmailed, then the Judicial Council should inquire as to when this may
have happened, and whether Brian David Hill’s cases were affected
negatively against Brian David Hill as a result of the blackmail if it exists.
Attorney L. Lin Wood claimed to have this evidence and mentions about
the need for a Special Prosecutor to review over the blackmail videotapes.
The Judicial Council can save innocent lives and hold the blackmailed
Judges accountable by investigating the STATEMENT OF FACTS of this
COMPLAINT. Investigating the Exhibits and finding out directly from
Attorney L. Lin Wood which Federal or State Judges may be blackmailed
with child rape and murder concerning possibly the Middle District of
North Carolina and/or possibly other United States Court Districts within
the Fourth Circuit.

16
Morally it is the right thing to do for the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit to
investigate all Statement of FACTS, as well as the Exhibits, and how it pertains to
this COMPLAINT. It is of moral obligation to take action on this COMPLAINT.
The Attorney L. Lin Wood can be contacted and subpoenaed at the following:
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.

1180 West Peachtree Street, Ste. 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30355‐0584
Telephone: (404) 891‐1402
Facsimile: (404) 506‐9111
Email: lwood@linwoodlaw.com
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons stated above, the Petitioner urges this Judicial
Council to investigate Petitioner’s COMPLAINT and examine the Exhibits, as well
as contacting Attorney L. Lin Wood to make a determination on whether any
Federal Judges involved in any District of the United States District Court within
the Fourth Circuit regions could be involved in a blackmail videotape described by
Attorney Lin Wood.
Council to investigate Petitioner’s COMPLAINT and examine the Exhibits, to
determine if the Hon. Thomas David Schroeder and/or Hon. William Lindsey
Osteen Junior were ever engaging in bias, prejudice, discrimination, and partiality
behavior where it can reasonably be questioned.

17
Council to investigate Petitioner’s COMPLAINT and examine the Exhibits, to
determine if the Hon. Thomas David Schroeder and/or Hon. William Lindsey
Osteen Junior may or may not be involved in any of the blackmail videotapes
mentioned by Attorney L. Lin Wood.
Council to take any other appropriate actions to remedy the situation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: October 25, 2021
BRIAN DAVID HILL

Pro Se
Brian David Hill – Ally of Qanon

Founder of USWGO Alternative
News
(276) 790-3505
Pro Se Appellant
JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
18
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 25th day of October, 2021, I caused this
COMPLAINT; STATEMENT OF FACTS; and EXHIBITS to be served by
c/o Roberta Hill through her email address rbhill67@comcast.net upon the
following Attorney(s) and Court Official(s):
Attorney L. Lin Wood

L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
Atlanta, GA 30309
P.O. Box 52584
Telephone: (404) 891‐1402
Facsimile: (404) 506‐9111

4CCA-JudicialComplaints@ca4.uscourts.gov
United States Court of Appeals
1100 East Main Street
Suite 501
Richmond, VA 23219-3517
Brian David Hill – Ally of Qanon

Founder of USWGO Alternative
News
(276) 790-3505
Pro Se Appellant
19
EXHIBIT PAGE 1
EXHIBIT LIST
For the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit in reference to:
COMPLAINT files by Brian David Hill on October 25, 2021.
EXHIBIT PAGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
LETTER FROM US DISTRICT COURT CLERK

entered November 12, 2014…........................................................................... 3
COPY OF SUPREME COURT PETITION

LETTER TO US DISTRICT COURT CLERK

LETTER TO ATTORNEY L. LIN WOOD RE:

BLACKMAIL VIDEOTAPES
EXHIBIT PAGE 3
EXHIBIT 1
for
Filed on October 25, 2021
by Brian David Hill
EXHIBIT PAGE 4
United States District Court

Middle District of North Carolina
324 W. Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401-2544
John S. Brubaker, Clerk TELEPHONE: (336) 332-6000
January 10, 2018
BRIAN DAVID HILL

310 FOREST STREET, APT. 2
MARTINSVILLE, VA 24112
Re: Case: 17CV1036/13CR435; HILL v. USA
Dear BRIAN DAVID HILL:
The respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss on 1/10/2018, which may or may not be supported
by an affidavit.
You have the right to file a 20-page response in opposition to the respondent's motion. Your
response may be accompanied by counter affidavits or you may submit other responsive
material. Ordinarily, uncontested motions are granted. Therefore, your failure to respond or, if
appropriate, to file counter affidavits or evidence in rebuttal within the allowed time may cause
the court to conclude that the respondent's contentions are undisputed. As a result, the court may
dismiss your suit or render judgment against you. Therefore, unless you file a response in
opposition to the respondent's motion, it is likely your case will be dismissed or summary
judgment will be granted in favor of the respondent. Any response or counter affidavits or other
responsive material to a Motion to Dismiss must be filed within 21 days from the date of service
of the respondent's motion upon you.
Any response you file should be accompanied by a brief containing a concise statement of
reasons for your opposition and a citation of authorities upon which you rely. You are reminded
that affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, contain facts admissible in evidence and be
made by one shown to be competent to testify. A false statement under oath or under penalty of
perjury may be a crime punishable as provided by law.
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 142 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT PAGE 5
The original of your response should be mailed to this office and a copy served upon the
respondent. Any pleadings presented to this court for filing must be accompanied by a certificate
stating that you have served copies on the respondents.
Sincerely,
JOHN S. BRUBAKER, CLERK
By: /s/Leah Garland

Deputy Clerk
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 142 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT PAGE 6
EXHIBIT 2
for
by Brian David Hill
EXHIBIT PAGE 7
Supreme Court, US
FILED
OCT 0 S 2021
21-6038
No.21-
OFFICE OF THF Pi fek-
Kn ®fje
Supreme Court ©f ®fje 3Sntteb States
In Re: BRIAN DAVID HILL,
Petitioner,
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition to

the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS OR PROHmiTION
Brian David Hill

ProSe
Ally of QANON, and General Flynn
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel.: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: Nn Fmail
irs.w.G.o. Friend of justice for all

Dated: October 12. 2021
** JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
%£ k; JusticeForUSWGO.NL,
9" USWGO.com
EXHIBIT PAGE 8
I. Questions Presented
Where the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina had systematically and
repeatedly deprived a Petitioner of Due Process of
Law under the Constitution, allow the multitudes of
Fraud on the Court upon its record and repeatedly
refused to correct its record after the proven fraud
upon its record proven by the Uncontested Motions of
the Petitioner?
Where the U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of
Appeals have acted autonomously by ignoring the
Supreme Court case law authorities, controlling case
law. Not just repeatedly ignoring or disregarding
evidence, witnesses, and proper legal rules and
procedures to bully an innocent man for years?
Where the U.S. District Court had deprived the
Petitioner of rights guaranteed and enumerated by
United States Constitution and of the U.S. Supreme
Court (“SCOTUS”) by bucking this highest Court’s
authoritative laws of the Court, acting in
REBELLION against SCOTUS?
ii
EXHIBIT PAGE 9
Where the U.S. Court of Appeals had repeatedly
over ten times had protected the repeated
Constitutional violations of law and Due Process
violations by rubber stamping every appeal to be
favorable to the offending District Court and always
favorable to the prosecuting attorney of the United
States of America?
Where the U.S. Court of Appeals knew that the
SCOTUS had ruled differently regarding different
matters concerning Constitutional rights such as (#1)
the right to a Jury Trial for Federal Supervised
Release Violation charges carrying imprisonment
terms; (#2) such as the right for a criminal defendant
and 2255 Petitioner to bring forth the ground of
Actual Innocence to overcome a one year statute of
limitations time bar; (#3) such as regarding the
inherit or implied powers concerning valid
uncontested or proven Fraud on the Court claims?
Where both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the
U.S. District Court had acted in REBELLION against
SCOTUS authoritative case laws not just once but
iii
EXHIBIT PAGE 10
multiple times and so remedy cannot be obtained in
the lower Courts anymore or any further?
Where the “due process of law” clause of the
U.S. Constitution, Amendment V, is being deprived
and ignored by the U.S. District Court in the Middle
district of North Carolina and the supervisory Court
known as the U.S. Court of Appeals by denying
uncontested Hazel Atlas motions?
Where the errors have piled up throughout the
U.S. District Court criminal case, 2255 civil case, and
have done nothing to correct the fraud. They have
done nothing to correct the errors, and they have done
nothing to correct their autonomous decisions
contrary to SCOTUS on multiple occasions. Will the
Supreme Court grant extraordinary relief to strike
down those null and void decisions?
Where relief cannot be obtained by direct
appeal, by Habeas Corpus, by the Court’s inherit or
implied powers? Where no relief can be obtained at all
no matter what evidence, witnesses, and expert
witnesses is ever offered or submitted?
iv
EXHIBIT PAGE 11
Where the bias and prejudice are well within
the record of the District Court, that the treatment
and respect for U.S. Probation Officer Jason
McMurray the truthful officer differs from the
treatment and respect of U.S. Probation Officer
Kristy L. Burton the perjurer?
Where due process had been completely
deprived with no fairness, no impartiality under the
adversarial system?
Where both Courts are engaging in excess of
jurisdiction by depriving Petitioner of due process
systematically as it is shown on the record how it is
systematically being conducted?
Where both Courts are systematically ignoring
evidence and witnesses when favorable to the
criminal defendant even when the Federal Criminal
Prosecutor's evidence which was reviewed by the
Grand Jury actually may also be favorable to the
criminal defendant that it also gets ignored and
disregarded by both Courts acting in rebellion against
common sense and the law?

EXHIBIT PAGE 12
II. Table of Contents

I
»•
I. Questions Presented............................................ ii
II. Table of Contents................................................ v
III. Table of Authorities.......................................... VI
IV. Petition for Writ Of Certiorari..................... 1
V. Opinions Below..................................................... 5
VT. Jurisdiction........................................................... 7
VII. Constitutional Provisions Involved......... 8
VIII. Statement of the Case.................................. 8
1. All unlawful, null and void judgments
acting in excess of jurisdiction............................. 13
2. The Court of Appeals, which is the
supervisory Court refuses to hold the U.S.
District Court accountable under any appeal
and refuses to Order and Remand anything;
even if well-grounded in law and fact............... 17
IX. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .. 24
A. To hold the District Court and Appeals
Court accountable for Not following the
Laws, Not Following SCOTTJS authoritative
case laws; acting in repeated excess of
jurisdiction.................................................................... 24
B. To keep in uniformity with all Courts, the
Supreme Court needs to make an example
out of the District Court and the Fourth
Circuit Appeals Court to make sure that
they fully comply with the decisions of this
Supreme Court. That they cannot render
decisions contrary to this Supreme Court....... 29
C. No other adequate remedy is available...... 33
X. CONCLUSION...................................................... 34
vi
EXHIBIT PAGE 13
III. Table of Authorities
Cases
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 49Q U.S. 296
309
(1989)
United States v. Havmond. 533 U.S (2019) 15
19, 20, 27
Chambers v, Nascn Tnc 501 ITS 32
(1991) 24
Hazel-Atlas Olass On. v Hart/ford-Rmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238
(1944)
24
Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4t.b Cir.
2014) (en
banc).
22, 35
Rolling v Sharpe 347 U.S 497
(1954) 27
Johnson y Zerhst 304 U.S. 458 S Ct.1019
(1938) 26
Klugh v. U.S. 620 F Supp 892 (D.S.C
1985) 26
vii
EXHIBIT PAGE 14
Marshall v. Jerrico 100 S. Ct. 1610. 446 U.S. 238
(19801 25
Bradv v. Maryland. 373 U.S. 83 (19631
17,18
Giglio v, United States. 405 IT.fi. 150 (19721
17
Strickland v Washington 466 U.S. 668 (19841
17
In re Mnrchinson 349 ILS. 133 136
(19551
25
Hanson v Denckla. 357 US 235. 2 L Ed 2d 1283. 78 S Ct 1228 (19581
25
OTP WAYNE MIJT. L. ASSOC, v. McDonough, 204 IT. S. 8,27
S Ct,. 236 (19071
26
Giglio v, United States 405 U.S 150
(19721 18
Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2D 241, 245, 140 N.E
2D 289
viii
EXHIBIT PAGE 15
(1956)
26
Donsley v United States 523 ILS 614
(19861 21, 35
Murray v, Carrier, 477 IIS. 476
(1966) 21, 35
McQniggin v\ Perkins 569 ITS 363
(20131 21, 35
Schlup v, Dein 513 11 S 296
(19951 21
House v Pell 547 IL S 516
(2006) 21
Herrera v Collins 506 IT. S. 390 -405
(1993) 21
Hallherg v. (roldhlatt Pros., 363 Ill 25
(1936) 26
Rules
Local Rule 7.3(k) and (f) of the Middle District of North

Carolina 16-17, 20-21,
23
Appellate Rule
10(e)................... 23
Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A.

Const. Amend.
5 26
ix
EXHIBIT PAGE 16
Supreme Court Rule

20 13
Statutes
28 U. S. C. §1651(a), the All Writs Act 7
Section 242 of Title 18 31
Constitutional Provisions
United States Constitution, Amendment V 8
United States Constitution, Amendment I 8
United States Constitution, Article III 8
Due Process of Law under the Fifth Amendment 6
Petition seeking Mandamus and/or Prohibition

relief against the following Null and Void
JuHgmftnt/s)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North

Carolina; case no. # l:13-cr-435-, l:17-cv-01036:
Documents #54; #122, #200, #236
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
Null and void Judgments under case nos. # #19-7756,

#15-4057, #17-1866, #18-1160, #19-2077, #19-4758,
#19-7483, #19-2338, #19-7755, #20-7737 and #20-
6034
x
EXHIBIT PAGE 17
IV. Petition for Writ Of Mandamus or Prohibition
Brian David Hill (“Petitioner”), a criminal defendant and
civil case 2255 Petitioner respectfully petitions this court
for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition to
review over all illegal, unlawful, invalid, null and void
judgments, mainly of the U.S. District Court. The null and void
judgments of both the party #1: U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina (“District Court”) and party #2: the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Appeals Court”). The
main party is the District Court as the Appeals Court is being
referenced to show cause proving that all other possible relief
was attempted but have failed, that no other adequate relief
can be obtained. Not just, review but mandate corrective
action(s) against one or both parties in this case and prohibit
any illegal/unlawful actions by one or both Courts in which had
repeatedly deprived the Petitioner of Due Process of Law for
years and years; as well as prohibit any actions by both parties
from further violating the Constitutional rights of Petitioner.
Petitioner asks this Court to mandate vacatur and nullification
of all offending Judgments by one or both Courts, which had
deprived Petitioner of Due Process of Law; violated multiple
1
EXHIBIT PAGE 18
EXHIBIT PAGE 19
controlling case laws from SCOTUS, which had not been
overruled by this very Court; and had violated the U.S.
Constitution to such an egregious extent. To the extent, which
includes a repeated pattern of frauds, abuses, and miscarriages
of justice can no longer be ignored by any credible
Constitutional Court of Law with any integrity. Both Courts
are acting autonomously outside of law as if SCOTUS does not
exist anymore. This Court must act to correct all miscarriages
of justice and to correct all autonomous court rulings from the
inferior Courts which keep piling up. These autonomous
rulings, which keep piling up one on top of the other. All in favor
of the corrupt United States Attorney Office for the Middle
District of North Carolina (“U.S. Attorney Office”) who
originally had prosecuted a fraudulent criminal case from the
very beginning and destroyed discovery material.
The officers of the District Court at issue in this writ are
#1: Hon. William Lindsey Osteen Junior, #2: Hon. Thomas
David Schroeder, #3: Hon. Magistrate Joe L. Webster. All are
officers working at the District Court.
The officer of the Appeals Court at issue in this writ are
#1: Hon Patricia S. Connor, Clerk. This is an officer working at
the Appeals Court. In the event that SCOTUS feels and

2
EXHIBIT PAGE 20
EXHIBIT PAGE 21
requests that any other possibly applicable officer be served a
copy of this Petition when evaluating over this Petition, this
Court can request any additional parties and Petitioner will
comply with such an order. If this Court finds it necessary.
The judgments in which this Petitioner seeks relief have
all deprived Petitioner of Due Process of Law under the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution and have allowed a repeated
pattern of fraud, lies, and abuses by the U.S. Attorney Office
without any remedy. All remedies have been exhausted. Please
help me SCOTUS. I have no hope left. Petitioner cannot obtain
any relief no matter what evidence and witness testimony is
brought up, no matter what evidence or witnesses is offered or
submitted, and no matter what authoritative case law is
brought up in arguments. This Court’s laws are ignored.
This is a very complex situation but with the page/word
limits, Petitioner asks this Court to allow further filing of
arguments/pleadings or requests Oral Argument for
clarification when considering this Petition on its merits, to
review over its merits. It does have merit. There are many legal
and Constitutional issues, which were never resolved in the
District Court and Appeals Court when brought to their
attention. The inferior Courts are completely broken.

3
EXHIBIT PAGE 22
The District Court had filed multiple null and void
judgments, which are subject to lack of jurisdiction or excess of
jurisdiction; and thus this Court has the Constitutional right
and original legal authority. This legal authority of this Court
is to undo a repeated pattern of non-jurisdictional orders
against Petitioner, which are all supposed to be null and void.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
(“Appeals Court”) have created judgments contrary to the
evidence on the record, contrary and contradictory to the
authoritative case laws by this very Court. Petitioner shows
from the judgments and records of all Appeals Court cases
Petitioner was involved with that no relief can be obtained by
the Appeals Court, and no remedy can be obtained by the
Appeals Court. They rubber-stamp every final judgment
against Petitioner and always in favor of the U.S. Attorney
Office. Thus, Petitioner has no other avenue to obtain any
Constitutional/Legal relief or remedy no matter the merits. The
District Court admitted in its own opinion that even if
Petitioner had any merit at all, it would deny them. Thus,
Petitioner is subject to an unlawful and unconstitutional
Kangaroo Court, which had deprived Petitioner of all remedies
under the Laws of the Land. Even the famous celebrities Bill
4
EXHIBIT PAGE 23
Cosby and Michael Jackson were acquitted of their charges
because of either being found innocent in the case of Michael
Jackson, or prosecutorial misconduct as found in the case of Bill
Cosby. If both can be legally acquitted, so must Brian David
Hill a victim of a repeated pattern of miscarriages of justice.
The Appeals Court offending case nos. are #1: 20-7737,
#2: 20-1396, #3: 20-6034, #4: 19-7756, #5: 19-7755, #6: 19-2338,
#7: 19-7483, #8: 19-4758, #9: 19-2077, #10: 18-1160, #11: 17-
1866, #12: 15-4057. No matter what arguments were brought
up, every Appeal affirms the decision of the District Court no
matter what was in the record, no matter the argument, no
matter what the law says or what SCOTUS says. It is virtually
impossible for a valid Appeals Court of Law to deny every
appeal ever consecutively from a single criminal defendant or
civil litigator. When many appeals are denied and dismissed
with all having an unpublished opinion no matter the
argument, it should have drawn the Court into serious question
as to whether it had failed to properly administer justice under
the Law. Are they compromised? Were they blackmailed?
The District Court offending case nos. are l:13-cr-435-l,
and l:17-cv-1036.
5
EXHIBIT PAGE 24
V. Opinions Below
There are many judgments and the opinions would exceed the
page and word limits set by the Rules of this Court. Read all
offending judgments of the District Court and Appeals Court as
outlined in the Joint Appendix. They are offending judgments
because they were all made in deprivation of Due Process of Law
(excess of jurisdiction) and decisions were made in contradiction to
the Case Laws set by this authoritative Supreme Court.
However, one opinion made by the officer: Hon. U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster of the Middle District of North
Carolina. This Magistrate said and I quote:
“g. The Merits As explained above, all of Petitioners grounds

are time-barred. However, if the Court were to reach the merits of
Petitioners grounds for relief, it would deny them.” Citation from
Document #210, Page 19, Case no. l:13-cr-435.
This opinion was affirmed by officer: Hon. Chief Judge
Thomas David Schroeder (JA 35-37), and so they were both
colluding to deprive Petitioner ofDue Process of Law under the Fifth
Amendment. See Document #236, #237, Case no. l:13-cr-435. The
point I am making is that the District Court does not care about the
merits and would deny any relief even if merits or the law allow such
remedy and relief. It is a kangaroo court, and that short sentence of
Hon. Mag. Judge Joe Websters opinion had shown that the District
6
EXHIBIT PAGE 25
Court never cared about the merits, never cared about any evidence
or witnesses actually filed with the Court. Never cared about
appointment of impartial expert witnesses. It was all one sided and
always will be one sided (in violation of the adversarial system,
impartiality, fairness) unless this Supreme Court takes action and
mandates an end to this endless judicial nightmare of miscarriages
ofjustice that keeps going and going like an Energizer Battery.
VI. Jurisdiction
Mr. Hill’s petition for Mandamus and Prohibition is a
request for Extraordinary Relief and all other attempts to obtain
relief have been exhausted. Mr. Hill invokes this Court's
jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1651(a), the All Writs Act.
Mandamus is appropriate where petitioner "lack adequate
alternative means to obtain the relief they seek", Mallard v. U.S.
Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309, (1989).
Petitioner had been shut out of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (JA 35-37 and JA 69-74). Petitioner’s Hazel Atlas motions
were all denied despite being uncontested and undisputed (JA 78-
80) and proven the frauds on the Court by an officer of the Court.
Therefore, Petitioner had been shut out of all Hazel Atlas remedies
under the Court’s inherit or implied powers. His appeals have all
7
EXHIBIT PAGE 26
been closed with the exception of his remaining two Petitions for
Writs of Certiorari to be filed in this Court on October 11, 2021,
accompanying this Petition. The two to-be-filed Petitions
regarding case nos. 19-7755, 20-6034, and 20-7737. Since a large
majority of Writs of Certiorari is usually denied without an
opinion, and the right to relief is discretionary, Petitioner is only
left with Mandamus relief if those two Petitions are denied. If
those two remaining Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are denied,
then Petitioner has no other adequate remedy left and thus
Mandamus is the appropriate relief. Therefore, Petitioner asks
that this Mandamus Petition be acted upon last of all three
Petitions to be filed with this Court on October 11, 2021. That
includes this petition in all three.
VII. Constitutional Provisions Involved

United States Constitution, Amendment V:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land
or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in
time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for the same offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.”
United States Constitution, Amendment I:

8
EXHIBIT PAGE 27
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.”
United States Constitution, Article III:
“Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be

vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...” (citation
partially omitted)
“Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in

law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls;~to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be
a party...” (citation partially omitted)
VIII. Statement of the Case
We are now faced with a situation of jurisdictional defect
upon jurisdictional defect. Where many errors come together
throughout the entire case of United States of America v. Brian
David Hill (case no. l:13-cr-435-l); Brian David Hill v. United
States of America (case no. l:17-cv-01036); and Brian David
Hill v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, et al (case
no. 4:17-cv-00027, Western District of Virginia). NOTE: The
Western District of Virginia case is not being prosecuted in this
Mandamus Petition but is only used for reference as it involved
the other two cases and the U.S. Attorney Office. The
9
EXHIBIT PAGE 28
corruption and criminality of the United States Attorney Office
for the Middle District of North Carolina. They had become so
corrupted that they would not even contest the Fraud on the
Court claims in the District Court. One fraud for example:
regarding perjury of their key-witness Kristy L. Burton, and
regarding other ethical issues. See Petition for Writ of
Certiorari filed with this Court for appealing Appeals Court
case no. # 20-7737. They never contested the claims of fraud
under Documents #169, #171, #199, #206, #222, and #217. See
case nos. l:13-cr-435-l and l:17-cv-01036, Middle Dist. Of
North Carolina.
In addition to that, it was admitted by the U.S. Attorney
Office in Greensboro, NC, in the Western District of Virginia
lawsuit under case no. 4:17-cv-00027 that they had destroyed
evidence such as:
(#1) The State Bureau of Investigation forensic case file
which had download dates of July 20, 2012, to July 28, 2013,
after being seized by police on August 28, 2012;
(#2) The false confession audio file of Brian David Hill on
August 29, 2012, and compiled by Mayodan Police Department;
(#3) any other evidence that should have been protected
under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and Brady
10
EXHIBIT PAGE 29
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See the admissions by the U.S.
Attorney Office under oath/affirmation and in their pleadings
(case no. 4:17-cv-00027, Western District of Virginia) in
Document #48, Document #49 in Hill v. EOUSA, et al. Citation:
“ECF NOS. 49-3, 49-6 and 49-7 WERE STRICKEN FROM THE
DOCKET PURSUANT TO DOCUMENT 54 Brief /
Memorandum in Support re 48 MOTION for Summary
Judgment . filed by Executive Office for United States
Attorneys, United States Department Of Justice.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Princina Stone Declaration, # 2
1, # 3 2, # 4 3, # 5 4, # 6 5, # 7 6, # 8 7, # 9 8, # 10 Exhibit B -
Carolyn Loye DeclarationXSloan, Cheryl) Modified on
1/4/2018. Modified docket text to reflect exhibits stricken from
the docket, (mih)”. They admitted to evidence being destroyed.
Here are the links to the destroyed evidence pages leaked
regarding the destroyed evidence by an anonymous concerned
whistleblower:
See https://wearechange.org/case-brian-d-hil1/ WRC

EXCLUSIVE: Alternative Media Writer Brian D. Hill Setup On
Child Pornography Possession: I We Are Change (web link
citation)
See
https://archive.org/details/LeakedShiDocsProveUswgoFramed
WithChildPom - Leaked SBI Docs prove USWGO framed with
child porn : Anonymous : Free Download, Borrow, and
Streaming : Internet Archive (web link citation)
11
EXHIBIT PAGE 30
In fact, the District Court and Appeals Court have gotten
so brazen with their deprivation of Due Process of Law against
Petitioner that online YouTube videos have been uploaded by
friends or family in regards to Brian Hill being held hostage by
the District Court. Thousands have seen the videos according
to Petitioner’s family giving Petitioner screen captures of the
reported view counts. Petitioner’s family confirmed that view
counts were being manipulated to being lowered than the true
view counts. Therefore, the view counts may be higher than
what YouTube had reported. I was given the link texts:
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrLahP_27m4 -
Proof that Brian D. Hill; USWGO Alt. News, was TORTURED
into Falsely Pleading Guilty. (Video stream citation);
httpa://www.yniituhe,c*nm/watch?v=GkvT.tinnTCltY - Proof that
Brian D. Hill; USWGO Alt. News, is INNOCENT, being HELD
HOSTAGE by Corrupt Federal Court (Video stream citation)
See https://www.yfmti3hft-P.nm/watch7vasNlasri7JRag The
Federal Courts and Fourth Circuit US Court IGNORES THE
LAW - Brian D Hill Interview/Statement (Video stream
citation)
The fact those videos are coming out showing the lies and
frauds by the U.S. Attorney Office, leaked SBI document photo
pages, the alleged claim of possible child pornography with the
download dates as to being 11 months, 8 days after the
computer was seized by the Town of Mayodan Police
Department. Its corrupt Mayodan Town lawyer Philip Edward
Berger Senior also allowed the corruption in the Town of

12
EXHIBIT PAGE 31
Mayodan Police Department by depriving Petitioner of Brady
Material for his 2255 Motion. See Document #2-2, pages 18-19,
Western Dist. Of Virginia, case no. 4:17-cv-00027-JLK-RSB,
Filed 04/25/17. The U.S. Attorney Office destroyed the
confession audio. This helped Town of Mayodan and its corrupt
lawyer violating Brady v. Maryland named Philip E. Berger
Senior so that Brian would be prevented from proving that his
confession was a false confession and that the audio was
botched up and altered in violation of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. It is obvious that when the claimed download dates
are between July 20, 2012, and July 28, 2013; the computer was
seized on August 28, 2012, that something criminal and
sinister was going on here. The U.S. Attorney Office never
refuted those download dates in the SBI forensic report by SBI
Special Agent Rodney V. White, ever. They never claimed those
download dates had never existed in their own evidence used
for the Grand Jury indictment of Brian David Hill on November
25, 2013. It is clear that there is fraud, abuse, and corruption
by the U.S. Attorney Office, no doubt about that. They are being
protected by officer: Hon. Thomas David Schroeder, and officer:
Hon. Mag. Judge Joe L. Webster. They all rather push this
13
EXHIBIT PAGE 32
fraud under the rug. That the fraud continues and deny every
motion Petitioner had ever filed requesting any kind of relief.
This case presents very important questions of exceptional
circumstances warranting “Extraordinary Relief’ as required by Rule
20. “Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ.”
As to Supreme Court Rule 20: “the petition must show that the
writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional
circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary
powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form
or from any other court.” Petitioner had demonstrated that no other
adequate relief could be obtained in any other form or from any other
court. The only Court that can provide relief for these extraordinary
jurisdictional defects is this Supreme Court, as Petitioner cannot
obtain any relief in the District Court and in the Appeals Court.
Here are the facts for the Justices to consider:
1. All unlawful, null and void judgments acting in excess of

jurisdiction
The judgments by the District Court in case no. l:13-cr-
435-1 which are acting in deprivation of Due Process of Law;
permitting Frauds on the Court; and acting in excess of
jurisdiction from the District Court are as follows. Those
14
EXHIBIT PAGE 33
judgments are acting autonomously and in repeatedly
contradiction to SCOTUS.
Document #54: JUDGMENT as to BRIAN DAVID HILL
(1), Count(s) 1, Ten (10) months and twenty (20) days
imprisonment, but not less than time served; ten (10) years
supervised release; $100.00 special assessment. Filed on
November 12, 2014 — Note from Petitioner: This judgment was
grounded on fraud by U.S. Attorney Office by the uncontested
Motions filed at a later time in the case under Documents
numbered: #169, #199, #206, #222, #264 and #217. See JA 5-10.
Document #122: ORDER Supervised Release Violation
Hearing signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on
7/23/2015. Defendant's supervised release is not revoked and
the Defendant is to remain on supervised release. The
Defendant shall participate in a cognitive behavioral treatment
program and location monitoring home detention program as
set out herein. All other terms and conditions of supervised
release as previously imposed remain in full force and effect in
case as to BRIAN DAVID HILL (1). (Daniel, J) - Filed on July
24, 2015 — Note from Petitioner: This judgment was grounded
on fraud by U.S. Attorney Office by the uncontested Motions
filed at a later time in the case under Documents numbered:

15
EXHIBIT PAGE 34
#169, #199, #206, #222, #264 and #217. Not just fraud but
deprivation of Petitioner’s constitutional right to a TRIAL BY
JURY as set forth in SCOTUS case United States v. Haymond,
588 U.S.___(2019). See JA 11-18.
Document #200: JUDGMENT ON REVOCATION OF
PROBATION/SUPERVISED RELEASE. The Defendants
supervised release is revoked. Nine (9) months imprisonment.
Nine (9) years supervised release is re-imposed under the same
terms and conditions as previously imposed. The Defendant
shall surrender to the U.S. Marshal for the Middle District of
N.C. or to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons
by 12:00 p.m. on 12/6/2019 as to BRIAN DAVID HILL. Signed
by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 10/4/2019.
(Daniel, J). Filed on October 4, 2019 — Note from Petitioner:
This judgment was grounded on fraud by U.S. Attorney Office
by the uncontested Motions filed at a later time in the case
under Documents numbered: #169, #199, #206, #222, #264 and
#217. Not just fraud but deprivation of Petitioner’s
constitutional right to a TRIAL BY JURY as set forth in
SCOTUS case United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. (2019).
See JA 19-34.
16
EXHIBIT PAGE 35
Document #236: ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 12/31/2019, that the
Government's motion to dismiss (Doc. [141]) be GRANTED,
that Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence
(Doc. [125]) be DISMISSED, and that this action be
DISMISSED. FURTHER that Petitioner's motion to file under
seal (Doc. [140]), motion for a psychological/psychiatric
evaluation (Doc. [151]), motions for the appointment of counsel
(Docs. [153] and [169]), motion to continue supervised release
(Doc. [154]), motion to dismiss (Doc. [165]), motion for copies
(Doc. [168]), and request for transcript (Doc. [194]) all be
DENIED. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order. Finding neither a
substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a
constitutional right affecting the conviction nor a debatable
procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued.
Civil Case l:17CV1036.(Taylor, Abby). Filed on December 31,
2019. See also the JUDGMENT on Document #237. — Note from
Petitioner: This judgment was grounded on fraud by U.S.
Attorney Office by the uncontested Motions filed at a later time
in the case under Documents numbered: #169, #199, #206,
#222, #264 and #217. That judgment was acting in excess of

17
EXHIBIT PAGE 36
jurisdiction as the Motions under: #169, #199, #206, #222 were
uncontested as a matter of law under Local Rule 7.3(k) and (f)
of the Middle District of North Carolina. Uncontested and thus
those motions had proven enough fraud that those uncontested
motions should have been granted on its face. See JA 35-37.
2. The Court of Appeals, which is the supervisory Court

refuses to hold the U.S. District Court accountable under any
appeal and refuses to Order and Remand anything; even if
well-grounded in law and fact
On April 7, 2015, Appeals Court in case no. 15-4057, affirms in
part and dismisses in part Petitioner’s appeal due to Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel in violation of Due Process of Law under the
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Effective Assistance of
Counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See JA 38-41.
On October 9, 2017, Appeals Court in case no. 17-1866,
dismisses the interlocutory appeal. That appeal was to protect
Petitioner’s right to discovery in his criminal case and to prove that
the U.S. Attorney Office was covering up and destroying evidence
then refusing to turn over a copy to the criminal defendant. In sheer
violation of a criminal defendant’s rights under Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963). This was done intentionally by the U.S. Attorney

18
EXHIBIT PAGE 37
Office to cover up any evidence proving the Actual Innocence of
Brian David Hill. Again,
See the evidence documented under

https://archive.org/detfli1fi/TififlkfidShiDorsPrnveI JswgnFramed
WithChildPnm - Leaked SBI Docs prove USWGO framed with
child pom : Anonymous : Free Download, Borrow, and
Streaming : Internet Archive (web link citation).
The Appeals Court knew from the record in the Western
District of Virginia FOIA lawsuit civil case that Petitioner was
a criminal defendant in the Middle District of North Carolina.
They totally violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland and
Giglio v. United States. See JA 42-47.
On July 24, 2018, Appeals Court in case no. 18-1160, dismisses
the appeal. That appeal was to protect Petitioner’s right to discovery
in his criminal case and to prove that the U.S. Attorney Office was
covering up and destroying evidence then refusing to turn over a copy
to the criminal defendant. In sheer violation of a criminal defendant’s
rights under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This was done
intentionally by the U.S. Attorney Office to cover up any
evidence proving the Actual Innocence of Brian David Hill.
Again, See the evidence from the following:
https://archivfi.nrg/riptaiis/Lfiakfir1RhiDocsProvfiUswgoFramed
WithChildPorn - Leaked SBI Docs prove USWGO framed with
19
EXHIBIT PAGE 38
child porn : Anonymous : Free Download, Borrow, and
Streaming : Internet Archive (web link citation). Link text from
Brian’s family. The Appeals Court knew from the record in the
Western District of Virginia FOIA lawsuit civil case that
Petitioner was a criminal defendant in the Middle District of
North Carolina. They totally violated his rights under Brady v.
Maryland and Giglio v. United States. That decision also
protected Mayodan Police Department who, through its corrupt
Town Attorney Philip Edward Berger Senior, deprived
Petitioner of his CONSTITUTIONAL right to obtain a copy of
his false confession by the audio recording recorded on August
29, 2012 by Detective Christopher Todd Brim and/or Detective
Robert Bridge. See JA 48-53. See Document #2-2, pages 18-19,
Western Dist. Of Virginia, case no. 4:17-cv-00027-JLK-RSB,
Filed 04/25/17. Any legalize in that letter would be by a lawyer.
dismisses the appeal. However, the reason for that dismissal was that
after Petitioner had served a copy of his Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus in the Fourth Circuit upon the District Court, the judge
had been moved to put in his final written judgment. That was after
stalling/stonewalling for weeks, relief was obtained not in the Appeals
20
EXHIBIT PAGE 39
Court but that Petitioner was given relief by that pressure put on the
District Court. See JA 54.
affirms the entire judgment of the District Court in an unpublished
opinion. Attorney Edward Ryan Kennedy had pushed for Certiorari
relief in case no. 20-6864 before this Court but had failed due to it
being denied. However, the Appeals Court had deprived Petitioner of
his Constitutional right to TRIAL BY JURY as outlined in SCOTUS
case United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). The
Appeals Court had rebelled against giving Petitioner his
Constitutional Due Process right to Trial by Jury. They had
rebelled against SCOTUS. See JA 55-61.
On March 17,2020, Appeals Court in case no. 19- 7483, affirms
the entire judgment of the District Court in an unpublished opinion.
The appeal was over the District Court denying Petitioner’s motion
for stay of judgment pending appeal. They not only had deprived
Petitioner of his Constitutional right to trial by jury but had deprived
Petitioner of staying out of Imprisonment at the time in 2019 knowing
the Supreme Court had ruled that Supervised Release Violators are
guaranteed a right to Trial by Jury. Again, see SCOTUS case
United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S.___(2019). The Appeals
Court and District Court had rebelled against giving Petitioner

21
EXHIBIT PAGE 40
his Constitutional Due Process right to Trial by Jury. They had
rebelled against SCOTUS. See JA 62-64.
On February 10, 2020, Appeals Court in case no. 19-2338,
dismisses the Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition
against the District Court in an unpublished opinion. That
Mandamus and Prohibition appeal was over the District Court not
acting upon uncontested Hazel Atlas Motions regarding proven Fraud
on the Court claims against Officer of the Court: Anand Prakash
Ramaswamy, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of North
Carolina aka the U.S. Attorney Office. At that time when it was
denied, Motions under #169, #199, #206, #217, and #222 were all
uncontested in accordance with Local Rule 7.3 of the Middle District
of North Carolina. Fraud was proven, Mandamus should not have
been denied, and Prohibition should not have been denied. Any time
periods set by the Local Law of that Court were all passed the
deadlines. Therefore, Petitioner had won his cases and won his claims
but the Appeals Court and District Court had refused to hand
Petitioner over that victory. As a matter of law, Petitioner was
entitled to relief. Both Courts are REBELLING against the Law; they
are working AGAINST THE LAW. Lower inferior Courts are not
supposed to rebel against SCOTUS and they are not supposed to rebel
against the law even if they disagree with it. If they feel that a law is
22
EXHIBIT PAGE 41
unconstitutional or not legally valid, then they should make a legal
opinion and ruling deciding such. None of that was done in the
decisions against Brian David Hill, the law was ignored by the
District Court and Appeals Court; and the law was not followed by
the District Court and Appeals Court. See JA 65-68.
On December 18,2020, Appeals Court in consolidated case nos.
19-7755 & 20-6034, denies the Certificate of Appealability despite
raising very important issues of both a Constitutional and Legal
nature. The issues of both Actual Innocence and Fraud on the Court,
both of them were not subject to being time barred. See SCOTUS
cases Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998); Murray v.
Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986); McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383
(2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298 (1995); House v. Bell, 547 U. S.
518 (2006); and Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 -405 (1993). Not just
actual innocence but fraud was proven by the uncontested motions
filed by Petitioner. Petitioner had shown and proven the issues of
fraud and that the fraud was perpetuated by an officer of the Court
who indicted, arrested, and wrongfully convicted Petitioner. That was
by Officer of the Court: Anand Prakash Ramaswamy, Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina aka the U.S.
Attorney Office. The proof is that the Motions under #169, #199, #206,
#217, and #222 were all uncontested in accordance with Local Rule
23
EXHIBIT PAGE 42
7.3 of the Middle District of North Carolina. Petitioner had won his
cases as a matter of law and won his claims by those being
uncontested, but the Appeals Court and District Court had refused to
hand Petitioner over that victory. As a matter of law, Petitioner was
entitled to relief. Both Courts are REBELLING against the Law, they
are working AGAINST THE LAW. Lower inferior Courts are not
supposed to rebel against SCOTUS, and they are not supposed to
rebel against the law even if they disagree with it. In the decisions
made against Brian David Hill, the law was ignored by the District
Court and Appeals Court; and the law was not followed by the District
Court and Appeals Court. Even created autonomous case law
authority Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir.
2014) (en banc); contradicts with SCOTUS. See JA 69-74.
On March 17, 2020, Appeals Court in case no. 19-7756,
affirmed the District Court and dismissed the Appeal without any
remedy. That is concerning Document #216: “MOTION entitled
"Petitioner's and Criminal Defendant's Motion to Correct or Modify
the Record Pursuant to Appellate Rule 10(e) (Doc. #[215])"...”. That
had brought up very concerning information from four Affidavits and
brought up suggestion of additional witnesses including Renorda
Pryor an officer of the Court, as well as Jason McMurray a Probation
Officer that is an officer of the Court. This is regarding information

24
EXHIBIT PAGE 43
factually omitted from official Court Transcript, which again is
covering up evidence or covering up testimony, which may be
favorable to the Petitioner. Regardless, purposefully omitting
information from an Official Court Transcript of the Record of a Court
may be a Federal Crime or malfeasance when the intent is proven.
The Appeals Court refused to correct the transcript of the record, and
the District Court refused to correct such omissions from the record.
That is a serious violation of proper Judicial Procedure. The Appeals
Court let them get away with it. See JA 75-77.
Last one that is being cited. On April 27, 2021, Appeals Court
in case no. 20-7737, affirmed the District Court and dismissed the
Appeal without any remedy. That is appealing the wrongful denial of
all uncontested Hazel Atlas Motions. The Appeals Court had refused
to provide relief as a matter of law despite Local Rule 7.3 MOTION
PRACTICE. That local rule with the 21-day deadlines. That all
motions, which are uncontested, would ordinarily be granted without
further notice. That also contradicts the SCOTUS case laws of
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991); and Hazel-Atlas Glass
Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). See JA 78-80.
111111
IX. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
25
EXHIBIT PAGE 44
A. To hold the District Court and Appeals Court

accountable for Not following the Laws, Not Following
SCOTUS authoritative case laws; acting in repeated
excess of jurisdiction
The District Court is holding Petitioner hostage to
fraudulent begotten judgments not caring about whatever
witnesses, whatever evidence, and whatever case law
Petitioner introduces in the District Court. Petitioner cannot
obtain any relief no matter the argument. That itself shows an
inherit bias or prejudice on its face. Not one person can be 100%
wrong all of the time. When all appeals by one person are
denied, dismissed or affirming the original judgment, then
something is clearly wrong here with that Court of Appeals.
The Appeals Court is depriving Petitioner of due process of law
because every single appeal had been denied. Even Appeals
backed by Affidavits, witnesses, properly cited authoritative
case law. Any well-grounded pleading Petitioner files is usually
all systematically denied.
Petitioner is being held hostage by an unreasonable
District Court, biased District Court, prejudiced District Court
against Petitioner, defrauded District Court, and a District
Court acting with repeated excesses to its own jurisdiction.
See ht.tpfi!//www.yoiituhe rnm/wflt.f>.h?v=(TkvIJinnKltY -

Proof that Brian D. Hill; USWGO Alt. News, is INNOCENT,
26
EXHIBIT PAGE 45
being HELD HOSTAGE by Corrupt Federal Court (Video

stream citation) — Link text, provided by Family
The limitations inherent in the requirements of due
process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well
as political branches of government, so that a judgment may
not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations
and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d
1283, 78 S Ct 1228 (1958). In this case for example, Judge Bjork
refused to hear what the Defendant had to say. (Note: Sounds
similar t,n officer: Judge Thomas David fichroeder of the TT.fi
District Court) “Defendants who have been treated with
unfairness, bias and the appearance of prejudice by this Court,
and the opposing counsel, leaves open the question of how an
uninterested, lay person, would question the partiality and
neutrality of this Court.“...our system of law has always
endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” In re
Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). This court had a duty to
ensure fairness. This Court failed, or refused to ensure that fairness.
Marshall v. Jerrico, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 446 U.S. 238 (1980) “Judgment
is a void judgment if court that, rendered judgment, lacked jurisdiction
of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner
inconsistent with due process. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28
27
EXHIBIT PAGE 46
U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 - Klugh v. U.S., 620 F. Supp., 892
(D.S.C. 1985). Where Due Process is denied, the case is void,
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 S Ct.1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of
Northlake, 10 Ill. 2D 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2D 289 (1956) Hallberg v.
Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill. 25 (1936). “A court cannot confer jurisdiction
where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is
clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in
any court”. OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC, v. McDonough, 204 U. S.
8,27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
Again, see all of the Supreme Court cases referenced above, See
sections “1. All unlawful, null and void judgments acting in excess of
jurisdiction” and “2. The Court of Appeals, which is the supervisory
Court refuses to hold the U.S. District Court accountable under any
appeal and refuses to Order and Remand anything; even if well-
grounded in law and fact”. Both Courts have acted in rebellion against
the authoritative rulings of the Supreme Court without a valid reason
as to why. They have done so to deprive Petitioner of due process of
law in every way, shape or form. It no longer matters about the one-
year statute of limitations under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) or any of it. Petitioner was deprived of
evidentiary hearings for his Actual Innocence claim. Petitioner was
deprived of evidentiary hearings for his uncontested fraud on the

28
EXHIBIT PAGE 47
court claims. Petitioner had been deprived of his Constitutional right
to a Trial by Jury in both Supervised Release Violation hearings.
Whenever Petitioner timely appealed that decision, the Appeals
Court refused to apply the Supreme Court’s holding under United
States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. (2019). Petitioner was again
deprived of due process and was being deprived of Trial by Jury.
Petitioner had been deprived of all Constitutional rights
by the District Court and Appeals Court. They are likely doing
this to other civil litigants and criminal defendants. They
should not be getting away with breaking the laws. They should
not be ignoring the laws. The officers need to be sanctioned and
the only applicable remedy for this Mandamus and Prohibition
Petitions is to rule those offending judgments are null and void,
that they no longer carry the weight and force of law.
Equal Protection under the Laws must apply to the U.S.
District Court and the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court. This Supreme
Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), that the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless
imposes various equal protection requirements on the federal
government via reverse incorporation. All laws must be
enforced and be equally enforced, that is why we even have
laws. If an officer fails or refuses to fulfil his duty, then he has

29
EXHIBIT PAGE 48
become essentially a useless official, wasting the resources,
time, and legitimacy of his respective office. Integrity lost.
The inferior Courts have now acted in such a way as to become
either Rebellious Courts or Runaway Courts. A “Runaway Court” is a
Court, which is running away from complying with the laws of the
land. The officials and officers of a Court who ignore the laws, ignore
its own rules when its favorable to a stigmatized person such as for
example: a criminal defendant, and ignore evidence and everything
else for its own benefit to do whatever it well pleases, then it acts in
excess of jurisdiction. It is a runaway Court and it is running away
from any proven evidence. It runs away from any laws favoring
somebody who the Court does not like. A “Rebellious Court” is a Court,
which acts in rebellion against a higher Court, refusing to follow
newer or even older but valid Supreme Court decisions. Creates
autonomous case law directly contradicting the case law of the
Supreme Court. Like Whiteside v. US in the Appeals Court for
example. It acts in rebellion and refuses to render a lawful decision
from a superior Court. Acting in sheer disrespect to the officials and
officers of a superior Court. The U.S. District Court is acting in
disrespect to the Supreme Court, and so is the Appeals Court. The
lower Courts no longer wish to bring any remedy to Brian David Hill
and never wanted to bring any remedy. If this is being done to Brian
30
EXHIBIT PAGE 49
Hill, a criminal defendant, then it is being done to others in the Fourth
Circuit and the District Court. It can be proven if others speak out.
The U.S. Court of Appeals is refusing to actually do their
job and reverse an erroneous decision of an inferior Court as a
matter of law. The U.S. District Court is refusing to actually do
their job and reverse clearly fraudulent begotten judgments
and erroneous decisions as a matter of law. When inferior
Courts refuse to obey the law repeatedly, they need to be
punished and sanctioned. Criminals are punished for breaking
the law. Then why not the inferior Courts???
B. To keep in uniformity with all Courts, the Supreme

Court needs to make an example out of the District
Court and the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court to make
sure that they fully comply with the decisions of this
Supreme Court. That they cannot render decisions
contrary to this Supreme Court.
This Court has the ability to use its authority to grant the
Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition, then order, Mandate, and
order Prohibition to keep the uniformity of the Courts across this
country to continue following the authoritative and controlling
Supreme Court decisions to prevent the entire legal system from
going into disarray. When courts do not have to follow what the
Supreme Court says, then it creates rebellious or runaway courts.
Judges can just cover their eyes, cover their ears, and cover their
31
EXHIBIT PAGE 50
mouths. They no longer have to follow any laws. They do not have
to follow Due Process of Law. They do not have to look at any
evidence, quite the opposite. They can treat evidence as if it does
not exist. They can treat credible witnesses as if they do not exist
either. Then whenever a party to a case brings up the law, the
Judge can simply act as if the law does not exist either. Then the
Appeals Court rubber stamps the inferior Court decisions, and no
remedy can ever possibly happen, ever. Then the law no longer
exists in our Courts. Then they can choose which laws to obey and
which ones to ignore. This is very dangerous for any of our courts
to be doing this type of behavior in the United States of America.
It upsets the chain of command. It becomes a CONFEDERACY,
an autonomy zone. Courts can act as “Rebellious Courts” or
“Runaway Courts”. The law no longer applies to the inferior
Courts. If the Justices of this Great Court do not want this
precedent being set where rebellious behavior by activist judges
gets rewarded while the American people suffers greatly with
repeated abuses and miscarriages ofjustice until death, then they
can set an example by making an example out of those rebellious
Courts. They are rebel courts and no longer follow the
Constitution or its own rules or any laws or rules. They selectively
enforce the laws and rules while ignoring the rest. This is
32
EXHIBIT PAGE 51
unlawful behavior. This is Deprivation of Rights under Color of
Law. See https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-right.s-nnrlpr-
color-law. Link text provided by family of Petitioner.
The U.S. Department of Justice had held under its position
regarding Section 242 of Title 18 of Federal Law. The District
Court and Appeals Court are depriving Petitioner of SCOTUS
guaranteed rights under the Constitution, and those officers are
violating that law and depriving Petitioner of all rights under the
color of law.
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) held that “Section 242 of
Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any
law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose
of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done
by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority,
but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful
authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or
pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this
statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law
enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public
health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is

33
EXHIBIT PAGE 52
EXHIBIT PAGE 53
not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the
race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national
origin of the victim.” Since the DOJ held what that law had said,
it is clear that the District Court and U.S. Attorney Office is acting
in rebellion against the laws of the land to deprive their enemy:
“the Petitioner” of all Constitutional and Legal reprieves.
Petitioner only wants justice and does not want to make enemies
with anybody. Petitioner did not start this fight; it was started by
the U.S. Attorney Office under Document #1 and prosecuting a
fraudulent case against him.
It is time for this great Supreme Court to hold the inferior
Courts to the letters of the law. The District Court and Appeals
Court had ignored the Supreme Court one too many times. If they
do not like the decisions of the Supreme Court, then they can quit
their jobs and resign from the Offices of the Courts. They can even
request to become a candidate for the President’s next
appointment of a Supreme Court justice if they so disagree. Then
they can add dissenting views and get the well respect that they
deserve. It is time for the Supreme Court to make an example out
of the Rebel Courts or Runaway Courts. Hold the District Court
accountable as well as the Appeals Court. Hold them all
accountable for acting in rebellion against the law, against the

34
EXHIBIT PAGE 54
EXHIBIT PAGE 55
rules, and acting against the evidence and witnesses. A Court with
such a disregard for due process should be vacated of all of its
improper judgments. First of all, starting with the null and void
judgments against Petitioner. Any decisions made by the District
Court and Appeals Court contrary to controlling case law by this
Supreme Court should be vacated as a matter of law. Mandamus
is appropriate. Prohibition is appropriate. Relief is necessary.
C. No other adequate remedy is available.
The Appeals Court threw away every Appeal by Petitioner.
Petitioner had been deprived two times of trial by jury. Petitioner
had been deprived of Due Process of Law. Petitioner had been
deprived of his Actual Innocence and evidentiary hearings and
discovery. Petitioner has exhausted all remedies. 2255 Motion had
been exhausted and dismissed. Hazel Atlas motions which were
uncontested were exhausted and dismissed. All appeals in the
Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit were dismissed without any
remedy no matter what was argued.
There is no other remedy available except the U.S. Supreme
Court. Mandamus is appropriate.
35
EXHIBIT PAGE 56
Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
Petitioner petitions this Court for a redress of the foregoing
grievances.
The Probation Office of the Western District of Virginia was
so concerned about the officer Hon. Thomas David Schroeder’s
disregard for the testimony of USPO Jason McMurray on
Document #215, case no. l:13-cr-435-l. They were so concerned
about the District Court’s bias, prejudice, that USPO Kristy
Burton was allowed to commit perjury and Hon Schroeder was
happy about Kristy Burton’s perjury, yet was not as respectful to
USPO McMurray in 2019. Didn’t want to accept his testimony the
same way as with USPO Burton. They were so concerned that
they had petitioned the District Court to move the Supervised
Release case to the Western District of Virginia. See Document
#260: “USPO PROB 12B - Modification to Conditions as to BRIAN
DAVID HILL. (Attachments: # (1) Prob 49) (Grassmann,
Shaelynn)”. See Documents 261, 262: " Probation Jurisdiction
Transferred to Western District of Virginia as to BRIAN DAVID
HILL Transmitted Transfer of Jurisdiction form, with certified
copies of indictment, judgment and docket sheet. (Garland,
Leah)", and Document #263: “Notice to Western District of
36
EXHIBIT PAGE 57
Virginia of a Transfer of Jurisdiction as to BRIAN DAVID
HILL...”.
X. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hill respectfully requests
that this Court issue a writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition
to review over the null and void judgments of the U.S. Court of
Appeals and mainly of the U.S. District Court. Mr. Hill
respectfully requests that the Honorable Justices of
this Court issue a writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition to
Mandate that the District Court vacate all judgments, which
are considered null and void, and which are in excess of
jurisdiction. Since the District Court had repeatedly acted in
excess of its own jurisdiction by depriving Petitioner of due
process; and allowed uncontested frauds by the U.S. Attorney
Office against Petitioner; Petitioner requests that this Court
enter a Mandate vacating any or all Judgments in the Joint
Appendix of the Orders #54, #122, #200, #236, #237, and #268.
Petitioner requests that the criminal action since Document #1
be dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner furthermore requests that the District Court
and Appeals Court prove that they had jurisdiction for all of
37
EXHIBIT PAGE 58
their orders being challenged by this Petition for Writs of
Mandamus and Prohibition.
The Appeals Court offending case nos. are #1: 20-7737, #2: 20-
1396, #3: 20-6034, #4:19-7756, #5:19-7755, #6:19-2338, #7:19-7483, #8:
19-4758, #9:19-2077, #10: 18-1160, #11: 17-1866, #12: 15-4057. If any of
those decisions are contrary to controlling case law set by this Supreme
Court, those decisions are clearly erroneous, null and void. Petitioner
requests that this Court sanction the Appeals Court for repeatedly
rendering judicial decisions contrary to SCOTUS. When SCOTUS clearly
made decisions and if they were made aware of those SCOTUS decisions
prior to rendering decisions contrary to those SCOTUS decisions, then
those cases need to be sanctioned by this Supreme Court. Petitioner asks
for sanctions.
Petitioner, last of all, requests nullification or modification of
contrary decision: Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th
Cir. 2014) (en banc) which contradicts with this Court’s holdings under
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998); Murray v. Carrier, 477
U.S. 478 (1986); McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013); and any
others.
II
DATED this 12th day of October, 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
38
EXHIBIT PAGE 59
Brian D. Hill
!>tane.d
Rriftn T) Hill
Brian David Hill
Pro Se
Ally of QANON and General Flynn
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: No Email
JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
irs.w.G.o.
39
EXHIBIT PAGE 60
EXHIBIT 3
for
by Brian David Hill
EXHIBIT PAGE 61
LETTER TO CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN REGARDS TO FORWARDING OF PETITIONS/MOTIONS IN RE:
BRIAN DAVID HILL, U.S. SUPREME COURT (SCOTUS)
NOTIFICATION OF MANDAMUS / PROHIBITION PETITION IN THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT.
Case no.: 1:13-cr-435-1 (Please File on Docket, so that Brian's family can
check PACER.GOV and confirm that you had received this letter and the
three (3) copies of Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition)
Saturday, October 9, 2021
ATTN: Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court

Telephone: 336-332-6000 Middle District of North Carolina
L. Richardson Preyer Courthouse
324 W. Market Street
Greensboro, NC 27401-2544
Dear Clerk of the U.S. District Court,
I really hated that it had to come to this point. I didn't want to have to go this far.
However, I have no choice at this point with the high amount of corruption that has
escalated since the Obama Administration after I was framed with child pornography
and cheated out of nullification of my wrongful conviction, being deprived of due
process of law systematically by a few Judges of your Court. Cheated out of default
judgment. I wanted to just live my life and not bother anybody. I just wanted to run a
news organization back in 2009. That is the past and I have no choice but to risk my life.
Anyways enough bantering. The purpose of this letter is simple. In the envelope
with Certified Mail tracking number ID #: 9402 8368 9523 2448 4674 48 contains three
(3) copies of Petitions for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. As well as three (3) copies
of the filed Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Each copy of the Motions and
Petitions have the individual Judge's name on it, as officers of the Court, named.
One Motion and Petition is to be served with the Hon. Chief Judge Thomas David
Schroeder. The second Motion and Petition is to be served with the Hon. Judge William
PAGE 1 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 62
Lindsey Osteen Junior. The third Motion and Petition is to be served with the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster. There should be a sticky note on each copy.
That is simple and easy to forward to the proper officers of the Court.
Anyways, I did like to thank your deputy Clerk for adding the response deadlines
under Documents #169, #199, #206, and #217 in my criminal case 1:13-cr-435-1 noted
herein. I always like to give personal written thank yous to those who do the right thing.
Thanks to you construing my letter as a motion under Document #169, that compelled
Anand Prakash Ramaswamy the corrupt Assistant U.S. Attorney to have 21 days to
respond. I also like to thank you for the Roseboro letter under Document #142. That
letter gave me real insight into Local Rule 7.3, paragraphs (f) and (k). I didn't realize that
each and every motion I had ever filed accusing Ramaswamy of defrauding the Court or
each uncontested motion is ordinarily supposed to be granted without further notice.
I have everything I need thanks to your Local Rule of this respectable U.S.
District Court. The Local Rule which says if I didn't respond in 21 days, that I would
lose my 2255 case. However the AUSA Ramaswamy didn't respond to a good number of
motions which means that my contentions in every single one of those were undisputed.
My contentions that I was factually innocent of possession of child pornography

were undisputed. That Motion number is cited in the Petition for the Writ of Mandamus
or Prohibition being filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is being made
aware of Brian David Hill's factual contentions of being innocent. Didn't you know...
Copied from Petition for Writ of Certiorari:
On January 30, 2019, The Petitioner had filed his second uncontested
motion under Document #169 in his § 2255 case such as “MOTION for
Hearing and for Appointment for Counsel filed by BRIAN DAVID HILL.
Responses due by 2/20/2019.” That motion made claims, uncontested claims
and I quote that:
Doc. #169 Citation: “I won't let a guy in a hoodie...stop me from proving my

factual innocence in this case…The fraud upon the Court is caused by both
ineffective assistance of Counsel forcing me to falsely plead guilty under
Oath, and a fraud upon the Court by a false factual basis of guilt in this
criminal case…The fraud in the fact that I never got to review over the
entire discovery evidence with Attorney Eric David Placke, before he
PAGE 2 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 63
persuaded me to falsely plead guilty under Oath means I had plead guilty
without understanding the full weight of the very evidence that the
prosecution had used against me in my case…The "Factual Basis" of my
guilt provided by the Government prior to sentencing was Fraudulent. My
confession statements were proven to be inaccurate and false, a false
confession caused by my Autism because of the way I was interrogated…
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. The
criminal Judgment of guilty on November 12, 2014, was a fraudulent
Judgment based upon fraud on the Court. Letter respectfully filed with both
the Hon. Magistrate Judge of the Court and the AUSA Ramaswamy on this
the 24th day of January, 2019.” (Citations omitted)
Like catching somebody stealing cookies out of the cookie jar. That single
Document #169 that your deputy Clerks had made very well sure to add a 21-day
response date since it is law that Courts can liberally construe pro se documents and
letters as actual Motions. Because your Clerks considered Document #169 as a motion
and referred such motion, gave the Government lawyers 21 days to respond and they did
not, further proves my cause in the U.S. Supreme Court. Brian David Hill = Innocence.
The Government did in fact defraud the Court, that is why I had filed this Petition
for Writs of Mandamus or Prohibition against Hon. Judge Osteen, Hon. Chief Judge
Schroeder, and Hon. Joe Webster. They all knew I had won my case under Local Rule
7.3. They all knew I found those alleged SBI eMule (if it is child porn????) download
dates and saw no affidavits verifying every file to being of actual child porn. Then the
Pre-Sentence Investigation report saying no victims by name, unknown series. The
whole entire case is a fraud, a sham, a frame up, and that normally happens when
somebody pisses off a powerful corrupt politician who may have been involved with the
Pedophile Rings like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney L. Lin Wood was
right, and I feel like sharing with the Clerk's office my family's screenshot captures of
Attorney L. Lin Wood from Georgia claiming that Politicians and Judges may have
raped children and were blackmailed with this child rape and murder into being
compromised any Federal Judges and any State Judges. This should scare everybody at
your Clerk's office knowing that any of the Judges in your Court could have been
compromised and if proven would reveal a terrible pattern of fraud and miscarriages of
PAGE 3 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 64
justice. I hope none of this is true. I hope L. Lin Wood is wrong about any of the Judges
and Politicians anywhere could be engaged in being a target of blackmail.
Feel free to see if any of the U.S. Marshals are willing to investigate the Lin Wood
revelations. I mean, this is huge if this kind of criminal activity is going on in our
Government. This completely will destroy the integrity of our Federal and State
Governments. This Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell stuff including the Lin Wood
Lizard Squad revelations will destroy people's faith in our legal system as well as
people's respect for the law will be gone. The corruption is already eroding people's faith
in our legal processes. Pedos can frame me and anybody with child porn. That's scary.
If Lin Wood is right, the Clerks need to be initiating the Judicial Councils and any
Law Enforcement groups including INTERPOL to be investigating these Lizard Squad
blackmail videotapes leaked from the Federal agencies to determine how many Federal
Judges and State Judges may be compromised. This is not good for America.
PAGE 4 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 65
Officials and Judges????? Hmmm who could that be I wonder????????
Because Joe Biden the pedophile creepy uncle Joe is our President, we will never find
out which judges of the State or Federal may be raping kids and are blackmailed for the
rest of their lives, thus compromising our Federal and/or State Judges anywhere or
Nationwide or anywhere, whatever the case may be. We will never find out under the
corrupt Attorney General and pedophile President Joe Biden. It's clear he is, Hunter
Biden with the child porn on his laptop according to former U.S. Attorney and Mayor of
New York named Rudy Giuliani and never gets arrested, never arrested by the U.S.
Marshals Service but I am called a danger to society when I am a virgin, I never raped, I
never molested anybody, and I am called a danger to society while some real powerful
child molesters never get Federally Indicted. People with child porn like Hunter Biden,
oh because indicting Hunter Biden would make Joe Biden angry and Joe Biden could
probably file a pardon on his son to release him from any potential imprisonment.
PAGE 5 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 66
My family has all of the special Lin Wood tweets before they were censored. I do
not need to use the internet, my family has all of them and gave me the screenshot files
so I can bring up these very important issues concerning the Judiciary and Politics.
PAGE 6 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 67
PAGE 7 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 68
Clerk, please file this letter in color to ensure that the Lin Wood screenshots show
up really good and detailed in the docket. There needs to be special investigations into
whether any judges of the Middle District of North Carolina could have been
compromised. Special counsels needed to investigate the videos, subpoena Lin Wood.
PAGE 8 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 69
Anyways, that is all I have for you Clerk of the U.S. District Court. Please reply to
this letter with acknowledgment of receipt of this letter, as well as receipt of the three
copies of both the Mandamus Petitions and Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
I was too afraid to bring up this blackmail tweet screenshots from Attorney L. Lin
Wood in case anyone who may or may not be compromised in your U.S. District Court,
but since this is simply a letter to the Clerk of the Court, not naming names or anything,
I'd thought I'd share this information with you. It should concern you too if anybody in
the Judiciary had raped children and became compromised to blackmail. Fraud.
I do not like doing this kind of stuff like revealing the truth this dangerous as it
could get me killed or kidnapped, but I am being held hostage to the Fed corruption that
is holding me hostage. The political corruption. I am being held hostage to an illegal
sentence, an fraudulent prosecution, and a repeated lack of due process of law.
Please do not construe this letter as a motion. Please do not forward this
letter to any Judge. If any are compromised and read this letter, I'm a dead man.
I respectfully request that you only forward the petitions and motions to the
Judges named in the sticky notes on all three of both the Motions and Petitions.
I hope to get a good outcome in the U.S. Supreme Court. I am grateful to your
deputy Clerks for all of the hard work and effort throughout the years in my criminal
case. I hope to get justice someday. I hope the Supreme Court does grant Mandamus
relief and orders all null and void judgments to be vacated. I hope for remedy that I
cannot obtain in this very Court no matter what evidence or witnesses that I ever had.
______________________
Brian D. Hill
Appellant
Former news reporter of U.S.W.G.O. Alternative News
Ally of QANON
310 Forest Street, Apartment 2
(276) 790-3505
JusticeForUSWGO.NL or JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
PAGE 9 OF 9
EXHIBIT PAGE 70
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
Atlanta, GA 30309
P.O. Box 52584
Telephone: (404) 891‐1402
Facsimile: (404) 506‐9111
EXHIBIT PAGE 71
EXHIBIT PAGE 72
EXHIBIT PAGE 73
EXHIBIT PAGE 74
EXHIBIT PAGE 75
EXHIBIT PAGE 76
EXHIBIT PAGE 77
EXHIBIT 4
for
by Brian David Hill
EXHIBIT PAGE 78
EMERGENCY LETTER TO ATTORNEY L. LIN WOOD ON TWEETS

CONCERNING BLACKMAILED FEDERAL/STATE JUDGES AND
POLITICIANS, INQUIRY THAT COULD SAVE MY LIFE FROM BEING
TARGETED BY THE CIA/NSA DEEP STATE THUGS
Wednesday, January 20, 2021 18:03
ATTN: L. Lin Wood P.O. Box 52584

Law Office of L. Lin Wood, P.C. Atlanta, GA 30355-0584
Please CC to Sidney Powell Telephone: (404) 891-1402
Facsimile: (404) 506-9111
Dear L. Lin Wood,
This is in reference to YOUR tweets. My family took screenshots and gave them to me
to use as reference in this EMERGENCY LETTER. These are YOUR tweets.
Here they are:
PAGE 1 OF 8 - LETTER TO ATTORNEY L. LIN WOOD – USWGO INVESTIGATION 2021 JAN

EXHIBIT PAGE 79

EXHIBIT PAGE 80
I like to bring to your attention the following individuals who have been targeting me or
have been getting the CIA/NSA to target me, and if they are compromised as you have
been saying on Twitter, then I like to have an inquiry on possible blackmail targets who
have been making my life a living hell and almost caused me to kill myself back in
2013. Receiving threatening CIA text messages, CIA greeting cards with terms such as
“SNOW WHITE” an intelligence Supercomputer, receiving threatening emails in 2013.
This involves pedophilia and they set me up with child porn and I suspect that the
following individuals have been blackmailed with child rape and murder, and that would
give them access to those materials used to try to set me up back in July, 2012.
INDIVIDUALS SUSPECTED OF BEING BLACKMAILED WITH CHILD RAPE

AND MURDER:

EXHIBIT PAGE 81
● Philip Edward Berger Senior, NC State Senator and President Pro Tempore
● Philip Edward Berger Junior, former Rockingham County District Attorney
● Federal Judge William Lindsey Osteen Junior, Middle Dist. North Carolina
● Federal Judge Thomas David Schroeder, Middle Dist. North Carolina
● SBI Agent Rodney V. White
● NC Reidsville Detective Robert Bridge
● Any or All listed Federal Appellate Court Judges of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.
● Charles J. Caruso, Mayodan Police Chief
● Christopher Todd Brim, Detective Sergeant, Mayodan Police
● Attorney Mark Jones, Bell Davis and Pitt law firm
I have photographs of criminal case discovery materials that prove alleged child
porn was downloading from July 20, 2012, to July 28, 2013. My computer was seized
on August 28, 2012. So for 11 months it was downloading to my computer when I didn't
even have my computer while it was supposedly in secure law enforcement custody. I
have been set up here and I have evidence of it but the CORRUPT JUDGE Thomas
David Schroeder ignores it all. He is probably being blackmailed too like John
Roberts.
Look sir, I am willing to be executed, murdered, to prove my actual innocence. I

am willing to risk my life and my families lives to clear my name. I need to give these
individuals names to you and if they are in any of the child rape blackmail schemes
evidence that you were tweeting about, then they are the SUSPECTED #1 culprits who
SET ME UP WITH CHILD PORN. President Trump would not pardon me even though
Roger Stone agreed to get this information to President Trump. He told me through text
message today that he was unable to have me on Trump's final pardon list. So now my
only option is to prove that any of these individuals were pedophiles blackmailed child
rapists being videotaped by the blackmailers of the Deep State Swamp. Compromised.
You have information that may very well embarrass the corrupt compromised
Judges or the corrupt NC State Senator, if any of it is even remotely true. I can use this
information to prove my Actual Innocence if Pedophiles or Child Rapers were in
charge of investigating me in 2012. Any of that can be useful in embarrassing the
corrupt Judges and then they would no longer hold unlawful control over me and I can
finally be acquitted because I AM ACTUALLY INNOCENT.
I need to know. You have the evidence of blackmail by the blackmailers of child

EXHIBIT PAGE 82
rape and murder. That gives them the child porn materials used to set me up and ruin my
life. They have the child porn materials, they set me up. Your evidence can help me
prove it.
I ran a blog named “USWGO Alternative News” at USWGO.COM. Check the

Wayback Machine from 2009 to 2012. My stuff is also located at archive.org and you
can search up “uswgo” keyword and find the articles I had done which had made me a
TARGET.
I always knew I pissed off State Senator Phil Berger Senior. His son was involved
in the child porn investigation against me and they admitted to it in Affidavit and his
name was in the federal discovery papers, knowing that it would already be a conflict of
interest for somebody I written bad articles about on my news blog to be involved in any
criminal investigation against me because of the high risk of evidence planting, evidence
tampering, and foul play.
Cheryl King knew what was going on but she mysteriously died while in Georgia
and the SBI said to me she was six feet under. So they were tracking her and she died
without explanation. I suspect she was murdered. The FBI was sent this information and
the FBI refused to do anything about any of it and refused to even interview me over any
of it. I did get one FBI Agent to look at some of my papers, he began to open up a
criminal investigation file and asked me to come down to the FBI Office in Greensboro,
NC to give a statement. I have this evidence. Then the investigation was halted and
called meritless by his boss. The Agent was Jerry Pickford in Greensboro, NC.
Look I know by writing you this letter I may end up dead like Cheryl King of the NC
SBI but I have nothing left to lose now that President Trump left office without giving
me a FULL UNCONDITIONAL PARDON. Joe Biden and his son are both pedophiles,
compromised. They hold the nuclear football and can nuke whoever they please. For
GODS SAKE PEDOPHILES NOW HOLD the HIGHEST OFFICE in the United States
of America and Trump wouldn't pardon an innocent man like me. I no longer respect the
Sex Registry because I am innocent and a pedophile is our Fake President now.
Another one of your Tweets, next page:

EXHIBIT PAGE 83
I need to know L. Lin Wood if any of the following individuals were blackmail
targets:

EXHIBIT PAGE 84
● Philip Edward Berger Senior, NC State Senator and President Pro Tempore
● Philip Edward Berger Junior, former Rockingham County District Attorney
● Federal Judge William Lindsey Osteen Junior, Middle Dist. North Carolina
● Federal Judge Thomas David Schroeder, Middle Dist. North Carolina
● SBI Agent Rodney V. White
● NC Reidsville Detective Robert Bridge
● Any or All listed Federal Appellate Court Judges of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.
● Charles J. Caruso, Mayodan Police Chief
● Christopher Todd Brim, Detective Sergeant, Mayodan Police
● Attorney Mark Jones, Bell Davis and Pitt law firm
If any of them were actually involved in pedophilia, child rape and murder, then
they were compromised at the time and during the time child pornography
investigation retaliation and set up operations against me and my mother. They
threatened to set up my mother if I did not falsely confess. Any evidence that they were
involved in pedo stuff even before they targeted me would nullify my false
confession and nullify my false guilty plea. I NEED HARD EVIDENCE or at least
something like a smoking gun. That is my only way I can be acquitted as Joe Biden
will never pardon me. Like a giant arrow pointing to them as the possible culprits.
I am risking being murdered as they monitor my mother's internet access and they
are monitoring my phone calls. I am risking my life but I must do so because
President Trump never granted me a full unconditional pardon. I must risk my life.
That is my only way, I have no other recourse.

EXHIBIT PAGE 85
I have no hope left after President Trump left office. The CIA/NSA is going to WAR
WITH ME. The attacks and traps have been coming for days. They are trying to hurt me.
I may probably need to be placed under protection of General Michael Flynn and be
placed in a safe house if they come after me with guns and abduction squads. I have
even tried to get this information to Attorney Sidney Powell, Pentagon.
I have been targeted by these pedophile SCUM since 2012. The corrupt CIA and
NSA people. I need some kind of evidence. YOU Have this evidence. Your likely the
ONLY ONE among few others who has this evidence. I need something to prove if any
of them are compromised. I need the smoking gun to get my wrongful conviction
overturned and YOU HAVE THIS EVIDENCE.
I will probably ask my Attorney involved in my criminal case to subpoena you for
the evidence if necessary. I don't want to put you in that position. Please help me NOW.
I cannot get pardoned anymore, President Trump is GONE FOREVER. They will
probably arrest him and give him a felony. Your my only hope left.
I already informed a corrupt Federal Judge that I know they are compromised and
told them about your tweets. They will likely have me targeted and who knows what
they will do to me now. I am at high risk if they are compromised as you have claimed. I
need actions now, The Swamp must be DRAINED or they will drain all of us instead in
Concentration Camps or CIA black sites. The SWAMP must be drained. That was why I
mailed Chris Miller of the U.S. Pentagon, Secretary of Defense. There must be action
taken on those who have framed me with child porn and those SWAMP enemies. The
invisible enemies.
God bless you,

Brian D. Hill
Former news reporter of U.S.W.G.O. Alternative News
Ally of QANON

Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability - Uswgo Brian D. Hill W/exhibits/statement - Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability - Uswgo Brian D. Hill W/exhibits/statement - Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability - Uswgo Brian D. Hill W/exhibits/statement - Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit

Contact Address: 310 Forest Street

City, State, Zip: Martinsville, Virginia 24112

Email address: c/o: Roberta Hill at rbhill67@comcast.net

Daytime telephone: ( _____ 790-3505

2. Name(s) of Judge(s): Thomas David Schroeder, William Lindsey Osteen Jr.

Court: Middle District of North Carolina

5. Declaration and signature:

United States Court of Appeals

STATEMENT OF FACTS REGARDING

Brian David Hill – Ally of QAnon

Pro Se Appellant JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com

Filed October 25, 2021, through c/o Roberta Hill by rbhill67@comcast.net

Petitioner Brian David Hill (“Petitioner”) requests investigation and the

the foregoing Statement of Facts and the COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY submitted to the Judicial Council of the Fourth

rbhill67@comcast.com filing this complaint to the Judicial Council on Petitioner’s

Judicial-Disability Proceedings (“Rules”), as amended on March 12, 2019.

document or complaint to be emailed instead of mailed in paper form). Such as for

Exhibits should be thoroughly investigated as to why Judge William Lindsey Osteen

blackmail videos are proven true.

briefs which were uncontested, meaning undisputed, are ordinarily granted

partiality, selective enforcement of the Court’s own rules, or both. It is

discrimination when Petitioner is directed to file a response to the U.S.

Attorney’s motion in 21 days as prescribed by presumably Local Rule 7.3

Petitioner doesn’t respond by the deadline, then the Respondent’s

contentions in his motions are uncontested and undisputed as a matter of

wrongfully labeled as meritless and frivolous even though Petitioner’s

uncontested motions were well evidenced, well-grounded in the law. The

Citation of LR 7.3 MOTION PRACTICE; paragraphs (f) and (k):

2. Judge Thomas David Schroeder’s unconstitutional and/or unethical

discrimination is obvious. The rules and laws are enforced on Petitioner

undisputed claims and evidence exhibits are ordinarily granted without

further notice. So, the Petitioner is compelled by the Rules to respond or

lose the case or that the motion is granted in the Respondent’s/Movant’s

basis, a one side scale which is broken justice. No Federal Judge is

supposed to have a one-sided Courtroom or a one-sided litigation always

always remain impartial throughout a civil case and/or criminal case. It is a

Judge’s obligation under 28 U.S. Code § 455 to recuse himself/herself from

a case when exhibiting any symptoms of a “personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party”, or “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts

concerning the proceeding”; as well as any proceeding in which his

“impartiality might reasonably be questioned”. Judge Schroeder had

discriminatory or biased or prejudice type behavior. Impartiality no longer

“MOTION entitled "Motion to Disqualify Judge" filed by BRIAN DAVID

HILL. Responses due by 10/21/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope - Front

and Back) (Civil Case number: 17CV1036) (Garland, Leah) (Entered:

further conducting discriminatory and/or prejudice and/or bias type

behavior against Petitioner. It is discriminatory when the Court’s own Local

Rules prescribed and had been passed by the Rule-making committee is

only enforced on civil Petitioners in a civil/criminal 2255 case but is not

to sanctions. This judge refuses to sanction an officer of the Court who

officer of the Court, the same rules enforced on Petitioner. It is

David Schroeder, See Document Declaration — Document #137, “"fifth

Additional Evidence Declaration" filed by BRIAN DAVID HILL re

128 Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3

Certificate of Service, # 9 Envelope - Front and Back) (Civil Case