IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASON KOKINDA,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT GILMORE, ET AL,

Respondents,

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 1 3-2202

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of

consideration of prose petitioner's, Jason Kokinda, "Petition to

Correct/Supplement Pending Bail Motion," it is hereby ORDERED AND

DECREED that the ''Petition to Correct/Supplement Pending Bail Motion''

is GRANTED. THEREFORE, the corrections and supplements expounded

therein shall be considered in disposition of pending bail motion.

BY .THE COURT:

J.D.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASON KOKINDA, • CIVIL ACTION •

Petitioner, • •

v. • NO. 13-2202 •

ROBERT GILMORE, ET AL, • •

Respondents, • •

PETITION TO CORRECT/SUPPLEMENT PENDING BAIL MOTION

TO THE AUTOCRATS DICTATING FROM THEIR IVORY TOWERS IN ROME:

Petitioner, Jason Kokinda, prose, hereby moves to correct

and supplement pending bail motion, and represents:

1. On July 14, 2015, petitioner filed "Petition for Release

on Recognizance or Surety Pending Disposition of 28 U.S.C. §

2254 Petition.''

2. He hereby corrects and supplements with the following:

(a). On Pg. 8 footnote 16, Hamner is misspelled, and should

be Hammer. The footnote is also supplemented with, "See Bomar

supra (Pg. 6 ~8.) at 1191 (where principle was held that, failures

of prior counsel to uncover/correct Brady violations, are cogniz-

able claims for relief in postconviction proceedings.)

3. Petitioner hereby supplements with the following memoran-

dum of law, to be considered in disposition of bail motion also.

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW

1. The theory of the Commonwealth is that Brady violations

a r e waived by guilty plea, a theory proven false by Bomar supra

( Pg. 8 n.16, correction above) Notwithstanding waiver, they claim

age-play gravamen is immaterial, based on their illogical presump-

tion of per se guilt when anyone arrives at meeting place described

i n age-play game chats. 1

(a). A baseless presumption, which overrides any requirement

for the Commonwealth to meet burden of proof on any element. A

presumption, that by analog, could not be submitted to jury, and

therefore, could not be justification to assume how jury would

judge it, in speculative postconviction proceedings.

See Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274-276, 96 L. Ed. 288, 72 s. Ct. 240 (1952) (''[A] trial court may not withdraw or prejudge the issue by instruction that the law raises a presumption of intent from an act. It often is tempting to cast in terms of a ''presumption'' a conclusion which a court thinks probable from given facts •••• A conclusive presumption which testimony (or in the in­stant case, suppressed evidence) could not overthrow, would effec­tively eliminate intent as an ingredient of the offense. A presump­tion which would permit but not require the jury to assume intent from an isolated fact, would prejudge a conclusion which the jury should reach of its own volition. A presumption which would permit the jury to make an assumption which all the evidence considered together does not logically establish, would give to a proven fact an artificial and fictional effect. In either case, this preumption would conflict with the overriding presumption of innocence with which the law endows the accused and which extends to every element of the crime. Such incriminating presumptions are not to be impro­vised by the judiciary. Even congressional power to facilitate con­victions by substituting presumptions of proof, is not without limit. Tot v. United States, 319 US 463, 87 L.Ed. 1519, 63 s. Ct. 1241.'') (comas and analog in () brackets, added for clarity.)

The baseless Steinberg presumption ignores lack of prima facie

case, and thus lack of subject matter jurisdiction, by ignoring any

burden the Commonwealth has in explaining how they will prove the

element of '' assuming identity of (literal) minor'' ( as required by

rules of statutory interpretation expounded in habeas memorandum),

or how predisposition exists (under Jacobson principles) when law

enforecment use 'bait and switch' methods that undermine the entire

concept of criminal predisposition to fabricate cases in volume.

Neither does the presumption explain how it will prove • serious

criminal intent, criminal attempt, or lack of renunciation defense,

beyond a reasonable doubt; considering suppressed evidence. In es-

sence, it ignores untebuttable claims of innocence, and irrationally

2

dictates guilt on a judicial stereotype. The Steinberg standard

creates an impossible burden shift, for the defendant to prove he

is innocent against a per se and unrebuttable presumption of guilt.

Completely ignoring the substance of claims, under such per se

presumption, and thus failing to 'adjudicate claims upon the actual

merits,' or any merits at all; since any rebuttal is per se meritless.

See Commonwealth v. Sojourner, 408 A.2d 1108, ante 1114, 268 Pa.Super. 488, (Pa.Super. 1979) (''Under the well-known principles of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 s. ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) and Mallaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 s. Ct. 1881, 44 L. Ed.2d 508 (1975), the Commonwealth has the burden of proving every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.") The opinions of the Commonwealth, obviously disagree with this, and claim guilt can be assumed on media stereotype alone.

(b). The demonizing hollywood media stereotype of virtual stings

created by ''To Catch A Predator'' NBC TV Series, is clearly their only

concern. Because they believe this indoctrination, is enough to fool

arm-chair lawyers of the general public, that showing up equals guilt.

When half of those cases were thrown out, for side-stepping entrap-

ment laws, and the group behind them only targeted regional chatrooms,

assuming the identity of what is 'unequivocally presented as literal

minor characters.' Petitioner has made plenty of more powerful on

point arguments, that are simple enough to persuade armchair lawyers

against this presumption; and thus to influence public policy against

officials; for turning what are essentially entertaining video games

into serious crimes, through illogical 'bait and switch' scams. So

they can pile up arrests and convictions, by sacrificing innocent

lives, as easy as shooting fish in a barrel; undermining any semb-

lance of civil rights, so that Commonwealth citizens can be treated

like expendable slave commodities or cattle for the powers over them.

The power is clearly in the people, and persuasive words of Truth. 3

CONCLUSION

The Commonwealth's theories for affirmance are complete

nonsense, that undermine any concept of proof, and emanate from

extremely vague media stereotypes, rather than law or evidence.

It is impossible to presume that there was any adjudication on

the merits of postconviction claims, or that a prima facie case

even existed, in light of arguments therein.

If allowed to stand, this conviction affirms that 'Witch

Hunt' standards used in Salem Witch Trials, are alive and active

today. That a person can be held in prison and forced to convict I

himself, due to an unrebuttable per se presumption of guilt that

is not logically supported by the totality of evidence; and is

devoid of legal basis; surviving by mere media stereotype alone.

Meaning, that anyone can be locked up and kept in prison for-

ever, once he is demonized in the media under a stereotype that

creates a general bias towards a generic action broadly resembling

what can be spoken of as a crime. I do not think that any person of

the Commonwealth or world, will tolerate this oppression. It has

completely done away with law, and standards of proof. And peti-

tioner's right to bail and/or immediate release with absolute bar

to reprosecution, is exceedingly clear and unrebuttable.

4

THEREFORE, for each of the foregoing reasons, petitioner

requests that all of the foregoing be supplemented/correct in the

pending bail motion, for full consideration in its disposition.

5

Witchhunt victim,

Jason Kokinda #JP8929 SCI-Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370

SWORN CERTIFICATION

I, Jason Kokinda, certify under penalty of perjury that the

facts set forth in the foregoing documents are true and correct to

the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

Date : :] - LL - IS ·-

Pro Se Petitioner

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Jason Kokinda, hereby certify under penalty of perjury

that this day I am serving the foregoing documents in the manner

listed below, which service satisfies the requirements of the

Prisoner's Mailbox Rule established in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), and its progeny.

Service by First Class U.S. Mail to all of the following parties:

Clerk United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 601 Market Street, Room 2609 Philadelphia, PA 19106-9865

The Office of the Attorney General for Pennsylvania (representing all parties) 16th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120

EX e Cute d On i - "2 2 - rs Jason Kokinda #JP8929 SCI-Greene 175 Progress Dr. Waynesburg, PA 15370

• •