IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Amunhotep El Bey ) L.T. CASE NO's:98-82,CFB (Petitioner/General Executor) 562004ÒT005567 - ) 2005CT002Š0L VS. ) 562007CF4217 ) 2007TR043187 Al ) 2007TR043182 Al ) 2010MM001552 A ) 11CA2316 ) 4* DCA Case#: 4D12-2617 ) ) L. T. JUDGE: DAN VAUGHN STATE OF FLORIDA, ) HON. DAN VAUGHN, ) CASE NO: SC12-2119 CLERK, JOSEPH SMITH, ) and ALICE CRUMP ) (Respondents) ) ) PETITIONER'S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CONCERNING THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL General Executor, Amunhotep El Bey EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General - Post Office, 1230 Avenue I, Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].
Transcript
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Amunhotep El Bey ) L.T. CASE NO's:98-82,CFB(Petitioner/General Executor) 562004ÒT005567 -
) 2005CT002Š0LVS. ) 562007CF4217
) 2007TR043187 Al) 2007TR043182 Al) 2010MM001552 A) 11CA2316) 4* DCA Case#: 4D12-2617)) L. T. JUDGE: DAN VAUGHN
STATE OF FLORIDA, )HON. DAN VAUGHN, ) CASE NO: SC12-2119CLERK, JOSEPH SMITH, )and ALICE CRUMP )(Respondents) )
)
PETITIONER'S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON PETITION FORWRIT OF CERTIORARI CONCERNING THE DECISION OF THEFOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
General Executor, Amunhotep El BeyEUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, ESTATEOffice of the Executor,General - Post Office,1230 Avenue I,Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................ii - iii
THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW OF PETITIONER'SPETITION, BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE 4" DCA EXPRESSLYCONFLICTS WITH THE FLORIDA AND U.S. CONSTITUTION (INREGARDS TO WHETHER CLAIMS OF ACCESS TO THE COURTSARE FRIVOLOUS), AND CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIORAILROAD CO., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)...........................................7 -9
CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE, "THE WORD OF GOD"..........................2
The Smith Act.................................................................................9
United States Codes...........................................................................9
111
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner was the Petitioner/Defendant and the Respondents were the
Plaintiff in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of the 19th JudiCial CirCuit, in
and for Saint Lucie County, Florida. Petitioner was the Petitioner and the
Respondents were the state in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. In this brief,
the parties shall be referred to as they appear before this Court except that
Petitioner may be referred to as the General Executor and the Respondents may be
referred to as the state.
IV
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On April 17, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Affidavit: In the nature of Writ ofError Coram Nobis, in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, State ofFlorida, in the criminal division. The Petitioner filed the said pleading to correctthe illegal null and void judgments of convictions that arose because the STATEOF FLORIDA lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction, improper venue,standing, no Corpus Delicti, no holder in due course, and etc., to try the Petitioneron all criminal and traffic cases in the above-styled cause (see the record: AffidavitIn the nature of Writ ofError Coram Nobis, for further detail); which constituteswrongful convictions, fraud, kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, false arrestand etc., on the behalf of the state, because the state illegally prosecuted thePetitioner without having jurisdiction to do so; however, unfortunately, theillegally prosecutions ruined the Petitioner's life.
The Petitioner filed Writ of Error Coram Nobis because he was asking theL.T. court to correct newly discovered jurisdictional errors of fact and thePetitioner was no longer in state custody, so he couldn't file a 3.850 motion, underthe Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which has a 2 year statute of limitations,if the Petitioner is not mistaken. If this is not the case, then the L.T. court shouldhave construed the said pleading into the proper legal vehicle in order to dosubstantial justice. (See United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir.1999),quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), "Pro se complaints are tobe construed liberally in favor of the accused." Furthermore, according to Latanavs. Hopper, 103 F. 2d 118; and Mcnutt vs. GMAC, 298 U.S. 178, it matters nothow the issue ofjurisdiction is raised, and no enforcement can proceed untiljurisdiction is proved.
The Petitioner gave the STATE OF FLORIDA 30 days to respond to hisAffidavit: In the nature of Writ ofError Coram Nobis. The state failed to respondwithin 30 days, so on May 18, 2012, the Petitioner filed Petitioner's Motion forDefault Judgment (see the record); because the 30 days petitioner gave the state ofFlorida to respond to his Affidavit: In the nature of Writ ofError Coram Nobis hadexpired on May 17, 2012.
Thus far, the state has failed to prove jurisdiction on the record, because thestate has failed to rebut the Affidavit in the nature of Writ ofError Coram Nobisand is forever barred from doing so, because the 30 days to respond has expired.The said pleading is true and correct at law, due to estoppel; therefore, the state isin dishonor due to acquiescence (silence), which is acceptance due to the Law of
1
Presumption. "AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH INCOMMERCE"12 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Claims made in your affidavit, if notrebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. "AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVITBECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE" Heb. 6:16-17. There is nothingleft to resolve. CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE, "THE WORD OF GOD," PublicLaw 97-280, 96 stat 1211" Oct 4 1982 & Executive Order 6100 of Sept 22 1990.Legal Maxim: "A claim not contested, stands true." Legal Maxim: "A Claimbought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to acontroversy is considered consent to any judgment." Legal Maxim: "He who doesnot deny, admits."
On May 21, 2012, at or around 1:30PM Eastern, the petitioner called JudgeDan Vaughn's Judicial Assistance, Alice Crump, in order to schedule a hearing forPetitioner's Motion for Default Judgment that was filed on Friday, May 18, 2012.The petitioner requested to set the said motion for a hearing and Alice told thepetitioner that she didn't have the said motion yet and that she wasn't for sure ifJudge Dan Vaughn was the Petitioner's Judge. The Petitioner laughed and said,"Well.., since you don't have the default motion yet, could you please set mymotion to dismiss: sham pleadings that I filed on May 11, 2012 for a hearing?"There was a moment of silence. Alice told the petitioner to hold on because shewas looking and doesn't see it. So I said, "You mean to tell me that a motion that Ifiled on May 11, 2012, isn't on your docket yet? Someone had to pull mypleadings!" So Alice told me to hold on! Wait a minute! Don't you go offassuming things! So I said in other words, you would too if you was on the otherend of this phone conversation. There was then another moment of silence. Alicethen told the Petitioner that she sees the Petitioner's Motion for Default andPetitioner's Motion to Dismiss: Sham pleadings and that they would have toreview my pleadings first and she has to see ifDan Vaughn is my judge, so thepetitioner laughed again. Alice asked petitioner for a number to reach him at, so hegave her his phone number. Alice then told the petitioner in other words, that whatthey do around here is their bread and butter and that she was a part of everythingand that I would have to fight all of them. However, no hearing was scheduled andit may never be scheduled at the Circuit Court of the 19th JudiCial CirCuit.
On June 1, 2012, the Petitioner received an order striking Motion to Dismisssham pleadings; Motion to consolidate; and Affidavit in the nature of Writ of ErrorCoram Nobis (see the record, the order from L.T. Judge Dan Vaughn, dated May23, 2012).
2
On June 4, 2012, the Petitioner received an acknowledgement ofNew Casefrom the Florida Supreme Court, and he filed his Mandamus on June 14, 2012,stating factual allegations of denials of federally secured fundamentalconstitutional rights, to wit: "Access to the Courts." (See the record, OriginalPetition for Writ ofMandamus). The Petitioner filed the said Petition because hewas unlawfully being denied Access to the Courts by the Respondents, because theRespondents are trying to avoid the fact that they wrongfully convicted thePetitioner because they never had the Jurisdiction to do so. (See "Affidavit in thenature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis," for actual proof that the L.T. court and thestate has and had no jurisdiction to convict the Petitioner; therefore, the convictionswere indeed wrongful). The Petitioner's Petition is designed to get the PetitionerAccess to the Courts (a hearing), so that Default Judgment can be executed inaccordance with the Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment that was neveraddressed by the L. T. court.
The Petitioner received an Order to Transfer his Mandamus on July 23,2012, from the Florida Supreme Court.
On August 14, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Affidavit in the Nature ofNoticeto the Court, notifying the 4th DCA of his status, legal name correction, and the factthat the 4th DCA was in error by designating the above-styled cause as EUGENEJAMES WILLIAMS A/K/A AMUNHOTEP EL BEY vs. STATE OF FLORIDA.Petitioner is not sure if the said affidavit provoked the 4th DCA into entering itsorder, on September 11, 2012, dismissing Petitioner's Mandamus, as frivolous, orwhether the 4th DCA entered the said order in order to try to protect its fellow stateofficials.
On September 11, 2012, the 4th DCA entered an order dismissingPetitioner's Petition as frivolous; however, the order is so vague and it is in conflictwith well established Common Law, "Access to the Courts," that the petitionerrespectfully requests this Court to review the said order, because Petitioner knowsbeyond a reasonable doubt that issues that involve deprivations of federallysecured guaranteed Constitutional Rights, to wit: "Access to the courts," can neverbe considered or deemed frivolous, because the fundamental Constitutional Rightof, "Access to the Courts," is the core foundation of the legal system and thereforecan never be frivolous.
The Petitioner files this foregoing Petition, in good faith, because he doesnot understand how his Petition for Writ ofMandamus, (which containsmeritorious claims of denials of Access to the Courts), can ever be deemed
frivolous by the 4th DCA when the United States Constitution is the Supreme Lawof the land and all judges are bound by it (see Article VI, Clause 2, of the USConstitution), because all judges took Oaths of Office to uphold and defend theState and US Constitution, in which "Access to the Courts," is a well establishedCommon Law protected by the Florida and US Constitution, so how can thePetitioner's Petition (which contains meritorious claims of denials of Access to theCourts), be deemed frivolous by the 4th DCA, when the said rights are fundamentalConstitutional rights? Based upon the said question, the Petitioner requests thisCourt to please review its order dismissing the Petitioner's Petition for Writ ofMandamus, as frivolous, On September 11, 2012.
The September 11, 2012, dismissal order is so vague that Petitioner doesn'tknow what part of his Petition is frivolous and why it is frivolous; therefore, theorder should be reviewed by this Court in order to determine whether deprivationsof Access to Courts are frivolous claims.
On September 18, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Refusal in the nature
ofWrit of Coram Non Judice, in the 4* DCA. The Petitioner filed the said pleadingin order to void the September 11, 2012, dismissal order, because the 4th DCA
entered an adverse ruling totally contrary to law without having the jurisdiction to
do so.
On September 25, 2012, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification and a
Cover Letter in the 4th DCA and this Court (see attached Appendix A). The
petitioner asked the 4th DCA to clarify its September 11, 2012, dismissal due to its
vagueness and its conflict with the Florida and US Constitution, and a multitude of
American Case Law. The Motion for Clarification was designed to get the 4th DCA
to issue a show cause order regarding the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
Mandamus that was filed in this Court in case number SC12-1111. The Motion for
Clarification was never addressed by the 4* DCA, which is a denial of access to
the courts in its own right. If the 4th DCA would have addressed the Motion for
Clarification, a reasonable probability exists that the 4th DCA would have ordered
the state to respond to the Petitioner's Writ ofMandamus; therefore, Petitioner has
suffered prejudice.
4
On October 16, 2012, the Petitioner received an Acknowledged of new case
from this Court, dated 10/12/2012. This Court treated the Cover Letter with
attachments, dated 9/15/2012, as a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction.
On October 17, 2012, the Petitioner received an order from this Court
allowing, until October 31, 2012, to file initial briefwith Appendix.
The petitioner now timely files this foregoing initial brief on jurisdiction.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This Court should accept jurisdiction since the decision of the 4th DCA
expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the US Supreme Court in
Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907). In theinstant Case (4D12-1617), the Fourth District concluded that the Petitioner's
Petition for Writ ofMandamus, filed in this Court in SC12-1111, (which contains
meritorious claims of denials ofAccess to the Courts) is frivolous. However, in
Chambers, the US Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion: "The right to
sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is
the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly
government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship."
According to Chambers, there is nothing frivolous about access to the courts;
therefore, the 4th DCA made an obvious fundamental error that must be corrected,
because access to the courts is a federally secured fundamental constitutional right
protected by the US and Florida Constitution.
6
ARGUMENT
THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW OF PETITIONER'SPETITION, BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE 4T" DCAEXPRESSLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FLORIDA AND U.S.CONSTITUTION (IN REGARDS TO WHETHER CLAIMS OFACCESS TO THE COURTS ARE FRIVOLOUS), ANDCHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO., 207U.S. 142, 148 (1907).
The Petitioner has invoked the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), Fla. R. App. P, and Article V, Section 3(b)(3),Constitution of the State of Florida. The decision of the Fourth District is expressly
and directly in conflict with the decision of the US Supreme Court in Chambers v.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)., the US Supreme Court
held that, "The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an
organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the
foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential
privileges of citizenship." In the Petitioner's current case, on Appeal with the 4th
DCA, the court dismissed the Petitioner's Petition for Mandamus, (which
contained meritorious claims of denials of Access to the courts) as frivolous, on
September 11, 2012; therefore, the court's said dismissal order is in direct conflict
with the US Supreme Court, in Chambers, and the Florida and US Constitution,
because there is nothing frivolous about claims of Access to the Courts. This Court
should accept jurisdiction to resolve of this conflict particularly since the Petitioner
was wrongfully convicted in the L. T. court and the state, because the L.T. court
and state lacked and lacks jurisdiction to move the above-styled cause forward.
The fundamental constitutional right of, "Access to the Courts," is protected
and secured by the US and Florida Constitution, to wit: the 18' Amendment right to
petition the government for a redress of grievances," the 6th Amendment right to
fair and a speedy trial, the 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment right to confront
your accuser, 5th Amendment right to Due Process of Law, the 14th Amendment
right of Equal Protection of the Laws; and Article I, Section 21, of the Florida
7
Constitution, Access to courts. -"The courts shall be open to every person for
redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or
delay."
"The right to sue and defend in the courts is one of the highest and most
essential privileges of citizenship and must be allowed by each State to the citizens
of all other States to the same extent that it is allowed to its own citizens." (See
Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907); McKnett v. St. Louis
& S.F. Ry., 292 U.S. 230, 233 (1934). "The constitutional requirement is satisfiedif the nonresident is given access to the courts of the State upon terms which, in
themselves, are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights he may
have, even though they may not be technically the same as those accorded to
resident citizens." (See Canadian Northern Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920).
"The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and
it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the
Constitution." (See Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 971 (5th Cir. 1983).
The Petitioner files this foregoing Petition, in good faith, because he does
not understand how his Petition for Writ ofMandamus, (which contains
meritorious claims of denials of Access to the Courts), can ever be deemed
frivolous by the 4th DCA when the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law
of the land and all judges are bound by it, because all judges took Oaths of Office
to uphold and defend the State and US Constitution, in which "Access to the
Courts," is a well established Common Law protected by the Florida and US
Constitution; therefore, the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus (which
contains meritorious claims of denials ofAccess to the Courts), should have been
granted by the 4th DCA, because the said rights are fundamental Constitutional
rights.
According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the
Supremacy Clause, establishes, "The U.S. Constitution and treaties as the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."
The 4th DCA in ordering the Petitioner's Petition (Access to the courts), as
frivolous, did in fact war with the Constitution, because Access to the courts is a
well established Common Law protected by the US and Florida Constitution.
8
According to Cohens vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 wheat) 264 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821),"No one can war with the Constitution." To war with the constitution constitutes
the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, which is treason in
violation ofTitle 18 U.S.C, Section 2381.
Title 5 U.S.C, Section 7311(Loyalty and Striking), which explicitly makes it
a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed
in the United States Government (including members of congress) to advocate the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government. Title 18 U.S.C, Section 1918
(Disloyalty and Asserting the Right to Strike against the Government), provides
penalties for violation of oath of office described in Title 5 U.S.C, Section 7311,
which include: (1) removal from office; an (2) confinement or a fine.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act, 76th United States
Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C, Section 2385 (Advocatingthe Overthrow of Government) enacted June 29, 1940) is a United States federal
statute that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S.
government and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the
government.
The 4th DCA in deeming the federally secured fundamental constitutional
right of, "Access to the Courts," as frivolous, with its September 11, 2012,
dismissal order, did indeed advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of
Government, in violation of the Smith Act; thereby, violating their oaths of office,
because access to the courts is Common Law that is protected by the Florida and
US Constitution.
The 4th DCA judges: Chief Judge Melanie G. May, Judge Cory J. Ciklin,Judge Mark E. Polen, Judge Spencer D. Levin, and Clerk, Marilyn Beuttenmuller,having taken an oath to support and defend the Florida and the United StatesConstitution, did wilfully and knowingly violate said oaths by entering an order, onSeptember 11, 2012, totally contrary to well established Common Law, Access tothe Courts," which violated the constitutional Rights of Petitioner by not upholdinghis Bill of Rights which is a felony, in violation ofTitle 18 U.S.C, Section 241 -Conspiracy Against Rights, and Title 18 U.S.C, Section 242 - Depravations ofRights under color of state law; and perjury of oaths of office in violation of Title18 U.S.C, Section 1621 - Perjury Generally.
9
CONCLUSION
Based upon all of the foregoing facts and the authorities cited therein, thedecision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal expressly and directly conflictswith prior decisions of the US Supreme Court, and a multitude of American caselaw on the same question of law (Access to the courts); and the decision conflictswith the Florida and US Constitution which protects the fundamental constitutionright of "Access to the courts," for all. Under Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv),this Court has jurisdiction to resolve these conflicts. This Court should acceptjurisdiction to resolve the conflict which results from the decision of the FourthDistrict Court of Appeal in this case, particularly, since the Petitioner waswrongfully convicted by the L. T. court and the state, because they lacked andlacks jurisdiction to move the above-styled cause forward. Furthermore, thePetitioner respectfully requests this Court to order the State of Florida to showcause, as to why Petitioner's Petition for Writ of mandamus should not be granted.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that I have complied with the font requirement and used 14-
point Times New Roman.
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by US Mail to: The Clerk of The Circuit Court, P. O. Box 700, Fort
Pierce, Florida, 34954; the State Attorney's Office, 411 South Second Street, Fort
Pierce, Florida, 34950; the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, The
Capitol PL-01., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050; the Florida Department of State,
Secretary of the State, R. A. Gary Building, 500 S. Bronough, Tallahassee, FL.
32399-0250; The Fourth District Court ofAppeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,West Palm Beach, FL, 33401; and The Clerk of the Supreme court of Florida, 500
South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, on this ay of
()(dober 2012.
RespectfullySubmitted,by: ExecutorEUGENE JAMES WILL/IAMS, E ATEOffice of the Executor,General - Post Office,1230 Avenue I,Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].
11
10/23/2012
COVER LETTER
EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, ESTATÈOffice of the Executor,General - Post Office,1230 Avenue I,Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].
The Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida,500 South Duval Street,Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
RE: Amunhotep El Bey vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Case Number SCl2-2119.
Please find enclosed a copy of Petitioner's Initial brief On Jurisdiction along with a digital copyand an Appendix. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Respectfully Sub ittedby: ExecutorEUGENE J ES WIL S,Office of the Executor,General - Post Office,1230 Avenue I,Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].
![Supreme Court of Florida - Florida Law Weekly · Supreme Court of Florida _____ No. SC14-1530 _____ IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. [October 29, 2015]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b1e83bb7f8b9a853a8b99ec/supreme-court-of-florida-florida-law-supreme-court-of-florida-no-sc14-1530.jpg)
