IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Amunhotep El Bey
)
(Petitioner/General Executor)
)
VS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF FLORIDA,
)
HON. DAN VAUGHN,
)
CLERK, JOSEPH SMITH, )
and ALICE CRUMP
)
(Respondents)
L.T. CASE NO's:98-82,CFB
562004ÒT005567 2005CT002Š0L
562007CF4217
2007TR043187 Al
2007TR043182 Al
2010MM001552 A
11CA2316
4* DCA Case#: 4D12-2617
L. T. JUDGE: DAN VAUGHN
CASE NO: SC12-2119
)
)
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].
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................ii - iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...........................................................iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS.........................................1 -5
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT......................................................6
ARGUMENT..............................................................................7 -9
THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW OF PETITIONER'S
PETITION, BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE 4" DCA EXPRESSLY
CONFLICTS WITH THE FLORIDA AND U.S. CONSTITUTION (IN
REGARDS TO WHETHER CLAIMS OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS
ARE FRIVOLOUS), AND CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
RAILROAD CO., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)...........................................7 -9
CONCLUSION..............................................................................10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.....................................................10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................11
APPENDIX A................................................................................12
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
PAGE
United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir.1999).................................1
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)....................................................1
Latana vs. Hopper, 103 F. 2d 118...........................................................1
Mcnutt vs. GMAC, 298 U.S. 178...........................................................1
Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).......6, 7, 8
Canadian Northern Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920).................................8
Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 971 (5th Cir. 1983)...................................8
Cohens vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 wheat) 264 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821).................8
CONSTITUTION
Article VI, Clause 2, of the US Constitution...........................................4, 8
Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Constitution of the State of Florida........................7
1®* Amendment.................................................................................7
6th Amendment................................................................................7
5th Amendment................................................................................7
14th Amendment..............................................................................7
Article I, Section 21, of the Florida Constitution, Access to courts....................7
11
FLORIDA RULES OF COURT
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.850........................................1
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv)...................7, 10
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Estoppel........................................................................................1
Acquiescence..................................................................................1
The Law of Presumption.....................................................................2
Legal Maxims of Law........................................................................2
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 of
Error Coram Nobis, in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, State of
Florida, in the criminal division. The Petitioner filed the said pleading to correct
the illegal null and void judgments of convictions that arose because the STATE
OF FLORIDA lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction, improper venue,
standing, no Corpus Delicti, no holder in due course, and etc., to try the Petitioner
on all criminal and traffic cases in the above-styled cause (see the record: Affidavit
In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis, for further detail); which constitutes
wrongful convictions, fraud, kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, false arrest
and etc., on the behalf of the state, because the state illegally prosecuted the
Petitioner without having jurisdiction to do so; however, unfortunately, the
illegally prosecutions ruined the Petitioner's life.
The Petitioner filed Writ of Error Coram Nobis because he was asking the
L.T. court to correct newly discovered jurisdictional errors of fact and the
Petitioner was no longer in state custody, so he couldn't file a 3.850 motion, under
the 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 should
have construed the said pleading into the proper legal vehicle in order to do
substantial 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 to
be construed liberally in favor of the accused." Furthermore, according to Latana
vs. Hopper, 103 F. 2d 118; and Mcnutt vs. GMAC, 298 U.S. 178, it matters not
how the issue ofjurisdiction is raised, and no enforcement can proceed until
jurisdiction is proved.
The Petitioner gave the STATE OF FLORIDA 30 days to respond to his
Affidavit: In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The state failed to respond
within 30 days, so on May 18, 2012, the Petitioner filed Petitioner's Motion for
Default Judgment (see the record); because the 30 days petitioner gave the state of
Florida to respond to his Affidavit: In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis had
expired on May 17, 2012.
Thus far, the state has failed to prove jurisdiction on the record, because the
state has failed to rebut the Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis
and 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 is
in dishonor due to acquiescence (silence), which is acceptance due to the Law of
1
Presumption. "AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN
COMMERCE"12 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Claims made in your affidavit, if not
rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. "AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT
BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE" Heb. 6:16-17. There is nothing
left to resolve. CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE, "THE WORD OF GOD," Public
Law 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 Claim
bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a
controversy is considered consent to any judgment." Legal Maxim: "He who does
not deny, admits."
On May 21, 2012, at or around 1:30PM Eastern, the petitioner called Judge
Dan Vaughn's Judicial Assistance, Alice Crump, in order to schedule a hearing for
Petitioner'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 the
petitioner that she didn't have the said motion yet and that she wasn't for sure if
Judge 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 my
motion 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 she
was looking and doesn't see it. So I said, "You mean to tell me that a motion that I
filed on May 11, 2012, isn't on your docket yet? Someone had to pull my
pleadings!" So Alice told me to hold on! Wait a minute! Don't you go off
assuming things! So I said in other words, you would too if you was on the other
end of this phone conversation. There was then another moment of silence. Alice
then told the Petitioner that she sees the Petitioner's Motion for Default and
Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss: Sham pleadings and that they would have to
review my pleadings first and she has to see if Dan Vaughn is my judge, so the
petitioner laughed again. Alice asked petitioner for a number to reach him at, so he
gave her his phone number. Alice then told the petitioner in other words, that what
they do around here is their bread and butter and that she was a part of everything
and that I would have to fight all of them. However, no hearing was scheduled and
it 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 Dismiss
sham pleadings; Motion to consolidate; and Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error
Coram Nobis (see the record, the order from L.T. Judge Dan Vaughn, dated May
23, 2012).
2
On June 4, 2012, the Petitioner received an acknowledgement of New Case
from the Florida Supreme Court, and he filed his Mandamus on June 14, 2012,
stating factual allegations of denials of federally secured fundamental
constitutional rights, to wit: "Access to the Courts." (See the record, Original
Petition for Writ of Mandamus). The Petitioner filed the said Petition because he
was unlawfully being denied Access to the Courts by the Respondents, because the
Respondents are trying to avoid the fact that they wrongfully convicted the
Petitioner because they never had the Jurisdiction to do so. (See "Affidavit in the
nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis," for actual proof that the L.T. court and the
state has and had no jurisdiction to convict the Petitioner; therefore, the convictions
were indeed wrongful). The Petitioner's Petition is designed to get the Petitioner
Access to the Courts (a hearing), so that Default Judgment can be executed in
accordance with the Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment that was never
addressed 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 of Notice
to the Court, notifying the 4th DCA of his status, legal name correction, and the fact
that the 4th DCA was in error by designating the above-styled cause as EUGENE
JAMES 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 its
order, on September 11, 2012, dismissing Petitioner's Mandamus, as frivolous, or
whether the 4th DCA entered the said order in order to try to protect its fellow state
officials.
On September 11, 2012, the 4th DCA entered an order dismissing
Petitioner's Petition as frivolous; however, the order is so vague and it is in conflict
with well established Common Law, "Access to the Courts," that the petitioner
respectfully requests this Court to review the said order, because Petitioner knows
beyond a reasonable doubt that issues that involve deprivations of federally
secured guaranteed Constitutional Rights, to wit: "Access to the courts," can never
be considered or deemed frivolous, because the fundamental Constitutional Right
of, "Access to the Courts," is the core foundation of the legal system and therefore
can never be frivolous.
The Petitioner files this foregoing Petition, in good faith, because he does
not understand how his Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (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 (see Article VI, Clause 2, of the US
Constitution), 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, so how can the
Petitioner's Petition (which contains meritorious claims of denials of Access to the
Courts), be deemed frivolous by the 4th DCA, when the said rights are fundamental
Constitutional rights? Based upon the said question, the Petitioner requests this
Court to please review its order dismissing the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
Mandamus, as frivolous, On September 11, 2012.
The September 11, 2012, dismissal order is so vague that Petitioner doesn't
know what part of his Petition is frivolous and why it is frivolous; therefore, the
order should be reviewed by this Court in order to determine whether deprivations
of Access to Courts are frivolous claims.
On September 18, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Refusal in the nature
of Writ of Coram Non Judice, in the 4* DCA. The Petitioner filed the said pleading
in 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 of Mandamus; 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 brief with 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 the
instant Case (4D12-1617), the Fourth District concluded that the Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed in this Court in SC12-1111, (which contains
meritorious claims of denials of Access 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'S
PETITION, BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE 4T" DCA
EXPRESSLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FLORIDA AND U.S.
CONSTITUTION (IN REGARDS TO WHETHER CLAIMS OF
ACCESS TO THE COURTS ARE FRIVOLOUS), AND
CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO., 207
U.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 satisfied
if 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 of Mandamus, (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 of Access 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 of Title 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 (Advocating
the 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 States
Constitution, did wilfully and knowingly violate said oaths by entering an order, on
September 11, 2012, totally contrary to well established Common Law, Access to
the Courts," which violated the constitutional Rights of Petitioner by not upholding
his Bill of Rights which is a felony, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C, Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights, and Title 18 U.S.C, Section 242 - Depravations of
Rights under color of state law; and perjury of oaths of office in violation of Title
18 U.S.C, Section 1621 - Perjury Generally.
9
CONCLUSION
Based upon all of the foregoing facts and the authorities cited therein, the
decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal expressly and directly conflicts
with prior decisions of the US Supreme Court, and a multitude of American case
law on the same question of law (Access to the courts); and the decision conflicts
with the Florida and US Constitution which protects the fundamental constitution
right 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 accept
jurisdiction to resolve the conflict which results from the decision of the Fourth
District Court of Appeal in this case, particularly, since the Petitioner was
wrongfully convicted by the L. T. court and the state, because they lacked and
lacks jurisdiction to move the above-styled cause forward. Furthermore, the
Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to order the State of Florida to show
cause, 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 14point 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 of Appeal, 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: Executor
EUGENE JAMES WILL/IAMS, E
ATE
Office 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, ESTATÈ
Office 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 copy
and an Appendix. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Respectfully Sub itted
by: Executor
EUGENE J
ES WIL
S,
Office of the Executor,
General - Post Office,
1230 Avenue I,
Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].