In the Supreme Court of Florida

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 20 | Comments: 0 | Views: 239
of 26
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMUNHOTEP EL BEY (Petitioner/Defendant) ) VS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF FLORIDA, HON. DAN VAUGHN, CLERK, JOSEPH SMITH, ) and ALICE CRUMP (Respondents) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: SC12-1111 L. T. JUDGE: DAN VAUGHN ) ) L.T. CASE NO’s:98-823-CFB 562004CT005567 2005CT002801 562007CF4217 2007TR043187 A1 2007TR043182 A1 2010MM001552 A 11CA2316

________________________) ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Amunhotep El Bey, in Propria Persona (my own proper self), formerly known as the artificial person, Eugene James Williams, pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.100; hereby, moves this Court to direct Respondents to accept Petitioner’s Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis, consolidate and/or file the said pleading in all criminal and traffic cases, as well as schedule Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment for a hearing, so that it can be granted. As grounds for this writ the Petitioner will state as follows:

The Petitioner is not a lawyer and his pleadings cannot be treated as such. In fact, according to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). “*A+ pro se petitioner’s pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice.” 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.”2 JURISDICTION This court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari, and any other writ in the exercise of its judicial authority. (See McFadden v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 682 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1996). Additionally, the Jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked according to Article V Section 3(b)(7) and (8) of the Florida Constitution. STANDING (CAUSE OF ACTION) GROUND I: Judge Dan Vaughn’s failure to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court) by not accepting Coram Nobis jurisdiction over Petitioner’s Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & a demand for dismissal or state the proper jurisdiction, filed on April 17, 2012, (see Exhibit A) constitutes a denial of access to the courts, in violation of petitioner’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1 st ,5 th

,6 th , and 14 th Amendments. Judge Dan Vaughn has and had a duty to accept Coram Nobis jurisdiction over the petitioner’s Writ of Coram Nobis, because of these four reasons: (1.)petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Dan Vaughn’s court, on February 14, 2001, to 70.25 months state prison, in L.T. Case Number 98-823-CF, in which petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction(s), via Writ of Error Coram Nobis, on the basis of newly discovered evidence of jurisdictional issues of fact that if known by the petitioner it would have changed the outcome of the proceedings; (2.) petitioner is no longer in state custody and can’t filed a 3.850 motion provided by Florida Rules of criminal procedure, which has a 2 year statute of limitations for filing; (3.) Petitioner has proven a continuing civil disability that justifies Coram Nobis jurisdiction, due to the fact that the felony convictions stemming from L.T Case Number 98-823-CF, has ruined petitioner’s life for the most part, because petitioner can’t get a decent job, can’t vote, can’t bare arms, and his reputation has been ruined; and (4.) Petitioner filed Writ of Error Coram Nobis because he was asking the 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 this is not the case, Judge Dan Vaughn 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 of jurisdiction is raised, and no enforcement can

proceed until jurisdiction is proved. An invalid conviction, with its attendant stigma and inevitable consequence of thereafter labeling the petitioner a felon, is an "error[] of the most fundamental character, . . . render[ing] the proceeding itself irregular and invalid." The writ of coram nobis should be issued when the 3 indictment has failed to state a crime and the petitioner has exhausted his statutory right of appeal.... (See McNally vs. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) The Supreme Court has restricted post-conviction review under a writ of coram nobis to "errors...of the most fundamental character, that is, such [that the error] rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid." (See United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 (1914); see also United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (coram nobis relief available after release from custody). For the relation between the writs of habeas corpus and coram nobis, see United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F.2d 659 (2d Cir. 1976): "Even if 28 USC § 2255 were unavailable to [petitioner], in view of the fact that he had fully served his sentence under a federal felony conviction, he could simply bring a petition for coram nobis under the 'All Writs' statute . . ., because such relief is available from the sentencing court even after release from custody." A continuing civil disability is the present and future impairment of some civil right, such as the right to vote or to maintain an occupational license. (See United States v. Keane, 852 F.2 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 2109 (1989) (circumstances justifying coram nobis jurisdiction). United States v. Keogh, 391 F.2d 138, 148 (2d Cir. 1968) (coram nobis petition properly granted only when court concludes that undisclosed evidence would have permitted defendant to raise reasonable doubt as to his guilt). Undisclosed evidence is newly discovered evidence. Coram Nobis was originally used to present newly discovered evidence that would have changed the outcome of the proceedings.

As a result of the foregoing denial of access to the court, the petitioner has suffered prejudice, because the relief the petitioner sought in his Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis is not forthcoming and never will be until Judge Dan Vaughn does his duty as a judge, which is to review and/or hear the said pleading as a referee of justice. GROUND II: Judge Dan Vaughn’s failure to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon petitioner’s motion for default judgment (see Exhibit H) constitutes a denial of access to the courts, in violation of petitioner’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1 st ,5 th ,6 th , and 14 th Amendments. The remedy the petitioner sought, which is and was Petitioner’s Motion for Default judgment, is provided by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, so Judge Dan Vaughn has rules governing the disposition of the said pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, Judge Dan Vaughn is forever silent regarding the said pleading; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4

As a result of the foregoing denial of access to the court, the petitioner has suffered prejudice, because the relief the petitioner sought in Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is not forthcoming and never will be until Judge Dan Vaughn does his duty as a judge, which is to review and/or hear the said pleading as a referee of justice. GROUND III: The Clerk of the 19 th Judicial Circuit, Joseph Smith, has failed to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty as the Clerk of the Circuit Court, by not filing petitioner’s Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis (when petitioner hand-delivered the said pleading, on April 17, 2012, in the criminal and traffic division, on the 4 th floor of the Saint Lucie County Courthouse, Fort Pierce, FL.), in all listed criminal and traffic cases. Joe Smith’s failure to do so constitutes a denial of access to the courts, in violation of petitioner’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1 st ,5 th ,6 th , and 14 th Amendments. Joe Smith should have filed petitioner’s Writ of Error Coram Nobis in the appropriate courts (Criminal/Traffic) with the appropriate judges in all listed case numbers, except for L.T. Case

Number 11CA2316, because it is a civil case assigned to Judge Dan Vaughn. Petitioner added L.T. Case Number 11CA2316 after he filed the said Writ of Error Coram Nobis, in an attempt to consolidate all cases (see Exhibit F: Motion to Consolidate). As a result of the foregoing denial of access to the court, the petitioner has suffered prejudice, because the relief the petitioner sought in his Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis is not forthcoming and never will be until Joseph Smith does his duty as a Clerk, which is to process all civil and criminal cases and prepare court records, and etc. GROUND IV: Judge Dan Vaughn’s failure to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not granting petitioner’s motion to Consolidate (see Exhibit F ) constitutes a denial of access to the courts, in violation of petitioner’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1 st ,5 th ,6 th , and 14 th Amendments. Petitioner sought to consolidate L.T. Case Number 11CA2316 with all of his criminal felony, criminal traffic cases, and misdemeanor cases, because birth certificate fraud is alleged in the said case. The Birth certificate is the foundation of all identification, because it is the first piece of identification. All other identification is based off of the Birth Certificate. “If the Birth Certificate is a fraud then all other means of identification that is based off of it is also a fraud.” ~ Amunhotep El Bey (I came to this conclusion for my quote by using the fruits of a poisonous

tree doctrine in the US Supreme Court’s landmark case in Wong Sun.) The Birth Certificate fraud mentioned in L.T. Case Number 11CA2316, gave the state of the Florida the illusion of personal jurisdiction over the petitioner in all of the cases listed in the above-styled cause, because it made the petitioner a subject, a citizen, illegally without full disclosure and without his consent; therefore, it is highly evident that all cases are related; especially, L.T. Case Number 11CA2316 and L.T. Case Number 98-823-CF, because both cases are state circuit cases with the same judge and with the same parties.5 As a result of the birth certificate fraud, the State of Florida, a corporation, was able to criminally sue the petitioner in all cases, because it gave the state personal jurisdiction over the petitioner by making him a citizen (subject), state property. If not for the birth certificate, prosecution would have been illegal, because the court wouldn’t have jurisdiction to move the case forward, due to Foreign Sovereign Immunity. The fraud of the Birth Certificate enabled the state of Florida to ruin the petitioner’s life. L.T. Case Number 98-823-CF and all other criminal felony, criminal traffic, and misdemeanor cases are civil actions according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 2, “There is but one cause of action and that is civil.” Therefore, all L.T. cases are compatible with the civil action filed in L.T. Case Number 11CA2316. Furthermore, due to the fact that the state is in default judgment in all L.T. criminal, traffic, and misdemeanor cases, all L.T. cases are now civil in nature – making them all compatible with the civil action filed in L.T. case number 11CA2316. Additionally, Title 50 United States Codes (USC), Chapter 3, Alien Enemy, in appendix section 23, Jurisdiction of the United States Court and Judges, is where criminal courts get there jurisdiction from. According to the said code, Criminal charges can’t be brought against the petitioner because he is not an enemy alien resident; therefore the Lower Tribunal has and had no Subject matter jurisdiction to try him as a criminal defendant and the state of Florida has and had

no standing to bring a criminal law suit before the court as a criminal cases. By learning all of this information, one can reasonably conclude that criminal charges only apply to Alien Enemies, in which the petitioner is not and never has been an Alien Enemy. This paragraph alone voids all judgments of convictions and it proves that all cases are indeed civil, unless one is an Alien Enemy. This is just another reason why the lower tribunal should have consolidated all cases, because petitioner has no criminal charges, because they don’t apply to him. Petitioner is not an Alien Enemy and therefore does not qualify for criminal charges. Look at indictments and informations for further evidence that all actions are civil. If you look, you will notice that indictments and informations are styled in the nature of a civil action. This is more reason why the lower tribunal should have consolidated all cases, because it is very evident that all actions are civil. If I was Joe Smith or Judge Dan Vaughn I would consolidate all cases to get rid of everything at one time, which would save money on the judicial process, and it would prevent the petitioner from seeking higher damages in separate cases. Judge Dan Vaughn is an experienced State Circuit Judge, therefore, petitioner is confident that the said judge can handle the case load because he is already familiar with the case and knows that he must void all judgments of convictions and award damages for the unlawful incarceration that stems from them. Having Judge Dan Vaughn handle all cases would be best for everyone, so it should be done.6 There is nowhere in the Florida Rules of Court that say that consolidation of multiple cases can’t be done. The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure remains silent on this issue; therefore, this Court should decide this issue to give us case law on it or just order Joseph Smith to file petitioner’s Writ of Error Coram Nobis in all listed criminal felony, criminal traffic, and misdemeanor cases, which would be just as good as any consolidation. As a result of the foregoing denial of access to the courts, the petitioner has suffered prejudice, due to the fact that petitioner is getting denial orders from traffic judges regarding civil pleadings

that petitioner filed in Circuit Court (see Exhibits E, and J). The denial orders placed unnecessary emotional and mental distress upon the petitioner, as well as financially too. The denial orders also caused delay in the pursuit of justice, because most judges stand behind their own orders. Once a case is dismissed or a pleading is denied that surely causes delay in any case. Consolidation of cases with Judge Dan Vaughn would prevent this mishap of justice from every occurring again, because we would have one case and one judge, which is less confusing for everyone. GROUND V: Judge Dan Vaughn’s Judicial Assistant, Alice Crump’s, failure to do her ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not scheduling petitioner’s motion for default judgment constitutes a denial of access to the courts, in violation of petitioner’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1 st ,5 th ,6 th , and 14 th Amendments. 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 (see Exhibit H) 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(see Exhibit E), 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 19 th Judicial Circuit.7 The actions of Alice Crump constitute a denial of access to the courts, suppression of evidence, and obstruction of justice, which is in violation of the 1 st ,5 th ,6 th ,8 th

, and 14 th Amendments under the US Constitution. The petitioner has suffered prejudice due to the denial of Access to the Courts by Alice Crump, because justice will not be served until the petitioner’s Motion for Default judgment is scheduled for a hearing. Due process required her to set the petitioner’s said motion after he made an attempt to call her and schedule a hearing date. This Court long ago established that for mandamus to lie, the duty a petitioner seeks to compel must be both ministerial (non-discretionary) and clearly established (already in existence). See City of Coral Gables v. Worley, 44 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 1950) (stating “*i+f the discharge of the duty requires the exercise of judgment or discretion the act is not ministerial and mandamus will not lie”); Florida League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397, 401 (Fla. 1992) (holding that “mandamus may . . . not be used to establish the existence of . . . a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law”); see also Plymel v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 242, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The purpose of the writ of mandamus is to coerce performance of existing official duties, which an official has refused or failed to fulfill. See Smith, 607 So. 2d at 401. Courts use writs of mandamus to compel recalcitrant officials to perform clear legal duties that are ministerial. See, e.g., Hatten, 561 So. 2d at 563 (Fla. 1990); City of Winter Garden v. Norflor Const. Corp., 396 So. 2d 865, 866-67(Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 815-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Beach, 736 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) The court in Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d at 790 held that “Mandamus is a onetime order by the court to force public official to perform their legally designated employment duties.” Based upon all of the foregoing grounds and the authorities cited therein, petitioner’s cause of

action qualifies for mandamus action due to the fact that Respondents have failed to do ministerial duties that are clearly established. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Exhaustion of administrative remedies regarding grounds I, II, VI, and V are not applicable because the proceedings are already state court proceedings and have always been. In other words, the petitioner can’t file a grievance or complaint against court officials regarding court issues to any other administrative agency, except to a higher court of law. Petitioner files Mandamus in an attempt to get Respondents to perform ministerial duties that are clearly established. It is of my opinion that mandamus directed at court officials serves as a means to grieve them and to police the courts. If this Court agrees with my philosophy (reasoning), then this foregoing Mandamus serves as a grievance against the named officials, Respondents, for the 19 th Judicial Circuit, State of Florida. Exhaustion of administrative remedies regarding ground III wasn’t feasible because petitioner asked for a grievance, on May 18, 2012, when he appeared in person to file some pleadings, so 8 that he could grieve the fact that his Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis wasn’t filed in all listed case numbers. The petitioner received no grievance, but he did get Joseph Smith’s email address. Petitioner wrote Joseph Smith an email asking him to file the said pleading in all listed case numbers, but unfortunately, the petitioner never got a response back. Petitioner files this Mandamus in good faith because he believes that there is no other option to get judicial officers/member of the court to perform ministerial duties that are already clearly established. STATEMENTS OF THE CASE AND FACTS On February 23, 1998, at approximately 5:40 PM, various offenses were allegedly committed at

the Chan’s residence, located at 613 SW Pueblo Terrace in the City of Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The above series of events lead to the arrest of the petitioner, on March 16, 1998, who was charged with Armed Home Invasion Robbery with a Firearm while wearing a mask; Armed Burglary of a Dwelling while wearing a Mask; Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon while wearing a Mask; Battery on an Elderly Person while wearing a Mask; and Battery while wearing a Mask (See case number 98-823-CF). On April 9, 1999, the Petitioner appeared in open court with Special Public Defendant, Michael J. Kessler. Assistant State Attorney Steven L. Levin was present for the state of Florida. Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years state prison over his objection that he wanted to withdraw his plea. Petitioner filed an appeal and won. The Petitioner’s case was reversed and remanded back to the 19 th Judicial Circuit. On February 14, 2001, the Petitioner appeared in open court with Special Public Defender, Leatha Mullins. Assistant State Attorney Tracey Nemerofsky was present for the state of Florida. Petitioner was sworn and entered a plea of no contest to count II- Home Invasion Robbery (lesser) F.S. 812.135F1, and count XVIII- Battery while wearing a mask, F.S 784.03M1. The Presentence Investigation (PSI) was waived and the petitioner was sentenced to count II – Seventy Ground Twenty-Five (70.25) months state prison with 1066 days jail time credit by Judge, Dan Vaughn. ASA, Tracey Nemerofsky announced a no process on counts VI – Burglary of Dwelling with an assault, X – Battery on an elderly Person While wearing a Mask, and XIV – Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The petitioner was released from state prison on September 16, 2003, serving 5 years and ten months in state prison, 2,010 days to be exact, if you count every day of the petitioner’s illegal incarceration stemming from case number 98-823-CF. The arrest was illegal, because the State

lack the jurisdiction and proper venue to do so, and etc (see Exhibit A: Affidavit: In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis, for all claims).9 On October 10, 2004, the defendant was arrested and charged with Driving under the Influence (DUI) at approximately 0213 hours. The charge was dropped down to Reckless Driving, because petitioner filed a Motion to Suppress evidence in case number 562004CT005567, and the petitioner blew under the state legal limit. The petitioner accepted a plea agreement from the state which was 6 months probation and it included the DUI to be dropped down to a lesser included offense, which was Reckless Driving. The petitioner violated his probation with a driving while license suspended ticket, 8318-DRF, which created case number 2005CT002801. On July 15, 2005, the petitioner appeared in open court with court appointed counsel, Doreen Reagent. The Petitioner accepted a plea agreement with the State for 90 days in the County Jail for the violation of Reckless Driving Probation in case number 2004CT005567, and 6 months probation for driving while license suspended in case number 2005CT002801. The sentences were run concurrent. The petitioner was released from the County Jail after serving 90 days in jail, illegally. The arrest was illegal, because the state lacked the jurisdiction and proper venue to try the petitioner, as he has demonstrated this fact when petitioner filed his Affidavit: In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis (see Exhibit A) Altogether, the petitioner served 2,100 days behind bars, illegally. For example, 2,010 days in case number 98-823-CF, and 90 days in case number 2004CT005567, which equals 2,100 days of illegal incarceration altogether. Case number 562007CF4217 was a 2007 criminal case that charged petitioner as a habitual traffic offender. Te Petitioner filed an Amend Motion to Suppress and got the charge dropped.

Case numbers 2007TR043182 A1 and 2007TR043187 A1, are two traffic citations that charged petitioner as a defendant in 2007. The petitioner received both traffic tickets at the same time. Case number 2010MM001552 is a criminal misdemeanor that the petitioner received timeserved with no probation in 2010. When the petitioner was illegally arrested and charged with various crimes, the State of Florida committed a false arrest, kidnapping, false imprisonment, treason, slavery, racketeering, fraud, defamation of character, trespass, and violated defendant’s federally secured constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1 st , 13 th ,8 th ,5 th , 11 th , and 14 th Amendments under the US Constitution. As a result of the illegal arrest, the petitioner lost some of the best years of his life and the potential for a great deal of money too, as well as a felony conviction that makes it almost impossible to get a job and it bars the defendant from certain jobs.10 The fee for illegal incarceration in Florida is roughly around $200.00 US Dollars per day; that is once Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed and the state continues its illegal incarceration. If this is the case, the State of Florida, the corporation of Florida, owes the defendant $420,000 US Dollars. I

came to this conclusion by multiplying the total number of days defendant served behind bars with the going fee of $200.00 dollars per day. However, in 2008, the Florida Legislature passed the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act, which set up a streamlined process to pay exonerees $50,000 per year for wrongful incarceration as well as provide them access to tuition-free education. According to the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act, the State of Florida owes, the defendant $300,000 US dollars, for the 5 years and 10 months of illegal incarceration, which rounds out to 6 years, easily, when the 90 days the defendant spent in county jail, illegally, is added. On August 26, 2011, the petitioner, Case number 11CA2316, filed an civil action against the state of Florida for birth certificate fraud and etc, because plaintiff was sold into slavery/citizenship/state property/bondage, when the state of Florida issued a Birth Certificate in his former name EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, which pledged the petitioner as the security/collateral for the state and national debt. This was done unlawfully, because the petitioner in this case was too young to consent to the issuance of the Birth Certificate and full disclosure was never given to his parents, the informants, and to the petitioner. The federal and state governments came up with the Birth Certificate fraud, the Birth certificate, in 1933 when this Country went bankrupt, because of the great depression. In order to make a long story short, the Governments created the Birth Certificate in order to pledge the labor and the potential labor of the people as security and/or collateral for any debt accumulated by the governments when they borrowed money from the Federal Reserve Bank. As of right now, the bond that petitioner’s Birth Certificate created is being traded on the New York Stock Exchange and it’s worth Millions of Dollars. As a result of the said fraud, the Birth Certificate, the State of Florida had the illusion of Personal Jurisdiction to prosecute the petitioner, EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, in L.T. case

number 98-823-CF, and other cases too, because the birth Certificate established citizenship. If not for the fraud, the illegal contract, which is the Birth Certificate, the State of Florida would have never been able to prosecute the petitioner when he was the defendant in the said L.T. case number and other cases as well; because the petitioner wouldn’t be a subject, a citizen, of the State of Florida. (See Exhibit A: Affidavit: In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & a demand for dismissal or state the proper jurisdiction, filed on April 17, 2012, at 11:28AM, if this Court wants to learn how the Birth Certificate fraud enabled the state of Florida to virtually ruin this petitioner’s life with all of its illegal prosecutions mentioned in that pleading. The State of Florida was enabled to do so, because the fraud, the Birth Certificate, that created the plaintiff’s illegal citizenship status gave the State of Florida the illusion of personal jurisdiction to be able to illegally prosecute the plaintiff; which in fact ruined his life for the most part) (See L.T.Case Number 98-823-CF and others too).11 The State of Florida went into default on September 25, 2011, in L.T. Case number 11CA2316, which is 30 days after the petitioner in this case filed the action on August 26, 2011. The petitioner filed a motion for default judgment on November 14, 2011 (see Exhibit C). The petitioner never received a hearing for the said motion. The petitioner filed a First Amended Motion for Default Judgment on May 11, 2012 (see Exhibit D). The petitioner has not received a hearing on this case and the judge, Dan Vaughn, has ignored all pleadings in the case file. On April 17, 2012, the petitioner filed an Affidavit: In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis, in the circuit court of the 19 th Judicial Circuit, in the criminal and traffic division, State of Florida (See Exhibit A); along with an Affidavit of Nationality (see Exhibit B). The petitioner filed the said pleadings 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 (see Exhibit A, for further detail). On May, 10, 2012, the petitioner received a back-dated unsigned court order from the 19 th Judicial Circuit, which resulted in the petitioner filing a Motion to dismiss: Sham pleadings (see Exhibit E), a motion to consolidate (see Exhibit F), and First Amended Motion for Default Judgment (see Exhibit G), on May 11, 2012. On May 18, 2012, the petitioner filed Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (see Exhibit H); because the 30 days petitioner gave the state of Florida to respond to his Affidavit/Writ of Error Coram Nobis (Exhibit A) had expired on May 17, 2012. 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 (see Exhibit H) 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(see Exhibit E), 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 19 th Judicial Circuit.12 The actions of Alice Crump constitute a denial of access to the courts, suppression of evidence, and obstruction of justice, which is in violation of the 1 st ,5 th ,6 th ,8 th , and 14 th Amendments under the US Constitution On May 23, 2012 at or around 11:00AM, the petitioner called Alice Crump and told her don’t worry about scheduling any hearings, because I was transferring the case to Federal Court. On June 1, 2012, the petitioner received an order, dated May 23, 2012, from Judge Dan Vaughn, striking Motion to Dismiss sham pleadings; Motion to consolidate; and Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & a demand for dismissal or state the proper jurisdiction. (See Exhibit I: Constructive Notice of Refusal: In the nature of Writ of Coram Non Judice). The court

struck all of the said pleadings without having the jurisdiction to do so, because jurisdiction was never proven on the record. The court committed treason when it done so, because the court lacks jurisdiction. “When a judge acts when he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” (See US vs. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. ct, 471, 66 L. Ed. 2 nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohen vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6wheat) 264, 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821)). On June 2, 2012, the petitioner received an order, dated May 29, 2012, from Magistrate/T.H.O., denying motion for default judgment (see Exhibit J: Notice to the court: In the Nature of Writ of Coram Non Judice). On June 6, 2012, the petitioner filed a notice of removal/change of venue/motion to transfer (see Exhibit K), in an attempt to remove the above-styled cause, because it’s obvious that the 19 th Judicial Circuit is a hostile environment and Alice Crump was obviously giving petitioner the run-around and a hard time about scheduling any hearings, and the way she talked to the petitioner has a lot to do with the attempted transfer/removal. The petitioner’s attempted removal does not bar this foregoing writ of mandamus, because removal is only for civil defendants. The petitioner is not a civil defendant; he is a criminal defendant that seeks removal, so it is very unlikely that the federal court would remove the petitioner’s criminal cases even after considering all of the exceptional circumstances that may warrant removal, transfer, or change of venue; because the federal court just doesn’t have jurisdiction yet, because the petitioner has not exhausted all of his state court remedies, which is very evident because this foregoing writ of Mandamus is a State court remedy that could be the remedy that grants the petitioner the relief he seeks. Petitioner is in contact with the Federal Court, the southern District of Florida, in order to

voluntarily withdraw his action of removal, which was filed on June 6, 2012. Petitioner has filed a motion to dismiss the said action (see Exhibit L). The US District Court Case Name for the said action is State of Florida v. El Bey. The case number is 2:12-CV-14201-JEM. There is no need for Federal intervention at this point, because petitioner has this Court to ensure fairness. The petitioner apologizes to the Court for seeking removal in federal court. Petitioner had thought that this Court had went silent on his claims. Petitioner thought this Court would not police the actions and inactions of the L.T. court. The petitioner’s patience had run out and petitioner was frustrated with all of the actions and inactions of the Respondents. All petitioner 13 had to do was wait for an response from this Court when the petitioner first grieved his dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the L.T. court, on May 11, 2012, when petitioner filed a cover letter along with other pleadings. However, I got a little impatient and filed for removal in Federal Court two days before the petitioner received the correspondence from this Court, titled as, “Acknowledgment of New Case,” dated 6/4/2012. The petitioner received the said correspondence from this Court, on 6/8/2012, which is two days after petitioner attempted to remove the above-styled cause from state court to Federal Court. The state of Florida refuses to prove jurisdiction and is therefore silent. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)). I fear that if this Court does not compel the said Respondents, via this foregoing Writ of Mandamus, to perform clearly established ministerial duties, justice will never be served, because it’s evident that the respondents will not do what is right, because they don’t want to admit fraud, which would make them liable for damages.

The Respondents may also fear that the petitioner’s action (see Exhibit A) if fully granted would put an end to the justice system, because petitioner asked the L.T. court to prevent the State of Florida from trying defendants without having the proper venue and jurisdiction, the signature of the holder in due course, the Corpus Delicti, and etc. Well, as a great philosopher, I understand that the criminal justice system is needed in order to ensure law and order, and without it there would be chaos, so the criminal justice system serves as a means of national security. This Court would never allow the petitioner to do that anyway, so why did the petitioner ask the L.T. court to do that? Well, just to answer his own question: the request was just merely a scare tactic, because a civil action is war. The petitioner understands that his action (see Exhibit A) is very intimidating, due to its power, but the State of Florida can relax, because we need the justice system, so lawyers and judges will always have jobs in this corporation called America. The State of Florida will remain in business, because Petitioner’s action is no threat to anyone’s livelihood. I give this Court my word on that. “A nation without Law and order is not a nation at all.” ~ Amunhotep El Bey Now, that we have that settled, granting this foregoing Writ of Mandamus is not a threat to national security. The Petitioner just wanted to make this clear for all Florida courts. I guess it is fair to say that anyone in the petitioner’s shoes would want his criminal and traffic record cleared and would want compensation for all the time served illegally behind bars. “The writ of Error Coram Nobis has never been abolished, because the right to clear one’s name is a fundamental right.” ~ This quote was taken from the Court, in McNally vs. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987).14 CONCLUSION The Respondents failure to do clearly established ministerial and/or judicial duties constitutes a denial of access to the courts in violation of fundamental US Constitutional rights; thereby, making all of the respondents subject to the relief sought in this foregoing writ of Mandamus.

RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, based upon all of the foregoing grounds, facts, and the authorities cited therein, the petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: (1.)Order Respondent, Judge Dan Vaughn, to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty by ordering him to accept Coram Nobis Jurisdiction, because petitioner clearly qualifies for its issuance and for all relief requested. Petitioner is referring to the pleading filed in this Court as Exhibit A. (2.)Order Respondent, Judge Dan Vaughn, to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty by ordering him to review and/or hear Petitioner’s Motion for Default (see Exhibit H), because the Florida Rules of Court is clear and well established as to his duty as a judge regarding the disposition of the said pleading. (3.)Order Respondents, Joseph Smith, to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty by ordering him to file Petitioner’s Affidavit in the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis (see Exhibit A) in all listed L.T. case numbers, because as the Clerk of the Circuit Court his duty is clear and established to file documents, prepare the record, and etc. (4.)Order Respondent, Judge Dan Vaughn, to do his ministerial and/or judicial duty by ordering him to review and/or hear Petitioner’s Motion to Consolidate (see Exhibit F), and grant it so that all L.T. cases can be consolidated in accordance with the father and moter of all American rules of Procedure, “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Rule 2, “There is but one cause of action and that is civil.” All L.T. cases can be consolidated with L.T. Case Number 11CA2316, a civil action, because all actions are civil. There is nothing criminal about any of the petitioner’s L.T. cases anymore, due to Petitioners counterclaim against the state, better known as, Affidavit: In the Nature of Wit of Error Coram Nobis (See Exhibit A), which has all of the petitioner’s criminal L. T. case numbers in civil default due to the state’s failure to respond within 30 days

(5.)Order Respondent, Judicial Assistant, Alice Crump, to do her ministerial and/or judicial duty by ordering her to schedule a hearing for petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (see Exhibit H) in order to provide the petitioner with his due process rights of access to the courts, which is a fundamental guaranteed constitutional right; therefore, it is clearly established. (6.)Order the Respondents to pay for any and all filing fees, court fees, and attorney fees associated with this action.15 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; Judge Dan Vaughn, P. O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34954; Joseph Smith, P. O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34954; Alice Crump, 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, Sate 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 US Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220; The Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles – DMV, 1210-G Capitol Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32301; the US Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey, SE Washington, DC. 20590; The United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 101 South US Highway 1, Room #1016, Fort Pierce, FL. 34950; and The Clerk of the Supreme court of Florida, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, on this ___day of ____________________, 2012.

Respectfully Submitted by:______________________

Defendant/petitioner, Amunhotep El Bey. All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice; U.C.C. 1-207 / 308, U.C.C. 1-103. Amunhotep El Bey 1230 Avenue I Fort Pierce, FL [34950]

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close