A Failed Petition for Writ of Certiorari: the Most Important Project of the Year

The U.S. Supreme Court did not see fit to grant Certiorari to review Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s Petition regarding the need to abolish and overturn the race-based standing requirement for Civil Rights Removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1443.  But I think that, in fact, this really is one of the most significant issues of our time.  Federal Civil Rights Litigation needs to be liberated from the chains of race-relatedness.  Laws which simultaneously but “equally” violate, obliterate, or infringe upon the Civil Rights of Anglo-American, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, and Asian-Americans for the benefit of the Banks are NOT Superior to laws which singled out one or another of these groups.  

The Petition drafted on behalf of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson summarizes the arguments and itemizes the important reasons for “colorblind” construction and implementation of the Civil Rights Acts fairly succinctly: 03-14-2011 CEL final Revisions to KAGL Petition for Writ of Certiorari Appendix & Certificates.

5 responses to “A Failed Petition for Writ of Certiorari: the Most Important Project of the Year

  1. what is your contact email address?

  2. Have you considered filing suit against the court and judges? How many judges were involved in the dissolution proceeding? I am in the process of filing suit against the 13th down there on a multicount 42 USC 1983 and federal RICO complaint. In nine years of pro se litigation I’ve disqualified 11 judges in the 13th for judicial bias and corruption; most recently via a Section 199 Sunshine Act request I obtained video surveillance records from the Chief Justice showing the current presiding judge taking bribes on the bench and forging a transcript that was used to issue 16 Orders adverse to my position, so I have the minimum two predicate acts to properly plead a federal RICO complaint and go after the judges involved in the case fixing scheme. If you can show collusion between at least two officers of the Court (opposing counsel and the judge) your issue might be ripe for a RICO suit, if you aren’t bothered by the complexity of framing an artful RICO pleading.

    • Charles Edward Lincoln III

      Sounds very interesting but you will not get RICO to “stick” with only two predicate acts—that’s the minimum but Judges like a more fully developed pattern of racketeering… I always consider suing judges but getting around sovereign immunity is extremely difficult. You can obviously communicate with me here just fine but my regular e-mail is charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com. It all sounds very interesting. I have done lots of RICO complaints. It is very difficult, however, to get them past 12(b)(6) AND Summary Judgment….

    • Dear GP I read your post and I am ready to Rico lawsuit on Judges…..

      I agree the Justice system is out of control I filed with Florida Supreme court in 14-242 about the injustice in the 5th DCA and the supreme court simply sent the complaints to the same judges in the 5th DCA that were in question to rule on their ethical behavior…. The Florida supreme court did provide some guidance in the lecture to the Judges noted in April at the Hilton But the lecture had little to no impact on the 5th district.
      Ms. Torrey is a parent that was sued as an act to cover-up repeated acts of child abuse in a Child in Marion County Public Schools. This lawsuit occurred after the school district had received a ruling from Honorable State Law Judge TH Weatherall in a due process hearing to protect the child from further acts of abuse by the school district. Two month later again engaged in medical endangerment where the child collapsed from a heat stroke in the School Gym at school. Prompting the Child’s doctors filing a DCF report as required under FS 39.201.
      As an act of retaliation the School district formed a lawsuit a former principal posed as a straw man for the school district in a defamation lawsuit. FS 39.203 protects reporters of child abuse from such acts. It has not been upheld in the 5th Circuit Courts.
      The lawsuit is a SLAPP suits in violation of Fla. Stat. 768.295 which the government and its agents and 768.295 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits by governmental entities prohibited.–(1) This section may be cited as the “Citizen Participation in Government Act.” (2) It is, the intent of the Legislature to protect the right of Florida’s citizens to exercise their rights to peacefully assemble, instruct their representatives, and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits are expeditiously disposed of by the courts. In the statute, the Legislature declared “that prohibiting such lawsuits by governmental entities will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of Florida citizens, and assure the continuation of Representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits are to be expeditiously disposed by the courts.
      This has not happened in any case in the State of Florida according to records request response by Pam Bondi office. “In May 2010, the court in this case ruled that it could not grant a motion for summary judgment on the SLAPP defense “because the record is not yet crystallized so that the court can determine as a matter of law that Defendant is entitled to judgment” But yet recused Judge Lambert would not allow for discovery. The school paid attorney Mr. Haldin claimed this is a simple defamation suit. It is not. This case is a SLAPP suit and meets every criterion of said Florida Statutes under Fla Stat. 768.295, although this court fails to address and consider the motions granting summary judgment as called for in item (5) of Fla. 768.295.
      Although evidence of the funding source was withheld, many parts to this are still withheld by the school district and Attorney Mr. Haldin. We now have evidence it is funded with public school board funds, a governmental entity, the interrogatories from the Plaintiff indicates this case is without merit and is aimed at chilling the right to free speech and the readdress of issues as entitled to the United State Constitution and s. 5, Art I of the State Constitution. Under the SLAPP suit statue 768.295, the claim must conclude in order to invoke a counter claim.
      Contrary to Attorney Mr. Haldin’s claims there are valid reasons for both prior Judges being removed from the case, otherwise these judge’s would not have recused themselves. There have been now 4 judges that ruled in conflict and the 5th Judge, Judge Rogers, is under a motion for Recusal / Disqualification and he has to respond to his JQC complaint. Since the 5 DCA still has not ruled and we need a complete change in venue with the conflicts I have a multitude of documents that clearly show on-going conflict in the 5DCA involving Ms. Torrey

      Subsequent to filing Judge number 5 was recused as he volunteered and was involved with Marion County Public School district. So ineffect all judges ruled in conflict. Judge Sawaya in the 5th DCA has a sister employed with the Marion School district and was allowed to ruled in this case with a clear conflict again there is no justice.
      As Judges make there own rules to follow. The FOX watching the Hen HOUSE
      My email is courtcase001@gmail.com I am open to suggestion for justice.

      The timing and the Subject matter matches our complaints to the JQC, FLA BAR and SC 14-242.
      Supreme This is prompted by our Supreme Court Case, the Fla Bar and jqc judicial complaints —- Supreme Court SC and 5th DCA 1004. Bar complaints and JQC complaints are clearly because match our complaint to the Supreme Court. SC 14-242
      CASE NO.: SC14-242
      Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2002-4655-DRFJ;

      Florida Supreme Court chief justice speaks at legal conference

  3. Why not argue pro se status as a disadvantaged category for purposes of a civil rights removal under 1443?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s