Challenge Constitutionality (Makere v Allstate)
| ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA Plaintiff vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No (LT): 3:20-cv-00905-MMH-LLL Division: (3) Jacksonville |
| Table of Contents: | |
| Context | 2nd Page |
| Details | 3rd Page |
| Certificates | 10th Page |
| Exhibits | 11th Page |
| Background: | Plaintiff has complained of state-sponsored treachery |
| Problem: | Plaintiff has yet to formalize the law’s unconstitutionality |
| Request: | Court certifies Plaintiff’s challenge (of a state statute) |
“(a) NOTICE BY A PARTY. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:28 USC §2403 | Intervention by United States or a State...(2) serve the notice and paper on... the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned... by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose. (b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.”
“(b) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State... is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State...”Precedence
| {#NN} | Docket Entry NN [of this case] |
| DOAH | Division of Administrative Hearings (FL) |
| FCHR | Florida Commission on Human Relations |
| FLAG | Florida Office of the Attorney General |
| FS | Florida Statute |
| USFLMD | US District Court, Florida, Middle District |
“There is no applicable case law suggesting that the Commission cannot accept bequests during the investigation of a claim... Given that the answer to Petitioner's question of law on whether the Commission can accept gifts during the investigation phase of a claim is such an emphatic yes, there is no doubt to resolve”8. On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit.
“30. Moreover, this Court can remedy the unconstitutionality of the FCHR’s trespasses-against-Plaintiff (Bounds v. Smith, 430 US 817 (1977)). As well as the unconstitutionality of the state agency’s determinations. Determinations which – in the instant case – were null & void.
31. Plaintiff seeks reversal on the grounds of:f) the unconstitutionality of FCHR determinations (§760.11(3) FS);”
“(a) NOTICE BY A PARTY. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:15. Likewise, Rule 5.1(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. compels this Court to certify this type of challenge (highlights added):(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if: (B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned — or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned — either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.”
“(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.”16. As thereby cited, 28 USC §2403(b) further compels this Court to certify this type of challenge (highlights added):
“(b) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State, and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality.”17. In Williams v. Foremost (3:21-cv-00926-MMH-JBT USFLMD), this Court expounded on these authorities (with an explicit certification). Doing so, notably, sua sponte (highlights added):
“Pursuant to Rule 5.1(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), if a party files a “pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a... state statute,” and the state is not a party to the case, the party must promptly: “file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it” and “serve the notice and paper... on the state attorney general....” See Rule 5.1(a)(1)-(2). Upon review of the docket, Plaintiff does not appear to have complied with this requirement. Nevertheless, Rule 5.1 also imposes an obligation on the Court to “certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.” See Rule 5.1(b); see also 28 U.S.C. 2403(b).18. So, in short, this Court has the authority to:
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), the Court certifies that a challenge to the constitutionality of section 627.70152 of the Florida Statutes is at issue in this case and directs...”
 |
Download |
 |
Video |
 |
Template |
| How-To Guide |
