TBD | Plaintiff's Notice of a Constitutional Challenge to a State Statute (Makere v Allstate)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA Plaintiff vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant	) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )	Case No (LT): 3:20-cv-00905-MMH-LLL Division: (3) Jacksonville

PLAINTIFF’S FORMAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE (OF TWO STATE STATUTES)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, ELIAS MAKERE – on this 30^th day of May 2024 – hereby formalizes his challenge of two state statutes’ constitutionality. Pursuant to Rule 5.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. (among other authorities), the statutes which he challenges are §760.06 FS and §760.11 FS.

Key Points:

• Points: permissible bribery; “reasonable cause” determinations;; • Grounds: 1^st Amendment; 7^th Amendment; 14^th Amendment

Table of Contents:
Context	2^nd Page
Details	3^rd Page
Certificates	10^th Page
Exhibits	11^th 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)

Rule 5.1 | Fed. R. Civ. P. | Constitutional Challenge to a 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:
(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.”

28 USC §2403 | Intervention by United States or a State...

“(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

• 2:14-cv-00437-JLB-NPM- USFLMD (5/17/24)
• 3:21-cv-00926-MMH-JBT- USFLMD (5/25/22)
• 2:21-cv-00883-JLB-NPM- USFLMD (2/25/22)
• 3:21-cv-00937-MMH-JBT- USFLMD (9/28/21)

This Court has recently certified similar challenges

Abbreviations

{#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

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

I. Relevant History

1. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination charge with the FCHR (“First Charge”). Pursuant to §760.11(1) FS, he alleged that Defendant had violated his civil rights on the bases of race and sex. [Exhibit A]

2. On September 8, 2017, Defendant responded to the First Charge by denying both allegations. Importantly, the former employer explicitly acknowledged that Plaintiff’s First Charge contained “allegations of discrimination based upon race and sex discrimination”. [Exhibit B]

3. On December 15, 2017 the FCHR concluded its investigation. Notably affirming that race and sex were the bases of Plaintiff’s First Charge. [Exhibit C]

4. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Petition for Relief (§760.11(6)-(7) FS; §120.569(2)(a) FS). Thus, the First Charge coursed through the State of Florida’s administrative circuit; where Defendant amplified its retaliation against Plaintiff (eg, lethal attack, smear campaigns, etc.) – among other things.

5. So, on April 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second discrimination charge against Defendant (“Second Charge”). Emailing it to the FCHR; who blessed it with a same-day timestamp (2:25 PM on 4/10/19). [Exhibit D/E] Despite more state-sponsored treachery (eg, phantom notices, refusal/reluctance to relinquish jurisdiction), though, Plaintiff was able to enter the court system.

a) A few days later – on April 18, 2019 – a state hearing officer committed outright perjury. That hearing officer did so, notably, just two months after destroying crucial evidence (evidence which pertained to Plaintiff’s prima facie showing).

b) Moreover, the aforementioned ‘phantom notice’ was another one of the FCHR’s Notices of Determination (§760.11 FS).

6. On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Declaratory Statement with the FCHR. Thereby asking the state agency whether §760.06(4) FS would permit Defendant to send the agency “gifts/bequests” during an active investigation (ie, while the Second Charge pended).

7. On December 10, 2019, the FCHR answered with “an emphatic yes”:

“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.

9. On November 4, 2021 – and pursuant to this Court’s direct orders – Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint {#73}. Thereby accusing the State of Florida of subverting the US Constitution; and doing so, pertinently, in favor of Defendant.

10. On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief {$118}. Therein, he asked this Court to remedy – among other things – the unconstitutionality of FCHR Determinations (highlights added):

“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);”

II. Analysis

11. In his operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged unconstitutionality from the State of Florida (¶9 supra).

12. In his motion for relief (¶10 supra), Plaintiff expounded on this point by challenging the constitutionality of a state statute (ie, §760.11 FS).

13. In both of these court filings – as well as in many others – Plaintiff has demonstrated that the State of Florida has violated Plaintiff’s 1st, 7th, and 14th Amendment rights. Thereby establishing legal standing.

III. Standard for Review

14. Rule 5.1(a) Fed. R. Civ. P. governs notices of constitutional challenges (highlights added):

“(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:
(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.”

15. Likewise, Rule 5.1(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. compels this Court to certify this type of challenge (highlights added):

“(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).

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...”

18. So, in short, this Court has the authority to:

a) certify – to FLAG – that this case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute; and

b) direct the Clerk of the Court to issue that certification.

IV. Application

19. Plaintiff – in the instant case – has demonstrated (on multiple occasions) that he has been hampered/injured by a state statute.

a) He did so in his operative complaint (¶9 supra); and

b) He did so in his motion for relief (¶10 supra).

20. Moreover, Plaintiff hereby certifies that he has satisfied Rule 5.1(a)(2) Fed. R. Civ. P.. Doing so by sending [to FLAG] copies of the following:

a) Plaintiff’s Fully Amended Complaint {#73} (¶9 supra);

b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief {#118} (¶10 supra); and

c) Plaintiff’s Notice of a Constitutional Challenge (ie, this filing).

He sent those copies to the following email address:

OAG.Civil.eServe@MyFloridaLegal.com

21. Thus, this Court is well-positioned to issue a certification to FLAG.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to certify – to Florida’s Office of the Attorney General (“FLAG”) – that this case presents a formal challenge to the constitutionality of two state statutes (namely: §760.06 FS; and §760.11 FS). Plaintiff further asks this Court to: (a) notify FLAG that it has sixty (60) days to intervene in this action; and (b) direct the Clerk to provide a copy of the aforementioned certification [to FLAG].

Dated this 30^th day of May 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Elias Makere
Elias Makere, FSA, MAAA
Plaintiff
PO Box 324
Hobart, IN 46342
P: 904.294.0026
E: Justice.Actuarial@gmail.com
W: TextBookDiscrimination.com
Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the size and style of type used in this document is Century Schoolbook 14-point font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Local Rule 1.08 (USFLMD).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of May 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using its online filing page. A notice – via CM/ECF – will be sent to the attached service list.

/s/ Elias Makere (5/30/24)

RULE 5.1 FED. R. CIV. P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of May 2024, I emailed requisite copies to Florida’s Office of the Attorney General.

(OAG.Civil.eServe@MyFloridaLegal.com)

/s/ Elias Makere (5/30/24)

SERVICE LIST

Kimberly J. Doud, Esquire (0523771)
Lauren C. Robertson, Esquire (1024845)

E: kdoud@littler.com
E: lcrobertson@littler.com
P: 407.393.2900
F: 407.393.2929

Littler Mendleson, PC
111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750
Orlando, FL 32801-2366

(defendant’s trial lawyers)

EXHIBITS

	Download
	Video
	Template
	How-To Guide
	A Judge's Perjury
	A Judge's Perjury
	Audio: Drop the Steal
	Breakdown: Drop the Steal
	Survey
	Info: FCHR Bribery
	Info: FCHR Corruption
	Info: FCHR Discrimination
	Info: FCHR Process

Buy™

Sell™

Shop™ Now

J | PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A STATE STATUTE

PLAINTIFF’S FORMAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE (OF TWO STATE STATUTES)

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

I. Relevant History

II. Analysis

III. Standard for Review

IV. Application

CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

RULE 5.1 FED. R. CIV. P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Endnotes:

SERVICE LIST

EXHIBITS

Pages That You
Might Also Like

add a comment

thank you, come again!
TBD 1.037

Submit a Quiz Question

That Will Test Another User's Page-Specific Knowledge

	Shop \| TBD Marketplace™
	Buy \| TBD Marketplace™
	Sell \| TBD Marketplace™

Buy™

Sell™

Shop™ Now

J | PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A STATE STATUTE

PLAINTIFF’S FORMAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE (OF TWO STATE STATUTES)

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

I. Relevant History

II. Analysis

III. Standard for Review

IV. Application

CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

RULE 5.1 FED. R. CIV. P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Endnotes:

SERVICE LIST

EXHIBITS

Pages That YouMight Also Like

add a comment

thank you, come again!TBD 1.037

Submit a Quiz Question

That Will Test Another User's Page-Specific Knowledge

Pages That You
Might Also Like

thank you, come again!
TBD 1.037