HomeAboutContact | ...loading...

N | APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE REGARDING ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY'S ONGOING PERJURY (#1)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA
Appellant/Plaintiff



vs.



ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee/Defendant		 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 CASE NUMBER
24-11336-JJ



Case No (LT): 3:20-cv-00905-MMH-LLL
US District Court, Florida, Middle District

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
APPELLANT’S FULL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
(DATED 4/10/19)

Appellant, ELIAS MAKERE, on this 1st day of November 2024, respectfully moves this Court to take judicial notice of the full administrative complaint that he filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on April 10, 2019.



Key Points:
• Points: filing date (4/10/19 vs 4/26/19); Appellee’s fraud • Grounds: issue-on-appeal (clear error)
Table of Contents:
Context1nd Page
Motion3rd Page
Certificates10th Page
Exhibits16th Page
Attachments61st Page
Background:Appellant’s administrative complaint was dated 4/10/19
Problem:Appellee’s material lie will defraud this Court
Request:This Court takes judicial notice of the dated complaint
Rule 201 | Fed. R. Evid. | Judicial Notice
"(b) KINDS OF FACTS THAT MAY BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED. The court may judicially notice a fact that...
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Rule 402 | Fed. R. Evid. | General Admissibility of... Evidence
"Relevant evidence is admissible unless [prohibited by law]"
Addendum 8 | 11th Cir. R. | Rules Governing Attorney Discipline...
"When alleged attorney misconduct is brought to the attention of the Court... the Court may dispose of the matter through the use of its inherent, statutory, or other powers; refer the matter to an appropriate state bar agency for investigation and disposition... or take any other action the Court deems appropriate."
Rule 3-4.3 RRTFB | Misconduct and Minor Misconduct
"The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state..."
Precedence
• 02-16215- 11th Cir. (1/30/04)
• 07-12874- 11th Cir. (2/4/09)
This Circuit usually grants motions for judicial notice
Abbreviations
[OB###]Paragraph ### from Appellant’s Opening Brief
FCHRFlorida Commission on Human Relations
FSFlorida Statute
LTLower Tribunal
USFLMDUS District Court, Florida, Middle District

MOTION

I. Background | Administrative History

1. On April 10, 2019, Appellant sent the FCHR his employment discrimination complaint via email (please see Exhibit A).

2. The state agency received it immediately; blessing it with a 2:35PM timestamp. [Exhibit B]

II. Background | Judicial History

3. On August 12, 2020, Appellant sued Appellee in federal court. Doing so under both federal (42 USC §1981) and state law (§760 FS).

4. On February 8, 2021, USFLMD entered an order of partial dismissal (“That Order”). Therein, the LT removed all three of Appellant’s state charges. Doing so, crucially, on account of administrative timeliness (¶1 supra) [OB035].

5. So - the next day (ie, February 9, 2021) - Appellant moved the LT to take judicial notice of Appellant’s [officially] time-stamped Charge of Discrimination (¶1 supra). [Exhibit C] Appellant’s motion, however, remained pending for 3+ years (see ¶9 infra).

6. On October 30, 2023 (after a multi-year LT stay) Appellee [falsely] claimed that Appellant filed his discrimination charge on April 26, 2019. [Exhibit D]

7. The following month, though (ie, November 28, 2023), Appellee admitted – in its very next filing - that April 10, 2019 marked the date that Appellant filed Appellant’s [April 10, 2019] Charge of Discrimination. [Exhibit E]. Appellee, of course, would [later/repeatedly] lie about this fact (¶10 infra).

8. Thus, on January 9, 2024, Appellant moved the LT to punish Appellee (via Rule 11 Sanctions) for Appellee’s lie of material fact. [Exhibit F] Appellee’s lie, of course, regarded the filing date of Appellant’s [April 10, 2019] Charge of Discrimination (¶1 supra).

9. Finally, on March 26, 2024, the LT took judicial notice of the fact that April 10, 2019 marked the date that Appellant filed his [April 10, 2019] Charge of Discrimination.1/ [Exhibit G]

10. Despite that, though - on April 11, 2024 -, Appellee [once again] [falsely] claimed that Appellant filed his discrimination charge on April 26, 2019. [Exhibit H]

11. So, on May 6, 2024, Appellant [once again] moved the LT to punish Appellee (via Rule 11 Sanctions) for Appellee’s [repeated] lie of material fact. [Exhibit I]

12. On August 9, 2024, the LT deferred ruling on Appellant’s [Renewed] Motion for Sanctions (¶11 supra); thereby ripening this appeal.

III. Analysis of Pertinent Dates

13. That Order dismissed Appellant’s state charges because of administrative timeliness (highlights added):
“In sum, the record establishes that the [State Agency] rendered timely “No Cause” determinations on [Appellant]’s Charges... As such, [Appellant] is administratively barred under section 760.11(7) of the Florida Statutes from pursuing his [state] claims here. [USFLMD] will grant the Motion as to Counts I-III of the Complaint and dismiss the [state] claims in their entirety.”
14. That decision was based on That Order’s prior determination that the state agency (ie, the FCHR) rendered a decision within the 180-day statutory window (highlights added):
“As set forth above, the FCHR issued a “No Cause” determination regarding the 2019 FCHR Charge on October 18, 2019, within the 180-day period.”
15. That 180-day calculation was based on a starting date of April 26, 2019:
“[Appellant] filed a second charge of discrimination with the [state agency], which was received on April 26, 2019”
16. The problem here is that the starting date (ie, 4/26/19) was wrong.
a. Appellant filed his administrative complaint on April 10, 2019. The difference between the correct date (4/10) and the incorrect date (4/26) is/was vital.2/
i. The incorrect date falls within the 180-day window, while the correct date does not.
17. In short, the filing date of Appellant’s [April 10, 2019] Charge of Discrimination was material to the proceedings below.

18. Appellee, of course, [repeatedly] lied about Appellant’s [April 10, 2019] filing date. A lie that Appellee is destined to repeat [in this tribunal].

IV. Purpose of Judicial Notice

19. Acceptance of this document will reinforce that Appellant filed his administrative complaint on April 10, 2019.
a. According to §760.11(1) FS, the agency’s timestamp confirmed this filing date (highlights added):
“On the same day the complaint is filed with the commission, the commission shall clearly stamp on the face of the complaint the date the complaint was filed with the commission... If the date the complaint is filed is clearly stamped on the face of the complaint, that date is the date of filing.”
b. Plus, pursuant to Rule 60Y-5.001(3) FAC, the date of receipt was the date the agency actually received it (highlights added):
“(3) Place and Date of Filing. A complaint may be filed at the office of the Commission. The date of filing shall be the date of actual receipt of the complaint by the Clerk or other agent of the Commission.”
Thus - by virtue of its timestamp (and Appellant’s email) - the FCHR officially received Appellant’s complaint on April 10, 2019.

c. Moreover, Rule 60Y-5.001(5)&(6) rendered the document a complaint in-and-of-itself (emphasis added):
“(5) Form. The complaint must be in writing and shall be signed by the complainant.” (6) Contents.
(a) The complaint should contain the following information:
1. The name, address and telephone number of the person filing the complaint;

2. The name, address and telephone number of the respondent;”
In the instant case, Appellant’s charge: (i) was in writing; (ii) was signed (see Page 116 Exh. B); (iii) contained his contact information (Id. Page 1); (iv) had the contact information for Appellee (Id. 116); and (v) was acknowledged by the agency (Id. 117).
20. Thus, the FCHR’s rules (and the LT’s order - ¶9) certified that Appellant’s complaint was filed on April 10, 2019 (not April 26). This clear certification is an issue-on-appeal.3/

21. Appellant avers that the foregoing presents a compelling reason for judicial notice of his full administrative complaint, because:
a. the document is public record (please see Menominee Indian Tribe v Thompson, 161 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 1998).

b. stamped, administrative complaints are “official actions [of] an executive agency]” (please accord §90.202(5) FS; please reference §760.04 FS + §20.22 FS);

c. it is relevant (please see Rule 402 Fed. R. Evid.); and

d. it will support this Court’s inherent power to punish Appellee for Appellee’s [ongoing/imminent] perjury (Addendum 8 11th Cir. R., Rule 3-4.3 RRTFB).

V. Nature of Relief Sought

22. Appellant hereby asks this Court to judicially notice Appellant’s full administrative complaint only to the following extent:
a. It is a fact that April 10, 2019 was the filing date of Appellant’s FCHR complaint.

VI. Argument in Support of Taking Judicial Notice

23. Rule 201(b) Fed. R. Evid. bestows this Court with the power to take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute”.
a. Here, in the instant case, no one can reasonably dispute the proffered item. Mainly because it is public record.
24. In Horne v. Potter, 392 F. App’x 800 (11th Cir. 2010), this Court stated that courts can take judicial notice of items that are public record (highlights added):
“The district court properly took judicial notice of the documents in [the plaintiff’s] first case, which were public records that were "not subject to reasonable dispute" because they were "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned."”
25. Plus, the US Supreme Court ruled that a court can take limited/pertinent judicial notice:
“Accordingly, a court may take notice of another court's order only for the limited purpose of recognizing the "judicial act" that the order represents or the subject matter of the litigation.””
26. In short, these appellate decisions fit Appellant’s motion perfectly. As he is only asking for this Court to take official recognition of material that is public record.

CONFERRAL

On October 23, 2024, Appellee responded that it opposes this motion. Appellant thereby asked Appellee whether Appellee disputed the underlying fact (ie, that Appellant filed his FCHR Complaint on April 10, 2019). Moreover, Appellant asked Appellee whether Appellee disputed any of the [above-listed] facts. Appellee, however, failed to dispute any of them (neither via phone nor email).4/ [Attachment A]

Thus, given all-of-the-above, Appellant finds a compelling (ie, correct date) and important (ie, issue-on-appeal) reason for this motion.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully asks this Court to take judicial notice of Appellant’s Full Administrative Complaint (dated 4/10/2019) (accord Rule 27 Fed. R. App. P.). [Attachment B]

Dated this 1st day of November 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!

Endnotes:

1/ This was a district court decision that took the LT 3+ years to make (¶5 infra).

2/
Incorrect Calculation
175 = 10/18/19 – 4/26/19
Correct Calculation:
191 = 10/18/19 – 4/10/19
where:
• “10/18/19” is the state agency’s [phantom] notification date;
• “4/26/19” is the incorrect starting date;
• “4/10/19” is the correct starting date
3/ Proffered on the grounds of clear error; and preserved by Appellant’s objections/motions.
see [OB058]-[OB089], inter alia

4/ Moreover, Appellant will supplement this motion with records of Appellee’s repeated perjury. Repeated perjury that Appellee will consummate with its [prospective] answer brief.

Link to Underlying Complaint (HTML, PDF, Video)

HTMLTextBookDiscrimination.com/Allstate/Complaint-Full.html
PDFTextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/USFLMD/20000905_AAC_20211104_230439.pdf
VIDEOhttps://youtu.be/e3mgBPHesXg

Electronic Copy: (text-searchable)
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/CA11/24011336_GMOT_20241101_084716.pdf

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. Type-Volume

☒ This document complies with the word limit of Rule 27(d)(2)(A) Fed. R. App. P., because - excluding the parts of the document exempted by Rule 32(f) - this document contains 1,738 words.

or

☐ This brief complies with the line limit prescribed by Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(i) Fed. R. App. P., because – excluding the parts of the document exempted by Rule 32(f) – this document contains [NNNN] lines of monospaced text.

2. Typeface and Type-Style

☒ This document uses Courier New (12-Pt) Font; thereby complying with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5)(B) Fed. R. App. P.. This document also satisfies the type-style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6).
/s/ Elias Makere
DateElias Makere, FSA, MAAA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of November 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using PACER; which will send a notice of electronic filing to the attached service list.
/s/ Elias Makere

CIP

United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit

24-11336-JJ
Makere v Allstate



{unchanged}

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Makere v Allstate, 24-11336-J

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Lower Tribunal:
Lambert, LauraMagistrate
Howard, MarciaDistrict Judge
Parties:
Allstate Insurance Company
(NYSE: ALL)		Appellee
Makere, Elias (FSA, MAAA)Appellant
Appellant is not a subsidiary/affiliate of a publicly owned corporation. Pursuant to Rule 26.1-2 11th Cir. R., Appellant does not know of any other entities that have interest in this case. Appellant hereby certifies that this CIP is complete.

EXHIBITS

ATTACHMENTS

Congratulations! You're now Booked Up on the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Sanctions that a Floridian filed in this textbook case of employment discrimination (against Allstate Insurance Company).

Reading it might help you recover from the damages that lawbreaking organizations/judges/lawyers/agencies have inflicted upon you [and/or the public] (see this example of a Florida judge who outright committed perjury).
Also, please beware that the FCHR (ie, the state agency incriminated in this lawsuit) has corrupted itself. Thereby doing so in the following ways (among others):
Nevertheless – and as always – please get the justice you deserve.

Sincerely,



www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
Shop | TBD Marketplace™
Buy | TBD Marketplace™
Sell | TBD Marketplace™
logoPDF Download
logoAdobe 'Motion for Sanctions (#1)'
logoAdobe 'Motion for Sanctions (#2)'
YouTubeVideo Video
logoHTML How-To: Appeal
logoHTML How-To: Dismiss (Response)
iconWebsite How-To: File Suit (Federal)
iconWebsite How-To: Judicial Notice
iconWebsite How-To: Opening Brief
logoHTML How-To: Summary Judgment (Response)
logoMSWord Template
YouTubeVideo A Judge's Perjury
logoCases A Judge's Perjury
iconMusic Audio: Drop the Steal
iconMusic Breakdown: Drop the Steal
logoSurvey Survey
logoInfo Info: FCHR Bribery
logoInfo Info: FCHR Corruption
logoInfo Info: FCHR Discrimination
logoInfo Info: FCHR Obstructions
logoInfo Info: FCHR Process
Pages That You
Might Also Like
How-To: Initiate Perjury Prosecution
How-To: Sue at DOAH How-To: Charge with the FCHR
How-To: Motion to Amend How-To: Motion in Limine How-To: Motion for Sanctions
How-To: Motion to Dismiss How-To: Motion for Summary Judgment
Explanation: Judicial Immunity
Makere v Allstate (3:20-cv-00905) (USFLMD)
Makere v Early (4:21-cv-00096) (USFLND) Makere v Fitzpatrick (4:22-cv-00315) (USFLND) Makere v Gorsica (3:22-cv-01203) (USFLMD)
McDonnell-Douglas v Green, 411 US 792 (1973)
Reading List: Clear Error Reading List: Timeliness
Analysis: FCHR Determinations
Defined: 'EEOC' Defined: 'FCHR'
Cases: Allstate Discrimination
add a comment
IconQuiz IconLike
iconFullScreenBgnIticonFullScreenEndIt
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG