TBD | Verified Civil Complaint (Amended) - ALJ Perjury (Makere v Early)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA
Plaintiff

vs.

HON. E. GARY EARLY, ALJ
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No (LT): 4:21-cv-00096-MW-MAF

Division: (4) Tallahassee

Jury Trial Demanded
☒ Yes | ☐ No

AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Elias Makere on this 31^st day of December 2021 and hereby sues Defendant, the Honorable E. Gary Early, and states the following:

I.    NATURE OF THE CLAIM

1. This action is brought under 42 USC §1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) (“§1983”) and 42 USC §1985 (“§1985”), to redress Defendant’s unlawful conduct towards Plaintiff (also see 28 USC §1331, §1343, and §1367). Unlawful conduct that infringed on Plaintiff’s constitutional rights (including but not limited to the 1^st, 5^th, and 14^th amendments, etc.).

II.   JURISDICTION: AMOUNT

2. Pursuant to 28 USC §2201 and §2202, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages in excess of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) - exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees (also see 42 USC §1988, Rule 54 Fed. R. Civ. P.).

III. JURISDICTION: PARTIES

3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Jacksonville, FL (Duval County).
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant - at all times material hereto – worked and lived in-or-around Tallahassee, FL (Leon County). Furthermore, Defendant was an administrative law judge (see §120.65 FS) for Florida’s Division of Administrative Hearings. A state agency for the territory’s executive branch of government (see §20.22(2)(f) FS).

IV.   JURISDICTION: VENUE

5. Some of Defendant’s unlawful conduct was committed within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, pursuant to 28 USC §1331 FS (and §1391), this venue is correct.

V.    STATUTORY PREREQUISITES

6. It appears that no administrative remedies need to be exhausted before initiating this lawsuit. Indeed, DOAH does not have a formal grievance procedure for addressing unlawful conduct of its officers. Thus, the matter before this Honorable Court is ripe for adjudication.

VI.   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. Plaintiff fell into Defendant’s grasp by virtue of a lawsuit that he filed against a private corporation. A brief review of that case is important for contextualizing Defendant’s conduct.
Originating Lawsuit (State Agency, Makere v Allstate)
8. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR. Pursuant to §760.11(1), he alleged that his former employer (Allstate Insurance Company) had violated his civil rights on the basis of race and sex (see Exhibit A).
9. On September 8, 2017, Allstate denied both allegations (see Exhibit B). Stating that it fired Plaintiff for a legitimate reason. Specifically, because he had failed an actuarial exam (see Exhibit C):
“Complainant was terminated solely because he failed his [FSA] exam.”
- Allstate Insurance Company, 9/8/17

10. On December 15, 2017, the FCHR concluded its investigation. Notably affirming that race and sex were the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint (see Exhibit D).
11. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Petition for Relief with the FCHR. Just as in his original charge, he listed only race and sex as the protected characteristics for his complaint (see Exhibit E). Thus, pursuant to §760.11(7) FS and §120.569 FS, the FCHR transmitted it to DOAH.
12. After a series of irregularities (authority breaches, deposition sit-ins, recusals, etc.), Defendant became the administrative hearing officer over Plaintiff’s case (circa November 13, 2018).
13. Despite the procedural incongruities, the facts continued to develop in Plaintiff’s favor; heavily. Facts which included – but were not limited to:
a. Unwanted date requests; racist dolls, racist characterizations;
b. Cursing at Plaintiff for buying a condolence card;
c. Death threats; smear campaigns; lethal attacks.

14. Allstate made it known that many of its other employees had also failed exams. Yet, Allstate never fired any of them. This was the ‘smoking gun’ for proving that Allstate’s reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment was a pretext.
15. Moreover, at the hearing, three other revelations were cementing:
a. Allstate granted the work-from-home privilege to its other employees. An accommodation it denied to Plaintiff on countless occasions.
b. Allstate made Plaintiff pay $1,025 for an actuarial exam fee; a payment it never required any of its other employees to make.
c. Allstate paid Plaintiff an annual salary that was significantly lower than his similarly situated comparators.

16. These core facts rendered Plaintiff’s lawsuit (against Allstate) a textbook case of employment discrimination. One which – unfortunately – ran counter to widespread propaganda (as foretold by the Ku Klux Klan itself; and its progenies).
17. Faced with these probative facts, Defendant went on the attack.
Defendant’s Unlawful Conduct: (A) Spoliation of Evidence
18. On November 30, 2018, during the moments in which the payment disparity was being revealed (see ¶15b, supra), Defendant ordered Plaintiff to cease questioning.
19. After the hearing – around January 9, 2019 - Plaintiff asked Defendant for a redress of the cessation order (citing due process). He further detailed the importance of the requested testimony/revelation.
20. Two days later (January 11, 2019), Plaintiff received a copy of the hearing transcript. It was missing one page (and one page only). That crucial page was the one that contained testimony on the payment disparity (¶15b) - and Defendant’s cessation order.
a. It is important to note that prior to this date, Plaintiff had never requested a hearing transcript on his case.
i. Plaintiff suspects that Defendant knew this, and was preying on Plaintiff’s novice (Plaintiff was pro se).

21. Given these circumstances – and upon Plaintiff’s information/belief - Defendant willfully and knowingly hid evidence.
Defendant’s Unlawful Conduct: (B) Perjury
22. Defendant took it one step further, though, by making a wholesale removal of Plaintiff’s sex discrimination charge.
23. On April 19, 2019, Defendant entered his Recommended Order (“RO”).
24. The first page of the document had a section titled “Statement of the Issue”. Where Defendant excluded Plaintiff’s sex discrimination charge (see Exhibit F).
25. The second page had a section titled “Preliminary Statement”. Where Defendant continued to exclude Plaintiff’s sex discrimination charge. This time, however, Defendant made the fateful declaration that Defendant never complained of sex discrimination prior to the DOAH proceedings (see ¶11, supra) (see Exhibit G).
“[Plaintiff], also for the first identifiable time, alleged that Allstate, and in particular [Plaintiff’s manager], engaged in sexually provocative and inappropriate behaviors, which [Plaintiff] alleged to be “sexual harassment and discrimination””
- The Honorable E. Gary Early, ALJ | 4/18/19 | Florida

26. Defendant repeated that highlighted line (ie, “for the first identifiable time”) several more times throughout his authored RO.
27. The statement, of course, was false.
28. Plaintiff did charge Allstate with sex discrimination.
a. He did so in his original charge (6/30/17, see ¶8);
b. Allstate acknowledged the sex basis (9/8/17, ¶9); and
c. The FCHR explicitly ruled on the basis of sex (12/15/17, ¶10)

29. Nevertheless, the force and effect of Defendant’s statement made the FCHR change its tune – and obstruct justice.
30. On June 27, 2019, the FCHR issued its Final Order (“FO”). In which it listed race as the only protected characteristic in Plaintiff’s complaint (see Exhibit H); and adopted Defendant’s ruling.
31. Defendant’s lie had its intended effect.
32. Now, it is important to recognize that Defendant knew he was lying.
Defendant’s Knowledge of the Truth
33. Prior to authoring his RO, Defendant deliberately acknowledged that the sex discrimination charge was in Plaintiff’s originating complaint.
34. On February 6, 2019, Allstate moved Defendant to take official recognition of the FCHR’s Determination (under §90.201 FS).^1/
35. That state-issued Determination letter read, in pertinent part, as follows (highlights added):
“Complainant worked for Respondent as an Actuary. Complainant alleged that Respondent discriminated against him based on his race and sex.”
- The FCHR | 12/15/17 | Florida

36. On February 18, 2019, Defendant granted the motion. Thereby cementing – unequivocally – that he knew that Plaintiff charged Allstate with sex discrimination. He said the following (highlights added).
“[Allstate’s] Motion for Official Recognition requests that official recognition be taken of the Notice of Determination: No Reasonable Cause, and of the Determination: No Reasonable Cause, both of which were issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on December 15, 2017. Those documents provided the point of entry to [Plaintiff] for this proceeding.”
- The Honorable E. Gary Early, ALJ | February 18, 2019 | Florida

37. Thus, Defendant’s repeated “statements” to the contrary were a known lie (a massive lie – in fact).
38. A massive lie that impacted the outcome of Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Allstate. A case which sought monetary damages (among other things). A case which – due to Defendant’s misconduct – continues to this day (in federal court: 3:20-cv-00905 USFLMD).

Defendant’s Corruption and Conspiratorial Bane
39. Defendant enlisted others to help effectuate his illegalities. He did this in two ways (bribing state officials; bribing federal officials).
40. First, Defendant took advantage of state infirmities by bequeathing the FCHR in exchange for violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
41. §760.06(4) FS empowers the FCHR to accept gifts and bequests to “help finance its activities”. In September 2019, Plaintiff asked the FCHR whether it could accept a respondent’s gifts/bequests during an active case. The agency answered with an “emphatic yes” (highlights added) (Exhibit I):
"the [FCHR] has the power to accept gifts, bequests, grants, or other payments, public or private, to help finance its activities... There are no limitations in the text of the statute... 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"
- FCHR | Order 19-065 | 12/10/19

42. Plus, in past Annual Reports (§760.06(11) FS), the FCHR has labeled these public/private sources of bribery as “stakeholders”.
a. Upon information & belief, Defendant is one such stakeholder.
b. More directly – based upon information & belief – Defendant gave the FCHR (a Tallahassee-based agency) something of value in exchange for violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

43. Secondly, Defendant furthered his assault on Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by bribing federal officials.
a. Defendant has exhibited a devotion to the unconstitutional rituals of the Ku Klux Klan. Namely, the Klan's practice of subverting the constitutional rights of black people (and black men in particular). In the instant case, Defendant accomplished that by: (a) destroying evidence (¶18-21); (b) committing perjury (¶22-38); and (c) bribing state officers (¶39-42).

44. To be federally specific - and based upon information/belief - Defendant gave Magistrate Judge Martin Fitzpatrick (another Tallahassee judge) something of value in exchange for alienating Plaintiff's 1st Amendment Rights. In April 2021, Mr. Fitzpatrick followed through by sua sponte dismissing this case; doing so without the requisite authority. Fitzpatrick, however, was not the only person that Defendant infected with invidious discrimination.
45. Defendant also bequested Chief Judge Mark Walker (another Tallahassee judge) with something of value in exchange for violating Plaintiff's 1st Amendment Rights – based upon information & belief. In April 2021, Mr. Walker followed suit by rubber-stamping Mr. Fitzpatrick's unauthorized dismissal.
46. Yesterday, on December 30, 2021, the 11th Circuit vacated the dismissal. Doing so because Fitzpatrick/Walker lacked authority.
47. The constant thread between all of these corrupted acts is: (a) Defendant himself; (b) anti-black devotion; (c) illegality; (d) subversion of the constitution; and (e) breaches of authority.

VII. ULTIMATE FACTS

48. Defendant broke the law in his quest to deny Plaintiff relief. Defendant:
a. hid evidence (see ¶18-21);
b. committed perjury (see ¶22-38); and
c. bequested/bribed others to further his crimes (¶39-47).

49. Defendant was not performing a judicial function when he scanned/photocopied the case’s transcript.
50. Defendant did not have authority to determine whether Plaintiff charged Allstate with race/sex discrimination; only the FCHR had such subject matter jurisdiction.
a. Dating back to 1999 (at least), none of DOAH's judges (ie, Defendant's peers) have ever said that they had power to change the basis of an FCHR complaint. Instead, they have repeatedly said the opposite: that they have no jurisdiction over the basis of a civil rights complaint (ie, only the FCHR does).

51. Thereafter, Defendant rallied his companions-of-the-cloth to ratify his lies & obstructions. Altogether, Defendant violated Plaintiff’s 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th amendment rights (plus their Florida equivalents).^2/ His companions, among others, were Martin Fitzpatrick (another Tallahassee judge) and Mark Walker (another Tallahassee-based judge).

VIII. LEGAL APPLICATION

COUNT I: 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LEGAL PROTECTION | 42 USC §1983

52. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Section VII (Paragraphs 7 through 47).
53. Defendant’s unlawful actions (individually and in total) abridged Plaintiff’s right to petition the State of Florida for a redress of his grievances against Allstate Insurance Company.
54. While acting under the color of state law (§120.569 FS, §120.65 FS), Defendant denied Plaintiff access to the state’s court system (see §760.11(7) FS). An act that violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right (1st Amendment – access to courts).
55. Defendant did so via evidence destruction (§843 FS, §918 FS), perjury (§837.06 FS), and bribery (§838 FS).

COUNT II: 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS | 42 USC §1983

56. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Section VII (Paragraphs 7 through 47).
57. Defendant’s unlawful actions (individually and in total) abridged Plaintiff’s right to due process. It is well settled that a violation of due process occurs when an agency excludes/removes a legal basis from a claimant’s discrimination charge.
58. Thus, while acting as a state hearing officer (§120.569 FS, §120.65 FS), Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights (5th Amendment US Constitution) by criminally removing the sex discrimination basis from his complaint.

COUNT III: 7TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRIAL-BY-JURY | 42 USC §1983

59. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Section VII (Paragraphs 7 through 47).
60. Defendant’s unlawful actions (individually and in total) abridged Plaintiff’s right to a trial-by-jury on the matters litigated.
61. While acting as the administrative law judge on Plaintiff’s underlying discrimination case (ie, under the ‘color of state law’ – §120.569 FS, §120.65 FS) – Defendant prevented Plaintiff from receiving a trial by jury.
a. Such a trial is guaranteed by the US Constitution (7th Amendment) as well as the FL Constitution (Art. I §22).

62. Pursuant to §760.11(7), Plaintiff had a statutory avenue to a jury trial in Florida. But for Defendant’s illegalities (¶18-47), Plaintiff would have enjoyed that constitutional guarantee.

COUNT IV: FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION | 42 USC §1983

63. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Section VII (Paragraphs 7 through 47).
64. Defendant’s unlawful actions (individually and in total) abridged Plaintiff’s right to a fair trial on the matters litigated.
65. While acting as the administrative law judge on Plaintiff’s case (ie, under the ‘color of state law’ – §120.569 FS, §120.65 FS) – Defendant discriminatorily prevented Plaintiff from attaining the legal protections that Florida afforded other similarly-situated people.
66. Defendant did so when he (a) suppressed crucial evidence (¶18-21); (b) perjured himself (¶22-38); and (c) bribed officials (¶39-47).
67. As such, Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to the “equal protection of [§760.11 FS]” (14th Amendment US Constitution).

COUNT V: SUPREMACY CLAUSE | 42 USC §1983

68. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Section VII (Paragraphs 7 through 47).
69. Defendant’s unlawful actions (individually and in total) breached Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution (ie, the “Supremacy Clause”). He did so when he usurped the federal government’s power to protect Plaintiff from 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th amendment violations.

COUNT VI: PERJURY

70. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges Paragraphs 22 through 38.
71. Defendant – infused with the power bestowed upon him by statute – broke the law (§837.06 FS) by making a false statement of material fact. He sold his falsehood to another state agency – which was acting in its official capacity (¶22-32).
72. That agency (the FCHR) bought his lie; and thereby cemented Defendant’s violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights (1^st Amendment – access to the court; 5^th Amendment – due process; 7^th Amendment – jury trials; 14^th Amendment – equal protection; Art. VI §2 – supremacy clause).

COUNT VII: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS | §1985

73. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Section VI (Paragraphs 7 through 47).
74. Defendant unleashed his repertoire when he deprived Plaintiff of a full & fair opportunity to litigate his underlying case in Florida. Conduct which included – among other things – evidence destruction (¶18-21), perjury (¶22-38), and bribery (¶39-47).
75. In his illegal trek, Defendant has enlisted state officials (¶40-42) as well as federal ones (ie, Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Walker) (¶43-47) to further his bidding. Bidding which has (a) obstructed the legal process (¶48-51); and (b) violated constitutional law (¶51).

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

76. The Doctrine of Judicial Immunity does not attach to this case for several fundamental reasons.
77. First, Defendant was not performing a judicial act. The evidence destruction that he committed while scanning the trial transcript was an administrative task which DOAH’s clerical employees could have done. In fact, Florida statutorily prescribes transcript management to be conducted by non-judges (§27.0061 FS, §28.13 FS, §120.65 FS, 28-106.104(3) FAC, 28-106.214(1) FAC).
78. Secondly, the matters that Defendant forced himself onto were outside of his jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the FCHR has sole jurisdiction over determining the subject matter of a discrimination complaint (ie, whether a complaint alleges, race, sex, etc.).
79. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Defendant broke the law (§843/§918 FS – obstruction; §837.06 FS – perjury; §838 FS - bribery). Judicial Immunity does not cover legal violations.^3/

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

80. Defendant is being sued in his individual capacity only. His misconduct & illegalities do not compute back to the state. This is the case because Florida expressly prohibited his actions (ie, evidence destruction, perjury, bribery).
81. It has been well-established: no one sitting in Defendant’s proverbial seat would have been authorized to commit such acts.
82. It must also be stressed: the public never relied on Defendant to commit the acts for which he is being sued.
a. The people of Florida never conferred special power upon Defendant to manage trial transcripts (¶18-21). Moreover, the people prohibited him from destroying evidence (§843/§918 FS).
b. The people of Florida never conferred special power upon Defendant to decide what the basis of a discrimination charge is (¶22-38). Moreover, the people prohibited him from committing perjury (§837.06 FS).
c. Lastly, the people of Florida never conferred special power upon Defendant to bribe federal officials (¶43-47). Moreover, the people prohibited him from committing bribery altogether (§838 FS).

83. Since the people never granted Defendant the power to commit such acts, the people cannot be held responsible for resolving them.

DAMAGES

84. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, Plaintiff has suffered – and continues to suffer – financial loss and loss of earning capacity. Plus, he has suffered (and continues to suffer) mental anguish, distress, pain, great expense, inconvenience, professional damage and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses.
85. As a further result of Defendant’s constitutional breaches, Plaintiff has incurred legal fees and will continue to incur legal fees.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

86. Defendant’s unlawful acts and discriminatory patterns demonstrate a callous disregard and reckless indifference to Plaintiff; that justifies an award of punitive damages at trial. Upon an evidentiary showing and hearing, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his pleadings to assert a claim for punitive damages against Defendant (as well as to add other defendants - ¶44, ¶45).
87. Plaintiff may retain attorneys to represent him in prosecuting this action and if so will be obligated to pay them a reasonable fee for their services.
a. Pursuant to 42 USC §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to request that the Court allow him to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in successfully prosecuting this cause, should he retain an attorney.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

88. Pursuant to the 7^th Amendment of the US Constitution (also see Rule 38(b) Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 81(c) Fed. R. Civ. P.), Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant him a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

89. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on all claims herein, and enter an Order providing the following relief:
b. Declaring that Defendant violated §1983;
c. Declaring that Defendant violated §1985;
d. Enjoining Defendant from committing further violations of §1983;
e. Enjoining Defendant from committing further violations of §1985;
f. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages (back pay, front pay, including interest, lost fringe benefits, etc.) which Defendant’s unlawful acts precluded him from obtaining.
g. Awarding Plaintiff the cost of this action, together with reasonable attorney’s fees (if any).
h. Awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment interest.
i. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages; and
j. Awarding such other and further relief as is just, equitable, proper, and sound.

Dated this 31st day of December 2021.
Respectfully submitted,

	/s/ Elias Makere
	ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA, Plaintiff 3709 San Pablo Rd. S # 701 Jacksonville, FL 32224 P: (904) 294-0026 E: justice.actuarial@gmail.com W: TextBookDiscrimination.com Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31^st day of December 2021, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by mailing it (via FedEx) to United States Courthouse; 111 N. Adams St, Ste 322; Tallahassee, FL; 32301.

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

I HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Rule 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. the foregoing (1) has been submitted in good faith; (2) is supported by existing law; (3) is supported by indisputable evidence (and will likely be compounded with further evidence); and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

/s/ Elias Makere

Verification Under Oath Pursuant to 28 USC §1746

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Moreover, the ultimate, material facts laid out above come from publicly available sources. Thus, they are not subject to dispute because “they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned”. Some of the other facts are based on information and belief. These two elements come from my own personal observation, knowledge, and experience – coupled with circumstantial evidence of the matter.
Executed on this 31st day of December 2021.