Home About Contact |
UpButton Judicial Notice #1 (Crooked Court)

F | CROOKED COURT | MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE | #1

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



vs.



MARTIN FITZPATRICK; CHARLES SCHREIBER; MARK WALKER; USFLND; MICHAEL FRANK; ALLEN WINSOR; HOPE CANNON;
Appellees/Defendants		 )
)
)
)
)
)
)		 No
23-11231-F



LT Case No (USFLND)
4:22-cv-00315




APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
EXPANSIVE PUBLIC RECORD SHOWCASING THE LT’S
ACTIONABLE & UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

Appellant, ELIAS MAKERE, on this 26th day of April 2023, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of one-thousand and sixty-five (1,065) pertinent items that are public record. They represent the central facts which sparked Appellant’s lawsuit (below).


Key Points:
A.) PointsLT’s unconstitutional racial discrimination;
B.) Groundssupplement appendix; substantiate main issue-on-appeal;

Table of Contents:
Context2nd page
Motion3rd page
Certificates13th page
Attachments17th page
Electronic Copies
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/CA11/23011231_GMOT_20230426_194438.pdf
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Info/Misc/CrookedCourt/JudicialNotice01.html

Background:Appellant uncovered facts of LT’s unconstitutionality
Problem:LT punished Appellant by ignoring the facts
Request:This Court officially recognizes all of the facts


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 10(e)(2) | Fed. R. App. P. | ...Modification of the Record
"(2) If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded"

Rule 28(j) | Fed. R. App. P. | ...Supplemental Authorities
"If pertinent and significant authorities come to a party’s attention after the party’s brief has been filed [he] may promptly advise the circuit clerk by letter, with a copy to all other parties, setting forth the citations."

Local Rule 27-1 | 11th Cir. R. | Motions for Procedural Orders...
“[(c)] The clerk is authorized, subject to review by the court, to act for the court on the following unopposed procedural motions...[(6)] to supplement or correct records”

Precedence
• 02-16215- 11th Cir. (1/30/04)
• 07-12874- 11th Cir. (2/4/09)
  This Circuit usually grants motions for judicial notice

Abbreviations
DOAHDivision of Administrative Hearings (FL)
LTLower Tribunal
USFLMDUS District Court, Florida, Middle District
USFLNDUS District Court, Florida, Northern District


MOTION

I.     Background

A. Underlying Federal Action (Makere v Allstate)

1. On August 12, 2020, Appellant sued Allstate Insurance Company for employment discrimination (3:20-cv-00905; USFLMD). The action was/is on the bases of race/sex/color/retaliation; and brought under many state & federal statutes. His case evidenced disparate/discriminatory/hostile treatment that included – but was not limited to:

a. unwanted date requests; racist dolls; racist characterizations;

b. sabotaged work;

c. disparate pay; denied work-from-home privileges;

d. forcing Appellant to pay for a $1,025 actuarial exam fee while never doing the same to other employees; and

e. much more.

2. The case continues to this day; albeit hampered by unconstitutional (and illegal) conduct of state actors.

B. Preceding Federal Action (Makere v Early)

3. On February 16, 2021, Appellant sued Edward Gary Early (a state hearing officer) for constitutional deprivations (4:21-cv-00096; USFLND). The action was brought under federal law. It – like the underlying lawsuit which Mr. Early impeded (ie, ¶1, supra) – continues to this day; albeit hampered by unconstitutional conduct of the above-charged public officials.1/

C. Immediate Federal Action (Makere v Fitzpatrick, et al)

4. On April 26, 2022, Appellant sued the above-captioned Defendants for constitutional violations.2/ Therein, Appellant levied one Bivens count against each of the following federal appellees: Martin Fitzpatrick (1); Mark Walker (1); USFLND (1); Michael Frank (1); Allen Winsor (1); and Hope Cannon (1). Appellant also filed two counts against Charles Schreiber (2); doing so under 42 USC §1983 (‘Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871’) and 42 USC §1985.

a. Crucially, Appellant’s charges against the federal appellees centered around the LT’s unconstitutional local rule (ie, Local Rule 5.4(A)(3) USFLND).



5. On-or-around November 21, 2022, the LT dismissed Appellant’s case. It also retained jurisdiction; threatening further Court action.

6. On January 30, 2023, the LT docketed two documents that it attributed to Appellant. The first was supposedly a Case Management Report (“CMR”), while the second was supposedly a Certificate of Interested Persons (“CIP”).

a. Two papers, importantly, that Appellant had mailed 114 days earlier (on October 4, 2022). A near-four month delay which further evidenced the unconstitutionality of the LT’s local rule.

7. Nevertheless, the Court’s self-produced delay sparked its subsequent actions. Because ten (10) days later – on February 9, 2023 – the LT’s magistrate recommended sanctions. Soon thereafter, the LT adopted his suggestion (see appealed order).

II. Pertinent Charges

8. Ultimately, the federal appellees entered into a pre-suit pact to deprive Appellant of Appellant’s constitutional rights [C088]. Their plan was pockmarked by invidious discrimination on the bases of race & sex. A covenant that they partially effectuated through their unconstitutional local rules.

9. Among other things, those federal appellees committed the following acts:

a. lying [C058] [C082];
b. ratifying lies [C062];
c. altering the federal docket [C058d];
d. entering orders without authority [C058] [C062];
e. shunning their duties to disqualify themselves [C058];
f. drafting unconstitutional local rules [C058] [C062] [C078]; and
g. enforcing unconstitutional local rules [C058] [C062] [C078]

Doing so, importantly, “under the guise of federal authority” in order to “deprive [Appellant] of [Appellant]’s constitutional rights”.

10. Briefly put, Appellant charged Appellees with violating the US Constitution while engaging in non-judicial acts (ie, records mutilation; legislative rulemaking). The LT punished Appellant for filing suit; and this appeal commenced.



 III.   Application to the Matters for Judicial Notice

11. Page 4 of the magistrate’s recommended order Appellant’s lawsuit had no reasonable factual basis:
“...far-fetched government conspiracy that had no reasonable factual basis” - Magistrate’s R&R, 4:22-cv-00315, (2/9/23)

12. This is false.

13. The discriminatory/unconstitutional nature of Local Rule 5.4 is clear. In fact, Appellant outlined its illegitimacy in his complaint (highlights added):
“63. As specified before (¶58), USFLND discriminates against different classes of litigants. Local Rule 5.4(A)(3) states that pro se parties must send hard copies of their court papers. That same rule, though, alleviates represented parties from this hardship.”

64. Not only does the disparity affect time & money, it also affects the efficacy of litigation.

a. Pro se litigants lose multiple days due to the transit times (mailing documents to & from USFLND). Days which they could use for research, evidence collection, writing, and self-representation. 65. Moreover, there is no legitimate reason for the disparity. Neither USFLND’s rules nor USFLND’s website state a compelling government interest in the discrimination.” - [C064]-[C065]

14. Importantly, Appellant performed an in-depth analysis of the discriminatory ventures of the federal appellees. In fact, he placed the results of that analysis' results in a short & plain statement within his complaint (highlights added):
“67. Importantly, the pro se distinction is just a cover for targeting black people (especially black men who litigate civil rights cases).”

a. Records show that pro se litigants are disproportionately black. Records also show that civil rights litigants are disproportionately black.
i. To be precise, statistics show that 84% of Florida’s pro se civil rights litigants are black. This value is dramatically high, because government census shows that only 17% of Floridians are black.” - Complaint, ¶67; 4:22-cv-00315

15. The aforementioned in-depth analysis took Appellant a significant amount of time to perform.

a. April 19, 2022 marked the first day of Appellant’s analysis into Defendants’ discriminatory local rule. Over the next five days, he spent a total of 55.75 hours analyzing demographics & pro se status (in civil rights disputes).

b. He completed his six-day effort on April 24, 2022. Two days later (ie, 4/26/22) he filed his lawsuit (¶4 supra).

16. In fact, Appellant presented these results (of the LT’s discrimination) directly to the LT (highlights added):
“b. USFLND has always known that its rule would have (and has had) a disparate impact on black people.

i. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff asked Defendants (via email) whether they disputed these statistics. Defendants laid silent.
ii. The following month - on July 13, 2022 – asked again. Defendants – again – did not dispute the facts/statistics related to its discriminatory rule.” - Complaint, ¶67; 4:22-cv-00315

17. Plus, Appellant published this analysis (and underlying data) on his website. A process that took him 392.50 hours to complete.

a. The first piece was the demographics analysis.

i. Which – between 5/16/22 and 5/29/22 – took Appellant 214.50 hours to finish. It can be found here:

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Analysis/Demographics/DOAH/

b. The second half was the pro se status analysis.

i. Which – between 5/30/22 and 6/12/22 – took plaintiff 178.00 hours to finish. It can be found here:

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Analysis/ProSe/

18. Put simply, evidence of Appellee’s unconstitutional discrimination has a deep basis in fact.

19. This factual basis is important because it refutes the LT’s contention for punishment (¶11, supra). For a long time now, courts have held that sanctions are inapplicable when a factual basis [for a complaint] exists (highlights added):

“[Appellant] also argues that Rule 11 sanctions were not appropriate because [Appellee] failed to provide the district court with evidence that [Appellant]'s case or pleadings (1) had no reasonable factual basis... ...We therefore VACATE the order imposing sanctions and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” - Massengale v Ray, 267 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2001)

20. Thus, since the LT’s order (which is the subject of this appeal) is based on a materially false statement this Court will benefit from seeing the truth.

21. This truth can be found in the attachments. Each one showing the racial characteristic of actual civil rights litigants. Thereby proving:

a. that Appellant put forth substantial effort to research the factual basis of his complaint; and

b. Appellant’s allegation that the LT’s Local Rule discriminates against black people.

IV.    Nature of Relief Sought

22. Appellant hereby asks this Honorable Court to judicially notice the one-thousand and sixty-five attached public records (Attachments 0001-1065) only to the following extent:

a. It is a fact that these records existed prior to April 29, 2022 (ie, prior to the lawsuit below).

b. It is a fact that Appellant procured these records prior to April 29, 2022 (ie, prior to filing suit).

c. It is a fact that 82% of these litigants have been identified as being black.

d. It is a fact that Appellant tabulated these statistics prior to April 29, 2022 (ie, prior to filing suit).

e. It is a fact that these racial disparities are probative of Local Rule 5.4’s discriminatory impact on black people.

V.    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 items. Primarily because they are all 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."” - Horne v Potter, 392 F. App'x 800 (11th Cir. 2014)

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.”” - United States v Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994)

26. In short, these appellate decisions fit Appellant’s motion perfectly. As he is only asking for this Court to take recognition of material that is public record.

CONFERRAL

On April 26, 2023, Appellant presented this analysis to Appellees; thereby asking if they had any opposition to this motion.

Appellee Schreiber replied that he did. When asked whether he disputed the statistics/facts, Appellee Schreiber replied that he had nothing more to say. The federal appellees offered a similarly brief note of opposition.

Thus, Appellant believes the foregoing presents a compelling (ie, pertinent public record) and important (ie, support the main issue-on-appeal) reason for obtaining the requested relief.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully asks this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of the one-thousand and sixty-five (1,065) items of public record (attached hereto).

Dated this 26th day of April 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Elias Makere
ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA, Appellant
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 Times New Roman 14-point Font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) Fed. R. App. P. Also, I certify that the word count for this document is 1,994 words (Rule 27(d)(2)).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of April 2023, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts via PACER; which will send a copy to the attached service list.

/s/ Elias Makere


Endnotes
1/ in fact, the case has traversed into this Court (twice: 21-11901; 22-13613); where it currently resides.
2/ notably, Appellant initiated this lawsuit in state court (Florida; Duval County; 2022-CA-2333).





An electronic copy of this file can be found here (text-searchable):

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/CA11/23011231_GMOT_20230426_194438.pdf

Link to Complaint (HTML, PDF) | Makere v Fitzpatrick, et al
HTMLTextBookDiscrimination.com/Info/Misc/CrookedCourt/Complaint
PDFTextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/USFLMD/22000734_AAC_20220729_234622.pdf
Link to Underlying Coverup (HTML, PDF, Video) | Makere v Early
HTMLTextBookDiscrimination.com/Info/Misc/ALJPerjury/Complaint-Amended.html
PDFTextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/USFLND/20000096_AAC_20211231_123954.pdf
VIDEOhttps://youtu.be/_RaJXFfXOCE
Link to Complaint (HTML, PDF, Video) | Makere v Allstate
HTMLTextBookDiscrimination.com/Allstate/Complaint-Full.html
PDFTextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/USFLMD/20000905_AAC_20211104_230439.pdf
VIDEOhttps://youtu.be/e3mgBPHesXg

SERVICE LIST

Ronnie S. Carter, Esquire (948667))
Assistant United States Attorney

T: 904.301.6324
E: Ronnie.Carter@USDOJ.gov

300 N. Hogan St., Ste 700
Jacksonville, FL 32202

(appearing for Defendants Fitzpatrick/Walker/USFLND)*
*not yet accepted Miguel Olivella, Esquire (253723)
John Bennett

E: Miguel.Olivella@MyFloridaLegal.com
E: John.Bennett@MyFloridaLegal.com
P: 850.414.3300
F: 850.488.4872

Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399

(appearing for Defendant Schreiber)


CIP



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

23-11231-F
Makere v Fitzpatrick, et al


{unchanged}

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Makere v Fitzpatrick et al, 23-11231

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT



Lower Tribunal:

Bolitho, ZacharyMagistrate
Winsor, AllenDistrict Judge


Non-Parties:

Early, Hon. E. Gary (ALJ)

Parties:

Cannon, Hon. HopeAppellee
Fitzpatrick, Hon. MartinAppellee
Frank, Hon. MichaelAppellee
Schreiber, Charles JF (Jr.)Appellee
Walker, Hon. MarkAppellee
Winsor, Hon. AllenAppellee
USFLNDAppellee
Makere, Elias (FSA, MAAA)Appellee



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.

ATTACHMENTS

Congratulations! You're now Booked Up on 'Appellant's Motion for Judicial Notice #1' (part of the discrimination/unconstitutionality case against the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida).

Please get the justice you deserve.

Sincerely,



www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
logoAdobe Download
Pages That You
Might Also Like
Makere v Allstate; 3:20-cv-00905; USFLMD
Green v McDonnell-Douglas, 463 F. 2d 337 McDonnell-Douglas v Green, 411 US 792
Article III (US Constitution)
§768 FS
42 USC §1983 42 USC §1985 42 USC §1988
How-To: CIP How-To: Judicial Notice How-To: Objections How-To: Respond to MTD How-To: Sue at DOAH How-To: Charge with the FCHR How-To: Sue in Federal Court How-To: Sue in State Court
Explanation: Judicial Immunity Explanation: Qualified Immunity Explanation: Sovereign Immunity Individual Capacity vs Official Capacity
add a comment
IconQuiz IconLike
iconFullScreenBgnIticonFullScreenEndIt
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG