Home About Contact |
UpButton Judicial Notice #3 (Crooked Court)

J | CROOKED COURT | MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE | #3

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 PUBLIC RECORD SHOWCASING THE MATERIAL FALSEHOOD FOUND IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL’S OPINION

Appellant, ELIAS MAKERE, on this 14th day of May 2024, respectfully moves this Court to take judicial notice of one pertinent item of public record. It cures the injurious falsehood that this Court recently authored (regarding the points-on-appeal).

Key Elements:
• PointsAppellant raised the ‘abuse of discretionissue; • Groundspublic record; material falsehood; preserve review;
Table of Contents:
Context2nd page
Motion3rd page
Certificates11th page
Attachments15th page
Electronic Copies
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/CA11/23011231_GMOT_20240514_120908.pdf
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Info/Misc/CrookedCourt/JudicialNotice03

Background:Appellant appealed the LT’s abuse of discretion
Problem:This Court claimed Appellant never raised the issue
Request:This Court officially recognizes the pertinent truth
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
{#NN}Docket Entry NN (in the Lower Tribunal)
[AXX]Page XX from Appellees’ Answer Brief
LTLower Tribunal
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) – continued throughout the proceeding below; 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 LT’s self-produced (and forewarned) delay sparked its threatened action. Because ten (10) days later – on February 9, 2023 – the LT’s magistrate recommended sanctions.

8. Two weeks after that - on February 24, 2023 – the LT entered Appellant’s objections into the record. A document which sought reversal on account of the LT’s “abuse of discretion” (among other things). [Attachment A]

9. Soon thereafter, however, the LT adopted the magistrate’s suggestion (see appealed order). And this appeal ensued.

10. On May 14, 2024, this Court affirmed the LT’s decision. Doing so, materially, by claiming that Appellant did not raise the issue of the LT’s “abuse of discretion” (¶9 supra). On that same day – and upon receiving this Court’s errant decision - Appellant filed this motion.

II. Analysis

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

12. Among other things, those federal appellees committed the following acts:
a. lying;
b. ratifying lies;
c. altering the federal docket;
d. entering orders without authority;
e. shunning their duties to disqualify themselves;
f. drafting unconstitutional local rules; and
g. enforcing unconstitutional local rules.
Doing so, importantly, “under the guise of federal authority” in order to “deprive [Appellant] of [Appellant]’s constitutional rights”.

13. 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.

14. This Court, however, covered for Appellees by making a false statement of adjudicative fact (¶10 supra).

III. Application to the Matters for Judicial Notice

15. Page 8 of this Court’s opinion claimed that Appellant did not raise the issue of the LT’s “abuse of discretion” (highlights added):
“Makere does not challenge on appeal the particular sanction the district court selected — the imposition of a filing injunction that bars Makere, who says he is indigent, from filing “on his own behalf any proceeding in any United States District Court” until he pays $400 to the clerk of court. Doc. 71 at 2. He therefore has abandoned the issue whether the district court abused its discretion in selecting this particular sanction, and we express no opinion on it.”
16. This is false.

17. Plaintiff did raise the issue of the LT’s abuse of discretion. He did so in his objections (highlights added):
“58. Of course, as the Courts have held, erroneous statements equate to abuses of discretion (highlights added)...

As the Garrison Court held, an abuse of discretion is reversible upon appeal (highlights added)...

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks [the LT] to reject [the magistrate’s] recommendation, because it was based on: (a) clear errors; (b) an abuse of discretion; and (c) a departure from the essential requirements of law.

Dated this 23rd day of February 2023”
18. Plus, Appellant reiterated this issue in his opening brief (highlights added):
“71. The LT abused its discretion in six different ways. The first was its decision to ignore the material facts that brought this legal action to bare. The next three were its false findings of fact: some of which were debunked by government record; others...”
19. Moreover, Appellees acknowledged that Appellant raised the issue of the LT’s abuse of discretion (highlights added):
“Accordingly, the one and only issue before this Court is whether the lower court abused its discretion...”
“Furthermore, [Appellant]’s entire argument on appeal is predicated on his belief that the lower court abused its discretion...”
20. Simply put, this Court’s opinion was based on a material falsehood. Therefore, reviewing justices will benefit from seeing the truth.

21. This truth can be found in the attachment. Which contains Appellant’s written objections (in their entirety). Thereby proving:
a. that Appellant did – indeed – raise the issue of the LT’s abuse of discretion; and

b. that Appellant did – indeed – object to the LT’s [appealed] order of sanctions.

IV. Nature of Relief Sought

22. Appellant asks the Court to judicially notice the attached public record [Attachment A] to the following extent:
a. It is a fact that Appellant raised the issue-on-appeal of the LT’s “abuse of discretion”.

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 item. Primarily 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. As he is only asking this Court to take official recognition of material that is public record.

CONFERRAL

On May 14, 2024, Appellant presented these facts to Appellees; thereby asking if they had any opposition to this motion. Appellees responded by saying that they did. However, they had nothing more to say when Appellant asked whether they disputed the facts.

Thus, Appellant believes the foregoing presents a compelling (ie, pertinent public record) and important (ie, correct an erroneous opinion) reason for obtaining the requested relief.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully asks this Court to take judicial notice of one (1) item of public record (attached hereto).

Dated this 14th day of May 2024.
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 (caption) and Courier New 12-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 1,733 words (Rule 27(d)(2)).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of May 2024, 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/ the Early case has previously traversed into this Court (21-11901); whereby it received a clear reversal.

2/ notably, Appellant initiated this lawsuit in state court (Florida; Duval County; 2022-CA-2333).

3/ when Appellees Fitzpatrick/etc finally respond [to Appellant’s emails/calls] then Appellant will notify this Court


An electronic copy of this file can be found here (text-searchable):
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/CA11/23011231_GMOT_20240514_120908.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


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 #3' (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
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG