Home About Contact |
UpButton Petition for Rehearing (Crooked Court)

K | CROOKED COURT | PETITION FOR REHEARING

****************
23-11231-F
****************
************************************************
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
************************************************

***********************************

ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA
(Appellant/Plaintiff)

v.

HON. MARTIN FITZPATRICK, ET AL
(Appellee/Defendant)

***********************************

On Appeal From The
United States District Court, Florida, Middle District
4:22-cv-000315


************************************************

APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING

************************************************
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!







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, Zachary (Hon.)Magistrate
Winsor, Allen (Hon.)District Judge


Non-Parties:

Early, Edward Gary(Tallahassee, FL)


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)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.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
State v. Green, 105 So.2d 817 (1DCA 1958)8
Whipple v. State, 431 So.2d 2011 (2DCA 1983)9
RULES
Local Rule 40-3 11th Cir. R.vi
Local Rule 5.4 USFLND3
Rule 28 Fed. R. App. P.v
Rule 40 Fed. R. App. P.ii,v
STATUTES
42 USC §19833
42 USC §19853
REFERENCES
[A_]Appendix for Opening Brief1/
[AB_]Answer Brief1/
[OB_]Opening Brief1/
[R_]Appendix for Reply Brief1/
{#_}Docket Entry1/
ABBREVIATIONS
1DCAFirst District Court of Appeal (Florida)
LTLower Tribunal
USFLMDUS District Court, Florida, Middle District
USFLNDUS District Court, Florida, Northern District

INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Elias Makere, was the Plaintiff in the lower tribunal; and will be referred to in this petition as “Civilian X” (Rule 28(d) Fed. R. App. P.). Appellees (ie, Judge Martin Fitzpatrick, et al), were the defendants below; and will be referred to as “Those Officials”.

Incorporating All Briefs

Civilian X files this Petition in response to this Court’s recent opinion (“That Opinion”); hereby incorporating: (i) Civilian X’s Opening Brief (in its entirety); and (ii) Civilian X’s Reply Brief (in its entirety).

Timeliness

This Petition for Rehearing is timely.

On May 14, 2024, this Court issued That Opinion.

Six of Those Officials, notably, were/are federal officers. According to Rule 40(a)(1) Fed. R. App. P., the deadline for this petition is Monday, July 1, 2024.2/

A due date which falls ‘within 45 days of entry of judgment’ (citing Rule 40-3 11th Cir. R.). Thus, by filing it today (ie, on the July 1st due date), Civilian X has met this Court’s time constraint.

I. PERTINENT HISTORY

A. Background: Underlying Federal Action (Makere v Allstate)

1. On August 12, 2020, Civilian X 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 Civilian X 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. Background: Preceding Federal Action (Makere v Early)

3. On February 16, 2021, Civilian X 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.3/

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

4. On April 26, 2022, Civilian X sued the above-captioned defendants for constitutional violations. Therein, Civilian X 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). Civilian X 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, Civilian X’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 Civilian X’s case. It also retained jurisdiction; threatening further Court action.

6. On January 30, 2023, the LT docketed two documents that it attributed to Civilian X. 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 Civilian X had mailed 114 days earlier (on October 4, 2022). A nearly 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 Civilian X’s objections into the record. A document which sought reversal on account of the LT’s “abuse of discretion” (among other things) (¶4-7 supra).

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

D. The Appeal (Makere v Fitzpatrick, et al)

10. On May 14, 2024, this Court affirmed the LT’s decision. Doing so, materially, by claiming that Civilian X did not raise the issue of the LT’s “abuse of discretion” (¶8 supra).

[Attachment A]

11. On that same day – and upon receiving this Court’s errant decision – Civilian X filed a motion for judicial notice (hereinafter “That Motion”). That Motion asked this Court to take judicial notice of a public record. A public record which, importantly, proved that Civilian X had [indeed] raised the issue of the LT’s “abuse of discretion”. A proof, importantly, which debunked the basis for That Opinion.

12. As of today, this Court has yet to rule on That Motion. Therefore – upon exhausting this Court’s window to stave off this filing – Civilian X has hereby filed this petition for rehearing.

II. ANALYSIS

13. Ultimately, Those Officials entered into a pre-suit pact to deprive Civilian X of Civilian X’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.

14. Among other things, Those Officials 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 [Civilian X] of [Civilian X]’s constitutional rights”.

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

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

III. ERROR IN THIS COURT’S ISSUED OPINION

17. Page 8 of this Court’s opinion claimed that Civilian X 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.”
18. This Court’s statement, of course, is false.

19. Civilian X 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”
20. Plus, Civilian X 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...”
21. Moreover, Those Officials acknowledged that Civilian X 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, [Civilian X]’s entire argument on appeal is predicated on his belief that the lower court abused its discretion...”
22. Simply put, That Opinion was based on a material falsehood. A material falsehood, importantly, that is debunked by public record.

23. That aforementioned public record proves that:
a. Civilian X did [indeed] raise the issue of the LT’s abuse of discretion; and

b. Civilian X did [indeed] object to the LT’s [appealed] order of sanctions.

IV. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF REHEARING

24. According to appellate courts, a petition for rehearing merely needs to point out the factual/legal error that a tribunal misapprehended/overlooked (highlights added):
“The sole and only purpose of a petition for rehearing is to call to the attention of the court some fact, precedent or rule of law which the court has overlooked in rendering its decision. Judges are human and subject to the frailties of humans. It follows that there will be occasions when a fact, a controlling decision or a principle of law even though discussed in the brief or pointed out in oral argument will be inadvertently overlooked in rendering the judgment of the court... It is to meet these situations that the rules provide for petitions for rehearing as an orderly means of directing the court's attention to its inadvertence.”
25. The appellate courts further explain that litigants must avoid re-arguing their points-on-appeal (highlights added):
“[We] urge counsel to file a [petition for rehearing] only where careful analysis indicates a point of law or a fact which the court has overlooked or misapprehended, or where clarification of a written opinion is essential. Counsel should not use such [petition] as a vehicle to reargue the merits of the court's decision or to express displeasure with its judgment.
26. Put together, a petition for rehearing must:
a. point out the Court’s error;

b. avoid re-arguing the points-on-appeal; and

c. refrain from expressing any displeasure with the court’s judgment.
27. In the instant case, Civilian X has satisfied all three elements.
a. For starters, he has pointed out this Court’s harmful error.
i. That error, of course, was this Court’s operative claim that Civilian X did [not] raise the issue of the LT’s abuse of discretion.
b. Secondly, Civilian X has not re-argued any of his six points-on-appeal.

c. Thirdly, Civilian X has not expressed any displeasure with the Court’s judgment. Instead, he has merely pointed out this Court’s error (¶27a supra).
28. Thus, this Court is in prime position to rehear this case. And Civilian X hereby asks that it does. In fact, Civilian X avers that this Court should, because doing so will restore the judiciary’s impartiality/legitimacy. Impartiality & legitimacy, importantly, which That Opinion stole from this tribunal.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Appellant (ie, Civilian X) asks this Court to rehear this appeal; because - in addition to being false & erroneous – this Court’s issued opinion is refuted by the record.

Dated this 1st day of July 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

1. Type-Volume

☒ This document complies with the word limit of 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 1,760 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).
7/1/2024 /s/ Elias Makere
Date Elias Makere, FSA, MAAA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of July 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

Endnotes:
1/
[A0210] means page 210 from the appendix [to Appellant’s Opening Brief]
[OBII] means page ii from the Opening Brief
[AB012] means page 12 from the Answer Brief
[R0210] means page 210 from the appendix [to Appellant’s Reply Brief]
{#44} means docket entry 44 from the lower tribunal
2/
Please refer to Rule 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. in order to calculate the time window.
3/
the Early case has previously traversed into this Court (21-11901); whereby it received a clear reversal.


An electronic copy of this file can be found here (text-searchable):
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/CA11/23011231_RHR_20240701_000001.pdf
TextBookDiscrimination.com/Cases/Misc/CrookedCourt/Rehearing
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 ('Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871')
HTMLTextBookDiscrimination.com/Info/Misc/ALJPerjury/Complaint-Amended.html
PDFTextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/USFLND/20000096_AAC_20211231_123954.pdf
VIDEOhttps://youtu.be/_RaJXFfXOCE
Link to Originating Case (HTML, PDF, Video) | Makere v Allstate (Employment Discrimination)
HTMLTextBookDiscrimination.com/Allstate/Complaint-Full.html
PDFTextBookDiscrimination.com/Files/USFLMD/20000905_AAC_20211104_230439.pdf
VIDEOhttps://youtu.be/e3mgBPHesXg

ATTACHMENTS

Congratulations! You're now Booked Up on 'Appellant's Petition for Rehearing' (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
iconWebsite How-To: Petition for Rehearing
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