Notice Of Refusal In The Nature Of Writ Of Coram Non Judice 6e5p21

1

IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF FLORIDA.

Amunhotep El Bey (Petitioner/Secured Party)

) ) ) VS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) HON. DAN VAUGHN, ) CLERK, JOSEPH SMITH, ) and ALICE CRUMP ) (Respondents) ) ________________________)

L.T. CASE NO’s:98-823-CFB 562004CT005567 2005CT002801 562007CF4217 2007TR043187 A1 2007TR043182 A1 2010MM001552 A 11CA2316 L. T. JUDGE: DAN VAUGHN CASE NO: 4D12-2617

NOTICE OF REFUSAL IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CORAM NON JUDICE COMES NOW, the Petitioner/Secured Party Creditor/General Executor, Amunhotep El Bey, in propria persona (my own proper self), formerly known as the artificial person, EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS; hereby, notifies this court that the attached order, dated September 11, 2012, dismissing Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus, as frivolous, is null and void due to the fact that this court lacks jurisdiction to rule, unless it can prove jurisdiction on the record, and judges: May, C.J., Polen, and Levine are not judges. The Petitioner is not a lawyer and his pleadings cannot be treated as such. In fact, according to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). “[A] pro se petitioner’s pleadings should be liberally construed to do substantial justice.” United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir.1999). Coram non judice, “In the presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction in the matter, then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgment is void.” (See Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 13th Reprint (1998)).

2

There is no judicial courts according to FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464, Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138-178) “Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive s enforce statutes and codes. There have not been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been s.” “When acting to enforce a statue and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an istrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in istering or enforcing statues do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.” (See Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 583.). “Without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as treser.” (See Elliot vs. Piersol, 1 pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328) “When a judge acts when he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” (See US vs. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. ct, 471, 66 L. Ed. 2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohen vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6wheat) 264, 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821)). “Dismissal of charges is warranted, because of fraud placed on the court.” (See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)). STATEMENTS OF THE CASE AND FACTS On April 17, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Affidavit: In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis, in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, in the criminal division. The Petitioner filed the said pleading to correct the illegal null and void judgments of convictions that arose because the STATE OF FLORIDA lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction, improper venue, standing, no Corpus Delicti, no holder in due course, and etc., to try the Petitioner on all criminal and traffic cases in the above-styled cause (see the record: Affidavit In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis, for further detail); which constitutes wrongful convictions, fraud, kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, false arrest and etc., on the behalf of the state, because the state illegally prosecuted the Petitioner without having jurisdiction to do so; however, unfortunately, the illegally prosecutions ruined the Petitioner’s life. The Petitioner filed Writ of Error Coram Nobis because he was asking the L.T. court to correct jurisdictional errors of fact and the Petitioner was no longer in state custody, so he couldn’t file a 3.850 motion, under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which has a 2 year statute of limitations, if the Petitioner is not mistaken. If this is not the case, then the L.T. court should have construed the said pleading into the proper legal vehicle in order to do substantial justice. (See United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir.1999), quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), “Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused.” Furthermore, according to Latana vs. Hopper, 103 F. 2d 118; and Mcnutt vs. GMAC, 298 U.S. 178, it matters not how the issue of jurisdiction is raised, and no enforcement can proceed until jurisdiction is proved.

3

The Petitioner gave the STATE OF FLORIDA 30 days to respond to his Affidavit: In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The state failed to respond within 30 days, so on May 18, 2012, the Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (see the record); because the 30 days petitioner gave the state of Florida to respond to his Affidavit: In the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis had expired on May 17, 2012. Thus far, the state has failed to prove jurisdiction on the record, because the state has failed to rebut the Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis and is forever barred from doing so, because the 30 days to respond has expired. The said pleading is true and correct at law. “AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE”12 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:1315. Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, its.” “AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE” Heb. 6:16-17. There is nothing left to resolve. On May 21, 2012, at or around 1:30PM Eastern, the petitioner called Judge Dan Vaughn’s Judicial Assistance, Alice Crump, in order to schedule a hearing for Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment that was filed on Friday, May 18, 2012. The petitioner requested to set the said motion for a hearing and Alice told the petitioner that she didn’t have the said motion yet and that she wasn’t for sure if Judge Dan Vaughn was the Petitioner’s Judge. The Petitioner laughed and said, “Well.., since you don’t have the default motion yet, could you please set my motion to dismiss: sham pleadings that I filed on May 11, 2012 for a hearing?” There was a moment of silence. Alice told the petitioner to hold on because she was looking and doesn’t see it. So I said, “You mean to tell me that a motion that I filed on May 11, 2012, isn’t on your docket yet? Someone had to pull my pleadings!” So Alice told me to hold on! Wait a minute! Don’t you go off assuming things! So I said in other words, you would too if you was on the other end of this phone conversation. There was then another moment of silence. Alice then told the Petitioner that she sees the Petitioner’s Motion for Default and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss: Sham pleadings and that they would have to review my pleadings first and she has to see if Dan Vaughn is my judge, so the petitioner laughed again. Alice asked petitioner for a number to reach him at, so he gave her his phone number. Alice then told the petitioner in other words, that what they do around here is their bread and butter and that she was a part of everything and that I would have to fight all of them. However, no hearing was scheduled and it may never be scheduled at the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit. On June 1, 2012, the Petitioner received an order striking Motion to Dismiss sham pleadings; Motion to consolidate; and Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis (see the record, the order from L.T. Judge Dan Vaughn, dated May 23, 2012). On June 4, 2012, the Petitioner received an acknowledgement of New Case from the Florida Supreme Court, and he filed his Mandamus on June 14, 2012, stating factual allegations of denials of federally secured fundamental constitutional rights, to wit: “Access to the Courts.” (See the record, Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus).

4

The Petitioner received an Order to Transfer his Mandamus on July 23, 2012, from the Florida Supreme Court. On August 14, 2012, the Petitioner filed an Affidavit in the nature of notice to the court, notifying the court of his status, legal name correction, and the fact that this court was in error by designating the above-styled cause as EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS A/K/A AMUNHOTEP EL BEY vs. STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner is not sure if the said affidavit provoked this court into entering its attached order, on September 11, 2012, dismissing Petitioner’s Mandamus as frivolous, or whether this court entered the said order in order to try to protect its fellow state officials. Either or, this court should be ashamed of itself by making such an incompetent ruling. In fact, I think this court didn’t even read the pleadings in this case. Petitioner says this because how can this court rule that Petitioner’s Mandamus, which contains meritorious issues of lack of Jurisdiction and denials of access to the courts, as frivolous? Frivolous by definition means: something of little weight or importance; lacking in seriousness. I request to see the Oaths of Office of all of the Judges of this case as well as their Florida Bar cards, because issues of jurisdiction and Access to the courts can never be deemed frivolous, because those issues are the foundation of the legal system; especially, in light of the fact that due to the state’s lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner’s life has been ruined illegally by the state. I guess a black man’s life means nothing to this court for it to enter such an incompetent order? This court has deemed the petitioner’s life to be frivolous, based upon the said attached order.

1.) All crimes are commercial (see 27 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 72.11), and all law is contract; therefore, this refusal is partly based upon Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C. 3-501), which warrants refusal of instruments which are non-bona fide or fraudulent in nature. 2.) The fact that the state has no jurisdiction, no standing, no holder in due course, no corpus delicti, and the Petitioner enjoys 11th Amendment Immunity, and the petitioner was tried and convicted in a non-Article III court by an istrative court, all orders and judgments of convictions are null and void; thereby, making the attached order by this court, dated September 11, 2012, a fraud, unless this court can prove jurisdiction on the record. (See the record if this court needs actual evidence that it has no jurisdiction; to wit: Affidavit in the nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis.) 3.) The fact that May, C.J., Polen, and Levine are not judges, according to FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464; and Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138-178, all orders and judgments of convictions imposed by them are fraudulent in nature; therefore, the attached order, dated September 11, 2012, is a fraud and the Petitioner does not recognize it at law and this court must not either. Coram non judice, “In the presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction in the matter, then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgment is void.” (See Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 13th Reprint (1998). 4.) May, C.J., Polen, Levine, and Marilyn Beuttenmuller have committed treason in the above style cause, because the state had and has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, but yet the said so-called judges and clerk act like the state of Florida has jurisdiction; therefore, it is evident that the treason is willful and is in violation of 18 USC Section 2381. Petitioner will be prosecuting the said judges and clerk in a Federal court of law for Treason.

5

5.) The said attached order was signed and sealed by clerk, Marilyn Beuttenmuller, on September 11, 2012, which was executed by Judges: May, C.J., Polen, and Levine dismissing the Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus as frivolous. Notice the use of EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS in the attached order dated September 11, 2012. The said order is undisputable evidence of Copyright Infringement by the STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through its state actors: May, C.J., Polen, Levine, and Marilyn Beuttenmuller, because it proves that they used the Petitioner’s copyright without his expressed written consent; therefore, six (6) instances of Copyright Infringement occurred with the attached September 11, 2012, order, if the STATE OF FLORIDA is included. According to the Petitioner’s Copyright Contract, which is the attached Common Law Copyright Notice, he specifically indicated in other words that each use of EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, and any and all variations thereof, shall result in a penalty of $1,000,000 (one million) US Dollars. Their actions were willful because the Petitioner, the Secured Party Creditor/General executor, gave the State of Florida, and its state actors/state officials, public notice in writing, via US Mail, as is indicated by the Certificate of Service (see attached Common Law Copyright Notice), and the public Record, which is recorded in Amunhotep El Bey vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Circuit Civil Case Number: 11CA2316. Legal Maxim: “Notice to the Principal is notice to the agent. Notice to the agent is notice to the Principal.” The said state officials Copyright Infringement is indeed willful because petitioner notified this court of his status and Common Law Name Correction when he filed an Affidavit in the nature of notice to the court, on August 14, 2012, so there can be no excuses on their behalf. Petitioner seeks 6,000,000.00 (6 million) US dollars in their individual, professional, and official capacities. WHEREFORE, notice is hereby given that based upon the foregoing facts and the authorities cited therein, this Court, which is the Office of the General Executor (see attached Notice of Acceptance to General Executor’s Office) , does not recognize the attached order dismissing Petitioners Writ of Mandamus, because of fraud and lack of jurisdiction. I have returned the fraudulent attached order and wrote in red at a 45 degree angle, “Void: I do not recognize,” on all pages. This Court, the Office of the General Executor, will forgive the Copyright Infringement and the treason of the said state officials on the condition that this court, the 4th DCA, will construe this foregoing Notice of Refusal as a Motion for Rehearing or either a Motion to Reconsider and issue a show cause order, immediately, directing the STATE OF FLORIDA to respond to Petitioner’s Mandamus within 20 days or default will be issued against the state. All will be forgiven if this court, the 4th DCA, just simply restores its honor by doing its job without being biased or prejudicial towards the Petitioner. Justice is supposed to be blind anyway, so I shouldn’t have to ask this or take this current course of action, in order to get this court to do its job. Notice is hereby given by this Court that the 4th DCA, has 10 days upon receipt of this foregoing Notice to issue a show cause order directing the state to respond to Petitioner’s Mandamus. Failure to do so will result in Petitioner reopening his Federal Case in STATE OF FLORIDA vs. El Bey, case number 12-CV-14201-JEM.

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing affidavit has been furnished by US Mail to: The Clerk of The Circuit Court, P. O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34954; the State Attorney’s Office, 411 South Second Street, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34950; the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, The Capitol PL-01., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050; the Florida Department of State, Secretary of the State, R. A. Gary Building, 500 S. Bronough, Tallahassee, FL. 32399-0250; The Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL, 33401; the West Palm Beach office- Florida Attorney General, 1515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 900., West Palm Beach, FL 33401; and The Clerk of the Supreme court of Florida, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, on this ___day of ___________ 2012.

Respectfully Submitted, by: Executor _______________________ EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, ESTATE Office of the Executor, General - Post Office, 1230 Avenue I, Fort Pierce [Non-domestic] Florida, near [34950].