Petition for Writ of Certiorari — L. E. Pauli Coffey, Petitioner v. South Carolina

Supreme Court briefJan 7, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

CasegNo1

Jn the Supreme Gawd of the ‘United Stated of Gm&dca

L.E. Pauli Coffey

Petitioner

vs.

State of South Carolina

Respondent

On Petitioner of Writ of Certiorari

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

■■

■c.>

•>

L.E. Pauli Coffey

3493 Birchwood Ave

FILED

JAN 0 7 2021

§nPRFEMEFCPU RTLURSK

Indianapolis, IN 46205

305-340-8316

■j

■1

■I

'■I

-r

■A

■j

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED TO THE COURT

Do Americans have the inalienable 14th Amendment right to Due

Process?

Do American women have the inalienable 14th Amendment Right to

Due Process?

Do Americans with disabilities have the inalienable 14th Amendment

Right to Due Process?

Do American citizens have the inalienable 4th Amendment Right to

privacy in America?

Do Americans who are female have the inalienable 4th Amendment

Right to Privacy in America?

Do Americans with disabilities have the inalienable 4th Amendment

right to Privacy in America?

Do American citizens have the inalienable 8th Amendment Right to be

free of excessive fines/bonds/surety?

Do American women have the inalienable 8th Amendment Right to be

free of excessive fines/bonds/surety?

Do Americans with disabilities have the inalienable 8th Amendment

Right to be free of excessive fines/bonds/surety?

10.

Do states have the Sovereign Immunity to violate a citizens Right(s) to

Due Process?

List of Parties

[X]

All Parties are listed in the caption

Related cases

Gateway v. Coffey 2016*CP*07*02261 14th Judicial Circuit

Court of Common Pleas - South Carolina

Gateway v. Coffey 2016-LP-07-00637 14th Judicial Circuit

Court of Common Pleas* South Carolina

Gateway v. Coffey 2018*001743 South Carolina Court of Appeals

Coffey v. State of South Carolina 1-19*CV*3064*TWP*DPL

RE: 18-05614-dd-Coffey

RE: Smock/Coffey Book 3459/Page3106 CNF#2016005336

Opinions Below

It was the Opinion of the US. District Court, Southern District of

Indiana, that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the state of South

Carolina in the matter of Coffey v. South Carolina because the state of South

Carolina enjoys Sovereign Immunity to violate Petitioner's privacy and due

process as well as Petitioner's Constitutional Rights including, but not

limited to, Petitioner's right(s) to Due Process and Privacy. (March 23, 2020)

It was the Opinion of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that the decision

of the U.S. District Court, Southern District Indiana, that jurisdiction did not

exist because the state of South Carolina enjoys Sovereign Immunity to

violate Petitioner's privacy and due process as well as Petitioner's

Constitutional Rights to include, but not limited to, Petitioner's Right(s) to

Due Process and Petitioner's Right(s) to Privacy rights.

The above listed Opinions deny Petitioner equal justice under prevailing U.S.

law because the laws were not applied equally to Petitioner.

Jurisdiction

Petitioner seeks this Writ of Certiorari under USC § 1254

Constitutional and Statutory Provision Involved

4th Amendment Right to Privacy

8th Amendment Right to Avoid Excessive Fines

14th Amendment Right to Due Process

Fed. R. Civ. P. § 12

Fed Rules of Evidence § 301

Dodd Frank Act

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 3

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 9

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 10

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 12

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Comes now Petitioner, L.E. Pauli Coffey, pro se, an American

female, grandmother, and DAY widow with disabilities, and states the

following;

It has long been established, and more recently reaffirmed by this

Court in Timbs v. state ofIndiana (2019), that states do not enjoy Sovereign

Immunity to violate a citizen's 14th Amendment Right to Due Process. In

this matter Due Process encompasses nearly the full scope of Petitioner's life

beginning with her privacy and ending with her safety. In our digital age,

privacy is not only a process. Privacy can literally mean the difference

between life or death, citing the Daniel Anderi Judicial Security Act.

Whether it is missed employment opportunities or for the protection of life

and limb for one's family, privacy is everything in our world now dominated

by the digital acquisition and sale of personal and private information, with

or without our consent, and, many times, as the result of the demand of those

who require we surrender of our privacy to satiate their "business models".

The state of South Carolina OF ITS' OWN VOLITION chose to recklessly,

wantonly and willfully ABANDON its' legal DUTY to acknowledge, preserve,

protect, restore and uphold Petitioner's Privacy, her Rights to Privacy, her

Due Process, her Right(s) to Due Process, her exclusion from excessive fines,

her Right to be free of excessive fines, equal justice and Petitioner's right to a

trial by her peers under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the

state of South Carolina to the FINANCIAL BENEFIT of the state of South

Carolina.

Both the US District Court, Southern District of Indiana, and the 7th

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Petitioner does not have ANY rights and,

therefore, the state of South Carolina enjoys Sovereign Immunity to violate

Petitioner's rights Petitioner is no more than a disabled, female animal who

does not enjoy the protections of our laws. Petitioner does not agree that she

is an animal and she further believes that no court has the ability to pick and

choose which citizens enjoy rights and which citizens do not [IF] a citizen can

show that their complaint filed meets the requirements of Article III.

Petitioner's complaint has always satisfied the requirements for Article III.

BRIEF HISTORY

In January, 2016, Petitioner was made a widow by the Veterans

Affairs/Medical University Hospital System [V.A./MUSC] in Charleston,

South Carolina, when its' doctors performed a federally banned surgical

procedure which caused her husband to pass away seventy nine (79) hours

after being released from care with a "clean bill of health" by the doctors who

performed the banned procedure without concern for the inevitable outcome

to Petitioner or her husband. Probate in South Carolina was immediately

begun by one of the finest probate attorneys in South Carolina and concluded

by THE probate judge of Beaufort County, South Carolina. Petitioner, as

evidenced, was the exclusive owner of her home in Beaufort, South Carolina,

without debt. Appendix B, Ex. B)

On September 21, 2016, the state of South Carolina took it upon itself

to violate Petitioner's Right(s) to due process by violating her privacy and her

Right(s) to privacy, when, despite myriad state records showing Petitioner

did not owe a mortgage, it granted Gateway Mortgage Group LLC [Gateway]

a lien on Petitioner's waterfront home without Petitioner's consent or

knowledge, in direct violation of Article(s) §10 and § 22 of the Constitution of

the state of South Carolina guaranteeing "no person shall be finally bound by

a judicial decision of an administrative agency affecting private rights except

on due notice and an opportunity to be heard" . The state of South Carolina

never notified petitioner that a lien had been applied for nor that it had been

"awarded" by the state of South Carolina to [Gateway] upon Petitioner's

home. Petitioner was not allowed to respond to this "award" of lien.

In October 2016, the state of South Carolina again violated Petitioner's

Rights to Due Process by violating her privacy and her Right to privacy when

it allowed [Gateway] to file a LisPendens/ Foreclosure action, a public action,

against Petitioner for a mortgage that she did not owe and then posting

Petitioner's name and address on the Beaufort County Public Index, a

consumer reporting index created and maintained by the state of South

Carolina to its' own financial benefit, as nearly every Lis Pendens sale of a

home on the water in South Carolina ultimately leads to a real estate sale

and an increase in property tax collected by the state of South Carolina.

(Appendix B; Ex A.)

Beaufort, South Carolina, is a small military town with

approximately 13,000 permanent residents in 2016 who rely in large part on

the military and federal government for employment that exceeds minimum

wage work in fast food restaurants in Beaufort, South Carolina. A Lis

Pendens action in a background check is career suicide in a small military

town. Petitioner was ultimately denied work for which she was the most

qualified applicant. (Appendix B; Ex.C)

A partial mortgage, never completed, did exist in Petitioner's

husband's name. Prior to Sept 2016, [Gateway] did not feel compelled to

pursue a completed mortgage with Petitioner's husband. A deceased man

cannot enter into or complete a mortgage.

A Mortgage company cannot create, modify or complete a

mortgage without the inclusion of a borrower. (Dodd Frank Act 2016)

On October 28, 2016, Petitioner was served with Notice of the Lis

Pendens action filed against her in Beaufort County, South Carolina.

Petitioner immediately served Notice on the Equity Court in the 14th

Judicial Circuit of South Carolina that she did not owe a mortgage and that

her home did not secure a mortgage.

a.)

The state of South Carolina utilizes Equity Courts for matters of

deficiencies in lending.

Between October 28, 2016, and August 1, 2017, at great financial loss

and causing extreme anguish, Petitioner filed Notice after Notice with the

Equity Court for the 14th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina showing that she

did not owe a mortgagee Petitioner retained counsel, Shawn French, who

took thousands of dollars in compensation and ran, never providing

Petitioner will real representation beyond fewer than five hundred (500)

words in mis-titled filings that amounted to nothing more than a word salad

and which did not represent the state of south Carolina's prevailing laws.

Petitioner filed Notice with Beaufort County, South Carolina, the 14th

Judicial Circuit of South Carolina and with [Gateway] showing that she did

not owe a mortgage, providing Beaufort County, the 14th- Judicial Circuit of

South Carolina and [Gateway] with the state of South Carolina's own records

showing that Petitioner did not owe a mortgage and demanded that her name

and likeness be removed from the Beaufort County South Carolina Public

Index as a debtor. Beaufort County, the 14th Judicial Circuit of the state of

South Carolina and [Gateway] refused to comply with Petitioner's demand.

Petitioner filed an initial Affirmative Defense Response that was ultimately

ignored by the court. On August 1, 2017, Judge Marvin Dukes III vacated

the matter of Gateway Mortgage Group LLC v. L.E. Pauli Coffey, 2016-CP07-02261/ 2016-LP-07-00637, from the Equity Court of South Carolina due to

lack of jurisdiction as Petitioner was not deficient in lending as she owed no

mortgage.

Rather than allowing Petitioner's South Carolina nightmare to end on

August 1, 2017, and she finally being allowed to fully process her husband's

death nearly two years after the fact and pursue [V.A./MUSC] for her

husband's wrongful death, the state of South Carolina decided it wasn't done

violating Petitioner's Constitutional Rights and allowed [Gateway] to appoint

its' own counsel R. Thayer Rivers Jr., as the Special Referee/ sole adjudicator

in the matter of [Gateway] v. Coffey. This act violated not only Petitioner's

Constitutional Rights to Due Process and Equal justice, it also violated the

Right(s) established [BY] the Constitution of the State of South Carolina for

its' citizens, guaranteeing that no person could be prosecuted and adjudicated

by the same person. (Appendix B; Ex. D)

a.)

Special Referee is an appointed position and not an elected

position in the state of South Carolina. Thayer Rivers Jr. was appointed by

the state of South Carolina as a Special Referee to represent the state of

South Carolina while he was attorney of record for [Gateway] and then

[Gateway] appointed him to the matter of [Gateway] v. Coffey.

Petitioner immediately filed her objection to [Gateway's] appointment

of its' own counsel as adjudicator with the 14th Judicial Circuit of South

Carolina and Beaufort County, South Carolina. Petitioner's filed three(3)

objections in total to [Gateway] appointing its' own counsel and all three (3)

objections were ignored by [Gateway], the 14th Judicial Circuit and the state

of South Carolina.

10.

Between October 28, 2016, and October 10, 2018, Petitioner filed no

fewer than thirty three (33) Demands for Due Process and three (3) Demands

for a Jury trial, all of which are guaranteed by the US Constitution and the

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 9 but which were all

ignored by the Court and by the state of South Carolina in violation of

Petitioner's Constitutional Right(s) to Due Process. (Appendix B; Ex. A)

a.)

Glanvill's Treastise (appr. circa 1188) states that "fine by the

Lord King... means that "he" is to be fined by oath of lawful men of the

neighborhood but so as not to lose any property to maintain his position."

1.)

This rule represents not only the requirement that a fine

or surety be reasonable but that it can only be issues by a "neighborhood"

which is a jury of our peers. Thayer Rivers Jr., on behalf of the state of South

Carolina, refused Petitioner's RIGHT to REVIEW by a jury of her peers

thereby denying her equal justice and due process.

11.

Thayer Rivers Jr, attorney for [Gateway] and adjudicator in the matter

of [Gateway] v. Coffey, rendered his Decision to the financial benefit of his

client and South Carolina, issuing a gender bending Order that instructed

[Gateway] to write a mortgage in the name of Petitioner's deceased husband

and to use that illegal mortgage as the instrument allowing Thayer Rivers Jr.

to sell Petitioner's home "on the steps of the Beaufort County Court House"

on October 11, 2018, in contradiction to South Carolina law allowing no fewer

than thirty days between Order and Sale. (Appendix A; Ex C)

a.)

There was no mortgage at the time a lien was placed on

Petitioner's home and there was no mortgage at the time Petitioner was

served with notice of Lis Pendens action.

b.)

One cannot create or modify a mortgage without the

inclusion of a borrower. A deceased man cannot legally be a borrower. (Dodd

Frank Act)

1.)

The South Carolina bible for Real Estate law from

at least 2014 to 2018, "The Essentials", cites Federal Land Bank v. Ledford,

9 SE 2d 804 (South Carolina 1940) as exclusive justification that in South

Carolina a person not party to a contract cannot be held responsible for that

contract.

c.)

12.

A deceased person cannot be a borrower.

Petitioner did timely filed an Appeal in the South Carolina Court of

Appeals, not realizing that not only was Thayer Rivers Jr. an attorney for

[Gateway] while acting as adjudicator for the state of South Carolina in the

matter of [Gateway] v. Coffey but he was also responsible, in part, for the

appointment of the entire Appellate Bench in the Court of Appeals for the

state of South Carolina in his capacity as a state of South Carolina state

representative. Petitioner was put on notice that in order to save her home

from sale during Appeal, she would have to provide bond/surety in the

amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,00.00) directly to the state

of South Carolina in answer to a fake mortgage valued at one hundred nine

thousand dollars ($109,000.00), a fake mortgage that did not even exist at the

time Lis Pendens was filed against Petitioner by [Gateway]. Ultimately,

Petitioner's appeal was denied because Petitioner could not produce a

transcript for an event which state of South Carolina public court records

show never happen. (Ex. G)

a.)

Citing: Timbs v. State ofIndiana Syllabus (2019), "Fines can

also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue.

The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment

incorporates Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming".

b.)

13.

"Fines can be used to silence... a political opponent"

In a last ditch effort to save her home, Petitioner went so far as to

incur the unavoidable cost of filing bankruptcy only to have the bankruptcy

court in Columbia, South Carolina, as evidenced in previous filings, rule that

Petitioner could not file bankruptcy because she had no creditors AND that

[Gateway] was free to sell Petitioner's home. As a result of the bankruptcy

court's early decision, Petitioner felt there was no reason to continue

communicating with the bankruptcy court beyond making payment in full for

a failed bankruptcy that will remain on Petitioner's credit history for at least

three (3) years.

14.

On February 2, 2019, Petitioner packed her two (2) dogs and her (2)

cats and some of her belongings and left Beaufort, South Carolina, leaving

behind that which she could not fit into her pick-up truck. Petitioner lost her

husband's collector motorcycle, his vehicle, treasured family heirlooms, mid

century antiques, cookware, clothing, tools, etc.

15.

Petitioner returned to Beaufort, South Carolina, one more time to once

again put her home up for sale, notifying [Gateway] and the courts that in

the event of the successful sale of her home, she was willing to pay the fake

mortgage in the interest of ending this nightmare. As evidenced to the lower

court(s), Petitioner secured sale of her water view Beaufort, South Carolina,

home in the amount of one hundred seventy five thousand dollars

($175,000.00).

16.

Four (4) days before closing on Petitioner's Beaufort, South Carolina,

home, the sale of her home was stopped because of the fake one hundred and

nine thousand dollar mortgage ($109,000.00) and fake foreclosure ruling.

Instead of Petitioner's home being sold by Petitioner so that her South

Carolina nightmare could end once and for all, [Gateway] took control of

Petitioner's property for the purpose of allowing its' attorney, Thayer Rivers

Jr., to sell it back to [Gateway] "on the steps of the Beaufort County Court

House" as adjudicator for the state of South Carolina for approximately one

hundred and forty one thousand dollars ($141,000.00), an amount less than

Petitioner had secured for her home in sale, at which point [Gateway]

immediately sold Petitioner's home to the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs

Administration [SecVet] for five dollars ($5.00), as evidenced by Petitioner in

both lower court records. Petitioner can only assume that this five dollar

($5.00) sale was a souvenir sale to the [VA] as the fraudulent Lis Pendens

filed against Petitioner did serve to short circuit the wrongful death suit

Petitioner had commenced through Counsel against [VA/MUSC] a month

BEFORE the state of South Carolina illegally granted a lien to [Gateway] on

Petitioner's property. (Ex, H)

CURRENT

17.

The State of South Carolina cost Petitioner nearly half a million

dollars in assets and hard currency by illegally granting [Gateway] a lien on

Petitioner's home, where none existed previously, without her knowledge or

consent. The state of South Carolina further damaged Petitioner when it

allowed [Gateway] to publicly file Lis Pendens against Petitioner where no

mortgage existed. The state of South Carolina intentionally short circuited

the wrongful death suit Petitioner had begun through counsel for her

husband's wrongful death, costing her potentially millions of dollars and a

life not choreographed around minimum wage jobs because of Petitioner's

limited formal education, disabilities and a poor credit history caused by the

state of South Carolina and [Gateway].

a.)

Petitioner was a seventeen (17) year old runaway who

never went home. She never believed the skills she developed for survival at

seventeen would one day have to be resurrected and employed in order to

survive the abuses of an entire state.

b.)

If a baby powder company is responsible to pay twenty

two (22) women four (4) Million dollars for a potential connection between

life long use of its' product and ovarian cancer, then the state of South

Carolina, the entity providing bond and insurance to the Medical University

of South Carolina [MUSC] at the time of Petitioner's husband's death,

through the state of South Carolina's Insurance Fund, is responsible to

proportionally compensate Petitioner for her husband's wrongful death

caused by the illegal procedure performed on her husband, as listed on his

death certificate for a service connected medical condition, caused by

[VA/MUSC's] use of a federally banned surgical procedure, just seventy nine

hours after Petitioner's husband was released from [VA]/[MUSC] health

system with a "clean bill of health". It's all "one dollar", Petitioner is not

concerned with which door it may "walk through".

c.)

It was not lost on Petitioner that the medical providers

who illegally performed the federally banned procedure on her husband that

caused his death, saw something so different than the doctor who signed

Petitioner's husband's death certificate upon Petitioner's husband's death

just seventy nine (79) hours after being released from [VA]/[MUSC].

18.

Petitioner literally lost nearly everything she had and her potential

future when South Carolina violated her 14th Amendment right to Due

Process over and over again for its' own financial benefit, when it violated her

Privacy and her 4th Amendment Right to Privacy, her 5th Amendment right

to a fair trial, her 8th Amendment right to be spared from excessive bond/

surety, her right(s) to Equal Justice and the Supremacy clause of our

Constitution and to its' own Constitution.

19.

Petitioner has spent five (5) years being dragged sideways through

Hell, five (5) years lost which she can never get back, first watching her

husband die a torturous death at the hands of capricious doctors not

concerned with the life of a service connected disabled veteran; to waiting for

BCSO sheriff deputies to show up at her Beaufort, South Carolina, door to

wrongfully evict her from her rightful home; to watching her husband's life

insurance disappear as she fought an uphill battle for employment in a

military town with a fraudulent Lis Pendens in her back ground; to losing her

treasured possessions when she just couldn't "carry them" back to Indiana; to

being literally starved in Indiana, financially saved, temporarily, only by the

grace of God and a hit and run car accident. The state of South Carolina did

more than violate Petitioner's Constitutional rights, the state of South

Carolina did everything it could to destroy Petitioner to protect [VA/MUSC]

from public suit as clearly the state of South Carolina believes Petitioner is

not a person but an animal that has no rights.

a.)

Generally citing U.S. v. Levesque, 546 F3d 78, 8-85 (1st Cir

2008) "No fine shall deprive a defendant of future livelihood or the ability to

generate an income". [Gateway's] illegal Lis Pendens action forced Petitioner

to financially struggle without access to employment in a small military town

and forced Petitioner to go without many of the basic necessities of life that

people take for granted every day.

20.

When Petitioner initially filed suit against the state of South Carolina

{Coffey v. State ofSouth Carolina, P19-CV-3064-TWP DPL) she could barely

think or speak after such abuses, and that suit failed as it should have,

without prejudice, NOT because the state of South Carolina enjoyed

Sovereign Immunity, as it DID NOT enjoy Sovereign Immunity even then,

but because Petitioner was too traumatized BY the inexplicable and illegal

actions of the state of South Carolina, and from starvation, to properly

present herself within the confines of our Constitution and within our Courts.

All the evidence presented by Petitioner in that case applies to this case.

21.

Upon filing suit against the state of South Carolina a second time, in

January, 2020, never did Petitioner believe she would first have to battle the

District Court's prejudice BEFORE she could redress the state of South

Carolina for its' abuses. Petitioner is obviously not learned enough to

understand why any judge would believe that a judge is a person with

protected and inalienable Rights while believing Petitioner is just an animal

with no Rights.

22.

Petitioner filed her Notice of Intent to file an Appeal with the District

Court, Southern District Indiana, on June 26, 2020, and filed her Appeal

from Judgment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals shortly there after. Judge

James R. Sweeney filed his final Notice to Petitioner in August, 2020, in the

matter of Coffey v. State ofSouth Carolina, L20-CV-0006-JRS-MJD.

a.)

Judge James R. Sweeney invoked the murky cloak of

Sovereign Immunity in the face of suit filed by a litigant whom he

determined was under represented and who, therefore, had no Rights in his

eyes. In Timbs v. the state ofIndiana, Mr. Timbs, his Range Rover and

"their" right(s) were supported by the Brief of the American Bar Association

As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner Tyson Timbs (Sept 11, 2018)

stating that/ "The ABA has long recognized that lawyers have a special

obligation to act as stewards of the system of justice."

b.)

Judge James R. Sweeney IS a lawyer who intentionally

sacrificed Petitioner's Right(s) for the comfort of his court because he was

faced with an under represented litigant. ALL litigants are supposed to have

Equal Right(s) in America.

c.)

As a road service mechanic for 12 years, Petitioner was

often asked about how to fix a vehicle by those who wished to try and fix their

own cars because of financial position. Petitioner did never intentionally lie

about a repair just because a car mechanic wasn't getting paid for the work.

23.

Initially, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge James R.

Sweeney's assessment that Petitioner is an animal with no Rights in America

thereby ensuring that the state of South Carolina enjoys Sovereign

Immunity. Upon Notice of its' decision, Petitioner timely requested a

rehearing because it is unfathomable to Petitioner that three (3) judges,

tasked with upholding the laws of our Country, could so easily declare that a

person in America has no rights. Upon rehearing, the entire banc of the 7th

Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided Petitioner is an animal with

no Rights and gave no explanation for its' decision to, again, uphold the

wrongful and without standing Sovereign Immunity ruling of the District

Court.

a.)

Of note. Petitioner has been barred from utilizing PACER

throughout the entirety of these proceedings, as evidenced to the lower

courts. With no money to pay for counsel and no access to PACER. Petitioner

has been forced to fight for her Rights without equal access. This isn't what

America was founded for but exactly what America was founded to fight.

i.)

Petitioner still does not have access to PACER. Petitioner

does not have the access to the internet outside of a sixty (60) minute daily

window allowed by the Indianapolis public library, and her sketchy, prepaid

cell phone. Petitioner does not have a printer. Petitioner's laptop is actually

older than her grandson.

ii.)

Petitioner can file nothing via PACER and cannot reliably

receive anything through or from PACER or CM/ECF

iii)

Petitioner was stripped of her income and her income

potential by the state of South Carolina and then expected to fight for her

rights without means.

ADDITIONALLY

24.

When an individual is arrested, no one should have to go before a judge

and prove that an arrested person has Miranda rights because Miranda

Rights are our laws, our Rights, Miranda v. Arizona 136 S. Ct. 540 (1966). A

male American terrorist has the Right to pray in a manner prescribed by his

religion during incarceration because it is his Right in America to be treated

equally, i.e, he could not be denied equal congregation for prayer as those

prisoners who congregated for exercise and entertainment, citing Hon. Jane

Magnus Stinson, Lindh v. Warden, 09-cv00215 (S.D. Ind). Mass murderer,

Dylann Roof, after slaughtering nine (9) innocent parishioners in a

Charleston, South Carolina, church, was guaranteed his rights to Due

Process (2018). Dreasjon Reed, in death, has been protected by his Due

Process rights by Hon. Jane Magnus Stinson (2020). Tyson Timbs and HIS

2012 Range Rover have the Right to Due Process (S. Ct. 2019). All of these

examples have one thing in common which separates them from L.E. Pauli

Coffey v. the state of South Carolina. They are all cases where males with no

physical disabilities, Mr. Reed notwithstanding as he is deceased, had their

Rights restored or upheld by federal courts while Petitioner, a female with

disabilities, has been repeatedly denied equal rights, equal justice, and equal

access, sometimes by the same courts, to her great detriment and causing her

extreme harm.

25.

Petitioner is a person and as such she has Rights that have been

violated, first, by the state of South Carolina and then by the District Court

and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented her from exercising her

Right to redress the state of South Carolina as Petitioner could not eclipse

the discrimination and prejudice she faced in every court she entered because

she entered those courts alone. Had Petitioner had the means to enter those

Courts with representation, she would have gladly done so, but the state of

South Carolina made sure that financial reality wasn't possible. As

Petitioner prepares this document she sits in an Indiana home in an Indiana

winter with no heat because the means to repair her furnace were stolen from

her BY the state of South Carolina without whom [Gateway] could never

have secured a fraudulent lien leading to a fraudulent Lis Pendens action

against Petitioner costing her nearly everything she had including a more

promising future. Additionally, Petitioner is still fighting for her [V.A.]

benefits which her husband earned for her in his service and in his service

connected death.

26.

Further, upon deciding Petitioner is an animal and not a person with

Rights and then wrongfully gifting the state of South Carolina Sovereign

Immunity from suit because of their professional assessment that Petitioner

is an animal and not a person, neither the District Court nor the 7th Circuit

Court of Appeals ever required the state of South Carolina to respond in

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12. The federal

rules of Evidence (301) demand that, "In a civil case, unless federal or these

rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed

has the burden of producing evidence to rebutt the presumption".

27.

Petitioner did timely service Notice of Suit upon the state of South

Carolina through USPS 1st class mail, and did timely serve not only evidence

of service hut evidence of receipt of service upon the District Court, and the

state of South Carolina never responded. No where in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure does it state that a party against whom a presumption is

directed has the luxury to ignore Notice AND Suit and simply not respond in

order to evade suit. No where does it say that a judge must first wink and

nod in the general direction of a defendant before that defendant is compelled

to respond. Defendant, the state of South Carolina, refused to timely respond

BEFORE the District Court wrongfully gifted it Sovereign Immunity and,

therefore the state of South Carolina loses as a matter of Civil Procedure.

Also, the state of South Carolina refused to timely file an appeal to avoid it's

refusal to respond AND refused, nor was it compelled, to respond to

Petitioner's Appeal.

a.)

No Court in America can rule that BECAUSE a litigant

has not attained a specific level of proficiency in a particular vernacular, that

litigant has no rights.

28.

Petitioner's suit, as referenced in the above captioned matter, meets all

three points of Article III in that she was the only owner of her home that

was illegally taken from her through the violation of her Rights and that

Petitioner particularly incurred nearly unparalleled and well documented

concrete harm and loss. (Generally citing Justice Clarence Thomas, Spokeo v.

Robins, 136 S.Ct 1540 (2016); " A Petitioner must show that they were

particularly harmed and suffered concrete injury and that they would have a

favorable outcome through redress.")

a.) Petitioner will never be the same.

29.

Had Petitioner walked into Federal District Court, Southern District

Indiana, arm in arm with Mark Cuban's real estate attorney, the Court

would have followed every rule to the letter of the law and Petitioner would

have been immediately victorious in her pursuit of her Rights and

compensation for her losses. Petitioner would never have had cause to file an

Appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. BECAUSE Petitioner, a

woman with disabilities, walked into Court alone, she was declared an

animal/ a population not worthy of her Rights by individuals who do not

regularly sleep in homes with no heat.

a.)

Fed R. Civ. P. goes to great lengths to make sure that it is

clear that no special language is necessary in order to file a claim upon which

relief may be sought. This was done for the purpose of preventing what can

be declared tantamount to Constitutional Eugenics. Our Rights, our laws

and our courts are meant for all of us. For the lower courts to merely decide,

and act on that decision, that only certain people may address a defendant in

court and be heard to the extent that a response is required, is a violation of

Petitioner's 1st Amendment Right to speak and be heard and it has harmed

Petitioner. It is a travesty in and to America. It is Constitutional Eugenics.

30.

This Court must grant this Writ for Certiorari BECAUSE; the state of

South Carolina does not enjoy the Sovereign Immunity to violate Petitioner's

privacy and violated her 4th Amendment Right to be free from illegal search

and seizure, Wooden v. United States ofAmerica (20-5279). This Court must

grant the writ of Certiorari because the state of South Carolina does not

enjoy the Sovereign Immunity to violate Petitioner's Right to be free from

excessive fines by requiring that she produce a bond to the state of South

Carolina in the amount of $700,000.00 as bond/surety to prevent her home

from being sold during appeal on a fake foreclosure valued at only

$109,000.00, Timbs and his 2012 Range Rover v. state ofIndiana, 17-1091 in

the Supreme Court of the United States of America (2019). The state of

South Carolina Does not enjoy the Sovereign Immunity to violate petitioner's

right to a jury trial. Despite IT'S myriad records and it's own Constitution,

the State of South Carolina violated Petitioner's right(s) to Due Process and it

does not have the Sovereign Immunity to do so without punitive consequence.

This Court must grant this Writ of Certiorari because this Court has

made clear that states do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity to violate a citizen's

Due Process or his/her 14th Amendment right to Due Process and the lower

Court(s) did not apply that standard to Petitioner's case(s).

CONCLUSION

31.

This Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

a.)

The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, that the

state of South Carolina enjoys Sovereign Immunity to violate Petitioner's Due

Process and her 14th Amendment Right(s) to Due Process, vitiates prevailing

decisions of this Court, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District

Court of the Southern District of Indiana, just to cite a few. The US District

Court, Southern District Indiana, segregated Petitioner into a population of

her own, a female litigant with disabilities and no means, and then unfairly

ruled in contradiction to prevailing law including, but not limited to,

Williams v. Illinois 399 US 235. 236-37 (1970) . No person in America should

ever have to fight this battle just to regain his or her Rights. Petitioner has

found herself at the Supreme Court of the United States of America, alone,

because she is a population of one person. As it is obvious that Petitioner

cannot get a fair trial in the states of Indiana and South Carolina, or the in

the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Petitioner prays this court will vacate the

decision(s) of the District Court, Southern District Indiana, and the 7th

Circuit Court of Appeals and find for Petitioner and order the state of South

Carolina to immediately and appropriately compensate Petitioner for her

losses and her pain and suffering, making Petitioner as whole as she can be

as a widow, so that Petitioner may have her life back and so that she may

begin living again as a person rather than as an animal.

Petitioner is a person who has equal rights and value.

Petitioner is not an animal.

Respectfully submitted under penalty ofperjury

^UE. Pauli Coffe;

3493 Birchwood Ave.

Indianapolis, IN 46205

305-340-8316

Distributed via USPS first class to:

State of South Carolina

Attn: A.G. Alan Wilson

1000 Assembly St #519

Columbia, SC

29201

•

a r

;

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Orders) Every Damn Judge presiding

November 9, 2020

■/

US District Court Orders; Judge James R. Sweeney presiding

■l

March 24, 2020

APPENDIX B

)

The Judicial Conference to the United States

March 16, 2021

Beaufort County, South Carolina. Court of Common Pleas,

April 2019

Gateway Atty/ South Carolina Special

■;

Referee Rubin Thayer Rivers Jr.

Report on Sale and Order Confirming Sale

(Non-Jury Mortgage Foreclosure)

Beaufort County. South Carolina. Court of Common Pleas Judgment and

Orders;

;

September 21, 2018

Gateway atty/ S.C Special Referee! Rubin Thayer Rivers presiding,

■

^ . -A—

,£i

14th Circuit Court of South Carolina

August 15, 2017

Gateway Mortgage Group LLC atty John Brian Kelchner's appointment of

Special Referee, Rubin Thayer Rivers Jr, counsel for Gateway Mortgage

Group LLC to adjudicator in the matter of Gateway v. Coffey.

Beaufort County. South Carolina. Recorder of Deeds [RODl

February 05, 2016 10:41am

General Warranty Deed

1707 Palmetto Dr, Beaufort SC 29902

February 05, 2016 10:41am

Book 3459/ Page 3104

CFN#2016005336

State Of South Carolina Court Public Index Case Nos.

2016-LP-07-00637 pg 8

2016-CP-07-02261 pg 8

Thirty three (33) demands for Due Process denied

Three (3) Jury Demands denied

Notice of completion of Probate RE: Chris A. Smock

February 15, 2016 pg. 7

APPENDIX C

MCAS Beaufort Employment Notice

John Michael Kelchner correspondence

Beaufort County Tax Record July 17, 2019

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Brief of the American Bar Association As Amicus Curiae in Support of

Petitioner Tyson Timbs (Sept 11, 2018) pg 20

Judicial Conference of the United States (March 16, 2021) pg 5

Lindh v. Warden, 09-cv-00215 (S.D. Ind 2011) pg. 22

Miranda v. state ofArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) pg 22

Spokeo v. Robins,

136 S Ct 540 (2016) pg 25

Timbs and his 2012 Range Rover v. state ofIndiana, 17-1091 in the

Supreme Court of the United States of America (2019) pg. 7, 13, 27

U.S. v. Levesque, 546 F 3d 78, 83-85 (1st Cir. 2008) pg. 18

399 US 235-236-37 (1970) pg. 28

Williams v. Illinois

Wooden v. USA

20-5279 (filed Jul 24, 2020) pg. 26

Dodd Frank Act pg. 8, 12

Fed. R. Civ. P. § 12 pg. 24

Fed Rules of Evidence § 301 pg. 24

Glanvill's Treastise (appx circa 1188) pg. 11

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 3 pg. 11

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 9 pg. 11

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 10 pg. 7

Constitution of the state of South Carolina Article § 12 pg. 7

Federal Land Bank v. Ledford, 9 SE 2d 804 (South Carolina 1940)

pg-12

South Carolina issued Real Estate Essentials manual (2018) pg. 12

RE: Smock Beaufort Probate Ct. Beaufort, South Carolina (2016)

pg. , Appended B; pg 7.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.