Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Andrivia Frances Wells, Petitioner v. Mecklenburg County Clerk of Probate Estates, et al.

Supreme Court briefJul 30, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

24-6568

i I—■ *— i__)

JUL 3 0 2024

SUp1?EEM EFColjRTLn 1K

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

CO. 'PtineMr* ESPONDENT(S)

ttTkYUyU , €0>

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

tAMirznST&wA Co/m np

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

T0U-/Z.TH

Cl KMT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

fi*lt74w\A,Pi2&t\ffi YYZn9>

(Your Name)

Sc Summit Av-r;

(Address)

CU&PIQT'TP

(City, State, Zip Code)

7c74 (JlO'&

(Phone Number)

I. Question Presented

Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) as a means

to hold state actors accountable for violating federal constitutional and statutory rights 5th

Amendments and 14 Amendments and 8th Amendment Constitutional Violations. Why

Congress did not, however, specify every rule governing claims filed under Section 1983

why Agencies have continued to violate Due Process Rights. Marshall v. Marshall, 547

U.S. 293 (2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal

district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (will) courts over tort

claims under state common law. N.C.G.S. § 29-14. Share of surviving spouse, (c) When

an equitable distribution of property is awarded to the surviving spouse pursuant to G.S.

50-20 subsequent to the death of the decedent, the share of the surviving spouse determined

under subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be first determined as though no property

had been awarded to the surviving spouse pursuant to N.C.G.S. 50-20 subsequent to the

death of the decedent, and then reduced by the net value of the marital estate awarded to

the surviving spouse pursuant to G.S. 50-20 subsequent to the death of the decedent. (1959,

c. 879, s. 1; 1979, c. 186, s. 1; 1981, c. 69; 1995, c. 262, s. 3; 2001-364, s. 6; 2012-71, s.

1.) Intestate Succession Act was violated. Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842)

Rehabilitation Act and Inmate Rights: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, particularly Section

504, protects the rights of disabled individuals, including inmates. This act ensures that no

qualified individual with a disability is excluded from, denied the benefits of, or subjected

to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance

within Judicial forum of arbitration. The 5th Amendment was stopped by an agency.

Inmates have certain due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes

protections against arbitrary denial.

Non-judicial appearance for not -yet-to be assert -entry of Equitable Distribution pursuant

North Carolina extensive statutory procedure within the subject to Marital Property 14th

4Amendment Due Process protection and 5th Amendment were Constitutional Violations.

Chapter 50 § 50-20. N.C.G.S. Distribution by court of marital and divisible property, (a)

Upon application of a party, the court shall determine what is the marital property within

state statute that within federal jurisdiction of adopting state Laws 28 USC 1652, Erie

Railroad Company v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Judiciary Act of 1789, section 34

("Rules of Decision Act") (28 U.S.C. § 1652)

Can a court deny Breach of Fiduciary Duties and conversion within bounds of Law provide

fair procedures, life” and property. Motion to Reinstate a Complaint liberties” that violates

or abridge the privileges or immunities 14th Amendment and 5th Amendment ignored and

placed in vanilla court file that was identified as miscarriage ofjustice.

Due Process protection reflect on Local Rule 40(b) Conflict of United States Supreme

Court Rules, or the Mail did not reach the Pro ‘se individual on the 18th of October

2023 .The Notice of the Order.

Can court deny a Motion Equitable Distribution Open Motion within Probate Estate all

Creditor Notice never was served Surviving Spouse vested Legal Right my 5th Amendment

and 14th Amendment Due Process Rights was violated.

14th Amendment Due Process protection equal protection of 5th Amendments. Dred Scott

v. Sandford (1857) 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

Can court dismiss Roseboro Notice pro se filed asking for Motion to grant for Summary

Judgment and Response to Show Cause Order explaining the third-party action. Because

the petitioner is proceeding pro se 14th Amendment and 5th Amendment Rights.

Appellate Court practice jurisdiction procedures or was my rights being violated by

Appellate Courts in reference to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.

Can the Appellate Court violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) falls on a Saturday,

the deadline is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

This is specified in Rule 6(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs

the computation of time periods. Can a court Reinstate Appeal dismiss Complaint on FRCP

Grant hearing or enhance, to dismiss action again 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment

constitution Violation. Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. 628 (2021).

Otherwise provided in Rule 26(b), prior to a case being closed that was post-stamped or

walked in-to the District Court and Stamped.

Can court waive an immunity on Agency federal administrative law agency’s interpretation

of the statute, promulgating and curtailing the value of our Constitutional Rights, resilience

100

that I will not give up continue to fight for my MARITAL PROPERTY the federal statutory

101

scheme and the interests that it is designed to uphold (and if so, how courts should

102

determine the appropriate limitations ON State miscarriage ofjudgement on Equal Rights

103

Violations of my 14th Amendment. Because I was incarcerated, and they thought I was

104

going to stop.) I wrote the Motion in Ceil during COVID. No law library only tablet. Why

105

natural bom citizen of the UNITED STATES 14th Amendment of her Due Process was

106

ignored 14th Amendment Rights and 5th Amendment. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS was

107

violated.

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

II. Table of Contents

122

123

I. Questions presented.

124

II . Table of contents

125

III. Table of Authorities

126

IV. Petition for Writ of Certiorari

127

V. Opinions Below

128

VI. Jurisdiction

129

VII. Constitutional Provisions Involved

130

VIII. Statement of the Case

131

1.Equitable Distribution completed judicial entry.

132

Marital Property.

133

2. Probate Estate was closed and open illegally, no notice was forwarded to surviving

134

spouse.

135

IX.REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

136

137

138

Marital Property.

TO AVOID ERRONEOUS DEPRIVATIONS OF THE RIGHT

2. Probate Estate was closed and open illegally, no notice was forwarded to surviving

139

140

spouse.

141

IX.REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

142

143

TO AVOID ERRONEOUS DEPRIVATIONS OF THE RIGHT

144

145

X. CONCLUSION

146

XI. APPENDIX

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

III. Table of Authorities

159

Cases

160

161

162

42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 1343(3)

163

Haines v Kemer, 427F.2d71

164

Bevins v Six Unknown Narcotics Agents,403 US 388 (1971)

165

Conley v Gibson,355 U.S.41,355 U.S.45-46 (1957)

166

Dioguardi v Duming,139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944)

167

Bowen v Mabry ,154 N.C. App. 734, 572 S.E.2d 809 (2002)

168

169

Becker v Becker,88 N.C.App.606,364 S.e.2d 175(1988)

170

Swindell v. Lewis, 82 N.C. App. 423, 346 S.E.2d 237 (1986),

171

&.........pg-20

172

Tucker v Miller, 113N.C. App.785,440 S.E. 2d315

173

pg.l0&........ pg.20&........ pg.30 &

174

Womom

■Pg-2

■Pg-3

Pg-3

■pg-io

.pg.53

Womom,126N.C.

.pg.54

175

■Pg-1

pg. 10 &

pg.53

•pg.10

(1994)

pg.54

App.461,485

S.E.

856

(1997)

176

Brown v Brown ,353N.C.220,539 S.E.2d 89 (reversed)353N.C.220,539S.E.2d, 621(2000)

177

............. pg.12 &.............. pg.20 &

178

Bound

Smith

pg-52.

,430U.S.817,822,52L.Ed.2d

72,97

179

pg.13

180

Casey v Lewis,4F.3d 1516,1520 (9th Circuit)

181

Caldwell v Caldwell, 93N.C. App.740,379S.E.2d,271(1989)

182

Elmore

Elmore,

183

67N.C.

1491

(1977)

.pg. 14

•Pg-16

App.661,313S.E.

904(1984)

.pg.16 &.....pg. 50

184

Trogdon,

N.C.

185

App.330,388

S.E.2d

212(1990)

pg.16

186

Rotkiske v Klemm,140 S.Ct.355(2019)

,pg.l9

187

Anderson v Yungkau,329 US 482,67S.Ct.428,91L.Ed.436 (1947)

Pg-21

188

Silverthome v Coastal Land Co.,42N.C. App. 134,256 S.E.2d397 (1979)

189

Linear v. DiCresce,905 F.Supp.280(M.D.N.C. 1994)

190

Menominee

Indian

191

Tribe

Wis

United

•Pg-23

•Pg-24

States,577U.S.250,255(2016)

Pg-24

192

Zurosky v Shaffer,236 N.C. App.219,763 S.E.2d 755 (2014)

193

Mungo

194

Mungo,

■pg.25

205

N.C.App.273,695

Pg-25

S.E.2d495(2010)

195

Lawerence

196

denied,314N.C.541,335S.E.2dl8 (1985)

197

State of North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services v Tompkins,

198

205N.C.App.285(2010)

199

Smith v Rodgers,263N.C. App. 662

200

Martin v Roberts 177 N.C. App.415,419,628S.E.2d812(2006)

201

Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989)

202

Mansour at 379,177 S.E. 2d at 859

203

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

204

Hardin v Straub,490US536,104 L. Ed 2d582,109S.Ct. 1998(1989)

pg-48

205

Carnahan v. Reed, 53 N.C. App. 589, 281 S.E.2d 408 (1981)

pg-50

206

Black v Littlejohn,312 NC 626, 630,325,

Pg-51

207

Womom v. Womom, 126 N.C. App. 461, 485 S.E.2d 856 (199)

Pg-54

208

Lilly v Lilly,107 N.C. App.461,485S.e.2d856(1996)

209

Harris v. Harris, 84 N.C. App. 353, 352 S.E.2d 869 (1987).

210

Fountain V. Fountain, 148 N.C. App. 329, 559 S.E.2d 25(2002).

211

Smith v. Smith, 314 N.C. 80, 331 S.E.2d 682

212

Johnson v. Johnson, 78 N.C. App. 787, 338 S.E.2d ,567 (1986)

213

Fox v. Fox, 114 N.C. App. 125,441 S.E.2d 613 (1994)

Lawerence,

review

75N.CApp.592,331 S.E.2dl 86,

pg-28.

•Pg-28

Pg-30

•Pg-43

Pg-43

pg-43

Pg-47

•pg-54

•Pg-55

pg-55

Pg-55

214

United States v. Sharpe, 996 F.2d 125 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 114 S. Ct. 400 (1993)

215

••••...........pg.58.

216

Meagher v. United States, 36 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1929)

.pg.58

217

218

PRO SE MOTION RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL MOTION RULE12(b)(6)

219

Haines

220

Kemer,

404US519(1972)

.pg.2

■pg.10

221

Hill v. Michelin North America, Inc., 252

222

Conley v Gibson, 355 US 41 ,47 (1957)

223

Smith v Rodgers, 824 S.E.2d 155 (2019)

224

Painter-Jamieson v.

225

Pg-9

Painter,

163

F.3d 307,

.pg.2

.pg.5 & ...pg.12

N.C. App.

■Pg-6

527,

594

S.E.2d 217

(2004)

226

Brown v Brown, 136 N.C. App.at 334,524S.E.2d.

Pg-9

227

Tucker v Miller, 113N.C. App.785,440 S.E. 2d315 (1994)

Pg-9

228

Smith v Wells, 20CVD9211 (North Carolina Family Court)

229

New Friendship Used Clothing Collection, LLC v. Katz, 2017 NCBC 71 (N.C. Super. Ct.

230

Aug. 18, 2017)

231

Electrical & Maintenance Co. v Maeda Pacific Corp. 764 F. 2d 619 (9th Cir. 1985)

232

•pg.10

■pg.10

Pg-9

233

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011)

234

.pg.ll

235

Katz v United States ,389 U.S. 347

,pg.ll

236

Coffey v United States 16U.S. 436(1886)

pg.ll

237

Dioguardi vDuming,139 F. 2d 774 (CA2 1944)

238

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F. 3d 231,243-44 (4th Cir. 1999)

239

Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555, 127 S. Ct 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929

240

(2007..

241

United States v Wells ,3:19-cr-00180-RJC-DSC

pg.13

242

Boyd v United States; 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

pg.13

243

Enrick v Carrington, 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029 (1765)

244

Helve ring v Mitchell 303 U.S. 391 (1938)

245

United States v. Urseiy, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)

246

Smith v Wells, 20CVD 9211 (State case NC Family Court)

247

Electrical & Maintenance Co. v Maeda Pacific Corp. 764 F. 2d 619 (9th Cir. 1985)

248

.................... pg-io

249

Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555, 127 S. Ct 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)

250

............ Pg-12

.pg.12

■pg.12

■pgl3.

•pg.13

Pg-13

•Pg.9

251

UNITED STATES V URSERY EXPARTE LANGUAGE LANGE,85US (18WALL)

252

163(1873),

253

BENZ,282US 304,307(1931)

254

Philips

pg-13 SEE, PEARCE,395US at717(citing UNITED STATES v

Pitt

Cnty.

Mem'l

•Pg-13

Hosp.,

255

pg-12

256

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)

257

UPCHURCH

258

UPCHURCH,

Inc

09-CVS

2652(August

2015)

pg-12

122

Bd.

App.l72(third-party

property)

Pg-16

259

SWANN

260

Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Educ.,

402

U.S.

(1971)

.............. Pg-12

261

Marital Rights v U.S. v Throckmorton,98US61

262

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F. 3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir .1999)

Pg-18

263

SWANN v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)

•Pg-18

264

Becker v. Becker, 88 N.C. App. 606, 364 S.E.2d 175 (1988)

Pg-18

265

U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61

266

United States v Woods, 925 F. 2dl580,1581(7th Cir. 1991)

267

Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 505 (1961)

268

269

MOTION TO AMEND & RULE 56 & RULE 6

•Pgl8

pg-18

•Pgl8

270

Roseboro v Garrison,528 F.2d309,310(4thCir. 1975)

.pg.2

271

Estelle v Gamble,429U.S.97,106(1976)

.pg.2

272

Norman v Taylor 25F.3d 1259,1261 (4th Cir.1994)

,pg.2

273

Haines v Kemer,404 U.S.519,520-21(1972)

•Pg-2

274

General

275

Electric

Co.

vTumer,275

N.C.493,498,168

S.E.2d385,389(1969)

Pg-4

276

Matsushita

277

475U.S.547,587,106S.Ct.1348,1356(1986)

278

B.F. Goodrich Co. v U.S. Filter Corp.,245 F.3d 587,59l-92(6th Cir. 2001)

279

Electric

Industria

Zenith

Radio

Corp.,

et.al,

■Pg-5........ Pg-6

Pg-4

280

Banks v Wolfe County Bd. Of Education,330 F.3d 888,892 (6th Cir. 2003)

281

United States v Woods,925 F.2d 1580,1581(7th Cir.1991)

282

National

283

Co.,391US253,289,88S.Ct. 1575

284

Employer Ins. Of Wausau v Pretoleum Specialties Inc.,69F.3d98,104-05(6th Cir. 1995)

285

Bank

Arizona

•Pg-5

Cities

Service

Pg-6

•Pg-6

286

Excel Energy, Inc.v Cannelton Sales Co..245 Fed. Appx.953,960,200 at 7WL 2426436,5

287

Pg-6

288

Travelers

289

Inc,321F.Supp.3d631,639(E.D.VA.2018)

Indem.Co.

Connecticut

Pg-6

Lessard

Design,

290

Katz v United States,389 U.S. 347,351

291

New

Amsterdam

292

Casualty

pg-6-7

Co.

198

N.W.2d

543

(1972)

Pg-7

293

United

294

U.S.383

295

City

296

S.E.820

297

Vance

States

Shimer,367

U.S.

367

County, 120

Va.

356,91

Pg-7

Norfolk

Pg-7

Guy,223

N.C.409,27

298

S.E.2dll7

(1943)

Pg-8

299

Seals

Seals, 165

N.C.409,81

300

S.E.613(1914)

Pg-8

301

Grice

Todd, 120 Va.481,91 S .E.609,

302

303

Lundquist

L.R.A.

1917

D,512

Pg-6

Currie v. Gilchrist, 147 N.C.648,61S.E.581(1908)

304

Mobley

Griffin, 104

Pg-9

N.C.112,10

305

S.E.142

(1889)

Pg-9

306

State

Taylor,322

307

N.C.

433,435,368

S.E.

601,602(1988)

•Pg-9

308

Town

309

Winton

•Pg-9

Scott,80

N.C.App.409,342

S.E.2d560,564(1986)

310

In re Estate of Roccamonte, 324 NJ. Super. 357, 735 A.2d 614 (App.Div.1999)

311

■Pg-7

312

Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S.

313

140,147,106 S.Ct.466,471,88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985)

■Pg-7

314

Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461 (June 26,1974)

Pg-9

315

316

Wedding

Wingo,

483

317

F.2d

1131

(August

31,

1973),

Pg-9

318

Fourco Glass Co. Transmirra Prods. Corp.,353 U.S. 222,228-229,77 S.Ct.787,1 L.Ed.2d

319

786(1957)

Pg- 9

320

Chevron

U.S.A,

Inc.

N.R.D.C.,467U.S.837

321

Pg-9

322

Scott v United States Bank,130 NC App

pg.10

323

Constructive v Quantum Memit

•Pg-9

(1984)

324

325

Notice Of Appeal Fourth Circuit

326

Wells v Ray ,3:2023 cv 00573 U.S.C.2241

327

Smith v Wells,20 CVD 9211PBM (Equitable Distribution Mecklenburg County District

328

Court in Charlotte North Carolina)

329

Ex Parte Young,209 U.S. at 160

Pg-2

Pg-3

Pg-4

330

Tindal v Wesley,167 U.S.204

331

Osborn v Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat.738,22 U.S.857

332

Smith v Rodgers,263 N.C. App.662

-Pg-7

333

Inre Estate of Francis,94 N.C. App.744

Pg-7

334

United Unity Bank (Georgia) v Wolfe,369 NC 555,560,799 S.E.2d 269,273(2017)

335

.................pg-io

336

Markham v Allen,326 U.S.490,494(1946)

337

Bevins v Six Unknown Name Agents,403U.S.388(1971),

338

Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544,555,127 S.Ct.1955,167 L.Ed.2d929 (2007)

339

.......... Pg-12

340

Williams v Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,5:18-cv-33BO,2018WL334118, at2(E.D.N.C. July

341

6,2018)

342

761,765 (4th Cir. 2003)

343

Marshall v. Marshall,547U.S.293,296(2006)

344

Lee Graham Shopping Ctr., LLC v. Est. of Kirsch, 777 F.3d 678, 681 (4th Cir. 2015)

345

........ Pg-13

346

T M Delmarva Power,557 S.E.2d.

347

Roanoke Marble & Granite Co. V. Standard Gas & Oil Supply Company, 154 S.E.518,520

348

(Va.1930)

349

•Pg-4

.pg.5

.pg.10

pg.10

,pgl2 (quoting) Bass v E.I.DuPont de Nemours & Co.,324F.3d

Pg-12

.PG.13

Pg-13

-pg-13

350

Opinion and Order Denying Enlargement Motion for Extension of Time to file Appeal

351

Reopen En banc Hearing or Rehearing En banc Rule35(a)

352

John R. Sand Gravel Co. V U.S.,128 S. Ct. 750(2008)

353

Bell Atl. Corp Twombly,550 U.S. 544,555,127 Ct.1955,167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)

354

.pg.2

Pg-4

355

(quoting) Singleton v Wuff,428 U.S. 106,120 (1976)

356

Hamer v Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago,583U.S.

(2017)

357

Wilson v Charlotte,74N.C.748

■Pg-6

358

Brodnax v Groom,64N.C.244

Pg-6

359

Conley v Gibson,355U.S.41,45-46(1957)

•Pg-6

360

Dioguardi v Duming,139F.2d774 (CA2 1944)

Pg-6

361

Haines v Kemer 404U.S.519(1972)

■Pg-6

362

CNPq v Inter-Trade,50F.3d56 (D.C. Cir.1995

•Pg-7

363

Torres v OaklandScavengerCo.,487U.S.312,316,108

Pg-8

364

Becker,532 U.S. at 767,121 S.Ct. 1801

Pg-8

365

Smith ,502U.S. at 248,112 S.Ct.678

pg-8 &

366

United States v Garcia,65 F.3d 17,19(4th Cir.1995)

Pg-9

367

Jackson v Lightsey,775 F.3d 170,175-76(4th Cir.2014)

Pg-9

368

Wells v Ryker,591 F.3d562,565 (7th Cir.2010)

Pg-4

•Pg-5

Pg-9

pg-10

369

Isert v Ford Motor Co.461 F.3d 756,762 *6th Cir.2006)

■pgio

370

Smith v Barry,502 U.S.244,248-49(1992)

Pg-10

371

Dowling Rose v Lundy,455 U.S., at 510,

pg-10

372

Torres v OaklandScavengerCo.,487U.S.312,316,108

Pg-11

373

Harris Truck Lines, Inc v Cherry Meat Packers, Inc,371 US215(1962)

374

United State v Heller,957 F.2d 26,31 (IstCir. 1993),

375

Foman v Davis,371 US 178 (1962)

Pg-13

376

United States v ThrockMorton,98U.S.61

Pg-13

377

Willis v Newsome,747F.2d26,31(lstl993)

■Pgl3

Pg-13

378

379

Statutes

380

Rule 2

381

N.C.G.S. § 1-72.1

382

42 U.S.C §1983 & 28 U.S.C. § 1343

Pg-3

383

N.C.G.S. §28A-23-5

Pg-3

384

N.C.G.S. §50-7 & 50-11

Pg-5

385

Fed.Rule.Civ. Proc. 5 (b)

Pg-5

386

N.C.G.S. § 1A-1 Rule 19,N.CG.S. §1A-1 Rule25

•Pg-13

Pg-2

Pg-3

pg-6........&........ pg.18

387

Rule 45(D)(e) § (D)

388

Rule 45(d) and (e)

Pg-6

389

Rules 30(a) and 30(b)(2)

Pg-7

390

391

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11(b) pg.7

392

28 U.S.C§1915

Pg-7.

393

Rule 4 (m)

Pg-7

394

28 U.S.C. §1915

Pg-7

395

Rule 26 (f)

396

Rule 3 7 (b)(2)(A)(i)—(vi)

397

Rule 19(b) & (a) (1) and Rule 25(a)

Pg-8

398

50-20

Pg-8

399

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 25(c)

Pg-9

400

N.C.G.S. §50-20 (b)(4)

pg.10

401

N.C.G. S§50-20(L)(1)

402

N.C.G.S. §28A-19-15 & § 28A-19-16

403

N.C.G.S... §50-20(l)(3)

404

Rule 38

pg.6

Pg-7

-••Pg-7

Pg-8

pg.10

Pg-H

pg.ll

405

N.C.G.S. §50-20 (L)(3)

406

N.C.G.S. Chapter 50

407

Rule 31-36 Article 6

pg.13-14

408

N.C.G.S. §1A1 Rule 4

Pg-14

409

28 U.S.C. G.S. 1-301.3

Pg-14

410

28 U.S.C. §1343

pgl4

411

42 U.S.C. §1985

Pg-15

412

N.C.G.S. §50-20(k)

Pg-15

413

N.C.G.S. §50-20(L)(l)

Pgl5

414

N.C.G.S. §50-21(a)

•Pgl8

415

N.C.G.S. §50-20(k)(L)

pg-19

416

N.C.G.S.30-3.1

Pg-19

417

N.C.G.S.28A-2-10

Pg-19

418

N.C.G.S.28A-2-6(h)

419

Article 26 of Chapt.l

420

12 N.C.G.S. lA-lRule 25(a)

421

N.C.G.S.28A-19-1

pg- 21.......pg.29

422

N.C.G.S.28A-19-3

pg-21

PgH

Pg-13

Pg-20

pg-20

Pg-20

423

N.C.G.S.28A-19-7

Pg-21

424

N.C.G.S.28A-19-19

Pg-21

425

N.C.G.S.28A-19-15 & N.C.G.S.28A-19-16...........pg.21...&........ pg.53

426

N.C.G.S. 50-20

pg.22

427

N.C.G.S.50-20 9(c)(llb)

pg.22

428

N.C.G.S.30-3.1 N.C.G.S.30.33

pg.23

429

Rule 25(a)

430

18 N.C.G.S.1 A-1 Rule 25©

431

N.C.G.S.28A-19-3(f)

432

N.C.G.S.28A-19-3 (a) & N.C.G.S.28A-19-3(b)

433

N.C.G.S. 28A-6-4

pg.24

434

N.C.G.S.1-17

pg.26

435

N.C.G.S. 35A-1101(7) or (8)

pg.27

436

N.C.G.S.lA-l-§Rule 4

pg.30 &.......pg-35

437

Rule 25

438

Rule 41(b)

439

28A-14-3

pg.25

440

N.C.G.S. 1-21

pg.25

pg.23

pg.24

pg.30

pg.25

pg.24

441

N.C.G.S. 1-15(a) (c)

pg.25

442

28AArticlel(la)

pg.25

443

N.C.G.S. §50-6

Pg32

444

N.C.G.S. §50-7

Pg33

445

N.C.G.S.50-11

pg.33

446

N.C.G.S. §52-10.2

pg.33

447

N.C.G.S. § 50-20(e).......& 50-20

pg.34&35

448

N.C.G.S. Chapt.50-Article 16

449

N.C.G.S. §14-134.3

pg.38

450

N.C.G.S. §14-134.3

pg.38

451

N.C.G.S. 1-394

pg-40

452

Rule 56

pg-40

453

N.C.G.S. §50-20

pg.43

454

N.C.G.S. 1A-1 Rule 53

455

Title U.S.C.Sect.242

456

Act of 1973,29 USC§ 7949(a)

457

Act42U.S.C. §12131 tort 1983

458

N.C.G.S.1-17

pg.36

pg-43.

pg.43

pg48

Pg-48

pg-48

459

Rule23

pg.48

460

Rule23(a)

pg.49

461

N.C.G.S. §50-20(k)

pg.49

462

Rule §21.10

463

N.C.R.Civ.P 25(a)

464

N.C.G.S. §28A-18-1

pg.50

465

N.C.G.S.50-16.9

Pg51

466

N.C.G.S. 50-21

Pg-51

467

N.C.G.S. §50-16.9

Pg-51

468

N.C.G.S.50-21

pg.51

469

Pursuant Article 11 of Chapterl G. S

pg53

470

N.C.G.S.50-20 (L)(l)

pg.53

471

N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(4)

pg.53

472

N.C.G.S. 8c-601©

Pg-54

473

N.C.G.S. 50-20 (h)

474

N.C.G.S. 50-11(a)

,pg54

475

N.C.G.S.31A-l(b)

Pg-54

476

N.C.G.S.31-5.4

Pg54

Pg.49

pg.50

Pg-54

477

N.C.G.S. 50-20 9c) (lib)

478

G.S. 1A-1 Rule 53

pg.55.

479

G.S. 28A-19-19 & G.S. 28A-19-5

pg.56

480

N.C.R. Superior Ct.& Dist. Court Rule 10

481

Rule 4

pg.58

482

18U.S.C. §645

pg.58

483

Motion Rule 12(b)(6)

484

F.R.C.P 8(a)(2) & 8(a)

Pg-5

485

Chapter 28 A

Pg-5

486

N.C.G.S. §28A-19-5 or 17

Pg-6

487

N.C.G.S.50-20(b)(3), (e)

Pg-7

488

N.C.G.S. 50-20(L)

489

N.C.G.S. §28A-19-19

Pg-7

490

N.C.G.S.28A19-5 & N.C.G.S.28A-19-7

Pg-7

491

N.C.G.S.28A-19-15&G.S. 19-16

Pg-7

492

N.C.G.S.50-20

Pg-8

493

N.C.G.S. §29-19(a)(1)

Pg-8

494

N.C.G.S.49-14thru 49-16

pg-8

pg.54

•Pg57

.....pg.7

495

N.C.G.S.52-10(b), N.C.G.S. Article 6

•Pg8

496

Chapter 50

Pg-9

497

Rule7

Pg-9

498

Chapter 28AA-19-6(a)

499

N.C.G.S.50-20(L)

500

N.C.G.S. §50-20 & 50-21

501

Smith v Wells 20CVD9211 (statute Rule 41(b)---- pg.9

502

F.RC.P. 12(b)(6)

pg.10

503

F.R.C.P. 8(a)

pg.10

504

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) or 12(c)

pg-10

505

N.C.G.S. §8-51

pg.10

506

Rule Evidence 601§(c)

pg.10

507

Chapter 50

pg-10

508

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

Pg-H

509

F.R.C.P. 15(a)

Pg-11

510

F.R.C.P. 59 or 60

Pg-H

511

F.R.C.P. Rulebl2 (b)(6)

pg-12

512

F.R.C.P. 15(b)

Pg-9

Pg-12

513

F.R.C.P. 54 (c)

514

§ 1 conspiracy Article20§ 14-114

pg.15

515

N.C.G.S. Chapt.50-2-(llb)

pg.15

516

N.C.G.S. §1-52

pg.15

517

N.C.G.S.30-3.1

518

N.C.G.S.30-33(4)(f)

519

N.C.G.S.50-20 or N.C.G.S.§ 50-11

pg-16

520

N.C.G.S. 1A-1 Rule 4

pg-16.

521

N.C.G.S. §28A-2-6(a)

Pg-16

522

N.C.G.S. §28A-15-l(a)

pg-16

523

N.C.G.S. § 50-20(b)(4)

Pg-17

524

N.C.G.S. §8C-601(c)

Pg-17

525

F.R.C.P. 9(b)

pg-18

526

F.R.C.P. 56

Pg-18

527

28 U.S.C. §2676

Pg-18

528

Motion 12(b)(6) §Rule 56 §Rule 6(b)(1)

529

Rule 12(b)(6)

530

F.R.C.P. 56

Pg-12

pg-16

Pg-16

Pg-3

531

12(b)(6)

Pg-4

532

Rule 56(b)

■Pg4

533

F.R.C.P. 56 (c)

Pg-4

534

F.R.C.P. 56(e)

Pg-5

535

Rule9(b)

Pg-5

536

28U.S.C.§2676

Pg-5

537

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)

538

Rule 9(b)

539

F.E.C.P 12(b)(6)

Pg-6

540

F.R.C.P.7(a)(2)

Pg-7

541

F.R.C.P. 12 (b)(6)

Pg-7

542

N.C.G.S. § 50-20(k)

Pg-8

543

N.C.G.S. § 50-20(k) (lib)

Pg-8

544

N.C.G.S. 1A-1 Rule 65

pg-8.

545

N.C.G.S. § Chapterl Article 37 § 1-485-88

Pg-8

546

N.C.G.S.50-20 (L)(l)

547

Stat. §1-38 N.C. G.S

548

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

Pg-5

Pg-6

Pg-8

Pg-9

549

N.C.G.S. § 66-154(Enrichment)

550

Notice Appeal

551

Rule 12(b)(6)

Pg-2

552

Statute 42 U.S.C. 1983

Pg-2

553

Sect. §706(2)(A) 5 U.S. Code § 706

Pg-2

554

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

■Pg4

555

42U.S.C. §1983

556

N.C.G.S. 28A-23-5

Pg-4

557

N.C.G.S.§30-3.2 Article 1

Pg-4

558

N.C.G.S.50-20 Chapter §50-20(L)

559

42U.S.C. §1983

■Pg5

560

N.C.G.S. 1-40

Pg6

561

N.C.G.S.50-20(2)

Pg-2

562

Article19 28A-19-1(a)(1) & (2)

Pg7

563

Articlel9 28A-19-3

Pg-2

564

Article19 28A-19-6(a)

Pg-7

565

N.C.G.S. §30-19(a)(2)

566

N.C.G.S. 50-2

Pg-9

Pg-4

Pg-7

567

N.C.G.S. Chapter 28A

568

Rule 41(b)

Pg-8

569

N.C.G.S.7A-240 & 242

Pg-8

570

N.C.G.S.50-20

pg-8 &pgl2

571

N.C.G. 50-20(c)

Pg-9

572

N.C.G.S. 50-20(b)(3) (c)

Pg-9

573

N.C.G.S. 50-20(k)

Pg-9

574

N.C.G.S. § 28A-19-6(a)

Pg-9

575

N.C.G.S. § 50-20(L)

pg.10

576

§1871 Stat. 13Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13)....pg.10

577

42 U.S.C. §1983 & §28 U.S.C. 1343

■pgio

578

F.R.C.P.8(a)(2)

Pg-H

579

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

580

Article III 28 U.S.C. § 1331

581

Appeals Brief

582

Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule56(c)

.pg.5

583

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Pg-6

584

N.C.G.S. 2§ 28A-19-3

Pg-9

Pg-8

pg.ll&pgl2

Pg-12

585

Rule 41(b)

586

N.C.G.S. § 30-1 (a)(2)

Pg-9

587

N.C.G.S. 28A-19-6(a)

Pg-9

588

N.C.G.S. §7A-240

pg.10

589

N.C.G.S. § 7A-242

590

N.C.G.S. §50-20 & 50-20(c)

pglO

591

N.C.G.S. §50-20(b)(3)(e)

pg.10

592

N.C.G.S. 50-20(k) Chapter 28(A)

pg.10

593

N.C.G.S. 50-20(L)

594

§1871 Stat. 13Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 1343(3).. ..pg.12

595

G.S. §28A-23-5

pg.13

596

N.C.G.S.§50-7 &§ 50-11

Pg-14

597

N.C.G.S. §lA-lRule 19

598

N.C.G.S. § Rule 25

pg.14

599

Chapter 50 § 50-20

pg.14

600

Rule 45(D)(e) §(D)

pg.15

601

Rules 5 (c) § 5(b)

pg.15

602

Code § 1915

•Pgl5

Pg-9

pg.10

Pg-H

pg.14

603

Chapter 50 N.C.G.S. 50-20(L)(l)

pg.15

604

N.C.G.S. 28A-19-16 § 19-15

pg.15

605

N.C.G.S. 50-20 (b)(4)

pg.15

606

N.C.G.S. 8C-601(c)

Pg-16

607

N.C.G.S. 50-20(L) (3)

■Pg-16

608

N.C.R.App.P.2 Rule

Pg-16

609

Rule38

Pg-16

610

N.C. §31-36

Pg-17

611

N.C.G.S. § Chapter 50

Pg-18

612

N.C.G. S. Article 6 Chapter §.31-36

613

Chapter 31, Article 63 of the U.S.C.......

614

N.C.G.S.1-301.3

Pg-18

615

28U.S.C. §1343

Pg-18

616

§1985 of Title 42

Pg-19

617

N.C.G.S. 50-20 (k)...&(L)(l)

618

28 U.S.C.S. §.1331

■Pg-18

...... Pg-18

Pg-19

pg-20

619

620

Opinion and Order Denying Enlargement for Extension of Time to File Appeal Reopen

621

Enbanc Hearing or Hearing Enbanc Rule35(a)

622

Statute § 2107 (c)

Pg-1

623

F.R. App. R.4(a)(6)

Pg-1

624

Rule 6(a)(1)

625

28 USC §2501

Pg-2

626

15U.S.C. §1491

Pg-2

627

Sect 512 29 U.S.C. §701

Pg-2

628

Sect. 102 42U.S.C. §1981

Pg-3

629

Title VII ADA Sect.501 Rehab. Act

Pg-3

630

N.C.G.S. § 1-17

Pg-3

631

42 U.S.C. § 1983

632

F.R.C.P. 8(a) (2)

Pg-4

633

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

Pg-4

634

Rule (5)

Pg-4

635

Rule6(a)(l) Fed. R. App

Pg- 5

636

Rule 3

Pg-5

637

Rule 26(a)(1)

Pg-5

638

F.R.App.P.4(a)( 1 )(A)

Pg-5

639

F.R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)

Pg-5

Pg-1

Pg-3

640

4(a)4 and 4(c)

Pg-5

641

F. R. P. App. 26(a)(1)

pg.5

642

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(c)

Pg-6

643

Fed. R. App. P.4(a)(l)(A)

644

28 U.S.C. § Sect.2107(a)

645

4 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3)

•Pg6

646

Rules 4(a)(1)(B)

Pg-6

647

4(a)(4) and 4(c)

Pg-6

648

F. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) & 4(a)(6)

Pg-6

649

Rule 26 (a) & 26(c)

650

Rule 26 (a)(4)

651

5U.S.C. §6103(a)

652

F. R. App. P. 40(a)(1)

653

Loc.R.40 (c)

654

F. R .App. P. 35 (e)

655

F. R. App. 40 (a)(3)

656

F. R. App. Rule 3 & Rule 3(c) (4)

Pg-8

657

28 U.S.C. § 2253

pg-10

Pg-6

Pg-7

Pg7

Pg-7

Pg-8

658

F. R. App. Rule 3

pg.9&pg.ll

659

F. R. App. Rule 4

Pg-H

660

32 U.S.C. §1983

661

Rule 3 & Rule 4

Pg-H

662

Rule 3(c)

Pg-12

663

Rule 4 (a)(1)

Pg-12

664

F.R.App.P.4(a)(b)

Pg-12

665

28 U.S.C. F. R. App. Rule 3 2107(c)

Pg-12

666

Rule 6(b)

667

Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii)

Pg-12

668

F.R. App. P. 73(a)

pg-13

669

F.R. App. P 3

Pg-13

670

15 U.S.C. § 1491

Pg-14

671

28 U.S.C... §2501

Pg-14

672

28 U.S.C... § 2107(c)

Pg-14

673

Rule 4 (a) (6)

Pg-13

674

Rule 6 (a) (1)

pg-15

675

pg.ll

pg-12

676

Table of Authorities

677

Constitutional Provisions

678

U.S. Constitution Article III

Pg-4

679

9th Amendment

Pg-4

680

13th Amendment

Pg-4

681

14th Amendment

Pg-4

682

15thAmendment

Pg-4

683

28 U.S.C. §1343

Pgl4

684

42 U.S.C. §1985

Pg-15

685

Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act.... pg.37

686

Deprivation of Rights Under Color Law,

687

The Law of Interstate Marriage Recognition.

688

14th Amendment

689

Rehabilitation Act

pg-48

690

American Disabilities Act

pg-48

691

Stare decisis Common Law Tort Law,

692

42 USC 1983

693

Article

694

(NCGS)

pg-46

Pg-47

pg-48

Chapter

pg.52

the

North

Carolina

General

Statutes

695

Little Tucker Act

696

N.C.G.S. §50.-20(k)&(l)

697

G.S.N.C.G.S. §301.3

Pg-4

■Pg-19

Pg-14

g-15

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

IV.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

705

706

Petitioner Andrivia Frances Wells respectfully requests the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review

707

the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

708

DECISION BELOW

709

The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is published at (3hus:23-

710

cv-00356-MOC-SCR) (4th Cir. 2024) and is reproduced at Pet. App. la.

711

712

713

714

V. Jurisdiction

715

The 4th Circuit entered judgment on May 1,2024. See Pet. App. 1 a. Justice

716

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at

717

Charlotte. Max O. Cogbum, Jr., District Judge. (3:23-cv-00356-MOC-SCR)

718

Submitted: March 28, 2024, Decided: April 2, 2024

719

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

720

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

721

Andrivia Frances Wells, Appellant Pro Se. J.P. McGuire Boyd, Jr., WILLIAMS

722

MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Audris Veronica Ford Asmond.

723

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

724

What is the affirmance of a united states district court ruling?

725

The affirmance ruling within the Estate Claim was the jurisdiction of the Article II court could

726

not exonerate the nature of the capacity of the subject entailed Probate of Estate could not be the

727

relief requested by Plaintiff here (to “recover marital estate property”) would potentially require

728

this court to “annul” or “administer” my husband MEMPHIS LEWIS SMITH estate NCGS. §

729

28A-2A-5. What shown on application for probate.

730

On application to the clerk of the superior court, he must ascertain by affidavit of the applicant -

731

(1) That such applicant is the executor or devisee named in the will, or is some other

732

person interested in the estate, and how so interested. I, ANDRIVIA FRANCES WELLS-SMITH

733

have interest and the Section 28A-19-1 of NCGS Section Chapter 28A and within the scope of

734

Section 50 of NCGS which governs Equitable Distribution Procedures. Matter is jurisdiction in

735

the within the scope of UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT of declaratory judgment claim. 1

736

Equitable Distribution Versus Estate Administration. Equitable Distribution is the process by

737

which a court divides property belonging to married couple based upon a variety of statutory

738

factors. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20 (c).

739

It is presumed that in-kind distribution of marital property is equitable.” The rights of the parties

740

to an equitable distribution of marital property and divisible property are a species of common

741

ownership, the rights of the respective parties vesting at the time of the parties’ separation.” Id.

742

§50-20(k). The State of North Carolina have different categories of claims are paid according to

743

statutory hierarchy, which includes the:

744

(a)

745

be paid. Eighth Class, A claim for Equitable distribution. Ninth Class, All other claims. N.C.G.

746

Stat. §28A-19-6(a) (2017). The Eighth class of claims was added to the statute in 2005, after

747

Section,50-20(L) had been amended to provide that equitable distribution claims whether

748

pending or not-yet filed at the time of a spouse’s death could be pursued against the decedent’s

749

estate. Act of July 12,2005. Pending Action is not Claim, prior to the death of spouse with respect

750

to Chapter 28A-19-6(a) but represents [ the surviving spouse] portion of the marital property.”

751

Although the ANDRIVIA FRANCES WELLS argues here that it also raises an

After payment of costs and expenses of administration, the claims against the Estate must

752

(a)

753

district court. Because this issue is raised for the second time on appeal, we continued to address

754

it. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

755

Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187,192

756

(4th Cir. 2009). The State of North Carolina made decision within a in default state that violates

757

Due Process Right. The sovereignty within a decision of a court of Law is in personum in

758

reference to property right. I, ANDRIVIA FRANCES WELLS-SMITH was absent nor was a

759

divorce legal. State and Federal court have different sovereignty and jurisdiction procedures.

760

Documents of summons Nol in void and process was an ad prosequendum procedure Life,

761

liberty, and property. There rules of law cannot violate individual rights during a decision of

762

marital rights.

equal protection challenge, it was plead a claim under the Equal Protection Clause in the

763

764

VI. Constitutional Provisions Involved

765

Federal court’s diversity jurisdiction applies only if a federal judge is being asked to: (1) probate

766

a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) interfere with property already in the custody of a

767

probate court. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Part I explores the

768

development of the exception, with particular attention to the Supreme Court’s recent grounding

769

of the exception in the rule that one court’s assertion of in rem jurisdiction can preclude

770

another’s. Part II canvasses the lower court decisions that have followed that explanation. Those

771

decisions show uncertainty over what the “prior exclusive jurisdiction” doctrine means in

772

general, and what it means for federal question cases in particular. To address that uncertainty,

773

Part III draws on connections between in rem jurisdiction and judgments to conclude that the

774

prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine is a rule of common law about the federal judicial power.

775

Unless displaced by legislation, then, the probate exception can properly limit federal jurisdiction

776

even over federal questions. And, based on the available evidence, so it does.

777

778

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV

779

All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction, therefore, are

780

citizen of the United States of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any

781

law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall

782

any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to

783

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Law.

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

795

796

On July 15,2020, a Sherrif Deputy Mecklenburg County Summons I, ANDRIVIA FRANCES

797

WELLS was summons with documents G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(l) (n) Asserting Jurisdiction over

798

Property or Assets. U.S. Marshall did not provide I, (“Wells”) documents. Nor, received

799

permission from my Federal Judge.

800

801

(1) Federal Law. The court may assert jurisdiction over property if authorized by a federal statute.

802

Notice to claimants of the property must be given as provided in the statute or by serving a

803

summons under this rule.

804

(2) State Law. On a showing that personal jurisdiction over a defendant cannot be obtained in the

805

district where the action is brought by reasonable efforts to serve a summons under this rule, the

806

court may assert jurisdiction over f fiduciary duty, the defendant's assets found in the district.

807

Jurisdiction is acquired by seizing the assets under the circumstances and in the manner provided

808

by state law in that district. The state judge did not ask My federal adjudicator to require my

809

presences August 8 ,2020 a Pro se extension was submitted contesting marriage and property

810

Rule 60(b). On September 09, 2020, Pro Se’ Equitable Distribution Matter was excepted. My

811

Civil Rights was violated during the proceedings of the North Carolina Chapter 50 provisions.

812

Pending the hearing, my husband Memphis Smith died domicile, prior to District Judge entering

813

an order for divisible property. The Amended Actions NC General Statute 50-20(L) (1) A claim

814

for equitable distribution, whether an action is filed or not, survives the death of a spouse so long

815

as the parties are living separate could separation of one year on application of either party, I

816

Andrivia Frances Wells-Smith contested. N.C. Gen.Stat. 28A-19-1, a statute governing claims

817

against an estate, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and for a declaratory judgment that, I

818

Andrivia Frances Wells-Smith is entitled to her half of the distributive value of the LLC interest

819

and Marital Property.

820

821

822

The Government’s Roseboro Order

823

Right to Respond to the allegations a of statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

824

entitled to relief.” The factual I, Andrivia Frances Wells-Smith was substantial. To expound on

825

Due Process of Law. Within the District Circuit only Statutes and Rules to curtail my actions to

826

continue to process my actions. Until I engage Rights within the correct Judicial Forum, Court of

827

Law, That Can fulfill a Constitutional Rights.

828

The District Court’s Ruling Allowing the Government to Establish Jurisdiction.

829

The Supreme Court has articulated a “probate exception” to the federal question jurisdiction

830

extended to Article III courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That exception “reserves to state probate

831

courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate.” Marshall

832

v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 296 (2006). If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, no

833

further analysis is necessary” and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning.” Quality

834

Built Homes Inc. Town of Carthage,369 N.C. 15,19,789 S.E.2d 454,457(2016). Chapter 50

835

N.C.G. Statute 50-20 (1)(2) does not require surviving spouse to comply with Section 28A-19-3

836

filing notice requirements to enforce an equitable distribution order, require a federal court to

837

assume in rem jurisdiction over those shares, then it follows that the probate exception precludes

838

the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. In Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10 (1876), Marshall v.

839

Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 296 (2006). Brown v. Brown, 353 N.C. 220.

840

841

The Fourth Circuit’s Affirmance of the District Court’s Ruling

842

28 U.S.C. § 1254 determine the instruction of Constitutional Law that was violated within a

843

jurisdiction of Courts that cannot resolve an act of Law. Marshall v. Meadows, 105 F.3d 904, 906

844

(4th Cir. 1997). An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)

845

concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

846

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). The

847

plaintiffs have the burden of alleging sufficient facts to demonstrate standing. Marshall, 105 F.3d

848

at 906 (citing FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215,231 (1990)).

849

850

851

852

IX.

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

853

854

855

Amendment's Equal Protection Clause can be applied to intestate succession laws, meaning they

856

cannot discriminate unfairly based on factors like gender or legitimacy of children, Fifth

857

Amendment a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures and

To avoid erroneous deprivation of the right of a surviving spouse, the Fourteenth

858

trials. The thirteenth Amendment as a surviving spouse violation as a Natural bom Citizen my

859

Rights were deprive from immunity of State Agency.

860

In Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), this Court adopted a set of prophylactic measures to

861

protect the respondents In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d

862

468 (1992), this Court reined in the "domestic relations exception." Earlier, in Markham v. Allen,

863

326 U.S. 490,66 S. Ct. 296,90 L. Ed. 256 (1946), the Court endeavored similarly curtail the statute

864

of State elements and Chapters of various laws that substantiate the procedures of Probate of Estate

865

and Equitable Distribution is Hierarchy within establishing Marital Property. With in the "probate

866

exception." The jurisdiction analogy has reach that curtail of the right to provide, Terry v. Sharon,

867

131 U.S. 40, 48, 9 S. Ct. 705, 707, 33 L. Ed. 94 (1889). But don’t utilize the 14th Amendment of

868

a Due Process Right to be heard within the court observed that a federal court has jurisdiction to

869

"adjudicate rights in probate property, state North Carolina is non-default state which is violation

870

of several Constitutional Rights, so as long as its final judgment does not undertake to interfere

871

with the state court's possession of the property. “Brown v. Brown, 353 N.C. 220. In order dissipate

872

the” compelling pressures which works towards undermining an individual thoughts action

873

without an attorney. The stipulation of law is a curious design to speak on defective actions that is

874

considered as effective within the Constitution of Law that is unambiguous to the indigent, or pro

875

se. To speak freely is a first amendment right. But to void an action of

876

Individuals will resist and compel her to speak where she would not be otherwise to do so freely,”

877

She was never advised by counsel what to state or claim. I will say, during various pro se motions

878

that was written under the Laws of state, and they ignored my Motions while being detained by

879

Federal government. The state did not have jurisdiction to summons I, with divorce papers.

880

Without asking for permission as a detainee.” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC, v. McDonough,

881

204 U. S. 8,27 S. Ct. 236 (1907). “Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment

882

lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with

883

due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4),28 U.S.C. A., U.S.C.A. Const.” The 14th

884

amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone a right to due process of law, which

885

includes judgments that comply with the rules and case law. Most due process exceptions deal with

886

the issue of notification. If, for example, someone gets a judgement against you in another state

887

without your having been notified, you can attack. Quiet Title Law.”

888

§ 41-10. Titles quieted. An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an

889

estate or interest in real property adverse to him for the purpose of determining such adverse

890

claims; and by any man or woman against his or her wife or husband or alleged wife or husband

891

who have not lived together as man and wife within the two years preceding, and who at the death

892

of such plaintiff might have or claim to have an interest in his or her estate, and a decree for the

893

plaintiff shall debar all claims of the defendant in the property of the plaintiff then owned or

894

afterwards acquired: Provided, that no such relief shall be granted against such husband or wife or

895

alleged wife or husband, except in case the summons in said action is personally served on such

896

defendant. If the defendant in such action disclaim in his answer any interest or estate in the

897

property or suffer judgment to be taken against him without answer, the plaintiff cannot recover

898

costs. In any case in which judgment has been or shall be docketed, whether such judgment is in

899

favor of or against the person bringing such action, or is claimed by him, or affects real estate

900

claimed by him, or whether such judgment is in favor of or against the person against whom such

901

action may be brought, or is claimed by him, or affects real estate claimed by him, the lien of said

902

judgment shall be such claim of an estate or interest in real estate as is contemplated by this section

903

the judgement for lack of due process of law. In Griflfen v. Grififen, 327 U.S. 220,66 S. Ct. 556,90

904

L. Ed. 635 a pro se litigant won his case in the Supreme Court who stated. During the Probate

905

Estate a Notice was not provided to me, during my incarceration. We were married for seven years

906

counting the two years of common law. The Family Court ignored my Motions during the judicial

907

proceeding, and she rendered an order during my absence of 41 (b). I was not notified of the Court

908

date nor was I, informed of the order. Until was released from F.B.O.P. custody and was transferred

909

the Federal Halfway house that is when I, read the file and informed the North Carolina Bar of her

910

misconducted and constitutional violation. During the years of fighting and laps of time and on the

911

verge of nervous breakdown .Because ,1 need for judicial system to hear my voice and North

912

Carolina actions of Civil Rights violation on Marital property a default judgment without the

913

appearance of an individual to fight for their rights .The N.C.G.S. 50-20 state various claims in

914

reference to a surviving spouse I, asserted a FRCP RULE 60(b) FRCP Rule 60(b) provides that the

915

court may relieve a party from a final judgment and sets forth the following six categories of

916

reasons for which such relief.

917

may be granted: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newlydiscovered

918

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time, to move for a new trial

919

under Rule 59; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party:

920

(4) circumstances under which a judgment is void; (5) circumstances under which a judgment

921

has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon?

922

Which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that.

923

the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief.

924

from the operation of the judgment. F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(1) -(b)(6). To be entitled to relief, the

925

moving party must establish facts within one of the reasons enumerated in Rule 60(b). Prior to

926

my husband answering the assert he passed domicile. Within Law of North Carolina, it states I,

927

have a vested right, interest, or title, and not taken away or “divested.” There is a third-party

928

property that my husband explained to me in reference to the name on the commercial property I,

929

help pay taxes on the easement of 30 years I, have a vested interest and right the Quiet Title

930

Laws § 1-40. Twenty years adverse possession. No action for the recovery or possession of real

931

property, or the issues and profits thereof, shall be maintained when the person in possession

932

thereof, or defendant in the action, or those under whom he claims, has possessed the property

933

under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years; and

934

such possession so held gives a title in fee to the possessor, in such property, against all persons

935

not under disability.

936

. Quiet Title Law§ 41-10. Titles quieted. An action may be brought by any person against another

937

who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him for the purpose of determining

938

such adverse claims; and by any man or woman against his or her wife or husband or alleged

939

wife or husband who have not lived together as man and wife within the two years preceding,

940

and who at the death of such plaintiff might have or claim to have an interest in his or her estate,

941

and a decree for the plaintiff shall debar all claims of the defendant in the property of the plaintiff

942

then owned or afterwards acquired: Provided, that no such relief shall be granted against such

943

husband or wife or alleged wife or husband, except in case the summons in said action is

944

personally served on such defendant. If the defendant in such action disclaim in his answer any

945

interest or estate in the property or suffer judgment to be taken against him without answer, the

946

plaintiff cannot recover costs. In any case in which judgment has been or shall be docketed,

947

whether such judgment is in favor of or against the person bringing such action, or is claimed by

948

him, or affects real estate claimed by him, or whether such judgment is in favor of or against the

949

person against whom such action may be brought, or is claimed by him, or affects real estate

950

claimed by him, the lien of said judgment shall be such claim of an estate or interest in real estate

951

as is contemplated by this section. However, in Upchurch v. Upchurch, 122 NC App 172

952

(1996)(Upchurch I), the court of appeals held that ownership for purposes of ED includes both

953

legal and equitable ownership and recognized that within the context of an ED proceeding, a

954

court has the equitable authority to impose a constructive or resulting trust upon property legally

955

owned by someone other than a spouse. While in other situations a party has a right to have a

956

jury determine whether grounds exist for the imposition of a trust, the Supreme Court held in

957

Sharp v. Sharp, 351 NC 37 (1999), that there is no jury trial right when the issue arises in the

958

context of an ED case. The judge rather than the jury must decide whether a trust should be

959

imposed.

960

The court of appeals also has held that a trial court can impose a trust on property owned by a

961

third party even if neither spouse expressly requests that relief in a pleading. Weatherford v.

962

Keenan, 128 NC App 178 (1998).

963

If the trial court finds grounds to impose a trust, the court can order the title to the property be

964

conveyed to one or both spouses and classified as marital property. Gragg v. Gragg, 94 NC App

965

134 (1989).

966

Andrivia Frances Wells, the plaintiff-appellant, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the

967

Mecklenburg County Clerk of Probate Estates, Memphis L. Smith, Jr., and Audris Veronica Ford

968

Asmond. The case was initially heard by the United States District Court for the Western District

969

of North Carolina, where the district judge, Max O. Cogbum, Jr., dismissed the action for failure

970

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The claim was third-party property that held

971

the or name of her(“Wells”) brother-in-law estate name. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Andrivia

972

Frances Wells husband possess the property and paid off the mortgage that was claimed contract

973

within him and his brother. Mecklenburg County Probate of Estate would not let me reopen the

974

Estate, our system of government "requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the

975

Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another

976

branch." Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 549. And in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S., at 211, the Court

977

stated:

978

"Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another

979

branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been

980

committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of

981

this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."

982

Askew v. City of Kinston, 902 S.E.2d 722(N.C. 2024), and Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing,

983

Ltd., 904 S.E.2d 720(N.C. 2024).

984

The crux of the appellate court's decision rested on the timeliness of the notice of appeal filed by

985

Wells. According to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure v Ma4(a)(l)(A), a party has 30 days

986

after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. Wells filed

987

the notice of appeal 33 days after the district court's order, missing the 30-day deadline. The

988

appellant did not seek an extension or reopening of the appeal period as allowed under Federal

989

Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6).

990

See, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-707 (1974).

991

“Whether the federal courts should be especially alert to avoid undue interference with the

992

state judicial system flowing from demands upon state judges to appear as witnesses need not be

993

addressed at this time.”

994

Judicial immunity attaches only to actions undertaken in a judicial capacity. Forrester v. White,

995

484 U.S. 219, 227-229 (1988). In determining whether an action is "judicial," we consider the

996

nature of the act and whether it is a "function normally performed by a judge." Stump v.

997

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,362(1978).

998

999

Page 14 See also Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S.

1000

719, 736-737 (1980) (judge not entitled to judicial immunity when acting in enforcement

1001

capacity); cf. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 520-524 (1985) (Attorney General not

1002

absolutely immune when performing "national security," rather than prosecutorial, function).

1003

Moreover, even if the act is "judicial," judicial immunity does not attach if the judge is acting in

1004

the " clear absence of all jurisdictions."' Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S., at 357 (quoting Bradley

1005

v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872)).

1006

The Fourth Circuit panel, including Circuit Judges King and Rushing, and Senior Circuit Judge

1007

Motz, upheld that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

1008

requirement, citing Bowles v. Russell. Consequently, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to

1009

hear the appeal due to the untimely notice of appeal filed by Wells. The panel dismissed the

1010

appeal without oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately

1011

presented in the materials before the court and that oral argument would not aid the decisional

1012

process.

1013

If you are a Surviving Spouse, you have rights that can benefit you from many different sources

1014

and bodies of law. You should contact Jet Probate immediately whether you were named as a

1015

Beneficiary of your Spouse’s Will or whether or not your loved one even had a Will3. Courts will

1016

look at state law for guidance on who to appoint but typically the law will provide for the

1017

following people: surviving spouse, children, parents of the decedent, the decedent’s siblings, or

1018

the decedent’s grandchildren-! If a will attempts to disinherit a spouse in some way, the spouse

1019

may be protected by state law. Each state has laws regarding spousal inheritance, which

1020

generally follow one of three approaches: the traditional spousal share approach, the augmented

1021

estate approach, or the community property approach. Like credibility determinations, the weight

1022

of the evidence is a matter left to the finder of fact, and this Court does not reweigh the evidence

1023

produced at trial or substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. See, e.g., In re Patron,

1024

250 N.C. App. 375, 384, 792 S.E.2d 853, 860 (2016).

1025

The son which the judicial system of the probate of Estate was provided letters by judge. Marital

1026

property fraudulently sold Jurisdiction of the person was essential to a valid order. Stancill v.

1027

Gay, supra. See, Grasty v. Grasty, 125 N.C. App. 736, 739, 482 S.E.2d 752, 754 (trial court did

1028

not err in failing to value husband’s business

1029

when only evidence offered was “wholly incredible and without reasonable basis”), review

1030

denied, 346 N.C. 278, 487 S.E.2d 545 (1997)

1031

McLeod v. McLeod, 74 N.C. App. 144, 327 S.E.2d 910 (1985), The Company I provided

1032

interest, money, and equipment. Every year I paid the Secretary of Estate to L.L.C. and property

1033

taxes on Commercial Property and personal property.

1034

In 2003, the General Assembly amended Section 50-20 to add the following pertinent

1035

language: Chapter 50-20 (1)(1) A claim for equitable distribution, whether an action is filed or

1036

not, survives the death of a spouse so long as the parties are living separate and apart at the time

1037

ofdeath.(2) The provisions of Article 19 of Chapter 28 A of the General Statutes shall be

1038

applicable to a claim for equitable dist. If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, no

1039

further analysis is necessary “and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning.

1040

distribution against the estate of the deceased spouse. See, SMITH v. RODGERS | 824 S.E.2d

1041

155(2019).

1042

'[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.' - Bowles

1043

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,214 (2007).

1044

The key notes: Judge of the Appellate Courts violated my Constitutional Right. I was being

1045

released from Federal custody. I was living in a home with no electricity. Because the individuals

1046

that resided in my home during COVID-19 was stealing power and I had Duke Energy to come

1047

to an agreement with me. They were fixing on the issue for six-months. The lines that were cut.

1048

I asked them to place them underground. I, give it to God, they did not charge me for the Labor.

1049

I, had to pay for various permits and I purchase the material. For the License Electrician to

1050

complete the task. That was strenuous within a home that was cold and there were days when its

1051

rain. God have favor on me.

1052

'Because Wells failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of

1053

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.' - Per Curium Opinion. The Appeal dismissed within an

1054

order that I waited in the mail to receive an answer of the Notice. The Jurisdiction of the Action

1055

of a Federal Judge that is Article III for disturbing a Probate Action of Caveators Fraudulently

1056

sold my property. I wrote the state judge - up for not complying to Equitable Distribution Action.

1057

This case presents this Court with an opportunity to clarify the Equitable Distribution Action

1058

and Estate Claim.

1059

1983 Civil Rights Violation “initiation” standard in the face of the Law of Marshall v Marshall

1060

rule. Absent intervention by this Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals published the

1061

decision will work to undermine the carefully crafted procedural safeguards that this Court has

1062

spent the past years within the interlocutory of state and federal laws adopt a solution of trust

1063

that’s not an heir. The intestate share of a surviving spouse who was married to the decedent for

1064

at least 15 years in state of North Carolina, NC Gen St 29-1 to 29-30.

1065

1066

Conclusion

1067

Marital Properties that were distributed within arms of the interlocutory provisions was illegal

1068

and I want my marital property to return the third-party property and other initial property that’s

1069

mines within eye of the NCGS and the Constitution of Law. The 6th, the 5th, and the 14th

1070

Amendment Violation of the Constitution. I hope to God you all hear my cry and grant me. My

1071

properties and surviving spousal rights.

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

V- » •

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

OUldri via Acunas, ifZtiS

Date:

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.