Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Anthony D. Carter, Petitioner v. Richard S. Lawson
Supreme Court briefApr 17, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FILED
APR 1 1 2026
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT I i s
ANTHONY D. CARTER - PETITIONER
VS.
RICHARD S. LAWSON - RESPONDENT
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL-STATE OF FLORIDA
AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
ANTHONY D. CARTER, D.O.C. #756364
UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 1000
RAIFORD, FLORIDA 32083
UNION cw«ctw"s”t,j,ion
AUG 31-?®
OR MWLINg"
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1: Was it the intention(s) of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution, that
all provision(s) and amendment(s) set forth therein would be applicable, obtainable, and
enforceable for all citizens of the United States?
2: Do all citizens of the United States enjoy the same degree of equal protection of the
laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
regardless of their individual liberty status?
3: Does this equal protection of the law(s) apply to personal property based on the
principle(s) and provision(s) of Replevin as set forth by each individual State's essential
requirement(s) of law?
4: In a Civil action between two (2) litigants who are both private citizens of the United
States, do the constitutional provision(s) of the Fourteenth Amendment become less
enforceable for either litigant if they are incarcerated?
5: Does an Order of Final Judgment in a Civil action of Replevin, that is a clear departure
from the essential requirement(s) and principle(s) of the law, constitute a violation of
Due Process and the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution as was / is contemplated by the founding fathers?
6: In a Civil cause of action proceeding, convened for specific purpose to determine
i
the value (amount) of unliquidated damages
only; is a litigant's past or present
character circumstance(s) admissible for consideration by the Trier of Fact presiding
over said proceedings without invoking a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
7: Is character evidence a relevant material issue in determining damage(s)?
8: Is it a Due Process violation of the Fifth, Seventh; and Fourteenth Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution, for a Trier of Fact to override a previous Trier of Fact of equal judicial
authority, who grants the litigant(s) in a Civil action, the right to have the material issue
of evaluating and determining the value (amount) of unliquidated damages resolved by
a Jury Trial, once said right has been invoked and not otherwise waived thereafter by
either and / or all parties to the cause of action?
9. Is it a subornation
of the departure from the essential requirement(s) and / or
principle(s) of law for a District Court of Appeal to AFFIRM a Trial Court's erroneous
ruling in a Final Judgment?
10. Once liability
has been established by a Default, does Due Process to the
determination of equitable damages become the stand-alone singular issue without
more for the defaulted party who fails to plead and / or defend against the allegation(s)
of the complaint?
ii
LIST OF PARTIES
A list of all parties to the proceedings in the Court whose judgment is the subject of this
petition is provided below. If a party is a corporation with a stock ticker symbol, that
symbol is also included.
Richard S. Lawson [Respondent / Appellee / Defendant]
105 Millers Trace Drive, St. Mary's, Georgia 31558
Manuel T. Moreno, P.A., Fla. Bar. No: 126345 [Attorney For Richard S. Lawson]
1963 South 8th Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034
(904) 698-3260 E-Mail: Manny@MannyMorenoLaw.com
Honorable Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr. [Circuit Court Judge - Civil Division]
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, In And For Duval County, Florida
Duval County Unified Courthouse, Division: CV-H
501 West Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Honorable Eric J. Eisnaugle [Chief Justice-5th DCA]
Honorable John M. Harris [Senior Justice-5th DCA]
Honorable John Maclver [Junior Justice - 5th DCA]
c/o Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida
300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (386) 947-1500
TjF
RELATED CASES
CARTER V. LAWSON: Case No: 16-2014-CA-003132-XXXX-MA
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, In And For Duval County, Florida
Judgment Entered: April 26, 2024 Rehearing Denied: July 23, 2024.
CARTER V. LAWSON: Case No: 5D2024-2339
District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, State of Florida
Decision Entered: September 9, 2025 Rehearing Denied: November 18, 2025.
CARTER V. LAWSON: Case No: SC2025-2021
Supreme Court of Florida-Notice To Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction
Dismissed: December 19, 2025.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINIONS BELOW
1
JURISDICTIION
2
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4
REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
2 I
CONCLUSION
24"
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
1) . DECISION-FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2024-2339 "PER CURIAM AFFIRMED" September 9, 2025
Hon. Eisnaugle; Hon. Harris; Hon. Maclver.
Page(s) 2
2) . ORDER-Denying Rehearing En Banc, Clarification, Certification
and Written Opinion
Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida
Case No: 5D2024-2339 Entered: November 18, 2025
Hon. Eisnaugle; Hon. Harris; Hon. Maclver.
Page(s) 1
3) . MANDATE-Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida
Case No: 5D2024-2339 L.T. Case No: 16-2014-CA-3132
Hon. Lay [Chief Judge] Entered: December 11, 2025
Page(s) 1
(*All Appendices from the Trial Court provided by "Record On Appeal" 5D2024-2339)
APPENDIX B:
1). DECISION-FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
"Order Granting Plaintiff Final Judgment As To Count III, Replevin, Only"
Case No: 16-2014-CA-3132 Hon. Feltel, Jr. Entered: April 26, 2024 Page(s) 5
v
2). DECISION-FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, DIVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
"Order Denying Rehearing; New Trial By Jury"
Case No: 16-2014-CA-3132 Hon. Feltel, Jr. Entered: July 23, 2024 Page(s) 4
APPENDIX C:
DECISION-SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
"Order Dismissing Petitioner's Notice To Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction"
Case No: SC2025-2021 DCA Case No: 5D2024-2339
Honorable Clerk of Court: Tomasino Entered: December 19, 2025 Page(s) 2
APPENDIX D:
"Complaint For Damages And Other Statutory Relief"
Anthony D. Carter (Plaintiff) v. Richard S. Lawson (Defendant)
Case No: 16-2013-CA-3132 Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Honorable Kevin A. Blazs Hearing Room: 746
Counsel: Christa S. Dunsmore, Esq. Fla. Bar. No: 89533 [for Plaintiff]
of "Dunsmore & Morsico, Attorneys at Law" Filed: May 5, 2014
Page(s) 10
APPENDIX E:
1) . Complaint EXHIBIT : A. "Letter of Demand" [Dunsmore, Esq.]
Sent via U.S. Mail Certified: February 14, 2014 to Richard S. Lawson
Filed: May 5, 2014
Page(s) 4
2) . Complaint EXHIBIT: G - "Handwritten Inventory of Property," [Plaintiff]
Filed by: Dunsmore, Esq. Filed: May 5, 2014
Page(s) 7
APPENDIX F:
"Answer To Complaint For Damages And Other Statutory Relief"
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court Case No: 16-2014-CA-3132
Counsel: Robert W. Guy, Jr. P.C., Fla. Bar No: 0635987 [for Defendant]
Filed: June 10, 2014
Page(s) 6
APPENDIX G:
"Plaintiff's Statement of Evidence And / Or Proceeding(s)"
per Rule 9.200(b)(5), Fla. R. App. P.
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court Division: CV-H
File Date: November 12, 2024 Clerk File Date: November 14, 2024 Page(s) 20
vi
APPENDIX H:
"Plaintiffs Petition For Writ of Replevin" per §78.01; §78.19; Fla. Stat. (2017)
File Date: December 13, 2017 Clerk File Date: December 18, 2017
Page(s) 6
APPENDIX I:
"ORDER ON ORE TENUS MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT"
per Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.
"GRANTED"
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court
Division: CV-H
Honorable Kevin A. Blazs
Hearing Room: 746
Entered: August 21, 2019
Clerk File Date: August 26, 2019
Page(s) 1
APPENDIXJ:
"Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Damages, Replevin, And Other Statutory Relief"
per Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CVH
File Date: September 20, 2019 Clerk File Date: September 25, 2019
Page(s) 15*
*Copy of original Complaint's EXHIBIT: G [Handwritten Inventory] was attached to
Amended Complaint. (See pg. 13 of Amended Complaint and APPENDIX E-2).
APPENDIX K:
"Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgment On Defendant's Failure To Plead"
per Rule 1.500(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
File Date: May 3, 2021 Clerk File Date: May 7, 2021
Page(s) 6
APPENDIX L:
"ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT"
per Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P. "GRANTED in part" [liability]
' Fourth Judicial Circuit Court
Division: CV-H
Honorable Eric C. Roberson
Entered: May 17 2021 Clerk File Date: May 18, 2021
Page(s) 1
APPENDIX M:
1) . "Motion for Final Judgment After Default," [with three (3) Affidavits]
2) . "Affidavit of Attorney's Fees" - [Exhibit: D]
3) . "Affidavit of Costs And Expenses" - [Exhibit: E]
4) . "Affidavit of Damages" - [Exhibit: F]
per Rulel.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
File Date: August 18, 2021 Clerk File Date: August 20, 2021
Page(s) 17
vii
APPENDIX N:
"Demand For Jury Trial" per Rule 1.430(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
File Date: August 18, 2021 Clerk File Date:*
Page(s) 2
(*Not filed by Clerk due to mistaking it for an Exhibit to "Motion For Final Judgment
After Default." See, R.O.A. page numbers at bottom of pages, compare to APPENDIX
M2 through M4[p. 695-p. 711], and "DEMAND'S" Legal Mail Date Stamp)
APPENDIX 0:
"ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT"
per Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Honorable Eric C. Roberson Entered: September 22, 2024
Page(s) 1
APPENDIX P:
"Notice For Trial" [Two (2) day Jury Trial] (Plaintiff's)
per Rule 1.440(b) Fla. R. Civ. P., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
File Date: October 1, 2021 Clerk File Date: October 4, 2021
Page(s) 2
APPENDIX Q:
"TRIAL ORDER" [Two (2) day Jury Trial]
per Rule 1.200, Fla. R. Civ. P.; Rule 1.430(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Pretrial Conference [Chambers-Hearing Room 712] July 14, 2022@9:45 a.m.
Trial Date: July 25-26, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Honorable Eric C. Roberson
Entered: December 2, 2021 Clerk File Date: December 7, 2021
Page(s) 2
APPENDIX R:
"Motion To Transport" [Plaintiff]
per §272 Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.S. §394
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
File Date: February 14, 2022 Clerk File Date: February 22, 2022
Page(s) 9
APPENDIX S:
"ORDER DENYING TRANSPORT AND STRIKING CASE FROM TRIAL DOCKET"
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Honorable Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr.
Entered: April 21, 2022 Clerk File Date: April 22, 2022
Page(s) 3
Vh'i
APPENDIX T:
"Motion For Rehearing / Reconsideration" [Plaintiff]
per Rule 1.530(b),(c), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
File Date: May 3, 2022 Clerk File Date: May 6, 2022
Page(s) 7
APPENDIX U:
"ORDER DENYING REHEARING / RECONSIDERATION"
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Honorable Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr.
Entered: May 18, 2022 Clerk's File Date: May 18, 2022
Page(s) 1
APPENDIX V:
1) . "Plaintiff's Second Motion For Final Judgment After Default"
[with three (3) Affidavits] per Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Page(s) 3
2) . "Affidavit of Attorney Fee"
Page(s) 2
3) . "Affidavit of Costs And Expenses"
Page(s) 7
4) . "Affidavit of Damages"
File Date: August 17, 2022 *See Legal Mail Stamp
Clerk's File Date: October 18, 2022
Page(s) 9
(Total) Page(s) 21
APPENDIX W:
"SECOND AMENDED ORDER SETTING HEARING"
Via ZOOM Video Technology (in Chambers) set for June 26, 2023 @10:00 a.m.
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Entered: June 6, 2023 Clerk File Date: June 7, 2023
Page(s) 2
APPENDIX X:
1) . "Affidavit of Damages [2nd Amended]" - Plaintiff
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Filed: June 14, 2023 Clerk File Date: June 20, 2023
Page(s) 9
* Included w/Affidavit*
2) . "Handwritten Inventory of Property" (EXHIBIT: G)
[Highlighted (in Gray), to indicate item(s) claimed to not be in Defendant's
possession] Sent by Defendant: September 19, 2018 Received by Plaintiff:
September 28, 2018 (Attached as an Exhibit to "[Plaintiff's] Motion to Supplement
lx
Record/' Filed
June 21, 2019.
Page(s) 11
APPENDIX Y:
"Letter to Judge from Richard Lawson (with Attachments)"
[Printed Inventory of Property marked to indicate property, in
Defendant's possession].
File Date: July 21, 2023 by Respondent / Defendant, Richard S. Lawson
Clerk's File Date: July 21, 2023
Page(s) 7
APPENDIX Z:
"Motion For Rehearing And New Trial By Jury" [Plaintiff]
per Rule 1.530(b)(c), Fla. R. Civ. P.; Rule 1.430(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Filed: May 10, 2024
Clerk File Date: May 15, 2024
Page(s) 13
APPENDIX AA:
"Notice of Appeal" to Fifth District Court of Appeal, Florida [Plaintiff]
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Division: CV-H
Filed: August 16, 2024 Clerk File Date: August 19, 2024
Page(s) 1
APPENDIX BB:
"Motion for Rehearing En Banc; Clarification; Certification
And Written Opinion" [Appellant / Plaintiff]
Per Rule(s) 9.330; 9.331(a), Fla. R. App. P.
Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida Case No: 5D2024-2339
Filed: October 15, 2025
>
Page(s) 17
APPENDIX CC:
"Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction" [Supreme Court of Florida]
Filed to: Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida
Filed: December 16, 2025
Page(s) 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
CASES
PAGE NUMBERS)
Am. Optical v. Spiewak, 73 So.3d 120, 129 (Fla. 2011)
1^,18
Ansel v. Kizer, 428 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
[5JUJ7,
Barge v. Simeton, 460 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
Hvi4,f7
Baron Auctioneer, Inc. v. Bell, 674 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
<7
Barth v. Florida State Constructors, Serv., 327 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
11,
Bound v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 72 (1977)
Bowers v. Allez, 165 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
15'
Bowman v. Kingsland Dev. Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662-663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
Brewer v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, 720 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
ID j I la
Brown v. Sheriff ofBroward County Jail, 502 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
ID,
ID
Burch v. City ofLakeland, 891 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
Butler v. Mirabelli, 179 So. 2d 868, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
13,1^18
IS( IS", 18
Campos v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 900 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
Christopher Adver. Group, Inc. v. R. & B. Holding Co. 883 So. 2d 867
(Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
I 10
Ciotti v. Hubsch, 302 So. 3d 497, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
I5j)8
Ciprian-Escapa v. City of Orlando, 172 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
16710
Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 444-445 (Fla. 1990)
1 '
18
Dennison v. Dennison, 852 So. 2d 422, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
r,
i
s;
1$
Donohue v. Brightman, Jr., 939 So. 2d 1162, 1164-1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Dunkley Stucco, Inc. v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 751 So. 2d 723
15)10.
(FlaS* DCA 2000).
DYC Fishing Ltd. v. Martinez, 944 So. 2d 461, 462-463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
Florida Bar v. Porter, 684 So. 2d 810, 813 n.4 (Fla. 1996)
Foresight Enters v. Leisure Time Properties, 466 So. 2d 283
(Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
Gate Lands Co. v. Old Ponte Vedra Beach Condo, 715 So 2d 1132, 1135
(Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
Glades Oil Co. v. R.A.l. Mgmt. Inc., 510 So. 2d 1193, 1195
(Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
16( n,
Guirlinger v. Goldome Credit Corp, 593 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
Hanna v. Martin, 49 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 1950)
Hart Land & Cattle Trust Co. v. Reeves Steel, Inc., 309 So. 2d 611
(Fla. 1st DCA 1975£
Hawthorne v. Wells, 761 F. 2d 1514, 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)
/Di 16
Haynes v. Arman, 192 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
13, /6zf [ft.
Heg, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co., 591 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
Heidleberg v. Hammer, 577 F. 2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1978)
1^17
Hikel v. King, 659 F. Supp. 337, 340 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)
17,22.
Holt v. Pitts, 619 F. 2d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 1980)
101 H..
/7
3
2I-2Z
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. I, 15, 112 S. Ct. 995,117 L. Ed. 156 (1992)
Izaak Walton Investors LLC v. Oesterle, 51 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
Hl 17.
Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F. 2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1986)
_
I*2/
xi
J.B.Inl ’I Inc. v. Mega Flight, Inc., 840 So. 2d 1147,1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
Kruger v. Ponton, 6 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
Lashley v. Bowman, 561 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
Liljebergv. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194
100 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1988)
Liteky v. United States, 510, U.S. 540,114 S. Ct. 1147 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994)
McDade v. State, 154 So.3d 292 (Fla. 2014)
McMurrain vFason, 584 So. 2d 1027 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
Md. Cas. Co. v. Fla. Produce Distribs, Inc., 498 So.2d 1383, 1384
(Fla. 5th DCA 1986Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So.2d 252, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan v. Lago, 867 so. 2d 1184, 1186
(Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes and Groves Co., 847 So. 2d 594, 596
(Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
Ocala Foundry & Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51, 53 (1905)
Ocala Jockey Club, LLC v. Rogers, 981 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
Paulk v. Paulk, 25 So. 3d 672, 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 284-286, 68 S. Ct. 1049,
1060 92 L. Ed. 1356(1948)
Riggins v. Rhoades, 373 So. 3d 655, 659 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F. 3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001)
Santiago v. Mauna Loa Invs. LLC., 189 So. 3d 752, 755-756 (Fla. 2016)
Schneiderman v. Baer, 334 So. 3d 326, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Scull v. State, 596 So. 2d 1251,1252 (Fla. 1990)
Seymour v. Adams, 638 So. 2d 1044,1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
Shands Teaching Hosp, and Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp.,
889 So. 2d 1222, 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
Shasho v. Euro Motor Sports, Inc., 979 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Stone v. Morris, 546 F. 2d 730, 735-736 (7th Cir. 1976.)
Talucci v. Matthews, 960 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
Thadeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F. 3d 378, 390 ,1999 FED App. 0088 P
(6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987)
Wakenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430, 435-436 (Fla. 1978)
Yanofskyv. Isaaks, 277 So. 3d 132,J34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Waugh v. Waugh, 672 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
Weinberg v. Siemens Fin. Servs., 88 So.3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
xii
/&, $
11
17
.
.
/7.
/7.
17
,
'
/7
17,
)#_
1I i
17
H
17
I7
I0J7
.
/7
>•£>
] 5) I $
/Q
17
1
.
15} I &
11.17
’0,17.
15^ J 7
22 .
22.
J9
/? .
)0.17
J/1, 27 .
STATUTE(S) AND RULE(S)
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
viii, 3, 10
viii, 3, 1&
2,3
3
28 U.S.C.S. §272
28U.S.C.S. §394
28 U.S.C.S. §1257(a)
28 U.S.C.S. §1651(a)
FLORIDA BAR ASSOCIATION
Fla. Bar No: 89533
Fla. Bar No: 0635987
Fla. Bar No: 645524
Fla. Bar No: 126345
Dunsmore, Christa S., Esq.
Guy, Robert W. [Jr.],P.C.
Marsico, Richelle M., Esq.
Moreno, Manuel T., P.A.
vi, 4
vi, 5
5
iii,
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
Article 1 §2, Fla. Const.
Article 1 §9, Fla. Const.
Article 1 §21, Fla. Const.
Article 1 §22, Fla. Const.
Right to Acquire, Possess, and Protect Property
Due Process
Access to Court(s)
Jury Trial
3
3, 11
3
3, 11
FLORIDA RULE(S) OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Statement of Evidence/ Proceeding(s)
Rule 9.200(b)(5), Fla. R. App. P.
Rule 9.330(a)(1)(A), Fla. R. App. P. Rehearing / Reconsideration
Rehearing En Banc
Rule 9.331, Fla. R. App. P.
vi, 6
x,2O
x, 20
FLORIDA RULE(S) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rule 1.110(e), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.200, Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.430, Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.430(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.430(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.430(c), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.430(d), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.440(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.440(c), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500, Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(c), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(d), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Averment(s) / Pleading(s) - When Required
Amendment(s) to Pleading(s)
TRIAL / PRETRIAL
JURY TRIAL
Rights Preserved
Demand
Specification of Issue(s)
Waiver
Notice For Trial
Hearing on Unliquidated Damage(s)
DEFAULT(s)
By the Clerk
By the Court
Right to Plead
Setting Aside the Default(s)
xin
3
vii, 6|7
viii, *1
U
x,
viii, 7
.B
17
viii, 10
11
11, IH
j) &
vn,7J^)15'
15"
li"
Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P. Final Judgment(s)
vii, viii, ix, 8,
Rule 1.530(b), (c), Fla. R. Civ. P. Rehearing / Reconsideration
Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. Relief from Judgment-Excusable Neglect
ix, x, |L 22)
IS'
FLORIDA STATUTE(S)
§78.01, Fla. Stat. (2014)
§78.19, Fla. Stat. (2014)
§772.11, Fla. Stat. (2014)
§§812.014 - 812.035, Fla. Stat. (2014)
Replevin
vii, 3. fe,
2b
vii,
3,
Defendant In Possession
3,4.0^ i
Conversion - [Treble Damage(s)]
3,4
Theft, Robbery, Fraud
FLORIDA SUPPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER(S) [AOSC1
AOSC 20-23, Amendment 13
AOSC 20-32, Amendment 8
AOSC 20-109, Amendment 2
AOSC 21-17
II
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ii, 3,^,2$
ii,3, 7/Z3
i, ii, 3, Z.1( 2-2>
Amendment V, U.S. Const.
Amendment VII, U.S. Const.
Amendment XIV, U.S. Const.
OTHER AUTHORITIES
12 Fla. Jur. 2d Conversion and Replevin §§ 30-73 (1979)
Standards For Criminal Justice - Treatment of Prisoners, p IX;
Commentary at 289 - American Bar Association (2010)
xiv
lb
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
OPINION BELOW
[ ] For cases from Federal Courts”
The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals appears at Appendix
the Petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ Jis unpublished.
The opinion of the United States District Court appears at Appendix
the petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
[X] For cases from State Courts:
The opinion of the highest State court to review the merits appears at
Appendix A-l to the Petition and is
[X] reported at 422 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025); or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
The opinion of the
Court appears at
Appendix
to the Petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or
[ Jis unpublished.
1
to
to
JURISDICTION
[ ] For cases from Federal Courts.
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was
[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
Appeals on the following date:, and a copy of the order
denying rehearing appears at Appendix.
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
To and including
on
in
Application No.A.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).
[X] For cases from State Courts:
The date on which the highest State Court decided my case was September 9,
A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A-l.
[X] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
November 18, 2025, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at
Appendix A-2.
[X] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
To and including April 17, 2026 on March 23, 2026 in Application No. 25A
1037.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a).
2
2025.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
Article 1 § 2 ■ Right to acquire, possess, and protect property
§ 9 Due Process - Life, Liberty, Property
§ 21 Access to Courts
§ 22 Jury Trial
FLORIDA STATUTE(S)
§78.01, Fla. Stat.
§78,19, Fla. Stat.
§772.11, Fla. Stat.
§812.014-812.035, Fla. Stat.
Replevin
Property in Defendant’s Possession
Conversion [Treble Damages]
Theft, Robbery, Fraud
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment V, U.S. Const.
Amendment VII, U.S. Const.
Amendment XIV, U.S. Const.
Due Process - Life, Liberty, Property, Double Jeopardy
Jury Trial - Civil - Common Law
Due Process; Equal Protection of Law.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CODE
28 U.S.C.y.
§272
§394
§1257(a)
§1651(a)
Prisoner Rights
Prisoner Rights
Jurisdiction
Prisoner Rights
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
May 5, 2014, Petitioner, Anthony D. Carter, through retained counsel did file a civil
action in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, In And for Duval County, Florida - Civil Division.
Case No: 16-2014-CA-0033132-XXXX-MA. Against Respondent Richard S. Lawson
[LAWSON] for violation(s) of §772.11, Florida Statutes (2014) [Conversion]; and, §812.014 §812.035, Florida Statutes (2014) [Civil Theft], in a “Complaint For Damages And Other
Statutory Relief’ and accompanied by seven (7) exhibits in support of the allegation(s) against
LAWSON. Petitioner was represented by counsel, Christa S. Dunsmore, Esq. [DUNSMORE],
Florida Bar Number: 89533 of “Dunsmore & Marsico, Attorneys At Law.” See, APPENDIX D.
The seven (7) aforestated exhibits were / are:
A. “Letter of Demand” - Sent from Counsel to LAWSON via U.S. Mail Certified on
February 14, 2014. APPENDIX E-l.
B. Sworn Hearing Testimony of LAWSON - September 5, 2012
C. Sworn Deposition - Nicolle A. Davis [Petitioner’s Paramore] - August 31, 2012
D. Sworn Deposition - LAWSON -August 31, 2012
E. Letter of Demand - Robert A. Pace [Petitioner’s Power of Attorney] - January 12,
2013.
F. Sworn Trial Testimony - LAWSON - September 19. 2012
G. Handwritten Inventory [Petitioner’s Personal Property] (See, APPENDIX E-2)
The aforementioned Complaint alleges that on or about May 17, 2011, LAWSON did
without authorization remove, transport, keep, use, and otherwise convert the personal property
and the professional business property (Disc Jockey System / Equipment) of Petitioner as is set
forth in Exhibit: G of said Complaint APPENDIX E-2, to his (LAWSON’S) own possession,
inconsistent with Petitioner’s interest as the legal rightful owner of same.
4
The cause of action was assigned to Division: CV-H, the Honorable Kevin A. Blazs,
[HON. BLAZS] presiding.
June 10, 2014, LAWSON through retained counsel Robert W. Guy, Jr. [GUY], Florida
Bar Number: 0635987 did file an “Answer To Complaint For Damages And Other Statutory
Relief,” see, APPENDIX F, and therein asserted two (2) Affirmative Defenses and as a third
defense did answer by enumerated paragraph(s) the thirty-eight (38) Averments of said
Complaint. At the conclusion of the answers, GUY specifically states:
“Defendant having answered the allegations in the Complaint hereby demands a jury
trial on all issues. APPENDIX F pg. 5 (emphasis added).
June 20, 2014 Retained Counsel for Petitioner is changed to Richell M. Marsico, Esq.
[MARSICO], Florida Bar Number: 645524 of “Dunsmore & Marsico, Attorneys At Law.”
October 16, 2014 and October 22, 2014 GUY motions the Court to withdraw as counsel
for LAWSON, citing a “conflict.”
November 13, 2014, Counsel for Petitioner (MARSICO) motions the Court (unopposed)
to withdraw due to Counsel’s own personal health issues. Petitioner proceeded forward to
prosecute the cause of action as a “Pro se” litigant. LAWSON in turn did also elect to proceed
pro se.
During HON. BLAZS tenure as presiding Jurist of the civil action, there were five (5)
hearings held to address different motion(s) placed before the Court. All five (5) hearing were
held in Hearing Room #746 of the Duval County Unified Courthouse, with the date(s) and
time(s) as provided below:
a) August 24, 2017 @ 12:00 p.m.
b) . June 25, 2018 @ 11:30 a.m.
5
c) . July 10, 2019 @ 10:00 a.m.
d) . October 29, 2019 @ 10:30 a.m.
e) . January 3, 2020 @ 11:45 a.m.
LAWSON appeared in person and Petitioner who is incarcerated appeared telephonically.
The specific details of each hearing is described in “Plaintiff s Statement of Evidence
And / or Proceeding(s),” pursuant to Rule 9.200(b)(5), Fla. R. App. P., [APPENDIX G].
The hearing held on July 10, 2019 is of direct relevance to the Petitioner’s cause for a
Writ of Certiorai, as it was at said hearing that HON. BLAZS, while addressing “Plaintiffs
[Petitioner] Petition For Writ of Replevin,” filed on December 13, 2017, (see, [APPENDIX H],
instructed Petitioner that it would be “more appropriate” to Amend the original Complaint
pursuant to Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P., and add a third (3rd) Count of “Replevin,” pursuant to
§78.01; and §78.19, Fla. Stat. (2018), HON. BLAZS inquired of LAWSON:
“Do you have any objection to Mr. Carter [Petitioner] amending the Complaint to
include a Replevin Court ”
To which LAWSON replied:
“Your Honor, I don’t have any objection, that would be fine. ”
HON. BLAZS instructed the Petitioner to file the Amended Complaint and issued an
Order to that effect on August 21, 2019 [ORDER ON ORE TENUS MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT], [APPENDIX I],
HON. BLAZS then asked both parties if they intended to have a trial, to which both
litigants invoked the right to Jury Trial. HON. BLAZS said:
“I’m going to set this cause for a jury trial to tentatively be on February 3, 2020. ”
6
September 20, 2019, Petitioner filed a timely, pro se “Plaintiffs Amended Complaint For
Damages, Replevin, And Other Statutory Relief.”1 [APPENDIX J] and served LAWSON with a
true and correct copy of same with the Handwritten Inventory [EXHIBIT: G], of the original
Complaint (see, APPENDIX E-2) attached thereto on that same day.
Approximately, Fifty (501 days later, after having received no response, answer, or other
pleading from LAWSON to the Amended Complaint, as is set forth in Rule 1.190(a)
Fla.R.Civ.P.:
“A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within 10 days after service of
the amended pleading unless the Court otherwise orders. ” (emphasis supplied).
on November 14, 2019, Petitioner filed “Plaintiffs Request For Entry Of Default On
Defendant’s Failure To Plead,” pursuant to Rule 1.500(a), Fla. R. Civ. P., but would
subsequently discover that such a Default against LAWSON could not be sought under that
specific Rule due to Counsel GUY filing the initial Answer to the original Complaint. So, on
May 3, 2021, Petitioner did file a timely, pro se “Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgment On
Defendant’s Failure To Plead,” pursuant to Rule 1.500(b), Fla. R. Civ. P, [APPENDIX K], and
therein reiterated to LAWSON the requirement(s) of filing a Responsive Pleading, which
included specific case precedent(s), rule(s), and law(s) directly relevant to this issue.
May 17, 2021 the new presiding Jurist, Honorable Eric C. Roberson
ROBERSON], issued an “ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT.”
[HON.
And
“GRANTED in part” Default as to the critical issue of ‘liability” only against LAWSON, (see,
APPENDIX L).
1 The language used by Petitioner in the Amended Complaint for the Averment(s), [paragraph(s) 1-38
(pages 1 through 6) were quoted verbatim as was stated by Counsel DUNSMORE in the original
Complaint, except for the amount of damages cited in “paragraph 1,” now reflected “exceeding Forty
Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00),” compared to the “Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00)” being sought
in the original Complaint.
7
August 18, 2021, Petitioner sought through “Motion For Final Judgment After Default”
pursuant to Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P., [APPENDIX M-l], with three (3 sworn Affidavits
[Attorney’s Fees; Costs And Expenses; Damages] attached, (see, APPENDIX M-2 to M-4 a
final resolution to the civil cause of action that at that time had been in litigation for more than
seven (7) years.
HON. ROBERSON on September 22, 2021 issued an “ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT,” [APPENDIX O], and therein cited his
reasoning:
“ ...DENIED because the damages at issue are not liquidated damages and would
require the Trier ofFacts2 to determine the amount ofdamages. ” (emphasis supplied).
As the only issue remaining to be adjudicated was / is the amount [value] of the
unliquidated damages, based on LAWSON’s Default, per Rule 1.430(c); and Rule 1.500(b), Fla.
R. Civ. P..
“The trial court was obliged to treat as true all of the complaints well-pleaded
allegations, including those that incorporate attachments and to look no further then the
amended complaint and its attachments. ” (e.s.) Shands Teaching Hosp, and Clinics Inc. v.
Beech St. Corp., 899 So. 2d 1222,1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005),
And not the existence of those damages, to wit:
“The defaulting party admits all well-pled factual allegations of the complaint and is
precluded from contesting the existence of the plaintiff’s claim and liability thereon; ” and, “A
defalt terminates the defending party’s right to further defend except to contest the amount of
unliquidated damages. ” (e.s.) Donohue v. Brightman, Jr., 939 So. 2d 1162, 1164-1165 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2006
Rule 1.110 '(e), Fla. R. Civ. P.: Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading
is required, other than those as to the amount of damages are admitted when not denied in the
responsive pleading. ” (e.s.)
2 At this point in the litigation, “Jury Trial” had been twice invoked. First by LAWSON through Counsel
GUY in the Answer To Complaint, and Secondly, by both parties before HON. BLAZS during the
Hearing on July 10, 2019, requiring the Trier of Fact be a Jury Trial not a Bench Trial.
8
Petitioner included in the mailing envelope of the “Motion For Final Judgment After
Default,” a “Demand For Jury Trial,” dated August 18, 2021, pursuant to Rule 1.430(b), Fla. R.
Civ. P., (see, APPENDIX N), which was mistakenly overlooked by the Honorable Clerk of the
Court as an Exhibit to the aforestated Motion, and as such does not appear on the case’s Progress
Docket.
When Petitioner received the aforementioned “Order Denying Motion For Final
Judgment After Default,” an immediate “Notice For Trial,” [2 day Jury Trial], was filed pursuant
to Rule 1.440(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. on October 1, 2021, [APPENDIX P], being in compliance with
the ten (10) day(s) requirement of Rule 1.430(b), Fla. R. Civ. P..
December 2, 2021, HON. ROBERSON entered a “TRIAL ORDER,” setting the case for
a two (2) day Jury Trial to be held July 25-26, 2022, with a Pretrial Conference set for July 14,
2022, in Hearing Room: 712, Duval County Unified Courthouse, (see, APPENDIX Q), pursuant
to Rule 1.200, Fla. R. Civ. P., which in and of itself supports the Petitioner’s right and invocation
of Jury Trial as properly preserved inviolate per Rule 1.430(a) Fla. R. Civ. P.
There exists Constitutional implications as well, as is cited unambiguously in the Seventh
Amendment, U.S. Constitution:
“In suite of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be
otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States than according
to the rules of common law. ”
February 14, 2022, Petitioner filed a timely, pro se “Motion To Transport,” to facilitate a
transfer from the correctional facility where he was residing [Wakulla Correctional Institution,
Crawfordville, Florida] to the Pretrial Detention Facility [P.D.F.] in Duval County, Florida, for
3 HON. BLAZS had previously set Jury Trial for February 3, 2020, during the Hearing on July 10, 2019,
but said Trial never manifested, possibly due to the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic effecting courts.
9
the purpose of appearing in person for the Pretrial Conference on July 14, 2022, and the two (2)
day Jury Trial, July 25-26, 2022. (see, APPENDIX R).
Petitioner cited multiple mitigating factor(s) and specifically relevant case precedent(s),4
to support the granting of this motion.
April 21, 2022, the current presiding Jurist, Honorable Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr. [HON.
FELTEL] makes his first appearance and judicial act in the Civil cause of action in an “ORDER
DENYING TRANSPORT AND STRICKING CASE FROM TRIAL DOCKET,’ (see
APPENDIX S), and stating therein.
“ ...[T] he matter left for judicial resolution is the amount of damages owed
to Plaintijf As such damages may be proven by affidavit, in the interest of
judicial economy, and in light of the several emergency administrative
orders impacting court operations and the continuing pandemic conditions
requiring prisoners to be quarantined when transported, the Court hereby
STRIKES the case from the pretrial calendar for July 14, 2022 as well as
the jury trial calendar set for July 25, 2022. ” (emphasis supplied)
The “emergency administrative orders” referenced by HON. FELTEL were actually
rescinded by the Florida Supreme Court and terminated on June 21, 2021, and had been for one
(1) year before HON FELTEL’S Order was entered and six (6) months prior to HON.
ROBERSON issuing the “TRIAL ORDER”. See Rules of Court-Volume III (LOCAL) 2021
“2021-11 rCOVID-191 Emergency Operations Measures”
In re: COVID-19 HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTOCOLS AND EMERGENCY
OPERATIONAL MEASURES FOR DUVAL CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS:
* Brown v. Sheriff ofBroward County Jail, 502 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
Burch v. City ofLakeland, 891 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
Heidleberg v. Hammer, 577 F. 2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1978)
Holt v. Pitts, 619 F. 2d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 1980)
Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 284-286, 68 S. Ct. 1049, 1060 92 L. Ed. 1356 (1948) - [28 U.S.C.S.
§272 and §394).
Rogers v. Rogers, 911 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Stone v. Morris, 546 F. 2d 730, 735-736 (7th Cir. 1976)
Waugh v. Waugh, 672 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
10
“WHEREAS, because health conditions have improved in Florida the following 3 administrative
orders will terminate at 12:01 a.m. on June 21, 2021, pursuant to AOSC 21-17:
(1) AOSC 20-23, Amendment 13, In re: Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures For
Florida Trial Courts; (2)AOSC 20-32, Amendment 8 In re: COVID-19 Public Health And Safety
Precautions For Operational Phase Transitions; and (3) AOSC 20-109, Amendment 7, In re:
Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures For Florida Appellate Court’s.” (emphasis
supplied)
“WHEREAS, AOSC 21-17 directed “new protocols shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on
June 21, 2021, and shall remain in effect: ” 1. Effective: June 21, 2021-All rescinded. 2. Phase
2- Rescinded. 3. All Duval County Court operations shall comply with AOSC 21-17. ”: (emphasis
supplied).
May 3, 2022, Petitioner filed a timely, pro se “Motion For Rehearing / Reconsideration,”
pursuant to Rule 1.530(b),(c), Fla. R. Civ. P., [APPENDIX T] and t§herein cited to Florida
Constitution, Article 1, §9 and §22, with relevant case precedent(s)5 directed to the protection
and guarantee of the right to Jury Trial. Especially the holdings of Florida Supreme Court case,
Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 444-445 (Fla. 1990), which states:
“[T]he trial court’s error in permitting a non-jury determination
of damages when the right to jury trial had not been waived was a
mistake of law which must be appealed. ” (holding “permitting a
non-jury determination of damages when right to jury trial had not
been withdrawn with consent ofall parties was error. ”
Id. at 443 (e.s.)
And, contrary to Rule 1.440(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. 6
HON. FELTEL is a Jurist of equal standing and authority as HON. ROBERSON, but there is a
stark contrast in their judicial viewpoints as to the proper procedure for the determination(s) of
“unliquidated damages” as is set forth in Rule 1.500, Fla. R. Civ. P.. As such, on May 17, 2022
5 Barge v. Simeton, 460 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
Bowman v. Kingsland Dev. Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662-663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
DYC Fishing, Ltd. Martinez, 944 So. 2d 461, 462-463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
Haynes v. Arman, 192 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
Izaak Walton Investors, LLC v. Osterle, 51 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
Shasho v. Euro Motor Sports, Inc., 979 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
6 Medcom USA, Inc., v. Ryder Homes and Groves Co., 847 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
Barth v. Florida State Constructors Serv., Inc., 327 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
11
HON. FELTEL issued an “ORDER DENYING REHEARING I RECONSIDERATION,” but
did not state any reasoning for the ruling, (see, APPENDIX U).
August 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a timely, pro se “Plaintiffs Second Motion For Final
Judgment,” pursuant to Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P., and attached thereto three (3) sworn
Affidavits: [Attorney’s Fees; Cost And Expenses; Damages], [APPENDICE(S) V-l TO V-4],
June 6, 2023, After nearly ten (10) months and multiple motion(s) from Petitioner to
address the “Plaintiffs Second Motion For Final Judgment After Default” HON. FELTEL set
the cause for an Evidentiary Hearing to be held on June 26, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., for the express
purpose of taking in evidence and / or testimony(ies) relevant to the determination of the amount
of the unliquidated damages due and owing to Petitioner from LAWSON. The time allotted for
the hearing was ninety (90) minutes, and to be held in the Chambers of HON. FELTEL via
ZOOM video. (see,[ APPENDIX W],
June 26, 2023, HON. FELTEL swore in Petitioner; LAWSON; and two (2) witnesses
called to testify on behalf of Petitioner, to wit: Margie M. Pace, (Power of Attorney, 2012-2021);
and, Mary Schultz, (Power of Attorney, 2021-2024).7
a). Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees: [APPENDIX V-2], Petitioner sought to be reimburse
for the retainer I monies paid to “DUNSMORE & MARSICO Attorneys At Law,” in the amount
of “two thousand dollars ($2,000.00,” who represented Petitioner from December 19, 2013 to
November 13, 2014. HON. FELTEL stated that Petitioner was not entitled to said Attorney’s
fees, but did not elaborate as to the reason why. Petitioner did not pursue the issue any further for
lack of the necessary legal advocacy skills to offer a sufficient and appropriate rebuttal.
7 Petitioner; M. Pace; and M. Schultz appeared via ZOOM video. LAWSON appeared telephonically.
12
b) . Affidavit of Costs And Expenses: [APPENDIX V-3]. HON. FELTEL reviewed this
Affidavit in which Petitioner was seeking reimbursement of monies paid to prosecute the civil
action, to include: filing fee(s); copy expense(s); mailing cost(s); postage and labor totaling “one
thousand, one hundred and thirty dollars and eighteen cents ($1,130.18),” to which HON.
FELTEL remarked:
/
“Ifind these expenses to be reasonable, so I will grant this. ” (e.s.)
c) . Affidavit of Damages (2nd Amended; [APPENDIX Y] Petitioner was asked by HON.
FELTEL as to the breakdown of the Damages being sought, (i.e., Treble Damages), pursuant to
§772.11, Fla. Stat. (2014), with the actual damages alleged in the Amended Complaint listed at:
“forty-three thousand, one hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($43,187.00” making the Treble
Damages potentially worth:” One hundred and twenty-nine thousand, five hundred and sixty-one
dollars ($129,561.00.”
Preiudgment Interests (see, Affidavit of Cost And Expenses -APPENDIX V-3), totaling:
“One thousand, one hundred and thirty dollars and eighteen cents ($1,130,18,” and. “Daily Use
Value” interests, pursuant to §78.01 and §78.19, Fla. Stat. (2014), and with relevant case
precedent(s) addressed to that issue,8 as the personal property and professioinal business property
of Petitioner, being illegally possessed and more importantly “used,” by LAWSON for financial
gain, was / is the “tools of trade” for Petitioner. [Disc Jockey System / Equipment].
Before Petitioner could present these specific case(s) and statutory provision(s)
supporting the Damages being sought, LAWSON spoke up by attempting to suggest mitigating
* Butler v. Mirabelli, 179 So. 2d 868, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
Campos v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 900 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
Hart Land & Cattle Trust Co. v. Reeves Steel Inc., 309 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
Heg, Inc., v. Bay Bank & Trust Co., 591 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
Oala Foundry & Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51, 53 (1905)
13
factors which had not been otherwise substantiated on the record of the above-styled case, in an
effort by LAWSON to minimize his culpability and liability, to which HON. FELTEL said:
“Mr. LAWSON, I’m sorry, but if this is to put before the Court a
defense to Mr. Carter’s Complaint, then I must stop you as that
ship has already sailed. Our purpose today, is to determine
damages only. ”
To which LAWSON replied:
But your Honor, 1 don’t even have a lot of the things he (Petitioner) claims I have. ”
HON. FELTEL stopped the exchange with LAWSON by stating:
“Here’s what I want to do; Mr. LA WSON, I want you to gather
together all of Mr. Carter’s property and submit a written
inventory to this Court, so we can better determine
the
damages may be. ”
Then the Hearing was concluded by HON. FELTEL after only twenty-three (23) minutes, not the
previously allotted time set at ninety (90) minutes.
As it is undisputed by the record of the above-styled cause that LAWSON was / is in
Default for the failure to plead,9 and that the “Amended Complaint” did / does contain an
attached copy of he original Complaint’s Exhibit: G [Handwritten Inventory], see, [APPENDIX
J. PAGE 13] to further support the allegations of Count III, Replevin, of said Amended
Complaint, the law(s) and provision(s) governing Default; Replevin; Jury Trial; Waiver of Jury
Trial; Sufficiency (Complaint); Damages, are all otherwise invoked pursuant to Federal and State
rule(s); statute(s); principle(s); and Legislative Intent(s) prescribed by the Florida and U.S.
Constitution(s), as articulated in compelling case precedent(s) for each area of law category, to
wit:
DEFAULT; Chapter 1.500, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
9 LAWSON as “pro se ” elected by choice to not file even a single page of paper to contest or defend
against the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, resulting in Default.
14
Rule 1.500(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(c), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(d), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ. P.
By the Clerk
By the Court
Right to Plead
Setting Aside Default per Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Final Judgments*
*[Specifically] “If it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or
to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other
matter to enable the Court to enter judgment or to effectuate it, the court may receive affidavits,
make references, or conduct hearings as it deems necessary and shall accord the right of trial by
jury to the parties when required by the Constitution or any statute. ” Rule 1.500(e), Fla. R. Civ.
P. [paragraph: 2] (emphasis added).
Relevant Case Precedents;
Ansel v Kizer, 428 So. 2d 671,672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
Bowers v. Allez, 165 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
Ciotti v. Hubsch, 302 So. 3d 497,499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Ciprian-Escopa v. City of Orlando, 172 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
Donohue v. Brightman, Jr., 939 So. 2d 1162,1164-1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Dunkley Stucco, Inc. v. Progressive American Insurance Co.751 So. 2d 723, (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 944 So. 2d 461,462-463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
Florida Bar v. Porter§, 684 So. 2d 810, 813n,4 (Fla. 1996)
Guirlinger v. Goldome Credit Corp. 593 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes and Groves Co., 847 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F. 3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001)
Santiago v. Mauna Loa Invs. LLC., 189 So. 3d 752, 755-756 (Fla. 2016)
Schneiderman v. Baer, 334 So. 3d 326, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Shands Teaching Hosp, and Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 889 So. 2d 1222, 1224 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2005)
Talucci v. Matthews, 960 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
REPLEVIN §78.01; §78.19, FLORIDA STATUTES
“A ny person whose personal property is wrongfully detained by any other person or
officer may have a writ of replevin to recover said property and any damages sustained by
reason of the wrongful taking or detention as herein provided. §78.01, Fla. Stat. (2014)
(emphasis added)
Relevant Case Precedent(s):
Butler v. Mirabelli, 179 So. 2d 868, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
Campos v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 900 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
15
Christopher Adver. Group, Inc. v. R. & B. Holding Co., 883 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
Foresight Enters v. Leisure Time Properties, 466 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
Glades Oil Co. v. R.A.I. Mgmt. Inc., 510 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
Hanna v. Marin, 49 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 1950)
Hart Land & Cattle Trust Co. v. Reeves Steel, Inc., 309 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
Heg, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co., 591 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
J.B. Int’l, Inc. v. Mega Flight, In., 840 so. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003*
McMurrain v. Fason, 584 So. 2d 1027, 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991
Ocala Foundry & Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51, 53 (1905)
Seymour v. Adams, 638 So. 2d 1044, 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
Weinberg v. Siemens Fin. Servs., 88 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
*”The ordinary action for replevin provides for the recovery of
personal property wrongfully detained by another, together wih
damages sustained by the
wrongful taking or detention. ”
§78.01, Fla. Stat. (1989) see generally 12 Fla. Jur, 2d Conversin
and Replevin §§ 30-73 (1979); J.B. Int’l, Inc. v. Mega Flight, Inc.,
840 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (emphasis supplied).
JURY TRIAL Chapter 1.430, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
"... [Prisoner's have many legal needs unrelated to either
constitutional conditions or the fact of their confinement... It is
both unduly harsh and not conductive to accurate outcomes in
those consequential cases to exempt prisoners from Court access
rights. ”
American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Treatment of Prisoners, P IX;
Commentary at 289 (2010).
Relevant Case Precedent(s)
Am-Optical v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120, 129 (Fla. 2011)
Ansel v. Kizer, 428 so. 2d 671 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
Barge v. Simeton, 460 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
Barth v. Florida State Contractors, Serv., 327 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
Bound v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 72 (1977)
Brown v. Sheriff ofBroward County Jail, 502 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
Burch v. City ofLakeland, 891 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 444-445 (Fla. 1990)
Guirlinger v. Goldome Credit Corp, 593 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
Hanna v. Martin, 49 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 1950)
Hart Land & Cattle Trust Co. v. Reeves Steel, Inc., 309 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
Hawthorne v. Wells, 761 F. 2d 1514, 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)
Haynes v. Arman, 192 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
Heg, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co., 591 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
16
Heidleberg v. Hammer, 577 F. 2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1978)
Hikel v. King, 659 F. Supp. 337, 340 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)
Holt v. Pitts, 619 F. 2d 558,562 (6th Cir. 1980)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503, U.S 1, 15, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992)
Izaak Walton Investors LLC v. Oesterle, 51 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F. 2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1986)
Lashley v. Bowman, 561 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 5th 1990)
Lijebergv. Health Services Acquisition Corp, 486 U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194,
100 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1988)
Liteky v. United States,§ 510 U.S. 540, 114 S. Ct. 1147, L. Ed. 2d 474 (1988)
McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014)
Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 284-286, 68 S. Ct. 1049, 1060 92 L. Ed.
1356(1948)
Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Scull v. State, 596 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 1990)
Shasho v. Euro Motor Sports, Inc., 979 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Stone v. Morris, 546 F. 2d 730, 735-736 (7th Cir. 1976)
Waugh v. Waugh, 672 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
WAIVER of JURY TRIAL: Chapter 1.430(d) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
*Regardless of who makes the demand [jury trial], once made it cannot be
withdrawn without the consent of all parties, “[and]” To constitute a waiver of
the existing demandfor jury trial... there must be affirmative action on the part
of a party; that affirmative action must be a written stipulation or oral
stipulation in open court.” (emphasis supplied).
Relevant Case Precedent(s):
Ansel v. Kizer, 428 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
Barge v. Simeton, 460 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)*
Baron Auctioneer, Inc., v. Bell, 674 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
Barth v. Florida State Constructors, Serv. 327 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 445-445 (Fla. 1990)
Guirlinger v. Goldome Credit Corp. 593 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
Shasho v Euro Motor Sports, Inc., 99 So.«2d 343, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
SUFFICIENCY (COMPLAINT) “Four Corners Rule” [Attachment(s)]
* “When a court determines the sufficiency of a complaint... it applies the so-^fs
called four corners rule ’ in the analysis. Under this rule, the court’s review its
limited to an examination solely of the complaint and is attachments. ”
(emphasis supplied)
17
^Relevant Case Precedent(s):
Am. Optical v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120, 129 (Fla. 2011)
Brewer v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, 720 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1998)
MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan v. Lago, 867 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
Riggins v. Rhodes, 373 So. 3d 655, 659 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
Santiago v. Mauna Loa Invs. LLC., 189 So. 3d 752, 755-756 (Fla. 2016)*
Schneiderman v. Baer, 334 So. 3d 326, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp. 889 So. 2d 1222. 1224
(Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
DAMAGE(S):
* “■■■ [Iffa defendant challenges the severity or even the existence of damages
the common law prescribes that it is a matter for the jury to decide whether there
has in facEeen an injury and damages. ” (emphasis supplied)
Relevant Case Precedent(s):
Am. Optical v. Spiewak, 73 So.3d 120, 129 (Fla. 2011)*
Ansel v. Kizer, 428 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
Bowman v. Kingsland Dev. Inc., 432 So. 2d 660, 662-663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
Butler v. Mirabelli, 179 So. 2d 868, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
Campos v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 900 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
Christopher Adver. Group, Inc. v. R. &B. Holding Co., 883 So. 2d 867
(Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
Ciotti v. Hubsch, 302 So. 3d 497, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Ciprian-Escapa v. City of Orlando, 172 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 444-445 (Fla. 1990)
Dennison v. Dennison, 852 So. 2d 422, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
Donohue v. Brightman, Jr., 939 So. 2d 1162, 1164-1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Dunkley Stucco, Inc. v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 751 So. 2d 723
(Fla. 5” DCA 2000).
DYC Fishing Ltd. v. Martinez, 944 So. 2d 461, 462-463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
Florida Bar v. Porter, 684 So. 2d 810, 813 n.4 (Fla. 1996)
Foresight Enters v. Leisure Time Properties, 466 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
Gate Lands Co. v. Old Porte Vedra Beach Condo, 715 So.2d 1132, 1135
(Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
; Glades Oil Co. v. R.A.I. Mgmt. Inc., 510 so. 2d 1
1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
Guirlinger v. Goldome Credit Corp, 593 so. 2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
Hanna v. Martin, 49 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 1950)
Hart Land & Cattle Trust Co. v. Reeves Steel, Inc., 309 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
Hawthorne v. Wells, 761 F. 2d 1514, 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)
Haynes v. Arman, 192 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
Heg, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co., 591 So. 2d 1011, 1Q13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
J.B. Int’l, Inc. v. Mega Flight, Inc., 840 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
18
Kruger v. Ponton, 6 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
McMurrain v. Fason, 584 So. 2d 1027 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
Md. Cas. Co. v. Fla. Produce Distribs, Inc., 498 So. 2d 1383, 1384
(Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
Meakin v. Dreie§r, 209 So.2d 252, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes and Groves Co., 847 So. 2d 594, 596
(Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
Ocala Foundry & Machine Works v. Lester, 49 Fla. 199, 38 So. 51, 53 (1905)
Ocala Jockey Club, LLC v. Rogers, 981 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
Paulk v. Paulk, 25 So. 3d 672, 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
Seymour v. Adams, 638 So.2d 1044, 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
Talucci v. Matthews, 960 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
Wakenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430, 435-436 (Fla. 1978)
Weinberg v. Siemens Fin. Servs., 88 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Yanofsky v. Isaaks, 277 So. 3d 132, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA §2019)
July 21, 2023 - A “Letter to Judge from Richard LAWSON (with Attachments),” was
filed by LAWSON with the Clerk of the Court [APPENDIX Y]. The contents therein consisted
of four (4) handwritten pages and three (3) printed pages. The four (4) written pages are
LAWSON explaining the “highlighting” he used to identify which item(s)
of Petitioner’s
personal property were still in his (LAWSON’S) possession. Those item(s) are / were so
indicated and descried on the three (3) printed pages which are / were LAWSON’S copy of the
“Affidavit of Damages [2nd Amended]”, (see, APPENDIX X, PGS. 3-5)§
July 24, 2023 - A “Notice of Appearance of Counsel” was filed by E-File with the
Circuit Clerk, for Counsel Manuel T. Moreno [MORENO] P.A., Fla. Bar No: 126345 as
LAWSON’S newly retained legal representative.
April 26, 2024, HON. FELTEL issued an “ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF FINAL
JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT III, REPLEVIN, ONLY.” [APPENDIX B-l§The Order allowed
for only a small portion of the personal property to be replevied from LAWSON to Petitioner,
contrary to the provision(s) and principle(s) of law govefening Replevin and Damages.
19
May 10, 2024 - Petitioner filed a timely, pro se “Motion For Rehearing And New Trial
By Jury,” pursuant to Rule(s) 1.530(b)(c); and 1.430(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. .[APPENDIX Z],
July 23, 2024 - HON. FELTEL issued an “ORDER DENING REHEARING; NEW
TRIAL BY JURY.” [APPENDIX B-2],
August 16, 2024 -Petitioner filed a timely “Notice of Appeal” to the Fifth District Court
of Appeal, State of Florida, Case No: 5D2024-2339 . [APPENDIX AA].
September 9, 2025 - The Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, issued a
DECISION and therein “Per Curiam AFFIRMED,” the Trial Court’s “Final Judgment “ and
“Denial of Rehearing; New Trial By Jury.” [APPENDIX A-l].
October 15, 2025 - Petitioner filed a timely, pro se “Motion For Rehearing En Banc,
Clarification, Certification And Written Opinion,” pursuant to Rule(s) 9.330; 9.331(a), Fla. R.
App. P..[ APPENDIX BB], which was DENIED on November 18, 2§025 [APPENDIX A-2]
December 16, 2025 - Petitioner filed a “Notice To Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction” to
the Supreme Court of Florida.
[APPENDIX CC] Case No: SC2025-2021, which was
DISMISSED by the Supreme Court of Florida on December 19, 2025. [APPENDIX C.]
20
REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Citing to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
“... [N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” (emphasis
added).
Any person? All persons? Anywhere within the jurisdiction of these fifty (50) United States
either individually or collectively?
Under all possible times, conditions, status, and
classifications of persons? In times of Peace and Prosperity, War, Dissention, and Adversity?
Regardless of any self-imposed Ideology; Religion; Politics; Emotional, Mental and / or Physical
standards?
Do demographics, ancestry or heritage play any role in determining if the viability of
“equal protection of the laws” is inherent as a citizen; and in cause and effect lend support to the
Framers of the Constitution’s idea that all person(s); any person qualifies as being eligible to not
only acquire but more importantly also benefit from this promised provision of protection to the
fullest extent of its endowment on and for those who would be most likely to require it?
This cause is of such great public importance to all person(s), any person or a class of
United States citizens who might find themselves displaced from the normal living and thriving
environment of everyday circumstances. There are currently in the United States nearly two
million persons displaced by incarceration. The guilt or innocence of their individual situation(s)
is not now nor ever was intended to be a deciding factor in any other aspect of their
Constitutional protection(s) and / or guarantee(s). For to consider either their incarceration(s) or
the circumstance(s) for which the incarceration(s) exists would most certainly tend to invoke
violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
This Honorable Court has on many occasions made its position on the issue of prisoner’s
constitutional rights adamantly clear:
"'The right to fde for legal redress in the courts is as valuable to a prisoner
as to any other citizen. Indeed, for the prisoner it is more valuable.
Inasmuch as one convicted of a serious crime and imprisoned usually is
divested of the franchise, the right to file a court action stands... as his
most fundamental political right... ” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 15,
21
112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, (1992); Thadeus-X, v. Blatter, 175 F.
3d 378, 390, 1999 FED App. 0088 P(6th Cir. 1999) (en banc);
“First, the Court has made clear that prisoners do not forfeit all
constitutional rights. ” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S. Ct. 2254,
96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987)
Several case precedents) speak to the issue of prisoner’s constitutional rights”
"... [T]he right to meaningful access applies to an inmate’s civil suit. ”
Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F. 2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1986).
"... [R]ighl of access includes the right to bring an ordinary civil case. ”
Hikel v. King, 659 F. Supp. 337, 340 (E.D.N.Y. 1987).
In a cause, such as the one placed before you now, the litigants are basically the same
age, race, demographic background, etc. A plaintiff (Petitioner) and a defendant (Respondent).
The cause of action is relatively simple. Personal property of Petitioner was taken, converted,
used, and depreciated for fifteen (15) years by the Respondent.
Those facts are on the face of the record. The Respondent himself admits to the act, and it’s
stated by the Jurist in the Final Judgment. And Respondent has Defaulted.
But the property is deemed “unliquidated damages,” changing the legal parameters of
what can and / or cannot be done to resolve the dispute to end the lawsuit. And the Respondent
has defaulted by failing to plead and / or stand and defend against the allegations contained in the
Amended Complaint. After nine (9) of the nearly twelve (12) years that the cause of action has
transpired, Respondent chose to not file a single page of defense, resulting in the aforestated
Default as to “liability”.
Yet, despite the Default, or the Replevin being granted in favor of Petitioner, which
should have been for the full compensation set forth by statute(s); rule(s); and principle(s) of law
standards for all persons, any person; the Plaintiff is dealt an under-handing by the Trier of Fact,
22
whose only judicial responsibility was to assess and determine the appropriate amount of the
unliquidated assets.
But instead, the presiding Jurist Honorable Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr., of the Fourth Judicial
Circuit Court, In And For Duval County, Florida chose to concentrate his jurisprudence on the
Petitioner’s incarceration and the underlying circumstances of the convictions that brought about
that incarceration. That resulted in a bias and prejudiced the outcome in assessing the adequacy
of the final judgment. That is Double Jeopardy, as the maximum penalty(ies) permitted by
Florida law, has / have already been rendered against the person (Petitioner) for those
circumstances and convictions. That is why character evidence is inadmissible in a civil action.
To use terminology such as “convicted of certain crimes,
the Department of Corrections
“committed to the custody of
“Serving an extended sentence, ” have absolutely no place in,
and / or any relevance to, a civil action proceeding for the specific purpose of assessing and
rendering damages for the illegal conversion and detention of someone’s personal property. It is
not, nor was not the responsibility or province of the Jurist assigned to resolve a civil dispute on
the sole issue of determining “equitable relief’ for “unliquidated damages,” to use that occasion,
venue and / or judicial responsibility to exact their own personal extra pound of flesh from
someone who is already paying that debt to society for those circumstances and convictions.
Read the “Final Judgment” APPENDIX B-l: “Relevant Procedural History “[page: 1];
then review the “Order Denying Rehearing; New Trial By Jury,” APPENDIX B-2. Consider the
law(s), rule(s), and principle(s) of Default(s); Replevin(s); Jury Trial(s). Both Orders are a
complete departure from the essential requirements of the law and in direct violation(s) of
Amendment(s) V; VII, and XIV of the United States Constitution,
23
The Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida has elected to ignore and I or
disregard the case precedent(s) of their own district, other district(s), federal circuit court(s), and
the very Article(s) of the Florida Constitution by their subornation of the Trial Court’s erroneous
and flagrantly bias Order(s) by refusing to address the issue(s) presented to them by Petitioner,
and thereafter Affirming the Trial Court’s contrary Orders.
“A Court’s inherent power does not permit a court to ignore
existing law, such as a writ of replevin statutes. Courts have the
inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary to
administer justice within the scope of their jurisdiction, subject to
existing laws and constitutional provisions. Rather, inherent power
has to do with the incidents of litigation, control of the court’s
process and procedure, control of the conduct of its officers, and
the preservation of order and decorum with reference to its
proceedings. ” (emphasis supplied).
Weinberg v. Siemens Fin. Serevs, 88 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA
2011); and “z7 is now established beyond doubt that prisoners have
a constitutional right of access to the courts. ” Bound v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 82197 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977).
Any person displaced for any reason could and would most likely face these same
circumstances if the Fifth District Court of Appeal decision is left to stand undisturbed. Any
Person ? That is supposed to include those persons who are incarcerated.
24
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing fact(s), case precedent(s), and Constitutional provision(s), the
Petitioner humbly and respectfully moves this Honorable Court that the Petition For Writ of
Certiorari be GRANTED and that the Decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, State of
Florida, be REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions that a Jury Trial be had by any
means necessary to include Advanced Virtual Technology to insure the protection of the rights of
all parties involved and to preserve the continuity of the Statute(s), Rule(s), and Principle(s) of
Law supported by both the Florida and United States Constitution(s) for All Persons.
Respectfully submitted,
Anthony D?barter, DXLC. #756364
Union Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1000
Raiford, Florida 32083
No.
25
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.