Petition — Jones v. North Carolina

r

oct 7

CLERK

Office Supreme Court, U.S.

{LED

1983

ALEXANDER L. STEVAS,

No.

In the Supreme Court of the

United States

October Term, 1983

John Meredith Jones, III, et ux

Petitioners,

vs.

The State of North Carolina

and Myrtle Adams Forehand, et al

Respondents,

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit

John Meredith Jones, III

524 W. Bay St. Villas

Winter Garden, Florida 32787

Telephone: (305) 656-5742

Petitioner et ux, Pro Se

October 8, 1983

Drakes Printing & Copy Center Inc., 225 N. Magnolia Ave., Orlando, Florida 32801

(i)

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the Fourth Circuit

have jurisdiction over the rights guaranteed to United

States citizens by the Federal Constitution, and over the

U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina, in the

granting of a Writ of Mandamus for the review and

relocation of a Petition for Removal for an action in the

State Courts of North Carolina, denying these

Petitioners their Cons:itutional rights to due process

with a jury trial in the condemnation ofland grant lands,

belonging entirely to them and other immediate family

members in five equal shares?

hits

(ii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i ON 05.i 5 vines inhi on bees cakxeaee (i)

Cour Cl Ame I ao oli oink ove ees ccicnecd ede l

Grounds on Which Jurisdiction is Invoked ....... 2

Statutory Provisions Involved ..................5. 2

ements OE CT Soca i cet cecevcpencdtoenn 3

Reasons for Granting the Writ ................... 5

1. Petitioners are seeking removal of

lawsuit from North Carolina Courts and

avoidance of the U.S. District Court for

Eastern North Carolina.

2. These Petititioners h-ve had property

taken in violation of U.S. Constitution

and thereby have justicable claim in

Federal Court.

I adh ce aude cade vehewes¥ aeons seen 5

NE ne eva wswinsdiwiee sweden nba Following

: Page 5

ORDER DENYING ©

Motion in Response to Brief by N.C. Court of

Rd. oacheicdwdhed ice botne> Maka raseeE Ss Mbine 1

Il. Motion in Response to Briefand ForaJuryTrial .. 5

III. Memorandum in Support of Motion in Response

to Brief and for Jury Trial ................0004. 7

IV. Dismissa! of Petitions by U.S. Court of Appeals

NEE in) cc avs katenededees didbes 10

V. Petition for Removal and Writ of Mandamus .. ll

VI. Memorandum in Support of Petition for Removal

OU ee OE ID. i625 ci ive whe a hawen o< 14

(iii)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Wissner v. Wissner - 201 P.2, 837, 843, 844

Pennoyer v. Neff - 95 U.S. 733, 34 L.Ed. 565

Zeigler v. Railroad Co. - 58 Ala. 599

Brown v. Levee Com’rs - 50 Misc. 468

Davidson v. New Orleans - 96 U.S. 104, 24 L.Ed. 616

Nebbia v. People of State of New York, NY - 291, U.S. 502

People v. Dugan - 82 N.E. 201, 482, 484, 401, Ill. 442

U.S.C.D. Const. Amend. 7. Ranson v. Stass Milling Co.

DC VT 2 F.R.D. 128, 130, 131

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 41 Fourth Circuit includes North

Carolina and Virginia with others.

28 U.S.C. § 46 Paragraphs (b) and (c) Jurisdiction

established thereby.

48 Circuit location, in Richmond, Virginia.

113 Paragraph (a) Dare County, N.C. is

situated in the U.S. District Court for

Eastern North Carolina

28 U.S.C. § 1651 Writs.

28 U.S.C.

28 U.S.C.

CO? Cr

Miscellaneous

Daniel Webster defined ‘Due Process” as that which

hears before it condems, which proceeds on inquiry and

renders judgment only after trial (in this case a trial by

jury, as stipulated in the Seventh Amendment).

In the Supreme Court of the

United States

October Term, 1983

John Meredith Jones III et ux

Petitioners,

vs.

The State of North Carolina

and Myrtle Adams Forehand et al

Respondents,

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit

COURT OF APPEALS

These Petitioners filed a Petition for Removal and a

Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit on the 18th day of April 1983; seeking the

removal of North Carolina Case No. 79 CVS 225 as

docketed on appeal with assigned No. 821SC1315 from

the North Carolina Superior Court System as filed in

Dare County, North Carolina, situs of the lands subject to

the condemnation proceeding instituted by the Sovereign

State of North Carolina on December 5, 1979. The Writ of

Mandamus was sought concurrently with the Petition for

Removal to avoid altogether the jurisdiction of the U.S.

District Court for Eastern North Carolina due to the

obvious and totally unwarranted prejudice of Chief

Judge Frank Dupree against these Petitioners in his very

detrimental denial of a vital depostion sought for U.S.

Case No. 76-254-Orl-Civ-R. Judge Dupree’s position and

influence on the Court he supervises precludes the

removal of the action to the proper jurisdiction of his

2.

court for adjudication. In the memorandum in support of

these Petitioners’ pleas for Removal and Writ of

Mandamus, they expressed a preference, if their Petition

and Writ are granted, to remove the proceeding to the

U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia, sitting in

Norfolk, Virginia, because of its proximity to Dare

County, North Carolina, and the lands involved. In

declaring that these Petitioners wanted the action below

removed to the Federal Court in Norfolk, the Appellate

panel has misconstrued their pleading entirely. It is their

desire to remove this condemnation lawsuit from the

North Carolina Court System, which has displayed sheer

indifference to the U.S. Constitution in the repeated

denial of due process with a trial by jury, as demanded by

them as their right. And at the same instance, they have

pled to avoid the implicated U.S. District Court for

Eastern North Carolina, that is recognized as being

prejudiced against them. Based on an erroneus

assumption, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit dismissed the Petition for Removal and Writ of

Mandamus, claiming it lacked proper juridiction in this

instance.

GROUNDS ON WHICH JURISDICTION

IS INVOKED

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its

dismissal of these Petitioners’ pleas on July 11, 1983.

This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgement of the

Court of Appeals by Writ of Certiorari pursuant to Title

28 U.S.C. § 1254.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The fifth, seventh and fourteenth Amendments to the

U.S. Constitution guaranteeing that U.S. citizens shall

not be denied property without due process or taken for

public use without just compensation are the

constitutional provisions involved.

> 3.

Additionally Title 28 of the United States code, Section

41, 46 (b) and (c), 48, 113, and 1651 are the statutory

provisions involved.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The jurisdiction of the Federal Courts was invoked

because of the repeated denial of these Petitioners’ U.S.

Constitutional rights, by first one rotating North

Carolina Superior Court judge after another, to a jury

trial in the condemnation of land grant lands dating

from 1897, belonging entirely to them and other

immediate family members. The lands, comprising four

and a fraction acres of sound shore property, adjacent to

the Jockey’s Ridge State Park at Nags Head in Dare

County, North Carolina, with a value greatly in excese of

$10,000, were condemned and arbitrarily divided by the

original Court without a jury trial, as demanded by these

Petitioners. Upon appeal to the North Carolina Court of

Appeals, these Petitioners’ motions for dismissal of the

judgement below and the ordering of a trial by jury were

all denied, whereupon their Petition for Removal and

Writ of Mandamus was filed with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It has been almost four

years since the State of North Carolina filed this

egregious invasion of these Petitioners’ property rights.

Not one cent of compensation has been paid to any of the

lawful owners, while the litigation, stretches on and on,

with the additional denial of these Petitioners’ rights toa

speedy trial. The resident judge accommodated counsel

for certain defendants and the Plaintiff by appointing an

unwarranted Guardian Ad Litem in the Malicious Abuse

of Legal Process to let in additional false claimants to the

lands long after the statutory limit and abritrarily

extended deadline for answering the State’s complaint

had expired. No justice exists in the State of North

Carolina Courts for this case and recognizing this reality

4.

these Petitioners’ are hereby invoking the protection

afforded them by the Federal Courts in upholding their

U.S. Constitutional Rights to the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the pertinent

sanctions of the Fifth and Seventh Amendments,

thereof.

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT

1. The dismissal of the Court of Appeals misconstrued

these Petitioners’ pleading. They are not seeking a trial

by jury in the Norfolk, Virginia, Federal Court, but rather

the removal of the litigation from the North Carolina

Court System into Federal jurisdiction, excluding the

U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina, where

this Pro Se pleader has no standing against members of

the North Carolina Bar. The proximity of the U.S.

District Court for Eastern Virginia lends itself as a

suitable forum for its impartiality and accommodation to

the situs of the case at hand.

2. In dismissing these Petitioners’ pleas, the Appellate

Court is turning its back on the time honored principle

that if property is taken in violation of the U.S.

Constitution, the owners have a justicable claim in the

Federal Courts.

CONCLUSION

The State of North Carolina has filed an eminent

domain action seeking to acquire lands belonging to

these Petitioners’ andimmediate family members. The

North Carolina State Courts have denied these

Petitioners’ demands for due process with a trial by jury

to determine need, ownership and just compensation.

These Petitioners’ have filed a Petition for Removal

simultaneously with a Writ of Mandamus to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, due to the

recognized prejudice against them, existing in the

5.

proper U.S. District Court for this action. For these and

all other Constitutional and statutory reasons cited

herein, a Writ of Certiorari should issue to review the

dismissal of the Fourth Circuit.

Respectfully submit

ohn Meredith Jo

etitioner et ux,

524 W. Bay St. Villas

Winter Garden, Florida 32787

Telephone: (305) 656-5742

October 8, 1983

Appendix

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN RESPONSE TO

BRIEF BY NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Mr. J. Meredith Jones

Mrs. Elvira Jones

524 W. Bay Street Villas

Winter Garden, Florida 32787

Re: State v Forehand, et al

No: 821SC1315

Dear Mr. Jones:

The following order has been entered in the above

referenced case:

“The motion filed in this cause on the 7th day of

February, 1983, and designated Motion in Response to

Brief etc, is denied.

By order of the Court this 16th day of February, 1983.”

Sincerely,

/s/ Francis E. Dail

Clerk

II.

MOTION IN RESPONSE TO BRIEF

AND FOR A JURY TRIAL

First Judicial District

North Carolina Court of Appeals

No. 821SC1315

State of North Carolina

Vv.

J. Meredith Jones et ux, et al

From Dare County, N.C.

No. 79 CVS 225

DEFENDANT - APPELLANT ET UX’S MOTION IN

RESPONSE TO THE BRIEF OF SOUTHHOLD

REALTY CORPORATION AND TO REQUEST

DENIAL OF APPEAL PENDING; DENIAL OF THE

RULINGS OF JUDGES SMALL, WINBERRY AND

BATTLE IN THE CASE; AN INJUCTION AGAINST

FURTHER ADJUDICATION AND ALLOTTED

DISTRIBUTION OR DISBURSEMENT; AND THE

TAKING OF LANDS.

Now comes the defendant - appellant et ux, J. Meredith

Jones, and declares that the testimony of th witnesses

and evidence cited in the brief filed by Southhold Realty

Corporation, an unlawful party to this lawsuit, as result

of the appointment of the unwarranted Guardian Ad

Litem by Judge Small in his Malicious Abuse of Legal

Process, are false and unrelated to the facts.

Now therefore the defendant-appellant states for the

record the following assertions of fact:

1. Frank R. Jones, the younger brother of this

defendant-appellant’s father filed a legal platted claim

for all of the property deeded to W.H. Jones, deceased, by

the Plaintiff's land grant in 1897, with the Register of

Deeds in Dare County in 1936. He filed this claim for the

heirs of his father, John Meredith Jones, brother of

William Hancock Jones, the land grantee. Frank R.

Jones died in 1964 without heirs or the division of the

3.

property in any way whatsoever. He acquired the

property for himself, his siblings and their heirs by

adverse possesion in 1956, nine years before he died. He

did not give the property to Clyde Adams, as was stated

under oath, nor did he instruct his widow to do what dhe

did. The deed form his sisters, Julia Jones Marriner and

Mary Jones Coffield in 1956 was null and void, since the

title by adverse possesion had not been perfected at that

time, contrary to Attorney Chears’ counsel. The deed

from Frank R. Jones’ widow, Clara Dawson Jones, to

Clyde Adams in 1970, was without notice to the other

heirs and contrary to the well established legal procedure

in North Carolina for the division of lands held in joint

tenancy, and is invalid. The claim of Myrtle A. Forehand

to 3/10ths of the lands is without basis in law. At the very

best she was an unauthorized caretaker for the legitimate

heirs/owners, and infact is obligated to them for her

occupancy from 1970 to 1979 without their full knowledge

and/or unanimous consent. Any entitlement to which

she aspired by adverse possesion was not obtainable

prior to 1990 at the earliest based on her own testimony,

and it was estopped by this action.

2. Theclaims of Emma Gardner, Louise Dixon and the

heirs of Helen House are totally devoid of legal merit.

There was animosity between their forebear and her

male siblings (there is proof of this certainty), the land

grantee and his brother John Meredith Jones; and to this

defendant-appellant’s personal knowledge there was

never any challenge,visitations to the lands or claims to

them by any of the Louise Jones Badham’s heirs from

1936, when the legal platted claim was filed by C.S.

Meekins, retired, for Frank R. Jones acting for himself

and his two brothers and four sisters and not for his four

4.

female first cousins once removed. These cousins were

married to a banker, judge, lawyer and college

professor/coach respectively by age, none of whom ever

raised any claim whatsoever for the lands until they

showed up as named defendants in the case below. They

are excluded by adverse possession contrary to Judge

Small’s ruling in one of his acts of Judicial Misfeasance,

as this defendant-appellant claimed in his timely answer

filed on December 2, 1980.

3. Frank R. Jones fully acknowledged and confirmed

the legitimate claims of the rightful owners/heirs,

declared repeatedly in the pleadings of this

defendant/appellant, when he turned the matter of

defending the lands from right of way condemnation by

Dare County of the roadway, which tranverses the entire

land grant (which contradicts the statements in the

appeal pending concerning the totality of the lands at

issue) over to this defendant/appellant, who emploved

Attorneys Allstone J. Stubbs of Durham, N.C. and

Wallace H. McCown of Manteo, N.C. to defeat that

eminent domain actions, which is a matter of record in

Dare County proceedings at the time.

4. This defendanr‘-appellant specifically charges

Judges Bruce, Small and Winberry with Malicious Abuse

of Legal Process and Judicial Misfeasance. Furthermore,

he charges Stephen R. Burch with suborning perjury

from certain of his key witnesses.

5. Southhold Realty Corporation has absolutely no

legal claim on the lands, which the Plaintiff seeks to

acquire by condemnation, as errant as its pursuit of the

statutory procedures has been in this case, whatsoever,

and any claim they may have concocted was defeated in

1956, throu,:)) the adverse possesion entitlement secured

by Frank R. Jones for his siblings’ heirs.

6. The lands belong to this defendant-appellant et ux,

Burton H. Jones, Meredith Webb Jones, William A.

5.

Stewart (sole heir of Anne Jones Stewart, deceased) and

Frances Marriner Ferguson, as has been clearly stated in

all of this party’s pleadings, but so far ignored.

7. The Plaintiff filed the Motion for a Guardian Ad

Litem and Judge Small appointed Attorney Logan in the

Malicious Abuse of Legal Process, confirming his

recuseable prejudice against this defendant-appellant in

ignoring the Affadavit filed with Judge Bruce and the

Court that stated unequivocally that there were no

unknown or unborn heirs of W.H. Jones, deceased, to

warrant such a time consuming and costly appointment.

This attorney is the only one to receive any remuneration

in this sorry proceeding, while his appointment allowed

several unlawful and false claimants into the

proceedings, including the defendant-appellant

Southhold Realty Corproration.

8. There is no legitimate deed from the widow of W.H.

Jones to her second husband. In fact it isimprobable that

she ever formally remarried. For a certainity there are no

valid deeds from any of the John Meredith Jones heirs to

such a party as stated in the appeal pending. Even if they

were they were not presented in time to estop the

entilement acquired by Frank R. Jones for his niece,

nephews and great nephew.

NOW THIS defendant-appellant et ux respectfully

requests this Court of Appeals to throw out all of the

Malicious Abuse of Legal Process that has encumbered

this case, deny the appeal pending and order the Plaintiff

to immediately disburse the deposited funds to the five

legitimate owners declared herein, in equal shares, with

legal interest from the date of deposit; and to order a jury

trial, as requested originally, to determine the need as

questioned by this defendant-appellant and to decide the

fair legitimate market value of the lands, if the taking is

upheld.

Done this the 31st day of January 1983.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ John Meredith Jones III

Defendant-Appellant et ux

524 W. Bay St. Villas

Winter Garden, FL 32787

(305) 656-5742

Witness: Elvira Cheatham Jones

Ill.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN

RESPONCE TO BRIEF AND FOR A JURY TRIAL

First Judicial District

North Carolina Court of Appeals

No. 821SC1315

State of North Carolina

Vv.

J. Meredith Jones et ux, et al

From Dare County, N.C.

No. 79 CVS 225

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT/

APPELLANT ET UX’S MOTION FOR DENIAL OF

APPEAL PENDING AND OTHER REQUESTS.

NOW COMES the defendant-appellant et ux and states

that they are pleading this lawsuit PRO SE because they

have hired two prominent members of the North

Carolina Bar, W.H. McCown of Manteo and Graham M.

Carlton of Salisbury to represent them in this proceeding

and had to discharge both of them for incorrect and

misleading advice. No other competent counsel in the

first judicial district or elsewhere could be found to cope

with the legal/judicial combination that has been

encountered in the Malicious Abuse of Legal Process

perpetrated in this case by the lawyers for certain named

defendants and the pending appeal with the sitting

judges.

The defendant-appellant et ux made four costly trips

from their residence in Florida to Dare County on the

advice of their former counsel, named herein, and

accomplished absolutely nothing. After Judge Bruce

ordered this party from his Court on January 19, 1981

(transcript of hearing on file with Clerk of the Court), and

subsegently failed to act on the Affadavit, presented to

him and filed with the Clerk, to preclude the appointment

of the unwarranted Guardian Ad Litem, it became

8.

obvious that Judicial Misfeasance was beginning to be

practiced. Thus, when Judge Small refused to recuse

himself for his prior injudicious actions against this

party and began afresh his obvious connivance with the

law firm of Pritchett, Cooke and Burch, representing

certain named but illegitimate defendants, while

disallwoing a jury trial to keep the matters at handin his

personal control contrary to this defendant-appellant’s

demand, there was no basis for attending the following

non-jury hearings.

The claim that ownership of lands is a matter solely for

judicial determination without jury, as proffered by the

Plaintiff in one of its lame attempts to substantiate its

errant procedure in this case, is totally without legal

merit or precedent. The law firm of Pritchett, Cooke and

Burch, with the indirect assistance of Judge Small and

the direct ruling of Judge John Webb, had a fee simple

deed for $10. and other valuable consideration drawn by

their firm for a one-half interest in 1747 acres of valuable

farm and timberlands invalidated through the ruse of a

verdict by a barely propertied jury in Windsor, N.C. in

June 1973, in N.C. Case No. 70 CVS 392. The

legal/judicial system appears in North Carolina to work

whichever way the lawyer/judge combination prefers at

the time of a confrontation.

Papers filed by this defendant-appellant et ux in this

case have been eliminated from this record on appeal (as

cited herein) and the lawyers for the pending appeal have

incurred considerable expense to try to impress this

Court with the legitimacy of their fraudulent claim to the

lands belonging to this defendant-appellant et ux and his

immediate kinsmen, named herein and repeatedly

throughout all of his pleadings PRO SE. They must be

worth considerably more than the $250,000. put forth by

Stephen R. Burch for his mixed bag of clients (some

legitimate and some totally unlawful) in their answer,

9.

and of course, confirms the completely inadequate

deposit posted and withheld by the Plaintiff in this

opprobrious action.

For the record again, the lands, all of them in their

original land granted entirety, devoid of any legal

encroachment by anyone whomsoever, belong to the

legitimate owners/heirs, namely: J. Meredith Jones et

ux, Burton H. Jones, Meredith Webb Jones, William A.

Stewart and Frances M. Ferguson, in equal shares.

Respectfully submitted this 3lst day of January 1983.

/s/ John Meredith Jones, III

Defendant-Appellant et ux

(305) 656-5742

10.

IV.

DISMISSAL OF PETITIONS BY U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit

No. 83-1386

In re:

J. Meredith Jones, et ux, Petitioners

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted: June 6, 1983 Decided: July 11, 1983

Before PHILLIPS, MARNAGHAN and CHAPMAN,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

J. Meredith Jones has applied for a writ of mandamus

seeking to remove a civil action from the North Carolina

state courts to the Eastern District of Virginia. Petitions

for removal are to be filed in the appropriate district

court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

Extraordinary writs are not a proper substitute for

available procedures in civil actions. Moreover, filing a

petition for removal in a civil action has the effect of

halting all state court procedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (e).

This Court has no mandamus jurisdiction over courts of

the State of North Carolina. Gurley v. Superior Court

of Mecklenburg County, 411 F. 2d 586 (4th Cir. 1969).

As the Court does not have proper jurisdiction to

entertain a petitionfor a writ of mandamus in this

instance, the petition is dismissed.

V.

PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

United States Court of Appeals

Fourth Circuit

Richmond, Virginia

State of North Carolina

v.

J. Meredith Jones, III et ux, et al

Dave Co. NC Superior Court

Civil Case No. 79 CVS 225

From and

N.C. Court of Appeals

Pending No. 832SC1315

NOW COMES John Meredith Jones, III, a

defendant/appellant et ux, in North Carolina Civil Case

No. 79 CVS 225 in the Superior Court of Dare County,

North Carolina as appealed and now pending in the

North Carolina Court of Appeals with the assigned No.

821SC1315; and declares that injudicial actions inboth of

these jurisdictions have denied these United States

citizens due process under the law as guaranteed by the

United States Constitution in depriving them of property

without a jury trial demanded by them as their right.

Additionally the original Court committed Malicious

Abuse of Legal Process by the actions of apresiding

Judge, which allowed several unlawful parties into the

lawsuit, after he refused to recuse himself as requested by

these petitioners for gross prejudice against them

involving their 18 year old son in a prior hearing. When

the non-jury ruling of another presiding Judge was

appealed by one of the unlawful parties cited above, the

Appellate Panel ruled against Motions by these

petitioners for denial of the appeal, restoration of the

proceeding to a jury trial, and the recusal or removal of

12.

one of its members, who is not only prejudiced against

these petitioners as evidenced by the gross injustice he

handed them in North Carolina Case No. 70 CVS 392, but

he ignored and invalidated the time honored legal

principle of stare decisis by refurming a deed in fee

simple belonging to these petitioners to condone the

trespass of more than a million dollars worth of

stumpage STOLEN by the corporate adversary in the

case.

It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the case in

question as appealed be removed from the North

Carolina State Courts to Federal jurisdiction, as provided

under U.S.C. § 1332 and 1441 et. seq. These petitioners are

natural United States citizens and residents of the State

of Florida with their principal address at 524 W. Bay St.

Villas, Winter Garden, Florida; while the plaintiff in the

case is the sovereign State of North Carolina with all but

one of the other parties claiming to be citizens of North

Carolina. The amount involved in this controversy

exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and these

petitioners have complied with all time requirements in

the case below and as appealed. These petitioners

are able, to post whatever minimum surety bond that

may be required, pay all necessary filing fees, and to

diligently comply with all other Federal rules as they are

instructed, including the filing of a copy of all process,

pleadings and orders served upon them when so notified.

NOW THEREFORE this Petition for Removal is

submitted as joined with a Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit. The United States District Court for the

District of Eastern North Carolina, where the property in

the controversy is located, is unable to provide an

impartial forum for these petitioners. The Chief Judge of

the District Court has clearly evidenced his complete

prejudice against them by his entirely adverse ruling ona

13.

requested depostion of an attorney /deponent witness

vital to their prosecution of U.S. Case No. 76-254-Orl-

Civ-R. Even if this Jurist recused himself, his position

and influence on the Court precludes justice for these

petitioners in his jurisdiction.

This Petition for Removal and Writ of Mandamus is

respectfully submitted this 15th day of April 1983.

Most sincerely yours,

/s/ John Meredith Jones, III, Pro Se

Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner

524 W. Bay St. Villas

Winter Garden, FL 32787

(305) 656-5742

Witness: /s/ Elvira C. Jones (Spouse)

14.

VI.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR

REMOVAL & WRIT OF MANDAMUS

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit

Richmond, Virginia

State of North Carolina

v.

J. Meredith Jones et ux, et al.

Dare C. NC Superior Court

Civil Case No. 79 CVS 225

From

N.C. Court of Appeals

Pending No. 821SC1315

Docket No. 83-1386

NOW COMES the Petitioner et ux, JOHN MEREDITH

JONES, III, and declares the attached lower court

documents and appeals court papers will show that on

December 5, 1979, the State of North Carolina filed an

eminent domain action seeking to reacquire certain

lands situated in DareCounty, North Carolina,belonging

to these Petitioners and others named among the

Defendants and unnamed in the Complaint. A

Declaration of Taking and Notice of Deposit with a

Twelve Months’ Summons for Relief, as required by N.C

statute, also were filed simultaneously. On December 2,

1980, well within the prescribed time, these Petitioners

filed their answer, including two unnamed owners,

Frances M. Ferguson and William A. Stewart, and two of

the named Defendants, Burton H. Jones and Meredith W.

Jones, declaring their ownership to the exclusion of all

other parties named or undisclosed by heritage and

legally recognized adverse possesion. In this Answer it

was specifically requested that failing dismissal that all

issues such as authority, necessity, ownership and

15.

damages for taking be tried by a jury. This right under

the due process ciause of th United States Constitution

has been denied completely by the several judges hearing

the case in the lower court and the judgment rendered, as

appealed, was without a jury; likewise the appellate

panel has denied these Petitioners’ motion to restore the

case to a jury trial.

On February 2, 1981, fifty-nine days after the

expiration of the Twelve Months Summons for Relief, the

Plaintiff State of North Carolina filed a Motion for the

Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, and on April 1, 1981,

these Petitioners filed in the court and hand delivered to

the presiding judge an Affidavit stating unequivocally

that all of the parties with an ownership interest in the

property involved in the action were properly before the

court, thereby precluding the unwarranted appointment.

This Affidavit prepared and presented on the advice of

competent counsel was ignored and on July 1, 1981, a

Guardian Ad Litem was appointed by the presiding

resident judge, in the initial accommodating act of

Malicious Abuse of Legal Process, to void both the

statutory and abitrarily extended dates for default in

filing lawful answers. All parties brought into the case

after May 21, 1981, are unlawful and their presence is the

result of gross misfeasance by the judiciary involved.

In anticipation of prejudice and injustice, these

Petitioners on June 15, 1981, prior to the appointment of

the unnecessary Guardian Ad Litem, who subsequently

loaded the action with unlawful parties on second

thoughts and recanted testimony, filed a Motion for

Resident Judge J. Herbert Small to Recuse Himself or be

Removed based on his previous injustice cited in the

Motion (it was gross).As expected Judge Small on July 9,

1981, three weeks after he was requested to step down and

one week after he initiated Malicious Abuse of Legal

Process with his Guardian Ad Litem appointment,

16.

denied these Petitioners’ Motion for recusal and

proceeded to conduct nonjury hearings, as evidenced by

his two additional orders issued on that date and his final

non-jury adjudication of October 1, 1981, in which these

Petitioners were denied their lawful interest in the

property as claimed in their timely Answer without a jury

or their appearance at any of the non-jury assemblies,

which were unrelated to due process in any sense of the

principle.

As these injudicial proceedings continued adversely to

these Petitioners’ rights guaranteed by the U.S.

Constitution, they filed on Novermber 12, 1981, a Motion

for Relief and Disbursement of the deposited funds,

which was ignored. And upon notice of the scheduling of

a non-jury trial these Petitioners filed on the second

anniversary of their ititial receipt of the Complaint on

February 22, 1980, (un-officially forwarded to them by

one of the other lawful and named Defendants, who was

served properly) a Motion for Jury Trial and Exc!usion of

Unlawful Parties.

On June 1, 1982, a non-jury trial was convened and the

Judgment handed down by the presiding judge

confirmed and continued Judge Small’s denial of these

Petitioners’ lawful ownership of the property involved

without any semblance of due process.

These Petitioners gave notice of appeal and upon the

filing of a brief by one of the unlawful parties let into the

case by the Malicious Abuse of Legal Process cited

herein, they filed with the Appeals Court a Motion in

response to the Brief and for a Denial of the Appeal

Pending again requesting specifically that the appellate

panel restore the case to a jury trial as originally pleaded

and as is these Petitioners’ right as United States citizens

abiding as they do under the Federal Constitution. This

Motion was denied as advised by the Clerk of the Court

on the February 16, 1983, as was the subsequent Motion

17.

for one of the Appellate judges to recuse himself or be

removed and all of the record in which he participated be

expunged, as noticed by Clerk Dail on March 10, 1983.

NOW THEREFORE these Petitioners believe that the

Plaintiff, State of North Carolina, has clearly displayed

its disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the sanctity of

its own legal instruments by its wanton conduct of this

eminent domain action in which four of its native sons

and a daughter with their spouses and heirs are being

denied their lawful interests in an ancestral landgrant

from that state, secured for them solely by direct

inheritance and legally recognized adverse possesion of

immediate family members,including and for the benefit

of these Petitiooners, without due process of any

description. This grossly prosecuted action was

deliberately instituted and rendered unConstitutional by

the Plaintiff, which has declared itself against due

process and encourages a mockery of it whenever

allowed, (as in N.C. Case No. 70 CVS 392.) with the

accommodating Malicious Abuse of Legal Process cited

herein. It is hereby respectfully requested that this U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remove this

action in its entirety from all North Carolina courts at

every level and place it in a suitable Federal Jurisdiction.

Since the U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina

headed by Chief Judge Frank T. Dupree, Jr. is completely

prejudiced against these Petitioners as evidenced by his

denial of a vital depostion of A.A. Zollicoffer, Jr., Esquire

in U.S. Case No. 76-254-Orl-Civ-R and recorded in the

official file for that case on August 15, 16, 17 and

especially 25, 1978, also September 18, 20, and 21, 1978,

with his position and influence on the Court being such to

preclude impartiality and justice in that jurisdiction

wherein the property is situated; these Petitioners greatly

prefer the removal of the case to the U.S. District Court

for Eastern Virginia sitting in Norfolk, Virginia, 118

18.

miles closer to the landgranted property than is Raleigh,

North Carolina.

As stated in Title 28, U.S.C.A. § 1651, the Courts

established by the Congress are authorized to issue all

necessary writs, but the Writ of Mandamus has been

abolished in the District Courts. A Writ of Mandamus

has been considered appropriate and granted for

Condemnation Proceedings, such as this case at hand.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Meredith Jones, III

Petitioner et ux, Pro Se

524 W. Bay St. Villas

Winter Garden, FL 32787

(305) 656-5742