Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Williams v. Michigan

F l i I. D

B9T2 13 Nov 17 1999

OFFICE OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STS4E

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

CARL WILLIAMS & HASSAN ALEEM

Petitioners

Vv.

STATE OF MICHIGAN; CONRAD

MALLETT, Michigan Supreme Court Chief

Justice, VERA MASSEY JONES, Recorder’s

Court Chief Judge CANNDICE S. Miller,

Secretary of State of Michigan.

Respondents

PETITION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DISTRICT COURT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Pro se Petitioners

Carl Williams & Hassan Aleem

P.O. Box 07457,

Detroit, Michigan 48207

(313) 923-8222 or 276-9177

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether the local and appeal courts deprivation

of hearing and adjudication on injunction and summary

Judgment violated 14" Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States and Civil Right

Statute?

The Appeal Court has said...............No

AINE os socio sen ces civ ecs ocxens ce OR

The Respondents say.....................No

Whether the court erred when the Michigan

State legislature, failed to meet or comply with Article

VI Section 1 and Article XII Section 1Constitu-

tionally 2/3 required vote and referendum to

petitioners and 80% 85% Black/Afro American,

Detroit Citizens, violate the 14 Amendment of the

Constitution of the United State and Civil Right

Statutes, when they past House Bill 5158 and Joint

Resolution S & T, known as Public Act 374 of 1996?

(See exhibit F Appendix F)

The Appeal Court has said ......... No

The Petitioners said .................Yes

Respondents said .....................No

Whether the lower and appeal courts erred and

misused and abused it’s authority, when they dismissed

petitioner’s complaint that, was contrary to and Con-

flicted with the United State Supreme Court precedents

and the Standards of review goveming Fed. R.Civ. P.

Rule 8?

LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Pursuant to Rule 14.1(b) of Supreme Court

Rules Carl Williams and Hassan Aleem hereby

identifies those persons, Associations of persons, or

other entities that are, or may be Interested in the

outcome of this case. Parties to this Petition:

Carl Williams & Hassan Aleem

Plaintiff/Petitioner

STATE OF MICHIGAN;

CONRAD MALLETT,

Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice,

VERA MASSEY JONES,

Recorder’s Court Chief Judge

CANNDICE S. Miller,

Secretary of the State of Michigan.

Defendants- Appellees

Additional interest Parties not a party to the

suit:

NAACP

Legal Department

2990 E Grand Blvd

Detroit, Michigan

Amnesty International

322 eight Avenue

New York New York 10001

Nathanniel Abraham

c/o Jeffery Fieger

19390 W. 10 Mile

Southield, Michigan

Discrimination Committee

4201 Connecticut Ave N.W.

Suite 300

Washington D.C. 20008

ae in

Sonn indnbyintchs v0 Rng tis ‘Site ta Bas Wade os “

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented

List of Interested Parties

Table of Contents

Table of cited Authorities

Opinion Below

Statement of

Jurisdiction

Statutory Provision

Involved

Statement of the Case

Argument

Question No. |

Question No. 2

Reason for Granting

the Petition

CONCLUSION

vi

APPENDIX A 1, APP-A

APPENDIX B 6, 14,APP-B

APPENDIX C 7 C1, 7, APP-C

APPENDIX D 7, 8,12,14,15, 16, APP-D

APPENDIX E 8, 15, 17, APP-E (1) (2)

APPENDIX F 11, 13, A-F

APPENDIX G

LETTER TO JUSTICE JOHN

PAUL STEVEN A-G

Vii

TABLE OFAUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442,

447.

Davis by Davis v. Jellico

Community Hosp., Inc., 912

F .2d 129, 136 (6th Cir. 1990).

Estell v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

106 (1976);

Enertech Elec., Inc, v. Mahoning

County Comm’rs, 85 F.3d 257,

259 (6” Cir.1996).

Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108,

110 (6" Cir.1991).

Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149

F. 3d 413, 423, 6" Cir. 1998).

PAGE

2, 19,

APP A-7

APP A-5

APP A-4

APP A-5

APP A-6

Vili

Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908

( 1* Cir. 1993), cert. Denied,

511 US. 1034 (1994). APP A-4

Mooney v. Holohan 294 U.S.103

113 2, 19,

Mayo v. Lakeland Highland.

Canning Co 309 US. 310 9

Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225,

32 L Ed 2d 705, 92 S Ct 2151. 10

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45,

52, 66. 2,19,

Roger v. Alabama, 192 US. 226,

231. 2, 19,

Simons v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d

1248, 1253 (7'" Cir. 1983). APP A-6

Thompson v. American Home

Assure. Co., 95 F.3d 429, 433

(6" Cir. 1996). APP A-6

Untied v. Corrick 298 U.S. 435, 9

Wells v. Brown, 891 F. 2d

591, 594 (6" Cir. 1989) APP A-5

ix

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

PAGE

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a). APP-A-2, A-5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b). APP-A-2

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 60 (b). 14, APP A- 4, A-6, A-7.

FEDERAL RULE OF APPEALATE

PROCEDURE

Fed. R. App P.34(a) APP-A-2

SIX CIRCUIT COURT RULE

Six Circuit Court

Rule 34 (j) (1). APP A-2

Six Circuit Court Rule

34 j (2) APP A-7

X

Six Circuit Rule 206 APP A-1

MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION

Article 1 section 2 3

Article 1 section 3 3

Article IV Section 1 8,

Article IV Section 2 12

Article IV Section 15 18, APP-F

Article IV Section 17 4,7, 14,

Article IV Section18 7,

Article IV section 29 i, 81, 18,

Article VI Section 1 4 8,11, 15,16,19

Article VI Section 15 18,

Article XI Section 1 20

Article XII Section | 4,13,15, 16,19,

MICHIGAN STATE STATUTE

MICHIGAN COMPLIED LAW

600.2118 a 7, 12, 14, APP-B

xi

UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION

Article V 4-5

1* Amendment 1, 4, 5, 21,

5" Amendment l

7” Amendment l

14 Amendment 1,2, 5, 18, 19,

xi

FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHT STATUTES

42 USCS 1981 l

42USCS 1983 1,9, 10,

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT STATUTE

28 USC 1651 |

JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE

28 USC 1253 l

28 USC 1254 l

Nw

28 USC 1201 (a) (b)

CONGRESSIONAL ACTS

AND OTHERS

House Bill 5158 and joint

Resolution S&T, known

as. Public act 374 of 1966 11, 13, APP-F

Michigan Senate Journal 7, 12,14, APP-A-C

MICHIGAN STATE

BAR JOURNAL +

|

:

:

OPINION BELOW

The United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit has not issued an opinion at this time. A copy

of the unpublished opinion is included in Appendix

A-17.

The petitioners filed a reconsideration and the

unpublished opinion of the of the United States Court

of Appeal included in Appendix A-8-9

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS

This matter is brought before this Honorable

Court under 42 U.S.C.(1981) & (1983) of the Civil

Right Acts of 1871, 28 U.S.C. 1651, 28 USC 1253

and 1254 from three judge District Court on

injunction and interlocutory appeal and the 14™

Sth and 7” AMENDMENT OF UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION and in the petition

2

for Certiorari, pursuant to USC 28 1201 (a) and (b).

The Supreme Court has long established

that the 14 Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States governs any action of a state,

“whether through its Legislature, through its

Courts, or through its Executive or administrative

officers.” In Mooney v. Holohan 294 U.S.103,

113, citing, Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442, 447;

Roger v. Alabama, 192 U.S. 226, 233, 234, Also

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 52, 66.

3

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

INVOLVED

Michigan State Constitution-

Article 1 Section 2: No person shall be denied

Equal protection of the law: nor shall any person be denied

the enjoyment of his civil or political Right or be

discriminated against in the exercise Thereof because of

religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall

implement these section by appropriate legislation.

Article 1 Section 3: The people have the

right peaceable to assemble, to consult for the

common good, to instruct their representative and

to petition the government for redress of

grievances.

4

Article V1Section 1: The judicial power of

the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which

shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of

appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the

circuit court, and courts of limited jurisdiction that the

legisature may establish by a two-third vote of the members

elected to and serving in each house.

Article X11 Section 1: Amendment to this

constitution may be proposed in the senate or house of

representatives. Proposed amendment agreed to by two-

third of the members elected to and serving in each house

on a vote with the names and vote of those voting entered in

the respective journals shall be submitted, not less than

60days thereafter, to the electors at the next general election

or special election as the legislature shall direct. If a

majority of electors voting on a proposed amendment

approve the visions of the constitution at the end of 45

daysafter the date of

the election at which it was approved.

Constitution of United States-

Article V: The Congress, whenever two

third of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall

propose Amendment to this Constitution, or on the

Application of the Legislatures of two third of the

several States, shall call a Convention for propos-

ing Amendment, which, in either case, shall

be valid to all intents and a purposes, as part of

inn | gre A Gt casey

4

i

|

;

3

4

:

a4

ij

3

5

this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislature of

three fourths of the several states, or Convent- ions in

three fourths thereof, as the one or other mode of

ratification may be proposed by the

Congress;

1" AMENDMENT: Congress shall make

no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting. The free exercise thereof, or abridging

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right

of the people peaceably to assemble, and to peti- tion

the Government for a redress of grie-

vances.

14° AMENDMENT: All persons born or

naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United

States and of the State wherein they reside. No

State shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of property,

without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Carl B. Williams and Hassan Aleem filed

suite, against the State of Michigan, because the

Michigan State Legislature abolished Recorder's

and Probate Courts and establish a new family

court contrary to and in violation of the Michigan

State and the United Constitution.

This case was initially assigned to Judge

Duggan by the blind draw system. Judge Avern Cohn

had the case transfer to his docket because he

apparently believe one of the litigants was a Palestinian

or Arab and showed over-whelming prejudice by

dismissing the case without a hearing and/or jury trial,

as a matter of right

2

4

j

4

i

i

-

Petitioner's present prima facie evidences as

described by the Michigan State Statute MCL

600.2113. See exhibit B attached to Original complaint

in appendix B.

We further submitted the Michigan Senate

Journal that showed they only received 23 yeas, not

enough to legally past the bill on page 1545

See Appendix C (1), as exhibit A attached to original

complaint. Article 1V Section 17 and 18 of Michigan

State Constitution. See Appendix C(2)

Petitioners has submitted an article in the legal

advocator written by Honorable Judge Richard Kuhn,

whom stated they didn’t get the 2/3 vote and the

procedure violated the Constitution and deprived

Wayne County voters of their right to elect new judge

See D (1) in appendix D as exhibit E in original

complaint

8

Petitioner’s has presented an article in

Michigan State Bar Journal on court Reorganization

written by John F. Langs, in 1966, that stated “ the

Legislature shall establish a court or courts of limited

jurisdiction with power and jurisdiction defined by

law.”

Such legislation must be adopted by 2/3 vote

of both the House and the Senate(Art VI. Sec 1). See

appendix D (2).

Petitioners has also submitted two newspaper

articles, by one of the respondent, former Supreme

Court Judge Conrad L. Mallett Jr., that call for a

Constitutional Amendment on the reorganization of

recorder court and probate court. See exhibit E in

appendix E.

9

Judge marse Avern Cohn dismissed our case

and order the clerk not to accept any other pleading

from us or in other word nigguh, don’t come back to

my court.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Question No. 1:

The lower Courts abused it’s discretion and

authority, when they deprived petitioners their rights to

a hearing on injunction, contrary to the United States

Supreme Court precedent. See Untied State v.

Corrick 298 U.S. 435, Mayo v. Lakeland Highland

Canning Co 309 U.S. 310.

The purpose of the Federal Civil Statute

(42 USCS Section 1983) authorizing action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress of deprivation, under color of sate law, of

10

rights secured by Federal Constitution and Federal

laws, 1s to interpose federal courts between state and

people, as guardians of people’s federal nghts, and

thus to protect people from unconstitutional action be

executive, legislature, or judicial; in carrying out this

purpose, congress by expressly authorizing suit in

equity as one of means of redress, has plainly

authorized federal courts to issue injunctions in

Section 1983 actions. Mitchum v. Foster (1972) 407

US 225, 32 L Ed 2d &705, 92 S Ct 2151.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

Question No.2

This case was originally brought to the court because

the Michigan State Legislature failed to mustard the

Constitutional 2/3 vote and a referendum, to create or

abolish a Constitutional created court, pursuant to

11

Article IV Section 29, Article VI Section 1, Article

Xll Section 1 of the Michigan State Constitution.

(1)The House Joint Resolution “S” and“T” as

introduced September 27, 1995, known Public Act 374

of 1996, on pages 2 of 17, 3 of 17 and 5 of 18 appendix

F

Currently, the state constitution vests the

judicial power of the state “exclusively in one court of

justice,” which is divided into “one supreme court, one

court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction

known as the circuit court one probate court, and

courts of limited jurisdiction” established by the

legislature by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members

elected to and serving in each house (Article VI,

Section 1).

The Michigan State Constitution Article VI

Section 1 states in the pertinent part that

12

“the Legislature may establish a court by two-third

(2/3) vote of the members elected to and Serving in

each house. “Article IV Section 2 states “The senate

shall consist of 38 members to be elected from single

member district at the same election as the governor

for four-year concurrent with the term of office of the

govemor.”

Petitioners have submitted to the court in their

complaint Exhibit A copy of the Michigan Senate

Journal enter as appendix D (2).

Petitioners submitted the senate journal as

statutory evidence Pursuant, to M.C.L. 600.211 8a(3)

Revise Judicature Act, that showed evincing the

senate only had 23yeas. There are 38 senator members

elected and serving in senate in accordance to Article

1V Section 2 and 2/3 of 38 is 25.33 and round off to

6 Constitutional required votes.

13

Because we are dealing with human being and not just

statistic 3/5 of a person is suppose to be outlaw, so 33

become rounded off, as a whole number, whole person

or vote, nevertheless to say, if you drop the 33 and left

it at 25, you still do not met the constitutional

requirement with 23 yeas.

(1) The Joint House Bill 5158 “S’ and “T”

also state it would amend the Constitution on pagelof

The Michigan State Legislature failed to adhere or

follow Article XII Section 1, which state pertinent

part “ Proposed Amendments agreed to by two-third of

the members elected to and serving in each house on a

vote with the names and vote of those voting entered in

the respective journals.”

14

The lower courts has overlooked or misappre-

hended four essentials point and has failed to discuss or

elaborate on them in their Order, (a) The Michigan

Legislature did not received the Constitution -al two

third (2/3) vote in the senate that 1s supported by

“Prima Facie Evidence” of Michigan Senate

Journal, as defined by the Michigan Statute

600.2118a (3),supported by Article IV Section 17 of

the Constitution of the State of Michigan shown as

exhibit A & B of original complaint.

The article wrote by Oakland County

Judge, Richard Kuhn, in the Legal advocator as exhibit

E 2 of original complaint enclosed as Appendix D(1)

and D(2) as early as 1966 by attomey John F Lang in

the Michigan State Bar Journal

4

i

7

4

:

i

3

15

The most compelling evidence is the defend-

ant, formal Supreme Court Judge Conrad Mallett Jr.

call for a constitutional amendment to complete the

bill in the Michigan Chronicle in July 22, 1997, and in

the Detroit, newspapers December 5, 1997, attached to

Rule60 b motion, newly discovered evidence and

submitted as Appendix E(1).

Therefore, not only Article VI Section 1 was violated

but also Article XII Section 1 for not receiving the

two-third constitutional amendment vote

(2) The bill also stated “The legislature can

create, alter, or discontinue circuit court circuits, and

can create or alter probate court districts of more than

one county if the yoters in the affected counties

approve on pages 3 of | 7and Sof 18

16

The referendum for the 80%to85 %Black/Afro

American Detroit residents was support by exhibit E 2

of 2 of the original complaint and also as exhibit E of L

in the correction joint appendix in the appeal court

case 98-1560, where Judge Richard Kuhn, Oakland

County 6" Circuit Court wrote an article in The

Legal Advocator that stated “quoted in part:”

Legislation failed to get the required 2/3 vote,

it passed the Law, even though this, procedure

violated the Constitution and deprived, Wayne

County voters of their right to elect new

judges. See Appendix

D (1)

The defendant-appellees, Michigan Supreme

Court Chief Justice, Conrad Mallett wrote in his new

paper articles calling for a Constitutional Amendment

to complete the reorganization of recorder’s court bill.

17

Because the Constitution requires a Probate Court.

Quoted in part (See exhibit G of Appeal Case no. 98-

1560) and Appendix E (1)

“to expand the jurisdiction in each

county to allow all family issues to be

provided by at least one judge elected

exclusively by the voters of each

county.”

How can the judge or judges on one hand

talk about judge elected exclusively by the voters

of each county and on the other disenfranchise

80°%to85%Black/Afro American voters to

approve or reject a constitutional amendment

The controversy is whether the Legislature

received the Constitutional required two-third (2/3)

vote and the 80% to 85% Black/Afro American

18

registered voters denied the right to vote on an issue

that only affects the residents of Wayne County on a

separate trial court for Detroit.

This case is unusual and exceptional for two

reasons(1) is the fact that the State Legislature would

deceive the people with fraudulent intent and violate

the constitutional mandate of 2/3 vote for constitutional

amendment of Probate and Recorders Court. Then

depriving and denying the resident of Wayne County,

especially Detroit resident the right to vote on a issue,

that only affect Wayne County that is a local act. The

court never met its constitutional mandate to decide

whether this bill was a general act or local, as required

by Article 1V Section 29 and Article V1 Section 15

of the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963.

i

§

5

,

®

é

19

The Michigan State Legislature has violated

Article VI Section 1 and 15, Article XII Section 1

because they did not mustard the 2/3 vote and failed to

direct a referendum to the electors not less than 60

days, thereafter, which is a throwback from Supreme

Court Ruling in Mooney v. Holohan supra, citing,

Carter v. Texas supra; Roger v. Alabama, Also

Powell v. Alabama, supra. Where the courts

established the 14" Amendment governs any action of

a state, “whether through its Legislature, through its

Courts, or through its Executive or administrative

officers.”

The case cited above only had one

constitutional violation where here their multiple

violation of the constitution by the State Legislature

and the Courts that is a state action within the preview

20

of the 14" Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States

When the Supreme Court in It's wisdom

established state action under the 14" Amendment in

their early rulings racism was blatant and running wild

but the judges found the moral character and courage

to up help and protect the Constitution despite the

unpopular ruling.

This case is directly analogous to the U.S

Senate removing President Clinton with out the

Constitutional 2/3 vote of the Senate.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This Case is a matter of great public interest,

that involved a class of citizen's constitutional rights to

approve or reyect a bill

21

When petitioners applied for relief the lower

court's decisions, denied petitioners to redress the

government for grievances, that conflicted with the

standing, Supreme Court precedent, the standard of

review present to the courts by the petitioners and the

respondents and, the constitutional 1" Amendment

rights of the petitioners to redress the government for

grievances

Petitioners have no other remedy at law to seek

relief, when the state violate it own state laws. and

Constitution in order to suppress and curtain the right

of black/Afro American to exercise our first (1%)

Amendment right to redress the government for

grievances, the only recourse is the United State

Supreme Court

22

CONCLUSION

This case excel beyond just the rights of

petitioners, but the abuse and misuse of power of state

officials to change the procedure of the way a bill or

laws are pass and to usurp the rights of the people

rights to approve or reject an Amendment to the

Constitution of the State of Michigan and the right to

redress the government for grievance.

The Lower and Appeal Court made a decision

in conflict with the Supreme Court precedent and has

departed from the accepted and usual course of

judicial proceedings

23

The Lower Court and the Appeal Court

refused to answer an important question of State and

Federal law that has not been, but should be settled

by this Court.

WHEREFORE, and the foregoing reason

petitioners pray that this honorable court grant appeal

as a matter of right or in alternative grant Certiorari

Sincerely Submitted,

Carl Williams & Hassan Aleem

P.O. Box 07457

Detroit, Michigan 48207

| @

Date: January 13, 2000

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A-1

98-1560/1772

District Court No. 97-75103

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Carl B. Williams; Hassan Aleem

Plaintiff-Appellants,

Le

STATE OF MICHIGAN, CONRAD

MALLETT, Michigan Supreme Court Chief

Justice, VERA MASSEY JONES,

Recorder’s Court Chief Judge CANNDICE S. Miller,

Secretary of State of Michigan.

Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: MERRITT, KENNEDY, and SILER,

Circuit Judges.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR

FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Sixth Circuit Rule 206 limit citation to specific situation

Please see Rule 206 before citing in a proceeding in a court

In the sixth circuit. If cited, a copy must be served on other parties

and the court.

This notice is to be prominently displayed if this decision

is reproduced.

ORDER

APPENDIX A-2

Carl B. Willams and Hassan Aleem,

Michigan resident proceeding pro se, appeal two

district court judgments. In case No. 98-1560, they

appeal an order denying their motion to alter, vacate, or

amend the judgement dismissing their action for failure

to comply with Fed R Civ P. 8 (a)

In case No. 98-1772, they appeal an order

denying their motion for relief from judgement. This

case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant

to Rule 34()) (I), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon

examination, this panel Unanimously agrees that oral

argument is not needed Fed R. App P. 34 (a)

Williams and Aleem filed a complaint in

October 1997 challenging a bill passed by the

Michigan legislature. They alleged that the

APPENDIX A-3

legislature violated provisions of Michigan and feder-

al statutory and constitutional law because tt abolished

the Detroit Recorder's Court without a two-third

majority vote

The defendants-the State of Michigan, the

Supreme Court Chief Justice, two lower judges, and

the Michigan Secretary of State-filed motions to dis-

miss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6). Williams and

Aleem filed a response. By order entered March 5,

1998. the district court dismissed the action for failure

to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a), and declined

jurisdiction over any state law claims. The

district court denied all of Williams and Aleem’s

motions for post-judgment relief

In their timely appeals, Williams and Aleem argue

APPENDIX A-4

that the district court: (1) should have considered the

merit of their challenge to the Michigan act, and (2)

should not have denied their Rule 60 (b) motion.

We note that the plaintiffs have not argued

on appeal that the district court erred by dismissing in

their state law claims. Issues raised in district yet not

raised on appeal are considered abandoned and are not

reviewed on appeal. See Enertech Elec., Inc, v.

Mahoning County Comm’rs, 85 F.3d 257, 259 (6" Cir

1996) Upon review, we conclude that the district

court did not comply with Rule 8 (a). See Kuehl v.

FDIC, 8 F.3d 905, 908 ( 1" Cir. 1993), cert. Denied,

511 U.S. 1034 (1994). Williams and Aleem pleaded

Jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and various federal

statutes.

APPENDIX A-5

However, the gist of their complaint was that

the Michigan constitution. Even assuming these

allegations to be true, the plaintiffs did not present any

federal claim against these defendants. Court construe

pro se complaints liberally. See, e.g., Estell v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Jourdan v. Jabe,

951 F.2d 108, 110 (6" Cir. 1991).

However, Williams's and Aleem’s complaint

did not contain even the minimum requirements of a

short and plain statement” of the grounds for jurisdic-

tion, a claim showing entitlement to relief, or a

demand for judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a); Wells

v. Brown, 891 F. 2d 591, 594 (6™ Cir. 1989).

APPENDIX A-6

We also conclude that he district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying William’s and

Aleem’s Rule 60 (b) motion and motion to

reconsider the denial. See Thompson v.

American Home Assur. Co., 95 F.3d 429, 433

(6 Cir. 1996).

They did not present any newly discovered evi-

dence See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (2), Good v.

Ohio Edison Co., 149 F. 3d 413, 423,(6" Cir.

1998).

They did not show clear and convincing

evidence of fraud or other misconduct by an

adverse party. See Fed.R. Civ.P. 60 (b) (3),

Simons v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d 1248, 1253 97°"

Cir. 1983).

APPENDIX A-7

Finally Williams and Aleem did not show an other

extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6);Davis by

Davis v. Jellico Community Hosp., Inc., 912 F

.2d 129, 136 (6th Cir 1990).

Accordingly, the district court’s order

dismissing the complaint and the order denying

the Rule 60 (b) motion are affirmed. RULE

34(j)(2)(C), Rules of Sixth Circuit

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Clerk

- =

APPENDIX A-8

OPINIONS

98-1560/1772

District Court No. 97-75103

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Carl B. Williams, Hassan Aleem

Plaintiff- Appellants,

a

STATE OF MICHIGAN; CONRAD MALLETT, Michigan

Supreme Court Chief Justice, VERA MASSEY JONES,

Recorder’s Court Chief Judge CANNDICE S. Miller,

Secretary of State of Michigan.

Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: MERRITT, KENNEDY, and SILER. Circuit

Judges.

The court having received a petition for

rehearing en banc, and the petition having been

circulated not only to original panel members but

also to all other active judges of this court, and

no judge of this court having requested a vote on

APPENDIX A-9

the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petition

for rehearing has been referred to the original

panel

The panel has further reviewed the petition

for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised

in the petition were fully considered upon the

original submission and decision of the case.

Accordingly, the petition is denied

ENTERED BY ORDER OF COURT

Leonard Green, Clerk

APPENDIX B

EVIDENCE STATUTE 600.2113

Constitution, laws, resolutions of state as

evidence Sec. 2113. The printed copies of the

constitution, laws and resolutions of this state,

whether of a public or private nature, which

shall be published under the authority of the

government, shall be admitted as sufficient

evidence thereof in all courts, and all

proceedings within this state

APPENDIX C (1)

No. 58

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Journal of the Senate

88" Legislature

REGULAR SESSION OF 1996

No. 58 1545

Sec. 401. This act shall not take effect unless House Bill

No. 5158 of the 88" Legislature is enacted into law.

Terry Geiger

Timothy L

Walberg

Nick Ciaramitaro

Conferees for the House

Pending the order that, under joint rule 9, the conference

report be laid over one day,

Senator De Grow move that the rule be suspended.

The motion prevailed.

The question being on the adoption of conference report, the

senators voted as follows:

Roll Call No 664 Yeas-23

Bennett DeGrow Koivissto Schuettte

Bouchard Dingell McManus Shugars

Bullard Dunaskiss Miller Stel

Carl Emmons North Stille

Cisky Gast Posthumus Van Regenmor

DeBeaussaert Hoffman Rogers

Nays-12

Berryman Conroy Peter Stallings

Byrum Hart Smith Vaughn

Cherry O’Brien Smith Youngs

Excused-3

Geake Gougeon Schwarz

Not Voting-0

Berryman

The first conference report was adopted, a majority of the

Senators serving having voted therefor

APPENDIX C (2)

MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 17 STATES:

Each house of the legislature may establish the

committees necessary for the efficient conduct of its

business and the Legislature may create joint

committees. On all actions on Bills and resolutions in

each committee, names and vote Of member shall be

recorded. Such vote shall be available for public

inspection. Notice of all committee hearing and a shall

be published in journal in advance of the hearing

Article IV Section STATES:

Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and

publish the same unless the public security otherwise

requires. The record of the vote and name of the

members of either house voting on any question shall

be entered in the journal at the request of one-fifth of

the members present. Any member of either house may

dissent from and protest against any act proceeding or

resolution which he injurious to any person or the

public, and have the reason for his dissent entered in

journal.

APPENDIX D (1)

THE LEGAL ADVOCATOR

September 1997 Volume Issue 4

Abolishing Recorder’s Court Page 9

Abolishing Recorder’s Court wasn't

by the constitutional book

For example, the Legislature recently

wanted to abolish Recorder’s Court, a court with

jurisdiction over felony cases in the City of

Detroit, create new judgeships in the Wayne

County Circuit Court, and transform the Record- er’s

Court judges into Wayne County Circuit

Court judges. Since the 1963 Michigan Constitu-

tion provides that Election, and that Wayne must

file new judgeships County voters are entitled to

elect Wayne County Circuit Court judges, the

Legislature attempted to get a 2/3 vote to Amend

the Constitution to allow this legislation and other

Court reform legislation. When the Legislature

failed to get the required 2/3 vote, it passed the

law, even though this procedure violated the

Constitution and deprived, Wayne County voters

of their right to elect new judges.

Judge Richard Kuhn is a presiding Judge

in The Oakland County 6" Circuit Court.

APPENDIX D (2)

MICHIGAN STATE BAR JOURNAL

December 1966 Volume XLV No. 12

CONTENTS

Report of Joint Committee on Court Reorganization

John F. SE oc v csccvanyeacn ers ena meaask is rk OO

REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE

ON COURT REORGANIZATION

Under the Michigan Constitution it 1s provided that the

offices of “circuit court commissioner and justice of the

peace are abolished,” effective December 31, 1968, (Art.

VI, Sec. 26 ). In the same action, it is required that “the

Legislature shall establish a court or courts of limited

jurisdiction with powers and jurisdiction defined by law.”

Such legislation must be adopted by a 2/3 vote of both the

House and the Senate (Art. VI, Sec. 1)

APPENDIX E (1)

July 22, 1997 Michigan Chronicle

By Michigan Supreme Court Chief

Justice Conrad L. Mallett Jr.

Frequently asked questions about a

constitutional merger of the Circuit and

Probate Courts

Why do we need a constitutional amendment? We

need the amendment to finish the creation of the family

court as a division of the circuit court by shifting

juvenile cases from the probate court into

the Circuit Court. Because the Constitution

requires a Probate Court, however, the judges of

the Probate Court remain in the Probate Court

and must be assigned into the circuit court to help

handle the work of family court. Furthermore, not all

the cases involving family could be shifted into the

Circuit Court. As a result will estates, guardian-ships

and conservatorship remain in Probate Court. To put

all these family- related cases and the judges required

to hear hem in the same court requires a Constitutional

Amendment

APPENDIX E (2)

December 5, 1997 Detroit Free

Press

FAMILY COURTS

Lawmakers should resist cluttering up a good ideal

In Wayne County the creation of the family court will

coincide with court Appeal disappearance of

Recorder’s Court. The merger of Recorder’s and

Circuit Courts here is pretty much in place. That they

have adapted with such apparent smoothness to the

controversial new order forced on them by the

Legislature is a tribute to the direction by the State

Supreme Court and everyone else concerned.

One piece of housekeeping remains in the

creation of the family courts statewide. That the need

to amend the state Constitution to merge probate courts

into circuit courts and to provide that every county,

even the east populous, elects at least one judge from

within its boundaries.

As the Legislature drafts the amendment to be

put on the ballot, restraint and simplicity ought to be

the rule. Most law makers have a page full of ideal on

how to improve court torts or the criminal justice

system,- some excellent, some awful. Keep in line of

the Constitution.

APPENDIX F

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 5158 AND

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION “S” AND “T’,

KNOWN AS PUBLIC ACT 374 OF 1996

Current State Court configuration. Currently, the state

constitution vests the judicial power of the state

“exclusively in one court of justice,” which 1s divided into

“one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of

general jurisdiction known as the circuit court one probate

court, and courts, and courts of limited jurisdiction”

established by the legislature by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of

the members elected to and serving in each house (Article

IV, Section 1). The court of appeals currently is divided

into four districts, with the number of appellate judges

having grown from nine to 28 since 1963. Under the

constitution, the circuit court is divided into judicial circuits

along county lines (Article VI, Section II), as are probate

court districts (Article IV, Section 15). The legislature can

create, alter, or discontinue circuit courts, and can create or

alter probate court districts of more than one county if the

voters in the affected counties approve.

The two-third (2/3) requirement two abolish

Recorder’s and Probate Courts and to establish or create a

new family court with the approval of the voters in the

affected counties is emphasized through out this bill on

pages 2 of 17, 30f 17 and 5 of 18 of this bill.

APPENDIX G(1)

November 9, 1999

Supreme Court of the United States

C/o Honorable John Paul Stevenson

1 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20543

Justice Stevenson:

This letter and petition is addressed to you due,

to you are the superior judge over the Six District

Courts and the Court Clerk, Williams K. Suter, clerk

by Jeffrey Atkin sent a letter returning our request for

extension of time for jurisdictional statement, as a

matter of right, pursuant to 28 USC 1253.

On August 19, 1999, petitioners filed their

notice of Appeal and approximately, September 3,

1999 wrote and called requesting a copy of the rules

On September 15, 1999, the court received our Motion

for Extension of time for jurisdictional statement

A timely appeal on September 20, 1999,

petitioners sent by priority Mail in accordance to Rule

29 jurisdictional statement and the court received it on

September 24, 1999, and was returned September 30,

1999, with a copy of the rules.

(2)

However, the jurisdictional statement was returned for

not complying with the rules, stating we only can file a

timely petition for Writ of Certiorari within 90 days

under rule 13.

According, to Rule 30 an extension of time

other than for certiorari may be presented in the form

of a letter, although we presented our extension in

form of a metion because the letter form is not

mandatory and we was unaware at that time.

The Supreme Court Practice state only the

original signed copy need be filed with the clerk and

81/2 x11 paper and no fee is payable to the clerk. Rule

21 states an original and ten (10) copies are required

and we complied with those requirements.

Nevertheless, to say the motion for extension of time

was not returned until October 18, 1999, alleging we

didn’t comply with the rule but failed to stated which

tule we didn’t comply with for the extension of time, if

any.

The court clerk has violated Rules Enabling

Act 28 USC 2072 that states:

Such ruled shall not abridge, enlarge or modify

any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such

rules shall be of no further force or effect after such

rules have taken effect.

3

:

4

q

;

,

(3)

The fact the court clerk with held our motion

for extension of time with out any certain rule that

petitioners violated deny us as a matter of right to

redress the government for grievance.

The creation of 36 District Courts Wayne,

Oakland, Macomb and Kent Counties are divided into

division for election purposes so as to give

local communities within these counties an

opportunity to elect judges of their own choice.

(See petition exhibit D2 page 8 paragraph 5)

The reason for reorganization of the court

system of recorder and probate court was racially

motivated. The crux of the matter is whether

intentionally or inadvertently the consequence

resulted in the invidious discrimination against

City of Detroit population of 80% to 85% Black

and/or Afro-American. Due to the Michigan State

Legislature failure to follow and comply with the

fundamental principle of 2/3 vote to amend,

change or alter the Constitution in any or fashion. This

principle is guarantee by the Article Five of the

Constitution of the United States and Article X11

Section | of the Constitution of the State of Michigan.

(4)

The Federal District Court Judge Aver Cohn and

the six circuit court of Appeal Judge Siler, have

conspired to discriminate and retaliate against the

petitioners in the exercise of their 1“ and 14"

Amendment Right. Because Judge Cohn though one of

the petitioners (Hassan Aleem) was a Palestinian or

Arab

While Judge Siler, retaliate against petitioners for

filling complaints against Michigan Federal District

Court Judge Zackoff, for violating Michigan Blind

Draw System and illegally granting Larry Nevers

convicted murder a frivolous and defective writ of

Habeus Corpus, where he sat on the panel to cleanse

Zackoff of his misdeed.

The judge have should recuse himself or step down

from making a decision on this case to prevent the

appearance of prejudice in violation of Code of Judicial

conduct Canon 3 “ A Judge should perform the duties of his

office impartially and Diligently.” Judge Siler may have

influence the other two judges. (See exhibit B)

Petitioners also filed complaint against Norma

Holliway Johnson of Federal Court of District of Columbia

and the three judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeal:

David Sentelle, Paul Fay, and John Butzner.

The D.C. Judges illegally sanction and expanded

special prosecutor, Kent Starr authority to investigate non-

government officials 1.e. Mrs Hilarry Clinton and Moncia

Lewinsky, who is not cover under 28 U.S.C. 591 (See Page

4 of exhibit A.)

(5)

Nathanneil Abraham was the youngest person

charged with murder in this country and was held in

jail two years in violation of his right to speedy trial

Little does the Amnesty Internat- ional knows, that

they are right on target. The

Oakland County Family Court is an illegal project

of the Michigan Legislature, wherein, the legisla- ture

fail to get requisite 2/3 vote (26) of (38)

senators of the Michigan Senate

Conversely, the republican control U.S. Senate

didn’t get requisite 2/3 vote in the trial attempt to

convict and remove President Clinton. Where as when

the Michigan Senate did not get the 2/3 vote and they

past a law any way, ie. this is legislature terrorism of

the first magnitude.

Black fork and other minority's rights are

of no consequence when it comes to this govern- ment

and the courts. Nude dancing is held to a higher

standard than the rights of human being,

thus a basic Human Rights violations as well

This case transcend beyond just racism. this

goes to the very core of the fundamental

principle of our govern by people in a democratic

society to a blatant fascist oligarchy form of

government

Sincerely submitted,

Cu Munn Z A Ann.

Carl Williams & wo _Z Aleem

P.O. Box 07457

Detroit, Michigan 48207

(313) 923-8222 or 276-9177

cc: Arab American Anti Discrimination Ledge

United Nation

Human Right Commission

Amnesty International