# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Williams v. Michigan

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_0896%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 2000
- **Citation:** 529 U.S. 1020

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_0896%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.