The lower Appeal’s Court refused to provide a written ruling, Klayman appealed but his notice is now interpreted as a petition for writ of mandamus… Of course, Klayman’s filings failed to meet the requirements for such a petition.
Petitioner’s notice [of appeal], filed in this Court on March 12, 2013, has been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking reinstatement of the proceedings in the district court of appeal below [1D12-3489]. Petitioner is allowed to and including April 29, 2013, in which to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus; that complies with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, addressing why the proceedings in the district court of appeal should not have been dismissed. The failure to file a proper petition with this Court within the time provided could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to reinstatement.
Since Klayman has filed various cases in Florida, it’s time to unravel which one is which:
The supreme court case: Case Number: SC13-560 Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D12-3489, 2012-CA-00467
Klayman was of course ‘outraged’ by the lower Court’s affirmance and pulled out ‘all stops’
Filed 2/28/2012. The criminals are trying to shut me down at the Fla. Appeals level by issuing a “per curium affirmance” of the lower court, which basically allows the Fla. judiciary to shut down dissent by issuing no written opinion– thus there is no basis for appeal. Florida rule of Appellate procedure 9.330(a) allows for a motion for a written opinion under strict guidlines (which I have followed to a T) [Or so he claims…].
As far as I can tell Klayman forgot this part of rule 9:330
A response may be served within 10 days of service of the motion. When a decision is entered without opinion, and a party believes that a written opinion would provide a legitimate basis for supreme court review, the motion may include a request that the court issue a written opinion. If such a request is made by an attorney, it shall include the following statement:
I express a belief, based upon a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that a written opinion will provide a legitimate basis for supreme court review because (state with specificity the reasons why the supreme court would be likely to grant review if an opinion were written).
(Name of party)
(address and phone number)
(Florida Bar number)
Of course, it is a petition to rehear and the Court can just deny to do so. Given that they ruled the issue moot, I doubt that there was much of a compelling reason to write an opinion that could be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
This motion will solidify my cause of action all the way to the Supreme Court. If they do not issue a written opinion I will appeal directly there. If they do issue a written opinion, then I can use that opinion to appeal to the Fla. Supreme Court. They are in a quandry, as I caught Judge Terry Lewis in a very big lie, and their written opinion will have to approve of that lie— that Florida election statutes do not apply to presidential elections [It’s not a lie, Judge Terry Lewis was speaking about the primary elections]—The FloridaSupreme Court ruled in 2000 that they SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY do apply (Palm Beach Co. Canvassing v. Harris (2000)). As such I have a constitutional complaint that the Florida judiciary has violated my due process and equal protection rights, as well as violating their own laws and the Federal law of US Code 3 section 5, by not adjudicating my case with finality (which in Florida is viewed as a judgment by the district appealscourt) by 6 days prior to the meeting of electors. The appeals court had my appeal in July, yet they waited till 2 months after the meeting of electors to dispense of my case.
To understand why Klayman failed, read Appendix A, which contains the ruling by Judge Lewis.
Why Klayman filed an appeal with the FL Supreme Court is beyond me as there was no written opinion.