Thursday, October 13, 2011

Prov 4:14  "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to anybody."

This is by no means intended to disparage the image of our judicial system in America which happens to be the best around the world.  Instead, it is a solemn call to return to the original quality of justice our forefathers held when they drafted the Constitution, and a call for justice and the appearance of justice for all, as prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Department of Justice, The United States Congress and the Historical and Honorable President of the United States, Barack Obama whose citations are an integral part of this Federal Case.  Plaintiffs hasten to maintain that America is still the best among all countries around the globe with a unique democratic system second to none.  It is further, a democratic system of check-in-balances that purifies itself upon findings of irregularities, inconsistancies and illegalities.  

This is an unprecedented Federal case # 3:06cv95 entailing Real Property, property rights, fundamental and civil rights and whole livelihood lost causing severe injuries in damages and collateral damages (Bankruptcies and foreclosures) to Pro Se plaintiffs while the President of the United States is pushing for jobs creation.  I am your host, Sony Roy and I am a Pro Se plaintiff that has suffered bitterly at the hand of the Walton County for nearly seven years despite all attempts to obtain relief and bring this matter to finality.

This case has been metamorphosed beyond recognition to another style unrecognized by plaintiffs.  In plaintiffs' view, the judicial system has lost its austerity in Florida and plaintiffs have not seen and cannot see the appearance of justice neither justice itself as required by the United States Supreme Court and the Constitution for nearly seven years.  The judicial system has been vitiated in Federal court through misleadings and irregularities in the  proceedings against African American plaintiffs, husband and wife for more than thirty years which forced the whole family to split after being impoverished and loosing their homestaed in the State of Georgia by the unjust actions of the Walton County in Florida.  Pro Se plaintiffs lost their property appraised at $11.3 MM and that was so appealing in its castle-style that the Donald Trump financing division wanted to finance the whole project except that the three consecutive Stop Work Orders (SWO) placed illegally within a twelve-month period and for the same reasons by the Walton County, nullified the property to extinction thus, causing a rippling of collateral damages for plaintiffs.  This happened while plaintiffs were in talks with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the State of Georgia for a possible IPO upon completion of the project and the two years required for approval by the SEC.

Plaintiffs further understand now that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

Just before we begin, we wish to present this simple statistical analysis of FRAUDS UPON THE COURT being a highly popular issue, resulting from an SEO code search as listed, published or alleged in the United States and abroad:   as you can check for yourself here by clicking:  GOOGLE  There are 3,960,000,000.00 (three billion nine hundred sixty millions sites) on Google alone, that address the subject of FRAUDS UPON THE COURT.  In the public view as in the Supreme Court's view this is momentous and highly popular.  Indeed, according to the number of sites on that subject, more than half of the world's population seems o be interested or impacted by that subject.  There is nothing new in what plaintiffs have found here.  Indeed, these stats prove that this is the way to cleanse the system and African American plaintiffs found and alleged ten FRAUDS UPON THE COURT that are germane to the the United States citizenry.

Plaintiffs begin with one of the integral quotes cited repeatedly during these proceedings from the current President of the United States:  . “. . . [t]he empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges. . ." As David Beito and I discussed in this article “African-Americans, the poor, and the politically weak tend to be the biggest victims of government violations of property rights. Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of people - most of them poor minorities - have been forcibly displaced by "blight" and "economic development" condemnations.  The United States President, the Honorable Barack Obama. This article was released by the CATO Institute.  Unfortunately, plaintiffs report back to the President of the United States that, apparently, the court in Florida doesn't think the same way due to their actions.

Plaintiffs went on to cite before the 11th Circuit Appellate Court in December 2010 "The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life,  but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty,  but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty,  is to still leave him a slave."  - George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.   Incidentally, that December Oral argument was termed by the Appellate Scholars in their unpublished opinion, "excellent."

Plaintiffs cited the late former President of the U.S. the Honorable Ronald Reagan who stated "When it comes to property rights, the Government has never been the solution, but the problem."

These citations are among many other great quotes of United States Statesmen and mostly the current President and former Presidents, and as to be expected, from the HIGHEST COURT holding national jurisdiction for good cause over the entire United States as understood by Pro Se plaintiffs.   

On or about September 21, 2011, the African American plaintiffs filed their alleged TEN FRAUDS UPON THE COURT in Florida for what plaintiffs viewed as a Judicial System vitiated by inconsistencies and irregularities that are crippling the system and hindering it from finding justice as exhibited below after nearly seven years of exemplary patience by plaintiffs.  Pro Se plaintiffs in desperate need of relief, respectfully request that the Scholars and Justices of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT enforce the POWERS of the high court to halt the excruciating and torturous pain, hardship, damage and demise of an African American family facing the absence of justice and its appearance while standing with the undaunted courage of factual truths and unwavering evidence.  Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as recognized by the lower court in Florida and the lower court in bankruptcy proceedings and about five foreclosures in court, Plaintiffs' claim of  injustice was acknowledged by the Walton County before plaintiffs went to court, plaintiffs demise and injuries traced to the Walton County's violation was expertly recognized by the Appellate court that came short of reversing the lower court's ruling.  

This case is even more interesting, for the lower court applied the test of Constitutional Standing and the case passed that test, yet the lower court apparently and for some unknown reasons which plaintiffs categorized as FRAUD UPON THE COURT, refused  to obey the rules of the SUPREME COURT as laid down for the public in plaintiffs' view and despite plaintiffs' injuries, the lower court, on September 27, 2011 called the case frivolous as understood in an apparent retaliatory manner.  So plaintiffs are stuck in a legal maze and technical complexity while missing their jobs, livelihood, property, property rights along with their fundamental rights with much mental anguish compounding their injuries.  The intervention of the Supreme Court of the United States is much needed immediately here in Plaintiffs' view.

LEGAL EDUCATION:  What is FRAUD UPON THE COURT?  This question can be best answered by the United States Supreme Court not by untrained minds regardless of competence or legal knowledge.  In Bullock v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."  FRAUD UPON THE COURT as understood by Pro Se plaintiffs,  is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function, thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."  Plaintiffs further understand that FRAUD UPON THE COURT is "when an officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in FRAUD UPON THE COURT in Bulloch v. United States 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).  More over, FRAUD UPON THE COURT has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication."  Kenner v. C.I.R. , 387 F.3d 689 (1968).    Who is an officer of the Court?  Lawyers are officers of the court as understood by plaintiffs.  Federal judges are Judicial Officers of the Court.  There are intrinsic and extrinsic frauds that can be committed by parties and their attorneys as understood by plaintiffs, but, Fraud upon the court can be committed only by lawyers or/and judges respectively officers and judicial officers of the court, not by civilians even in the case of one acting under the power of attorney, as further understood by plaintiffs.    

Now, without further ado, here are the alleged TEN FRAUDS UPON THE COURT in Florida:


This appears to be inoffensive and innocent.  Right? except that it is an alleged crime.

Injury #1)   It is an alleged crime that infiltrates and vitiates everything in this case for that unauthorized appearance was forcing something strange in the judicial machinery meaning, the unauthorized attorney caused the court to agree to bridge the case seamlessly from 2009 to 2011.  And, such behavior changed everything in this case.

Injury #2)  That unauthorized and explosive misrepresentation was prejudicial against plaintiffs who lost control of their case and as though incapacitated, they had other people make decisions for them

Injury #2) The unauthorized attorney intentionally or unintentionally entered a motion on behalf of plaintiffs, agreeing that plaintiffs had lost their property with no recourse, and imperceptibly unbeknownst to plaintiffs. 

Injury #3) The unauthorized attorney agreed for plaintiffs to pay attorney costs after being impoverished by the direct actions of the minor Government in the State of Florida, namely, the Walton County unbeknownst to plaintiffs.  

Injury #4) The system is now vitiated for, the explosive appearance of the withdrawn and terminated lawyer since April 2009, was accepted and acted upon by the court in January 2011 subsequent to a Pro Se Appeal, and after both, the Appeal and the lower courts knew that plaintiffs continued Pro Se.  Plaintiffs view this as prejudicial and an act that vitiates everything.  

Injury #5) This has caused severe mental anguish to plaintiffs as their ex-legal confident, who had refused to sign an integrity questionnaire at the start of the case, is now betraying the trust and the confidence of plaintiffs after his willful withdrawal since April 2009.  That mental anguish was a vexation to plaintiff Sony Roy who had engaged in an explosive conversation with the attorney while demanding a just account of the fact. 

Argument #1) How can any lawyer appear on behalf of a plaintiff that has not retained his or her service for a particular case?  Furthermore, the attorney appeared on behalf of plaintiffs signing to accept defeat and to agree that Plaintiffs must pay attorney costs unbeknownst to plaintiffs.  

Argument #2)  The  Federal Court accepted that as the truth and used it in their judgements and orders in 2011.  Upon plaintiffs knowledge of that fraud, on May 5, 2011, plaintiffs confronted the attorney and informed him squarely that he was terminated since April 2009 not in 2011 and that he was acting without a contract.  In other words, the attorney after withdrawing in writing since April 2009, acted as if he were still the counsel before the court and ended up vitiating the system in plaintiffs pr se views.   Plaintiffs believe that the attorney knew better but, seemed to have been  also under the same UNFORTUNATE CONFUSION as he was jolted by the consequences of what he had done and upon plaintiffs vigorous request.  Furthermore, An Expedient Remedy does not equate prevention.  The court wasted no time in responding on May 6, 2011 after being misguided since January 2011 when the motions representing the plaintiffs began, subsequent to the Appellate process. The Court granted the withdrawal of that attorney on May 6, 2011 who had already done much to vitiate the system.    

Argument #3) How could Plaintiffs appear Pro Se before the Appellate Court while plaintiffs had a contracted attorney?   

Argument #4) Accepting to pay the very people that injured anyone is a sign that the clock is being turned back and that justice is not found nor is it apparent in plaintiffs' view or a sign of servitude.  And, the system was vitiated and caused the consequences to be reversed, with the injured called the offenders and the offenders called the good guys.  

Argument #5)  The lower court called it a matter of win or loose, on September 27, 2011.  However, how can someone loose his fundamental rights, his property rights, his vested rights in proceedings that are flawed with inconsistencies, irregularities and illegalities?

Argument #6)  You may ask, why would someone's attorney work against him or her?  Plaintiffs must yield to the wisdom of the legal Scholars at the Supreme Court for guidance and finality.  However, follow this sequencial case carefully and discover for yourself.

Conclusion:  This is egregious and in defiance to the Supreme Court's ruling requiring an Attorney/Client agreement for representation.   Plaintiffs view this as a two-edged sword that cut their hearts open for further bleeding and pain and cut open also the legal curtain that exposes what was going on behind the veil.  Plainly stated, this does not carry the appearance of justice nor justice to Pro Se plaintiffs, to say the least, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States.   This is outrageous against African American plaintiffs or anybody regardless of their race for that matter, who is injured and lost anything.  Plaintiffs are reiterating the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death."  This does not look like the America plaintiffs were trained to embrace as their homeland.  Plaintiffs hold the proof and the facts on file as given to the lower court.  This continues to hurt plaintiffs to the core including the wife and mother of four involved in this case who was going through her menopause.  Proofs of tort available upon request by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


Summary Judgement has been entered since March 31, 2009 in a sweeping move in favor of all defendants with clearly disputed issues unresolved.  One of them is the fact that the court stated clearly that the County denied having issued a Stop Work Order which the County denied having denied.  Thus it creates a material fact in a property rights and land use case with pre-existing harassment in a historically racially segregated area of Walton County in South Walton.  Both the defendants and the court stated that the issue was irrelevant or not a material fact, plaintiffs are left to ponder and wonder if they are really in the United States.  Now comes the earth-shaking question:  Why is the judge placing irrelevant issues on her order dated March 31, 2009 to close such an unprecedented case where an African American family is loosing more than fifteen million dollars of appraised property?  Plaintiffs do not know and they are saying with the preponderance of evidence at hand, "Give me liberty or give me death" as Patrick Henry spoke so eloquently in 1775"  Proofs of tort available upon request by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


The termination of these final court orders was not only prejudicial to plaintiffs in terms of procedural issues but also in terms of financial loss.  As real estate developers, plaintiffs expected the requested jury trial to be a time when their side of the story would be heard by peers but after scheduling jury trial with final orders, the judge aborted both of them with no explanations to plaintiffs and with contempt for what the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT states.  Those were unfair,  prejudicial and costly to plaintiffs who watched the demise of their livelihood like the hour glass counting to zero.  People that did bad things against the U.S. had their day or will have their day in court, but plaintiffs, tax-paying and hard-working citizens were refused access to the jury trial Due Process they requested.  "Give me liberty or give me death" said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiff Sony Roy.  Life and liberty were promised to us by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Proofs of tort available upon request by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


A major reason for requesting Rule 60 to reopen this case is the fact that new evidences are being dug up again after they were submitted to the then-plaintiffs' attorney during the proceedings and not acted on.  Here is one, a commissioner's involvement and ommission were negated to extinction as NEW EVIDENCE in the case.  The judge dismissed all the commissioners in the Walton County with prejudice while one of them particularly was engaged in inspecting and discussing the case with an attorney who stated that he spent nearly fifteen minutes in conversation with the Commissioner.  Therefore, his testimony was never heard prior to the Summary Judgement and the plaintiffs respectfully requested the application of Rule 60 which was denied, thus, negating further the possible testimony of that commissioner.  That commissioner holds a powerful truth for he was in the position to stop the UNFORTUNATE CONFUSION as found by the Appellate Court.  Plaintiffs understand that "DURA LEX SED LEX"  a latin expression which means the law is hard, but its the law.  Therefore, the law is applicable to all citizens regardless of their ranks.  None is above the law.  The POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT are respectfully requested here to bring order to possible legal chaos as seen by plaintiffs who had never seen the appearance of justice nor justice during these proceedings at all in an unprecented case like this one.  "Give me liberty or give me death" said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiff Sony Roy.  Proofs of tort available upon request by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama, Head of States.


Another reason for requesting Rule 60 to reopen this case is the fact that new evidences are being dug up.  Here is another one: plaintiffs were forced to pay in one lump the sum of $55,000.00 to the Walton County who promised to grant plaintiffs the liberty for recreations on their property.  Which liberty was never granted since the County maintained a Stop Work Order in front of plaintiffs property indefinitely and repeated the same stop work order twice after the first one to indicate their unwillingness to allow Plaintiffs to use their land.  Proofs of tort available upon request by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


The lower court closed the case on March 31, 2009 with the blunt rescission of a Estoppel letter. The Estoppel letter was predicted, it was reviewed, it was investigated, it was signed, it was issued, and later on it was mailed to the wrong address and finally it was rescinded by the Walton County after a mock-appeal by the same person who brought the belated complaint to begin these nefarious acts.  The rescission was visibly for for fear of Estoppel  consequences.  Now, it seems that any Government can give a bad word to the public and they will find another branch to support them one way or another at the expense of the public.  The Appeal Court found something different,  during the month of December 2010, after what the Appeal court calls "Excellent Oral Arguments," the Appeal court issued an unpublished opinion stating "UNFORTUNATE CONFUSION with respect to the initial permission for the wall and later the withdrawal thereof." (not verbatim)  Pro Se plaintiffs understood that to be a violation of their Estoppel rights.  Yet, the Appeal court stated it did not see Racial Segregation and apparently since there was no racial segregation, they also negated the Estoppel Violation.  And, the lower court wants plaintiffs to believe that, this too was OK.  Apparently, it is ok to give a bad word to the public, ok to cause the public to err to their own detriment and then, and it is ok to give Carte Blanche to a minor Government to perpetrate injustice.  The lower Court found nothing wrong with that while the Walton County stated clearly on that ESTOPPEL LETTER that "It would be unjust to deny you permission"  but, later on, they did exactly that.  "Give me liberty or give me death" said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiff Sony Roy.  Proofs of tort available upon request by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


The lower court stated to plaintiffs' understanding that the area of South Walton was "Historically racially segregated" on March 31, 2009 on the order closing the case, thus, indicating pre-existence of racial segregation.
Therefore, plaintiffs entered a place in the U.S. Known by U.S. authorities as a historically racially segregated area and yet not labeled as such to protect citizens from getting burned, meaning getting injured.  The Government may have or may be doing something about that condition now, but, as African Americans, we knew nothing of that pre-existing condition.  Why do we suffer from something that has been sitting there for years and unbeknownst to the public?   The lower court stated the fact, the U.S.census bureau stated the statistical reality, a white woman who approached the plaintiffs subsequent to their purchase of the land made it clear that a black gardener came to work for her one year prior and the neighbors called the cops on the black man.  The previous owners of that property were granted four months to fix a violation while the new owners, African Americans, were stopped completely before the same county obtained a written complaint, thus, violating their Due Process rights.  Plaintiffs view this as a complete paradox.  The lower court found nothing wrong with that.    "Give me liberty or give me death" said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiff Sony Roy. Proofs of tort available upon request by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


The Court negated all TAKINGS CLAIMS in the case and by prolonging the case, contributed to the  exhaustion of  plaintiffs statutes of limitation.  The temporary, Permanent, physical, and regulatory TAKINGS.    Plaintiffs were stopped on May 11, 2005 on or about 4:15 p.m. by two white males in a little white truck who arrived with a Stop Work Order prepared in advance and planted that Stop Work Order on plaintiffs property that nullified the property to extinction.  It should be noted that the property was so valuable at the time that the Donald Trump's financing division was interested to finance Plaintiffs' project.  The stop work orders barred the Donald Trump's Office, the three interested individuals including an African American who had a contract on one of the lots in that development and all future interests in the property.  The case went to Federal Court on or about March 2006 and was sitting dormant in that court until February 6, 2007.  It was only when plaintiffs' real estate broker, the late Deborah Irby, died suddenly in an airplane crash that plaintiffs  vigorously requested that their attorney contact the court ipso facto.  After nearly 379 motions and attorney time sheets, the lower court closed the case by granting Summary Judgement to all the defendants in a sweeping move.  Plaintiffs respectfully request that the POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT be applied to render equitable justice. Proofs of tort available upon request by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


This is a major fraud in plaintiffs view since the Judge scolded plaintiff's party for wasting scarce judicial resources.  Furthermore,  in the case of oversight, Rule 60 is the tool to reopen the case based on the discretion of a willing judge.  Why is there such reluctancy in reopening the case at the first place?  Is there something to hide?  The lower court wasted nearly one year from March 2006 to February 2007 doing nothing in the case and later on, upon Plaintiffs' real estate broker's sudden death in an airplane crash, and upon plaintiffs' insistency that the withdrawn attorney contact the court immediately, the attorney contacted the court and the court apologized in writing quickly (letter on file)  Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiffs.  Proofs of tort available upon request by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, The Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Honorable President Barack Obama.


Plaintiffs filed for Rule 60 reopening for more than one month, seeking MANDATORY RELIEF and the outcome was an all-too-familiar delay while facing Rule 60 with new evidences and proof. This sort of delay is well-acquainted with by plaintiffs, and they  never yielded justice nor the appearance of justice for nearly six years in this case.  Indeed, plaintiffs think of this as a mockery from the defendants who call plaintiffs' injury as described by the lower court, "FRIVOLOUS."   Please, please, give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by Pro Se African American plaintiff Sony Roy.

With this case before the nation, the property rights issues as stated by the 75th Attorney General, Edwin Messey that would become a stronger issue than what was on the docket on 2005, plaintiffs turn with confidence to the highest Court on earth  (in their view) as instructed by their parents at a tender age.  Pro Se plaintiffs are now looking for a legal solution from the POWERS THAT BE after nearly seven years of exemplary patience and under sheer mental agony. Plaintiffs cry out to the highest legal authority, the conscience of America and plaintiffs join the late Patrick Henry on that memorable day to say "Give me liberty or give me death."   Plaintiffs know that leaders like the Honorable and historical President Barack Obama and the first lady will never tolerate anything of that sort with other great leaders like former President William Jefferson Clinton, the distinguished lady Hillary Clinton, Former President Jimmy Carter and the late and former President Ronald Reagan, the former presidents George W. Bush, Father and Son, and all the way back to President Thaft in 1911, they all resisted the temptation of making light of property rights since they understood it to be the heart of the economic force of this nation. Our current President Barack Obama whose quotes are integral part of these proceedings specially now "urges Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to put more people to work, put more money in the pockets of working Americans and give the economy the jolt it needs right now".  (October 8, 2011 excerpts) Yet, down in Florida, it is a different story as they took away our job, our livelihood and our property and property rights.    A Judge has allowed African American property and their jobs to be taken without just compensation, as the Florida 1995 Act demands in the case of TAKINGS such as in here.  Plaintiffs lost all their property at the hands of an unsupervised County left to act according to what they thought was right in their own eyes.  May plaintiffs find favor in the eyes of the high authorities at the Supreme Court that holds jurisdiction over the entire United States and for good cause.  These individuals whose integrity plaintiffs have come to believe immensely in, are capable to handle FRAUDS UPON THE COURT like the Honorables John G. Roberts, Chief Justice,  Samuel Alito, Stephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgElena KaganAnthony KennedyAntonin ScaliaSonia SotomayorClarence Thomas.  

Therefore, before deep involvement of public opinion and not knowing what else to do, plaintiffs are turning to the Supreme Court first for help in the restoration of legal order in our homeland.  

Plaintiffs hasten to point out that what they had suffered in this case so much, they do not wish the same on any body else regardless of race, gender, creed, origin and nationalities.  The current President Barack Obama, whose quotes are integral part of these proceedings specially now as he "urges Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to put more people to work, put more money in the pockets of working Americans and give the economy the jolt it needs right now" (October 8, 2011 excerpts) seems to utter a different command from what plaintiffs are experiencing down in Florida, with a Judge that allowed African American property and their jobs to be taken away without just compensation or any relief as the Florida 1995 Act demands in the case of TAKINGS here and who wants to turn the African American plaintiffs into the offenders instead of the injured.  And, the case has changed, as the fight now is a 1983 racial discrimination as seen on Pacer.  By changing the label, the defendants hope to change the style for a case already carved on concrete.  Plaintiffs lost their property, their property rights, their fundamental rights at the hands of a minor government apparently protected by the Federal court in Florida and as though that was not bad enough, the Federal Judge wants the injured and impoverished plaintiffs to pay for attorney cost.

This is an attempt to change something highly visible meaning Property and property rights violations into something that is highly imperceptible, that is 1983 racial discrimination which was perhaps the reason why plaintiffs suffered hardships but not the what is the hardship in question.  Why would Federal Judges become so impervious with such a wide array of evidence pointing to the cause of that injustice and a wide range of discretionary tools in their hands?  Plaintiffs do not know.  Perhaps, some of the defendants want to lessen  and water down this case like in the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., nobody knows why and it seems that the court is bent on looking at the case only one way to plaintiffs' further hurt and detriment.  The lower Court stated that plaintiffs had Constitutional Standing based on tests that justify the legality of plaintiffs claims.  Once anyone sees those facts, the panorama will begin to shift and clear prejudice as committed by the lower court will emerge with a written apology nearly one year after plaintiffs apply for relief from March 2006 till February 2007.  Plaintiffs do not know why.  Neither can a court correct itself in case of FRAUDS UPON THE COURT.  The intervention of the high court and/or the Congress and/or the DOJ/ and or the Executive Branch would be indispensable,  in plaintiffs' eyes.  

in the compendium put together by the National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and Office of Science and Technology Policy it states that "We can create the jobs and industries of the future by doing what America does best – investing in the creativity and imagination of our people. To win the future, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.  This case apparently, is working in the opposite direction unless redirected by the firm hands of the Supreme Court the Legislative and the Executive, if needed, as time is running out and the lower court continues to operate as though nothing happens.