I cannot imagine the supreme court granting certiorari in a case where the legal issues are phrased so poorly. Then, when you read the article, it is clear that: (1) the supreme court denied certiorari in the appellant’s first crack in appealing from the 11th circuit decision; and (2) Those are not the issues at all—the appellant is just asking the supremes to overturn findings of fact by the trial court—something the supremes almost never do (except when a liberal majority decides that findings of fact are inconvenient to a major policy decision they want to make—and then, they just ignore them).
The appellant thinks he can make the supreme court spend it’s time on ill-framed issues that have nothing to do with the case by using a writ of mandate. It will not work.
You do not seem to have any legal knowledge. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are not appeals that get granted or denied. Only 1.1% of the 2009 petitions were granted. The Supreme Court only grants cert if they like the idea that the case may result in an important precedent. My legal issues have not been phrased poorly. I call a spade a spade, and I back up everything with massive uncontroverted evidence and overwhelming case law.
My petitions for writ of mandamus ask The Supreme Court to issue a ruling (which they have to do on mandamus) as to whether judges can void the Constitution. It won’t make the Constitution go away. It is all about the absolute fact that we no longer have Constitutional rights because the names judges don’t care about the Constitution or laws. All of the federal judges in Atlanta need to be impeached and indicted.
Read some of what’s on www.LawlessAmerica.com, and perhaps you will learn a few things.
Here are the legal issues that you said were worded poorly:
1. Whether appellate courts should provide decisions that consist of more than one sentence.
2. Whether federal judges can be allowed to commit perjury, obstruction of justice, and fraud upon the courts.
3. Whether the Constitution guarantees citizens a fair trial and an impartial judge.
4. Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its supervisory powers because the lower courts have departed so far from the accepted and usual course of proceedings.
As the owner/publisher of large magazine publishing companies for 15 years, what exactly was worded poorly? The issues were failure to issue more than one word decision, massive fraud upon and by the courts, and Constitutional violations galore.