IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. : 6:23-cv-01351 STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY, in his capacity as a taxpaying citizen of the State of Florida and The United States, Plaintiff, v. OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA surviving change in officeholder, known as "The Governor's Office", Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz or Whoever Answers to the OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, Defendants. _______________________________________/ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Questions Presented: Does Florida have a right to use perjury in criminal trials without penalty, regulation, or deterrence? Or do defendants, taxpaying citizens, and this Court have a right to some measure of deterrence, some enforcement of laws during criminal prosecutions, as part of enumerated due process, unenumerated or traditional rights, and this Court's jurisdiction? Do court officers have a responsibility as gatekeepers to keep lies out of court, and can material information about that, and about the occurrence and regulation of state-witness perjury - the pattern of informal arrangements and incentives to lie and tell the truth - be hidden from jurors? Must jurors be told if it is not their job not to weigh evidence, but to detect what are possibly lies? Is the appropriate appellate question "Was the state able to produce a liar which we can blame the jury for believing?" Or is the appropriate appellate question "Was the defendant protected with whatever process was due to stop the state producing liars and hiding this likelihood from the jury?" Is there a right in the United States to have the state prosecute state-witness lies in the courtroom, rather than use them to subvert courts? Does any party believing a defendant is guilty, vitiate the obligations of court officers to reduce lying in proportion as it happens rather than as the public demands? Does blocking liars have historical precedent? Is a remedy due for the uncured problem of state witnesses lying without fear of penalty in Florida? COMPLAINT Comes now the undersigned Plaintiff Stephen Lynch Murray, with this request to declare illegal and enjoin the State of Florida from holding criminal trials, or spending taxpayer money enforcing criminal-law orders, that violate enumerated and enumerated rights and the jurisdiction of this Court by the standardized use of undeterred perjury, and hiding the non-deterrence of perjury from the jury, until such illegal practices are cured with the following remedies: i) Establish a confident regulatory framework and compliance system (paper and people like the SEC) to guarantee the reporting and prosecution of perjury, to protect rights, traditions, and this Court's jurisdiction as to law and fact, and ii) Establish standards and rules to produce and provide "legally visible" information and instruction to defense and jurors, to use true information and remove prejudices material to weighing the credibility of state witnesses, or iii) Amend the United States Constitution so we can lock up those the local majority factions deem undesirable without a jury trial, but do so out in the open with public oversight, not behind a facade in a black market. It really should not be that complicated to stop the State of Florida from using lies to subvert courts and convict the innocent, or be honest and amend the Constitution if we really want concentration camps. (construe as request not averment) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE CASE 6 HISTORICAL PATTERN - TRIBAL QUORUM AND BLACK-MARKET JUSTICE Collectivism over rights and law is the historical problem solved by courts. 8 DUE PROCESS IS A HISTORICAL MANDATE TO CURE Process is overdue. FACTS OF THE CASE 10 DISCRETION USED TO UNDERMINE LAW Florida uses perjury to replace law with executive-branch power. 13 EMPIRICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF UNIVERSAL LAW Examples illustrate a standard process of perjury making a mockery of courts. 15 William Dillon Case 16 Crosley Green Case 20 Bryon Aven Case 24 James Mulrenin Case Facts 33 Plaintiff Accused of Premeditating His Own Murder 38 James Mulrenin Case A Few Other Jailhouse Witnesses 45 CRIMES THAT OCCUR DURING PROSECUTION ARE UNREPORTABLE Crimes used to move power to the executive branch are not considered crimes. 56 VOTERS GIVE POLICE A MANDATE TO LIE Voters don't want cops on the street regulated. 68 STATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DISCRETION EVADES FEDERAL REGULATION Case outcomes are rigged by discretion, secrecy. 82 PUBLIC OVERSIGHT IS OPPOSITE OF LEGAL REGULATION The public does not ask courts for rule of law. 89 JAILHOUSE WITNESSES NULLIFY COURTS The executive branch can decide who is guilty and fix court outcomes. 96 JURIES ARE MISLED A charade permitting lies is kept secret from jurors. 104 DEFENDANTS DO NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST Defense attorneys have narrow financial and ethical boundaries. 110 FLORIDA CREATES INSULATED EXECUTIVE POWER Local officials are not regulated from Tallahassee. 120 NO REMEDY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA The State of Florida refuses to deter perjury or tell juries they are tricked with lies. CLAIMS AND RELIEF 126 PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 127 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 129 LIST OF CLAIMS 129 I Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment and Unenumerated Traditional Rights to Due Process 134 II Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment and Unenumerated Traditional Federal Rights 138 III Traditional and Enumerated Rights of Members of The United States to Establish and Operate Courts 139 IV Separation of Powers Designed at the Founding of our Nation 140 V Subverts the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts 142 VI Deference to Non-Prosecution of Perjury Violates Federalist 51 142 VII Rights of Citizens to Pass and Enforce Laws and Administrate Courts and Justice 144 VIII Rights to Legally Regulated Spending of Taxpayer Treasure 149 IX Jailhouse Witnesses Violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, and Traditional Rights 150 X 8th and 14th Amendment Arbitrary Prosecution Without Witness 152 XI Stigma Depriving Defendants of Reputation and Opportunity Without Due Process 156 XII Sixth Amendment Right To A Jury Trial 157 CLAIM XII RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL DETAILS Jailhouse witnesses violate jury case law. 190 CLAIM I DUE PROCESS DETAILS The strongest tradition is fact. RELIEF REQUESTED 206 A Certify judicial defendant class if necessary. 206 B Certify executive-branch class if necessary. 206 C Enter a judgment against all defendants (declaring that the present framework of Florida law as put into practice by them is in violation of federal law). 207 D Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (against holding trials and enforcing court orders made illegal by non-prosecution of perjury). 208 E Specify remedies and compliance. 1 framework to prosecute perjury 2 jury instruction and disclosures 212 F Prohibit jailhouse witnesses. 215 G Award Plaintiff costs of suit and expenses. 215 H Retain jurisdiction after judgment to enforce injunction and compliance. 215 I Grant any other proper relief. 215 J Consider injunction against defamation. 216 CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE CASE Historical Pattern - Tribal Quorum and Black-Market Justice 1. This Court's jurisdiction is hereby invoked not for some novel or esoteric local oddity, but for its most ordinary purpose throughout history. It is a purpose that has been forever hated in the hearts of men, and which courts therefore find some convenient excuse to abdicate. 2. The purpose of law and morals is to replace human instinct with a set of habits that enable trade and division of labor; to replace the instinct for war to cull neighbors as competitors for land resources, and the instinct to seize collective conscious control of everything, with rules of private property that allow greater decision making by "the invisible hand", distributed parallel information processing which mobilizes and utilizes unique local information in a more powerful way. 3. The purpose of law is to enable men to operate against their nature, in a web of decision institutions operating like a neural network beyond the conscious intention of any participant, and in which impersonal network men may feel imprisoned as slaves. It puts the temptation of collective decisions for the common good within reach, visible like an apple, but forbidden. The purpose of law is also to replace tribal collective decision making with evolved decision topologies in the form of legal institutions, to replace social quorum or mob rule with executive, legislative and judicial, bailiff, magistrate and jury, the checks and balances of Federalist 51 without which men return to their natural state. The essence of this process is utilizing information known only to individuals, rather than to the vantage point of the crowd, whether from local farmers, or actual court witnesses. 4. Whether aloof businessmen or judges, juries or the invisible hand, the impulse of the impatient crowd is always to respond to demagogues who say these abstract and invisible processes dictated by law are not satisfying some need or other, and there is a moral mandate to seize control and replace the legal outcome with the one that is good and right. In the United States, replacing the outcome decided by the jury with the one decided by the local collective, is forbidden by the Bill of Rights. But it is a common pattern that such vices which are popular and which violate the Constitution, move into a black market. In Florida, moving the locus of decision making to the will of the dominant social quorum enacted by the executive branch, operates like a Prohibition speakeasy behind a false wall in the back of the court, by indulging the forbidden drink of perjury. 5. The State of Florida has returned to nature by using various immunities and discretions - specifically the immunity to socially spread and orchestrate lies, the discretion to not prosecute perjury, and the judicial discretion to accept lies to abdicate jurisdiction to the popular will - to fix trial outcomes with perjury, to thereby move the locus of decision making of guilt to the executive branch, and to operate justice by primitive tribal quorum within a charade that has evolved and taken root in cracks insulated from higher courts and the law, and finally broken the structure of our legal system. Action from this Court is overdue to restore the tradition of bringing fact to law, and the substantive rule of law. Due Process Is A Historical Mandate To Cure 6. "Due" is the opposite of "what happened previously". The first definition of "due" is "expected at or planned for at a certain time". "Having reached the date at which payment is required" is quite different from having been satisfied in the past. The Fourteenth Amendment does not read "without process of law as previously established at common law" or "without process of law well grounded in history" but such process as becomes "due" for the present circumstances. Things that are due are due for something, like rent is due to live in an apartment. And what process is always due for, is to produce fact rather than introduce political forces, in courts. Due process does not mean you have to do A, B, and C all the time, but that you have to do A, B, and C, due to problems X, Y, and Z. In this case there is a problem, and this Court's action becomes due again today as a result of the problem. 7. In the past the process was changed many times, such as when they learned about torture and witch trials. The only thing grounded in history and with a strong basis in common law, is that the process must change when necessary to make sure fact is being brought to law. By "due" they mean today's judges are going to have to figure out how to stop people like Florida State Attorney Phil Archer lying to them when it happens. And "due process" means the Constitution protects the people from judges who have a political agenda and don't want to stop Phil Archer torturing the innocent with lies, when such protection is due. 8. Truth is not on Friendly's list. But it is nevertheless not due process for prosecutors to assemble a bench of liars as a standard course without fear of punishment. Allowing Florida to proceed without deterrence or punishment to perjuring state witnesses, is a substantive removal of the rule of law. 9. The Fourteenth Amendment does not say "without the process of law" or "without this process of law" because there is no one process that is due for every problem that may occur at every moment in history. Plaintiff seeks a remedy that is overdue for what is going on in Florida today. And the mandate for this Court to do whatever is needed to solve the problem of today, is well grounded in history. FACTS OF THE CASE Discretion Used To Undermine Law 10. Crimes are condoned in the State of Florida, as a necessity in the context of criminal prosecution. Not pursuant to any law, but as a discretion which currently operates outside regulation by the law or the US Constitution. Discretion becomes subversion of the law and balance of powers, when perjury that is caught is not punished, when this is done in a pattern designed to move the locus of decision making to the executive branch, and when juries are misled about what is going on. 11. You can easily get lost in the philosophical complexity, about the discretion to not prosecute a case versus a law versus a person. You can argue about the discretion of prosecutors and defense lawyers to introduce what they believe are lies, and of jurors and judges to choose to believe them. A court that is willingly led into this forest, for the purpose to commit and conceal the crime of creating arbitrary executive power, is an accomplice to the crime. 12. The popular purpose of this abuse of discretion under color of law, is to change the way our criminal justice system works, to substitute the will of the collective enacted through the executive branch, by fixing the outcome of trials and subverting the jurisdiction of higher courts, with perjury that is standardized with reward rather than deterred by punishment. The change in outcomes is subtle over time, and kept so by the moderation of public approval. But the change of the means to achieve the outcome - brazen perjury, a felony, with no possibility of punishment - is not subtle. It is an obvious charade, which bar associations regulate their members to play "emperor's new clothes" by not mentioning. 13. The idea that the prosecutor has discretion and immunity (as a practical matter he is never going to be prosecuted under 18 USC 242), has been conflated (without legal basis) to mean a Florida prosecutor can break the law or ignore or choose not to prosecute any law violation, for the purpose to get convictions. If a prosecutor can give people plea bargains and is immune to lie, then a prosecutor can arrange rather than prosecute lies. This simplifies to if you tell the lie we want - based on whom we have picked as guilty - we won't prosecute you. It is insulated by a shield of discretions and immunities, including the immunity to spread malicious state lies to the public, and by concealing the non-prosecution of perjury as an inducement to perjury, from jurors. 14. The effect is that crimes don't exist when State Attorney Phil Archer or any other prosecutor doesn't want them to, and they become unreportable at that prosecutor's discretion, and invisible to jurors and higher courts. The effect is that crimes don't exist when they are committed in the context of a criminal prosecution, where not only the prosecutor, but the witnesses are immune to break Florida Statute 837.02. The idea is we're going to look and see if this person is guilty, and if someone other than the jury thinks he is guilty then no crime happened when the jury was lied to. It's a corruption and a sickness. Plaintiff is petitioning in favor of law, but against a religion, a cult. This idea that criminal statute changes or is suspended in the context of criminal prosecution, recently affirmed by the Florida Fifth District Court Of Appeal (Appendix N page a146), seems to be a cult belief, not supported by the citation of any actual law. 15. The idea is lawlessness is not so bad if we only do what the public wants, or only frame those whom the crowd can be persuaded are guilty. Immunized executive-branch speech has cultivated a public belief that courts are the problem. Courts are painted as releasing the guilty and those statistically disposed to crime and to blame for society's ills, and we therefore need and want to subvert the courts. Government actors who so subvert courts to the whim of the crowd, to lock up whomever the public wants locked up, are less likely to lose an election, but eventually a war. (Data created by the CIA show the erosion of patriotism and manufacturing of dissidents under "anocracy" are statistical precursors to regime instability.) 16. Florida has reached a state where Plaintiff cannot report brazen, obvious, documented crimes, because they were committed by and on behalf of a prosecutor for this purpose to change the paradigm of criminal prosecution. Inaction of this Court in the face of brazen documented witness crimes done on behalf of prosecutors, would be an abdication of its constitutionally designed jurisdiction, slouching towards Gomorrah. Such a court that lacks arms of enforcement or the sensory means to perceive facts - deprived of jurisdiction in a scheme by the Florida executive branch - need not exist except as part of a charade. That is the role Florida courts have chosen, as we shall see, in the case of jailhouse witnesses, police perjury in the street, and many other instances. Empirical Manifestations Of Universal Law 17. A local 51% majority does not need law to get what they want, rather law deprives them of what they could obtain by force. That force will forever be applied trying to get gossip through the courtroom door by finding witnesses to recite it and judges to sign it, and so move the locus of decision making from the jury based on fact to the popular whim of the crowd. Witnesses are not seen as sources of novel or unique fact, but as devices to get popular beliefs and gossip through the courtroom door and thereby trick and nullify the requirements of due process and abrogate the law. Witnesses are socially and legally rewarded, shamed, and punished to the extent they fulfill this function. And after this is all achieved off the books as much as possible in a social process, it is all wrapped in a facade of due process in the court record, to insulate it from the jurisdiction of this Court. But such facts never compiled, for the purpose to frustrate them being presented to this Court, still exist. 18. You will not find published anywhere in the State of Florida, a record of all the times prosecutors used witnesses who were found to be lying and never prosecuted, or statistics of local court activities in general, including the use of discretion and coerced witnesses, and the outcomes including overturned verdicts. Part of the survival traits to insulate the replacement of evolved processes with tribal quorum and evade courts and the law, is to not mobilize local information, to keep information anecdotal and manipulate popular beliefs through social processes. But any honest observer can verify a pattern that is as universal as the force of gravity, which everywhere causes an apple to fall at the same rate, even in the forest when no one is looking. There are plenty of examples to elucidate the standard system by which Florida uses perjury to subvert courts and move power to the executive branch. William Dillon Case 19. One of the recurring historical features of replacing evolved decision topologies with social quorum, is a decline in product quality, regardless of whether it is food, medicine, or justice. That is the case when four murderers and a child rapist were let go, to instead imprison an innocent man William Dillon for 27 years for the beating death of James Dvorak. Police in Brevard County, Florida decided William Dillon was guilty. They then coerced and rewarded witnesses for lying - a hooker, a jailhouse witness facing prosecution for child rape, a witch-pricker John Preston who claimed his dog could detect guilt - to evade the prescribed legal process, and instead fix the court outcome by feeding the jury garbage. 20. 27 years later a new DNA test, combined with information already available to police, showed four other men did the murder, and William Dillon was released. Like information available to local farmers in the Ukraine under the central direction of Stalin, that local information was never mobilized when the executive branch can just lie to the public, as is permitted under McNayr v. Kelly, Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, and Imbler v. Pachtman. Neither handsomely paid witch-pricker John Preston, nor any of the coerced witnesses who committed perjury in the James Dvorak murder, were ever prosecuted. Thanks to the freedom of the State of Florida to use lies, that's seven life-stealing felons who spent less time in prison than a starving Ethiopian spends eating. Like the people of Ukraine under Stalin, the people of Brevard and the family of James Dvorak are starved of justice while the executive branch tells the public things are better than ever. Crosley Green Case 21. 23 years after a DNA test validated Crosley Green's murder conviction, thousands of people on the Internet ask where his rape victim Kim Hallock lives today, and openly threaten her. Crosley spent two years free on the street, and surrounded by members of The Florida Bar, inciting against his victim. Because in those 23 years two cops Diane Clarke and Mark Rixey, and at least three felons including Sheila Green, have given contradictory sworn testimony in the case. None have been prosecuted. The State does not protect citizens like Kim Hallock from public witch trials by prosecuting perjury. Rather the State humors the citizens by telling them who is guilty and then producing that verdict with lies, and thereby allows the public to overwhelm courts with politically popular perjury that indulges the impulses of the crowd. 22. Respected attorneys, college professors, thought leaders, and common citizens, all believe Crosley Green's sister Sheila lied to give her brother the death penalty, and was rewarded by being let out of prison for doing so. And yet none of them will ever advocate that Sheila Green should go to prison for lying, as the law prescribes. Members of the Florida Bar want their clients to lie without consequence, want to use lies to fix cases without trials to pay off their student debt, and want both the liars and their clients to escape prosecution and go home, when state witnesses are caught lying. Everybody wants a local social process against the law and the true public interest, and lies are how the process they desire is hacked from the designed process the law intends. 23. Crosley Green's recent appeal shows how it has become the first impulse, and is even believed legal, to use lies to obtain the popular outcome, rather than to make the case that the jurors never heard the truth. Members of the Florida Bar actually brought to the US Supreme Court, the argument that the State did not use enough lies and spectral evidence to obtain the outcome desired by the crowd. Jurors never got to hear the opinion of the sheriff that Kim Hallock was the actual murderer, which has been prohibited since the Magna Carta. Jurors never got to hear the lies, that Kim Hallock's original story didn't include an abduction, or that Hallock once said she tied the string. The new contradictory lies of the felons should be believed over the old lies, rather than consider that they are unreliable and never should have been believed. 24. The actual legal argument to overturn Crosley Green's conviction was not 1) the lack of deterrent to perjury makes coerced witnesses unreliable and the jury was never told that, 2) John Preston's dog was a witch-pricking device, and if the jury had known that it would have exposed "a remarkably uncritical attitude" (Kyles v. Whitley) and cast the whole case into doubt, and 3) the jury was all white people. Instead, the legal argument was the jurors never got to hear the lies that are popular among some plurality of white citizens, and the jurors should be allowed to hear these socially produced lies of the public mob in order to obtain the outcome that white mob desires. 25. The argument was not the Crosley jury never heard the truth, it was that we have a right to tell the jury socially popular lies to obtain the outcome desired by the crowd that recites them. The public is dissatisfied that witnesses were never coerced or otherwise encouraged to recite the consensus of the crowd (generated by the media embellishing lying cops) in front of the jury, which fraud the Florida public has been conditioned to expect is their legal right. It has gotten to where people have actually come to mistake their social process for getting gossip into courts, for the prescribed legal process. Of course the media petitions in the media that defendants should be so tried in the media. But also even lawyers now actually demand this perverted mob decision process from higher courts. Almost like suing Exxon for free oil and calling it capitalism. 26. Court outcomes end up as the tail wagged by the dog of extra-judicial social processes and executive-branch political theater. Fact and jury never meet, not any more than a communist central planner ever sees a true statistic of local farm output. Because there is no penalty for perjury, and every incentive to provide misinformation and then put on a theater to please the public. Defendants like Crosley are convicted and exonerated in the media 15 years apart, while in both eras the local elders appear wise and just for their opposite actions like a flag in the wind. 27. If private industry built a building that collapsed in 20 years, somebody would be prosecuted, or they would put in a law to stop it happening again. But all these immunities enable the scam artists in Florida to live off the scam at both ends; they get elected off the scam of building the witch conviction, and then they live off the scam of demolishing it and blaming someone else. And this scam in Florida shows all signs of surviving as long as the Soviet Union, with a record of misery the whole way. Bryon Aven Case 28. A violent felony case 2017-CF-029663 was recently dismissed in Brevard County, Florida, after Assistant State Attorney Bryon Aven supervised perjury at trial. This dismissal outcome was popular among the parties in the room, but deprived the public of the possibility of justice, while squandering the taxpayer treasure, eroding the public's trust of courts, and depriving higher courts of their jurisdiction as to law and fact. They simply let all the felons go home, to sweep it all under the rug and live to lie again the next day. 29. The Aven judge acted like he was punishing the prosecution, but he was punishing the rule of law, by not punishing the felons as the law requires. There was some weird thing going on, that prohibited them from simply arresting the witnesses for lying, and then telling the jury the truth about what happened. It's as if it is all a charade, but the moment it is exposed they have no idea how to proceed with the truth, and instead shut it down to just start fresh lying again in the next case. When state witnesses are proven to lie, it is a standard quid pro quo to close cases and still preserve the scam, where they basically threaten the defendant, or let him go home if he agrees to let go the crime of perjury. 30. Such back-room arranged outcomes are not publicized in any reliable way, in an apparent design to subvert public oversight. There seemed to be more at play between judge and prosecutor than was spoken in the record, and dismissing the case created no more record. This will spare the State of Florida from having to tell the jury, on the record, how prosecutors supervising and immunizing perjury works. So the judge actually gave the prosecutors a gift, even if he expressed irritation at the gift being taken from him again and again. 31. Prosecutor Aven's long pattern of misconduct was not actually cured, but amplified by letting a room full of felons, including the defendant and the lying witnesses, go home without prosecution. Aven was then moved to an intake role by elected State Attorney Phil Archer, deciding which cases to prosecute. In this role Aven will certainly not choose to prosecute the perjury he himself orchestrated, or any other state-witness perjury. Aven's power to preempt the law and the fact-finding function of the courts, was made even greater than when advocating individual cases in the courtroom. 32. This "jurisprudence of (local political) interests" seems to be the socially popular remedy among judges, who legislated on behalf of their own clerical order to nullify 42 USC 1983, in favor of judicial discretion to deliver almost any politically viable outcome. It seems that the legislators who wrote USC 1983 were directly drawing on recent past experiences of sundown towns and Nazi Germany. And the US Supreme Court nullified the intent of the legislature, in favor of that same "free law" and "legal positivism" that eliminated jury trials in Germany, and in favor of common practices of the past which laymen in Congress intended to abandon and move forward from as they believed was due at that time. 33. Aven believes Florida law allows a prosecutor to use lies, which it does, and which the elected State Attorney Phil Archer affirmed, by accepting the resignation of Aven's co-worker in protest, rather than firing Aven. The idea that prosecutors are merely "loosening tongues" when they find fact preempting juries, and then reward rather than penalize and orchestrate perjury so that a defendant has a burden to prove they are lying, is as silly as Plaintiff saying he is merely loosening the tongues of the letters "n", "o", "s", and "e" when he says "nonsense". Plaintiff can say it, but only this Court can interpret the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is currently satisfied by the defense being allowed to cross examine the liars, and the fully-informed jury being free to not believe them. And due process is completed, by the prosecution of perjury, and the deterrence created thereby. 34. Plaintiff has been made aware The Florida Bar belatedly sought sanction against Aven (SC2023-0456, 03/29/2023). Aven admitted the witnesses lied (4/25/2023 Answer paragraph 43), but denied breaking his rules (4/25/2023 Answer paragraph 46), which makes perfect sense to Plaintiff. By Plaintiff's understanding of Imbler v. Pachtman, prosecutors using lies does not violate the Constitution or law of the land (03/29/2023 Complaint paragraph 46). Rather, exposing prosecutors to civil liability for such crimes of witnesses has been adjudicated to be against a public interest in the fearless execution of Aven's duties. Plaintiff disagrees with this, which of course is irrelevant. But Plaintiff's understanding of the present law of the land, is that the perjuring witnesses are the designed target, and certainly an appropriate target, for liability for lying. In any case, jurors have operated under a belief that witnesses would be brought to justice for perjury. And any penalty Aven is deterred with, will be something less than what is on the books for a felony, and the penalty jurors expect for being lied to. 35. It may make sense that you can't have prosecutors prosecuting people for the perjury the prosecutor himself asked them to tell, and in fact let them out of prison as a reward for telling. And knowing they were lying, obviously knowing, if we are to take a small break and be honest. But Imbler does not actually immunize the perjurers, it just immunizes the prosecutor civilly. The intention of Imbler was not for prosecutors to by design orchestrate perjury, which is the result when prosecutors are given the additional feature of being allowed to not prosecute the perjury which they are immune to being sued for, and thereby transfer immunity to everyone from perjurers to lying newspaper reporters. 36. That is a lot of sound and fury, but none of it the actual law and rather to avoid it and distract us from it, Florida Statute 837.02, which says lying witness are breaking the law. The actual designed legal process is never used, when lying witnesses are never prosecuted, and jurors are never cured of their prejudice by being told prosecutors are allowed to lie. James Mulrenin Case Facts 37. Seminole County 2016-CF-003668 involves a fabricated narrative of the robbery a strip-club manager and convicted pimp James Mulrenin. The strip club sold $40,000 of dance coupons to two men on their credit cards, in an unusual event despite it being a tiny dive where tips are normally a dollar. The strippers were strangely owed less than $4k of the $40k. The manager was supposed to get cash from the bank the next day to pay out the $40k. Except before the cash was ever withdrawn from the bank, the manager was reported to jump off his fifth-floor balcony in an apparent suicide, by two joggers who shouted "don't do it, don't jump". 38. The manager took a young female employee home with him who was short on cash for not being able to get paid until the next day, as your Plaintiff and others had many times known him to do, and drugged his employee without her knowledge. After the manager's death, this employee was seen with her boyfriend using the dead manager's credit cards at Walmart. When the other managers heard the manager was dead and a blonde girl was seen on video with him, the other managers claimed the $40k had vanished. Police lied that they couldn't see any video at the strip club, and most of the video was deleted. There was an incorrect story in a dozen newspapers that the employee was once arrested with GHB, which made it easy to promote the fake idea that the employee had drugged the manager and stolen the $40,000 which never left the bank. 39. Police wrote an arrest affidavit that the employee and her boyfriend arrived at the manager's apartment at the same time, the boyfriend was on video texting the employee inside the apartment, they spent 85 minutes robbing the manager, and after the manager went over the balcony, the employee stayed in the apartment ransacking the apartment until police came. But the apartment was not ransacked and many valuables were not taken, the employee had no communications of any kind and the boyfriend did not even have a phone, the boyfriend and girlfriend were never seen together on video, and the police deleted the video timestamps and lied at trial about the timestamps being wrong. And of course there is no evidence the employee actually stole any cash. 40. To support a planned-robbery narrative, police and prosecutors orchestrated an enormous body of perjury, involving more than 10 state witnesses committing more than 50 instances of perjury. The primary elements were a) faking video times to make it look like the boyfriend arrived in concert with the employee, b) faking the victim's DNA on five bloody gloves with the boyfriend's DNA, and c) coaching witness perjury that the victim was shot while fleeing. A large part of the robbery narrative was invented in the regional newspaper "Orlando Sentinel" with a series of six immune lies and embellishments by an editor whom Plaintiff found to have some personal connection to the dead manager, which public gossip witnesses were then let out of prison for reciting. 41. The public support of this scam and political insulation from oversight primarily arise from a) there is an incorrect news story that the employee was once arrested with $25,000 of GHB, which never happened, and b) the Orlando Sentinel published the story with six immunized embellishments of the arrest affidavit and false statements, headlined “Strip-club manager tied up, robbed, and shot before fatal fall”. And of course the strippers didn't get paid their $4k of the $40k, and whoever was owed the other $36k seems to have not been paid and was politically connected to the police. And they were all told it was because Mandi May Jackson "stole the deposit bag", which never existed, the opposite was true. 42. The State coached witnesses from the strip club to lie that the employee Mandi May Jackson was a complete stranger who showed up with no dance wear, robbed the manager, and disappeared. This included hiding that Jackson was at the strip club previous nights. This included police giving the strip club time to delete video from the strip club, then claiming they were never able to see the video, hiding it, and not providing it to boyfriend Love's defense before trial. This included brazenly supervising a witness Neisha Cintron to hide Jackson's actual activities such as smoking weed and wearing Cintron's underwear (because of menstruation), and interactions with the manager such as kissing. The perjury included specifically instructing Cintron to hide from the jury that the last thing Jackson did after closing was buy a new dress to wear the next day, because the victim/manager did not like either of the dresses Jackson had, instead lying that Jackson did not have stripper clothes. 43. The perjury scam involved photographing a bullet staged in front of a tear in the sofa, hiding witness statements, hiding the 911 call, and coaching witnesses to change their statements, to create a false narrative of the victim being shot while fleeing. This included hiding “three plastic gloves with suspected blood” with the thumbs pulled off in haste, one of which was photographed on the victim's floor, and instead claiming DNA “swabs of suspected blood stains on gloves” came from a group of gloves found separately (to also falsely suggest the defendant wore booties), and lying about the number of gloves at trial. A man who is shot while fleeing off a balcony has no time to bleed on gloves before he goes over. This also included lying to the judge that the victim died two days later (thereby corrupting the jury instructions), to hide that no witness heard a gunshot, rather they were coached later to lie about this. 44. The perjury scam involved screen-grabbing security video clips of the employee and her boyfriend seen separately at the manager's apartment (never together), which video included watermarked timestamps and other tenants walking their dogs, one of whom swiped the door open to let the boyfriend into the building. These video clips then vanished, and the defense was provided with new video clips made a week later at the police station. The video clips provided to the defense had the watermarked timestamps removed, sections including the dog walkers were removed, and the existence of the dog walker who let the murderer into the building was redacted from all documents before discovery. 45. Then immediately prior to the boyfriend's trial, a third set of video clips was made with one of the dog walkers (the still unnamed one who let Love into the building which was hidden for two years), and with new timestamps added to the video two years later at the police station. These new clips were not provided to boyfriend Scott Love's defense before trial. Officer Jackson Athaide lied to the jury under clearly conscious supervision by prosecutor Lori Sacco, that these were the clips and timestamps he screen-grabbed two years earlier at the apartment complex, and admitted hiding from the jury that the timestamps were off. Prosecutor Stewart Stone then cut Athaide off before answering, and Stone himself testified as witness, when a lawyer tried to ask Athaide about this undisclosed video at deposition. 46. All of this seems to result from a false statement in the arrest affidavit that the boyfriend was seen on video at the apartments "clearly using a cell phone and sending text messages", which was imagined to be coordination with the girlfriend employee. When it was discovered the boyfriend had no phone and the employee had no communications, police needed to fake the video times to show them coordinating simply by arriving together, in a ridiculous timeline two hours before the boyfriend actually entered the apartment. 47. The present state of the case is best understood with Plaintiff's own investigation which shows that the employee was drugged by the manager with codeine without her knowledge, which combined with alcohol and anxiety medication to leave her with no memory of what actually happened or ability to defend herself. As a result of being drugged the employee lost track of time, and the boyfriend eventually came looking for her. The employee did not know when or why the boyfriend arrived, but then heard false gossip from someone in the jail who eventually became a coerced jailhouse “confession” witness, that the boyfriend's arrival was a robbery arranged with a third individual Chris Dahl, and the manager was drugged and thrown off the balcony. The employee knew the manager was not thrown off the balcony, and knew the boyfriend was not part of a robbery, but accepted as true the false gossip that the manager was drugged, because this explained her own experience feeling drugged, and the manager jumping (and because the employee is not very wise, and has been drugged, lied to, and locked for years in isolation). 48. The employee's lawyers showed her how her boyfriend told police she was the one to investigate, and advised her to come up with a robbery story to testify against the boyfriend. But the employee's memory was not good enough, and there was too much fake and unexplainable evidence and evidence that was hidden from her by her own lawyers and taken from her in jail, for her to come up with a story of any use to the lawyers. And the story she came up with had the boyfriend arriving with the third individual Dahl, who (by hidden design) shared the same lawyer as the jailhouse witness Julie Madara. The employee's fake story would expose how the employee's lawyers had already made a secret deal with the lawyer of the jailhouse witness and the third individual, to get a waiver from the jailhouse witness whom they previously represented, to stay on the case and keep their $100,000 retainer. The employee also told the fake robbery story to a friend in jail, which friend then changed the story to incriminate the employee and then also testified as a jailhouse witness at trial, despite this testimony brazenly contradicting piles of physical evidence and being useless for the defendant who invented it. 49. The employee wanted to get revenge on her boyfriend and the third individual for the death of her sugar daddy the manager, and begged her lawyers to tell the fake robbery story at trial. But her lawyers instead went with a jealous boyfriend narrative. When the employee's lawyers said the boyfriend committed a murder - and incorporated the fake glove-and-booty evidence instead of challenging it, possibly in a quid pro quo with their cop friends from being former local prosecutors - Judge Jessica Recksiedler apparently did not find it credible or advisable. Recksiedler asked the employee in open court if the employee approved of her attorneys saying her boyfriend committed a murder. The employee answered enthusiastically “Yes, ma'am.” 50. The latest court event, is the employee's new lawyer got the boyfriend to swear an affidavit that it was all his fault and there was no robbery, but including the false element of the employee's (and Orlando Sentinel's) robbery story that the manager was tied up. He never was. Any binding materials were field dressings of a wound, possibly assisted by the employee herself to stop the bleeding, but which she honestly cannot remember. 51. And the employee's lawyer is arguing her trial lawyers were ineffective for not allowing the employee to testify her fake robbery story at trial. The employee's fake story also includes the boyfriend causing the manager to go over the balcony, when in reality the manager was probably trying to climb down for the simple reason he trusted his friend below to lie for him and drive him to the hospital, without bleeding in the halls and drawing attention to an apartment full of drugs and the numerous and varied felonies he was involved in that night (the manager had a previous violation of probation). 52. The cost to the public of these abuses of discretion by local attorneys to negotiate and employ perjury, are great. The cost to the public to prosecute and incarcerate Mandi May Jackson for perhaps 70 years, for a crime that did not actually happen, could be $2 million. The time of numerous circuit and appeals court judges, as well as lawyers and jurors, is squandered on a theatric fraud. 53. And the general interest of the public in justice, and that victims and their family members receive not just justice, but at a minimum accurate information about how someone even died, is enormous. It is the entire purpose of these courts, made mockery with lies. This perjury undermines the sovereign right of the state and its citizens through legal processes, rather than parties engaging in self-interested fraud, to determine court outcomes and enforce laws. Plaintiff Accused of Premeditating His Own Murder 54. The use of perjury in Florida is so brazen and ridiculous, that after Governor Rick Scott removed an elected prosecutor Aramis Ayala in hopes to get the death penalty for Ishnar Lopez-Ramos, "Nish-Nosh" was instead offered 40 years, in exchange for conspiring with another felon Kourtney Straubel to lie that numerous other defendants in the jail confessed. This included being paid to lie in an informal agreement with State Attorney Phil Archer, that your Plaintiff "Steve Murry" premeditated his own murder. (Appendix I, page a108) "1) She told me how it was prematitade with Steven Murry, hes the one who order the GHB. you went to CiO's [Ishnar: Cleo's] with owner who had 14,000 Had Scott meet u at his house and you gave him GHB Scott came with 2 guns Shot him in leg And you Pushed him off 5th storie Then run out Apt complex Scott called you come back get him he got rid of one gun but Left the other in Apt." - Ishnar Lopez-Ramos (transcribed by Kourtney Straubel) 55. In 2016, Mandi May Jackson was arrested with a bottle of liquid in her car, she did not know what it was, only that it was called "G". It was likely put in her car after another car was totaled during a road trip in Georgia. Police and then newspapers said incorrectly that it was $25,000 of GHB. No charges were ever filed, when the Georgia crime lab said the bottle contained butanediol, which was legal to buy, sell, and possess in Georgia. 56. Plaintiff drove to bond Jackson out of jail in Georgia, and brought his dogs. It was very crowded driving back with all the stuff removed from Jackson's car in the police impound, plus stuff from the crashed car, plus some dogs. When Plaintiff dropped Jackson off at her house, Plaintiff's dogs attacked Jackson's corgi Lorelei. So Plaintiff was infamous as some old sugar daddy who brought two annoying black-and-white dogs with him everywhere. 57. Jackson was amazed that something in her car was worth $25,000, on top of giving you better sex, and also giving you super strength (after Plaintiff told her it said online that butanediol was used as a bodybuilding supplement). Plaintiff tried to persuade gullible Jackson that it was just an industrial solvent that anyone could get from China for $1 a pound. Plaintiff ordered a small bottle of the stuff to prove this to Jackson, that it was only a few dollars. 58. Plaintiff forgot he even ordered the stuff just to prove its price. But when the solvent arrived unexpectedly, and seemed to miraculously fix Plaintiff's car, Jackson drove right over. Finally, to settle the scientific question, both Plaintiff and Jackson consumed butanediol, and had sex. Both agreed that it did not do much of anything except make you puke, though it did have a placebo effect based on the expectation it might make sex better. Jackson still did not understand that butanediol and GHB were not the same thing, because to this day Jackson has never even heard of GHB other than being accused of having it. 59. Jackson took the bottle of solvent home, eager to use it to have sex with her new boyfriend, as she said "the way sex was meant to be". Plaintiff was too tired from having sex to object. A few days later, Jackson asked Plaintiff to come help Jackson move her furniture from her mom's house. Jackson kept drinking drops of the solvent while moving furniture. Jackson and Plaintiff had sex upstairs while everyone could hear, after which Jackson took a nap. 60. A few days later Plaintiff told Jackson she had to come get her stuff from Plaintiff's house. Jackson and Plaintiff disagreed about it, after which Jackson got arrested, and accused Plaintiff of chasing Jackson with a machete. Plaintiff also accidentally walked up behind Jackson at Dancers Royale strip club, which was misinterpreted to be sinister. So Plaintiff was known as a sugar daddy, who on the last two days he saw Jackson, drugged her to have sex with her, chased her with a machete, and was still stalking her. 61. The evidence shows Love went to manager Mulrenin's apartment looking for Jackson at the guy's house where she said she was going to get money. Love found Jackson's car in the garage, went back outside and saw Jackson drunk and drugged on Mulrenin's balcony, and then went in to get Jackson behind a middle-aged man walking two black-and-white dogs who swiped open the door. Love and Jackson both say Love was confused from not sleeping and smoking meth. 62. After talking to Jackson in prison, Plaintiff concluded that Love made a false connection between the stories about Plaintiff and his observations outside Mulrenin's apartment. Love saw Jackson going to get money and being drugged and a man with two black-and-white dogs, and connected that to gossip stories about Plaintiff being a middle-aged guy who brought two black-and-white dogs everywhere, and who as Jackson's sugar daddy provided her drugs and had sex with her, stalked her, attacked her with a machete, and whom Jackson's dad wanted to kill. After realizing Love's mistake that Mulrenin was Jackson's boss not Plaintiff, they tried to tape up Mulrenin's leg to stop the bleeding. After that failed, Mulrenin sought help from his trusted neighbor below, to avoid bleeding in the halls and attracting attention to his felonies, and fell while trying to climb down. 63. Ishnar Lopez-Ramos then invented a series of fake confessions which Kourtney Straubel transcribed in the jail, which included Plaintiff premeditating the crime and providing Jackson with GHB to incapacitate the victim, resulting in the death of manager Mulrenin. The evidence is Love went into Mulrenin's apartment to kill your Plaintiff, and the State of Florida then offered to let dangerous felons out of prison for saying Plaintiff was the planner who sent Love there. 64. This is reminiscent of and as bad as the economic performance in a place like Cuba or Venezuela. And it is similar to witch trials in Scotland, when the public imagination attributes the ability to bewitch people to a common industrial solvent, and it reaches the point where everybody is imagined to be bewitching everyone else. The reality, that Jackson's boss cut codeine into the cocaine is much more mundane. But Judge Recksiedler would not let the defense show the jury the real-life hard evidence from the scene, that codeine was cut into the cocaine. Recksiedler only allowed jailhouse witnesses who were nowhere near to introduce the imaginary GHB gossip, which jurors certainly believed despite there being nothing with a "G" in Mulrenin's blood and even the prosecutor suggesting it wasn't true. 65. You can be arrested for conspiracy to commit any kind of felony in Florida, particularly if you have already been arrested for a murder conspiracy like Ishnar Lopez-Ramos. But prosecutor Phil Archer likes it when "Nish-Nosh" conspires to lie about your Plaintiff in court, and feed those lies to courts just like this one. This felony conspiracy to take your Plaintiff's life with lies, is committed and immunized on behalf of Archer and Defendant DeSantis for their political gain. If this Court is fine with trials being based on fanciful gossip rather than hard evidence and does not believe a remedy is due, money spent on law school is wasted. James Mulrenin Case A Few Other Jailhouse Witnesses 66. Another jailhouse witness Julie Madara, changed her story from a combination of news stories and false gossip that James Mulrenin was drugged and thrown off his balcony in "a struggle", to the contradictory prosecution narrative that Mulrenin was not drugged and was shot while fleeing. Madara changed her story to fit the prosecution narrative in numerous ways, including mentioning $13,000 from the police report which Jackson could not have known existed, which replaced $2,500 in the arrest affidavit from an actual witness who was never named. 67. After talking to Jackson in prison, Plaintiff concludes Jackson's contact with Madara was the opposite of a confession. It was actually Julie Madara who told everyone in the jail including Jackson the false gossip Madara put together, that Mulrenin was drugged and thrown off the balcony during a robbery involving someone from Madara's neighborhood named Chris Dahl. Madara's confession story was then adjusted by the prosecution and Madara's own lawyer Adam Reiss, who was at the same time paid by and representing in court the same person Madara accused under Reiss's supervision, Chris Dahl (sealed Orange County 48-2016-CF-011304-A-O). All this "remarkably uncritical attitude" (Kyles) including a jailhouse witness having her lawyer paid by and working for the guy she is accusing of planning murder (and another jailhouse witness accusing the intended victim of planning the murder), makes perfect sense when you know that Imbler immunizes prosecutors for all lies, which of course the jury is never told about. 68. Plaintiff documented around a dozen instances where Julie Madara's claimed confession by Jackson contradicts more reliable evidence, and also contradicts Plaintiff's personal knowledge. Whereas the lead detective Ben Sprague testified he did not bother to investigate Madara's story, which makes perfect sense in light of the fact that jailhouse witnesses are known to everyone but the jury to be a witch-pricking scam. When Jackson offered to tell the same lying story about Chris Dahl that Madara told, she was rejected for not serving the local political interests, and instead sent to serve perhaps 70 years in prison for a crime which everyone knew did not happen. Which makes perfect sense for someone who has a brain injury, has been a hooker since age 13, and is easy sport for sadists and abusers. 69. Jailhouse witness Julie Madara said Scott Love was with Jackson, at a time when evidence and testimony indicate Love was with Chris Dahl. It was hidden from the jury and from Jackson, that the lawyer who coached Madara's testimony Adam Reiss was paid by Chris Dahl. And that by coaching this false testimony from Madara, and obtaining a confidentiality waiver from Madara, Reiss allowed Jackson's attorney to stay on the case and keep her $100,000 retainer, despite Madara having been her previous client. But this also stopped Jackson's lawyers from letting Jackson tell her story which included Love actually being with Chris Dahl, when Jackson's lawyers told Jackson to make up a robbery story based on the fake evidence, to get a plea deal and protect the lying cops whom Jackson's attorneys were friends with from when they were local prosecutors. Long story short, some lawyers collected a lot of money, they framed a hooker for life, and the papers are immunized to tell the public that elected officials are solving crime and only that. 70. The testimony of another jailhouse witness Kaylee Simmons contradicted a mountain of physical evidence, including that the gun was a black Glock, that Mandi Jackson got the gun back from police in Georgia, that Mulrenin was drugged with GHB, that Jackson lied about being drugged herself, that Jackson signed "fuck you" on a credit card receipt, that the robbery only took a few minutes, that Love hid in the car, that Love shot Mulrenin from the front in the leg as a robbery threat, that Mulrenin was tied up and escaped, that the apartment was ransacked, and that Love drove Jackson to work. Simmons admitted on a prison phone call that she lied, which is of course irrelevant to the extent everyone on the planet except the jury knows her story is nonsense, and every jailhouse witness is always lying. Because jailhouse witnesses are only fooling juries, for the purpose to make both irrelevant. 71. The jury was of course bamboozled and played for total suckers, when they were told jailhouse witness Simmons would get life in prison if she lied, and was therefore extremely biased to tell the truth. Which fraud is only objectionable if you like jury trials, which the public does not. (Florida v. Jackson, Seminole County 2016-CF-003668-B, docket 1210, 10/30/19, trial page 586, file “201-250” page 25) Q Would you commit perjury? A No. Q And why would you not commit perjury? A Because that would just give me more time, and I want to go home as soon as I can. Q And if -- if you committed perjury and violated your agreement, would you then be looking at a life sentence? MR. BARK: Objection. Improper bolster. THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. STONE: A Yes, sir. Long Record of Overturned Convictions 72. Popularly accepted records confirm what logic upon this nonsense predicts, that there have been something like 30 death-row exonerations in Florida since 1972, and 80 major-crime or life-sentence exonerations since 1989 depending on whom you ask and what you are measuring. Those numbers are rationally estimated to be a small fraction of actual innocents in prison. 73. And these numbers are not even the tip of the iceberg of the primary pool of innocents in prison, which largely consists of incompetents and pushovers whom the government saw were easy targets and ran over for sport, without those falsely accused or their families even understanding what was happening to them. Jailhouse witnesses and crooked cops and lawyers pick on the same easy meat as every other predator on the streets. These are people who have been abused and lied about their whole lives, long before people like Phil Archer came along and realized they could do the same for votes. They don't know any different world from being lied about and abused, and don't realize that being lied about and locked in a box is strange or there is anything anyone can do about it. 74. The same incompetent people who are made sport of to get wrongfully convicted, still have the same dysfunctions after they're convicted. They don't suddenly turn it around and learn how to fight back against a crooked government after they are in prison. Rather it gets worse. They become even more mentally ill, and even more deprived of any friends or support structures once they are in prison. They are not the ones writing all the habeas motions, rather they are getting beat up and lied about and sexually abused by the people writing all the habeas motions. They are silent because they have been taught from an early age that speaking out is hopeless. Even Innocence Project requires a coherent presentation from an inmate himself before helping him. Their only chance was when new DNA evidence became available, which was a one-time event. So pretty much the actual innocent people are just stuck there for life. We can only estimate their numbers to be a large multiple of exonerations. 75. People may disagree as to how much actual innocence that translates to, and how much actual perjury that translates to. There is no disagreement that the many murder convictions overturned when DNA was invented, have uncovered a large amount of perjury. There can be no disagreement that none of that perjury, when exposed, was ever prosecuted in Florida or is expected to be. And nor is there any voter regulation when prosecutors like Phil Archer, Harry Connick, Ed Jagels, and Doug Cheshire, are proven to use perjury to torture the innocent, and get reelected. The only evidence is that state-witness perjury, when caught, is never prosecuted. And there is no evidence that it is prosecuted or is imminently expected to be. Anyone who disagrees, Plaintiff can provide you with a list of names and cases with examples of perjury that you will take no action on. 76. One might argue the standard of reasonable doubt of guilt or whether there was a fair trial required to overturn a verdict, is on the opposite end of the spectrum of reasonable doubt that the witnesses lied to prosecute them for perjury. So maybe some of these defendants are being let out, when there is still a good chance the witnesses told the truth. This still exposes that the jury was misled and prejudiced, to draw incorrect conclusions about the reliability of witnesses who knew they would pay no penalty for perjury, or the jury was prejudiced to not know prosecutors can trick them with immunity. If it is impossible to ever tell if witnesses lied to prosecute them for perjury, maybe jurors shouldn't be whimsically deciding whether or not they lied based on the juror's own personal well of spectral "common sense". And there are cases where everyone agrees the witnesses lied, but the lie is still invisible to citizens whose standing manifests through statute, and to the fact-finding function of the case. 77. And the jury originally finding the defendant guilty, does not make the jury the finder of fact of whether a witness lied, despite such circular reasoning often being cited. The jury knows they are not the finder of fact of whether a witness committed a felony, and are thereby prejudiced to believe that would be taken care of by someone else, to gate-keep what kind of testimony the jury is even given to consider. When a jury finds something beyond a reasonable doubt and it is overturned, the jury was almost always misled about something to nullify them and move power to the executive branch. When it happens more in Florida than any other state, as it has, that is empirical evidence which confirms that Plaintiff's cited examples are part of a standard pattern which the State refuses to cure. Crimes That Occur During Prosecution are Unreportable 78. Like any average person (including jurors), back in 2016 Plaintiff was naive to not know Florida prosecutors are allowed the standard use of perjury, and every lawyer in the room knows that is exactly what they are doing. Long before Love's trial in the Mulrenin case, and between Love and Jackson's trial, Plaintiff reported numerous instances of contradictory sworn statements, tampered evidence, and apparent perjury to the State Attorney and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Plaintiff was ignored by the State Attorney, and told by the FDLE that it is the responsibility of private attorneys to prosecute crimes by state witnesses. (One witness who faked the video times and lied about it, ASPD Officer Jackson Athaide, was later revealed to work for the FDLE.) 79. Plaintiff also complained to the Florida Bar that another jailhouse witness against Jackson had the same attorney as co-defendant Scott Love. This jailhouse witness Maletta Young told yet another different contradictory story, was subpoenaed to testify at trial for the defense but never did, and was rewarded by prosecutors for it nevertheless (Kyles "remarkably uncritical"). The deal jailhouse witness Young made while she had the same attorney as Jackson's co-defendant Love, made it harder for Jackson to get a deal testifying against Love (which arguably necessitated their use of fake DNA evidence against Love, and career CSI Alison Smolarek is no longer employed by the police department, but still practicing omerta). Based on conversations with Love's other attorney Michael Nielsen, Plaintiff concluded that Love's conflicted attorney Kenneth Hamburg got paid to write a motion saying his jailhouse witness client was unreliable hearsay after he withdrew from her case. The Bar said it was not a problem. 80. If anyone thinks government in Cuba is dysfunctional, consider that released Mandi Jackson "confession" witness Maletta Young was a habitual offender who had been selling opiates and getting felonies at least since she was 20. 10 years later at age 30, Maletta was out on bond for arranging an aggravated home-invasion battery where she stepped over the body of the helpless victim who had been kicked in the head. While out on bond, Maletta was arrested - and released without requiring bond - for selling every drug except marijuana at once - fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, meth, pills - while possessing a loaded firearm as a convicted felon, and extra bullets in a drug baggie. Maletta was an informant for Phil Archer on an unknown number of cases, and got just two years for everything Plaintiff just listed. Judge John Galuzzo told Maletta not to be late to her sentencing which she was, and not to commit any new crimes, which she did by bringing fentanyl, buprenoprhine, naloxone, meth, and alprazolam to her rescheduled sentence hearing, which she was then caught dealing in the county jail. After that Maletta was arrested again for mailing even more drugs into the jail. Maletta got 21 new felony arrests just in the time between Mandi Jackson getting arrested and Mandi Jackson's trial. Maletta Young clearly knew what Plaintiff is telling this Court, that every other crime and especially lying in court, is ignored in Florida if it helps get a popular conviction. Maletta's sworn statements were such garbage, she ended up being subpoenaed to testify for Jackson's defense, and not testifying at all. For all that - including dealing fentanyl in the county jail - Maletta spent 18 total months in prison, and may now be your neighbor as a reward for perjury to make Phil Archer look good. 81. All this garbage is excused to manufacture an outcome, for the simple reason that outcome is consistent with the fake stories in the newspaper. All this garbage is politically rewarded for the simple reason that it creates a jury verdict - breaks the law as necessary to fix a jury verdict - that matches the fake narrative embellished in newspapers. Whereas a totally legal process that created an outcome which didn't match the claims in the media, would have the prosecutors, as well as the court and the jury, maligned as idiots for the next 50 years, like the time they put gloves on gloves on OJ Simpson. Law would not be necessary if public opinion produced the same result. Due process cannot be obtained by an appeal to the political process, but only delivered by this Court as the reason this Court exists. You cannot report crimes in Florida that take place to subvert due process - not to government officials, your neighbors, or the media who is only immunized to print what the government says - but only to this Court as Plaintiff is doing now. 82. Plaintiff also complained to the Florida Bar that Jackson's attorney Carrie Rentz took an apparent bribe from attorney Adam Reiss, when Reiss was both the attorney of the person Love was actually with the night Mulrenin died, at the same time as Reiss substituted in for another attorney to coach the false testimony of star jailhouse witness Julie Madara, to instead give the false story that Love was with Jackson not Reiss's own client. The jailhouse witness Julie Madara, was previously a client of Jackson's attorney Rentz, and so Reiss got Madara to sign a confidentiality waiver so Rentz could stay on Jackson's case and keep her $100,000 retainer. But this required delaying Jackson's case, while they sealed Orange County 48-2016-CF-011304-A-O which showed Reiss was also Chris Dahl's attorney, whom Reiss's other client Julie Madara simultaneously accused of planning the murder. 83. Plaintiff reported to the Bar that this conflict was hidden from Jackson and from the Seminole County court that allowed Rentz to stay on the case, and that around this time attorney Rentz stopped talking to anyone, and started otherwise acting suspicious. The Bar said the confidentiality waiver agreement was fine if the court approved it, even though the facts were hidden from the defendants and the court. And The Bar said Plaintiff had no right to communicate with Jackson in jail to tell her the truth, while for years she was sedated 23 hours a day and kept in an isolation unit the size of a closet with no windows. (This to pressure Jackson to testify against Love which it was impossible for her to do, because there was no robbery, the evidence was faked and hidden from her and taken from her in jail, and when Jackson tried to make up a story to testify, her attorneys could not use it because it involved Chris Dahl from whom they indirectly received a bribe.) 84. The Bar basically said don't call us about crimes, conflict, or misconduct that happens in an active case, that is for the judge. This is a standard response, and all records of such Bar complaints - often containing allegations of criminal conduct documented and reported to officers of the court - are destroyed. 85. For all these Bar complaints, Plaintiff got an acknowledgment letter and response. Then during lunch before closing arguments in Love's trial, Plaintiff complained to The Bar that he had just seen prosecutor Stewart Stone suborn perjury from stripper Neisha Cintron, and from Officer Jackson Athaide who lied about the video times. Plaintiff sent this complaint overnight mail, and verified its delivery like every other Bar complaint. The only difference, was Plaintiff also handed a copy of this Bar complaint to the prosecutor's office in the courthouse. The Bar never responded. It is common knowledge that The Bar has been somehow told to stay away from all the garbage lawyers do which results in conviction, on the argument this is for the courts to weigh. But The Florida Bar didn't even acknowledge receiving this complaint about state-witness perjury at trial, to even respond with no action. Of all the complaints, The Bar acted as if the one complaint didn't exist. It was apparently lost on arrival. 86. After Jackson was given two life sentences based on a trial where every material witness lied, Plaintiff documented the perjury on a website "SeminoleScam.com", and reported it to at least 500 politicians, political activists, and government institutions in thousands of emails and posts, over and over every day. They all ignored Plaintiff, told Plaintiff to shut up, or called Plaintiff an evil Marxist enemy combatant. Plaintiff tried to raise their interest by saying white Republicans like Plaintiff would cost them the 2020 election. (They would go on to ignore that also, and blame the lack of voter turnout on fraud.) 87. Plaintiff provided the documentation of cops committing perjury to Internal Affairs at the Altamonte Springs Police Department. The other cop who picked up another extension said Lieutenant in Internal Affairs Marcos Ramirez was right there and would pick up his phone. But IA Ramirez never picked up his phone or responded to Plaintiff's messages. Plaintiff sent emails to IA Ramirez and Police Chief Daniel Smutz on multiple occasions. Ramirez did seem to read Plaintiff's emails and tip off the prosecutor or seek direction, when the links Plaintiff emailed Ramirez instantly got clicked by a Windows desktop PC on cable Internet in Altamonte Springs, followed immediately by clicks on the same links from the Sanford courthouse where the prosecutors are. On one occasion, those clicks were immediately followed by cellphone clicks in Cocoa where prosecutor Phil Archer seemed to be. On another occasion those clicks were immediately followed by clicks from Daytona Beach which happened to be where the Florida Attorney General appeals lawyers were at that time working on Jackson's appeal. This gives the appearance that rather than investigate his fellow cops, Ramirez immediately coordinated with the prosecutors to let the crimes slide. 88. Plaintiff complained to the Florida Office of Executive Investigations and other State offices in Tallahassee about the perjury and fake evidence in the Mulrenin case. They responded that under Florida Statute 112.533 and the Florida Constitution, the State has no jurisdiction over local cops or prosecutors breaking the law, rather they are investigated by their own department and the local voter. They told Plaintiff to go back and continue complaining directly to the local elected officials' offices, which Plaintiff did. 89. Plaintiff told Republicans they would lose the 2020 election as a consequence of their criminal justice cult beliefs denying reality. Plaintiff emailed every Republican running in a Florida primary, and every elected Republican prosecutor in Florida, that Phil Archer would lose them elections and make them all known as scumbags. Plaintiff sent grievances to Archer frequently at an email address that Plaintiff found on what appeared to be a campaign Facebook page. Plaintiff's emails to Archer included a web server log that showed Plaintiff sent documentation of Archer's crimes to elected representatives who looked at it, including in Washington DC. Plaintiff's emails also made fun of other activists in Archer's faction, including Trump, Shannon Sprowls, and Tyler Sirois. Those emails appeared to be ignored, or get tallied and added to fundraising blast lists, and go down the hole that emails to elected representatives from non-donors, and all communications to Archer, generally go down. 90. Rather than respond to Plaintiff's emails showing documentation of felonies, they sent Okeechobee deputies who trespassed on Plaintiff's property and ran his license plate parked on a private street in a gated community. After Plaintiff told them to stay off unless they had an invitation, probable cause, or a warrant, a bunch of deputies trespassed again, this time in a military formation with an assault rifle, seemingly looking for action based on knowing they were not welcome. After trespassing on Plaintiff's property then even another time, Okeechobee deputies pulled Plaintiff over on a remote road, and told him there was no traffic violation, but their purpose for contacting Plaintiff was to provide him information to not send emails to Washington because Plaintiff was getting a lot of attention. All this trespassing was to warn Plaintiff not to engage in his political speech reporting crimes used to get convictions, and abuse of discretion by Phil Archer. All this is documented in video and audio recordings on Youtube. All this is uncontroverted and incontrovertible except to a court that willfully turns a blind eye. Florida officials do not dispute this, but will only claim immunity and refuse any discovery. 91. Plaintiff put his general political grievances and online arguments about the non-prosecution of perjury, on a website Cops2Prison.org. Plaintiff drove to the nearest law school Stetson University (the only one Plaintiff believed he could get to without driving on a highway because his car was too old to go fast), and posted "COPS2PRISON.ORG" fliers outside the campus. The next morning, Plaintiff was arrested based on a sloppy allegation that by driving over a bridge and spending 94 minutes in Pinellas County to post political fliers, Plaintiff was stalking Shannon Sprowls (which garbage the judge was politically forced to sign for having the name of the most important local politician). 92. There was no evidence that Plaintiff was ever anywhere near Shannon Sprowls, or that either Shannon Sprowls or Plaintiff ever believed the other one was in the same county. The arrest affidavit contained multiple instances of material perjury. Specifically, the perjury was designed to make it look like the cop was responding to a complaint of a stalking victim, when in fact the cop did not do the investigation and had no crime witness, but was fed garbage to put in his affidavit by the same elected officials whom Plaintiff had been petitioning and calling scum. 93. Plaintiff then wrote a complaint to the Florida Inspector General about perjury, in both the Mulrenin case and Plaintiff's arrest affidavit for posting political fliers. The next morning, local deputies located Plaintiff at a remote gas station apparently by tracking his phone. The deputies told Plaintiff they were sent on orders of The Governor, to lock Plaintiff up without probable cause or being allowed to go before a judge, unless Plaintiff agreed to not send any more complaints to the Florida Inspector General. 94. Plaintiff sought a restraining order in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to stop cops harassing him with no crime. Plaintiff's petition was dismissed before responses based on illegal bench trial faux responses, without any opposing witnesses or testimony but instead inappropriately weighing false gossip from the Florida Attorney General covering up perjury, and discarding Plaintiff's sworn statements as lies. An appeal is pending in the US 11th Circuit. The basic ruling was that if a cop lies about a bad person in an affidavit, judges have the discretion to accept the lies and thereby abrogate and nullify all rights and law, and substitute the politically acceptable outcome chosen by a social quorum of the powerful. 95. These events show the normalized inaction of every government official in Florida when provided documentation of felony perjury being used to subvert courts. This includes the Governor who, when Plaintiff reported felonies to Tallahassee, sent police to threaten to lock Plaintiff up under false pretense without going before a judge. These events show how as a practical matter, crimes by the State of Florida to subvert courts, are not reportable to anyone or curable in the State of Florida. This is corroborated anecdotally by millions of people, and the fact there is no central repository recording their experiences is exactly the point. The fact that the FBI exists is as useless to an individual in a particular case as knowing that somebody wins the lottery. The US DOJ does not have a 911 number, and local FBI agents have a political interest to work with local cops and make fentanyl headlines, rather than on behalf of random nobodies who have been stigmatized in local papers. 96. Plaintiff can prove Florida government officials have read and understood everything Plaintiff has documented, they are aware of all the crimes. Their hiding and faking evidence during discovery, their brazenly orchestrating lies at trial, and their behavior to this day and too many other things to talk about here, leaves no doubt these elected officials know exactly that they used a perjury scam, and it is a standard procedure. When Plaintiff is harassed, detained, and arrested for reporting a crime (but never charged or provided discovery or allowed to confront witnesses), you know they heard what Plaintiff said. Florida government officials continue to monitor Plaintiff's social media to this day, and continue to ignore every crime in Florida mentioned by Plaintiff. 97. Rights which cannot be enforced by this Court, but only by groveling in the Florida political process, do not exist. Voters Give Police A Mandate To Lie 98. If the nature of the crowd were to protect the rights of the individual, you would not need the lever of the courts or the fulcrum of the law to push back. You won't find a place in history where the majority of people don't want to lie about their neighbors, about some minority, or about whomever the executive branch picks, as they find convenient to get whatever the collective thinks is important. In Florida today, police are given a mandate to lie as believed necessary, to achieve whatever goals they have sold to the public. Some minority may occasionally whine about police lying in isolated instances, but there are only very rare cases where police lies somehow violate the informal boundaries, of what the majority of voters want police to lie about or just don't care about, to put outcomes out of the hands of the court and into the hands of the 51%. (There is even a nifty hybrid of economic and legal Marxism, where cops can just grab your money if you are suspicious.) 99. Judges are seen as parasitic middlemen, a third wheel on the sheriff's date with the people. Local judges accept this sentiment and will sign anything they can get away with, and then defense attorneys are presented with a financial choice of whether to complain (and even an ethical choice when their clients are offered settlements that forfeit their ability to complain). And also a choice whether they want to be able to drive home from the restaurant without getting DUI's, or whether they want their kids to be caught with bags of weed without going to prison. 100. Anybody who gives low weight to what Plaintiff is saying, remember that cops followed Plaintiff around and harassed him for months after he made a Cops2Prison.org website. and then tailgated Plaintiff on a Monday morning and accused him of drunk driving when he tried to let them pass, and a federal magistrate basically laughed in Plaintiff's face and said she was under "no obligation" to read about it. If they want payback on a defense attorney, cops can find "probable cause" that every federal court will defer to. Lawyers know this better than anybody, which is why they will rarely take a 1983 case. Judges who live in big cities might not appreciate this as much, but many Florida towns are built around one street with the same two people passing each other over and over. The local majority faction can take away everything you have, and a federal judge will do jack squat about it. 101. Plaintiff overheard a local deputy say "Cowboys been infiltrated by The Devil... with that meth." The law and the facts are not good enough, when you are fighting The Devil. Police are basically given the okay to go out and tell whatever lie you have to (as glorified in "Beverly Hills Cop"), to stop our children stealing our money to amuse themselves hiring Mexican fentanyl dealers or whatever. Just like people in Venezuela might give the government a mandate to tell whatever lies they have to to seize some business, which they have been told is necessary to feed the people. If 51% of people want it, or at least a vocal mob can be persuaded to want it - or if it simply satisfies the public indulgence to torture some minority while deluding themselves that they are puritans pursuing morals - the law is an obstacle. Voters will pursue every election cycle, the eternal promise and mirage that the government can deliver a better product. A court that relies on voters to stop cops lying, abandons the 4th Amendment to a mob. 102. Everyone knows cop lies which are perceived to grease the wheels of justice are not rogue acts, but are allowed and therefore encouraged by the executive branch at the state level, as a substitute for openly amending the US Constitution. The idea is if we amended the Constitution, then police could do it to us, the majority of law-abiding citizens. But this way, police can only do it to those bad people, meaning whomever the local 51% majority can be persuaded are bad (incited against with immunity). Torturing random people is pursued by the same impulsive irrational indulgent parents, whose impulsive irrational indulgent children choose to ingest unknown powders. It's an addiction of people with a blind incontinent vanity to indulge themselves, and say everything is someone else's fault. The question before this Court, is whether this process which ignores federal rights and the legal process for Florida citizens to enforce laws, can be proactively enjoined, rather than individual cases being attacked by rare defense lawyers who don't care about making a profit, and aren't afraid of getting pulled over after two glasses of wine at the steak house. (Everyone has something that can be taken away in retribution by cops who are allowed to lie, and federal courts will say there was probable cause and immunity.) 103. An anecdote of how lying cops are protected by the system - and there are only countless anecdotes since the government is not compelled to make a statistical record its own crimes, and courts are legally blind to claims of lying that aren't stamped by government and are swept under the rug with plea deals - is Seminole County 2014-MM-010265A. In rare defiance of the political fortress protecting cops lying, Judge Frederic Schott judged a state witness to have committed material perjury, because a cop lied to support a DUI charge against Licette Gonzalez. Judge Schott asked the State Attorney “Will you take him up for perjury?” Schott also told the State Attorney that the “case should have never been brought.” Schott judged within his discretion not only that the process was subverted with perjury, but that it was therefore a waste of judicial and state resources. Not only did the local State Attorney Phil Archer neglect to prosecute this perjury squandering the taxpayer treasure, but Schott was removed from the criminal division as a result of his judicial discretion. This is an example of how the locus of decision making was moved to the executive branch, with the local prosecutor's abuse of discretion overriding the law and the uncooperative discretion of the court. 104. Cops have lied in 100% of Plaintiff's traffic interactions in Florida. In maybe 2007, Plaintiff was driving around South Beach looking for a guy named Lukas. Plaintiff saw someone who knew Lukas on the sidewalk in front of a dive bar "Lost Weekend". Plaintiff asked out his passenger window, do you know how I can get in touch with Lukas? The guy who knew Lukas said let me use your phone to call someone. Plaintiff handed his little silver clamshell phone out the passenger window. A cop ran up and brutally tackled the guy using Plaintiff's phone, face down on the concrete. The cop seemed to think it was a drug deal. The cop roughed him up a bit, and then told him to get lost. 105. Plaintiff tried to write down a complaint of what happened at the South Beach police station, and police refused to accept it. They told Plaintiff the cop's version of events was different, and they would not make any record unless the guy who was tackled made the complaint himself. Plaintiff tried to get that guy to write a complaint himself, but he was scared to go anywhere near the police station. This is of course the political mandate, to prevent drug dealing (or whatever ills some demagogue has hyped himself as the solution for), by scaring any poor or stupid people from walking on the sidewalks. But we cannot pretend this is the law, or that cops lying to make it look like law merits any actual study of law, except as a charade to trick federal courts. 106. In 2016, Plaintiff was trying to park to look at a house rental in Orlando, when he saw a garbage truck going the opposite direction, stopped for an extended period with nobody in it. Plaintiff drove past slowly, believing nobody could get into the truck to drive it without seeing Plaintiff, but fearful of some sudden activity from the back of truck. The garbage driver was obscured at the back of the far side of the truck, trying to get the claw to release a stuck trashcan. The homeowner asked the driver to stop blocking her driveway. The garbage truck driver jumped into the passenger side of the truck where there is a second steering wheel, pulled forward a few feet while veering to avoid the stuck can hitting the homeowner's fence, and crashed into Plaintiff (documented with photographs). The garbage driver then walked around the front of his truck, and apologized to Plaintiff for crashing into him. 107. The garbage driver said he not could unskewer Plaintiff's vehicle until police and his supervisor came. When Plaintiff came out of the rental showing, the cop and the supervisor said the neighbor on Plaintiff's side of the street witnessed the garbage driver was not even in the truck, and Plaintiff crashed into the truck. When Plaintiff pointed out it was impossible for Plaintiff to drive his car sideways into the front of the garbage truck, the cop responded with dishonest nonsense and claimed to be an accident reconstruction specialist. When Plaintiff requested the cop call the neighbor on the phone or bring her back out to find out what she really said, the cop refused, seemingly knowing the witness would not corroborate the cop's false narrative. 108. When all three of the witnesses failed to show to testify against Plaintiff for reckless driving, Plaintiff asked the court to not throw out the ticket, and instead give Plaintiff a new court date and subpoena the witnesses again. Plaintiff wanted to get on the record what really happened, so he could sue the garbage truck driver. The cop objected to a new court date, on the basis that it would violate Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial. Plaintiff waived his right to a speedy trial. 109. The cop and the judge were miserable that the case could not be fixed with lies and force Plaintiff to pay a fine and clear out the docket, as is standard practice. The judge warned Plaintiff that Plaintiff could be found guilty if he did not let them dispose of the case, which is standard practice to resolve matters that begin with police lying. The cop was surprised those citizens didn't come in to court and lie, when he lied on their behalf, to keep an odd man with an old pickup truck out of their neighborhood. 110. In 2019, a cop pulled Plaintiff over a mile into gated private property, and gave weak reasons to search Plaintiff's car. When Plaintiff saw the cop was wearing a “K9” vest and saw there was a random dog wandering around the street, Plaintiff blurted out the innocent question "Do you have a dog back there?" The cop insisted Plaintiff's question about whether she had a dog, implied Plaintiff had drugs, and gave her cause to search Plaintiff's car. 111. The cop wrote down false information that she pulled Plaintiff over at a different address a mile away on the other side of the main road, in an apparent conscious effort to lie that she pulled Plaintiff over on a public street. There was only one block among hundreds in the area, that was not private property. When a cop's error of writing the wrong address, is the one needle of public road in a haystack of private property, it seems to not be an error, but a mandate from the public to lie without consequence, like in the Licette Gonzales case mentioned by Plaintiff. 112. Plaintiff could give more examples, but the undeniable fact is established, that Florida cops are given a mandate to lie. It doesn't stop with harassing random people in traffic, to stop the self-obsessed jerk kids of the 51% majority from choosing to finance Mexican cartels for their own recreational indulgence. (Max Weber said blaming your misfortunes on your own failings is a necessary prerequisite for capitalism; it is also apparently a prerequisite for the rule of law over Marxism in criminal courts.) The mandate allowing cops to lie goes as far as stopping political speech, using an arrest affidavit full of lies to accuse Plaintiff of stalking someone when he is posting "Cops2Prison.org" fliers at a law school. It goes as far as helping strip clubs steal money and blame it on incompetents like Mandi May Jackson, or commit other crimes and hide the video like in the Bryon Aven case. These are not noble purposes, but indulgences to vanity under color of noble purpose. 113. Nobody denies there are instances of cops lying, they are documented all over social media. Pick a random number, Plaintiff can produce that number of witnesses with documentation of cops lying about them, and police refused to even write down a report of it much less being charged. The fact that the state does not catalog its own lies or make a record of them available as any type of input into a legal process, is the problem. The proof that this is the design - to hand over final jurisdiction of law and fact to cops - is apparent in Florida Statute 112.533 which says the only person you can report cops to is their own department, who will refuse to even create a record except in rare circumstances. You report it to Tallahassee, the only person who ever got a response is Plaintiff. The response was more cops came and threatened Plaintiff. 114. Plaintiff has heard popular support for police lying justified in many ways, all of which it is this Court's job to ignore and oppose. Plaintiff heard someone say suppose there were two people and it is not possible to prove which one pulled the trigger, or owned the drugs. It is better for police to lie to lock both of them up, than to have the guilty one get away. And it is the innocent person’s own fault for hanging out with dirtbags. Plaintiff heard “We don’t care what really happened, police lying and forcing lowlifes to lie about each other, is our opportunity to get them off the streets and make the world a better place.” Plaintiff heard approximately “Nobody likes framing the innocent. But sometimes it is necessary to force them to testify against the big fish whom we know are guilty but have no evidence against.” Plaintiff heard a former judge say “Sometimes I knew the cops were lying. But it’s the best system we have. The world is not perfect and the alternative is criminals get away with it.” 115. Somebody might complain “There was a shooting at a party so me and my friend tried to drive out of there in a hurry, and a cop pulled us over and planted drugs on my friend and searched our car, and my friend lost his job.” A cop will respond “If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Nothing good happens after midnight.” Someone will say “DNA proved 20 years later that a jailhouse witness who convicted someone of murder, was straight lying. And anyone can predict a jailhouse witness is lying based on simple math, based on the number of inmates who are ready and willing and know they will be rewarded for lying.” A cop (or even a shameless judge) will say we need jailhouse witnesses, they are an important tool to solve crime. 116. Or someone will say “”Police should shoot a scumbag like Jacob Blake for the public good, who cares if he had a weapon or not.” And so they will condone police lying to say some dirtbag had a gun, or was pointing a gun, when it is a lie. Or they will say if police arrest someone with a past drug arrest and frame him for an unsolved murder, so what, it saved them having to pick him up over and over for the next 20 years, when statistics say he is otherwise likely to commit property crimes in the future. 117. Or people simply say so what police lied, they did the right thing locking up a guilty person, when they only think the person is guilty because the paper said he was because police lied, in a circular manner that retroactively justifies police lying about anything “for the public good”. So there are simple and brazen police lies where they just plainly frame the innocent for sport with zero excuse or mitigating factors. 118. Or people will say “I don’t believe it. You are just a Marxist and I don’t believe that cop was really lying. And there is no real need to stop police lying, because when police lie it is a direct and inevitable consequence of your own poor life decisions. Instead of complaining that police lie, take some responsibility for your own actions, or the state of the world that forces police to lie. Don’t attack the solution.” 119. In summary, Plaintiff has heard a majority of people say they prefer cops lying, to the outcome regulated by the law applied to the truth. That does not change, but rather lays out, the job of this Court which has grown from neglect like a stack of dirty dishes. Rendering powerless such myths, prejudices, and religions of the crowd is the job that has today landed on this Court's desk. State Executive Branch Discretion Evades Federal Regulation 120. Plaintiff has not yet looked behind any arrest affidavit in Florida without uncovering lies. Normal people on the street share and corroborate Plaintiff's same anecdotal experience (and can be produced as witnesses). And of course all experience is anecdotal, because the government would never compile and publish a statistical record of its own lies (whereas any private database like a self-reporting website would be of limited legal usefulness often with good reason). Rather, police resist the minimum level of state-level regulation applied to everyone from hair braiders to sellers of travel, and operate like a speakeasy behind the false wall of the local court. And if you swear to a federal court that your arrest affidavit contains lies, the federal court will cite state immunity (such as a claimed ongoing state investigation without needing any evidence to support the argument) to dismiss your case without discovery. 121. The law says if the defendant is a bad enough person that a judge can use his discretion to say there was probable cause, then all lies are immune and in good faith. Consider a homeless person sitting on the sidewalk during a bank robbery. A cop swears an affidavit that he saw the homeless person run out with a bag of cash. No charges, but the story that a cop caught him running out of a bank with a bag of cash is on the Internet forever. A federal court has discretion to say sitting on the sidewalk during a robbery is suspicious, and therefore immunizes the arrest and stigma. Years later the same guy is attacked by a drunk homeowner during a house party. The homeowner reads the fake bank-robbery story online, and claims he was being robbed. The jury reads the fake bank-robbery story on the web during lunch and gives the guy life. 122. Those same lies and discretion which are immunized against USC 1983 by whimsical "probable cause" are then used to dictate the bond, and hold people without bond, so that the poor and incompetent can be housed with sociopathic felons. Prosecutors will then let those felons out of prison as a reward for lying in court that the defendant confessed to what they saw on TV in the day room, to complete the scam. Jailhouse witnesses are a plain and obvious scam, which make the study of law by people who humor their use, a disgraceful charade. They are a way to turn lies and unsupported accusations, into convictions. 123. There are countless real-world cases which illustrate that voter approval does not check but encourages greasing discretion with what are considered white lies to courts. Real-world examples include Leigha Michelle Day (St. Lucie County 22-03312), and Jean Macean (Volusia County 22-301077). The actual evidence in the arrest affidavit, suggested that Jean Macean was walking down a back street looking to buy weed or something, and saw two people that resembled the hookers and pimps a block off the main street in Macean's Orlando neighborhood, who would know where to buy weed. Evidence in the affidavit was that Terry Aultman turned his bicycle around, to approach Macean. The evidence of premeditation of murder - that Macean turned around and hurried towards the Aultmans - was non-existent. Signing Macean's arrest affidavit with premeditation, was the will of a mob of bikers and real estate agents on TV and Facebook overwhelming the law. 124. If Macean were a white ex-cop with a gun, personal connections to the local sheriff, and Florida-born knowledge of how the law is designed for the discretion to allow him to kill, he would be at home right now claiming stand your ground against a drunk biker with a history of violence. But instead the court uses that same discretion to hold Macean without bond for premeditated murder, where Macean can be deprived of access to the digital evidence against him, isolated, intimidated, drugged, and set up to have other inmates lie that he confessed. And Macean was questioned for 11 hours and paraded in front of the media in chains and again forced to confess, which treatment someone like Curtis Reeves (Pasco 2014-CF-000216-CF) or Andrew Lawson (Brevard 05-2022-CF-054996) is spared, because we are governed by mob impulses not law. Lawson was released on bond, to prevent fugitives and undesirables from lying that Lawson confessed in jail, rather than coerced for 11 hours, drugged, and held in isolation until he "confessed". 125. Leigha Michelle Day was held without bond based on an arrest affidavit full of material lies, to paint her as setting up the interaction and ambushing the cop. In reality their interaction was dictated by the cop which Day tried to avoid. The judge said it doesn't matter, the video proves it was premeditated. Looking at the video, that is a matter of discretion, which discretion is then shaped by political convenience because Day stabbed a cop. What Leigha Day did on video, does not fit the common public or voter definition of premeditation. The statewide 51% that voted for the legislature and have some notion what "premeditated first degree murder" means, were usurped by the local 51% that voted for the sheriff. 126. The papers say Leigha Day then confessed to premeditating a murder, stating her motive was to get out of a ticket for driving without insurance. They said it was because Day was crazed on meth. It looked to Plaintiff like Day was in a state of shock with a brain injury, having just been in a rollover accident in the dark, and blinded by a silhouette after seeing strange people in the vicinity. But the public cannot obtain either Day's medical records or her supposed confession. When Plaintiff tried to perform such oversight, Plaintiff was discouraged and attacked on social media, and told that the law needs to be ignored to make sure garbage meth freaks are taken off the street. Plaintiff could not even get an honest answer from the FDLE about Day's toxicology results, which appear to show the result that is considered "negative" for meth. It is not possible to perform oversight on a politically charged case that began with an arrest affidavit full of perjury. Instead the public is fed the narrative of demagogues, to groom the acceptance of perjury and the usurpation of this Court's jurisdiction with the impulse of the local 51%. 127. Public records requests will generally be resisted, and things like confessions and medical records and state surveillance are barred from public view. In the Mandi May Jackson case, State Attorney employee Crystal Martin lied to Plaintiff that the undisclosed video of the dog walker who could tell you what time he walked his dogs, was exempt from public records because it contained state surveillance secrets. In Brevard County, video of Gregory Edwards dying in jail strapped to a chair with a bag over his head, was exempt because it could reveal security features at the jail. Plaintiff was quoted $1,773.60 to get the public records in the Leigha Day case. This for the simplest case with one defendant that took minutes, when a girl rolled her car, stabbed a responding cop who walked up behind her, both went to the hospital, she supposedly confessed during her police interview, and a search of the car produced no incriminating items. And the records do not even include the material evidence of Day's medical records or her supposed confession. 128. The records of any brain injury Day might have just suffered during a rollover crash, are secret to protect the privacy of patients. As a substitute, the prosecutor instead offered to give Plaintiff for free, the sworn affidavits of cops who claimed in their professional medical opinion that Day appeared to be crazed on meth. According to Day's toxicology report, Day was not under the influence of meth, but the FDLE tech refused to say whether the result was considered positive or negative, without knowing about the case. And TV reporters quoted what cops said, that a motorist crazed on meth stabbed a cop during a traffic stop. 129. So it is impossible for the public to perform actual oversight on arrest affidavits. At the same time, government employees are immune to make any statement no matter how false and defamatory (McNayr v. Kelly), and publishers are then immune to repeat and embellish those statements, adding additional false statements that are merely inspired by the executive-branch narrative (“circuit court of appeal... recognized that there were certain discrepancies between what appeared in the affidavit and what was reported” Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)). Even an advocate against false convictions like reporter John Torres of "Florida Today" in Brevard County, cannot risk alienating elected officials like Phil Archer and their 51% of voters, or the cops who feed local papers clickable gossip which they can print and sell subscriptions to with immunity. The public is not complaining about their colosseum spectacle, but that does not make it legal unless you amend the Constitution like repealing Prohibition. 130. The public defender cannot get elected if he objects to the lies in Day's arrest affidavit, the abuse of discretion to determine premeditation, or the use of jailhouse witnesses to then fix such cases with lies. So the public defender was instead reduced to some pathetic effort of asserting Day's "absolute right to remain silent" in jail (ECF 13, 3/30/22), in a vain effort to stop the case being fixed with a coerced hearsay fake "confession", a witch-pricking device approved by courts like this one, and read through in transcripts with a shameless straight face. And if you object to such lies, people will say what is the case number? The girl in this particular case is a meth freak who stabbed a cop, the perjury is justified. Plaintiff must be a Marxist, if he objects to arbitrary executive power in service of the collective will. 131. So again the law is a charade, but the law is not good enough when a reputed meth head stabs a cop, or in 1,000 other everyday cases, to where state witness perjury is as common as potato chips. It is not just used on "monsters" like Macean, but on people driving down the street minding their own business or who are the victims of crimes, who are then falsely painted using immunity. Everyone will tell Plaintiff that the law, and the jurisdiction of this Court, is not good enough for these bad people, and must be subverted with lies to guarantee the outcome that is good and right. But we don't really need law or constitution or courts or judges, for the public to send cops out to torture the unpopular "enemies of the people". It's all a charade. And it is like Venezuela, because the results expose the fraud. The murder rate in Polk County, or in the largest city with a Republican mayor Jacksonville, is higher than the murder rate in places where the executive branch is regulated by courts and law, rather than by the impulse of the 51% mob to use lies to seize anything they don't like. 132. Compare the evidence of premeditation for Nathaniel Woods who was executed in Alabama, to Susan Lorincz who is out on bond in Florida (Marion 23-CF-002236). They made a ridiculous claim that Woods baited and lured police, when police went to Woods’ house not with an invitation or according to the intention of any occupant. Police in fact entered against the will of any occupant. They went there with an arrest warrant to arrest Woods. Woods was unarmed and being arrested, when his roommate came in and shot the cops. Compare this to Susan Lorincz who bought a gun admittedly with victim Ajike Owens in mind, researched “stand your ground” law, and took an Ipad from Owens’ kids, with the only rational expectation that they would come onto Lorincz's property to try to get the Ipad back. Lorincz really did lure them with an Ipad. Susan Lorincz did the shooting herself, of the exact person whom she had in mind when she bought the gun. And through a locked front door, when her premeditated target knocked, as Lorincz could have predicted more reliably than Nathaniel Woods predicting the cops would come. 133. To justify the execution of Nathaniel Woods, they refer to statements Woods made while he was held awaiting trial. Being held without bond is a system for manufacturing statements they can claim incriminate the defendant, when the evidence of the content of his mind is lacking at the time he is arrested. When someone is held without bond, they can coerce other inmates to claim they overheard the defendant confess, they can pick and choose from phone calls and other activities in a misleading way, they can simply have anyone who was in the jail lie that the defendant said or did something incriminating. They can arrange evidence in the defendant's house or car, like they did in the James Mulrenin case. They can prevent the defendant from telling his family what really happened, and if he does tell his family of exculpatory evidence on the jailhouse phone, police can listen in and go destroy that evidence. 134. The State claims the coerced hearsay of some felons proves Nathaniel Woods’ state of mind. The State seeks no opportunity to manufacture incriminating statements that show the intent of Susan Lorincz. They undercharged Lorincz, relative to people like Leigha Day and Jean Macean who were charged with premeditation with no evidence of it. And they sent Lorincz home on bond. People from the street where Lorincz lived have many bad things to say about Lorincz on TV. To Plaintiff, some look like felons. But none will be pressured to invent lies to prove premeditation by Lorincz, because the premeditation narrative is not even in the newspaper for them to recite, or to expect they can be let out of prison for reciting. There is no false premeditation accusation in the newspaper, which cops would then need some neighbor to recite to save embarrassment. The public would say it is the fault of Woods for associating with felons who need a deal, he deserves to be lied about. So he is executed not for the crime he did, but for knowing or being housed with felons who can be coerced to lie. 135. They admit Nathaniel Woods didn’t pull the trigger, but they say he is a bad person in general who dislikes cops, where disliking government employees can be construed as premeditation. The other side is forced to respond in kind that Susan Lorincz is a racist, rather than with the obvious facts or the law. Premeditation – the invisible contents of the mind – is not based on the law, but on the politics of who kills whom, which politics forces courts to admit gossip as evidence by allowing undeterred perjury. If a good person kills a bad person, it is never premeditation, only some terrible circumstance created by the very existence of the bad person. Whereas a bad person by definition premeditates all his shootings of good people, which are all by definition unjustified. All this gossip and public opinion can be turned into witnesses in a process that appears superficially legal to appellate courts, by the discretion to not prosecute perjury. 136. Police discretion to up-charge from assault or manslaughter to premeditation, is amplified into guilt by jailhouse witnesses and other lying scams. And it is generally based on who is believed to be a bad person, and who therefore is selected to be lied about with public approval. Who goes home and who gets the death penalty, is not decided by applying truth to law but at the discretion of the executive branch in service of the will of the public mob. Lies are the means of amplifying the choice of a cop to falsely claim premeditation, into guilt of premeditation affirmed by a federal court. Lies are the means by which the Florida executive branch usurps the jurisdiction of this Court to substitute primitive tribal justice. 137. The unequal application in Furman v. Georgia must be rationally expected, and therefore intended, when "stand your ground" and "open carry" are combined with such discretion (including "Constitutional" sheriff-judges who imagine Article III Section 2 allows them jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution). Evidence of this intent is exposed in the case of Daniel Perry (Travis County D-1-DC-21-900007), where the Governor of Texas has declared his intent to pardon a man who went negro hunting, and to thereby substitute the gossip of a Twitter mob for Daniel Perry's own un-coerced electronic messages. 138. Florida cases against Susan Lorincz, Andrew Lawson, Curtis Reeves, and Yousef Hafza (Brevard 2016-CF-031552) all had more evidence of premeditation than Jean Macean, and they all bonded out. If a case is big in the news and everybody wants blood off some druggy, they just call it premeditated, frame the person with jailhouse witnesses, and it's no more complicated than that. This for the purpose to put on a theater of being tough on crime while throwing cases against connected people like Susanna Paige Norris (Brevard 2021-CT-055302 where Phil Archer used a fraud engineering analysis to excuse DUI manslaughter). That is how you get to a high homicide rate, a low homicide solve rate, and a high rate of overturned verdicts, while some "Constitutional sheriff" clowns claim to have final jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution, and prance around playing a bunch of rubes for suckers by claiming to be tough on crime. 139. It's a scam which Florida courts participate in under the charade of law. Defenders of the charade will tell Plaintiff the law is not good enough to suit the public impulse for a person so evil as Jean Macean. The law might let Macean get away with it, like OJ or Casey Anthony, so we need to lie. And so Plaintiff's friend Mandi May Jackson is straight kidnapped by the lies of sociopathic felon cops to help a strip club steal $40,000, in an absolute vacuum of morals, law, or truth, and to protect and advance the careers of sociopathic demagogues. And when Plaintiff objects, people almost without exception point to a false news story that Jackson was arrested with GHB, as justification to lie about her. 140. Insurance companies run the other way from the same Florida courts where incompetents are trapped and abused for sport by politicians. Yes, Florida has the highest percentage of death penalty exonerations of any state, from the same people who cash in on roof-repair scams. 141. Of course the public given the choice, will instead choose rule through executive branch demagogues by popular vote the same as in Venezuela. The same as the public will choose to fleece insurance companies, or "the rich" or drug makers or anyone they can get away with, though mute incompetents in the street are politically easier targets. The public, having seen Casey Anthony and OJ go free, will choose to render the law and this Court a charade and mockery, and has. And they have been given a moral mandate for cops to lie, by a Republican thought leader Heather McDonald calling the Bill of Rights a "war on cops", which regulation must be suspended to "save lives" (apparently never bothering to look at the crime rate in countries where police have absolute power). 142. And elected officials in the Florida executive branch will never try to stop lies in court, but only to stop Plaintiff pointing at them and thereby threatening the arbitrary power of the executive branch. The State of Florida employs and conspires with the lowest felons like Ishnar Lopez-Ramos to lie about Plaintiff. 143. They say it is a moral mandate to protect society from criminals. Then they break out the discretion when a connected person kill someone DUI (Suzanna Paige Norris), a cop kills a teenager because he had a similar license plate number to a criminal (AJ Crooms and Sincere Pierce), a rich guy makes a hooker out of a retarded child (Jeffrey Epstein), a strip club wants to steal $40k (Dollhouse), a local Seminole County Republican dirtbag wants to play cop and brandish on a stranger (Joel Greenberg) or drug a hooker (Matt Gaetz and James Mulrenin), or a psychopathic nerd Congressman wants to be President (US-FL-SD 2:21-cv-14355). In those cases (or any time Phil Archer or a cop pleases and can get away with) judges will strap on their law degrees, and read a ream of straight lies with a smile. And then use lies to lock up a hooker for life who had her boss's DNA in her mouth (Mandi May Jackson) seemingly as bitter revenge for people being mean to Clarence Thomas, who denies certiorari to garbage every bit as bad as Roe. 144. With all the various immunities and discretions removing the legs of civil recourse and appellate review, Florida Statute 837.02 is the one leg on the stool holding up the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The other case law only works if you assume there is something stopping state judges from simply copy-pasting and signing lies produced by the executive branch, or else it insulates arbitrary executive power. Either this Court has some means to conserve its jurisdiction when local prosecutors condone perjury, or it doesn't. Public Oversight Is Opposite Of Legal Regulation 145. The chaotic dynamics of the crowd are the opposite of legal regulation, but will overwhelm courts in a democracy, if allowed. Such chaotic political outcomes are considered normal in Florida today, are demanded by citizens, and are delivered in courts by government officials. 146. Immunity to incite against the innocent with lies, is immunity to incite against courts which find fact, and to incite against the rule of law which protects the innocent. It is shortsighted for courts to invent immunities for false and malicious speech which immunities make citizens hate each other and the law, which is why legislation is better off written in the legislature. But the courts in their vanity and political weakness have allowed themselves to be lied about and characterized as failures, and allowed lies to dominate, to where the courts themselves are seen as the liars. When haven't ambitious demagogues in the executive branch declared other branches of government to be useless impediments, parasitic middlemen between producers and consumers? 147. It only makes sense that any casual treatment of perjury would introduce lies and impair government performance. But when publishers are immune to recite and embellish any accusation cops make, it is inevitable that it will also destroy the credibility of courts and juries, when the court outcome does not match what the newspaper said 100% of the time and some people are set free. Newspapers being encouraged to recite lies destroys the credibility of courts that find truth, and makes the public believe lies are necessary to subvert courts that otherwise release the guilty. It is now popularly believed that courts are the problem, and allowing lies is the cure to nullify them, with the public and executive branch as finder of fact. 148. The public sees cops arrest 100 bad people (according to cops quoted in the paper), but courts release 20 of them, even after the paper sensationalizes their guilt. When public lies are immune, courts that rule on actual truth appear to be dysfunctional, and to not want to remove the bad people and improve the world. So cops seem morally justified to lie to subvert courts, and instead substitute the public quorum of false gossip. Inciting against the accused with immunity for false and malicious defamation, is inciting against the courts, the rule of law, the balance of powers, and the founding ideals of our nation. 149. By immunizing the state to maliciously defame their targets with falsehoods, courts have indirectly immunized the executive branch and media to defame courts and lawyers in general with falsehoods. This is then used to justify usurping the legal process by fixing it with lies, to make the outcome match what they are immune to tell the voters. A newspaper that is immunized to say a guilty person was let go together with a list of malicious falsehoods, is immunized to discredit and undermine this Court, and to politically waterboard elected judges into submission (or just elect nazi cult rubber stamp judges). 150. Judges like being lied to, rather than labor at a job the public does not even want done. Plaintiff has witnessed 18th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Jessica Recksiedler recite lies that James Mulrenin died two days later than he did, witnessed Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal judges Richard Orfinger and Brian Lambert claim to read and rule on lies by CSI Alison Smolarek in Scott Love's trial transcript, witnessed an Okeechobee Circuit Judge Rebecca White copy-paste and sign straight objective lies about Plaintiff, witnessed a US District Court Magistrate Shaniek Maynard copy-paste and sign lies by the Florida Attorney General, witnessed a Pinellas circuit judge Phillip Federico sign lies about Plaintiff, and witnessed Seminole Circuit Judge Donna McIntosh sign an arrest affidavit containing the lies that Mandi Jackson arrived with her boyfriend, texted with him from inside the apartment, and then ransacked the apartment only fleeing sirens when police arrived, without ever subsequently complaining that this is all easily proved brazen lies. You think Judge McIntosh cares that Detective Sprague lied to her? No, she is happy to have Detective Sprague lie to her, if it enables her to give the people what they want. Plaintiff has evidence to prove that Detective Sprague lied to Judge McIntosh, there is no evidence that Judge McIntosh cares and all evidence she likes it. And their lawyer peers on the defense side aren't going to complain either when it is their cash cow, whereas pointing at it could cause them to lose that cash cow. 151. Plaintiff can provide many more examples of judges being lied to from other people, as many have witnessed that Florida judges do not seem to mind whatsoever being lied to. There is a video on Youtube, where the judge and public defender conspire to lie that the defendant missed a court date, to revoke his bond, force him to take a deal, and avoid a trial. The general idea seems to be the politically acceptable outcome is selected by some local quorum, and then the judge happily accepts any lie that will make the socially-negotiated outcome legal and opaque to higher courts. 152. Everyone in Florida who has been lied about in court dictating the court outcome, can tell you that there is nobody to call, no recourse, and no deterrent to this process being used whenever politically convenient. There is no law, if any law can be tricked with the final discretion to sign popularly accepted gossip. The only recourse is to abandon the whole thing, which is slowly happening and finally all political sides seem to want. Thank you to pathetic judges who nullified our country with a death of 1,000 cuts by immunizing, and then signing lies. Especially members of the "Federalist Society" whose rulings have the practical effect of collective social decisions overwhelming rights and the rule of law, after calling arbitrary executive power "state sovereignty" or "juries have a right to believe lies" or something. 153. Appeals courts defer to the arbitrary power of the local crowd. Appeals courts don't ask the correct legal question, "Was there due process of screening out lies and a jury trial, or was the jury tricked with lies?" Appeals judges instead ask the question "Was the executive branch able to produce a liar, which decision we can dishonestly claim was made by the jury who had the right to believe them?" The correct legal question is not was a liar produced, it is was the defendant protected from liars being produced. The answer to the first question is often yes, the second, never in Florida. A king, and the local majority faction, were the greatest fears of states that joined the federal constitution, not something they wanted to preserve "deference" to. 154. Appeals judges read witness transcripts and think “Wow, this witness really had something to say!” They don't realize it was the same lying garbage invented in the local paper 100 times for months before the witness ever recited it, and the local government immunized the witness to recite the lie in court so that they could nullify appeals courts. Appeals courts are in the position of trying to figure out a magician's trick from looking through a keyhole a mile away. It's frankly embarrassing, the garbage testimony appeals courts have no choice but to read with a straight face. Note to judges: If there is no penalty for state-witness perjury, you don't even have to read it. It's lies. You think a prosecutor is Santa Claus? Cotton Mather developed smallpox vaccination, started Yale, and pressed witches based on evidence of the dreams of lowlife idiots, just like you (“The Wonders of the Invisible World” - aka “The Things Professional Criminals Will Confess to Strangers in the Jail”). 155. The appropriate appellate question is not even "Were these possibly lies, which the jury then had the right to decide either way." The question is "Is this process likely to produce lies which the jury is unable to detect and would never guess, having been deprived of the relevant and material knowledge, of the process for filtering testimony before it gets to them versus the division of labor of what they are then supposed to decide." The jury would say "I thought that was your job to prosecute liars, not my job to guess that you don't." The state lies, then blames it on the jury, for being intentionally kept dumb enough to believe the State lies. 156. The Florida voter selects that judges abdicate power to the executive branch (and clean out the docket without the hard labor of fact finding), by preferring being lied to over being told the truth. This is achieved and insulated by the discretion of judges to create and apply case law, that says if the defendant is a bad person in a "legal realism" sort of way, then probable cause gentrifies police lies into good faith, and usurps the power of the legislature such as USC 1983 and Florida Statute 837.02, replacing such law with the whimsical populist or “federalist” theory of some pointy-headed nerd judges. Police lies are also insulated by Florida Statute 112.533, which says that no institution in Florida is given statutory jurisdiction to investigate cops except their own department, which department is reelected or not by the same local voters who give them a mandate to lie in the first place. 157. And then whatever lies a cop tells gain public support, when Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations immunizes web promoters to repeat and embellish the lies, to portray any target of government ambition as a bad person whom it is justified to lie about, and the courts as functioning correctly only when they agree with the public. And as a practical matter, average citizens are barred to getting public records of actual evidence, including by being quoted arbitrarily high administrative costs, or just having some law mischaracterized as an excuse to deny them. So the regulation of courts to not use perjury, is not the sovereign jurisdiction of the citizens of Florida, but of this Court as a check on the citizens of Florida. Jailhouse Witnesses Nullify Courts 158. In the world of rational human advancement, when the theoretical predictions of mathematics are confirmed by empirical observations - and with no competing explanation offered - a theory is said to be confirmed (“well grounded in history and reason” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976)). This is the case when so-called "black holes" predicted by general relativity were observed. This is the case with jailhouse so-called "confession" witnesses. 159. There are 20 inmates in the jail under duress and with the knowledge and willingness to lie that another inmate confessed, for every one major crime inmate who really confesses a true story to a total stranger. Therefore generally using Bayes Theorem, any claimed confession is 20 times more likely to be false. Such an equation can be used roughly as: p (guilty | confession) = p (confession|guilty) * p (guilty) / p (confession) p (guilty) is the probability of guilt absent jailhouse witness testimony p (confession) is the total chance of a confession witness fake or real pconfess = chance accused has friends and would tell true confession if guilty pdealer = percentage of friends who are desperate to make a deal pliar = chance a non-inmate felon would be desperate and sophisticated enough to lie numliar = number of potential lying felons in the timing window (population * months) chancetrueconfess = pconfess * pdealer chanceaccusedconfess = chancetrueconfess * pguilty chancefakeconfess = numliar * pliar chanceconfess = chancefakeconfess + chanceaccusedconfess chance will confess to felon if guilty = chancetrueconfess = pconfess * pdealer chance of true confession if accused = chanceaccusedconfess = chancetrueconfess * pguilty chance of fake confession = chancefakeconfess = numliar * pliar chance of confession witness if guilty = chancefakeconfess + chancetrueconfess total chance of confession fake or real = chanceconfess = chancefakeconfess + chanceaccusedconfess expected noncorrelated confession witness count in case = round(chanceconfess) chance confession witness is lying = chancefakeconfess/chanceconfess (usually around 99%) p (confession|guilty) = chancefakeconfess + chancetrueconfess p (confession) = chancefakeconfess + chanceaccusedconfess p (guilty | confession) = p (confession|guilty) * p (guilty) / p (confession) 160. You can debate a wide range of inputs and equations, but any honest effort will still produce a greater than 95% chance a given jailhouse witness (or correlated group) is lying. When DNA testing became available to find out if jailhouse witnesses were lying in old cases, empirical observations confirmed what mathematics predicts, that they are likely to be lying far in excess of any reasonable doubt. There is always a strong reason to doubt jailhouse witnesses are telling the truth. Their effect therefore, is not to add information to the jury, but to shift decision making to the executive branch which can choose to mix the outcome with lies. 161. There are no theoretical constraints on prosecutors producing an unlimited number of such perjurers, only the number of incarcerated drug defendants in the same population as the accused. Numbers are limited only by cost and need, the frequency with which the state wishes to produce guilt for which there is insufficient evidence, and the trouble. Imbler v. Pachtman was legislated to shield prosecutors from biased incentives created by stochastic outliers on the perjury side. Imbler creates the opposite bias. The result is prosecutors producing a process where most outcomes land in the perjury region, for which contrived stochastic bias the prosecutor enjoys all reward and pays no penalty. This bias is then transferred to the perjurers, for whom there is a reward and no penalty for perjury. 162. This incentive to use perjury is not then transferred to the public through politics, but rather exists naturally in the public, which incentive is transferred from the public to the government through politics. It is not necessary to influence the public to like witch trials and concentration camps, rather that is the natural social function of man. The government process simply succumbs to political forces to reproduce and match the natural product of social processes, demagoguery and crowd behavior. But Florida courts were not intended to manifest the preexisting and free behavior of tribes or crowds, and any money spent doing so with jailhouse witnesses and perjury is illegally wasted. 163. Jailhouse witnesses are a class of testimony that is unreliable like hearsay, for which no exceptions can be made in individual cases. There is no separate external way to determine the reliability of an individual jailhouse witness beyond the general class predictions of these equations, no more than this Court can tell Plaintiff whether he is lying when he says he drank two glasses of water yesterday. A corroboration test has no relevance to whether the uncorroborated novel portion of the testimony is fabricated, and is easily hacked by police and prosecutors disseminating their narrative to inmates. Plaintiff could tell you he graduated from Yale. The fact that there is a place called Yale, and people do graduate from there, does not make this credible. 164. Courts lack discretion, and rather are forced to believe jailhouse witnesses for the purposes of admissible evidence, probable cause, charges, bond, the circumstantial classification of a case, and probably a lot more things that a lawyer would know. Jailhouse witnesses also interfere with other kinds of testimony processes, by giving defendants an incentive to lie in other cases rather than tell the truth in their own, but that is beyond the scope of this document. 165. Some police may actually believe the accused is guilty. They may not appreciate the subtle point that they are not the finder of fact, and therefore lies don't enhance their performance like steroids. But the evidence of prosecutors orchestrating known obvious lies from strip-club dirtbags, suggests Imbler has given license to subversive sociopaths not to convict the guilty, but on an active mission to make a mockery of public morals. 166. From the point when the state has produced a jailhouse confession witness, and jurors are left to believe the state would not systematically put liars in front of them, the accused is guilty until proven innocent such as by DNA. This creates the ability to produce guilt in the executive branch, which neither judges nor jurors are presently legally able to provide any check on. 167. The 51% of voters who elect the sheriff may like that the courts can use jailhouse witnesses to convict anyone the sheriff points the finger at. Particularly after police and publishers are immunized to disseminate the police narrative. The public is not able to obtain public records much less in the relevant time frame to discover the truth. And private defense attorneys are forced to settle cases and win favor with prosecutors in the interest of their clients and their own bank accounts, not represent any public interest (the incidental byproducts of case law they produce are as likely to harm as benefit the public). 168. Therefore the theoretical effect of jailhouse witnesses - confirmed by empirical observation - is simply to move the locus of fact finding and decision making from courts and juries, to the county jail where inmates are coerced to swear fake confessions, and are provided the training and information to do so. In effect, guilt finding is moved from the jury to the executive branch. 169. But nor is this effect some novel discovery. The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights reflects a knowledge that people in chains will say whatever you want them to say, and the use of their testimony therefore moves the locus of decision making to their jailers, i.e. the executive branch. The only novel consideration is the availability of hundreds of inmates facing drug sentences, who can also be coerced to produce the same result. Empirical observations confirm theory, that such testimony is in the same unreliable category as defendants coerced to testify against themselves. 170. Science proves jailhouse witnesses move the locus of decision making to the executive branch to serve the will of the dominant social quorum - the mob in the public square whom these same officials are immune to manipulate - and deprives the accused of due process. 171. Therefore the use of jailhouse witnesses is a trick to violate the plurality of the Bill of Rights and move decision making to the executive branch, regardless of whether people like this or are too stupid to even know what they are doing. Violations of the United States and Florida constitutions cannot be insulated by the stupidity of those who practice them, nor the pretend stupidity of officers of the courts. And there are no practical remedies to improve the reliability of jailhouse witnesses, or instruct jurors to correctly weigh them. Therefore Plaintiff has standing to obtain injunction prohibiting public treasure spent on trials, and pursuant to orders, using jailhouse witnesses, and this Court has jurisdiction to deliver such injunction. Juries Are Misled 172. Jurors are tricked with every bit of theater - the oath, inadmissible experts, objections to hearsay, proffers where they are told to leave the room - that the court has taken on a responsibility to remove non-credible items, and deliver credibility pre-screened and fully-baked, so that statements are more credible than the same thing said in a tavern. The jury is weighing the credibility of the government not the witness. Jailhouse witnesses are mingled with regular uncoerced witnesses, and with state scientific experts who are subjected to all kinds of screening and regulation, but are never mingled with hearsay. The entire ritual is structured to discourage jurors from considering the possibility police and prosecutors could be lying. 173. Jurors have heard of the Bill of Rights, and its purpose as characterized in Federalist 51. If any jurors ever heard of Imbler v. Pachtman, prosecutors would remove them with peremptory challenges, leaving jurors prejudiced to imagine the state cannot legally lie to them. Most people who have heard of Imbler v. Pachtman either are lawyers, are cops, have been falsely accused, or are felons or have family members who are, which is ordinarily brought out in jury selection. 174. Jurors are prejudiced to imagine defendants will lie (more than state witnesses like CSI's), and so there are some steps to remove this prejudice. But much of the same case law is then applied to non-defendant felons testifying on behalf of the state, such as to restrict impeachments that raise prejudice against felons. Protecting felons testifying for the state against impeachment, cumulatively adds to the prejudice of jurors to imagine that the state is regulated against rather than immunized for using liars. The arguably appropriate prejudice against felon credibility is cured (when only prejudices to imagine they are guilty should have been cured), while the prejudice believing the state could not reward and use liars is uncured, leaving a cumulative stack of incorrect biases to imagine a felon testifying for the state is believable (prejudices are defendant is not credible, state is credible, felon is not credible but prejudice is cured by blocking impeachment). 175. It's a prejudice among jurors to know that perjury is a crime, and that the prosecutor is a prosecutor of crime, but at the same time to not know that a prosecutor is immune to use the crime of perjury. And to know that the felon is a felon, and the prosecutor is a prosecutor, but the prosecutor would not prosecute the felon for the felony of perjury. This prejudice is easily exploited as it was in the Mandi May Jackson trial, where a jailhouse witness whose testimony contradicted more physical evidence than the jury knew, and who later said on a prison phone call that she lied, was falsely characterized as risking life in prison if she lied, which everyone in the room but the jury and maybe the victim's family knows is a shameless fraud. Q Would you commit perjury? A No. Q And why would you not commit perjury? A Because that would just give me more time, and I want to go home as soon as I can. Q And if -- if you committed perjury and violated your agreement, would you then be looking at a life sentence? MR. BARK: Objection. Improper bolster. THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. STONE: A Yes, sir. 176. And nor can you argue the obligation of the court to produce true testimony or instruct jurors is regulated by the political process rather than the law, as some geeky people who report for jury duty might also be prejudiced to imagine. The purpose of rights and juries is specifically to separate court outcomes from the popular will, where common citizens are historically eager to use lies and witch trials. The jury is never told "You are here specifically because the public would otherwise torture the innocent, and the public will never stop the prosecutor from lying to you to obtain this preferred outcome, but rather will elect and has reelected a prosecutor who is proven and immune to use lies to trick you." 177. During Scott Love's jury selection, prosecutor Stewart Stone instructed jurors to understand circumstantial evidence by imagining there are footprints in the snow leading to a cabin but none away. (Florida v. Love, Seminole County 2016-CF-003668-A, 1/14/19 jury selection circa 11:00 AM, available as audio from clerk) This implicitly instructed jurors to erase any possibility that the person who swore he saw the footprints could be lying, but assume he is always telling the truth and then proceed from that starting point to only weigh the meaning of the footprints themselves, not the credibility of the state witness. When jurors are told DNA shows the chance someone else did this is 1 in 15 billion, they are being told the chance a CSI or other state actor would lie or even make a clerical error, is zero or not to be considered. 178. The high probability that coerced in-custody overheard confession witnesses are lying - predicted and observed - is not a problem by itself. It only becomes a problem when jurors cannot be instructed about such probabilities. Jurors bring no external means either to determine the reliability of an individual jailhouse witness, nor to consider such general factors as that a prosecutor enjoys all reward and no penalty for producing perjury, and particularly this type of quasi-spectral evidence. Rather jurors are tricked by theater including the oath and objections, and a general belief that their government would not put a likely liar in front of them. Jurors then judge the credibility of a jailhouse witness as the general credibility of the government - the judge, the building, the legislature - that puts the perjurer in front of them. 179. The State of Florida keeps no centralized record of the use of these types of witnesses or when they were found to be lying, and also keeps no record of how prosecutors used their discretion to not prosecute this. As a result, none of this information which is relevant to jurors is ever disclosed to defendants or jurors, nor are they provided instructions on how to consider what they are not even told. 180. A jury instruction to maybe consider jailhouse witness testimony with extra caution, further misleads jurors with the false suggestion that nobody else suspects or has even considered the possibility that the jailhouse witnesses are lying. When every honest court officer in the room knows they are lying, but tells appeals courts this is irrelevant for not being the finder of fact, after tricking jurors to believe the opposite. The present fine-print jury instruction used in Florida for jailhouse witnesses, raises the dignity of jailhouse witnesses (if a juror even considers it at all). It portrays the witnesses who have just lied to them, as something that has been looked into and investigated on the jurors' behalf, and validated and allowed as not a total fraud. With no jury instruction, the jury might be left to consider whether this is a total scam (which it is and which nothing prevents it from being), maybe some local corruption the court is not even aware is going on. But the jury instruction says no, these lying felons are actually something the Supreme Court of Florida has given a bit of serious thought and attention to. This suggests to the jury there is therefore no chance the jailhouse witnesses are a complete scam, since jurors are prejudiced to imagine serious judges would not allow sheriffs to write a serious jury instruction for things that are simple fraud. 181. The Supreme Court of Florida published in a 2012 report, that jailhouse witnesses are unreliable and there is no case-specific way to tell if the novel portion of their testimony is true (only logic and experience that they are liars). The Florida Supreme Court then decided to not disclose that credibility problem to jurors. Rather the Florida Supreme Court chose to bolster their credibility, by telling jurors that jailhouse witnesses are something the Court has given attention to, and it is not a total scam. Which of course it has been proven to be, as much as John Preston's dog. Appeals courts are blind to lies at trial, so this credibility information is the province of jurors. 182. A jury honestly informed as finders of fact would have a choice between two things. Either 1) a major-crime defendant confessed to a total stranger in the jail with every incentive against it, or 2) everyone in the jail knows that all they have to do is say the defendant confessed to what they read in the paper (or read in the police report in the defendant's cell), and they can never possibly be prosecuted for perjury and will get out no questions asked. Knowing the incentives and inducements a jailhouse witness is faced with, there is never any reason for the jury to conclude that the first one happened rather than the second. There is no reasonable basis in either reason or actual experience, for the jury to conclude the first over the second, but only a thirst to mislead the jury for executive power. But jurors are misled. 183. The Florida Supreme Court jury instruction on jailhouse witnesses was not winnowed from logic upon case law, but based on the whim of a total slimeball deluded cult sheriff "Doughnut Bill" Cameron of Charlotte. They put on a charade of selecting some legal principle like "the jury is the finder of fact and therefore credibility". But the argument of sheriffs in support of allowing jailhouse witnesses is pretty much "we have to allow lies so that we can catch the bad people, and hide that they lie from the jury, but we can put on a charade of addressing false convictions, as long as it doesn't jeopardize that". 184. Courts have undertaken a most complicated and esoteric charade to bend law to where it simply reproduces the product of public opinion, when this could be achieved more easily by just getting rid of courts, and letting sheriffs take over like medicine is now practiced by nurses and physician assistants. Plaintiff asks this Court simply to stop it, or to at least usher in an era of honesty about what it going on. 185. Looking in the face of plain fraud, a brazen witch-pricking device, massive discrediting injustice, and a shameless usurpation of guilt-finding by the executive branch, the Florida Supreme Court decided to hide the facts from jurors. Florida instead tells jurors that jailhouse witness are something that wise elders have judged the proper measure is to merely be moderately cautious about. The reality is the state of Florida lets prosecutors put straight liars in front of jurors, to orchestrate unpunished felonies and subvert the law right in the courtroom while judges play “emperor's new clothes”. The reality is, the Supreme Court of Florida allows sheriffs and prosecutors to exploit the naivete of jurors which it is illegal to cure, and to use total fraud to make a mockery of courts and law. Defendants Do Not Protect The Public Interest 186. Defense attorneys are ethically and financially precluded from representing the public interest, the jurisdiction of this Court, or rights in general, by publicizing or seeking punishment and deterrent for state witnesses lying, or by trying to fix the law and case law that permits state witnesses lying. 10 private attorneys who let cops lie and use lies to settle cases, are likely to go through 100 cases in the time while one attorney who tries to fight cops lying spends years working on just one case. Everyone in the room wants to settle cases with a social quorum, fix the record with lies to make it legal, and then go home with minimum labor costs and without a real legal judicial process. 187. Plaintiff has witnessed a pattern that is corroborated by criminal defense clients all over Florida. Private defense attorneys advocate to their clients on behalf of the State, that they are lucky to get a deal, and face years in prison unless they take it, regardless of whether cops lied. The private defense attorneys - at least the ones who are successful and are likely to have time to take your case for a fee you can actually pay - then tell the clients what a great deal they got, and go to the car dealership instead of spending years fighting state lies. Defense attorneys don't tell you when you hire them, that the amount you paid them is not enough to complain about cops lying, make enemies with the prosecutor and local government officials, and go to trial. 188. 100% of Florida defendants are told they risk going to prison if they press the issue of the State breaking the law, instead of agreeing to give up their right to discovery and going home. And 100% of Florida attorneys will claim their client's interest - not the public interest - therefore prohibits them from complaining about cops lying, instead of going to the beach. Attorneys will claim a right to withdraw from the case if the client insists they ask for local cops to be prosecuted, rather than taking a deal to shut up. 189. Private defense lawyers are at the mercy of the local executive branch who can bankrupt them with litigation, and of the bar association which the prosecutors and judges are members of. Their peers who are government official, have the power to bankrupt any private attorney who complains too much, including judges when defense lawyers criticize their courts as a charade. Any judge who sits with a straight face while a jailhouse witness speaks, is a dressed-up joke who should be laughed at. No bar member could afford to say publicly the things that your Plaintiff says, such as the obvious observation that judges like being lied to if it creates a politically convenient outcome and clears out the docket. 190. But nor do private lawyers complain much, when they also benefit financially from using lies to fix cases along patterns of political convenience without having to go to trial, and pay off their student debt. They continue each case long enough for the defendant to pay his fee, then the executive branch fixes the outcome with perjury, and forces the accused to take a deal. The judge gets elected by going along, no jury ever sees it, media promoters are immune to publicize only one narrative of what transpired - the state narrative - and the public is blissful in their ignorance. (The intern who produced crime stories for ClickOrlando.com told Plaintiff that all she is authorized to do is copy-paste the State Attorney Twitter feed.) 191. The Bryon Aven case lying was not brought to the public's attention by the defendant or his lawyer. It was publicized on the motive of Aven's coworker Chris Cusmano, who was unhappy that Aven put Cusmano on the spot and expected Cusmano to be a team player and support the lies. When Jose Baez got Casey Anthony's mother to lie at trial (that she was at home searching the web about chloroform), it was someone in California who complained to the Florida Bar. And the response that person in California got from The Florida Bar was "A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact." Put that on a plaque in the jury box with the word “prosecutor”. 192. It's indisputable, and no more complicated than Plaintiff has watched lawyers get paid to cut deals and have their clients lie on behalf of the state. Local attorneys hate Plaintiff and call Plaintiff the liar, for raising and complaining about the true fact that they cut deals and get paid to bring their clients into court to tell lies. They seem to imagine if their clients weren't allowed to lie, there would be no plea bargains and they would have go to trial on all of them. They seem desensitized to a world where their own clients get lied about, and their clients who are often innocent get sent to prison. They either don't care at all, or accept that they are just powerless gears. They know jailhouse witnesses are lying, and from the day their clients get sentenced to the day their clients die in prison, the lawyers will never mention it again. "Lawyer" and "activist" are not the same word. But the lawyers themselves never get lied about or spoken the truth about, that is their bargain for keeping silent on the lies. 193. A defense lawyer will try to discredit a witness at trial - moderately, within the rules - to win a particular case. But that lawyer will never seek an additional penalty that would deter the prosecutor using lies again and again and again, and 99% of the time with no way to prove it. Because that lawyer is hoping next time it will be his own client doing the lying. And when his own client lies, that lawyer is expecting to be at the car dealership as a result, not at any kind of Bar disciplinary hearing or in jail for it. What lawyer would attack a system that turns lies into cash, when the result will just be he is the one whom his peers report to the Bar, he has to go to trial every time, and he goes bankrupt? 194. Private attorneys and defendants do not and cannot represent public legal interests and standing, including protecting the jurisdiction of this Court, or rights in general. When state witnesses lie, a private attorney isn't going to say don't to this to the next person, punish the person who did this, tell future juries what you did to my client, or even make a record of how you broke the law to victimize my client. A private attorney is going to say my client agrees to keep his mouth shut about this and a year of probation, you look good, I look good, let's all go to the beach. 195. The incidental byproducts of case law defense attorneys seek on behalf of their clients, are as likely to harm as benefit the public. No defense lawyer wants case law that gets justice. They want case law that says their clients can lie or hide evidence or go home. And then the state says we should be allowed to lie like that also. And politicized judges give that freedom to lie and not be impeached symmetrically to the prosecution, despite the defendant and not the victim or prosecution being protected by the right to a jury trial. 196. Over the years, defense lawyers seem to have won case law limiting what impeachment you can say in front of the jury, to prevent their own felon witnesses from being discredited. This seems designed to prevent jurors from automatically favoring the testimony of state witnesses, such as cops. The result is you pretty much cannot attack the credibility of felons, who then earn double the credibility when testifying as state witnesses, whom jurors are prejudiced to imagine would not be let out of prison for lying to victimize the innocent. So it's just as much lying as needed, and the judge gets elected by keeping a straight face while the jury sees a charade. And the local connected people get to choose whose clients get to lie and pay off their student debt, and whose clients get lied about and go bankrupt. 197. So when a cop is caught lying in cases too egregious to be ignored, both the defendant and the cop escape prosecution. And the lawyers and cops and everyone involved escapes blame, instead blaming it on some abstract rights - technicalities - that are getting in the way of justice. The result when cases are thrown out instead of lying cops being arrested, is the public says the system is broken, we want cops to lie more, or just shoot defendants on the spot, to prevent courts letting these defendants escape justice. Give more power to the executive branch instead of these courts. Throwing out cases conditions the public to not want cops caught when they lie - it punishes the public for catching cops lying - and defense attorneys are happy with this deal. Private defense attorneys are in the business of selling the public interest to local executive-branch officials for cash. And the remedy available to local judges - throwing out cases instead of prosecuting liars - makes things worse. Florida Creates Insulated Executive Power 198. The legal structure of the State of Florida is designed to insulate the will of the local kibbutz from the law and the Constitution, which historically manifested in things like sundown towns. Florida is set up to preserve the ability of white people to keep black people out of their towns at whim, through and despite changes in state and federal law. A 1983 claim is ineffective, when probable cause is not an appealable error of discretion, government officials are immune to discovery that would expose their lies, and cops face no penalty for lying in the rare event they are caught. The same locally insulated discretion extends to things like letting local VIP's and government officials get away with stalking, drunk driving, and child sex crimes, like Randy Fine, Joel Greenberg and Jeffrey Epstein, which laissez faire design is necessary for people like governors to win support of local political machines and get elected. 199. Within a Florida county, the law and the facts are whatever the local sheriff wants them to be. They can convict anyone of anything, and no outside authority can do anything about it (as affirmed by a federal magistrate, who discarded Plaintiff's statements as firsthand witness including about state perjury that no party had even disputed, who read every part of a complaint in the light most favorable to the state government far beyond anything the government even asked for, and who dismissed based on unwitnessed state gossip, police perjury, and affirmative defenses nobody even raised, in US-FL-SD 2:21-cv-14355). Plaintiff's enumeration of such facts is not strange or unexpected, as it is not different from every other nation in history, before and without a Bill of Rights. Because it is what the people – human nature, the vicious mob, the 51% majority faction – demands. It is what James Madison hoped to prevent but expected, when he wrote Federalist 51. 200. And nor is this some hyperbolic narrative unique to your Plaintiff. It is the narrative of the sheriffs themselves and their supporters, who openly claim that as "Constitutional Sheriffs" they have final appellate jurisdiction as to law and fact, and a legal mandate to subvert the courts and laws that regulate them. A more accurate characterization might be "pre Magna Carta sheriffs", "pre USC 1983 prosecutors", or just "return to nature". Laws such as "constitutional carry" and "stand your ground", as well as a proposed law that would have let drivers run over protesters, are designed to give police discretion to decide who is allowed to kill whom, without intervention by the courts. 201. Governor Defendant DeSantis removed a local prosecutor Andrew Warren, because Warren did not prosecute the cases which sheriffs wanted him to prosecute, and then told the Florida Supreme Court this enforcement was "non-justiciable" (and also that speech by an official “committed” him in some legal way). There is debate about the extent to which DeSantis claimed to remove Warren for non-binding campaign promises to not enforce hypothetical laws. But DeSantis described a decision process that relied on the opinion of sheriffs, which sheriffs disliked Warren's decision to not prosecute anti-cop protesters. DeSantis chose what laws to enforce, not based on what the legislature passed, but based on what a quorum of executive-branch officers in his faction wanted. 202. DeSantis did not claim to have, or want, a complete record of all non-prosecutions of all statutes by all Florida prosecutors, nor of any other uses of discretion. There is no institution in Tallahassee to compel reporting, and compile a record of instances when prosecutors have used their discretion to not enforce laws passed by the legislature. Defendant DeSantis does not want such a record, that would show Phil Archer never enforcing Florida Statue 837.02 against state witnesses. Nor does DeSantis want an institution to publish such a record, or act on it, in a standard way that would monitor prosecutors, to promote the intent of the legislative branch and statewide voter oversight. DeSantis created new executive powers such as the Reedy Creek Board and a gambling oversight body appointed by him, but nothing to see whether local officials are enforcing statute. 203. Plaintiff has spoken anonymously to police and their supporters, who say it is intentional to not collect and publish big data on police and prosecutor activity, because leftist college professors would use it to make it harder for cops to cleanse the bad people. Florida government is so operated to insulate executive-branch discretion from meddling by voters, academics, jurors, and this Court. 204. If someone was born yesterday, and needed evidence the executive branch tries to increase its own power with popular approval, DeSantis has made it plain he wants courts and other officers and the law subverted to what police want, to move power from courts and the legislature to police. DeSantis has taken multiple steps to move power away from other decision makers and to police. This includes a new law that says only eight jurors are necessary to choose the death penalty, and a request to the Supreme Court of Florida for a new process and rules, with the stated intention to remove the discretion of judges to release criminal defendants on bond. 205. The idea is that the people's branch, the executive branch, starts by arresting 100 bad people, and then for some reason those woke leftist judges release 20 of them and slink away without ever defending their criminal-loving agenda on TV. Good Florida sheriffs like Grady Judd have never arrested a person that wasn't bad (if you embrace German legal positivism). Courts don't want to remove these bad people and improve the world. We must use lies to prevent courts stopping us. Cops arrest bad people. Courts release bad people. Cops must lie to subvert courts, with a moral and institutional mandate to do so consistent with the overall program. 206. Plaintiff watched the State of Florida convict a person using lies which almost every person in the room knew were lies. Upon investigation, Plaintiff discovered this was not a rogue event but a standardized process which the State of Florida fancies it has a legal sovereign right to operate, and fiercely protects. Plaintiff has since observed and documented numerous instances of perjury in Florida courts which are not rogue acts, but which constitute a publicly-approved standard practice to move the locus of decision making away from courts and juries, and to the local executive branch, enacting the will of the dominant social quorum. Private attorneys appear to be willing participants, because they are also social creatures who can secure more benefits with a social rather than a tedious legal process, and fixing cases with perjury enables them to save labor costs by negotiating court outcomes along patterns of political convenience and avoid trials. 207. Judges, perhaps because they are outnumbered in the political process and must caucus with executive branch political machinery, also seem eager to accept such lies that will settle cases along patterns of political convenience and clear out the docket while preserving their political prospects. The Florida Bar does not respond to the public interest but seems to defend its own members, abrogating its regulatory function to penalize court officers orchestrating perjury. 208. The public is, in practice, unable to obtain records to accurately monitor and regulate such executive branch activity, and is in fact legally misled through the immunity of state officers to make false statements (McNayr v. Kelly, 184 So. 2d 428, 430, 432 (Fla. 1966), Brown v. McKinnon, 964 So. 2d 173, 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)), and to deputize publishers as immune state agents to spread and embellish misinformation. Web promoters are only immunized to promote the state narrative, and any embellishment which supports it, with a ridiculous legal theory that being under “no duty to go behind statements made at official proceedings and determine their accuracy” promotes the public being “kept informed of the workings of government” (Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)). Selective immunity to only recite talking points and exclude known facts that don't come from government, does not enable oversight. It monetizes immunity to fearlessly incite against and injure anyone government selects. It subverts public oversight, to achieve trials without due process in the public square based on immune unregulated gossip, subsequent to which court outcomes can be fixed with discretion and perjury for convenience without public objection. 209. The discretion to use perjury without penalty, and then if caught let the perjurers and the defendants go, is a quid pro quo which subverts the public interest, and evades the public oversight, by putting multiple barriers to actual public oversight, while immunizing newspapers to promote and even embellish press releases containing the perjury. 210. There is a paper trail that shows not paying for public notices is a strong lever for local governments to get favorable coverage from local newspapers. But local crime gossip is a stronger driver of clicks, subscriptions, and revenue, which immune gossip can be obtained from police in an informal quid pro quo or nexus, without needing investigative journalists, lawyers, or editors. By contrast, police who are exposed with unfavorable balanced or true news coverage, can retaliate by not feeding gossip such as giving color on arrest affidavits and breaking news, to any web promoter who encourages oversight of police lies. Most local papers have been on the edge of bankruptcy as a result of losing classified ads to the Internet, and must stay on the good side of police to get free content, rather than spend money and risk lawsuits doing actual investigative reporting. Like the intern who wrote the crime section for ClickOrlando.com, who when Plaintiff pointed out an error in one of her stories, told Plaintiff that she had no idea what the story was about, and all she was authorized to do is copy-paste the State Attorney Twitter feed. 211. This process forces papers to publish and voters to consume the one-sided narrative of the executive branch, except in a tiny subset of popular stories, and generates public support for abuse of discretion condoning perjury and the outcomes so obtained, and for the general subversion of evolved judicial processes with an effective pragmatic reversion toward traditional tribal quorum. But nor is the public expected to protect rights; rights are intended to protect individuals from the public in the form of the dominant local faction as characterized in Federalist 51. Rights don't come from the public reading the paper, rather attacks on rights do. Rights come from this Court today or from nowhere. This Court is intended to protect the accused from the public acting through the executive branch (which will also protect the shortsighted executive branch in the long term from war). These issues of great public importance are not cared for in the public square or by local officials, but in the hands of this Court or nowhere. It all depends at the outset, on true statements being recorded as inputs into this Court's process. 212. The Florida criminal justice system is like the Soviet economy, with lies reported from every step to the next higher-up monitor, to make it appear as if the agent below is doing his job. Lying at every step is an ordinary course of business in governments around the world. The State of Florida's justice system is not strange or unusual. What would be unusual is if people didn't behave the way they normally behave in different countries and throughout history. The State of Florida has become less strange, and more normal for the course of human history and experience. Some might argue this gives actors like police some measure of freedom which historically has allowed people to produce a better product, like black markets creep into every planned economy. This misconception arises from missing what the product is. The product is not justice as perceived by the majority. Justice can be obtained by the majority without any government as by a pack of wolves. The product is rights. The product is not hired thugs, it is rights and law. The product of courts is not aggression, which can be achieved without needing any government or justice system. The product is the process. 213. And nor should Plaintiff's statements that Florida police regularly use lies or torture innocents be hard to believe, any more than if Plaintiff reported it was raining in Florida. It is the normal course of history. What our framers would tell you is hard to believe, is that the ideals of the United States could actually be put into practice 200 years later. From Benjamin Franklin to Washington to Lincoln, they all said what the United States was attempting was strange an unnatural, and not likely to last. The collective hates being restrained by the law that protects the rights of private individuals and institutions from the consensus public interest. The local majority can get everything they want without needing law simply by controlling the local sheriff. If courts share this luddite philosophy, and want to "cut out the middleman" or let cops play Robinhood or whatever way they convince themselves it is for the good, they should at least honestly say that's what they are doing. 214. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the belief that Florida law vests arbitrary power in the local executive, by saying that a common citizen has no “clear legal right” that government employees follow or enforce laws in the courtroom (Appendix P, page a164). They seem to imagine unlimited arbitrary power, checked not by law or citizens in general, but only to the extent criminal defendants are able to sporadically put up case-specific roadblocks based on their rights as defendants. They don't want law but arbitrary power, and believe the law does not exist until - and only where and limited to that moment when - this Court says it does. 215. But nor is a conscious intention or understanding of what they are doing in Florida, a prerequisite to them doing it, any more than reflective intention is necessary in any social outcome or among animals. Few in 1500's Scotland would have admitted their intentions were to burn random innocent women to death. But like an alcoholic diverts all his plans and money to booze, all their morals and religion are twisted into service of their primitive culling instinct, likely triggered by a perception of insecurity from religious and political conflicts that don't find a direct outlet for violence. Like Hitler, they would say "when the question of destiny, to be or not to be, cries out for a solution..." And then immediately use that arbitrary power in the way it is always used, to frame the mayor's housekeeper when the mayor gets caught having fentanyl mailed to his address. No Remedy In The State Of Florida 216. To defend Plaintiff's rights as a citizen and taxpayer against the standard use of undeterred perjury and misleading jurors about it, Plaintiff filed two petitions invoking the jurisdiction of Florida courts to issue writs to state officers as necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction, and as regulators of legal behavior in the courtroom. The first petition asked to prosecute perjury and stop using it, the second petition asked to disclose the use of perjury to defense and jurors. Plaintiff was not able to obtain any relief, both petitions were denied. These petitions are included in the Appendix (the first petition was filed twice, after being transferred from the Florida Supreme Court to the Fifth District CA). 217. Plaintiff first filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in the Supreme Court of Florida, asking that prosecutors within the court's jurisdiction be mandated to prosecute perjury in the courtroom when discovered, as necessary to protect rights and carry out legally valid court proceedings, and protect appellate jurisdiction as to fact and law. Plaintiff also asked to simply prohibit the use of jailhouse confession witnesses, as the simplest practical cure for jurors being tricked by the jailhouse-confession witch-pricking scam, arguing that it nullifies courts and juries and moves power to the executive branch, with the burden shifted to the defense and without any practical means of exoneration from even brazen and obvious lies freely coerced and fabricated without deterrent. This first petition was transferred to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, and finally dismissed without disputing a single fact or argument, or citing a single law. 218. In his first petition, Plaintiff described a conspiracy where Mandi May Jackson was basically sold out by her lawyer in order to obtain a confidentiality waiver that would allow the lawyer to keep her $100,000 retainer, and also to protect the lawyer's lying cop friends from when she was previously a local prosecutor. The information Plaintiff provided to the State of Florida additionally detailed how Jackson was framed for a robbery that didn't happen, with the effect of covering up strip-club employees stealing money from drug dealing and money laundering. Plaintiff also reported that Jackson herself sought to frame someone else for a robbery that didn't happen, which lying she has been told is the way to get out of prison in Florida. Plaintiff raised the issue that all these crimes of money laundering, drug dealing, perjury, and even framing the innocent to advance racketeering enterprises, are covered up and ignored as if the crimes don't exist, to protect the racket of nullifying jurors to consolidate executive-branch power. A blind eye is turned to actual crime, in service of putting on a fake theater of solving crime. 219. Plaintiff specifically argued in his first petition that the current practice in Florida of considering whether perjury is a crime, which consideration is affected by the context of or depending on whether someone other than a jury thinks the perjury victim is guilty of another crime, violates enumerated rights and unenumerated traditions. The same Fifth District which ignored these arguments, previously ruled in the Mandi May Jackson case that it was okay for a lower tribunal to coerce Jackson in custody to provide a cell phone password - where Jackson not even knowing the password was then used to bolster the only evidence of Jackson's intent, the statements of jailhouse witnesses that Jackson planned the crime using text messages - because the material Fifth Amendment violation did not "vitiate" that other stuff which said Jackson is guilty. That other stuff which the Fifth Amendment did not "vitiate" consists entirely of jailhouse confession witnesses, since even the fake evidence did not prove Jackson planned or carried out a robbery. The Florida executive branch used their legal latitude to produce jailhouse confession witnesses and not prosecute perjury, to vitiate federal law. This practice was raised in and affirmed multiple times by the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal. 220. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, in dismissing Plaintiff's first petition to prosecute these crimes, did not dispute that any of the cited perjury took place (or that it took place to cover up fraud and racketeering), did not dispute that none of it was prosecuted, and did not dispute that it all could have been prosecuted under Florida Statute 837.02. The Fifth District did not dispute that this non-prosecution was not individual discretion, but part of a standard pattern of non-prosecution, did not dispute that this non-prosecution is an expected element in an informal arrangement where Florida government officials and witnesses do not expect state-witness perjury to be prosecuted, and did not dispute that if this is a legal execution of Florida law, it is in conflict with federal rights. The Fifth District simply affirmed that crimes subverting courts are invisible to Florida law, and Florida prosecutors can suspend the law as necessary to get convictions. 221. Plaintiff recounted in his petition to prosecute perjury, how the prosecutor at Jackson's trial told the jury Kaylee Simmons would get life in prison if she lied, which she obviously did based on her story contradicting all physical evidence, based on Simmons later claiming she lied on a prison phone call, and based on Plaintiff offering testimony to the Supreme Court of Florida from multiple witnesses to support all of this (Appendix B, page a35). Jackson's prosecutor did not tell the jury Kaylee's deterrent would depend on any such action taken by a citizen or a defendant, and certainly did not tell the jury all action on such perjury would be ignored and refused despite citizen requests. And nor was the jury led to imagine the true state of affairs that someone would be forced to go to federal court to obtain the deterrent Jackson's jury was promised. Rather, the jury was misled to incorrectly imagine the prosecution of perjury would take place automatically as a general matter, as laws usually are (Appendix G, page a76). 222. When Plaintiff's first petition failed to obtain relief from undeterred perjury like Jackson's jury was promised, Plaintiff filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Florida (Appendix O, page a148), asking that they fulfill the right to a jury trial by at least providing defense and jurors this honest information and instructions about their standardized use of perjury. Plaintiff asked to disclose to the defense and provide expert instruction to the jury, on the incentives, biases, and informal arrangements facing state witnesses, and the relevant extrinsic evidence of state-witness bias and reliability in the long court record. Plaintiff raised the issue that the promise to Mandi May Jackson's jury to prosecute perjury was a very material and misleading lie playing on the uncured prejudice of the jury, which lie neither the Florida Supreme Court nor Fifth District cured when asked. Plaintiff argued the dismissal of his petition to prosecute perjury showed that as a practical matter, Florida citizens are denied deterrence of state-witness perjury without recourse. This leaves jury instruction as the only and urgent remedy to restore federal rights, thus necessitating disclosure of and jury instruction upon these facts. 223. Plaintiff's second Florida petition for reporting, disclosure, and jury instruction on the informal arrangements and biases of state witnesses material to weighing their credibility, was denied giving the reason that “petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested” (Appendix P, page a164). Plaintiff wonders whence the right of prosecutors right to lock people up derives, if not from the clear legal right of citizens to have state and federal laws enforced. The Supreme Court of Florida seems to imagine they serve values meaning whims, not laws. In other words law originates in the discretion of the executive branch, or in the whim of the executive. They pretend that lying to a jury along the way like bribing a guard, brings such executive whims in line with the Bill of Rights and conserved traditions. 224. Plaintiff's Florida petitions raised the same facts and rights violations in state court, as Plaintiff is now raising here, and were denied all relief with little reason given. By denying any action on the facts laid out in Plaintiff's petitions, the State of Florida has directly refused to stop using perjury to subvert the jurisdiction of courts, and refused to stop tricking jurors. Therefore as a practical matter, no Florida citizen has any standing in a Florida court, to get relief as a taxpayer, or as a citizen with rights to administrate courts and law and obtain justice. These matters of great public importance are therefore cared for in the hands of this Court, or nowhere. Does this Court abide such return to nature, where courts can be used by the executive branch to cleanse unpopular undesirables as in witch trials, rather than punish crimes according to legal judicial fact-finding, and where this paradigm change is achieved in a black market of condoned crimes to evade the required amendment of the US Constitution? CLAIMS AND RELIEF Plaintiff And Defendants 225. Plaintiff Stephen Lynch Murray is a taxpaying citizen of Florida and the United States, with rights as a citizen at the state and federal level to the enforcement of laws and the administration of courts and justice, with standing for the legally regulated spending of taxpayer treasure, and with rights that are chilled and violated as a criminal defendant. 226. Defendants are The Governor of Florida, the Supreme Court and Florida, and any class of defendants this Court finds appropriate as this matter affects their conduct and interests, in their capacity to regulate and hold the on-off switches for criminal prosecution, trials, and courtroom activity, and enforcing and spending money to enforce court orders, that administer federal rights in the State of Florida. Jurisdiction And Venue 227. Plaintiff brings Claims created by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Article III Section 2, Article 6, and the original intentions of the United States Constitution, as well as Federalist 51, The Great Charter of Liberties, rights both established at common law and grounded in history, and 42 USC 1983, 1988, and 1651 (if the law provides for such method of remedy), and Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), for relief from the deprivation under color of state and federal law of enumerated and traditional rights, with no recourse or remedy available in Florida courts. 228. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's Claims pursuant to 28 USC 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1357, 1367(a), and 1651 (if the Court finds appropriate). 229. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiff's petitions for declaratory and injunctive relief by 28 USC 2201 and 2202. This Court's authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is invoked pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and local modifications for extraordinary writs if permitted), and pursuant to the general legal and equitable powers of the Court, including the Court’s authority to enforce the supremacy of federal law as against contrary state law. This Court's authority is permitted, if necessary, by 28 USC 2283, in aid of its jurisdiction and as otherwise found in law and case law. 230. This Court's jurisdiction to specifically issue mandates and injunctions as necessary to maintain the integrity of government agents and prosecutors to not introduce untrustworthy evidence, is supported by U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso (“we have chosen to rely on the integrity of government agents and prosecutors not to introduce untrustworthy evidence into the system” U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1993)). Such a "choice" implies this Court can choose not to, and this Court can choose process as necessary, when such choice becomes due. The 9th Circuit did not say "we are bound by precedent to rely on the integrity of government agents and prosecutors" and the 14th Amendment does not say "without previously established process of law". 231. Venue in this District is proper under 28 USC 1391(b) (2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occur in central Florida, owing to state criminal prosecutions talking place there, and examples of standardized rights violations taking place there. While Defendants operate their official offices out of Tallahassee, Plaintiff has considered that they operate in concert with a larger class of defendants, and might arguably claim to “reside” in every part of Florida including this Court's territory for 28 USC 1391(b) (1). List Of Claims Claim I - Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment and Unenumerated Traditional Rights to Due Process 232. Florida violates Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment and unenumerated traditional rights to Due Process, with standing as defendant and prospective defendant, by the legal discretion of Florida prosecutors to ignore perjury and other crimes for the purpose to move decision-making from and subvert prescribed court processes to political forces, for which there is no cure or remedy in the State of Florida. Florida threatens Fourth Amendment and other criminal rights of citizens not just as criminal plaintiffs and taxpayers but as possible future defendants. Using state-witness perjury without penalty or deterrent threatens the rights of every citizen as defendant with loss of liberty and property not legally supported by fact or law. The system is designed to permit the executive branch to ignore the facts and the law, and victimize random citizens with lies along patterns of what they can get away with politically. 233. Plaintiff has documentation of the scam to subvert courts at every phase, from police misconduct complaints and reports to arrest affidavits to jury trials, from end to end. Plaintiff has documentation that crimes during an arrest or prosecution are unreportable to any government institution in Florida. Plaintiff has documentation that even when the judge says state witnesses committed perjury, it is still not prosecuted, ever (such as in the Gonzales and Aven cases). Plaintiff has documentation of defendants exonerated by DNA after jailhouse witnesses lied, and no witness was ever prosecuted (such as in the William Dillon case). Plaintiff has examples of witnesses documented to be lying, and not prosecuted (such as in the James Mulrenin case). Plaintiff has documentation of witnesses invited by this Court to lie about Plaintiff (Kourtney Straubel and Ishnar Lopez-Ramos lying in an informal arrangement with prosecutor Phil Archer). Plaintiff has documentation of a prosecutor lying to the jury that a witness will face a penalty for lying (jailhouse witness Kaylee Simmons), which is provably false in general and in the particular case. Plaintiff has documentation that he asked Florida courts to cure this, and they refused. Combining all this, Plaintiff has documentation of a process which the State of Florida, as a member of the United States, enjoys no sovereign right to operate, and refuses to remedy. 234. Plaintiff first brought all this to the State of Florida. By inaction on Plaintiff's petitions, the Florida Supreme Court and Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed this practice, where they believe state and federal law does not vitiate the appropriateness to use lies in Florida if they have ginned up public support to convict someone. But Florida Statute 837.02 and the Fifth Amendment are not vitiated by the popular will of the local voter, opinions of Mandi May Jackson's worth as a citizen, or any case-specific circumstances. This puts whatever law Florida courts are relying on, in conflict with federal law and jurisdiction. 235. The idea that the prosecutor has discretion and immunity, has been illegally confused by the structure of Florida law and government to mean a Florida prosecutor can break the law or ignore or choose not to prosecute any law violation, for the purpose to get convictions. If a prosecutor can give people plea bargains and is immune to lie, then a prosecutor can arrange rather than prosecute lies. This simplifies to if you tell the lie we want - based on whom we have picked as guilty - we won't prosecute you. And it is insulated by a shield of discretions and immunities, including the immunity of the powerful to spread malicious state lies about common citizens to the public. 236. No law or tradition can vest in the State of Florida the sovereign right to use witnesses who are immunized to lie in court, without penalty or deterrence, and in a pattern designed to subvert rights and traditions to extrajudicial collective decision-making or politics. The State of Florida is operating a process they have no sovereign right to operate, where they are immune to lie to the jury as their voters approve, and then call it a trial by jury. The immunization of state witnesses who commit perjury, and the invisibility of crimes that occur for the purpose of tricking and nullifying the jury and gaming federal courts - discretionary immunity that is context-specific to the context of prosecuting crimes and trials - violates enumerated and unenumerated rights and traditions. 237. The State of Florida refuses to enforce Florida Statute 837.02 during criminal prosecution, and therefore does not provide the enumerated right of due process, or the unenumerated right to the regulation of testimony or deterrence of perjury in courts. Just as prosecutors have preexisting unenumerated rights in Imbler v. Pachtman, so too do defendants. The idea that such felony perjury exists in the context of a specific criminal case (as in Appendix H, page a93), is tied to this idea that it doesn't matter if the witness lied to the jury, if someone other than the jury thinks the defendant is guilty. A judge says there is a lot of evidence here, so I don't think this person lying to the jury is a big deal. A person committed a felony by lying in court, but another person being guilty vitiates it. It is okay to lie about a person whom the executive branch thinks is bad. We only prosecute people lying when they lie against the executive branch, and we even immunize private citizens to defame when it is done on behalf of the executive branch. Just as legal discretion at the state level does not include the discretion to not hold jury trials, or to use hearsay, it also does not include such discretion to not deter perjury when someone other than the jury thinks the defendant is guilty. 238. Settling cases by social quorum and then fixing the court process with lies is immediately cheaper for everyone, but nevertheless illegal and unjust. Even if the illegal process produces the same outcome 95% of the time and at less money cost, it's still illegal. And that's even ignoring the cost of it performing significantly worse in that 5% or whatever of the time when it gets a different result. That's ignoring the cost of it being injustice, perverting the credibility of courts, sowing civil unrest, whatever. And once allowed, the trend over time is not to catch more and more of those otherwise un-catchable criminals, but for arbitrary executive-branch power to produce a progressively worse and more corrupt result. Countries where police have absolute power have relatively high rates of crime and corruption, and finally concentration camps and mass murder. This drift is supposed to be stopped at some point by the US Constitution, and Plaintiff shows that point is crossed in Florida. 239. Florida asked for a contract by becoming a member and agent of the United States, which contract includes restraining member states according to written laws and traditions. States asked for these rights by becoming a state, to prevent any type of collective coming together to abrogate these rights. States absolutely intended to give up the sovereign right to use witnesses as mere devices to get gossip into the courtroom, when they joined the United States. It violates this agreement when Florida can lie about and extradite a citizen of any state. 240. Florida violates federal rights and its agreement with other states, by her failure, refusal, and systematic inability to carry out trials that protect enumerated and traditional rights, and conform to common law norms. The criminal justice system in Florida is not some novel or rogue scheme, but is designed precisely to roll back evolved processes and protections to achieve more primitive tribal justice processes. Claim II - Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment and Unenumerated Traditional Federal Rights 241. Florida violates Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendment and unenumerated traditional federal rights, with standing as a client of federal courts, by the legal discretion of Florida prosecutors to clog up federal courts with lies and overturned cases. Every citizen of every state is legally and financially intertwined with Florida by extradition and in other ways, including the scarcity of federal court resources which Florida is a glutton for with all the overturned convictions and Crosley Green nonsense consuming federal court resources. 242. One of the many problems with the freedom of Bar members to produce liars who face no penalty, is the diligent capacity of court resources cannot entertain a never-ending stream of liars and counter-testimony. The Supreme Court recently ruled "Congress has chosen finality over error correction" (No. 21–857, Jones v. Hendrix, Warden). But even if AEDPA did not exist, as a practical matter there can never be enough lawyers and judges, to hear testimony of all the endless stream of liars those lawyers can produce and those judges will allow, when the liars don't fear being prosecuted. "Finality" is just a cure to solve the real problem that there is more garbage testimony than courts can wade through, where trying to wade through all of it would bog down courts for decades, so that lack of rationing would delay and prevent as much error correction as any arbitrary rationing rule. "Finality" in practice is not used to mean the end of court costs, but the end of outcome changes, particularly when allowing lies is otherwise able to produce a new outcome every day. 243. Non-prosecution of perjury interferes with due process simply by clogging up the courts, to where prosecutors expect defendants will have years of trouble getting a court to untangle even the sloppiest lies. The prosecutor pulls a fast one knowing it will keep an innocent person in prison until long after the prosecutor retires, with a process everyone has a cost incentive to rush in front of jurors eager to go home. Such jurors will quickly gloss over a simple lie that will then take 10 years to get in front of a federal judge, if ever. Florida criminal justice is in the business of begin by lying, and make them catch us, make them prove they are innocent. The fact that maybe the occasional defendant catches them or innocent person gets out of prison 15 years later, does not make the process legal. 244. Plaintiff has firsthand witnessed in Florida trial courts, a process by which the prosecution tries to jam in as many lies as possible before the appeals bottleneck (where you hear words like "jury" and "vitiate" but never "undeterred perjury"). This Court accepting the process invites more lies, and fails to ration its capacity to provide due process. If this Court likes prosecutors being "fearless" to present a case that is all lies, this Court should still want them fearful of the multitudes of appellants they send to this Court crying about the lies. Eliminating so much garbage testimony by enforcing Florida Statute 837.02 would free up resources to produce due process, and is the only remedy which manifests rather than rations due process. It may not create the fake charade of solving as much crime. 245. If the government is too clumsy to deliver something without faking the outcome with lies, then even if the legislature can deprive federal courts of jurisdiction to wrangle with their fakery, it is still outside the legal bounds of state courts to create the fakery in the first place. The legally sound way to get "finality" is to build a sturdier product by not cultivating lies on day one or subsequent days. Inviting actual unfair trial claims for the process not protecting the defendant against state lies - such as that liars are never prosecuted and the jury was never told that - would have the opposite effect which would be reducing the load of garbage shoveled into the courts. If liars were deterred, you would have one petition once "was the defendant protected from lies at trial", rather than a bunch of jailhouse and other sworn witnesses with new and changed stories to dig through as "listen to this new lie today". 246. Appellate courts have invited and rewarded prosecutors who are "fearless" to clog up federal courts with lies, which forced Congress to take away their jurisdiction and remove a key part of the design of our checks and balances. The correct first layer of defense or choke point limitation, is not an arbitrary late one on the number of petitions which limitation fails to correct errors, but an increased regulation on the number of liars in the first place which inflate the subsequent petitions. 247. In summary, an open faucet of false testimony degrades due process indirectly by clogging up the courts, and Congress has recognized this is a federal problem created by states as clients of the federal courts, and intended to cure this problem. Plaintiff argues the sovereign right of states includes the right of state citizens to access federal courts on demand to solve federal issues that the states create, and an injunction on state proceedings which produce a fire hose of undeterred false testimony is the correct federal remedy to protect the due process capacity of courts. It should be legal to deny state citizens marginal access to courts, but illegal for states to use undeterred lies in the courtroom that create such an endless knot of federal issues. The proper regulation point is before witnesses lie, rather than tell the voter "The United States keeps the innocent in prison because prosecutors are fearless to overwhelm our capacity with lies." It's odd that federal courts would choose to read lies that subvert their jurisdiction, to the exclusion of correcting errors in their jurisdiction. But judges have become puzzle enthusiasts which violates the overriding tradition of fact as Plaintiff will get to. Claim III - Traditional and Enumerated Rights of Members of The United States to Establish and Operate Courts 248. Florida violates the traditional and enumerated rights of members of the United States to establish and operate courts, with Plaintiff's standing as a United States citizen, by operating courts where perjury is used as a standard rather than deterred or punished. Using perjury in the courtroom without penalty to the perjurer violates historic norms, to operate an illegal non-traditional court process which Florida neither conserves nor enjoys any sovereign right to operate. Imbler v. Pachtman relies on there being a set of rules which are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights which court processes have to conform to "that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system" (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, (1976)). Claim IV - Separation of Powers Designed at the Founding of our Nation 249. Florida violates the separation of powers designed at the founding of our nation as progress from monarchy, with Plaintiff's standing as a United States citizen. Moving fact-finding to the local executive branch with mock court processes, violates the designed separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and juries and the rights of the accused. Florida subverts the jurisdiction of federal courts to find fact and measure law against it, and enforce federal contractual obligations of states. It violates the rights to operate traditional courts that fit into the balance of powers of intended by the Constitution. Even merely giving prosecutors discretion to not prosecute what judges have judged to be material lies which denied due process, violates the balance of powers by moving power to the executive branch with freerolls to nullify all other branches listed in the US Constitution. Claim V - Subverts the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts 250. Florida subverts the jurisdiction of federal courts in Article III Section 2, with Plaintiff's standing as a United States citizen. The discretion of local prosecutors to not prosecute perjury subverts the jurisdiction of higher courts to apply law to fact. It violates the rights to set up traditional courts with narrow modification of structure and jurisdiction by Congress, as intended by the Constitution. 251. Perjury and Florida Statute 837.02 is not ordinary law governing citizen behavior in the street. It is rules for functioning within the courts to inflate the framework of law and rights. The abuse of discretion to not prosecute the standardized use of perjury, effects a failure to operate courts according to necessary rules and traditions which make government by law possible. 252. Higher courts, not prosecutors who can choose to reward instead of prosecute perjury, have final jurisdiction as to law and fact. The discretion to ignore perjury, is the discretion to usurp the fact-finding function of courts and fix court outcomes, by hacking the judicial process with false facts against which laws are measured and upon which legal decisions are based. 253. When a crime is committed in a local courtroom, the local prosecutor is not just an agent of his voters, but of federal courts. The perjuring testimony takes place not just in a local county, but in every court with jurisdiction. The local prosecutor is therefore an arm and agent of this Court, when enforcing laws governing official proceedings. No local citizen will likely ever read the testimony, but implicitly asks this Court to. Do local voters enjoy a right to feed this Court garbage at their discretion? 254. For example, a federal district court declared itself blind to police perjury which is not prosecuted by the local prosecutor in US-FL-SD 2:21-cv-14355. The effect of this local discretion deprives federal courts of their jurisdiction. 255. Facts are the sensory means of giving this Court arms into the real physical world. Perjury cuts off the arms of this Court and makes it an irrelevant mockery, a puppet to the whims of such local actors and the executive branch. Perjury prevents federal courts from enforcing federal rights, without which states would not consent to participation in our nation. 256. Perjury is so used to create arbitrary power, undermining the possibility of law and nullifying the role of courts. Arbitrary power is anathema to law and this Court's purpose and obligations. This cannot be tolerated. Claim VI - Deference to Non-Prosecution of Perjury Violates Federalist 51 257. Federal courts which are tricked with deference to the state-court fact-finding function, which function uses the non-prosecution of perjury to subvert their jurisdiction and federal rights, violates the original intentions enumerated in Federalist 51. By the nature of overlapping jurisdictions and checks and balances as described in Federalist 51, the State is a conflicted party that cannot alone or by itself be in the business of protecting federal rights. Rights do not arise out of the absence of conflict. Deference is the opposite of "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Federal rights find enforcement not through deference but only through the conflict of ambitions in different jurisdictions. Federal courts have jurisdiction over Florida to "oblige it to control itself" in the finding of fact in State courts. The sovereign interest of the State or any local faction is always against federal rights, that is why rights were created. Courts are meant to serve as a lever to use the fulcrum of the law to push back against the tyranny of the local majority. Claim VII - Rights of Citizens to Pass and Enforce Laws and Administrate Courts and Justice 258. Florida violates the rights of citizens of member states of the United States to pass and enforce laws and administrate courts and justice at the state and federal level, rather than at the whim of a local quorum, with Plaintiff's standing as citizen and voter of United States and Florida. Florida's deference to local discretion injures Plaintiff's general public interest in justice, and rights of citizens represented by the balance of powers and between sovereignty, law, and local discretion. When the intent of legislature is usurped with discretion, Plaintiff's right to live under the rule of law and participate as a common citizen in a democracy is violated. 259. Even without financing the activities as a taxpayer, Plaintiff has rights to Florida court and criminal-justice activities that comply with federal law and traditions. Florida not enforcing laws in courtrooms also deprives Plaintiff as citizen criminal plaintiff, by violating the agreement of state sovereignty, which plaintiff as a citizen of the state is party to, and also Plaintiff's criminal-plaintiff contract with Florida as a citizen of the United States. Florida not enforcing laws in courtrooms also deprives the right of citizens as voters, to enforce through written law, and to administrate courts and justice, and also to have enforced the law they join by becoming citizens of the United States. 260. The belief of the Supreme Court of Florida that citizens have have no “clear legal right” (Appendix P, page a164) binding State officers to follow or enforce state and federal law in court proceedings, rather it is the free-floating choice of the local executive branch, is in conflict with federal law giving Florida the sovereign right to operate courts. Phil Archer cannot be a participant in any legal creation, collective, state, nation, process, or right, when he intentionally uses lies in a mock court process to lock up the innocent. Archer sets off alarms in every contract, at every layer of jurisdiction and sovereignty, in which he cheats every other person. Claim VIII - Rights to Legally Regulated Spending of Taxpayer Treasure 261. Florida violates Plaintiff's rights to legally regulated spending of taxpayer treasure, with standing as a state and federal taxpayer. 262. Plaintiff's standing to use federal court jurisdiction to enjoin the State of Florida from spending money comes through at least four channels. 1) The State of Florida is constrained by federal law as to what it can legally do, and can only pass laws to authorize spending state taxpayer money on activities that are legal under federal law, where the rest is illegal activities under color of being a state. 2) Under AEDPA and deference, Florida demands to act as a federal agent, and spending of state taxpayer funds on activities Florida undertakes as a federal agent can be determined illegal by a federal court. 3) Federal money is intermingled with state money, and federal and state police activities are intertwined, so a federal court can enjoin state spending which draws direct or indirect support from the federal taxpayer. 4) A federal court can enjoin activities which affect the federal rights of citizens of the United States, and Plaintiff as a United States citizen has standing to ask a federal court to stop his Florida taxes being spent on such activities. 263. (If Florida is operating according to some rules or traditions that exist before, outside, or independent of the jurisdictions of the federal government or member states, this is more evidence what they are doing violates unenumerated rights.) 264. Number one as a Florida taxpayer, the activities described in this Complaint cannot be the legal creations of law in the State of Florida. As a state citizen, Florida can only spend Plaintiff's taxpayer treasure on legal processes and outcomes, as described not only in Florida law and constitution, but in the enumerated and traditional laws of the United States. Article VII, § 19(1)(c) of the Florida Constitution permits no legal construction that authorizes expenditure of taxpayer funds on court activities illegitimized with a standardized abuse of discretion to employ illegal perjury, in violation of common law norms. Neither the Florida constitution nor legislature authorizes the creation of such mock court activities or financial support of resulting orders, regardless of whether they are approved of or regulated by the local election of court officers, or the statewide executive branch. The statewide taxpayer is therefore aggrieved by such actions which as a member of the United States, Florida has no sovereign right to create. 265. A Florida voter or legislator cannot legally consent to any law or expenditure that is designed to violate federal law. As a citizen of the State of Florida which is in turn a member of the United States, Plaintiff has a federal right that the State is constrained to only engage in and spend money on court activities and orders, and police activities, which are legal under federal law. The actions by state officers described in this Complaint violate federal law. The right to operate as a state member of the United States, is a federal right. Just like Plaintiff cannot build a tree house and claim his own laws apply there, neither can the State of Florida claim to have the sovereign rights to operate as a state outside the constraints of their contract with the United States. So Plaintiff is not seeking a federal injunction of legitimate legal state activities, but of illegal spending activities done under color of federal law, which injury Plaintiff has standing for as Florida taxpayer. 266. Number two as a Florida taxpayer, pursuant to AEDPA and "deference" precedents, the State of Florida demands and is required to be an enforcer using its own money of federal law which it is incorporated with. Florida spends its tax dollar pursuant to a federal contract. So the State cannot design to spend taxes on processes where it asks to be the agent of federal law, to violate federal law. If it is federal jurisdiction to decide what is federal law, then it is a federal matter to decide what the state can spend taxes on when enforcing federal law. This is not an 11th Amendment problem, because in this specific area the states have demanded to be the agents of federal sovereignty, and not a Younger problem because it is proactive not retroactive in a specific case, and the state courts already refused petitions to fix it. The determination if a state act as federal agent is illegal, should not be done in a separate venue from enjoining the state from spending state money on behalf of a state citizen on illegal activity in the state's federal capacity. It makes little sense to get a federal court to declare a state process as a federal agent invalid, and then seek an injunction for that activity with standing as a state taxpayer in state court that is not the finder of legality. A federal court has more power to enjoin state spending on federal activities, than to bind state courts in this matter. 267. Number three, Plaintiff also has standing as a United States taxpayer and citizen to the extent the federal government provides ultimately mingled funds and intertwines its activities in a way that supports Florida courts, enforcement of court orders, and policing. Florida police are financed directly and indirectly by the federal government, and operate in concert and cooperation with federal police. Florida participates in national extradition treaties, shares federal courts, petitions for federal case law, and so on. Florida only has the right to spend money directly and indirectly made available by the federal taxpayer, on activities consistent with the constraints the state voluntarily asked for and agreed to by becoming a member state. 268. Certain rights as a state and federal taxpayer to performance by a state, are protected by federal constraints on state action by incorporation. This probably would not include federal jurisdiction over Florida taxpayer treasure spent on a drainage ditch. But it covers activities in which Florida is regulated by federal law and tradition, and which are supported by federal funds and intertwined with federal activities. 269. Number four, Florida is in a federal contract not to operate its jurisdiction by spending money in such a manner as to infringe federal rights of US citizens in other general ways not covered by the first three specific cases of illegal laws, deference, and mingled financial support. The Bill of Rights was created specifically as a contractual benefit to states. Incorporation demands not just that the State of Florida is constrained by the Bill of Rights, but that the citizens of the State of Florida receive federal constraints on what the State of Florida can do. Citizens of Florida therefore have federal constraints on how their national and Florida tax dollar is spent in Florida, and federal constraints on spending in support of illegal activities that chill or infringe federal rights. Claim IX - Jailhouse Witnesses Violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, and Traditional Rights 270. Jailhouse witnesses violate the intention of Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and traditional rights, as coerced hearsay produced by the jailer and proven unreliable which the jury is misled about. Jailhouse witnesses are a witch-pricking scam to move power to the executive branch. The elements are a) coercing confessions in the executive branch in a new permutation against the spirit or intention of the Fifth Amendment, b) it violates due process to the extent it has been proven unreliable, c) it violates the right to a jury trial to the extent you are not allowed to tell the jury the truth about jailhouse witnesses, d) it violates the Magna Carta, to the extent it is simply a device to get cop opinions and gossip into court by manufacturing a fake "witness" to recite unwitnessed cop opinions and gossip, e) it violates the intended checks and balances as characterized in Federalist 51, by putting the unrestrained and unchecked power and discretion to fabricate evidence of guilt without penalty, in the dominant political faction represented by the local executive branch. 271. The purpose of courts is not so the crowd can lock up the people they want to lock up, but to bring fact to law. Using jailhouse witnesses fits the first purpose, but not the second purpose. There is always a reason to doubt what a jailhouse confession witness says, if he is being used as an actual witness, rather than as a device to get a preexisting opinion through the courtroom door (while sending judges off as dupes, to get lost in a maze of case law trying to understand if there is a law against them being lied to, and then boasting some political blather about fighting la cosa nostra). 272. It's a ridiculous scam to have some people from the jail lie, and then say oh well it's up to the jury to figure out if they are lying, and then play dumb and say well we don't know if they're lying. This is a shibboleth to see whether judges are honest or just stooges and tools. Claim X - 8th and 14th Amendment Arbitrary Prosecution Without Witness 273. Florida violates Plaintiff's 8th and 14th Amendment rights and the Great Charter of Liberties, with standing as prospective defendant, by the arbitrary nature of prosecutions that combine "stand your ground" and "open carry", acceptance of police lying in affidavits without penalty, abuse of discretion in what is considered premeditation, and jailhouse witnesses. 274. Abuse of discretion to accept police lying in affidavits without the possibility of prosecution, and discretion to hold people without bond or not created by "stand your ground" and excessive flexibility to imagine probable cause of premeditation, combined with jailhouse witnesses, creates arbitrary and discriminatory unequal outcomes like in Furman v. Georgia. 275. While in theory a rich person could be convicted based on the testimony of a jailhouse witness, it is more likely to be determined by whether a person is able to make bond - by the most politically corruptible discretions of charge and bond that come long before the check of any jury - and by the extent to which the case is tried in the media which is immunized and easily allowed to cross over into testimony when there is no deterrent for perjury. The determination of premeditation, bond, and jailhouse witnesses, is based not on the input of any actual witness, but grown entirely from the seed of the opinion of police. 276. The use of jailhouse witnesses in this situation also violates Magna Carta Libertatum 1225 (28), where it says there must be a witness ("No bailiff... shall put any man to his open law, nor to an oath, upon his own simple affirmation, without faithful witnesses produced for that purpose."). In cases like Mandi May Jackson, she was arrested without any actual evidence that she planned or participated in a robbery, but solely based on a cop who lied to even establish minimal circumstantial suspicion in an affidavit. And then they used a jailhouse witness which was created in the jail - manufactured under the coercion of those same police (to recite those same lies the courts gave TV reporters immunity to embellish) - to then fill in for their lack of a witness, artificially. Claim XI - Stigma Depriving Defendants of Reputation and Opportunity Without Due Process 277. Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations suspends ordinary recourse for defamation to negatively regulate private speech by and in the interests of government, which deprives citizens of reputation and opportunity without due process of law. It deputizes malicious web promoters to act in a nexus with the State that also is used to bias and influence the testimony and activity of witnesses, jurors, and investigators, and subvert public oversight. This also violates Magna Carta Libertatum, 1225 (29) "No free-man shall be...dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed... excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land." It has also been used to chill the First Amendment by deputizing private actors to retaliate for political speech (see US Supreme Court 21-1071). All this sprouts from existing case law, from the simple mustard seed of no punishment or deterrent for police lying under oath. Ortega is a branch in which many resulting rights violations “come and lodge”. 278. Ortega makes the ridiculous claim that an interest that “the public may be kept informed of the workings of government” (Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)) is served by web promoters who have “no duty to go behind statements made at official proceedings and determine their accuracy” (Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)), who may embellish with little restraint to promote incorrect or circumstantial conclusions (“court of appeal... recognized that there were certain discrepancies between what appeared in the affidavit and what was reported” Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)), and who may even ignore readily available information and sworn statements known to them that the libel they are pushing is false ("Plaintiff provided Schorsch with supplementary information, including a sworn statement" Murray v. Taylor Okeechobee County 21-CA-000035, ECF 9 "AMENDED COMPLAINT" page 13), and may even maliciously admit they know it is false ("could literally say you intended to invade Mars and they've arrested you for threatening martians" Murray v. Taylor Okeechobee County 21-CA-000035, ECF 9 "AMENDED COMPLAINT" page 13) and don't care because it makes them money ("You'll guarantee my business for the next eight years" Murray v. Taylor Okeechobee County 21-CA-000035, ECF 9 "AMENDED COMPLAINT" page 11). 279. A cop can destroy the career and ruin the life of a defendant by lying in an affidavit, which lie is then embellished on the Internet indexed to the defendant's name forever, with no 1983 recourse if a judge uses broad discretion to say there was probable cause for the arrest or good faith for the lie, and no traditional recourse for defamation under McNayr v. Kelly and Ortega. The target of the stigma may simply not be able to find a lawyer, or is often too incompetent to respond to lies and simply made sport for public theater, because the cop calculated that the target was an incompetent who could not afford a lawyer. Charges may never be filed, or the defense attorney will threaten his client with years in prison if he doesn't take a deal. This deprives the common Florida citizen from any venue to clear his name or even obtain evidence that shows public statements about him are false. There are plenty of people who will never get another job because of false accusations that were never even charged. In the case of Mandi May Jackson, false newspaper stories that she was arrested with GHB were woven into stories jailhouse witness told to jurors, and which jurors apparently believed based on them convicting Jackson with no other evidence, and based on a spike in Google searches for Jackson's name on the days jurors heard such testimony. 280. And nor is such deprivation an unintended byproduct, but a common tool of aggression for cops who will merely accuse people of stalking or sex crimes to destroy them in the public square before they ever get a day in court, and as a result of which successful stigmatization voters will generally not even care what the cop has done. Marking, hobbling, and shaming people are well recognized throughout history as standalone punishments, across many cultures for thousands of years (pillories were used in the Massachusetts Bay Colony). Arrests and government accusations are regularly recognized as having this original defamation intent as a punishment in itself, not merely an inevitable byproduct on a path in pursuit of some other goal. Stigmatizing people with mugshots is widely recognized as being a designed part of the criminal justice system in Florida. Many gossip promoters and common citizens will openly say that shaming people with mugshots after an arrest is useful as a punishment and deterrent. The intent of Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd to shame the people he has arrested with his constant news conferences, is unmistakable. 281. This amounts to a "stigma-plus" claim (“the interest in reputation alone which respondent seeks to vindicate in this action in federal court is quite different from the 'liberty' or 'property' recognized in those decisions.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976)), because this stigma always chills the liberty right to a fair trial, usually by influencing witnesses, jurors, and investigators, but in all cases by subverting public oversight which is an element of the Sixth Amendment Right to a public trial (“a plaintiff must show a stigma to his reputation plus some concomitant infringement of a protected right or interest” Ersek v. Township of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79, 83 n.5 (3d Cir. 1996)). And it deprives the property of, for example, job and rental opportunities, which are generally interests protected from discrimination by state and federal law. Plaintiff has experienced that elected officials stopped talking to him, after reading false allegations about him on the Internet, depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity to petition for a redress of grievances. Claim XII - Sixth Amendment Right To A Jury Trial 282. Florida violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The State of Florida neither asked for (but against), preserves, nor enjoys any sovereign right to conduct criminal trials that withhold relevant information or trick jurors, through the use of perjury that is not deterred and therefore standardized by non-prosecution. Jurors are taught in school and as citizens of the United States, to expect that witnesses who lie to them will be punished, rather than that government officials will present such witnesses as standard course and without sanction. Common law norms dictate that there must be some government institution and activity with a mandate to punish and deter perjury by state witnesses and actors. This was certainly the intention of the authors of Florida Statute 837.02. 283. Hiding from the jury that all state-witness lies are immune and not prosecuted, bars curing the jury of their prejudice and incorrect belief that the state and courts gate-keep perjury, and thereby violates the right to a jury trial Claim XII Right To A Jury Trial Details 284. Jailhouse witnesses violate jury case law. In Reynoso v. Giurbino, failure to examine a witness's reasons for testifying was ineffective counsel. Asking a witness if he is lying or if he would lie, is pointless, so failure to examine a witness's reasons for testifying using all available information such as the non-prosecution of perjury, is ineffective. If you were to say to a witness "don't you know that jailhouse witnesses are never prosecuted", he will deny anyway to be an expert on that. (“Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted.” Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 151 (1972)) But it can be established that a witness would be reasonably expected to know something which is both true and well known to other people in the jail as well as to experts in the field ("the prosecutor insisted that the reward was 'common knowledge' " Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006)). You must be able to examine the facts which the jury is otherwise misled and prejudiced to believe, that there is a penalty for and gatekeeping of perjury. 285. According to Reynoso v. Giurbino, the incentives facing witnesses to lie and tell the truth, is material to jurors. Every inmate and lawyer in Florida who testifies, does so knowing there is no penalty for lying to support the prosecution narrative. The lack of any prosecution ever, such as of jailhouse witnesses in cases exonerated by DNA or when their testimony is brazenly false, is therefore material information to show jurors not just a “remarkably uncritical attitude” by the prosecution when selecting such witnesses (“remarkably uncritical attitude” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 420 (1995)), but also incentives facing witnesses who can be reasonably expected to know they will never be prosecuted for lying. 286. Under Haber v. Wainwright, the long record of non-prosecution of state-witness perjury, and uncritical attitude toward jailhouse witness proffers which is well known to anyone who has been in the jail for even a few days, cultivates an "informal understanding" of non-prosecution (“may fall into the category of discoverable evidence since it could constitute an informal understanding” Haber v. Wainwright, 756 F.2d 1520, 1524 (11th Cir. 1985)). 287. Absence of prosecution for lying, plus reward for supporting the prosecution narrative, gives the witness a bias to say one thing over another. The bias (or “remarkably uncritical attitude”) of the prosecutor is transferred to the witness. Therefore non-prosecution of such witnesses, and prosecutorial and judicial immunity, are material information to help jurors understand the bias of witnesses. 288. You do not even need to show there is an informal understanding of non-prosecution, only correct the jury's incorrect belief that there is prosecution of perjury. If a jury was incorrectly led to believe any false and relevant fact, such as that a car cannot go faster than 50 mph, failure to correct this belief would be failure to impeach a witness who testified that he was only driving 50mph. 289. Testimony by a witness that he was driving under 50 mph, or that he believes he would prosecuted for lying, can only be weighed if incorrect prejudicial juror beliefs, such as that a car cannot go over 50 mph or perjury is ever prosecuted, are corrected. If the witness denies the matter offered to show bias, it may be proven through extrinsic evidence (“such extrinsic evidence is admissible to show bias” United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 46 (1984)). Extrinsic evidence may include the testimony of other witnesses, such as other inmates who can tell you everyone knows the way out of prison is not to say you are innocent, but to lie that someone else is guilty. 290. Even evidence which might be inadmissible to show a witness would lie, must be admissible to correct juror prejudice that he would not lie. If a juror thinks it is impossible for a car to go over 50 mph, or its impossible for a witness to expect he won't be prosecuted for lying, then those are overwhelming prejudices which must be overcome before a juror can weigh the credibility of statements that someone was speeding or lying. The theater of the oath creates the impression of a punishment as a reason for witnesses not to lie, which prejudice must be cured by an honest examination of what the government actually does to state witness perjurers: nothing. 291. According to Kyles v. Whitley, information showing an "uncritical attitude" in the investigative process is material to jurors (“uncritical attitude” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 420 (1995)). The investigative activities of selecting jailhouse and other coerced witnesses, preparing them for trial, and choosing whether to prosecute their lies, is not carried out by police but by prosecutors. Before a prosecutor can prepare a jailhouse witness for trial, the prosecutor must discover the witness and examine his proffer. The distinction between such investigative activity and the subsequent judicial phase of coaching the witness, is recognized in case law, e.g. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 479 (1991), Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 276 (1993), and Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107, 1113 (7th Cir. 2014). 292. The whole process of using jailhouse witnesses, including instructing jurors on the credibility of witnesses, and choosing whether to prosecute their lies, is ultimately regulated or not by the State Supreme Court and Governor. So the "uncritical attitude" exists not just in the prosecutor, but in the system in which the prosecutor operates. Failure to prosecute witnesses that are caught lying is always prosecutorial misconduct (“A prosecutor who does not appreciate the perils of using rewarded criminals as witnesses risks compromising the truth-seeking mission... we will not assume an innocent explanation from a silent record” U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 336 (9th Cir. 1993)). Prosecutors are in an investigative phase when they produce and select witnesses, so this misconduct of allowing past liars, is Brady impeachment material of an investigator. 293. The State of Florida does not compel reporting or publish any record of the use of discretion by local prosecutors. There is no central record of how often coerced witnesses were used, of when those witnesses were shown or adjudicated to be lying, the outcome of prosecutions using those lies, which verdicts were overturned, and whether any of those witnesses who were shown to lie were ever prosecuted. This material information is therefore not provided or made available to defendants or jurors. There is no debate as to whether material information must be disclosed. There can be no honest debate as to whether this information is material to a naive juror weighing the credibility of witnesses in front of him. Anyone with an intuitive understanding of statistics, could examine the long court record, and use it to make accurate predictions of which witness in a trial is most likely to be lying. The only debate is whether the State of Florida will be allowed to pervert and contort some case law to say such material and legitimately usable information is inadmissible, and thereby deny obvious truths and nullify the right to a jury trial, through sophistry and enthusiasm for word games over obvious truths. 294. Many activities material to impeachment are not recognized as usable facts and are invisible to courts, unless a prosecutor initiates charges for the activity (“pending internal investigations are confidential and are not disclosed” United States v. McClellon, 260 F. Supp. 3d 880, 884 (E.D. Mich. 2017), “McClellan's record is especially probative” United States v. McClellan, 44 F.4th 200, 213 (4th Cir. 2022)). Therefore the failure to charge witnesses with perjury (when otherwise discovered such as by contradictory sworn statements, exonerations, or considered by a judge in decisions) games the rules of admissibility to deprive defendants of material information about witnesses. Jailhouse witnesses are often used in multiple cases. And whether their crimes of lying are admissible, turns on the action of the prosecutor to hide their crimes from the defense by not prosecuting them. Certainly a prosecutor will not cure this by belatedly prosecuting a witness when he is about to be used as a new witness. Rather the prosecutor will not even disclose that he could have prosecuted the witness, and decided not to. So this can only be cured by courts requiring prosecution of all witnesses who are found to be lying, or otherwise compelling the State to compile and disclose a database of non-prosecuted perjury. 295. The present system in Florida is the exact opposite. You can swear you witnessed perjury and evidence tampering (e.g. Appendix O, page a153), and provide documentation of it, to every government employee in Florida, and they will all refuse to acknowledge or make any legally visible record of what you said. Crimes that take place to support convicting defendants in Florida are unreportable and therefore undisclosable; there is no government institution to prevent using lies and protect the public right that trials are legal according to enumerated and unenumerated rights, which rights require the government produce and disclose such impeachment material in possession of a State actor (“the information is in the possession of some arm of the state” U.S. v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 971 (3d Cir. 1991)). In any case, an elected prosecutor's own non-prosecution of witnesses who were adjudicated to be lying, such as when a judge threw out a case, is readily available to this same prosecutor, and should be provided to the defense who may have no other means to know of the existence of this information. 296. Even if the perjury-non-prosecution information is theoretically available to a defense lawyer who drives around the state and reads the record of every case, there can still be an ineffective counsel for failure to undertake this mass research project, or a misleading jury instruction to the extent the jury is led to believe no such record exists and rather the opposite idea that perjuring witnesses are generally prosecuted and prosecutors have not been found to have used them so often. Certainly if jurors knew the record of jailhouse witnesses in wrongful and overturned convictions in cases just like theirs, it would be material to credibility and guilt, so the state has a requirement to assemble this data and provide it (“we must consider the collective exculpatory effect of the non-disclosed evidence” Schledwitz v. U.S., 169 F.3d 1003, 1013 (6th Cir. 1999)). 297. Under Giglio v. United States, the promise of leniency to a jailhouse witness implicitly includes in Florida a promise that he will not be prosecuted for new crimes created by his testimony, such as perjury (“Nobody told me I wouldn't be prosecuted. ” Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 151 (1972)). A hard legally-visible record of the standard tradition of non-prosecution of jailhouse-witness perjury must at the very least be disclosed to the defense, if not also the jury, so that a naive defense lawyer can know to investigate whether the jailhouse witness might be lying and why, and also understand this material about incentives to lie to use in his cross examination. 298. The standard non-prosecution of state-witness perjury, creates a standard belief in the witness that he will not be prosecuted. This must be disclosed to the defense. That this belief is universally created, is supported by examples of multiple contradictory and outlandish proffers from inmates for the prosecution to select from (e.g. Ishnar Lopez-Ramos saying Plaintiff planned his own murder), and even testimony that contradicts physical evidence being used at trial. (Kaylee Simmons said Mandi May Jackson used a black Glock, when police matched a bullet to a silver revolver. One jailhouse witness said Maria Ridulph was strangled, another jailhouse witness said she was smothered, the autopsy said she was stabbed. John Tessler was not even in the same city and had his conviction overturned, giving any honest person reason to consider that such witnesses have somehow been made fearless to invent such random details.) 299. In such cases when jailhouse witnesses contradict physical evidence, the jury ignores this as evidence the witness is not reliable, because they assume there would be a penalty for witnesses and prosecutors lying. In the case when state-witness testimony is impeached in other ways, the knowledge that there is no penalty or deterrent for perjury is not merely additional or redundant to the obvious inaccuracy of the testimony (“the undisclosed evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to challenge a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable” Shabazz v. Artuz, 336 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2003)). Rather, the misplaced belief of the honesty of courts and the State, eclipses all other impeachment. The jury's incorrect belief that the prosecutor would know and would send the witness to prison if he lied - such as Kaylee Simmons where a prosecutor told the jury the witness would get life in prison for lying - where the truth is that they let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to take the lives of innocents, is an overwhelming prejudice that eclipses the apparent lack of credibility. Just like an incorrect juror belief that a car cannot go over 50mph would make a trial for a speeding ticket impossible despite all other testimony. 300. Under U.S. v. Bagley, a state witness being reasonably expected to have common knowledge that jailhouse witnesses are not prosecuted, is an "inducement" (“the triers of fact were left unaware of Government inducements to key witnesses” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 691 (1985)). Even if the State of Florida wants to argue that never prosecuting jailhouse witnesses is not an "inducement" for liars, it still is up to the jury to decide whether it is. The burden is on Florida to prove that disclosing the true fact of such non-prosecution could not appropriately affect the decision of a jury (“might have affected” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The argument that such disclosures would always give jurors reason to doubt jailhouse witnesses, is not a legal argument against such disclosures but an argument that such disclosures would be considered accurately by jurors and would work correctly as the law intends. The appropriate question is not would this make it impossible for jurors to not doubt jailhouse witness testimony. The appropriate question is would a juror result of blanket reasonable doubt of all jailhouse witnesses be correct and fair, and the answer is it would be. Jurors being informed is guaranteed specifically because judges won't do anything to protect the innocent being made sport by liars and sociopaths. 301. If you ask prosecutors how they found a jailhouse witness, they will say the witness was not arranged and supervised by prosecutors but "came forward" of his own volition. They will say they did not tell the jailhouse witness there would be a benefit before he "overheard" the confession, rather the jailhouse witness somehow knew about the benefit without ever talking to the prosecutor. The full package of what jailhouse witnesses know without prosecutors ever directly speaking to them, is not just that there is a reward but also that there is no deterrent for lying. It is relevant not just to disclose the witness got a benefit, but also to disclose the witness is not deterred by any penalty, and certainly not to mislead the jury with a false impression of the opposite. That fact that jailhouse witnesses will lie when examined, and claim to know one inducement but not the other, is irrelevant. Plaintiff does not doubt that courts would rather recite political talking points like monkeys, and waste the lives of people like Plaintiff and torture countless innocents - throwing human life away like garbage in a can - than acknowledge these simple truths. 302. The argument in support of jailhouse witnesses coexisting with the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, is they are not supervised agents of the state, but nevertheless somehow knew from common knowledge not told to them by the prosecutor, to obtain incriminating information from defendants and bring it to the prosecutor. It is then up to the jury to weigh whether jailhouse witnesses somehow knew this general knowledge that their testimony is needed without being directly supervised as agents of the state in jail, but did not also figure out the similarly common general knowledge that they are never prosecuted for lying, regardless of whether the prosecutor directly told them they would not be prosecuted for lying any more than whether the prosecutor directly told them to get information. In ordinary cases, the prosecutor neither told them "get a confession" nor "you won't be prosecuted for lying", but the jury may find a witness somehow knew both these things nonetheless, or is likely to know both if he knew one and there is evidence both are true historically. “Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony." (United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52 (1984)) 303. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403 and United States v. Weiss say evidence of bias cannot be admitted, if its unfair prejudice exceeds the insight it provides (“if the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the unfair prejudice that might result from its introduction, it should not be admitted” U.S. v. Weiss, 930 F.2d 185, 197-98 (2d Cir. 1991)). One might argue that telling jurors about all the death penalty cases with jailhouse witnesses that were overturned, creates an unfair prejudice without giving insight into the current jailhouse witness. But the opposite is true. The jurors not knowing that prosecutors are immune to orchestrate even "breathtaking injustice" (Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107, 1113 (7th Cir. 2014)), and not knowing the surprising truth that state witnesses are never prosecuted for lying even to give innocents the death penalty, gives an unfair prejudice that prevents all other impeachment of the witness. When jurors incorrectly judge the credibility of a state witness based on the credibility of the judge, the legislature, the building in which the trial takes places, and the theater including the oath and objections, and the natural belief that prosecutors would face prison or some penalty for torturing the innocent with known lies, this creates an unfair prejudice in favor of the witness. All such common preconceptions, all that stuff the juror is tricked by being left to assume, is totally irrelevant to the reliability of a state witness. The jury is separated from this prejudice only by being told the whole and surprising truth: The State does nothing to guarantee or even investigate the reliability of the witness, and may use the witness even if everyone in the room but the jury knows he is lying. The jury must be instructed against that prejudice, with the knowledge that no building or legislature or anything else guarantees truth or punishes either the prosecutor or state witness for perjury. The present jailhouse witness jury instruction allowed by the Florida Supreme Court does the opposite, it enhances the false stamp of government regulation and approval of the types of witnesses addressed (if jurors even use any meaning from this fine print). 304. Jailhouse and other coerced witnesses, are often the only evidence of the intent or collusion of a defendant in crimes where the defendant is not alleged to be the one who held the gun or pulled the trigger. Jurors understand that codefendants will lie in their own defense, to cut deals and say the other person did it. But jurors do not understand the incentives facing jailhouse witnesses with no connection to the crime, and are incorrectly led to believe there is a penalty for perjury, rather than an undeterred incentive for prosecutors to orchestrate lies. There are numerous cases where the jailhouse witnesses is the only evidence of intent or participation or a criminal act. Prosecutors seem to specifically use jailhouse witnesses to fill in for gossip in such cases when they have little hard evidence. The jailhouse witnesses themselves seem to find out these well-publicized cases where they are needed, where the cases are often popular in the media specifically because the the known circumstantial evidence still leaves some mystery. The lack of other evidence or hard evidence in such cases, makes the introduction of material relevant to jailhouse witness bias and credibility very important (“impeaching matter may be found material where the witness supplied the only evidence of an essential element of the offense” U.S. v. Javelin, 136 F.3d 249, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1998)). It is a test of a judge's honesty, whether he is willing to admit that nobody should ever be convicted almost entirely on evidence provided by such coerced hearsay "confessions". 305. It is particularly hard for decent jurors to comprehend that well-dressed and dignified judges would let proven dangerous felons back on the street for lying to torture the innocent, like venal priests. But the hard undeniable record is that even the most dangerous felons are humored and rewarded by the government, for the worst victimizations they will ever do in their criminal careers. The moral prejudice of the jury, and their belief in honorable courts, are made mockery, by rewarding the worst criminal victimizers for their worst criminal victimizations of the innocent. 306. Imbler argues that making appellate judges the enemies of their prosecutor peers "would often prejudice criminal defendants by skewing post-conviction judicial decisions that should be made with the sole purpose of insuring justice" (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, (1976)). The appellate setting is not the only place judges face the opportunity to choose torturing the innocent under the influence of politics. What about skewing trial decisions that protect prosecutors whom judges work with every day? Such decisions are laughably biased and crooked. No appellate judge is held in chains during such a decision, nor induced with freedom as a reward for one decision but not another. Judges being more corruptible than juries is why we are forced to bring in some know-nothings off the street, but judges are still expected to be somewhat less venal than felons. The prejudice created in the form of coerced state witnesses who face all incentive to corroborate the state narrative and no disincentive to lying, is an infinitely greater prejudice away from justice, than judges worried about catching their peers lying. But if judges want to admit they violate rights and justice to protect prosecutors, and Imbler is just a way to admit this and make it official, the admission is accepted. Judges admit in Imbler that bias creates incorrect outcomes, and that they will choose to spare their guilty prosecutor peers and imprison innocent common citizens. We saw that anyway, so there was no point lying to our faces. The choice is not to remove bias or not, but whether to inconvenience politicians or take the lives of innocent nobodies. 307. Jailhouse confession witnesses have none of the value of coerced felons cited in U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, by being "small fish" inside a larger criminal enterprise which they know something about (“higher-ups in criminal enterprises attempt to insulate themselves from detection and exposure by having their unlawful schemes carried out by others” U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1993)). In practice, jailhouse confession witnesses are not solving organized crime, and no honest judge would spit in the public's face with the claim that professional criminals cannot otherwise be caught except they tell honest confessions to strangers in the jail. The targets jailhouse witnesses are used to prosecute, are most often small-time nobodies they never met before, often with no criminal records, and incompetent indigents who cannot defend themselves and whom cops grabbed because they made easy victims by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 308. Public officials always bond out, making jailhouse witnesses infinitely more likely to be the arm of "public corruption" than to expose it (“public corruption” U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1993)). The only criminal enterprise jailhouse witnesses are inside and know something about, is state prosecutors using lies, which such witnesses are given every incentive to keep quiet about on the stand. 309. Note to judges: Public corruption in Florida counties 99% of the time is in the same political machine as the local prosecutor, and the jailhouse witnesses aren't going to expose anyone except lying that the housekeeper did it. And a federal prosecutor has authority to let approximately zero county fentanyl inmates out of prison, as a reward for lying to get the conviction of corrupt local officials. In the movie in their heads, judges are in New York City fighting the mafia. But in Florida they are just lying about broke incompetents and black people, while organized crime and the local political machine are one and the same. 310. Jailhouse witnesses are so desperate, specifically because they are major felons facing big sentences but aren't part of any real criminal enterprise they can provide information on. Not being a part of any criminal enterprise they can testify about, and therefore needing to find some random unrelated case to testify about (some incompetent who has no idea what is happening to him), is an important ingredient in the jailhouse-witness scam. In standard cases, jailhouse witnesses are the more experienced sophisticated criminals, being coached by lawyers and used to take advantage of broke incompetents who are unable to testify in their own defense or even make bond. So a bunch of politicians and cops and lawyers and their drug-dealer clients and even newspapers get fat making some random person out to be a big fish, and letting the real dangerous felons go home. 311. In addition to not being part of a criminal organization, being dangerous felons is also an important supporting ingredient in the jailhouse witness scam. And not because it provides a big sentence to threaten them with. It actually helps the solemn theater. The fact that jailhouse witnesses are known proven dangerous felons does not damage their credibility but quite the opposite, it is what makes the jury so sure they would be punished for lying to victimize those presumed innocent, and makes it so shocking that they aren't. Jurors might wonder if a rape victim is lying about a rapist, but could never fathom prosecutors letting a proven child rapist go home, for the purpose to imprison an innocent child. It is so “breathtaking” (Fields v. Wharrie) that jurors are prejudiced to never suspect something so shocking. It is appropriate to remove this prejudice, with the true facts that a child rapist was sent home to imprison an innocent man Bill Dillon, and a dangerous felon was sent home to execute an innocent man Cameron Willingham, who lost his family to an accident. The total depravity of the prosecutor's behavior is literally “hard to believe”, no juror could conceive such an “uncritical attitude” could be allowed to exist in a public servant. 312. It is hard to believe any judges are so pointy-headed as to truly believe in this scam. The word "reason" in "Well grounded in... reason" (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976)) in practice is a free ticket to say anything popular under the guise of reason and spew total garbage (e.g. a prosecutor is merely loosening tongues rather than selecting which statements come off those tongues), with the only requirement that it is simply "well supported by politics" (e.g. “the persons aggrieved would be Cruz and Hernandez rather than Buckley” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1994)). The "secret repository" which Clarence Thomas refers to is political popularity, which judges dip into without limit to let prosecutors use lies. (“the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness.” Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 249 (2012)) 313. Judges are so vain to fancy they are fighting the mafia, which Plaintiff surely protests only because he is a member. Judges are merely doing what jurors do, applying a time-saving preconception by trusting that the prosecutor is the good guy, which in this case is in conflict with federal rights and the obvious intention thereof, as well as the intention of Florida Statute 837.02. This creates a broad net to sweep up local innocents and nobodies, whose protests 99% of the time nobody will ever hear. Perhaps one has to be a judge, to appreciate how they become confused by the reams of testimony they must read through which all blurs together, and prefer to do what the prosecutor and jury do and just end up saying "blah blah blah". 314. The action of courts is due to a debt of fact. But nor can this be cured in the manner of a heroin addict, by purchasing lies, which the emotions of justice are inclined to. If government is too clumsy to provide something, whether end war and hunger or prosecute some crime, then you don't get to obtain that thing from the government. Faking it breaks more things. Plaintiff supports the death penalty. Plaintiff also supports the government buying Plaintiff a mansion and a yacht, and curing cancer. Being in support of something, like prosecuting more crime, does not mean government can deliver that thing. It is perhaps inevitable that judges would follow every other branch of government, which forever promise to solve this and that with ever-increasing government power. But unlike economic endeavors which are enabled by the commerce or welfare clause, courts are restrained by the Bill of Rights, making their path of expanding power “to solve crime” blocked and illegal, most inconveniently. 315. If legislators want to hire more police, or better police, or change penalties, or put surveillance cameras on every corner, because they need to to catch organized criminals, then they can do that. That's their job as a legislature. It's not a court's job to decide that you are going to have some innocent people be lied about as a public policy. Public policy is not your job. Measuring truth against law is the court's job. It is not your job to do something they would do in a place like North Korea, increasing the food supply by adding rocks to it, sweeping up random incompetents. That is managing to the measure, while creating as a byproduct millions of people who hate their country, and beyond any management choices that courts should even be making. It only takes a few minutes telling true stories about Harry Connick Senior to prove to any college student that courts are scumbags and a joke. A court's job is to protect law and rights, and if doing so is politically inconvenient, then scamming juries and the public by prosecutors producing any testimony that gets them elected is not a legal solution. But I know, Mandi May Jackson was once arrested with GHB, so it is justified to lie about her. Of course that never happened either, it is just some garbage immunity created by idiots in robes to play the public for suckers with misinformation. 316. Admitting that conviction turns on the honesty of the prosecutor, vitiates the entire point of a jury trial except as a superficial formality (“we have chosen to rely on the integrity of government agents and prosecutors not to introduce untrustworthy evidence into the system” U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1993)). By moving the decision to prosecutors as to whether or not to trick the jury with lies - admitting the outcome is dependent on something other than the jury stopping the prosecutor from using lies, when there there is no such thing in human history - U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso violates the right to a jury trial mentioned all over the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. A right to a "trial by the integrity of politicians" is a right for the innocent to be made sport of like fish on a hook, regulated only by politics and whether the public can be manipulated to support the colosseum spectacle. A common layman like Plaintiff cannot imagine what a court thinks the jury is for other than a tiresome ritual, if it is possible to regulate the prosecutor to be trustworthy. The whole point of juries is as an indispensable check on the fatally incurable problem of prosecutor dishonesty. If the Court admits that a jury cannot function as a check on a dishonest prosecutor, then nothing can, and it is due to be fixed. 317. Judges seem to have no shame reciting any garbage, that will allow them to abdicate their function and let the executive branch nullify courts with lies. “Courts have countenanced the use of informers from time immemorial” (U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1993)). This is not even an argument, much less a strong argument, but only accepted as an argument like the emperor's new clothes out of political convenience. Plaintiff could just as easily say "we have always killed the innocent by accident in pursuit of the public interest", and then use that to vitiate all law and legalize any courtroom activity. There is nothing in common law about fighting la cosa nostra, judges invented that crap on the spot out of thin air because it was politically convenient. If we want to pretend judges are constrained by the precedent of law, that crap never should have come out of any judge's mouth. You can't say that even the legislature is constrained by history in Imbler, and then start spouting a bunch of stuff a judge made up on the spot just because it sounds neat and popular to be heroic and "break the mafia" like Fiorello LaGuardia. Any sophistry will be recited with a sneer, to justify politicians using lies to torture the innocent for votes. It is always something, some good that outweighs the bad, it could be the Ku Klux Klan saving the world, it does not matter, the result is always the same, allowing lies, we allow lies in court as justified for this good or that good. All Plaintiff knows is he watches the lies. It doesn't matter if Plaintiff's explanation is wrong or how judges got so screwed up in the head, just fix it. 318. The relevant question, is not whether "some courts used informers in the past", which statement is so general as to be meaningless, and does not give courts legal cover to entertain likely lies whenever convenient and vitiate all other rights which become a charade. The relevant question is whether the court is taking whatever steps are due to prevent being lied to, or is the court welcoming being lied to, as is the case in Florida absent this Court's action. (“Buckley does not cite any case holding that this practice violates the Constitution.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1994)) There have been institutional structures and deterrents to prevent lies in court "from time immemorial", without which there is no point having courts. Did the authors of Florida Statute 837.02 intend to create a means of discretion to abrogate their own laws? 319. The neat thing about anything done in secret, is that you can then tell any lie about it, and never be proven a liar except as whether or not the lie resonates with the public fancy. That is the great thing about witch trials, is all witchcraft is inherently invisible to ordinary means of observation, justifying the use of dreams and spectral evidence. The secrecy or invisibility of a crime - the very lack of evidence - provides a canvas upon which a skilled demagogue can paint any crime or public benefit. And then any court process that provides that public benefit, can be justified with the whispered nothing that topples all sense with ease "Courts have countenanced the use of informers from time immemorial" i.e. "let's look the other way on lies". Nobody really knows just how extensive organized crime is, no member of the public ever gets to see exactly what images are stored on the phones of pedophiles. It's like global warming, or a demon hidden in vaccine, which no common citizen can independently verify, except as the assertion resonates with the predispositions of his heart. And then the good citizen of public morals - the man on the Clapham omnibus, the "ordinary German" of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen - will elect any politician or pragmatic judge who solves the problem the citizen has been told of and which he was inclined to suspect all along. 320. The best fake narratives involve some kind invisible bewitching behavior. Luring someone to ambush him, a husband killing a wife or vice versa, or a parent killing a child that appears to have died by accident, all involve the secret hidden thoughts of the accused, and therefore play well in the public imagination. Of course the accused is not going to tell you such secret scheme and passions, so it is logical to make up for his secrecy by filling in with your own guesses as to his likely sinister plot ("it is usually necessary to rely upon them or upon accomplices because the criminals will almost certainly proceed covertly” U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1993)). They know the accused would be in a position to hide his secret plan and lie about what happened. And so they they over-compensate by imagining sinister things as a stand-in for the parts they know the accused would hide. Publishers literally are immune to make money catering to such mob madness, by embellishing such inventions to incite against the innocent (“court of appeal... recognized that there were certain discrepancies between what appeared in the affidavit and what was reported” Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)). In a defensive paranoia, a moral panic whipped up by preacher men, they over-compensate for what they know they cannot see, by inventing the sinister thing they know they would not be able to see, but which it is fair for publishers to fill in might have happened. Even the silence of the accused is over-compensated for by being imagined as evidence of some sin, in the defensive paranoia of the crowd about being lied to. There is literally no way to pry these facts the public is sure of out of the mind of the accused, except by torturing the accused, or torturing another inmate to swear the accused confessed. (Though some easily manipulated junk science works well also.) 321. You find some random outcome, like a baby hit his head on a table, a person fell off a balcony, someone committed suicide or OD'd or got hit by a stray bullet. Then you invent that someone did it on purpose because she was crazy on meth, or premeditated a secret conspiracy. The more invisible the crime is - the premeditation, the motive - the more believable it is to the public imagination. The public then eagerly swallows any small tip-off or fake testimony that confirms their suspicion, no matter how obviously fake the evidence would be to a person not blinded by mob psychology and his own human tendencies. Like they will say Kim Hallock did not knock on some stranger's door, THAT PROVES SHE MURDERED HER BOYFRIEND. Then they drag in some puppet in chains to recite their hunch as a "witness", and some lazy sociopathic idiot in a robe will call it law or "deference to state court fact finding". And then the accused is stuffed in a hole and all the lawyers go out for pizza. And then billions of hours of the time of appeals courts is wasted trying to hold together the house of cards that prosecutors got paid to construct. And also billions is wasted raising political cash, to stop the other party getting elected as a result of the garbage. Because judges are too much pussies to fix it and carry out the actual intent of those few rational men who once existed. No word such as "slime" is low enough for judges who "countenance" jailhouse confession witnesses, on the theory that we can have a trial by whatever process regulates the prosecutor, and then refuse to prosecute perjurers. 322. Some judge will tell you X, Y, and X is a necessary tradeoff to fight the inherent secrecy of organized crime, and then bust out “The state court found that there was no discussion of a lesser sentence for Boone until her sentencing, which occurred approximately five months after she testified in petitioner's case.” (Shabazz v. Artuz, 336 F.3d 154, 162 (2d Cir. 2003)) In other words, organized crime is fine, so long as it is done between felons and prosecutors and they are secret about it. Plaintiff guarantees if it would get her out of prison, that felon would swear in front of a jury that she knew she would get a sentence reduction for lying. The only reason one "secret" fact is produced by coercion rather than the other (or the opposite), is the public fancy. In Mandi Jackson's case, multiple contradictory facts were produced from different jailhouse witnesses, and often from the same witness. This is standard for different jailhouse witnesses to say different things to pick from. So let us not delude ourselves that coercion combined with sophistry, brings truth to law. It is just political will substituting for law, that has evolved like an octopus to reach into every space, and it is due to be stopped. The fact that politicians may in many instances know that Lucky Luciano is a criminal, and may in many cases lock up actual criminals as a result of their perversions of the law, does not make contrivances nullifying the jury in favor of political will legal based on an honest reading of intent and tradition. At some point can we stop the charade, if only for all the trees chopped down to print the fakery? 323. It is most likely that all parts of the mafia movie "Goodfellas" supposedly based on true events, are the inventions of talented sociopaths, playing college nerds for total suckers. Plaintiff is still waiting for Judge Donna McIntosh to show any dislike of Detective Ben Sprague lying to her, and surely the planets will fall into a dead sun before she ever does. Judges are apparently too dumb to not be lied to, but make it work politically by generally believing elected officials over individual citizens. 324. Coercion is an amplifier. If turned up high enough, an amplifier can pick up any secret, no matter how well hidden. Amplification enabled the genius inventor Nikolai Tesla to hear the secret communications of space aliens: “I have observed electrical actions, which have appeared inexplicable. Faint and uncertain though they were, they have given me a deep conviction and foreknowledge... Most certainly, some planets are not inhabited, but others are, and among these there must exist life under all conditions and phases of development. Personally, I base my faith on the feeble planetary electrical disturbances which I discovered in the summer of 1899, and which, according to my investigations, could not have originated from the sun, the moon or Venus. Further study science has satisfied me that they must have emanated from Mars. All doubt in this regard will soon be dispelled.” - Nikolai Tesla Amplification enabled the great pioneer of vaccines, conservator of higher education, and empiricist Cotton Mather, to penetrate even further, beyond the barrier between Tesla's electro-mechanical world, and the supernatural: “Tis very Remarkable to see what an Impious and Impudent Imitation of Divine Things is Apishly affected by the Devil, in several of those matters, whereof the Confessions of our Witches and the Afflictions of our Sufferers have informed us.” - Cotton Mather If turned up high enough, an amplifier will always produce something, even in the presence of nothing. This is known as feedback, an ugly sound created by a person with no talent other than that he owns an amplifier. That is all jailhouse witnesses are, amplifiers of nothing, feedback, which geniuses then gloat over as priceless revelations, whether obtained from space aliens and witch informers by Tesla and Mather, or even worse, beyond any reasonable doubt from sociopathic felon drug addicts. A judge is only as respectable, as the witnesses he lets out for lying. 325. If you only start with enough evidence for probable cause, and then you get from probable cause to reasonable doubt with coerced witnesses while the defendant is in custody - particularly with new witnesses such as new jailhouse witnesses or even newly collected forensic material produced with free rein in the home or car of the accused while he is in custody - Plaintiff is calling it a false conviction 20% of the time. When that same original probable cause was found to be weak or the cop bent the truth (just not so far that an elected judge is deprived of broad discretion to accept the general suspicion), Plaintiff is calling it a false conviction 50% of the time. If the only evidence is the new jailhouse witness after that same weak probable cause, Plaintiff is calling it a false conviction 100% of the time. An expert witness, after having his own bias and expertise examined, can easily construct relative reliability charts of various witness types - coerced family member out of custody, coerced co-defendant, coerced stranger in custody - which charts are likely to be more accurate than any lie-detecting ability a juror brings with him off the street. (Like a juror does not come off the street knowing anything about bullet shell markings made by firearms manufactured consecutively with the same tools and distributed to the same local store.) That is if we want to have a real jury trial, rather than stack our chips on the prejudices jurors are most wrong about. 326. Our country was started by people who were chased by police for not having the same religion as the King, and whose independence therefrom was created by a Declaration with a list of Grievances about "pretended offenses" and the lack of a jury trial. "There are at this time in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very orthodox." - James Madison And now someone is going to say James Madison intended to preserve a legal fortress around a "broader public interest" that prosecutors be "fearless" because the "proper" (whatever the crowd wants that to mean) functioning of the criminal justice system is what our nation was founded in pursuit of? Madison was influenced by John Locke who said the purpose of law was not to defend safety against criminals, but to defend liberty against popular ideas "For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him?" This body of ideas did not advance the argument that law is necessary because there are bad people who must be culled for society to prosper. Rather they said that liberty is to be free from the will of the crowd. John Stuart Mill was not drawn to the problem of law as a means of protection from criminals, but as a means of protection from the government. Nobody sailed across the ocean in a wooden boat to live in a wilderness populated by savages, because they valued safety from everyday dangers such as criminals above all else. If one were to argue that law in the United States was born to constrain the government even at the expense of letting criminals get away - to trade off one for the other - he would find incontrovertible historical support for his argument. If there is any "repository" upon which judges can draw to make nice-sounding inventions without needing the authority of the legislature, it is in all instances in our nation a defensive wall facing government power and the will of the crowd, with the individual protected outside it. 327. In the world of violent irrational animals that men are, so fearful are the political weakling courts of erring on behalf of the innocent, better that all should be locked up, and then cloak low intelligence and political behavior as some sophisticated legal principal of "deference" which was invented to torture the innocent for votes. If the Court is looking for a precedent to behave as idiotic scum while letting dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying in court to take the lives of innocents, there are more than enough random ideas to cherrypick, to cloak any opinion as law. The only tradition in support of jailhouse confessions witnesses, is courts bending over backwards with spliced word games to avoid the obvious truth, so that they can avoid political friction while some sadistic sociopath local prosecutors can put on a theater of solving crime and make a mockery of courts and the public morals, likely to be read about as a Shyamalan horror story of provincial madness by some future generation. 328. But no words can communicate the spectacle of watching dangerous felons tell obvious lies to torture the innocent, five feet from a judge who expends constant energy keeping a straight face, and then knowingly gives an innocent person life without parole because judges are lying sheep. If judges don't like being called lying scum, Plaintiff can point to a wide stamp of public agreement that it is very much justified as a tradeoff necessary to mitigate your organized crime. The end of a nation is inevitable, when the government finds a public benefit in paying citizens to lie about each other for the purpose to torture one another for public theater, and selects quotes from an infinite "repository" to wrap their charade in sophistry insulated by popularity (“the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness.” Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 249 (2012)). Human history "is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees" of the right of prosecutors to produce lies in pursuit of some puffed up "public interest". 329. Still waiting for Judge Donna McIntosh to complain about being lied to. Claim I Due Process Details 330. The strongest tradition is fact. You need no additional law or case law to move toward this tradition, only an opportunity to increase fact. The idea that you are paralyzed to shut down lies when you see them and move toward fact, because nobody in the past solved precisely the same problem as at this moment, is a scam. If somebody is lying, a court can shut him down and require better. The force pushing against this is politics and collectivism, masquerading as law and tradition. The US Supreme Court does not have to allow any witness it deems to be unreliable, but only wants to. In the past, all lying scams were shut down when discovered, not because they were shut down 200 years earlier, but for precisely the reason that they had not been shut down previously. Do we still allow spectral evidence and torture confessions today? No. Torture was never the tradition, fact was. If a court blocks jailhouse witnesses, the only valid counter-argument is not that this finds no support in existing law, but the counter-argument that jailhouse witnesses are likely to be telling the truth. So make that argument, or block them based on the tradition of fact. In the James Mulrenin case, defendants were blocked from showing drugs that materially comprised the circumstances of the scene in a very circumstantial case, where both jailhouse witnesses and the supposedly incriminating phone calls of the defendant claimed that drugs played a role in the events. The judge had wide discretion to block this material information, rather than force the prosecution to dispute its relevance in front of the jury, but allowed jailhouse witness testimony that contradicted a mountain of evidence and forced the defense to confront it in front of the jury with their hands tied. This idea that we can block inflammatory stuff, or prejudicial stuff, or charlatan experts, but we cannot block lies but only cross-examine the liars in a limited way, is ridiculous, a shameless scam from a cult, with a goal not of providing due process, but of moving power to the executive branch. White people who live in densely populated areas have an instinct to stop reproducing and start culling, and allowing liars in court is only a perversion in service of this impulse. 331. You won't find in the Bill of Rights or any written legal tradition, a statement that the finder of fact must be provided facts. Friendly's list does not say that for due process, the finder of fact must be told the truth. The most you are going to find is Florida Statute 837.02 which is a designed part of the process. The Florida legislature could therefore pass a law that during a trial for a criminal abortion, you are not allowed to tell the jury someone didn't have an abortion. Witnesses are only allowed to say the defendant had an abortion, and are not allowed to say the defendant didn't have an abortion. And then it is up to the jury to decide whether to believe them (but never guess why the defendant never denied it). So the police and prosecutor would pick whom to charge, and easily convict them based on circumstantial evidence and lies. (This is not more ridiculous than Mandi May Jackson's trial, where jailhouse witness Madara had the same lawyer as the person whom the murderer was with and whom Madara accused of planning the murder, and Jackson was not allowed to ask Madara what the lawyer paid by the supposed murderer told Madara, because of attorney-client privilege. But that same jailhouse witness was not allowed to testify the same unreliable statements against supposed equal crime participant Scott Love, supposedly because Love could not confront the witness Jackson.) 332. The defendant is presumed innocent, so why would you need to allow witnesses to say it? The burden is on the prosecution. The Constitution guarantees the right to subpoena defense witnesses and have a jury, but not specifically what those defense witnesses can tell the jury. You are not allowed to show the jury past statements of defendant or witnesses unless they are incriminating or contradictory. Prosecutors only immunize and "loosen the tongues" of witnesses who corroborate their narrative. There is plenty of support that you can bar the jury from hearing things that are true, and only hear the false allegations and narrow defenses thereto. Defendants are considered to have been given "due process" to protect from any lie, simply by the jury being able to choose what to believe (even if they were not instructed that was their job). So legally, you could have witnesses tell the jury 10 different things that are known to everyone but the jury to be lies, and instruct jurors to choose which witness to have no reason to doubt based on jurors' "common sense". Would the Supreme Court need to look and see if there was some tradition in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, that you can't hide the truth and lie to the jury like this and call it a jury trial? And absent being able to find such an authority would you start saying "it's the will of the legislature" or "it is in the public interest to save costs" or something? No. You would just cite to the authority by saying "This law that you can't tell the jury the truth that the defendant did not commit the crime is ridiculous." Just like there are new things never seen or done before that are “cruel and unusual”, there are processes that are not "due process" even though no law or case law has specifically addressed them, and that includes processes not designed to elevate truth. But apparently courts don't know what their job is, because nobody told them in 200 years until Plaintiff. 333. Courts have a tradition of weighing, for example in Imbler, the injustice of a defendant who was lied about against the incentives facing a prosecutor to be fearless. Nowhere in that weighing, does it weigh that bringing fact to law, not finding the public benefit, is the purpose of courts. The unspoken implied statement is "A is better than B so long as neither of these detracts from F, where F is the finder of fact is able to use fact." A is better than B as long as they aren't just using immunity to get lies into court, so long as the public demands perjury be prosecuted and the prosecutor prosecutes it. A court that weighs any outcome over its own selfish need to use fact, has lost sight of its original purpose, like if Adam Smith's baker took LSD and stopped being greedy, and just started solving puzzles all day. This Court does not need a case law to demand rampant perjury be prosecuted (“Buckley does not cite any case holding that this practice violates the Constitution.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1994)). Courts interpret law and apply fact, and the first cannot eclipse the second. So it may be that a change from something at one time "established at common law" and "well grounded in history" is now due. That is why it is not called "this process" or "that list of elements" to make a fair trial, but whatever process becomes "due" to address the problem at hand, in this case fact-finders being lied to. It may be like Furman v. Georgia where there is not agreement as to exactly when it became due, to agree that it is due. You can agree that jailhouse confession witnesses are on the wrong side of the line wherever that line may be, and the only precedent you need is the word "due" and that they are shown to lie. 334. A defendant has a right to a jury, and a court has a right to do one job that no legislature or precedent can deprive it of, to base decisions on fact. Nobody needed to say "Congress shall pass no law that allows us to lie to judges" or "Congress shall pass no law that allows us to nullify juries by lying to them". But the argument in Imbler was never "we need to let all witnesses say what they want without fear, to have as much to work with as possible in hopes to dig the facts out of it". Tons of things are thrown out before they get to the jury. Cops immediately lose the names of witnesses who don't corroborate their narrative at the scene. The argument in Imbler was not "qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the court's selfish interest in finding the truth". It was "this would deflect the prosecutor's energies to fearing random chance, depriving the public of the prosecutorial function". The function of courts, to base decisions on fact, comes before the interest of the public to have prosecutors (which is a problem for the legislature to fix, perhaps by paying them more). A case law cannot be interpreted in such an expansive way as to permit prosecutors to cultivate a pattern of perjury and blame it on the jury, this is just a game played by nazis to obtain old-fashioned tribal justice within a charade of law, while judges get lied to and argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 335. Arguing that state witnesses allowed to lie are mitigated to the extent defendants can testify in their own defense, is admitting that innocent incompetents and people with prior convictions for a similar crime, are exposed to having their lives snatched by professional criminal jailhouse witnesses like a hawk snatches bunnies. Even if the defendant is competent, this method of mitigating paid liars with the right to (thereby be forced to) testify and confront witnesses, still invites a fire hose of false convictions, and ineffective counsel and new evidence appeals. It also invites long-term public disdain for the courts, though not specifically for the present judge who got the verdict the public wanted at that moment, even if it was overturned 15 years later. Maybe instead of arresting heroin dealers, we can just give police the right to confront them, like “Isn't it true that you're a heroin dealer?” 336. The Constitution doesn't say Phil Archer can't place an ad in the local paper "Actors needed to swear they saw Kim Hallock commit a murder, $50 a day." Residents of Brevard County would widely welcome such an ad. According to Friendly's list, this is supposed to be cured by allowing the defense to ask "Didn't you simply respond to this here ad from our local paper and get paid $50 to lie?" Notice this shifts the burden to the defense, to prove the state witnesses are lying. Suppose the offer to liars was made by word of mouth, and the compensation was in cash or barter leaving little paper trail of an informal understanding. It would get harder and harder to show the jury the state witnesses were lying, when their stories are designed to fit the evidence only after all the evidence is in, and when they only get the $50 if the deny on the stand that they are lying. If liars are only occasionally able to be individually exposed to the jury, and there is no penalty to the prosecution when they are caught, then it becomes a free gamble to the prosecution to try to get away with adding liars to every difficult case the public is hot about. The principle that "cheats should not prosper thereby" is not fulfilled by catching liars and dismissing the case 5% of the time, particularly when the prosecutor is a politician who will blame the dismissal on criminal-enabling courts. Deterring lies by cross examination and occasionally dismissing cases, just gives the prosecutor a free pull of the slot handle, without even putting so much as a dime at risk. And local Bar members prosper from the lying without caring which way the case goes. 337. At this point there would be three cures, 1) a severe penalty for the few liars who are caught to deter all of them in advance (which Florida law actually calls for), 2) instruct the jury that the prosecutor is literally allowed to go out and hire liars (who face no penalty), and there is a good chance that is how he found these witnesses, or 3) prohibit various categories of witnesses that are proven to be unreliable, for example new witnesses who don't have some original connection to the crime on day one, or who did not become witnesses until long after the crime or arrest. When it is not so egregious as placing an ad in the paper for actors to lie, it is not always clear where to draw the line, what witness types to bar, which to prosecute, what to tell the jury. But what cannot be disputed is due process requires some appropriate measure of mitigation to prevent tricking the jury with a verified pattern of lying. The measure of what is appropriate, is not "was some written rule followed like Friendly's list", but "did the rules as followed allow lies". Today in Florida they do, they gamed the list, and this Court needs no additional rule or authority to act, but is compelled to act by establishing any new rule required or "due". (“Buckley does not cite any case holding that this practice violates the Constitution.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1994)) 338. To the extent fact is a necessary prerequisite to protect rights, this Court is the finder of whether a process produces fact, or otherwise it is illegal. A court can bar any process it finds detrimental to the mission of bringing fact to law, based on the unwritten precedent that finding fact reigns supreme. No more law or case law is needed, for a court to bar Florida from using jailhouse witnesses who have an informal arrangement that they don't expect to be prosecuted, or to bar any process where state-witness perjury is not prosecuted or deterred. You don't need to look for a specific case law that deals with this. The will of the legislature cannot find enforcement, and the public cannot have law and therefore cannot have rights, unless law is measured against fact, absent which having prosecutors is a danger not a benefit. But when you ask today's courts the question "What if I told you that you were being lied to?", their answer is "I don't care so long as the law lets me, I just look whether the outcome complied with the law and served the public will." (“Buckley does not cite any case holding that this practice violates the Constitution.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1994)) The public will is represented in court by courts measuring the law against fact, not by weighing any other interest to the detriment of using actual fact. 339. To a layman it looks like the worst tradition of slouching toward mob rule, if courts can override Congress in the form of USC 1983 to instead hand power to the executive branch, but cannot find a path through either Imbler or AEDPA to conserve their own traditional power of bringing fact to law. The strongest tradition is bringing fact to law, before and above interpreting law. It is not to match processes with public interest, or match power with majority preference. It is to match fact with law. There is no need for a judicial branch to do those other things. The proper way to interpret the will of the legislature is to interpret it against fact, not weigh the production of fact against public interests that should be left to the legislature to consider. If laws governing process in the courts are the province of judges not legislators - the Supreme Court seems to say this is the case when finding immunities not written by the legislature - then courts can indulge their traditional appetite for fact over lies in the face of any attack from the legislature. This Court can't find its own historical absolute immunity to being usurped by liars? It was never “established at common law” that stopping Phil Archer using a stable of liars is “essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”? Or is it just politics or your own bias that you are not immune to? 340. The Supreme Court recently ruled that "Congress has chosen finality over error correction” (No. 21–857, Jones v. Hendrix, Warden), to prohibit introducing proof of lower-court factual error in federal court which proof a state is not interested to look at. There is probably also some law that legislatures can choose the tradeoff point of cost over fact, after some point of diminishing marginal returns where trials cannot be two years long. But such a decision about some great cost with little marginal benefit is not what we are talking about here. Jailhouse witnesses and non-prosecution of perjury don't simply allow some lies to occasionally sneak in as tail events in the normal distribution, where it is not cost-justified to attempt to eradicate them down to the very last one. They introduce lies at the outset, as the standard process and central feature. Allowing jailhouse confession witnesses says prosecutors can have a pattern of walking in here and lying to us any time they want, and beginning a case with no evidence other than lies and public support of them. Would the courts allow Congress to pass a law to allow hearsay, or to replace the oath with a statement that witnesses can tell any lie and it is up to jurors to choose what to believe like poker players? 341. It is easy to become distracted by the law's complexity, and miss its purpose, which is not to map complexity into order like obsessive-compulsive table setters, and fill in the blanks for the legislature of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That is turning over the fate of men to some sort of puzzle enthusiasts who miss the plot of history. Courts have perhaps been distracted from their primary job by the minutiae of fights over jurisdiction, when their primary job is actually a very basic one. It is not to design society. And it is not to protect the sovereign right of member states to use liars, but the exact opposite, to create a space for law to meet facts, so that the design of society by others is possible. A prosecutor who has been found to fearlessly use lies, has not fearlessly pursued justice, but fearlessly made the functioning of a sophisticated legal system impossible. Truth, not fearlessness, is the prerequisite. 342. The courts were not established as psychotherapists to translate the ramblings of the legislature, but as a place to marshal fact for the purpose of measuring it against law. This fact problem having been solved at one time, is now assumed to have disappeared, so that solving it again shall never become due and all time is spent trading old quotes. The vanity of judges as memory specialists and puzzle enthusiasts (who perhaps shout answers at the television when "Jeopardy" comes on), compared perhaps to the monotonous labor of introducing evidence, seems to have led them to a sport of honoring the legislature in minutia even if it creates arbitrary government power. If it removes government power, they will pull from some "secret repository" that this is not what the law intended, these government actors are all immune. Anything to appear wiser than the next fellow, while disregarding the dreary facts of some poor innocent person's life. Republicans ask "Why are you teaching our children to hate the United States?" Because courts made it a place that people hate, with immunities, and judges that are too obtuse come up with a process to produce fact when due, as part of their job as originally intended. 343. Plaintiff is not describing a unique set of facts or events in Florida, but describing a general class of events from human nature throughout history, and the responsibilities of courts based on those same events over and over. Florida is only the present example. Ever since Silas Merrill turned Amos Boorn's dream and public gossip into admissible evidence in Manchester, Vermont in 1812, the goal of the public is to innovate such devices to turn spectral evidence - their own popular opinions and gossip - into witnesses admissible in court. The eternal game of cat and mouse is for the public to turn extrajudicial quorum into witnesses admissible in court, and for this Court to stop them doing so. The forces outside the court are always to turn social and religious considerations, political power interests, and whatever else may drive the mob, into witnesses admissible in court, whether through jailhouse witnesses, magical dogs like John Preston, misleading forensic match statistics, or whatever they can innovate like unscheduled recreational drugs, from an endless stream until they find something the judges of the day can become confused by, and trap themselves in with "that process" not "due process". 344. The origin of the problem in the Boorn case in Manchester, Vermont, is visible in the impulses of the the men who sought to save the innocent from death. Their impulse was to locate the guy who was supposedly murdered, so he could testify that he wasn't murdered, and Reverend Haynes placed a newspaper ad to find this witness. They accepted that it's okay for the public gossip to find its way into court, and the burden is then on the accused to prove he is innocent (in present day Florida, the standard defense burden is to produce lies against lies, or pay it forward by lying about someone else). Whereas a correct process in 1812 or today would not even need to do that - would not need to produce a counter-witness to gossip - but could simply tell the judge and jury this witness is being let out of prison for saying this when there is no reason to believe he is telling the truth, there is always reason to doubt him. And then point the jury to a history of lying until judges do anything to separate their courts from such history. 345. The witness is either receiving some benefit, or it is human nature to repeat gossip and people in chains submit to the crowd by acting agreeable the same as reciting a religion. An atheist in a church who feels threatened or vulnerable will say he loves Jesus. For this reason, even random citizens with no connection to the case and who are not coerced, will lie to be good citizens, when there is no penalty for lying and all social reward. Police and prosecutors can easily nudge them to lie when there is no penalty. People don't object to being agreed with by liars, whether atheists singing their hymns or their gossip being sworn in court, but that doesn't make the statements true or, of interest to this Court, make the process legal. 346. Most Republicans will tell you half the country believes crazy nonsense for the sole reason that it is popular. They then have a litmus test to only support judges who bring this social process into the courtroom, to torture their neighbors and make whole families hate their country for 50 years. 347. Thomas Sowell described such a standard social process to lie in support of popular beliefs ("The Vision of The Anointed" 1995 page 2): "Facts may be marshalled for a position already taken, but that is very different from systematically testing opposing theories by evidence... Discordant evidence may be dismissed as isolated anomalies, or as something tendentiously selected by opponents, or it may be explained away ad hoc by a theory having no empirical support whatever -- except that this ad hoc theory is able to sustain itself and gain acceptance because it is consistent with the overall vision." - Thomas Sowell 348. Whether in Scotland in 1597, in Manchester Vermont in 1812, or in Florida today, social processes amplifying falsehoods are not rare or unique events, but the standard product of human nature. These are standard social processes which occur in the street and tavern, but which courts are established not to manifest but specifically to be different from. The trick to break this social process at the courtroom door, even when the social pressure comes through police and prosecutors, is a penalty for perjury. And also allow disclosure and instruction to jurors, and prohibit jailhouse witnesses with no connection to the case but only to gossip. Bar association review of the behavior of such prosecutors using lies, only moves the locus of decision making from juries to lawyers. The designed remedy is Florida Statute 837.02, without the enforcement of which, Florida courts are an illegal social process. 349. Bringing fact to law is a greater tradition than the minutia of any particular law or era. Social forces overwhelming the intent of courts, and not the competition for jurisdiction or specific law, is the tide which this Court is due to stand against, the purpose that makes the judicial branch unique. This Court is due to continue the work of people like Reginald Scot, George Mackenzie, and Sir John Holt, to run courts as islands of rational endeavor in a sea of human impulse, while leaving legislation to the legislature. Not to be trapped poring over ancient texts for guidance, as if human nature had become obsolete - their games and innovations had ended - and the original problem of using facts in trials, once solved, had been forgotten in the background. (“For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”) The biggest game is Florida State Attorney Phil Archer tricking this Court into abdicating its own right to play, while he runs up and down the board with lies. Relief Requested WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court: Relief - A To certify if necessary a class of judicial-branch defendants beyond the Supreme Court of Florida, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b); Relief - B To certify if necessary a class of executive-branch defendants beyond the Governor of Florida, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b); Relief - C To enter a judgment against all Defendants declaring that the present framework of Florida law as put into practice by them is in violation of federal law as laid out in the Claims in this Complaint, including specifically non-prosecution of perjury, inadequate defense disclosures and jury instructions, and jailhouse witnesses. Relief - D To issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the State of Florida holding trials and spending taxpayer funds on court orders which thereby deprive citizens of rights and federal courts of final appellate jurisdiction, and which violate implied requirements of common law norms, and with respect to the separate defendants, injunctive relief that: (1) restrains the executive-branch defendants from prosecuting crimes, from enforcement of criminal orders, and from spending taxpayer money on courts and orders, until the remedies hereafter specified are put into action (or until the Constitution is amended to make such remedies unnecessary), (2) restrains the judicial-branch defendants from carrying out all criminal trials and hearings in Florida, as the present framework of Florida law makes all such activity unconstitutional, until the remedies hereafter specified are put into action (or until the Constitution is amended to make such remedies unnecessary). (350. Plaintiff argues this Court is not even restricted by the wickets ordinarily applicable to enjoining state courts, because the Florida court system does not fit necessary common law norms and traditions, to manifest the bounded sovereign rights of the State of Florida to operate courts. Plaintiff does not ask to enjoin a single ongoing legal proceeding, but to enjoin the creation of illegal mock court activities, which have no right to exist much less to not be enjoined. Suppose Florida created progressively more egregious processes, where police were sent out to just grab random people. At what point would this Court have authority not just to address specific cases afterwards through appeal and habeas, but to enjoin the State from grabbing any more people? If the Florida Constitution allows such prosecutorial discretion to use and not prosecute lies, then that is the law which this Court must enjoin, and all court action where such law finds embodiment. Florida state officers are un-prosecuted criminals operating under color of being a state, as provided for in 42 USC 1983. If Florida's right to lock up criminals does not originate with laws as a representation of the sovereign rights of the citizens - as claimed by the Supreme Court of Florida (Appendix P, page a164) - then their right to does not exist and they have none.) Relief - E To require the following remedies before removal of injunction, or by using other authority such as extraordinary writ: (1) Prosecute Perjury - Establish a confident regulatory framework and compliance system (paper and people like the SEC) to guarantee the reporting and prosecution of perjury, to deter rather than invite lies, to protect rights, traditions, and this Court's jurisdiction as to law and fact, and to make perjury legally visible in the court record so that it can be referred to in future proceedings and arguments. The State of Florida is likely to at most prosecute a handful of unpopular state witnesses for perjury, to put on a public show of prosecuting perjury. They might even prosecute a defense witness and his lawyer, as a scare tactic to remind defense attorneys that you don't really want to point the finger at perjury. This is why it will require mandatory reporting and review of large amounts of data like the SEC, to verify compliance. (2) Jury Instruction - Establish standards, rules, and institutional structure, to produce and provide "legally visible" information and instruction to defense and jurors, to use true information and remove prejudices material to weighing the credibility of state witnesses, in the form of disclosures, allowed expert witnesses, and jury instructions, to immediately mitigate ongoing perjury. The same "remarkably uncritical attitude" of prosecutors which must be reported to the jury, reports also to this Court the need to enforce compliance which Florida otherwise resists, and reveals to this Court the need for enforcement of due process which Florida otherwise has no interest in producing. This requirements mandate can be broken down into sub-elements none of which can have the necessary effect in isolation, including all of a) reporting, b) disclosure, c) expert-witness permission, and d) jury instruction, on witness perjury as follows: (a) Florida prosecutors (or some body determined by this Court) must assemble a record including 1) all times state witnesses were found to have lied, whether by appeals courts, by judges, by actual innocence, or by other criteria to be determined, 2) the type of trial and charge, the outcome, and the type of witness and any benefit, and 3) whether those lying witnesses were ever prosecuted for perjury, and the outcome. (b) All such research to include the entire State of Florida must be disclosed to the defense in a timely manner. Failure to demand or use this information shall be considered ineffective representation, or a Brady or Giglio violation. (c) The defense must be allowed an expert witnesses to examine this history of state-witness perjury in front of the jury, and the process according to which any testimony in the present case was obtained (just like examining the scientific process and investigative attitude and controls for producing any evidence). (d) Criminal trial juries in relevant matters must be given written and oral instructions as follows: JURY INSTRUCTIONS 1. The prosecutor may select which witnesses to offer benefits to, for the sole reason that their story corroborates the State narrative. The prosecutor is under no duty to determine if the witnesses are lying, and is legally allowed (and immune) to ignore his own personal knowledge or belief that they are lying. 2. There is no reason to believe a jailhouse witness actually heard what he said he heard, rather than that he simply knows the prosecution will give him a benefit for saying he did, for which he will never be prosecuted if he is caught lying. 3. If it is proven that state witnesses lied to you, there is no reason to expect they will ever be prosecuted for it. There is no reason to believe that state witnesses expect to be prosecuted if they are caught lying, or have any fear of being prosecuted for lying. In the past, many state witnesses have admitted they lied and have even sworn they lied, and have never been prosecuted for it. 4. In the past, such jailhouse witnesses have many times been found to be lying, resulting in many false convictions in cases similar to this one. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for such lying. Few if any such witnesses ever pay any penalty for lying. 5. The history of this judicial circuit and its use of jailhouse and other state witnesses who were found to be lying, and whether they were ever prosecuted, as well as the history of such witnesses in Florida, has been disclosed to the defense. An expert witness may go over that disclosure in front of you. Use this information to weigh the credibility of jailhouse witnesses and other types of state witnesses. Relief - F To prohibit the use of coerced hearsay jailhouse confession witnesses, under criteria such as new witnesses in custody with no original connection to the crime. The criteria for any rule (which finds support in Bayes Theorem) is to reduce the pool of people who constitute potential fake perjuring confession witnesses (presently everyone in the jail who watches TV, etc.), to where this number is small relative to the number of major crime defendants who actually make true confessions to strangers in the jail (approximately zero), so that any such witness is far more likely to come from the second pool rather than the first. The most practical numbers to use for the calculation of the size of both pools are zero and zero. 351. Token prosecution is unlikely to dent the informal or unspoken inducement where jailhouse witnesses know the State will be more than remarkably uncritical when it comes to ever prosecuting them. The beauty of the jailhouse witness scam, is these are the last people whose informal arrangement will be threatened by prosecution, to deter them from lying. Because as a standard they are used in cases where there is no hard evidence of what really happened, the prosecution narrative is well publicized so that prosecutors don't have to tell them what to say or that they will never be prosecuted, and their testimony is fabricated at this late stage of discovery and publicity when it is widely known what story needs to be corroborated, and what guilt the defendant has so far failed to prove false. It is actually the prosecutor who is free to select from a large variety of stories from different jailhouse witnesses, to use the one hardest to prove false. The prosecutor will then coach them and limit his questions, to elicit the even narrower subset of statements that is hardest to impeach, to where their testimony is as finely-tuned a contrivance as their inducements are evolved to be unspoken. It's a tricky fish that really makes this Court look stupid and clumsy fumbling around with legalese, when you could just shoot the thing if your purpose wasn't specifically not to. 352. In practice, jailhouse witness testimony is observed to somehow get additionally fixed before deposition and trial even after being selected for sufficiently fitting the prosecution narrative and lack of disprovability; this is their nature as miraculous late additions to cases which lack evidence. And even when their testimony contradicts physical evidence, the jury still believes them. Because jurors are so prejudiced to never suspect that their government would let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to take the lives of innocents. Which their government has been proven to do over and over, and is hidden from them. Plentiful examples include William Dillon in Brevard County, Mandi May Jackson in Seminole County, and Jack D. McCullough in DeKalb County. 353. All these real-world observed factors make jailhouse witnesses the last and toughest nut to manage with any kind of deterrence and witness examination. They are hard to prove liars, and hit-and-miss prosecution is unlikely to put a dent in jailhouse witnesses and their informal arrangement, which are proved to be used over and over to torture the innocent for votes. The subset of selected jurors will still imagine the judge and prosecutor are good honest people who wouldn't be allowed to let dangerous felons out of prison for lying, and will miss the plot in anything recited to the contrary. And even if successful prosecution of jailhouse witnesses were possible, it would not stop professional victimizers threatened with 30 years, from lying on a gamble to get out of it. Especially when they know the prosecutors will protect them by simply not using their story if it is provably false. The pool of such people in the jail can only be expected to get larger with fentanyl sentences. 354. For these reasons no perjury prosecution can likely cure jailhouse witnesses, but only jury instruction as to that fact. Removing the jury's prejudice, by enlightening them to the true condition of the world that the State of Florida lets dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to take the lives of innocents and there is nothing to stop it except the wise choice of never believing jailhouse witnesses, is necessary but still imperfect. The better solution is to change the reality which juror's must be informed of, by prohibiting coerced in-custody hearsay confessions by people with no original involvement at the time of the crime. Relief - G To award Plaintiff costs of suit and expenses, including any reasonable attorney fees and other expenses, pursuant to 42 USC 1988; Relief - H To retain jurisdiction after judgment for the purposes of resolving any future fee disputes between the parties and issuing further appropriate injunctive relief if the Court’s declaratory judgment is violated; Relief - I To Grant any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and Relief - J Plaintiff would also like to cure the selective immunity for defamation for speech selected by government, created without basis in tradition and against the intention of the Bill of Rights - created as an agent of the powerful against the weak against the natural uphill flow of rights - with an injunction on that suspension of ordinary protections against defamation to shape speech according to state design, by injunction on enforcement of Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations and similar case law as offending federal rights. But Plaintiff saves that for another complaint. Though Plaintiff would not turn down declarative or injunctive relief right now. Conclusion Wherefore Plaintiff humbly asks this Court to declare illegal and enjoin Florida court activities and enforcement of orders made illegal by the non-prosecution of perjury and misleading the jury about it, in violation of the rights of defendants and taxpaying citizens and the jurisdiction of this Court, until such cures can be instituted as specified, including institutions and rules to discover and prosecute perjury, and to provide disclosures of what is going on to defense and jurors. 355. Never has Plaintiff seen a sadder disgrace among grown and studied men, than females such as Julie Madara, Neisha Cintron, and Lori Sacco lying in court to attack Mandi May Jackson, in a manner equivalent to Plaintiff's female dogs attacking each other beneath the table. It is a historically common and mediocre tragedy, for Plaintiff to witness the plain and scientifically indisputable delusions of and torture by his contemporaries. 356. Like millions of people throughout history and all over Florida, Plaintiff would have preferred to do something better with his life, than fight being victimized by his own government (on behalf of the lawless impulses of the primitive collective), and asks this Court to save us with the progressive rights we are entitled to as US citizens. The discretion to use lies in court could “nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” (Adam Smith) 357. A political solution to these problems was won long ago, when this Court was bound with a mandate to deliver due process. A right does not exist if it cannot be obtained in this Court, but only by groveling for the public pity. APPENDIX PUBLISHED SEPARATELY Respectfully submitted on July 19, 2023 by: s/Stephen Lynch Murray/________________________ stephenmurrayokeechobee@gmail.com +1 305.306.7385 Stephen Murray 3541 US Hwy 441 S Box 141 Okeechobee, FL 34974