Marco M. Torres v. Michael S. Williams, Judge, Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Hillsborough County
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment
Whether Article 3, section 2, and 2, of the United States Constitution, on doctrine central to the federal courts structural independence consists of the judicial powers to disregard an unconstitutional statutes
No question identified. : . | / ° 7 . . Question (s) presented ; 1. Whether, Article 3, section 2, and 2, of the United States Constitution, on doctrine central to the . federal courts structural independence consists of the judiclal powers to disregard an unconstitutlonal . statutes. . 2, Whether, separation of powers questions, at this Is the narrower ground for adjudication of the : constitutional questions in the case, because the date, due process submission if correct, might dictate a : similar result in a challenge to state federal or constitution law, under the 14th amendment. 3, Whether, the available authority from sister circuit persuades this court that such a result is in fact correct. 4. Whether, the Florida Supreme Court Is It conflict with their own rules, and the rules of the United States Supreme Courts. 5. Whether, the panel of the Florida Supreme Court conflicts with a decision of the United States : . Supreme Court or of Court decision of which petition is addressed and with citatlon of the conflicting case or cases consideration by full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of courts decisions, . ca : 6. Whether, the lower courts, stands for the position that there /s final agency conduct and appealment will be allowed a judicial review under purely legal and decisions making of abusive of powers to their conduct. i . 7, Whether, the lower courts has duty te not discriminate under $2 U.S,C, section 1985, and purposely . discriminate by violating petitioner civil right that is federally protected. ’ §, Whether, this Supreme Court, wants this Supreme Court to act if it were considering the questions for the first time affording no deference to the decisions of lawer Judges and Its legal decisions of lower . ° court on questions of laws are reviewed using this standard. 7 . ra . : ; . 4 iis Risse t nc a A List of Partles to the proceeding In the court whose Judgment fs sought to be reviewed : {unless the caption of the case contalns the names of ali the parties}, and a corperate disclosure statement as required by rule 29.1 : ; . if Je partfes in the caption of the case on the cover page. ‘ Ifthe petition prepared under Rule 33.4 exceeds 1,500 words or exceed five pages if preparad under 83.2, a