Whether the Florida practice and rule that do not permit litigants to seek review in the Florida Supreme Court when the district courts of appeal issue unelaborated Affirmance (PCA's) of trial court's decision unconstitutionally deprives Florida residents of full and complete access to their courts in violation of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented involves the Florida practice and rule which do not permit litigants to seek review in the Florida Supreme Court when the district courts of appeal issue unelaborated Affirmance (PCA’s) of trial court’s decision. The issue is whether this practice unconstitutionally deprives Florida residents to full and complete access to their courts in violation of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights in that it individualously discriminates against Florida residents, wherefore under those rights can a tribunal and intermediate appellant court act as the highest court and / or court of last resort to deny relief based on fraud? PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS Victoria Delpino, Judge, 1351 NW 12" St., Miami, Fla. 33125 Sandra Lipman, Att. Gen., One NE 3" Ave., Miami, Fla. 33128 James Thompson, Pet., Jackson Corr. Inst., 5563 10 St., Malone, Fla. 32445 | OPINIONS BELOW The petitioner James Thompson seeks Certiorari Relief from the following denials in the circuit court and district court of Florida. 1) An unelaborated affirmance (PCA) opinion filed April 24, 2019. 2) The denial of the motion for rehearing filed May 8, 2019. 3) Order denying defendants motion for post conviction relief, and requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for frivolous / successive filings. JURISDICTION This petition is filed within 90 days of all State final appellate renditions of order per Supreme Court R. 13.1 jurisdiction is invoked under Supreme Court Rule 21. (c). As the challenged Florida Statues and Rules are repugnant to the Constitution ; of the United States, as well as violating fundamental constitutional rights and in this case the final reviews are dependent upon fraud to extend the record and deny relief from the essential requirements of law. The decisions in this case are final because Florida does not permit appeals from a district court of appeal to the Florida Supreme Court in cases where the district court has affirmed the trial court without issuing a written opinion Art V; 3 (b) 3 Fla. Const. and Fla. R. App. P. 9.030 (A) 4, require that the decision below 3 “expressly and directly conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same question of law,” Jackson v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla. 1980). Jackson v. State, 926 So.2d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 2006). “as we explained in Florida Star, this court discretionary review jurisdiction can be invoked only from a district court decision “That expressly address a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself by containing a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law. Upon which the decision rests,” Florida Star, 530 So.2d at 288. We further explained that there can be actual conflict discernable in an opinion containing only a citation to other case law unless one of the cases cited as controlling authority is pending before this court, or has been reversed on appeal or review, or receded from by this court, or unless the . citation explicitly notes a contrary holding of another district court or of this court “id at 288 n 3 Persuad v. State, 838 So.2d 529, 532-33 (Fla. 2003). “Since the Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear per curiam opinions of district court of appeal that merely affirm [Fisher] was not entitled to petition for their review and his State court remedies are therefore exhausted, Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141,1143 (Fla.2003), Fisher v. Secretary Fla. Dept. of Corr., 2013 ul 5739788 (M.A. Fla. 2013) accordingly, based on our case law since Jenkins, it is clear that we’ve have explicitly held that this court lacks discretionary review jurisdiction over the following four types of cases. As per curiam 4 affirmance rendered without written opinion. See Jenkins, 385 So.2d at 1359 (2) as per curiam affirmance with a citation to (I) a case not pending review as a case that has not been quashed or reversed by