No. 20-1417

Miguel Estivill, et ux. v. Philip Von Kahle

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2021-04-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: appellate-procedure constitutional-rights due-process fair-hearing fraud-allegations judicial-conduct judicial-duty judicial-review motion-for-rehearing standing
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-06-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Where the 3DCA neglected their prime duty to Rule by affirming the Trial Court's order which was in clear violation of R. Jud. Admin. '2.215(f) and Florida Rules, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, B(1) ie. Duty to Rule within a Reasonable Time and Adjudicative Responsibilities respectively

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Where the 3DCA neglected their prime duty to Rule by affirming the Trial Court’s order which was in clear violation of R. Jud. Admin. '2.215(f) and Florida Rules, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, B(1) ie. Duty to Rule within a Reasonable Time and Adjudicative Responsibilities respectively. The 3DCA caused the petitioners Irreparable Harm/loss which cannot be remedied through a final appeal. Where the 3DCA while having Jurisdiction violated Petitioners Constitutional Rights as per the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, when they abridged Petitioners right and privilege of a Fair Hearing, by not Hearing and Ruling on Petitioners Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration Filed at the Trial Court Level which was previously denied for Lack of Jurisdiction, which cannot be : the same answer from the 3DCA., hence affirming the Trial’s Court Order is a . Serious Legal Mistake. : Whereas per Rule 9.330(a)(2)(D)(i)., a legitimate basis for supreme court review. The decision rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal in Miguel Estivill and ‘ Cirabel Estivill v. Philip Von Kahle expressly and directly conflicts with the Fifth . District Court of Appeal decision in Berry v. Berry regarding what is defined as a 2 ministerial act. In Petitioners Case, Petitioners did not receive a fair trial or hearing because of the specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge. Where Petitioners presented Substantial Competent Evidence of at least 10 badges of Fraud done with the Clear Intent to Defraud Creditors to the Trial Judge and to the 3DCA, Solid Proof of Serious Fraudulent Actions as part of an Adversary Proceedings Complaint that was never Properly addressed or answered by any of the Courts in an Act of clear miscarriage of Justice. N 3 }

Docket Entries

2021-06-14
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/10/2021.
2021-01-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 10, 2021)

Attorneys

Miguel Estivill, et ux.
Miguel Estivill — Petitioner
Miguel Estivill — Petitioner