Whether it is unconstitutional for a defendant's pro per Motion to Discharge Counsel and Waiver of Right to Counsel to be dismissed for the only reason being he is represented by counsel and his pleadings are thus a nullity

QUESTION PRESENTED , e Whether it is unconstitutional for a defendants’ pro per Motion to Discharge Counsel and Waiver of Right to Counsel to be dismissed for the only reason being he is represented by counsel and his pleadings are thus a nullity. 1. Whether it is unconstitutional for an adverse possessor, after establishing possession and making the required return as allowed for by Florida Statute 95.18, to be arrested and tried for trespass, grand theft and criminal mischief simply for adversely possessing real property and despite Florida Statute 95.18 providing a crime is committed only if a return is not made. 2. Whether it is unconstitutional for a circuit court to dismiss pro per pleadings by a defendant seeking to discharge assigned counsel and self represent. 3. Whether a judgment denying certiorari relief without explanation by the Florida First District Court of Appeal is unconstitutional. 4. Whether it is unconstitutional for a citizen to be arrested for trespass, grand theft and criminal mischief simply for adversely possessing real property. RELATED CASE 1. SCOTUS Case NO. 20-6207 Case No. In the Supreme Court of the United States STEVEN COOPER Petitioner, . ; Vv. STATE OF FLORIDA ‘ Respondents, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, IDCA NO.1D20-2552 Petitioner, Steven Cooper, humbly and respectfully asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment issued without opinion by the Florida First District Court of Appeal, IDCA# 1D20-2552, filed on August 31, 2020. OPINION BELOW The judgment issued without opinion by the First District Court of Appeal was issued on December 16, 2020. An appeal to The Florida Supreme Court was not submitted given it does not have jurisdiction to review decisions issued by the First District Court without a written explanation of its decision. This appeal serves as the only available review of the First District Courts opinion denying the certiorari petition. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The decision for which petitioner seeks review was issued on December 16, 2020, this petition filed within 90 days of that decision, is for discretionary review under Rules 13.1 and 29.2 of this Court. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED e United States Constitution, Amendment 5 provides, in pertinent part: No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . © United States Constitution, Amendment 7 provides, in pertinent part: Where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. .. according to the rules of the common law. © United States Constitution, Amendment 14 Section I provides, in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. e United States Code 28 USC1361: Action to compel an officer provides, in relevant part: Courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee or any agency to perform a duty owed... e Florida Statute for Adverse Possession without Color of Title section 95.18 provides, in relevant part: (9) A person who occupies... solely by claim of adverse possession... prior to making a return as required under subsection (3), commits trespass. STATEMENT OF CASE This Petition follows willful manifest injustice attack upon a law-abiding adverse possessor " unlawfully trespassed 7 falsely arrested * maliciously prosecuted “) intentionally deprived of fundamental rights. Petitioner is a victim of an onslaught of grotesque negligence by State Constitutional Offices and its Officers in opposition of Florida Statutes as an attack upon his adverse possession and