Whether district appellate courts in Florida can constitutionally restrict the Florida Supreme Court's jurisdiction through per curiam affirmances (PCAs) without written opinions

The United States Constitution vests the “judicial power ” in Article III courts. Florida ’s Constitution has similar language, however, it proceeds to explain the jurisdiction of its various courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, which “[m]ay review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, or that expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution, or that expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law!' Based on the highlighted language, the issuance of a PC A without written opinion effectively eliminates the jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court to hear the case, even if the outcome of the case would differ among the DCAs. This is troubling, to say the least, as it allows the District Courts to control the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and allows unsettled issues to remain unsettled and/or allows rulings that are inconsistent with settled issues to become final judgments with no recourse. The questions presented are: 1. Whether it is constitutional for district appellate courts in Florida to restrict or determine the Florida Supreme Court ’s jurisdiction through the issuance of a PCA, especially for unsettled or unclear legal issues and whether or not it undermines the separation of powers. ii 2. Whether the practice of issuing per curiam affirmances (PCAs) without written opinions violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the lack of a written opinion in PCAs deprives litigants of their right to meaningful appellate review and judicial transparency. 3. Whether there is a constitutional distinction between cases of fraud upon the court involving officers of the court and those that do not, and whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3) distinguishes fraud upon the court from other fraud claims 4. Whether the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the statute of limitations apply to independent actions brought in cases of fraud upon the court involving officers of the court. 5. Whether attorneys who fabricate evidence, knowingly file fraudulent documents into the court record, suborn perjury, and/or withhold courtcompelled discovery are protected under the litigation privilege or if these actions constitute fraud upon the court and whether that can be grounds for an independent action to vacate the judgment and recover damages. 6. Whether Florida courts ’ foreclosures on its resident citizens ’ homestead property conducted under Florida Statute 673 (Article 3, UCC) violate the Due Process Clause regarding the deprivation or seizing of US citizens ’ homes in Florida, when the enforcement of mortgages requires compliance with Florida Statute 679.2031(2)(a) (Article 9, UCC).