Amira Fox - 20th Circuit State's Attorney - Criminal information - State v. Huminski, 17-mm-815 (Florida State Attorney, 20th circuit)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Florida Sunshine Law, I hereby request the following records:

In addition to the 20th Circuit State's Attorney, this request also requests the same documentation for the Florida Attorney General that litigated the case on appeal before the 2nd District Court of Appeals. Appeal- Huminski v. State, 2d19-1914, Florida 2 DCA, author: Chelsea N. Simms, esq, Ashley Moody, esq. See below,

Pursuant to the Florida Sunshine Law please supply;

1. The document authored by your office or any other State prosecutorial authority (executive branch official) commencing the case State of Florida v. Huminski, 17-mm-815, Lee County
Court including the criminal information, indictment or any other document used to commence the case and secure standing by the State as a plaintiff,

2. The proof of service of the document in Para. 1 that was effectuated by a State of Florida prosecutorial authority (not a show cause order served by the judicial branch in a civil matter),

3. Any document related to the prosecution that contains a criminal statute that supports a criminal prosecution by the sovereign (not F.S. 900.04 which simply governs the conduct of a
judge to exercise contempt powers).

4. In the absence of any of the above documents, please supply any document, recording, emails, letters, invoices, financial records, medical records, employment files, police reports,
photographs, text messages, and any other relevant documents/materials concerning the initiation of State v. Huminski that are in your possession. These records should include any
materials related to the docketing of State v. Huminski, 17-mm-815, Lee County Court on 6/30/2017. Absent any valid document production concerning Paras. 1, 2, 3, it is likely that
crimes were committed by various persons working at the Lee Court complex to accomplish the docketing of the case in Lee County Court including clerks, judicial assistants and
others. Judge James Adams, the presiding County Court judge in State v. Huminski was admonished for case hijacking other cases. YORLAN ESPINOSA PENA v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 17-
4465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4552265/yorlan-espinosa-pena-v-state-of-florida/ Cooperation between many courthouse employees is required
for behind-the-scenes court document manipulation. The time frame in the Pena case and State v. Huminski is similar.

Full mailed version of this Sunshine Law request sent via USPS (tracking # 4203-3902-9507-1066-9811-4366-7459-90) is attached hereto.

(See attached .pdf files)

Related supportive links,
Florida Ethics Commission complaints,

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2024/11/25/18871016.php

https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2024/11/25/merge_notary_thru_mailing.pdf

https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2024/12/04/amira_final_merge_comp.pdf

https://www.change.org/p/gov-desantis-remove-state-s-attorney-amira-fox-corruption-official-crime

To aid the reply to this document request, the printed case 2D19-1914 can be found at the below links,

https://edca.2dca.org/DcaDocs/2019/1914/2019-1914_Brief_530010_RC09.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20201005171650/https://edca.2dca.org/DcaDocs/2019/1914/2019-1914_Brief_530010_RC09.pdf

https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2024/11/25/record_on_appeal_2019-1914_comp64mb.pdf

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days.

Sincerely,

scott huminski

Please supply documents that are consistent with the below control Florida law and rudimentary Due Process under the federal constitution,

Under Florida law and Due Process, a pleading is required to initiate any civil or criminal case. Trial courts “lack jurisdiction” until proper pleadings are filed. Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768, 776 (Fla. 1927) accord Lewis v. Lewis, 78 So.2d 711, 712. A trial court's lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction makes its judgment void. NWT v. LHD (In re DNHW), 955 So.2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). A judgment of conviction that is entered against a defendant without service of a charging instrument is absent personal jurisdiction over the defendant and is regarded as a
void judgment. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Bevis, 652 So.2d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

The Florida Supreme Court has explained that "jurisdiction to try an accused does not exist under article I, section 15 of the Florida Constitution unless there is an extant information, indictment, or presentment filed by the state." State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Fla.1989).
See, e.g., Ex parte Reed,101 Fla. 800, 135 So. 302, 303 (1931) (concluding that judgment of conviction by circuit court was void where indictment failed to show that the defendant was charged with a felony). Pope v. State, 268 So.2d 173, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (explaining that an allegation of a felony "is essential to the invocation of the jurisdiction of a felony court over the charge since the allegata of the accusatory writ are precisely the basis in the first instance upon which the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof is predicated")

A judgment entered without due service of process is void. See Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); McAlice v. Kirsch, 368 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Grahn v. Dade Home Services, Inc. 277 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). On motion, a court may, at any time, relieve a party from a void final judgment of conviction. See Sams Food Store, Inc. v. Alvarez, 443 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Tucker v. Dianne Electric, Inc. 389 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); McAlice. See also Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1960) (the passage of time cannot make valid that which has been void).

The hearing of contempt is private to the allegedly offended court. See generally, South Dade Farms v. Peters , 88 So. 2D 891 (Florida Supreme Court 1956) ( approvingly citing "There has been general recognition of the fact that the courts are clothed with this power, and must be authorized to exercise it without referring the issues of fact or law to another tribunal or to a jury in the same tribunal. … Bessette v. W.B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324 337, 24 S.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. [997] 1005.") and Huminski v. State, 2d19-1247 (Fl 2nd DCA, 2019)(adding emphasis to the statutory language “against it” concerning F.S. § 38.22).

Please respond via muckrock. A written copy was mailed only because it was probable that Amira Dajani Fox, Esq. would claim non-receipt of the digital communication. Electronic response requested.

This Sunshine request has been limited to documents authored and filed by subordinates of Amira Dajani Fox in 17-mm-815 in the month of June, 2017.

The Fl Attorney General needed no such astronomical anticipated payment for handling this request. See their quite prompt and professional response here,

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/florida-34/amira-fox-20th-circuit-states-attorney-criminal-information-state-v-huminski-17-mm-815-office-of-the-attorney-general-florida-178818/#file-1250623

Evading accountability is not appropriate conduct for the highest law enforcement official in the 20th Circuit.

I need only one or two pages containing the papers that your office authored and served to initiate the the docketing and commencement of a criminal prosecution in 17-mm-815. Arraignment was held on 6/29/2017 and 17-mm-815 was docketed on 6/30/2017. If any document exists, it would have been authored in June 2017. Cases don't get docketed without a pleading from the plaintiff filed in court (see case law filed previously in this Sunshine request). This request is narrowed to only June 2017. See case law authority filed in this request that governs case initiation and jurisdiction mandating the existence of pleadings by a plaintiff necessary for subject-matter jurisdiction.

The full record on appeal is available to the public as listed in the links above. Only June 2017 documents are sought in this request. Please read the request and only consider producing the requested 1, 2 or 3 pages of documents that don't exist in the record on appeal, yet, caused the case to be docketed and prosecuted. FYI, the record on appeal is at these links,

https://edca.2dca.org/DcaDocs/2019/1914/2019-1914_Brief_530010_RC09.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20201005171650/https://edca.2dca.org/DcaDocs/2019/1914/2019-1914_Brief_530010_RC09.pdf

https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2024/11/25/record_on_appeal_2019-1914_comp64mb.pdf

This request applies to only documents not currently in the record on appeal. The public and myself has the record on appeal or has access to all documents in the record on appeal. What is missing are the papers authored by your office that initiated the arraignment, docketing and commencement of the case in June 2017. Less than 3 pages, if they exist at all. Please respond with a non-frivolous response that has some basis in reality and limit the request to June 2017.

Further only supply documents authored and filed by Amira Dajani Fox or her subordinates from 6/1/2017 to 6/30/2017. Obviously, this request seeks only case initiation and service documents (the request is withdrawn for any documents listing a criminal statute because none exist). June 2017 documents only are requested.

The only documents that currently exist in the record on appeal for June 2017 are as follows (from the index of the record on appeal);
01 12/21/2018 Case Summary/Progress Docket 21 - 51
02 06/05/2017 Order to Show Cause 52 - 54
03 06/29/2017 Court Minutes Held on 6-29-17 55 - 56
04 07/10/2017 Order on Arraignment 57 - 58

Very odd that the first entry in the record on appeal for 17-mm-815 is a "Case Summary/Progress Docket" (2018), the wrong year. Also odd that an order from a Circuit Court civil case somehow got filed in 17-mm-815 as the 2nd docket entry absent the identity of the filing party. Due Process is not about mysterious anonymous filings. Docket entry 2 is also missing over 100 pages of attachments. Court minutes is the final docket entry in June 2017. Corruptly missing is any paper authored and filed by the 20th Circuit State Attorney in June 2017, these are the missing papers "ghost documents" that this request seeks.

As your office didn't become involved until 6/29/2017 (allegedly), the time frame involved in this request has been reduced to June 2017. After all, criminal cases don't get initiated by slight-of-hand or smoke-and-mirrors so something happened first that is not in the record. Those "ghost documents" are sought in this request. Real court filings and service initiate cases in the Florida courts seemingly quite unlike 17-mm-815.

The record on appeal is a .pdf searchable file and the prior document production estimated cost is an illegal tactic to evade accountability by inflating the alleged costs of document production. A search on "FS" or "F.S." amazingly reveals no responsive documents that contain a criminal statute exist in the record on appeal. Regardless, the request for documents containing a Florida criminal statute has been withdrawn -- none exist pursuant to the official record on appeal. That part of the document request is moot and has been withdrawn.

NOTE : THIS DOCUMENT REQUEST HAS BEEN REDUCED TO THE MONTH OF JUNE 2017 ONLY AS ARRAINGMENT WAS HELD ON 6/29/2017 and docketing began on 6/30/2017. PLEASE PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AUTHORED AND SERVED BY THE 20TH STATE'S ATTORNEY CAUSING/INITIATING STATE V. HUMINSKI, 17-MM-815 supporting the "arraignment" as described by the presiding judge. Plaintiff State of Florida must have authored and filed something in June 2017 unless 17-mm-815 was purely an exercise in corruption, harassment, lawfare, manipulation of court dockets and weaponized justice.

I will pay any fees related to the tiny involvement and documents authored, if any, by subordinates of Amira Dajani Fox in the month of June 2017. Criminal case don't just pop up on a docket absent participation of the plaintiff. Absent such documentary support, the prosecution was a criminal fraud, unconstitutional, official crime and vastly unethical. No documents satisfying this request exist in the record on appeal, no need to search there. The records sought are not in the record on appeal and were authored in June 2017 that initiated 17-mm-815, if any. This request seeks those ghost documents. Ghost documents do not comply with Due Process under the State or Federal constitutions.

Please supply a new quotation involving only the month of June 2017 only. As the record on appeal contains no papers authored or filed by Amira Dajani Fox Subordinates in June 2017, this request requires no substantial time to complete.

THE ESSENCE OF THIS REQUEST IS JUST HOW DID AMIRA DAJANI FOX AND HER SUBORDINATES GET 17-MM-815 DOCKETED ON 6/30/2017 AND ARRAIGNED ON 6/29/2017. Currently a mystery which is not consistent with the ethical and lawful litigation of anything in the United States.

Attached is a draft writ of coram nobis / Motion to Vacate that will be filed after your production of the requested documents or after a "no responsive documents" reply by your office. The Writ is predicated upon zero filing of anything by Amira Dajani Fox subordinates in June 2017 and may be filed as an action in federal court (constitutional violations) although it currently contemplates a State Circuit Court or 2 DCA filing. Your prompt and expedited response is required to advance the interests of justice involving an attack upon a hopelessly corrupt and void ab initio judgment of conviction.

Rules and procedures need to be followed when initiating a court case, not behind-the-scenes corrupt manipulation of dockets by courthouse and State's Attorney staff. At hearing, Anthony Kunasek (deceased) quite properly stated that a new docket number is not created for contempt matters. At least one employee of the 20th Circuit State's Attorney knew some of the correct law governing contempt, but, he could not disobey the wishes of Amira Dajani Fox to advance a constitutionally infirm criminal prosecution.

It may not be a court filing, we require the document used by the State's Attorney to initiate 17-mm-815. State v. Huminski did not get docketed in Lee County Court by magic. Further your reply is not consistent with the Florida Supreme Court and DCA mandates below. Please supply the document that the Fl Supreme Court opined MUST EXIST. (extant information, indictment, or presentment) Govern your conduct by the below authorities. Obviously there has to be a document or 17-mm-815 would not have existed as the Supreme Court indicates.

The Florida Supreme Court has explained that "jurisdiction to try an accused does not exist under article I, section 15 of the Florida Constitution unless there is an extant information, indictment, or presentment filed by the state." State v. Anderson, 537 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Fla.1989).
See, e.g., Ex parte Reed,101 Fla. 800, 135 So. 302, 303 (1931) (concluding that judgment of conviction by circuit court was void where indictment failed to show that the defendant was charged with a felony). Pope v. State, 268 So.2d 173, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (explaining that an allegation of a felony "is essential to the invocation of the jurisdiction of a felony court over the charge since the allegata of the accusatory writ are precisely the basis in the first instance upon which the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof is predicated")

That document does not list the State of Florida as a plaintiff.

It lists no criminal statute.

It was not authored by an executive branch official (prosecutor) supporting a case captioned as State v. Huminski.

These are rudimentary issues.

You are being evasive, supply the document "extant information, indictment, or presentment filed by the state." State v. Anderson

Please comply with the attached draft of a 2 DCA brief and govern your replies consistent with case law authority and constitutional precepts. Or do you reject the law set forth by the FL supreme court?

The "extant information, indictment, or presentment filed by the state." State v. Anderson must specify the State as a plaintiff and must be authored by a prosecutor not a judge to comply with the law and constitution.

Nothing in that paper indicates a "plaintiff" status by the State of Florida. NO MENTION OF STATE OF FLORIDA.

There must be a charge to justify plaintiff status in a misdemeanor prosecution.

Please supply the correct document authored by the STATE not a judge. A plaintiff in a civil or criminal case needs to author and file pleadings. Where are they?

petition filed in the 6 DCA

In the interests of justice to avoid unnecessary litigation and burden on the parties and 6DCA court,

Supply the document authored, filed and served by the 20th Circuit State's Attorneys office that initiated State v. Huminski, 17-MM-815, Lee County Court that conferred "plaintiff" status and standing upon the State of Florida.

Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice may be a violation of attorney ethical precepts.

Final clarification request.

Thank you for confirming the depraved corruption concerning the initiation of State v. Huminski prosecuted by Amira Dajani Fox and her subordinates.

Attached is the amended petition pending in the 6 DCA that intends to get to the bottom of the courthouse corruption. I suggest your inquire with Judge Krier for some enlightening information on this topic.

Attached please find:

Fl Attorney General letter
Motion to correct Caption
Motion to enjoin/stay

pdf. of the motion for injunction/stay

Inquire with Judge E. Fox to get the specifics related to the docketing of 17-MM-815 without a charging document or criminal statute just prior to her recusal off the case. No further responses are necessary.