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

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

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).

Applicable authority on the absence of pleadings and service and case hijacking,

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).

THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN REDUCED TO DOCUMENTS AUTHORED AND FILED BY A STATE PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY (EXECUTIVE BRANCH) IN THE MONTHS OF JUNE 2017 AND JULY 2017. State v. Huminski, 17-MM-815, was "arraigned" on 6/29/2017 and docketed on 6/30/2017 thus if any responsive documents exist, traditionally, they would have been filed in June 2017 to comply with rudimentary Due Process and case law authority set forth previously in this request.

PLEASE EXPEDITE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AS LITIGATION WILL BE FILED BASED UPON THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SEE DRAFT OF WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS/MOTION TO VACATE ATTACHED HERETO which may be filed as an original action in federal court or in State Court.

Thank You

To assist your search, here is a draft 2 DCA brief that will be filed shortly if no documents are forthcoming. If specifies authority related to the issue.

petition as filed in the 6 DCA

Amended petition in 6dca. Huminski v. Amira Dajani Fox

Thank you. That's what I thought. A criminal prosecution initiated without a shred of paper. Plaintiff State of Florida was not a lawful plaintiff in State v. Huminski. See attached 6 DCA filings.

No further responses necessary.

If you desire more details, inquire with Judge E. Krier. Apparently, she ordered her staff/clerks to pursue her wishes prior to recusing off the case(s). This is how a criminal case got docketed and prosecuted absent a charging document or a criminal statute. She knows everything.

No further responses necessary.

FYI, FL Supreme Court Filing.

No further responses necessary.

FL Supr Ct filings. fyi

No further responses necessary.

FL Supr Ct filings. fyi