IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOHN COCKERHAM, Pro Se Appellant, V. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB Appellees, CASE NO. SC10-2235 DCA CASE NO. 4D10-2660 L.T. NO. 10-8000-21 JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF John Cockerham, Pro Se 5641 Atlanta Street Hollywood, FL 33021 954.605.9883 Certificate of Service The undersigned, John M. Cockerham declares and certifies that a copy of this Jurisdictional Brief has been has been sent this date by Certified Mail to Clerk, Florida Supreme Court; 500 South Duval Street; Tallahassee, Florida 32399 and a copy hand delivered to Mr. Drew Beinhaker, Esq. at the office address of Henschel & Beinhaker, P.A., 4060 Sheridan Street, Suite C, Hollywood, Florida 33021. _______________________________ ___11/29/10___________________ John M. Cockerham Date 5641 Atlanta Street Hollywood, FL 33021 (954) 605-9883 Certification of Compliance According to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, RULE 9.210. BRIEFS, the undersigned, John M. Cockerham declares and certifies that this Writ of Certiorari conforms to the formatting requirements without exception. _______________________________ ___11/29/10____________ John M. Cockerham Date 5641 Atlanta Street Hollywood, FL 33021 (954) 605-9883 TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISIONS PAGES TITLE PAGE CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE AND FORMAT COMPLIANCE TABLE OF CITATIONS iii A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 1. B. NATURE OF THE CASE 1. C. APPELLANT CASE HISTORY 2. D. WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND ENTERTAIN THIS CASE ON ITS MERITS 3. E. ARGUMENT FOR 1ST CAUSE 4. New Law Involving Constitutional Questions of Great Public Importance F. ARGUMENT FOR 2ST CAUSE 6. The rulings by the trial court and the 4DCA denied defendant’s constitutional right of equal protection and due process of law G. ARGUMENT FOR 3rd CAUSE 8. Will have a great effect on the administration of justice throughout the state i H. ARGUMENT FOR 4th CAUSE 8. Error by the 4th District Court of Appeal in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider I. CONCLUSION 10. APPENDICES A. Fourth District Court of Appeal, Ruling to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Case no. 4d10-2660, September 23, 2010 B. Fourth District Court of Appeal, Ruling Denying Motion to Reconsider Order to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to Grant Leave of Court to Amend and Correct Writ of Certiorari, Case No. 4D10-2660, October 29, 2010 C. Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Court, Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Allow John Cockerham’s Pro se Representation of All Pro Electric Services, Inc., Case # 10-8000(21), June 9, 2010 ii TABLE OF CITATIONS Florida Supreme Court State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 - Fla: Supreme Court 1958 …..3. 6 Florida District Courts of Appeal Richter v. Higdon Homes, Inc., 544 So. 2d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) …..5 Florida Rules Florida Rules of Appellant Procedure, Rule 9.120, Subdivision(d), (2010) …..2 Florida Constitutional Provisions Art. V., SECTION 2.(a), Administration; practice and procedure, Florida …..1 Constitution Art. I., SECTION 9., Due Process …..5 United States Supreme Court Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) …..4, 5 Osborn V. Bank of The United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824) …..4 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) …..9 United States Constitution 1st Amendment …..5 iii A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Introduction 1. I am a pro se litigant and admit to difficulty in understanding the rules of appellant procedure as to form and process for advancing this important issue to a hearing. 2. I ask the Supreme Court for a measure of judicial indulgence for obvious errors of forum, form or process that a learned practitioner of law would knowingly avoid. 3. Approaching this court, I petition the Supreme Court per The Florida Constitution, Art. V., SECTION 2.(a), Administration; practice and procedure.— “…that no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.” B. NATURE OF THE CASE 4. The Plaintiff American Express, FBS sued Defendants All Pro Electric Services, Inc. and John Cockerham for indebtedness on a joint business account. The Defendants countersued claiming the Plaintiff’s actions were unjustified, negligent and caused the financial destruction of their business. The business being unable to afford legal representation, John Cockerham, its President entered a motion in the trial court to recognize his constitutional 1 right to represent the corporation pro se. The motion was denied without explanation. C. APPELLANT CASE HISTORY 5. August 30, 2010 – Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach, FL. Case No. 4D10-2660 6. September 23, 2010 – Writ of Certiorari was dismissed “for failure to establish any irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.” 7. Pro se litigant was not aware that there was a threshold burden of proof required to affect a hearing for a Writ of Certiorari. I attempted to cure this specific deficiency with a Motion to Reconsider the Order to Dismiss. 8. September 29, 2010 – Motion to Reconsider Order to Dismiss was filed with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal. 9. October 29, 2010 -- Motion to Reconsider Order to Dismiss was denied. 10. Per Rule 9.120, Subdivision (d), and because there was no reason stated for denying the Motion to Reconsider, conformed copies of the District Court rulings and the trial court ruling are attached in the Appendix. 11. Additionally, per Rule 9.120, Subdivision (d), “a very short statement of why the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion and entertain the case on its merits…” is provided below: 2 D. WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND ENTERTAIN THIS CASE ON ITS MERITS - 1st Cause - New Law Involving Constitutional Questions of Great Public Importance 12. This issue involves new law handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court, and in its application the decision of the Florida Supreme Court is of great importance to the State of Florida and the United States. - 2nd Cause - The rulings by the trial court and the 4DCA denied defendant’s constitutional right of equal protection and due process of law 13. The trail court judge gave no reason for his ruling, leaving it unknown as to whether or not the constitutionality of the issue was addressed. In effect this has denied my due process constitutional rights and confused me as to the correct appeals forum, process and legal instrument. (State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 - Fla: Supreme Court 1958) 3 - 3rd Cause - Will have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state 14. The outcome of a favorable decision to this petitioner would change the administration of justice in every tribunal of the state. - 4th Cause - Error by the 4DCA in denying my Motion to Reconsider Order to Dismiss 15. My motion to reconsider clearly showed irreparable harm that would be economically and legally impossible to correct on final appeal. E. ARGUMENT FOR 1ST CAUSE New Law Involving Constitutional Questions of Great Public Importance 16. In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized “corporate personhood” and the 1st Amendment rights of a corporation to speak for itself. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) 17. The court’s decision upended 186 years of supposedly settled law stemming from U.S. Supreme Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Osborn V. Bank 4 of The United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824) that had been generally interpreted as denying or at least discrediting the existence of corporate personhood. 18. In view of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the open question before the Florida Supreme Court is… If the U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment right applies to the corporate person, does the Florida Constitution, Article I., SECTION 9. “Due process.--No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” assure the right of self representation, contrary to the case law precedent Richter v. Higdon Homes, Inc., 544 So. 2d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)? 19. I suggest to the Court that this is one of the most important constitutional matters of public interest that can come before the Court: a. The decision will directly affect every small business in the state; the business owners, all employees and their families. b. A favorable decision will reinforce Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010); establishing an undeniable link between corporate personhood and equal access to justice. An unfavorable opinion will have an opposite effect and support the contention that a corporation cannot speak for itself. 5 c. Either way, the decision by the State of Florida will have national implications in establishing a clear precedent for every other state that will be facing this issue.1 F. ARGUMENT FOR 2ST CAUSE The rulings by the trial court and the 4DCA denied defendant’s constitutional right of equal protection and due process of law 20. In my motion at the trial court and Writ of Certiorari at the appellant court, I was seeking a ruling on the construction of a controlling provision of the State and federal constitutions. None was provide and it is not clear if the trial court construed any provisions of the State or federal constitutions. 21. Therefore I contend that my constitutional rights of equal protection and due process have been denied and that the jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court is the appropriate forum per State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 - Fla: Supreme Court 1958 as follows: 1 There are two other cases currently under appeal in the states of Washington and Iowa -- (1.) Case No.