• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISIONIn re: MARK A. ADAMS CASE NO.: 8:08-cv-01570-RALAppellant,CORPORATE SPORTSMARKTEING GROUP, INC., ET. AL.,Appellees.
1
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE BRIEFAND MOTION TO VACATE ORDER PURPORTEDLY ENTERED ONSEPTEMBER 3,2008 REQUIRING APPELLANT TO FILE HIS INITIAL BIUEFBY SEPTEMBER 8,2008
COMES NOW, the Appellant,
Mark
A. Adams, appearing pro se, and moves for anenlargement of time to file his initial brief and moves to vacate the order purportedly enteredon September 3,2008 requiring Appellant to file his initial brief by September 8,2008,showing:1.On September 3,2008, Judge Richard A. Lazzara purportedly signed
an
orderstating, "Appellant shall file his initial brief on or before September 8,2008, failingwhich this appeal will be dismissed without further notice." However, this Court'sonline docket does not show a link to the order purportedly signed by Judge Lazzaraon September 3,2008, and no such order has been received by the Appellant.2.On or after September 4,2008, the clerk of
this
Court mailed a Notice of ElectronicFiling to the Appellant the pertinent part of which stated, "Appellant shall file hisinitial brief on or before September 8,2008, failing which this appeal will be
 
dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on9/03/2008." Please see a copy of Notice of Electronic Filing including a copy theclerk of this Court's envelope which transmitted such notice to the Appellantshowing a postal meter stamp bearing the date of September 4,2008, which isattached as Exhibit A.
3.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(c)(4), the time of service oftheNotice of Electronic Filing was September 4,2008, the date that it was mailed to theAppellant.4.Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure26(c) adds
3
days to the prescribed period oftime in which to respond when service is via mail. In addition, Rule 26(a) providesthat Saturdays and Sundays should be excluded from a computation of time when theperiod in which to respond is less than
11
days and that Saturdays and Sundaysshould be excluded in computing the time in which to respond if such day is the lastday.5.Therefore, pursuant to Rules 25 and 26, the Notice of Electronic Filing is deemed tohave been received by the Appellant on September 8,2008, the day upon which theAppellant has been purportedly ordered to file his initial brief.
6.
Rule 26(b) provides that the Court may extend the time prescribed by its order toperform any act.
7.
In addition, the Appellant has reviewed this Court's online docket and discoveredthat the complete record in decisions appealed from in Bankruptcy Case No. 8:05-
 
bk-29501-PMG and Adversary Case No. 8:06-ap-00185-PMG
has
not beentransmitted to this Court.8.Furthermore, although the Notice of Appeal and the Appeal Cover Sheet state thatthe Appellant is appealing the Entry of Default by the Clerk and the Default FinalJudgment entered on April 22,2008 in Adversary Case No. 8:06-ap-00185-PMG andthe Order Denying Discharge of Debtor entered on April 23,2008 in BanhptcyCase No. 8:05-bk-29501-PMG and all underlying orders entered in such actions, theclerk of the Bankruptcy Court failed to even transmit the erroneously entered OrderDenying Discharge of Debtor to the clerk of this Court.9.Due process requires a complete record on appeal.
See, e.g., Thomas
v.
State,
828So.2d 456,457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and
Beruhe
v.
State,
771 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 2dDCA 2000).10.
"For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process hasbeen clear: 'Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; andin order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.'
Buldwin
v.
Hule,
1 Wall. 223,233, 17 L.Ed. 53 1. See
Windsor
v.
McVeigh,
93 U.S. 274,23L.Ed. 914; Hovey
v.
Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct 841,42 L.Ed. 215;
Grunnis
v.
Oredean,
234 U.S. 385,34
S.Ct.
779,58
L.Ed.
1363.
It
is equally fundamentalthat the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard 'must be granted at ameaningful time and
in
a meaningful manner.'
Armstrong
v.
Manzo, 380 U.S.545,552,85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62."
fientes
v.
Shevin,
92 S. Ct. 1983,1994 (1972). (Emphasis added).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
markadamsjdmba

If you want to know why the justice system is dominated by kangaroo courts, see Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/w... and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.

reply07 / 01 / 2010
markadamsjdmba

If you take a look, you’ll learn why those in power and those who can influence them get away with violating our rights, abusing their power, and committing horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.

07 / 01 / 2010
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...