|
"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it"© - S. Hickman
| Home Against the Grain Press Loss of Liberty Revealed Working Tommy C. Livid Leigh Boilin' Ed D. Tom The Informer Knowledge is Freedom Privacy Links Court Case Contact Us |
© 1994 - 2009
|
Court Case of Importance
|
IN THE ARTICLE III
Albert Coombs and Paul Burge vs. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, and
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Albert Coombs, Sui Juris Paul Burge, Sui Juris Paul
Burge, Sui Juris
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
I. Was it not calculated error for the NC Supreme Court to deny any direction To Petitioners in the way of Statements of Fact and Conclusion of Law directed at the courts Legal Reasoning, thereby denying Petitioners any "sound basis" [FOUNDATION] to petition this high court as logic, common sense and sound judgement dictates that this is no accident; and instead is a well thought out effort to squelch any foundation for jurisdiction to be accorded this high court in this matter. Was this not an abuse of office and a blatant denial of DUE PROCESS to the Petitioners? II. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina dismiss in error when Petitioners have a statutory "RIGHT" to take their appeal from the Public Utilities Commission, hereafter {PUC}, determination DIRECTLY to the N.C. Supreme Court as per the laws and Constitution of North Carolina? III. Are Petitioner/s correct in alleging plain ERROR for the N.C. Supreme Court to deny RATE CASE STATUS pursuant to the clear language and intent of Chapter 62 of N.C. General Statute, in that, the N.C. Supreme Court, through its "Clerk," has let it be known that our Case was DISMISSED " EX MERO MUTO" because in their opinion our case did not QUALIFY as a RATE CASE pursuant to N.C.G.S. 62 et seq.- the fundamental central issue being -is this a rate case per the statute or is it not? IV. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina commit plain error in dismissing petitioners APPEAL OF RIGHT from the Public Utilities Commission of North Carolina when the opposing party (PUC included), never answered our Complaint or entered any response or appearance whatsoever? V. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina commit a fundamental error of law by denying Petitioner's due process RIGHT to Civil "discovery", as required by law, and thereby deny a fundamental constitutional due process, so egregious as to "shock the conscious"? VI. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina commit error - in that it failed to follow the statutes and constitution both federal and state to which it is bound by Oath- in dismissing a direct appeal to it without any evidence offered by respondents to refute cogent fact matter offered by petitioners? VII. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina construct an UNCONSTITUTIONAL impediment to fair Justice by manufacturing Rule #31 of appellate court procedure that states, in substance, that NO PETITION FOR REHEARING will be heard absent the inclusion of a Bar "member" Lawyer first agreeing with the merits of said petition and then giving his/her signature as such? Even though such a Lawyer was never part of the original action up to that stage in the process thereby forcing the Petioner to " buy " further RIGHT or PRIVILEGE TO REVIEW? VIII. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina error in it's alleged final order of dismissal after petition for rehearing specifically addresses Petitioners vehement objection too and challenge of ERROR VII assigned above, without FIRST referring THAT question of Law to "the highest court in the land for legal opinion."- since that determination is central to the question of Jurisdiction? IX. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina error in not answering, when Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the courts Rule #31, on Rehearing Petition, that required a licensed Bar member be made a "forced" participant to an action they neither have an "interest" in or are voluntarily invited into by the primary litigants when a determination would, and in fact DID settle the matter thereby rendering an INTERLOCUTORY DETERMINATION MANDATORY by that court? X. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina deny "substantial justice" when it denied a nihil dicit judgement to Petitioner's, which had arisen by operation of Law, when after 30 days the respondents never appeared or submitted any defense whatsoever? XII. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in dismissing the Appeal of Right to the court, in effect, condone a NON-constitutional Act whereby a federal agency of the government, The FCC, usurped the powers of Congress when instituting the charges, the subject matter of this Lawsuit, i.e the "Gore/E-Rate Taxes" when Congress never enacted such taxes? XIII. Did the Supreme Court of North Carolina Dismiss in error, knowing the evidence submitted by Petitioners included A tax statute and regulation that was lawfully repealed in 1965 and failed to give credence to it and rule in Petitioner's favor when the opposing party offered no contrary evidence to the "proofs" of Petitioner when they failed to submit any rebuttal documentation? XIV. If it please the court, we ask this high court to consider this question. Although the Intervention by Mr Burge was considered "moot'" by the North Carolina Supreme Court when "it" dismissed Petitioner Coombs complaint - - if your court finds for the Petitioners with this Writ of Cert.; the mootness is removed forthwith, and we now ask this court - since Mr Burge has a corresponding property interest regarding "improper" phone charges, and since he has complied in all respects to statutory requirements concerning Intervener application, and since N.C.G.S. Chapter 62 and corresponding "regulations" certify "anyone with a direct interest" in an action before the Commission shall be permitted joinder by INTERVENTION, was Mr. Burge denied his fundamental Due Process right to stand in protection of his PROPERTY RIGHT; specifically, his DOLLARS ?
|
\