IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
______________________________________________________________

GORDON WAYNE WATTS,		CASE NO.: SC04-66
Individually and on behalf of 
other similarly situated taxpayers	Lower Tribunal No.: 1D02-5120
and VOTERS in the State of Florida,
						Circuit Ct No.: 37-2002-CA-002267
Petitioner/Plaintiff/Appellant,   				

vs.      							

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
and THE HON. P. KEVIN, DAVEY, JUDGE,
Respondents/Defendants/Appellees.
_____________________________________/
__________________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
===================================================                                

** MOTION TO PROCURE REHEARING AND JURISDICTION **
===================================================

                                      	GORDON W. WATTS, Petitioner / Plaintiff / Appellant
				821 Alicia Road - Lakeland, Florida 33801-2113
				Home Phone: 863-688-9880
				Work Phones: 863-686-3411 and 863-687-6141
				Electronic Mail: Gww1210@aol.com

				Acting Attorney/Counsel for the Appellant:
				Gordon W. Watts, PRO SE

1

This cause comes before The Court as a motion to invoke RULES 9.300 and 9.330, Fla.R.App.P. in response to the Order of this Court dated Friday, January 23, 2004, misapplying Jenkins v State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1980) to the instant case:

Jenkins (at 1359) held that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal rendered without opinion, "regardless of whether they are accompanied by a dissenting or concurring opinion, when the basis for such review is an alleged conflict of that decision with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court." (Emphasis added)

However, in the instant case, the jurisdiction(s) invoked is (are) mandatory appellate jurisdiction and original all writs jurisdiction, leaving The Court to pick from the more pleasurable of the two options.

This is not the first time that This Court has encountered case law misapplication. In Watts v Fla Dept of State, No. SC03-385 (Fla. 2003), the "sister case" to this one, both having arisen from the same erroneous circuit court ruling, This Court was gracious enough to pend the case until this day, because Stallworth v Moore, 827 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2002), similar case law, was improperly applied:

"[W]e do not have jurisdiction to review the kinds of decisions of which the four cases [under review in this case] are representative. In the interest of clarity, we therefore hold that this Court does not have discretionary review jurisdiction or extraordinary writ jurisdiction to review pre curiam denials of relief, issued without explanation or opinion, whether they be in opinion form or by way of unpublished order."	(Stallworth v Moore)

It is possible for a per curiam decision to be appealed and reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, as the Federal Courts have found: "The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed without opinion, 426 So.2d 34 (1982), thus denying the Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the case. See Fla. Const., Art. V, 3(b)(3); Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1980). We granted certiorari, 464 U.S. 913 (1983), and we reverse." (PALMORE v. SIDOTI, CERT. TO DIST. CT. OF APP. OF FLA, 2nd DIST 466 U.S. 429 (1984))

If a Federal Circuit Court -or the U.S. Supreme Court -were to review this case, one of the first things that would be questioned would be a lack of uniformity (equal protection) between district courts of appeal -and lack of checks and balances (due 
process) which would result from a lack of review, as well as the fact the egregious 

2

violations of State Law can rise to the level of becoming unconstitutional, being a possible impetus to compel reversal.

By improperly failing to enforce election law, the lower tribunals and Dept of State have effectively clogged the court system, because justice will eventually come, and their actions have delayed and clogged the courts with unneeded appeals, when they could have properly applied the laws in question at the time of occurrence.

This Court was gracious enough to consider its possible errors, and Petitioner hopes that grace and justice do not run out, like a batter with only one strike, or a person who gets only one turn, where an otherwise law-abiding Governor, his Secretary of State (Jim Smith), and the trial court judge egregiously violated Florida election laws and tempted the impeachment fates -and risked federal court intervention and requisite embarrassment;

In spite of the fact that this injustice is more or less forgotten by the Florida electorate, Petitioner is obligated to point out that Florida, by passing certain elections laws regarding when a recount was to occur, effectively gave its word, and when giving one's word, it honorable to keep ones word.

Petitioner hopes also that justice will not be frustrated by any negative perceptions caused by the fact that yet a third case (Watts, SC04-68) is before This Court, and makes caveat: The brief in the case at bar (Watts SC04-66) is similar but not identical to the brief in SC04-68 which successfully sought jurisdiction.

Comes now petitioner Gordon Watts under the authority of RULE 9.300 MOTIONS (a), Fla.R.App.P., and, pursuant to said rule, petitioner invokes the following standard:

"Unless otherwise prescribed by these rules, an application for...relief available under these rules shall be made by filing a motion therefor. The motion shall state the grounds on which it is based, the relief sought, argument in support thereof, and appropriate citations of authority."

Short Title of contents:
* Grounds on which motion is based
* Relief sought
* Argument in support thereof WITH appropriate citations of authority

3

* Grounds on which motion is based:
RULE 9.330(a) "A motion for rehearing...may be filed within 15 days of an order or within such other time set by the court. A motion for rehearing shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that in the opinion of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended in its decision, and shall not present issues not previously raised in the proceeding." (Legal basis for rehearing, timely on the face, as the order issued 23 Jan 2004, and 15 days added and, not counting the day of act, fall on Saturday 07 Feb 2004, which would roll over to Monday, 09 Feb 2004, and 5 days added to it for service by postal mail, would end up on hopeful reception of postal mail on Saturday, 14 Feb 2004, St. Valentine's Day, and roll over business day to Monday, 16 February 2004. It is hoped that postal mail arrives long before that final technical date. RULE 9.040(d), Fla.R.App.P. also allows Court to disregard procedural errors that do not adversely affect substantial rights of parties, such as a late brief here, but this rule shall not be relied upon by Petitioner, in order to comply with good etiquette towards the court.

RULE 9.030(a)(3), Fla.R.App.P.: "The supreme court may issue...all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction...." (A legal basis for jurisdiction.)

RULE 9.030(a)(1)(A)(ii), Fla.R.App.P.: [Mandatory] Appeal Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court SHALL review, by appeal decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or provision of the state constitution." (Emphasis added by capitalization; Comments added in brackets) (A legal basis for jurisdiction.)

* Relief sought:
Acceptance of this case ; Order overturning the unlawful actions of the respondents, both the district court of appeal, and the circuit court beneath it, as well as the Department of State.

* Argument in support thereof WITH appropriate citations of authority:
Although provisions exist for briefs on jurisdiction for discretionary proceedings (see RULE 9.120(d), generally), nonetheless, it shall be noted in the preface that there exists no provisions in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure of Appellate Procedure for a brief on jurisdiction, when jurisdiction arises under original jurisdiction, such as "all writs" (see RULE 9.100), or under mandatory appellate jurisdiction, arising out of a DCA declaring invalid a statute of section of the state constitution (see RULE 9.110).

4

Therefore, RULE 9.300 is invoked to bring to This Court the proper communications regarding jurisdiction.

ALL WRITS JURISDICTION:
St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v Davis (392 So.2d 1304-05, Fla. 1980), generally held that the all writs clause can not confer jurisdiction of The Florida Supreme Court to seek discretionary review over decisions of district courts of appeal in PCA decisions, without opinion.

Indeed, "the [Florida Supreme] Court's 'all writs' authority remains one of the most confusing and unsettled areas of jurisdiction, a problem worsened by the infrequency of all writs cases." (The Operation and Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, Kogan and Waters, 18 Nova L. Rev 1151, (Fla. 1994) at VII. E.)

However, the instant case comes within RULE 9.030(a)(3), which, by the definition, is "Original Jurisdiction," so therefore St. Paul and his progeny do not apply.

The "aiding ultimate jurisdiction" would seem the most conservative and common standard for applying the "all writs" jurisdiction. (Ibid; Accord: Florida Senate v Graham, 412 So.2d 360-361 (Fla. 1982))

The Lower Tribunal in the instant case at bar would have This Court believe that Due Process does not require that a recount be given in the instant case. However, the circuit court apparently thought that Lawmakers were just joking when they made in mandatory to grant an immediate hearing of a contest of election, under s. 102.168(7), Fla. Stat.; or that This Court really wasn't serious when it found that the circuit courts were without power to diverge from the clear meaning of the plain language of the election laws. (Palm Beach Cty Canvassing Bd v Harris, 772 So.2d 1220, cert. granted in part Bush v Palm Bch Cty Canvassing Bd, 121 S.Ct. 510, 148 L.Ed.2d 478, vacated 121 S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366, on remand 772 So.2d 1273).

Apparently, the lower tribunal, the governor, and the Fla Dept of State must think that it is acceptable to break a promise to Floridians to give a recount to Janet Reno when she was defeated by less than one-half percent in her race, and, in the process, disenfranchise and alienate voters and Florida taxpayers by not complying with ss. 102.168(3)(c) and 102.141(6), Fla. Stats. I disagree.

We must keep our word, so much as that ability lies within us.

5

However, no matter how good the law, if it is not followed, and enforced by the District Courts of Appeal, it is no good at all: "The law is only for the rich." (Common saying) The District Courts of Appeal, in writing a PCA decision, without a written opinion, seek to deny access of This Court to enforce justice. This is improper and offensive. This Court should have access to review any lawful appeal it desires.

This would imply that This Court may, if it desires, take this case on the basis of "aiding ultimate justice," invoking all writs authority, even if another basis for jurisdiction exists, which, is true in the case at bar.

Having made this case, the petitioner will now leave off and explore an equally appropriate alternative.

MANDATORY APPEAL JURISDICTION:
Although it is common knowledge that a ruling, with a written opinion, explicitly stating: "this statute is invalid" is basis for mandatory appellate jurisdiction, Lower Tribunal, in refusing to give a written opinion in PCA decisions, regularly attempts to block This Court's appellate review access, apparently inappropriate.

(Roughly two-thirds of all DCA decisions are PCA's AKA per curiam affirmed, and without opinion, which almost invariably, discourages review by a higher court, even if review exists under a legal context. This flaw in the system regularly frustrates lawyers and innocent clients alike.)

Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution protects petitioner generally in regards to "redress of any injury" from inappropriate appellate court action. (Accord: Amendment I, US Const, in re Redress Rights)

However, there is specific and explicit basis for review under the laws, rules, and appropriate case law:

Lower Tribunal would have This Court believe that the last word on its desire to restrict review access would be had by Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980)(holding that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the unelaborated denials or per curiam decisions without opinion of the district courts).

However, a closer reading of Jenkins reveals that this holding is specifically directed to decisions of District Courts of Appeal, in which conflict exists between other 

6

District Courts of Appeal -or between decisions made by This Court, The Florida Supreme Court:

A district court decision without opinion is not reviewable on discretionary conflict jurisdiction. See again: Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1980); Accord: Dodi Publishing Co. v. Editorial Am., S.A., 385 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1980). 

Although there is the great temptation for This Court to take the path of least resistance (and, indeed, the case load of This Court is high and heavy), nonetheless, the precedent set -and attendant justice effected for those all affected -would no doubt weigh in the balance for This Court in favor of taking review of the case at bar. (I.e., the "case law" set here would go a long way in "settling" these two "unsettled" areas of case law.)

Other judges in history have been overwhelmed with caseload, however, even as far back as roughly 4,000 years ago, The Courts had similar problems -and knew how to address them: The Courts appointed additional judges. (In re Jethro v Moses, EXODUS 18:14-27, Holy Bible, KJV, finding that when there was an insufficient number of justices, additional judges must of necessity be appointed.)

This Court should discharge its duty, enjoy itself in the process, and hire more Justices, ordain more courts, while reducing salary if necessary to meet budgetary constraints, to meet its obligation. In the instant case, even if short-staffed, it is hoped that This Court will see the positive assistance this brief offers the courts, and be merciful in return by staying within the protective constraints of law.

While the "inherent invalidity" doctrine has now been abolished, pursuant to updates in the constitution, "commentators have suggested that the Florida Supreme Court might properly exercise this type of jurisdiction in the rare event that a district court has summarily affirmed a lower court's ruling expressly invalidating a statute." The Operation and Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, Kogan and Waters, 18 Nova L. Rev 1151, (Fla. 1994), at V. D., citing Arthur J. England, Jr., et al., Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida: 1980 Reforms, 32 U. FLA. L. REV. 147, 169-70 (Fla. 1980))

But, This Court asks: "Is this really true?"

ANSWER: Within the "four corners" of the Initial Brief of the Appellant, Watts v Fla Dept of State in case number 1D02-5102, it is quite clear that the circuit court's ruling expressly invalidated those statutes relating to "immediate hearing" and 

7

recounts of the votes the 2002 Florida Gubernatorial Primary, also suggesting this violation of law will happen in the future, further complicating the gross violations that have already occurred. The District Court is on record as having summarily affirmed the lower court's ruling, and, per supra, thus invokes this courts appellate jurisdiction in the case at bar. (The "commentators" are thought to be right, having served in professional capacity themselves.)

This Court, for better or for worse, is constrained by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure:

The RULES, when mandating that the decisions of the district court must, of necessity explicitly state an act, declare so as to wit:

"The discretionary jurisdiction of the supreme court may be sought to review (A) decisions of district courts that (i) EXPRESSLY declare valid a state statute; (ii) EXPRESSLY construe a provision of the state or federal constitution;" (RULE 9.030(A)(i) and (ii), Fla.R.App.P., Emphasis added with Caps)

If mandatory jurisdiction had required these same standards then the constitutional revisers would have explicitly included them, as they have here supra. Yet, do they? See RULES infra:

RULE 9.030(a)(1)(A)(ii), Fla.R.App.P.: [Mandatory] Appeal Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court SHALL review, by appeal decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or provision of the state constitution." (Emphasis added by capitalization; Comments added in brackets)

There is no constitutional, statutory, or procedural requirement for “express or explicit” declaration. This Court has jurisdiction.

Thus, the case law remains unsettled, as well as This Court and all the State, for the two areas concerned and addressed in this instant appeal.

8

IN CONCLUSION: While the making of case law in these two areas is of utmost importance, even more paramount is this axiom:

The Laws of the Land have been written for the purpose of protecting "little" people from oppressive abuses and egregious violations. The intent of the "forefathers" was this. It is therefore offensive that these laws would be written and appellate courts would come along and snub This Court, by first rendering decisions that deny justice to the "little" people, and then by attempting to deny This Court review jurisdiction access.

This is added on top of the violations of the Florida Dept of State, who may have in its employ some employees who are very willing to do their job and comply with State Law, if only they can get "permission" from the "Higher Courts," whoever they may be. The petitioner, acting as his own attorney, is effectively one of the "officers of the court and as such constitute an important part of the judicial system." (Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 40 So.2d 902 at 907 (Fla. 1949)) As officers of the court, we have given our word to uphold the laws of Florida. When writing laws and setting case law, the Legislative and Judicial, respectively, give their (our) word that we enforce these laws.

With the tarnished reputation of prior "findings" by The Courts (e.g., "...and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857)), This Court must be careful to be a good steward of the authority conferred upon it: When we have given our word regarding a matter, unless it be adverse to life, "[w]e must keep our word." (Watts, 2004)

In the interests of: (1) Establishing solid case law; (2) Exercising protective appellate authority of its charges (the "little" people); and, (3) For the interests of satisfying curiosity of all the underlying issues, This Court should take this case, and should furthermore (4) Overturn in part the order of the District Appellate Court; and, Remand in part, ordering the Department of State to order a recount of the votes in question and let the chips fall where they may, with the assurance that we have kept our promises to our charges to the best of our abilities.

				Respectfully submitted,

				Gordon Wayne Watts
				GORDON W. WATTS, Petitioner / Plaintiff / Appellant

9

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In accord with RULE 9.210(a)(5), I certify that the Jurisdictional Brief shall not exceed 10 pages -not counting cover page and table of contents, if any, and Certificate of Service. Furthermore, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P.9.210 (a), Plaintiff hereby certifies that standards were met by using the following in typeset: Font Size = 14 ; Font Type = “Times New Roman” ; Margins = 1 inch in top, bottom, left, and right.
				_Gordon Wayne Watts_____________
				Gordon W. Watts
				
				Respectfully submitted,

				GORDON W. WATTS, Petitioner / Plaintiff / Appellant
				821 Alicia Road - Lakeland, Florida 33801-2113
				Home Phone: 863-688-9880
				Work Phones: 863-686-3411 and 863-687-6141
				Electronic Mail: Gww1210@aol.com

SUPPLAMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this brief and most other briefs in this cause shall be made available online as soon as is reasonably possible at the following URL’s:

http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210

http://www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the was sent to the following parties this _07th_ day of _February_, 2004 by U.S. Postal Mail:
* Hon. Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court of Florida - 500 South Duval Street - Tallahassee, FL 32399-1927
* Hon. Jon S. Wheeler, Clerk, First District Court of Appeal - 301 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1850
* Hon. Bob Inzar, Clerk, Second Circuit Court - 301 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32301-1803
* Hon. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Governor - The Capitol - 32399-0001
* George L. Waas, Senior Assistant Attorney General - PL 01, The Capitol - Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
* Dawn Kimmel Roberts, [The New] General Counsel for the Florida Department of State, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
* Phyllis Hampton, General Counsel of the Fla Elections Commission - 107 West Gaines Street - Suite 224, Tallahassee, FL 32399-6549
* Hon. P. Kevin Davey, Judge - P.O. Box 726, Tallahassee, FL 32302-0726
* William "Bill" McBride - P.O. Box 219, Thonotosassa, FL 33592-0219
* Janet Reno - Janet Reno for Governor Campaign - 15495 Eagle Nest Lane,

10

Suite 2002, Miami Lakes, FL 33014-2242
* Janet Reno - P.O. Box 162117, Miami, FL 33116-2117
    				_Gordon Wayne Watts______________
    				GORDON W. WATTS

				Acting Attorney for the Appellant:
				Gordon W. Watts, PRO SE

11