UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 6:0xxx
)
JOHN PATRIOT , )
)
Respondent. )
________________________________________)
1. Now comes the Respondent, pro se, to the Court to request that a VACATE JUDGMENT be issued on the order that was filed by the court on September 15, 2008.
2. The order that is being discussed was issued on September 15, 2008. The documents that cause the issuance of this order were RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS and MOTION TO ENFORCE SUMMONS which were filed on September 11, 2008 by the opposing attorney. I did not get my copy of these documents until September 13, 2008. There is only four days between the filing by the opposing attorney and the issuance of this order. I have filed two briefs: REPLY TO THE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (September 15, 2008) and OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SUMMONS (September 18, 2008). The court did not allow enough time for these documents to filed and could not have reviewed them in making a decision. These documents should be taken into consideration before issuing an order.
3. This is not the first time that the court has been issued an order before Respondent could answer the opposing party’s document. This happen on June 27, 2008 when the opposing attorney filed a motion on June 26, 2008.
4. Also, in the order of September 15, 2008, is a mandatory “pocket summons” meeting ordered to take place on September 26, 2008 at a place that is not neutral. The customary time for preparation is twenty-one days. I object to scheduling of this meeting because from September 15, 2008 (I did not get the document until the 17th) to September 26, 2008 is not the twenty-one required days that is allowed preparation for the individual.
5. The Respondent has always been a law abiding individual. The worst infraction outside the law has been an occasional traffic ticket that was not an intention to chronically break the law. I do not understand why I am being threatened with sanctions with possible incarceration when I have always tried to obey the laws and statutes of the current governing bodies.
6. The Respondent expects others to stay within the standards that he is expected to adhere. The “pocket summons” that was given to the Respondent came from an individual that never presented his identify. When the Respondent wrote a letter (May 9, 2007) requesting another date because the summons was issued without the twenty-one day required notice, it was not answered for approximately nine months. The rule of law states if a fact is not refuted within twenty days it means that the party has agreed to it.
I hereby certify that on or about the date listed below I have mailed to the opposing counsel a copy of this document with the proper postage to insure its delivery.
Date: September 2008
Respondent, pro se
St. Cloud, Florida 34772