Antonio Perez v. City of Miami, Code Enforcement Board

Petitioner, a US citizen, was deprived of the granny flat in his home by a board where the city had a 99.4% win rate. Review was by appeal only. The city pays a pension to appellate judge. Disqualification was denied. Administrative order received one-word affirmance. 4 unexplained dispositions followed. Pro se briefs were respectful and motivated: Petitioner, a shy Harvard MBA graduate [GMAT entry test 760 vs. 708 class average], and foreign-trained attorney, had studied intensively in a Jesuit law school in Spain. Local entities and FDR share regulatory nature. An entity can also be as aggressive to a lower court as FDR was to this Court. In 1816 Jefferson noticed that lower courts lack protections: He was not amused. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the “appellate review model” is contrary to evidentiary standard protections, one of them being Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).

2. Whether elaborated dispositions in non-en banc courts are a substantive due process protection.

3. Whether preponderance of the evidence is insufficient standard in civil enforcement.

4. Whether Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

5. applies to civil enforcement.

6. Whether a private party retains one peremptory disqualification in non-era banc courts.

7. Whether judges hold office during good behavior.

8. Whether State Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction is a substantive due process protection.