Vishrut Amin, et ux. v. Carla R. Pepperman, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as County Judge for Lake County, Florida

Petitioners were unlawfully prevented from physically appearing in to court against their will by Judge Carla R Pepperman (Pepperman). Petitioners were not consulted nor were consent obtained prior to issuing of unilateral order of remote hearing. She when presented with simple question through motion “WHAT JURISDICTION COURT HAS OVER PERSONAL PROPERTY OF LITIGANTS FOR ORDERING THEIR USE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEIR WILL?” She did not answer but has continued her discretionary practice till date. Petitioners were forced to file civil law suit under provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking permanent injunction in federal court against this inhuman and draconian practice forced upon petitioners which is violating their privacy and constitutional rights. Federal judiciary further complicated issue through continuous deprivation of constitutional right of petitioners. District judge dismiss the complaint with prejudice citing controversial local doctrine of “SHOTGUN PLEADING” without affording due process of law to petitioners. 11th circuit court was asked only to review the legality of final judgment rendered and reverse it. They took a diversionary approach and tried to portray that case is not about injunctive relief petitioners are requesting but about judicial immunity of corrupt and malicious judge Thus the question(s) presented are; (a) Does practice of Judge Pepperman of unilaterally ordering petitioners to appear .through remote hearing only which involves non-consented and non-compensated use of personal property of \