Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Larry R. Bradshaw
Petitioner
9.030(b)(3), and Rule 9.100(a), files this “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” to
Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County Florida, Civil Division, to reinstate
Adams (substitute judge) without a written order on July 07, 2008, and order
1
I. BASIS FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT.
V. Section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and Fla. App. Rule[s] 9.030(b)
1), without a written order signed, filed or served. But where, attorney
Cindy Runyun, filed the Form 1.998 Final Disposition on 7/3/08, indicating
the case was dismissed before hearing and that Plaintiff was the prevailing
party (Exh. P-6). This document is in conflict with the online Docket (Exh.
P-11) which shows the case was voluntary dismissed after hearing on 7/9/08.
dismissal does not require an order of the court, it is done by filing a notice
pursuant to Rule 1.420(a). Petitioner would advise the court for clarity,
regarding the note at the bottom of the page, which mentions the return of
2
the original note. Plaintiff’s requested the return of the original note at 4. on
the ex parte Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the case and cancel Lis Pendens
(Exh. P-13) which Judge Steinbeck filed in the court and served on the
Defendant, to which defendant filed his verified motion to strike the motion
to voluntarily dismiss the case and cancel lis pendens on 6/17/2008. Judge
with Judge Steinbeck that the original documents were never filed because
they were an issue for discovery that was never satisfied. It must be noted
011562 had been voluntarily dismissed because it was brought in the name
Notwithstanding, that the only motions set for hearing on 7/7/08 was
voluntary dismissal had been filed, but had not been put into the docket),
summarily dismissed the case on July 07, 2008. Florida Default Law Group,
3
counsel for Washington Mutual Bank FKA et al, filed a notice of voluntary
Disregard Judge Adams order dismissing the case without prejudice and
notice of voluntary case dismissal for fraud (Exh. P-4). To which Judge
where he assumed without reading defense motion, that the case had been
that the record contains Court Minutes dated 9/29/08 which indicate another
hearing was held (Exh. P-7), where no one appeared and no action was
taken.
This case is rich with discrimination against the pro se litigant who
has diligently followed the rules of court, only to be blindsided time and
occasion to violate the rules of court and this litigants rights to due process
the pro se litigants access to the hallowed bar to present his case. And the
4
acts of Judge McHugh and Judge Richards, both claiming to have heard
18) that was set for hearing in Judge McHugh’s Court on February 22, 2010
at 11:00 A.m. EST, but was not heard by Judge McHugh, evidenced by
to go to Judge Richards Court on a lower floor where the case had been
transferred. Defendant and his father hurried to Judge Richards Court room
only to find the door was locked, but there were two attorneys in the court
find the door locked. She asked defendant and his father to wait as she
searched for someone with a key to get into the court room. Upon returning
the door was unlocked by a bailiff and all went inside where the assistant
checked the computer in Judge Richards Court. The assistant after observing
the computer told defendant that Judge Richards had heard the case and
from Judge Richards Court dated 2/22/10 (Exh. P-19). However, on 3/15/10
5
Judge McHugh issued a “corrected Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in
which he stated, “ This cause having come before the Court on February 22.
counsel and the Defendant, and being otherwise fully advised in the
case.
legally insufficient, but the docket only shows the objection being filed on
is confused as to how two different judges heard the same arguments at the
same time on the same day when they were on two different floors of the
case no. 08-CA-055974 explains in painful detail, the fraud on the court by
deceitful actions on the part of Judge McHugh. (Exh. P-16 and affidavit Exh.
6
P-17, incorporate herein as though fully set forth in this Petition), which
The Courts failure, for whatever reason, (See Exhibit P-21 for a
possible reason), to follow the Rules of Court and prevailing case law, is a
departure from the requirements of due process of law and has cause
(a) This Petition for Writ of Mandamus is filed as a result of the same
case having been filed three times, against the Petitioner by two different
plaintiffs, retaining the same law firm, each claiming to be the holder in due
course of the original note, from which all three actions arose. Case No. 06-
notwithstanding there was no hearing on 7/9/08, and the case was dismissed
written order was ever signed, filed or served. The Third filing by plaintiff
7
US Bank National Association ATF GSMPS, on 6/26/2010 is also at issue,
and presently ongoing as a result of the McHugh Court’s refusal to Stay the
case under Rule 1.420(d) pending Defendant’s Motion for Costs, which
was signed by an attorney not of record, who had not complied with Judge
Steinbeck’s order dated April 18, 2008 (Exh. P-8), to rectify the issue of
attorney of record, after being alerted to the fact, that the Attorney of record
Kiersten Jensen, had abandoned the case soon after filing the original
comply with substitute judge, Judge Steinbeck’s order, leaving the case
Dismissal a legal nullity. However, Florida Default Law Group, Inc., re-
filed the same action the third time on 12/23/2008 under the name of US
Bank National Association AFT GSMPS. The present case while filed by
attorney of record, because all other documents filed in that case were signed
by other attorneys who have not made the required notice of appearance.
8
The Petitioner is requesting that his Writ of Mandamus be
granted and that this Court direct Judge Fuller to reinstate case no. 07-CA-
011562 and grant defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis
honorable court, and order the judges and or Clerk of Courts to remove the
gallery microphones, and reinstate the pro se dignity and deserved respect to
the court rooms, and order restitution as allowed by law in both cases.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Dismissal, filed by an attorney not of record, who at the time of filing the
to disregard Judge Adams order dismissing the case without prejudice and
9
case number 07-CA-011562 and enter default on the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment.
The instant case is the third action filed by Florida Default Law
US Bank National Association as Trustee for GSMPS 2004-4 case no. 08-
CA-055974. The instant action was filed after case number 07-CA-011562,
was wrongfully dismissed by Judge Adams without cause and without the
clears the way for the prevailing party to file his motion for costs. See State
v Siegel, 662 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 1995) where the Court
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the record on appeal did
not contain a signed, written order of the trial court, citing Fla. R. App. P.
9.020(g), and 9.140(c)(2); State v. Smith, 557 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st. DCA
1990). Where the Defendant has 30 days to file his motion for costs
pursuant to Rule 1.525 “Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees” absent a
final order of the court the time has not begin to run (Rule 1.525- Any party
motion no later that 30 days after the filing of the judgment, including a
10
the instant case, the record is void of any final order, signed, written or
Runyun was moot, because it was filed two days after the case was
being moot when filed, the Notice of voluntary dismissal was a legal nullity,
because the attorney of record in the case as of the hearing dated 7/7/08, on
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, had abandoned the case, and
record. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Prop., 693 So. 2d 82 (Fla. App.
2 Dist 1997). Nor did any additional attorneys’ file any notice of appearance
in that case. The Notice of Voluntary dismissal was not served on defendant
The record shows substitute judge, Judge Adams, presided over the
without cause, (did not grant or deny any motions set for hearing that day)
and retained jurisdiction to consider defendant’s oral motion for costs, in the
event the case was refilled. The record shows that both attorneys’ of record,
11
Kiersten Jensen, and Barbara Leon, abandoned the case, See Order setting
case management conference dated March 18, 2008 (Exh. P-9), an order
dated 4/25/08 (Exh. P-8), and Court minutes dated 4/25/2008 (Exh. P-10).
Judge Margret Steinbeck, after being made aware of the improper status of
counsel, issued an order on April 18, 2008 directing Plaintiff and Plaintiff
4/25/08 to allow 30 days from the amended order, after Plaintiff noticed the
court to cancel the hearing on summary judgment set for 5/9/08. (The court
will notice a conflict between the Court minutes, orders and the online
docket) (Exhibit P-11) The record is void of any, “motion to withdraw from
Leon, had abandoned the case, and Plaintiff nor Florida Default Law Group
inc., the firm claiming to represent plaintiff, had not complied with the court
Steinbeck’s order, however, defendant’s noticing the new judge, of the status
of the case, fell on deaf ears. Evidenced by Judge Adams allowing (over
12
defendant’s objection), attorney Brian Hummel a “passer-by” in the court on
rectify the issue of who represents the plaintiff. Judge Adams also
notice of appearance with the court and serve a copy of the notice of
appearance on all parties in the proceeding. Judge Adams not only allowed
attorney Brian Hummel to stand-in for plaintiff without the required notice
contact attorney, Cindy Runyun, regarding her absence. Although the record
does not contain evidence of compliance with the Court order, Cindy
Runyun had purportedly been assigned the case by the Firm (Florida Default
Law Group Inc.), who was aware of Judge Steinbeck’s Order to rectify the
issue of attorney of record, but who had not complied with the order.
Attorney Cindy Runyun, had not made an appearance in the case, nor had
Jensen, Runyun, Leon and Fintell were in violation of both the rules of court
and a court order, which has not been rectified to this day.
13
Cindy Runyun had filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on Friday the 4th but
record, or that Rule 1.420(a) does not allow the Notice of Voluntary
Cindy Runyun had not complied with Judge Steinbeck’s order to resolve the
issue of counsel of record, nor had attorney Kiersten Jensen or Barbara Leon
complied with Rule 2.060(i). (See Pasco County v Quail Hollow Prop., 693
for costs. Judge Adams also ordered Brian Hummel to prepare the order.
Notwithstanding that not one attorney could legally represent plaintiff, Judge
judgment, and that record is void of any such order having been entered
dismissal was filed and served, signed by attorney Cindy Runyun, with the
14
Disregard Judge Adams Order Dismissing the case without prejudice and
voluntary case dismissal for fraud. Judge Fuller the originally assigned
judge, declined to rule stating in court minutes dated 9/15/08 ( “This case
was previously voluntarily dismissed. The court does not have jurisdiction to
address the motions.”). Judge Fuller did note there plaintiff attorney was
Mitchell Rothman, who was also in violation of the rules before stated.
Judge Adams and Judge Fuller seem to be unaware that Florida appellant
courts are unanimous that such actions, by an attorney not of record, are a
legal nullity. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Prop., cited above and
Hicks v. Hicks, 715 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); and Bortz v. Bortz, 675
So. 2d 622-624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), “We regard the Department of
attorney who is not of record in this case, because it is a legal nullity.” The
15
minutes dated 9/29/2008 (Exh. P-7) of a hearing that was not set or noticed
by either plaintiff or defendant, and no motion had been noticed for hearing,
but Judge Fuller noted the Plaintiff attorney to be, Kiersten E. Jensen.
Northside A/C. 2D09-5416 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 9-22-2010) addressed the issue
dismissal as a matter of right: (1) if there is fraud on the court, (2) if the
defendant can establish the common law exception to the right of voluntary
dismissal, or (3) if the plaintiff dismisses the case at a stage which is deemed
In that case, the parties were embroiled in litigation for ten years. 835 So.2d
at 194. Defendant Ormond Beach filed a summary judgment motion and the
matter was set for hearing. Id. Three days before the scheduled summary
without prejudice. Id. The trial court recognized the voluntary dismissal and
found the pending summary judgment motion moot. However, the Court
recognized that; “Other courts have interpreted the fraud exception to apply
on the court. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 790 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla.
16
2d DCA 2001) (concluding that trial court was required to accept notice of
voluntary dismissal where “the court made no finding of fraud, and there is
no basis in the record to find that the notice constituted a fraud on the court”)
Inc., 420 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) ( “A narrow exception [to the
plaintiff’s right to voluntary dismiss his lawsuit] exist where a fraud on the
dismissal was not filed or served until after the summary judgment hearing,
numerous rules of court stated above. Defendant asserts that plaintiff and
plaintiff’s counsel’s, refusal to comply with the rules of court or the order of
attorney Brian Hummel misleading Judge Adams regarding when the Notice
The question for this court is: if case no. 07CA-011562 is still
open, due to fraud or gross incompetence by both the attorneys and the
17
and the applicable rules, statutes and common law applied, there appears to
be two separate and distinct cases, (1) case number 07-CA-011562 listing
and (2) case no. 08-CA-055974 listing U.S. Bank National Association as
trustee for GSMPS 2004-4) (Exh. P-12), both suing as “owner and holder”
assignments, and both cases are plagued with the same defiant attorneys who
attorneys who have appeared in the past and present action, without filing
any notice of appearance and especially the present Motion for Summary
Judgment filed in case no. 08-CA-055974, another legal nullity, having been
Florida Default Law Group and certain judges, who have seen fit to conduct
their courts in manner that defies the rule of law, and Petitioner’s
Fuller and Judge McHugh have neglected their duty of care, and allowed or
18
by commission or omission, resulting in a legal quandary resembling “Fraud
on the Court.”
This Court in 2007 addressed and clarified the issue of fraud on the
court which seems to fit here. In Miller v Nelms, 966 So. 2d 437 (Fla. App. 2
Dist 2007) this court acknowledged that fraud that warrants dismissal of a
959 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Where as here there is sufficient
Florida Default Law Group, and certain judges in the Lee County Circuit
on, pursuant to the explanation of the 5th District Court of Appeals in Luckey
v State, 5D06-3851 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 4-11-2008 citing Scull v. State, 569
the court have abused judicial and professional discretion and in so doing
19
has constructed a fraud on the court, resulting in a constitutional (both State
and Federal) violation of due process of law. The 1st Circuit Court of
Appeals in Independent Oil & Chem., v. Procter & Gamble, 864 F. 2d 927
is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no
improper factors are assessed but the court makes a serious mistake in
weighing them.
Petitioner, Larry r. Bradshaw, pro se has been denied his right to due
process of law by the both court’s, Fuller and McHugh, where the two cases
have seen at least five different judges and at least 10 different attorneys,
none of which are in compliance with the Rules of Court, even William
petition, all other motions have been signed by other attorneys not of record,
20
by collusion between the wayward judges and the conspiring attorneys, who
have egregiously defiled the integrity and impartiality of the Judicial System
in Lee County. In so doing, has left this petitioner with a non-final, un-
from filing his motion for costs without a signed final order, and likewise
prevented from filing an appeal without a signed final order. Whereas the
was filed after the case was dismissed by the Court, if that was legally
without remedy.. Petitioner cannot invoke the mandatory stay under Rule
1.420(d) in case no. 08-CA-055974 until he files his motion for Cost in 07-
that plaintiffs and plaintiff’s counsels have conspired with the Lee County
21
Court judges with intent to discriminate against a class of litigants called
the bar or otherwise having the same rights and privileges as bar licensed
that pro se litigants are an inferior class, that has now, been “outlawed” from
the people, and the Judges who sit in those court rooms are their servants,
discrimination at the hands of bar licensed attorneys, would have the same
our highways.
CONCLUSION
prejudiced the pro se litigant who has diligently attempted to follow the rules
the Lee County Judicial System. Petitioner asserts that the court order, by
22
Judge Adams in case no 07-CA-011562 is a non-final order, issued without
merit or basis in law, and that the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is both a
legal nullity and moot, rendering the case still pending, having no final
matter of law. Petitioner request this Court grant the petition for Writ of
and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and order the Mc
Hugh Court in case no. 08-CA-055974 to dismiss that case under the
doctrine of res adjudicate or collateral estoppel. And order the judges and or
Clerk of Courts to remove the gallery microphones, and reinstate the pro se
dignity and deserved respect to the court rooms, and grant petitioner (Larry
Submitted by
_______________
Larry R. Bradshaw
18291 Useppa Rd.
Ft. Myers, Florida 33967
Ph# 239-770-7393
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
23
I, Larry R. Bradshaw, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been sent by U.S. Mail or hand delivered by private server to
the following parties on the _______day of November, 2010:
Florida Default Law Group P.L at P.O. Box 25018 Tampa, Florida 33622-
5018 Counsel for:
24