P. 1
Complaint Vega vs Howell Pt 5

Complaint Vega vs Howell Pt 5

|Views: 13|Likes:
Publicado portruth2go
same tired bunch of clowns that gave us the Casey Anthony circus, talking about courthouse employees, judges and Orange County Sheriff's security goobers
same tired bunch of clowns that gave us the Casey Anthony circus, talking about courthouse employees, judges and Orange County Sheriff's security goobers

More info:

Published by: truth2go on Nov 22, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2013

pdf

text

original

/

Anthony,

November

24, 03

The reason I decided to file a complaint against Sprinkel was my review of Stephanie's petition for injunction for protection against repeat violence. I had never really looked at it that closely before. When I saw Section III CASE HISTORY AND REASON FOR SEEKING PETITION sub clause #4 it states Respondent has directed at least 2 incidents of "violence" against Petioner or a member of Petitioner's immediate family. Subsection 4 even defines "violence" specifically as meaning assault, aggravated stalking, kidnapping or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death against Petitioner. When I kicked her out of the 81 yr.old mother's house 2 days before Bill died that was not stalking. When I went to the probate hearing in January that was not stalking. When I went to public records room 320 to see her file that was not stalking. Nothing she listed against me qualifies under section 4. Thus no basis for an injunction. Judge Hauser, injunction judge of the week, was smart enough to see this and refuseo to sign for an injunction. She went judge shopping and got Sprinkel who had previously saved her ass about the tapes in the Patrick Howell case to sign it. He only signed a piece of paper without reading the petition. How else can you explain issuing an injunction against Lucey when there is nothing listed on the petition that Lucey did to Stephanie. NOTHING. An injunction was served on Lucey with no allegations against her whatsoever. And nothing she lists about Louis Vega qualifies under section 4. Thus Stephanie violated the swearing and affirming under oath clause at the end of her petition, which she signed. That's why I filed charges dept. 11-17-03. Louis Vega 407-365-0994 with the sheriff's

To: Judicial Qualifications Commission, Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director,1110 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32303 From: Lucey Olney, 3617 Foxcroft Circle, Oviedo, Florida 32765 407-365..0994 April 12, 2005

l
Dear.Ms. Kennerly,
.:

This complaint is against Circuit Court Judge George A. Sprinkel IV, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Orange County Courthouse, Orlando, Florida. This judge issued a temporary injunction 03-DR-5311 against my husband and I on April 3, 2003 for petitioner Stephanie Howell, a former colleague of his (Ms. Howell, at the time was chief legal counsel for Orange County Clerk of Courts, Lydia Gardner, who was listed as a . witness for Ms. Howell on the petition.) The petition failed to qualify as to having any legal merit based in the law as outlined by 2003 Florida Statute 784.046 and also on the petition form itself, re: Section III, line item 4, Case History And Reason For Seeking Petition on page 2 of the petition. The petition was so meritless under the law that Judge James C. Hauser, the judge originally assigned to review petitions for a temporary injunction, refused to sign Ms. Howell's petition but allowed her to go "judge shopping". She went straight to Judge Sprinkel, who was the presiding judge on Ms. Howell's child custody case 99-DR-2049, Howell vs. Howell, ongoing at the very same time. We were her ex-husband's (Patrick Howell) primary witnesses against her, having been subpoenaed to present evidence and tapes of Ms. Howell's illegal wiretapping of phone conversations with Mr. Howell conducted in the offices of the Orange County Clerk of Courts, Lydia Gardner. This is well documented in the deposition of Ms. Howell from July 31, 2002 in Howell vs. Howell, 99-DR-2049 which Judge Sprinkel sealed on April 23, 2003. Fortunately, we made copies of most of the incriminating documents before the file was sealed, but not without a price. On April 1, 2003 we started copying the court file and on April 3 Ms. Howell got Judge Sprinkel to sign her petition for a temporary injunction for protection against repeat violence which was served in Public Records Domestic Relations Rm. 320 where we had been viewing the file. We were also the executors in the estate of Ms. Howell's late husband, William H. Olney, Jr., a position Ms. Howell desperately wanted and she was going to use a final injunction ruling as a tool to have us removed from that position. She would be next in line to be executor, a position that would have resulted in great financial gain for Ms. Howell. A careful reading of Ms. Howell's petition shows no allegations against myself whatsoever but Judge Sprinkel had no problem with that. Her 4 year old son, Holden was listed as a petitioner also but there are no allegations that we did anything toward him at all. More than enough reasons for a fair-minded judge to reject the petition, as documented by a form provided to the court called Order Denying Petition For Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence. We have included an example of that form from another case signed by Judge Hauser, which he should have done in our case when he refused to sign Ms. Howell's petition. After the preliminary hearing, we were never allowed to see a judge and this "temporary injunction" lasted almost a year before Ms. Howell was forced to do a voluntary dismissal, but not before we spent almost $10,000 in legal fees. Ms. Howell's attorney was James Taylor while we retained first, Atty. Roger Weeden and later Atty. Jon Gutmacher. Sincerely: ~~~ Lucey Olney Personal Administrator for the Estate of William H. Olney, 48-2002-CP-1273-0
General Page 1

*

You are so right! This is the very essense of the problem with the judicial process in Florida. They run unopposed, because to run against them is suicide if you ever hope to practice law again. They have huge coffers for re-election, yet we as voters never see and ad about them, have any access to acurate information on how they rule on cases, how long they force litigants to wait between court appearances, how they handle themselves in and out of the courtroom. I was told this week, by a reporter, that unless the person filing the complaint againt the judge notifies them of the complaint and provides a copy - that NO COMPLAINT WITH THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION IS A PUBLIC RECORD!!! I would like to have them explain to the Florida voters how ANY ELECETED public official, who has complaints filed against them is PROTECTED from open discovery and public record of these complaints! There is NO REASON for this protection. Certainly, the Press has the ability and knowhow to access a bogus complaint from one with merit. AND who does the JQC think they are, that they can unilaterally make decisions on the validity of a case with no research of evidence? When I asked to see the records of the "MEETINGS" that were held to find Hasuer "innocent" (yea, right) in my case, I was told that I had NO RIGHT TO THOSE RECORDS! NOR did I have any right to even know who was in the room making the decision on my JQC Complaint. How is it that the person filing the complaint does not even have the right to see WHY the JQC dedcided he was innocent???? What are they covering up???? We all know that even with the Press involved. all the JQC did to Snoop for throwing innocent people in jail in Seminole County, was to slap his wrist. It was the Supreme Court that is now involved and MAY act more responsibly with his discipline. Meanwhile he sits in his job and we as tax payers pay his wages. No wonder Judges believe themselves to not only be above the law - but think they are god-like in their actions over human beings. The system has been set up in Florida to propogate that behavior and protection.

Page 1

Stephanie Howell, be subjected to deposition. My attorney reminded Judge Hauser that if Ms. Howell was making allegations in her petition for a permanent injunction, the respondents had every right to take depositions. The judge concurred. (Three weeks after my wife and 1 had Ms. Howell and her boss, Lydia Gardner deposed, Ms. Howell lost her job of five years at the Orange County Courthouse: Date of deposition 5-21-03, Date of Ms. Howell's resignation 6-13-03 Date depos returned by the court reporter 6-20-03). Through our courthouse research my wife and 1 came to find out that injunctions at the Orange County Courthouse are handled on a rotating basis by judges in the domestic division. Every 10 days or so a new judge becomes the injunction "judge of the week". That first week of April, 2003 Judge Hauser was the assigned injunction "judge of the week" and his close personal friend, courthouse attorney Stephanie Howell came to him to sign her temporary injunction she was seeking against my wife and I. Judge Hauser refused. This fact is irrefutable. What we don't know is when exactly Ms. Howell approached Judge Hauser. It had to be between April 1, 2003 when my wife and 1 showed up at the courthouse to research Ms. Howell's child custody court case file 99-DR-2049 Howell vs. Howell and April 3, 2003 when Judge Sprinkel's signature appeared on the temporary injunction. 1 have included a sample copy with Judge Hauser's signature of an order denying petition for injunction for protection against repeat violence. It is dated April 2, 2003 (the day before ours was issued) and the case no. is 03-DR-5232 Newbold vs Newbold. This is the procedure Judge Hauser should have followed when he refused to sign Ms. Howell's temporary injunction. The judge can't say he refused to sign Ms. Howell's injunction because he knew her. That assertion is negated by the fact that he Willfully accepted being assigned the injunction case 03-DR-5311 and the judge made no effort to voluntarily recuse himself even after Ms. Howell's declaration of a relationship with Judge Hauser at the preliminary hearing. 1 told my attorney not to make the motion for recusal because 1 wanted to see if Judge Hauser would do the right thing ethically. He did not and set up a final injunction hearing for April 29, 2003. (I have included a copy of that hearing notice.) This after knowing full well that my attorney had planned to do a series of depositions. On April 25, 2003 we filed a motion for Judge Hauser's recusal and the judge granted the order the same day. Four days later on April 29, 2003 he turned a temporary injunction into a permanent one with his "until further order" notice. This was a judicial trick to benefit his good friend Stephanie Howell. She no longer had to worry about renewing her temporary injunction as the law mandated. My case was now in legal limbo where it would remain for 10 months with no chance for a hearing or to even see a judge. Judge Hauser effectively tried to have me legally tied up in knots with no light at the end of the tunnel. The only reason Judge Hauser refused to sign Ms. Howell's petition for a temporary injunction was that any judge that reviewed Ms. Howell's petition for a temporary injunction would realize that it was meritless under the law. There was no gray area here as Attorney Gutmacher showed in his motion to vacate. The fact

that there were no allegations against my wife listed on Ms. Howell's petition was enough of a reason to dismiss it outright. That was supported by line item #3 on the sample "Order Oenying Petition For Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence" that I have submitted (Newbold vs. Newbold). Line item #3 states "Petitioner has failed to complete a mandatory portion of the petition." Ms. Howell's failure to list any allegations against Lucey Olney supported outright dismissal of her petition for injunction. Clearly Judge Hauser was too smart to sign off on Ms. Howell's petition in spite of their long-standing relationship. But he didn't have the judicial courage to do the right thing and dismiss it as he did on April 2, 2003 in Newbold vs. Newbold. Instead he tells her she's free to go judge shopping. To show that Judge Hauser was indeed the injunction "judge of the week" I have enclosed a copy of every injunction signed over a three day period by Judge Hauser, April 3 being the date of our injunction, April 2 the day before, and April 4 the day after. Judge Hauser signed everyone but ours. Yet he shows up at the preliminary hearing knowing full well what kind of relationship he has had with the petitioner Stephanie Howell throughout the years and knowing full well that he had thoroughly discussed the injunction with Ms. Howell before telling her he could not sign it. When I read the deposition of Stephanie Howell taken on May 21, 2003 in the injunction case 03-0R-5311 which the court reporter finally delivered to my attorney on June 20, 2003, I discovered that Ms. Howell had refused to name the judge who signed her temporary injunction (please refer to pgs. 21-22 in the deposition of Stephanie Howell dated 5-21-03 case # 03-0R-5311). This despite the fact that this judge had been the judge who sealed her 5 year old child custody case 30 days earlier on April 23, 2003 and had been serving as the presiding judge on that same child custody case since January, 2003. She knew Judge Sprinkel very well. Stephanie Howell had been working at the courthouse for five years and she made it her mission to get acquainted with any judge (and especially their JAs) involved in her various court cases. The way she tried to control and/or influence the various court related functions (when she could) speaks volumes about what anybody in a court action with Ms. Howell was up against. Ms. Howell was involved in 3 cases at the same time. Those parties caught up against her were as follows: (1) ex-husband Patrick Howell in the child custody case 99-0R-2049, with Judge Sprinkel presiding (and Judge Hauser advising) (2) Mary Olney, 82 year old mother of deceased Bill Olney, in the probate case 02-CP-1273, with Judge Kirkwood presiding, Judge Hauser advising (3) Lucey Olney, executor of the estate of Bill Olney (brother) in probate case 02-CP-1273 and also a respondent in Ms. Howell's temporary injunction case 03-0R-5311, which had both judges, Sprinkel & Hauser (4) Louis Vega, successor executor of the estate of Bill Olney in probate case 02-CP-1273 and also a respondent in Ms. Howell's temporary injunction case 03-0R-5311, which had both judges, Sprinkel & Hauser

Stephanie Howell's efforts to keep secret Judge Sprinkel's identity as being the judge who signed her temporary injunction was telling indeed: First the Civil Action Docket was altered with the listing of Judge W. C. Gridley on April 3, 2003 as being the judge of record in the issuing of Ms. Howell's temporary injunction. It is my belief that Ms. Howell either input this information herself or directed the data clerk to do so. Ms. Howell was very familiar with this process. This information can be found at the top of page 1 of the Civil Action Docket just under the case no. 48-2003-DR-005311-0. Judge Gridley had absolutely nothing to do with the issuing of Ms. Howell's temporary injunction or with anything else related to this case. His name was listed to cover up Judge Sprinkel's involvement in the issuing of an injunction that was without merit under the law and was designed to keep Ms. Howell's child custody court case file (99-DR-2049 Howell vs. Howell) out of public record domain and inaccessible to the public and/or concerned parties. Ms. Howell wanted it treated like an adoption case file which is essentially hidden from the public and which not uncoincidentally, is a technique Judge Sprinkel also utilized on his afternoon calendar docket from April 3, 2003, when he listed a 3 hour court hearing in adoption case 02-DR-19259, which the judge knew could not be accessed by my attorney for verification purposes. Adoption cases are not treated as public records and it is nearly impossible to get any information regarding these types of cases. Secondly, when my wife and I tried to find out who signed our injunction, no one in Domestic Relations Public Records Rm. 320 (Supervisor Joan Harrelson) could or would tell us who the judge in question was. We had initially assumed it was Hauser since he was the injunction "judge of the week" and since he was the judge at the preliminary hearing. Thirdly, when our attorney Roger Weeden questioned Ms. Howell under oath in the deposition of May 21, 2003, she at first refused to answer Attorney Weeden's questions as to whose signature was on the temporary injunction. Then when Ms. Howell's attorney James Taylor mentions Judge Sprinkel (the judge on the child custody case 99-DR-2049 Taylor was litigating for Ms. Howell), Stephanie Howell replies "I don't know who it is." (See pages 21-22 in the deposition of Ms. Howell taken on May 21, 2003 case no. 03-DR-5311.) Finally, on July 25, 2003 (4 months after the issuing of the "temporary" injunction), when I filed a complaint with the Seminole Co. Sheriff's department case #2003CJ005718, a deputy called the Orange County Courthouse Domestic Relations Rm. 320 and was told that Judge Sprinkel had signed the temporary injunction in case 03-DR-5311. My wife and I immediately recognized his name from the child custody case 99-DR-2049 Howell vs. Howell: a case we had been subpoenaed in on November 12, 2002 by Patrick Howell to present testimony about the blackmail and extortion of Mr. Howell by his ex-wife Stephanie Howell.

· _-..
't,. .. --

II

----~~~~----~~~--------~----~~~~~~~==Lo_u____:_:7 S'~_f-L-!'

-

15'

(

__ ~

__ ~~-+~~
_e>--tt--.L--

__

~~~~~~~~4~C~K

__
~

-----"-.-f

S-

J:_'~ Tr~

4--!.,_k-_5_!___/.-_-f--".J___'

Jv ~
C~K -

S~~:8,

$

s o-:« 7

-h~

~~_7S

_

___""'S-~-:_( _7

__

lf,--,--I_5

_I_

d._7=

_--H-_c:(___;:;_(c;e___~~ /~
--++-_~_~ ~.

/

L

F--/s- h
~~tJ
r

~S-

Ll ~

__

--++--~=--

_

_

~J

r-

---tl-----':::;_~_,_,.__

IN

v c) I tred
~

s;j5 k,vJ~
-=.

__

--+~~~c...:::=~u -

__

L_c.,<.-.J(S

~_2bL",,(LI

sk

_

7

f

IJ;z_Q

C.e Vb(
_

____,!3=---.--=<-_c::__-"-'-

_+0

~Cd(__js

_

--~~
0-.

4fvD -

t:J;,. ±~ A- (' I ~L--r~-~-------

~

~~.~W~------

7kY/
I

W ,(Jf~
C)

L r'Jt-e_

7

1-('

_J e. '

__

~-=:==:-b; _ ~

__

~

_

____ -+_~~~_r_------~~~~c~,~-----

______ ~----~--~~~/~~-u~----------~L--S,-a~~o~u-o------~+~P __
_____ ~-----~---~~~~
SAUI',_ (

----H--I,-~d:- ~~~-iJ~-------r-

~~_~_~ ~~/-O~O~O----~~UT'~X-----__

1\

------

---

-------------

,,__ / . -:3

,

-----+t-'--cr=-

--~~~Z~-~----~------~~--------~
~

____

~~~;;

-r- c-~dd

'l~k_~J__
~_s

"__)-=--1..r __

__ex___;___CQ.---jf1~~-I-l_I=--=-_f,_-,,__:__].~--=~~ _

11/

/

I

-t)~oe~~~--~~----------~---

.--

-;K_

II

-p.. It

"

.

--++---I---=-::

--

J 7~---'--'
-rfc:>..---I.~....--,,7f.,----,--,
=-..;G1'

~--IJ---

---H-

~

Li-----===----I-----D-2:---~~

--~--,-~

'-s+7-~

--~-+I--/'n-I-C! 8~ ....... +--O($9-~'2-:~-------

,?~+~~n--FJ--r---=f--r----r'<3""'?-o~--:T-~"--C;~/' .,----

Q<-J<._// ~

----_

~

16lcZ_

US'_

g 0 ,,-v 0

i~

/\-o-fJ

,tJ

~
'<- S'~

I

--fe__ ~
_LJcS __
d,J--!--.:-( ~::___' _

----H----~'----~A=c~~~~~&~.:...-:::--;::.~~:..::::.::....:-:--L--, r -r
I

__

---1+___

____:{2_Q

I

f)

~LL u:».

,

I Co v

CC)c.J~

/

I.
__ C::>-+I-

-----++--~t--e~

[VI) ~i)

I

r(&_U~ ~

~

~VJ

~/A
_f~c..¥d

~ ~,~
/

---

lydia Gardner
Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts

Public Record Request
407 ·836·6321

Request Date: Clerk Initials:

6 7

8
9 10
There is a charge of $0.50 for each additional file over 10 requested per person/business per day. Files arrive between 1:00 & 3:00 the following business day. Your files will be returned within 5 business days from order date. Once files are viewed they will also be returned that day.

Monday June 27, 2005 Family Court Services Room 330 Known as "Court Administration" on the C51 report Lorraine Baez now works in Room 330 At the time of our injunction (4/3/03) she worked in Domestic Relations Room 320 Injunctions Room 310 Family Services. Lorraine Baez explained the process and the time stamps to us: The petition gets filled out and turned in at Injunction Room 310 attached to 320. Family Services. The clerks in room 310 creats the file. The file then goes over to Room 330 Court Administration, where the clerks for the Judges type up the order for the Judge to review. Their only role is to prepare the orders. Then the file with the blank order goes back to room DR 320 / 310 where the Judges J.A.'s pick it up and bring it to the Judge. The J.A. 's come down thru-out the day to bring signed orders down and retrieve new orders. On 4/3/05 all the files ahead of us got retrieved by the J.A. for Hauser thru out the day as to when the petitions came in, but they didn't get returned to DR320 / 310 Family services til the end of the day, when according to the CSI report the files got transferred to the NEW CASE TRAY back downstairs in DR320 / 310 Family Services. (BECAUSE he was busy in court on 4/3/03 and didn't have time to sign til the end of the day) On 4/4/05 the next morning - all the files ahead of us got checked in according to the CSI REPORTand transferred to NEW CASE TRAY. The NEW CASE TRAY is where J.A.'S retrieve and return files. OURS DID NOT GO TO THE NEW CASE TRAY. TIME STAMPS: All time stamps get put on in room DR320 / 310 where the files are kept. They are the keeper of the files. The petition gets time stamped when it is filled out and given to Room 310.

On the FRONT of the ORDER the time gets stamped after the Judge signs the order and sends it down to DR320 / 310. Tha is what normally is to happen. We know from Christina Garrett that our petition that she processed at 4:00pm on 4/3/03 already had the Judges signature, because the in/out form had her say 4:00pm for both. And she states, "I do that if the Judge already has signed." We know from the CSI report that all the orders for 4/3/03 before ours was given to Judge Hauser's J.A. and they got timed stamped at the end of the day. And all of them went to NEW CASE TRAYS. EXCEPT OURS The CSI REPORT shows that room 330 COURT ADMINISTRATION did not get it til 4/4/03 8: 33 am the next day, when Deana personally checked it out from room 310 / 320. NO ONE FROM COURT ADMINISTRATION took a special interest in anyone elses case file, all the other case files got put in the case trays to be processed. (Judge Hauser told Kimberly Sheppard, supervisior in room 330 that he got it and turned it down because he knew Stephanie and gave it to Judge Sprinkle to sign. He also told the news reporter Anthony Colarossi this) We now know this did not happen. How did the order get filled out if the CSI REPORT doesn't show them getting it? CONCLUSION: SOMEONE WALKED IT THRU THEMSELVES. AND at the end of the day, got the time stamps put on. NORMAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

Lu"'~
~
~

~l)

~Q..t("

VY\crY'V\
"6l ~ VI

t

V\0.., 60
~

luctS

r<..e c a.....cJ
~h(/'{.eCG\~.s

be ~~

'-f

J "&)

100
0'3

lou '67 "\b $1 ~Y) ~ Sk-ph=---h\~ fjo\
II\.

OY~

1""'-

'SpY~

tv\'

\<.... \ ~

3a tktvt ~ Ld
h~
t>-€.

r

()P('(

I<-\~

l~'f't
VYtoY

~
V\ \ V\.~

~. c- C\.~ -e S

if" , V\.

k \~

Cvl ~"-\

Sc::M..-U

\-kcus.~ ~o t~

ex

~

c~

f~

CA_-{j~Y)~

c<.__.Uecl .

Skf~·(~
V\IL\~ ~

Y'D~~

cv~

Y-ee_ ~

o~ ~~ ~'(ocu..s~ed . ~~(J,t\.0 ~ t){2 ~ 1..0

~d

rt~

~ <S\(j~~ ov~ ex ~e.hhO'(\ S~~~ ~) ~ Lk h4-ci lAJa.~ ~ut" o..J- 'fe,_ \o~

eft-

d~
~ ~~\\.,Q

-\-Jt

td
'5

«s.
~

tc

h-\.~ lLe

Judor<:

()~

Luee\<.. /

Hzw~ex-.

u-

l00l<.

l ~~

u-

"t- ~
S

otS

~~.

· .STUFF I
1.

ffiED TO DO ON THIS CASE - VEGA

Inasmuch as malicious prosecution requires a "bona fide termination", there is a question whether the voluntary dismissal is fatal to this element. I need to see the file in the injunction case. [got vol dismiss was granted by the Court via order dated 5/29/03] need to see clock in time on the TEMP INJUNCTION I need to get copies of the domestic violence handouts I need to know the procedure in getting petit to ajudge, and then get Clerk's internal memos on such. I need to know "why" they agreed to a mutual release in the Estate case. Call their attorney.
= 5/28/03]

2.

this

3. 4. 5.

6.

In Re Estate of William Olney, Jr. 48-2002-:CP-1273-0 Attorneys = Mark P. Lang, Esq. 407-599-4433 Margaret Hoyt, Esq. (Oviedo) In Re FOlmer Marriage of Patrick C. Howell DR99-2049

Stephanie Howell v. Louis Vega & Lucy Olney; 03-DR~5311 Attorney = Roger L. Weeden, 609 E. Central Blvd.

.!EST;ATE-CASE
Mutual Settlement Agreement
1

~
7:-:-

~
.n

;-:-,.

-

~
.r,

.,".~="'.
r,
C'

mutual release between Louis and Lucy and Stephanie from any claims they now have, accrued or not yet accrued, except that Vega and Stephanie not released from injunction. May 8, 2003
,>,

INJUNCTION'
Petit & temp injun Vol dismiss Lucy Order confirming 4/3/03 5/28/03 5/29/03

-;.:p -"'-

.:";.-:

~'.'.

Conclusions:

The mutual release would destroy the action for abuse of process as that is existing claim at the time of the release.
It would serve as a defense to the malicious prosecution claims, although likely not be

successful as malicious prosecution accrues only upon the conclusion of the injunction case. The defense would be a much stronger argument against Lucy and Louis. • The fact that Lucy "bargained for" the dismissal of the injunction will likely be a defense against her malicious prosecution claim, as such is an element of malicious prosecution. It will likely, but not necessarily, survive summary judgment as there are "factual issues" as to this - but it will have substantial influence with the jury, and could also be a basis for reversal if she is successful. Because of the previous points, if Howell makes a Proposal of Settlement as to Lucy, there is a strong basis to accept it, although it is likely that any attorney time spent by Howell's attorney would not be divisible between Lucy and Louis, and thus be negated in the end.

)
CASE INTAKE COMPARISON FOR 4/3/03
-~

case 03-DR 5311 03-DR5310 03-DR5309 03-DR5301 03-DR5300 03-DR5299 03-DR5298

party vega

event created Family Services 4/3/03 - 4:06 pm created Family Services 4/3/03 - 3:40 pm created Family Services 4/3/03 - 3:36 pm created Family Services 4/3/03 - 2:15 pm created Family Services 4/3/03 - 2: 13 pm created Family Services 4/3/03 - 2:09 pm created Family Services 4/3/03 - 2:03 pm

event check out to Family Services 5:29 pm check out to Judges & JA's 3:51 pm check out to Judges & JA's 3:44pm check out to Judges & JA's 2:18 pm check out to Judges & JA's 2:17 pm check out to Judges & JA's 2:29 pm check out to Judges & JA's 2:07 pm

event transfer to Court Admin. 4/4/03 - 8:33 am transfer to Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 6: 58 am transfer to Family Services new case tray 5:19 pm transfer to Court Admin 4/4/03 - 9:32 am transfer to Family Services new case tray 4/4/04 - 6:58 am transfer to Family Services new case tray 5:29 pm transfer to Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 - 6:58 am

event check in from Court Admin. 4/4/03 3:45 pm check in from Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 - 11:06 am check in from Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 - 11:06 am transfer to Family Services 4/4/03 - 1:29 pm check in from Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 - 11:04 am check in from Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 - 11:03 am check in from Family Services new case tray 4/4/03 - 11:03 am

injunct clock 5:17 pm

watson

5: 14 pm

avery

?

roque hiller

5:15 pm 5:18 pm

oquendo

5:18 pm

epperson

5:14 pm

Page 1 of :
Louis Vega

From:
To:

Sent:

Subject:

"Louis Vega <lvega8@cfl.rr.com> <office@floridafirearmslaw.com> Thursday, June 23,200510:57 PM Temporary Injunction Not A Legal Instrument
ll

Dear Attorney Gutmacher, This case is over. Lucey was informed by a courthouse employee today that Stephanie Howell had the temporary injunction signed by Judge Sprinkel before 4:00 pm April 3, 2003 when she supposedly submitted her petition. I am instructing you to do whatever you can to get this information before Judge Mihol< as soon as possible. This injunction was illegal because it was notarized after Judge Sprinkel signed the order. Just like I've been saying all along. I'm afraid that if we wait this witness will get flipped. Do what you can to get me an emergency hearing on this matter. Louis.

Louis Vega From: To: Sent: Subject: Jon, We have enough for Judge Mihok to rule on. You know what Christina Garrett told Lucey. While you were leaving a message that we need more evidence, we were at the courthouse getting it. All of the petitions for April 3, 2003 got transferred to Family Court Services Rm 330 around 4:30 where the blank judge's order for injunction is attached to each petition for the judge to fill out if necessary. That blank order is timestamped on the front Side before it goes up to the "judge of the week". When they come back down from the judge they are stamped on the front top if the judge signs the injunction. Our copy never got a side stamp but it did get a top stamp of 5: 17 pm just like the other ones that came down from Hauser. Joan Harrelson and/or Deborah Bonjour (the deputy clerk who notarized Ms. Howell's petition) made sure that at least the top stamp was imprinted or else it would have really been obvious that me and Lucey were getting shafted. But she had to go across the hall to Family Court Services Rm 330 to do it. Unless, Family Court Services had the file but didn't send it up to Hauser since Sprinkel had already signed. One of those two scenarios occurred. The CSI report backs us up on this. It shows that the petition files created that day were transferred to Family Court Services around 4:30 from Domestic Relations for the "judge of the week" to deal with. Our CSI report for 03-DR-5311 shows our file didn't go to Family Court Services till 5:30 pm, long after the other injunctions had been sent back down by Judge Hauser. Hauser knows about this because Kimberly Sheperd (Family Court Services) was asked by me and Lucey in the summer of 03 why the side stamp was missing. She realized what had occurred but didn't tell us, but she did go up to Hauser about it and he lied and said "You remember I gave the order to Sprinkel." He never did because Sprinkel wasn't in the courthouse that afternoon. That adoption hearing you showed me from his calendar that April 3, 2003 never happened because me and Lucey were told that by a clerk. I want that emergency hearing if you can put this together for us. You know Judge Hauser doesn't want to be deposed. The only reason not to ask for an emergency hearing is if you can put together a case for a conspiracy by Orange County Courthouse employees from Domestic Relations and Family Court Services, Stephanie Howell and both judges and their JAs through their depositions. I'd go for that. Orange County has to be liable for what me and Lucey were put through by Stephanie Howell's friends at the courthouse. I feel like tieing one on tonight. This case is over. I don't think I have to let Mayanne Downs try to mow me and Lucey down, now do I?
"Louis Vega" <lvega8@cfl.rr.com> <office@floridafirearmslaw.com> Friday, June 24, 2005 8:29 PM Temporary Injunction Not A Valid Legal Instrument Cont'd

Jon H. Gutmacher, P.A.
Civil Rights & Criminal Law
200 N. Thornton Avenue, Orlando 32801 Phone: (407) 650-0770 Fax: (407) 425-7679 June 24,2005

Joseph Louis Vega & Lucy Olney 3617 Foxcroft Circle Oviedo, Fl. 32765 Re: Vega v. Howell injunction checklist

Dear Louis & Lucy: Got the checklist via your fax, and here's the problem: 1. 2. the clerk says the petition was pre-fil1ed out - which is very normal. at that point - the case is supposed to be filed prior to the judge seeing it - which corresponds with the receipt [4:09 pm]. Remember, the judge doesn't sign the petition - he signs the temporary injunction, thus, it appears either the clerk or you were confused - since the injunction would only get filed AFTER the petition was already filed. Assuming the clerk was telling you the truth, wasn't confused, and that you heard it right - then she seems to contradict herself. Why would she not file a new case until AFTER the judge sees it? Makes no sense to me. The receipt for filing the case is 4:09 pm. What is the date/time stamp on the Temporary Injunction???? That is rather critical. I'll bet it's about 5:00 p.m., which supports the fact that the signature was after the petition was filed, not before. I also assume the portion on the receipt of"$40.00" for the "injunction fee" is prepaid before the temporary injunction is issued??????? If it' s only paid after - then the receipt proves your point. But, I doubt it's anything other than a standard prepaid fee.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Anyway, I could be wrong - but as it stands - too many unanswered questions, and contradiction for me to get excited.

Regards,

Jon H. Gutmacher jhg/td

:'

r"'7M'W1+ o+='
Ami:

S t~f~6"~t U Dwell! rece<p-t ~..-

+1Mer ~

IhjVV)J{OY\
a fV' ~

.sh()kJ~

'W~ be (;8 Uf!.;
..WH LJPr

[i+c rref s-o /I.)

.ri;« "'./(: , A .~.,,_, "i_/e7 I;' \/o!va,£! J ~J# --f0_ /I/h~chv/-? officeI I /)

Yl0{- +ix _shr-{ #,. -r~e. r,/,:J ,,+ hv-, 'V v &h DYl ' ~ '"ivt'c.-h;n f"FlVork i.,». c.1;~~J J0'1 d b 1 r , j., ke-i 0'" e wh rye ce I ~e. ] /:> e. (i; o: fro cesr '» h c- J e.uV1 vl/L '" t/o {.Je../) he.";; . 4 ow -f-I:.,.tz t" oc"jvle_ Lu~J .s: ffore_£_ -fowor-k c-. -ff.....e_, ~~.-/>'>e; ( !)./'oces_srf_; of' .A,..., I~)~ c h oY\. .s c e
Y)

IV ~j. .rh

~I

r'

Official Receipt

f)

W

.:::r:+-

LYDIA GARDNER

CLERK OF THE COU DOMESTIC RELATIONS D APRIL 3, 2003
Receipi: No. 00000455 04:09 P.M.

t

i.:

Check/Acdll 1873
toconn Register Loc 62

!

INJ/HOWELL
2003-DR-D05311-0 POOl

bez;

PARCELiPET: CASE NM: HOWELL, STEPHANIE ET i'lL -V- VEGA! LUCY OLM CHECK ReI:. CHANGE DUE
Fee Type
$181.75

MUNIC CD

$Q.OO
Amount

II')

,I)

Jf" c e:

l-te.r sr),e.re. reSJ0t?Df.:,:t,-hes DS I~J CO o h Je-/ ~ Lyclh/:9.._ G ~vzet/" Or~YI~ Co. c u-t: 01 Lour-ist:r

rl- r.v J IJ. of Job d-vh-es /tJ
I

DOCKET FEE - OR $40.00 COURT EflUCALJN T i·2.50 LEGAL AID - DR $15.00 STATE TREASURER $8.00 LAW LIBRARY - DR $5.00 CITIZENS DISPUTE $2.00 COURT FACILITIES $13.00 MEDICAL EXAMINER $2.00 Court Service Fee --"~6-;tlO SENIORS FIRST - -0 $3.25 MEDIATION/ARBITRA $5.00 COURT CAPITAL - It $20.00 INJUNCTION FEE $40.00 Tot~l Applied
Bal~nce flue Case Status : $181. 75
$0.00

Case Status Date: 04-03-2003

" Att'€%l-h
(.-0 rn

'0

r, ~

A

C; U~4 citeV'

: {A) iJ

~'rII-- j;UC-(5

Y

1"on.
~
y\f)V""WlG\.\

S3l"2...
Lv

ku

~<i\d -nme.s

c~p~:s.Jh~Y""'\ ~(""" ~ p4C-h
"ShbWS

whaS
.

ex;
~Ul)\(_~

OUC s 5: ~ \\ (~~'tS) h~.s V0~ a
<E:.l~"S.·0Lu~

oc, r\~

~

I ~~~-\-

5t.tcw
~\<..

LO~

1u~~~ oJre~~
~ti.s

0:.

IS

June 23, 2005 I went to the Orange County Courthouse DR 320, the section where people go to fill out petitions for injunctions. I showed a clerk the INJUNCTION CHECKLIST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/REPEATVIOLENCE FORM. I asked the clerk, whose initials are on this form? She replied, I do not recognize those initials at all. I went to the other side of DR320 and asked a clerk the same question and she replied, I do not know and she told me to ask another clerk. That clerk replied, Christina Garrett. She is getting ready to leave for the day. The clerk pointed her out to me. I went over to Christina Garrett and asked if those were her intitials. yes. I only showed her the one form. or time stamps on the petition. She said,

I did not show her the petition with any names

She told me, this is an old case; I haven't worked on that side for some time. I asked her to explain the form for me. I asked her "Why isn't the top portion filled out?" She replied, "The top portion only gets filled out if the petitioner ask for the petition form from a clerk. It doesn't get filled out if the petitioner brings in the form already filled out" I asked her why she put the time as 4:00 pm on the top part of the form and 4:00pm on the bottom part of the form. She replied, I put the exact same time on the top and the bottom of the form to let me know that I filled out the form after the Judge had signed it. I asked her to repeat what she said.

_'v ~ T

I put the same time down on both sections, if I fill out the form after the Judge has signed it. She replied. I said, why did you put 4:00 pm? That is when, I got the petition to file. With the Judges signature already on it? I asked. Yes, she replied. (remember, she is just looking at the form, not the petition)

Do you fill out the bottom part of the form with the petitioner present? I can, but I also do it with out the petitioner there, she replied. Why? I asked. Because, this form HAS TO BE IN THE FILE, WHEN I PUTTHE PAPERWORK TOGETHER IN THE FILE. Why? I asked. Because, this form has to be in the file. I cannot, NOT put this form in the file. I cannot put the file together with out this form in the file. This form must be made out before the file gets put together. So the time 4:00pm, what is that? That is when I filled out the form. So, you would put down the time 4:00pm when you filled out the form? And you would put the identical time on top to indicate that this form already had the Judges signature on it at the time you filled out the bottom portion? That's right. And the reason why no one filled out the top part of the form is because the petitioner brought it in already filled out. She didn't ask a clerk for the form that day, otherwise it would have that time on it? Correct. I thanked her and walked away. Lucey Olney

INJUNCTION CHECK LIST ~~ FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCEIREPEAT VIOLENCE

6"3 \ \
NO

.-

TIME IN:

C\. (l)
YES

D

ARE BOTH PARTIES 18 OR OVER

D ANY VISABLE MARKS OR BRUISES D DO YOU FEEL YOU OR THE RESPONDENT
D Petitioner D Respon~:nt D WOULD

YES

NO

WILL NEED AN INTERPRETER AT THE FINAL HEARING, WILL YOU AND TIlE RESPONDENT UNDERSTAND LEGAL TERMS IN ENGLISH YES NO

YOU LIKE TO HA VB YOUR ADDRESS HELD CONFIDENTIAL. (only if the respondent does not know where you live) YES NO

TIME PAPERWORK REVIEWED:'''\' .co
~ CLOCKED IN PAPERWORK AND INITIALED

.z: e_5

IG-..J

SIGNEDANDSEALEDPAPERWORK

e
YES

NO

NO

I~ I GAVE
~- Dit66ff&G

ROUTING SLIP TO ROOM 520 FOR SAFETI PLAN AND HAD PETITIONER ESCORTED TO 520.

r::J,'\
~NO

SLIP FOR MODIFICATION OR suPPLEMENTAL

:...: . NO

o:._,,~

fa,..
Clvl'

1.997
Sh.e\

Cove,.

The civil cove,. sheet and the Info,..atlon contaIned he,.eln neither replace nor supple.ent the fllln~ and service of pleadIngs or other papers as required by la". ThIs forlll Is "equlred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting judicial vorkload data pursuant to florida Statu'te 25.075. (See Instruc'tions on the reverse ot the forlll.)

I.

CASE

STYLE (Name of Court)

Domestic

Relations

P I a I n t Iff

&~~,:_\

'-

\\,?v-Z.\ \

ex"c

u··(,-:.,

Case

()lJJ3- S~\\
/;

\\~\O l"015

\\~V(_ l~C\-'-\ ..~~ \,

J udg e:

3\

Oefend.ant

l.ou::~ ~ t!1 c'-. C.f'~d
l
,,->-

c..~ D\.C\,L~ \J t~~.
.an x select In one box the 1II0st only. tt defInitive.) Torts the caS8'''fi~s
:;:;:.>

I'.

TYPE OF CASE

.

.

,.
one type

(PI.ace case,

IC~
-4

Oomestlc

Rela'tlons dlssolu'tion

O'ther t-Ialpractlce

Clvll-

0
0

Simplified Oissolutlon Support Support URESA URES ... OOlllestle

0

Professional Products Auto Other

0
0

Con'tracts Condominium property/ Real foracl< t-Iortg.age EmInent Other doma In

0 0
0

-

I Y-O Non I Y-O

0 0 0

lIability

negligence negligence

0

I Y-O

0 .~0
~the

Hon

I

v-o

0 0

violence

.. do~lc

re~,>~ ..:.

rel.atlons

III. Is Jury Trial O••• Aded I. Co.p'.I.~t

o
OATE

-,

SIGNATURE INITIATING

OF .~ ACTION

fOR

PARTY

-----------------

jf'

INJUNCTION CHECK LIST ~/ I . FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCEIREPEAT VIOLENCE ~,-o (.,e,Sf~

III"-",('.}, ~he.r 0 vrs ()Lt3 _5 :s l }..
l ~.rLe._.,-e,,,,+I'1 o ItrT' I

TIME IN :._-) GD .

" .,

Q IG-....I

ARE BOTH PARTIES 18 OR OVER

ANY VISABLE MARKS OR BRUISES DO YOU FEEL YOU OR THE RESPONDENT WILL NEED AN INTERPRETER AT THE FINAL HEARING, WILL YOU AND THE RESPONDENT UNDERSTAND LEGAL TERMS IN ENGLISH

GJ
.

D Petitioner D Respon~:nt
Q

YES@

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HA VE YOUR ADDRESS HELD CONFIDENTIAL. (only if the respondent does not know where you live) YES

TIME PAPERWORK REVIEWED:
~LOCKED

1~O

IN PAPERWORK AND INITIALED

~NO

~IGNED

AND SEALED PAPERWORK

®NO

~A

VE ROUTING SLIP TO ROOM 520 FOR SAFETY PLAN AND HAD PETITIONER ESCORTED TO 520. ~ ~ SLIP FOR MODIFICATION OR SUPPLEMENTAL NO

D ROUTING

YES

NO.

Civil

Cover

Skeet

The civil cover sheet and the Infor.atlon contained herein nolther replace nor supple.ent the fllln~ 'and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form Is requIred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of r.portin~ judicial workload data pursuant to florida Statu'te ·25.075. (Seo Inst-ructions on the re"erse of the forlll.)

I.

CASE

STYLE (Name of Court)

Domestic

Relations

Plaintiff

c':-:

0'\ ~

,

L).,

-- _;;.

(V\ 0')~')

11'5

I ',.

...

_

..

Defendant

~~

C~S0C\
-1• "

r

>:

.~

u
:!
than one type

r

I ,

--,

;,;t:.J

II. TYPE Of CASE

(Place case,

an x select

In

one box the lIIost

only. If defInitive.) Torts

the

cas~

flts_~ore

Domestic

RelatIons dissolution []

or her
Malpractice

C 1v I I

0

Simplified Olssolutlon Support Support URESA URESA -

0

0

-

, v-a
Han IV-O

0 0
1>

-

o o
[]

Professional Products Auto Other

o

liabilIty neg I I g ence negllgeneo

o o
o o

Con'tracts CondomInIum Rea I property/ Mort~age foreclo! EmInent Other domaIn

I V-D Non I

0 0

.

v-o

OOlllestlc

vIolence

III.

Is Jury
DYes

Trial

O •• aRded

IR Co.platR~t

0DATE

Ho

SIGNATURE INITIATING

OF-A~~iRHEY fOR ACTION ~.
'--\.",

PARTY ---------------------

)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

k,,:J CaseNo,~.:__ ~.~~~.~ 3 ,-Division. ""~_' _;_\ _--------Petitioner,

1"\,

·=~;:3/C1 ~
_ :
<.0. ;

__

THIS INST.RUMENI \ and

'N OfM:P\)Tt i\

:LB
;

':;.
i .... ~

..
(

PETITION

FOR INJUNCTION

FOR PROTECTION

--, '" ,. AGAINST DATING~VIOLENeE
'--

CO:,
~ ..- !

r- ~,.:-:J .

I, {full legal name} (} following statements are true: SECTION 1. I. PETITIONER

n1ilt~ ,Wtle '- (nOM.

s.

.r:

-

, being swoni, certify~~:that the

(This section is about you. It must be completed.)

Petitioner currently lives at: {address, city, state, zip code} ?>::, ...z_)li"' \Yl C5Y-'1 \ \?f(' C ~'\ \ (10('\ Q " ~L;;J'lJ(\ L [ if applies] , _____ Petitioner seeks an injunction for protection on behalf of a minor child. Petitioner is the parent or legal guardian of {full legal namej; ____. a minor child who ( ) is ( ) is not living at home.

ir

2.

Filing Fees

[ .,.;one only] ____ a, Petitioner is paying the filing fee and sheriffs (or other authorized law enforcement agency's) / service fees. _V ,--_b. Petitioner does not have enough money to pay the filing fee or service fees and is filing an Affidavit and Motion for Waiver of Fees for Petition for Injunction for Protection, _ 0 Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(a), and a Family Law Financial Affidavit, _O Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(b) or (c). Petitioner asks that he/she not have to pay the fees necessary to process the petition and serve the injunction' and any motions or orders needed to enforce the injunction, subject to later order(s) of the Court about the payment of such fees. 3. Petitioner's attorney's name, address, and telephone number is.:....: (If you do not have an attorney, write "none.") SECTION II. completed.) 1. RESPONDENT (This section is about the person you want to be protected from. It must be _

Respondent currently lives at: (address, city. state, and zip code) ~?~ \.Q~ ,Q( \Q\\riO) Ei..- '01.3 ~:I Respondent's Driver's License number is: {if known} !?J \ Q 0 () Petitioner has known Respondent since (date ..... .... }_N.>......::<.\ \'N.._,._I.!,_.

g'~::/L
.

,,~C
t')

(~\---I\ 1\ \! r;, \")

~

..::::\ 55 I""L' L

n >; lC

('~
--'

2.

--L}~C~. 1=-= 0...:,-"'

Instructions for Family Supreme Court Approved Law Form 12.980(g). Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence (9100)

Civil Case Summar\,(Master)

;:"'' ' ' 'Caee''Num'be~~' r4'B~2o:6'~'DR::0o5284~o''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''':
C'aiie·Type:·!·REPEAfvi6LENdf ..··
:SO.OO
Claim Amou~t:

Case Information

:
..

~.~.~.i.~~.I1~ Inf(:).~~~t.~.~.r.'.
Plai·~tiffAttorney·
Plaintiff

:

~?J~;m.§::j!,Qet~:m;I;J8t!N .. ~..M
",

,.
.

r ..· ··· File·D'irte:·l3:A'p~~2603· ··· ·..· ,..': : '"'''' " " JUdge;i3i~HAUSER, .iC· .. _"'·" .."'······ .._·· .. ··· .. .....,'"''"'C'oii't"t~d~'!NO·_ · ··..·..·..·· , ,,···,,',·,·......·_ ;; : ..
Caee
........... --

status: iCLOSED
········;··'''.1·'''''

_
.

.. ··....···Se;V;c~ Date ···················A~·~.,,;.;~r ..· Dat@
- .. , .. "" ,..................................... .

6efe·~da·nt·Artorney·:

Defendant

fitY.11f.tiJ;.QY.l!8F..Q
..

" " , ''' : :.:::::.::.:.::,::.,:,. .
"
.

,.".,.... :
, .. "., .. " ,_ ..

:.<.:

..

Case Statu. Date: :4.Jun-2003

,•.••.•.•.•.•....... !

·.····································", .•.•.••,..

1 ••••••••••••••••••••

.............................. _ , ..•.........•...... , , ...................................................................................................................................

, Judgement Amount: 1$0,00 f ..... " • ,.

,

...............•• " :
i

i:

,

,

,.,

.

.

....... :.:::;;;:':,'.::,':.':;::::; ..:::::::::::::::::: .•::::::::::: ...,

:,~·~·~~~~~~ ..·.·.·E~e·nt·D~ie·Eve·nt·Ti~~"ii[ ..e~~:~t2t·~:=·' '_' ..·-..
Future Events
." , ...... .. .,"".. '''.'''' , !j :

.. .

Dispo,~~~,i~~.,~~!~.~.~.~~~~.~ .

;ORDE:e~;o~:~:SAL'

Oat•
i4-JUn.2003

i!...... ··

DISposition: ;AFTER HEARING

4

02001~~ollrtspecialists.CO",

I of I

6/2912005 8:21 PN

AJO I'"E-.$.

-1Ii- (\'\,,~
1[1'\

\" "" ~<l;S
\~('

~

<:'X,
~
~"-€_

10' LI-S

e\
V\_

~ a,C\-/

q_lu Q....Q..._
L\j-Q_

lICl\(

tt,

6","0110

h.~

c-t-

~~e..
I

c't u ~d
~
u:
~

(Gee

doc u IY\ ~ -\.s ex \ lD (t-

A)

I

',v~aj

'5» ~,
, ~'\..IL

Ll:a 6
V\.

-n~
I

r

~
d

Q\d
~

5~0<4

'-h. v\f\..jL

6,0
Cl ~
'" ~~ ~

~
U V\,+
(~

~
4/1
I

C),_

~0~~

~

\d~
~

d...cLV'. 10

t?JV'.

<:TV< S~
~

~~09

6~-\-<.
~

C G\.
I

w~

b<J t

k

t-

'-4

I.

~c

\ lr\_~

1""1 G\)O

~c-..._

,,'\Ot

b\O~_C~

~~c~d-~~..s. S~Oq ~o ""?
~\q,LLi(_

O~

LI)~
v~ ~~

P (OOv~
\ .,...._
lA.) Q.

\0 '-\
or
S.
~Lc'L

Lv

a. <::. ,'""\ " \ a:« S
~ ~'-\

\-u.
~t.

-n

.~\) t

't-

\ r"'....

~\

v-eV\

."S ~~

No~5
pYO()

~.
~u

ln~15
~
~e

ve

W c.t-S

, If\,

~("oo\.)-e.
"\JYCO\J'<..

-h~
h.~

J vVLc-h ~
CT\.__"C

J u~'\ e,
l~Lf'¥\,Gn~

o»;

S(0"'-I''\\<'''\~ <
b'

h_a._~

.ct~0~t'\(/V\. '-'~

lfv~

(vd_-S~~
\.

rY (50u-e.. c-v -ta_ ~
~t\Ob~
C,0 ct_

i) ~

~,-li ~

'I

W

t5Y
Cc~~

kGv\v,,~ ct- v..sCi. ~

~cS~,\
~c:LY\~
CC~Vt

o~

(J\.I-.QA
Cv,-_L.'-\_

b V\
6~

L~\_0
~
lL

-s

!I

qc \R.

~,

ce_ili

-,

~

U.I\.v\-C\..sL,V\..

46_
S ~ ~t

\-V'vv\,
~
~
r-

("(lU
~

S"3 o=,
--h._Q_

4

utA
jvd,\~

\,'\._ '\_~
at
II

Y\. c I-~

luGt~

l\.H2.c2._K_

~ i, ~ ~ 4/l~

»»:
~fD
6~

~rc~

~'l-\)~
I

It

I

CL~~

C0V\

SJ

ht\~V\.5

lrL~0
~~

01 ~krh"
\$\j ~

s;'u\j \~

~

l\).Q_
I'

~~

f '( tV\- K_ ~ V\id-t,~{) ~

:<S kc,u \,~\
:)\V\_

C

c+ s ~S'c...<_ C\.u . ~;!J._ c v~1o'-'1)

-_
'()1l,S
l ·S

W L'\~~

Ll1

e

CGl.....-V\

1>
rL

I{

00

e_
\Lct_~

-

-Spvlnk\e0
I !nO
eel ~

s

CA10v\dCU\

\

~Yto~s
~

~
oY\ ~6VV\

v"\.

~

'\.-V\

-

~

1t.U S ')
"10~~V\o~

ca~6 CUJt

~'" ~

",\0 t
Cl

VV"\.Q\fVHVl'A

·0\..QA.<2...
~~

'ok\

~~
lS 0.J._..Q_

c.-:::z~.s
V"- 0

CCLvc c ~

~
~

CC\.~ CLv\. <::::! '+<s,__

~lC':J~'-~
\"'P\-

\ ~ VV\

L+-

CLL--V\

l:S
~

~~d;
(__,~

So

t-

a4(5~nOV\.
do
~

C4 ~

~

c. C{_,'0:i_Q_
cl
I

W-Q_
~

~V\_Q'-'0

WQS

fu'-\J~
tb
GY"\.

~0,-\

<+ I \ \
.s .
~~I\

~

I

I'i
--

'I

S~ ( \
~t
~L~

cu.-Q

tc

CS(

~~
~

'f'Q~~r
tS~~

f; h_ cJ-0 ~
~~ct~V\t

(/V{

~~~~~

t:)"t8~
l~

6

~a_t
~ ~ ~0\.o-Q_

~'

: I -h ~

S~\\

I! ~+
U,,?l€S
~

. Spv , r-; \<- \-€ C vu b~ '-\ - 5 Ph-)
W-0\J..

~

--nfY~

h_C\_((6-Ws'

'c\~~

Ib~ ~ ___, tOt. \'Y\?lcLe

GUA. C<.

'.s

Gb\:)

\IlA_a._~
0L

d~
~ ~

~
~u~

~.

5 ~"'"

~-Q\,

ct ~
Q/\

4/"31 3,
0

L\"~

ii' q~t

¥
~

+et

ho \-

.:s.e-V0e<!

'o~ ~
be-( ~

:{eylJ-f2_

+,(

G

/05
6l

C~
\C'-\,

~~ \.t~ ~,

~ C0~
.
L[

-

1-0

OctLUVl
~U~

radut

~~

\-.\l_c~

U

oy

6f

~e_~\,

Iy

Gt-111b~

I

-

II

I

Cs \

!,

\ttih5-n s;
CullL-(
cU'{J LQ.4-

--

lcAl

C> U\{

~

vv\'

Vt a <Y2- '--k:L V\It£vL \ L_ o-e. '---U'\.A.J- c:iC4{ Vy\_LVVlcS
t
Slr\....Q.
~V\._d.J~~~

C \aLi
lJ

~

G~

q\L~
LD~

"b~&

~h~
~
\If\

'P01-~

l+

k~J
~\.\~

+ \ill_\:t,Vl
~6CV\

~\J0f'-e_

COb\0L~\.A..Q_

Ccrr~

lD~

I~~" I& ~~
: 1:::,~
I

c.l;~

~~

\J

-e. ~

\ '"

~,-IJ:
~Ir=--~

~~

\0 ~

S~~

~ka.Jw-c: q_a\0\) yl..Q/c}_ 11\1"\. C!L 4 ~ =-vv-c,

(
llV\.~

6~

ct.-v\_

<:o!

veo \-

-y--.,_,(__ ~
~~
OV'(

h_.CL~

~u\-

~

-

C0L-\- \ ~~
~~

~(L{

LS

Ct.
~I

C

(j~~

n::S ~

CN\JL
6'V'-

I

-h-v"%

~\~

lel

tS

V\,or-V\'\~

~

5) SpnVLllis
I ~

C<lWt Cai.Q~

Word. lour ~ + H\c.owvplU-e d<.v ~o)(e.s)
~

abS~lc..e

~d...v,
~

{.u, Y'"\,c;OV\

Yvt_A

~~

<~~

t~~ P1.tv'~~~0<J;'t Dyr

0r-'\--E(_

~~

~

~\(__R_

(JV-{!!/\ CC(p't~JJ
(.L.\A.

([)
~

ttLBlL4-u1V\C'O'r\
C4~
I
\-

C~~J
V\

CLb,~
~
cd

Mor~
V\, (jl:5Y\

C

l C. V\

ho

t

~u lo~l
vvo

wa. 6
C. ~

C6l~S

c. c« d .

I

'*"-~
O-VI.

~c~
l) ~

ett ~

~k

dJe
C(/\

LX
J

~

uS

~t6
VV\.-a\re

\~
c::!
\I:)

\A_~ d ~J

~
.

V) Cd~ "1) <;; ~ r \<-l~
t V\.

kLL~ s . ,t.-,J
de 'l1Y ffV\ s
Cl6 V-

\'\ACL~

LJ\V....",

L\'l(>_

fe'"

c~

c",d
<t

d '" d

<VI

J

' O

Page 1 of 2
Louis Vega From: Sent: Subject: Jon, Let's go for it. Get that hearing scheduled. Mayanne Downs was recommended by Hauser to Stephanie Howell because Taylor was through with her, having lost the 5 year custody battle when Patrick Howell used our extortion tapes, forcing Stephanie to settle on Patrick's terms and the exposure by you of the bogus injunction. Hauser found out about the Christina Garrett depo, the time box you put them in (3:58-5:17) and the CSI reports showing all petitions went to Hauser on April 3 but the Olney/Vega one. Mayanne Downs is keeping him abreast because he couldn't trust Stephanie to do so. He's not going to lie because he's thinking JQC may be looking at this later. He doesn't want to go on record. Oh yeah, there's the little problem of his several years long relationship with Howell. He is a married man and Stephanie is a master at extortion to get what she wants. She's a grifter who's caused her husband's death and the near bankruptcy of 84 year old Mary Olney. And don't forget the Patrick Howell blackmail and extortion that was ruined by our tapes, which she was deposed over to her dismay and shock. Judge Bronson was replaced by Sprinkel after we were subpoenaed to give our tapes to the court. Bronson had told us he would get back in 30 days with his decision but we were never called back because Sprinkel took over a case that Bronson had presided over for the entire 5 year duration:99-DR-2049 Howell vs. Howell. Three months later on April 3 he signs the injunction against us and two weeks later the case was hurriedly settled and sealed by Sprinkel. Judge Turner was the assigned probate judge and said Bill Olney's will was legal which preserved Lucey's status as executor. This infuriated Stacey Cole and Stephanie Howell who needed to be executor to pull off her scam against 82 year old stroke victim, Mary Olney, who had found out Bill, the family attorney, had put his name on all her assets. To this day she says it was only power of attorney that she had given him in the case of her incapacitation. After all, she had just suffered a major stroke and was forced to move to Orlando. But after several favorable rulings for the Olney family, Turner was replaced by Judge Kirkwood who proceeded to rule in favor Stephanie Howell over and over, with the help of Stacey Cole's seasoned probate talents. The estate and Mary Olney were forced to spend between $100,000 and $150,000 in legal costs and settlement because of Kirkwood's failure to look at the case fairly. Only after me and Lucey forced the child custody case file out from Joan Harrelson on April 1, 2003 (2 days before the injunction) and copied the Stephanie Howell depo, on "Louis Vega" <lvega8@cfl.rr.com> Sunday, July 17, 20059:28 PM Hauser hearing

7/17/2005

Page 2 of 2
which atty. Lang did a notice of filing that same day, only then did we drive a stake throught the heart of that probate case. Within 30 days, Stephanie Howell filed the injunction, settled and sealed the custody case on Patrick's terms, settled the estate case and got fired by Lydia Gardner. And she only spent $17,000 (according to the FDLE) to get $23,000 after 16 months of litigation. Title X anyone? On Friday, June 15, Lucey told FDLE Supervisor of Economic Crimes, Bob O'Conner that as executor of the estate she has a right to see the checks that Stephanie Howell suposedly wrote tha total up to $17,000 in Akerman's file. He said he wasn't going down to Akerman to see if they were in the file. Lucey said that he could at least have them faxed to FDLEto satisfy the FDLE subpoena for the billing records. O'Conner reluctantly agreed. Next Tuesday, June 19, Lucey is going to FDLE office to see the fax of those checks.

7/17/2005

April 18,2004 Atty Gutmacher Dear Atty Gutmacher, .The signature issue has been settled to my satisfaction and Vastrick was worth every penny. In her deposition Stephanie refused to say who the judge was who signed her injunction, even after her attorney mentioned Judge Sprinkel's name. She also refused to identify the clerk who processed her petition. If I was wrong about the authenticity of the signature, it at least caused me to scrutinize the circumstances surrounding the filing of the petition and the subsequent issuing of an injunction that was essentially meritless under the law.. It also led me to examine Sprinkel's court docket for April 3, 2003. Fact #1 Afternoon Court Docket & Case Files Show No Evidence Judge Sprinkel In Court

After researching all of Judge Sprinkel's cases for April 3, 2003, Lucey and I could find no proof that he was in court that afternoon, even though IClerk did list various cases on his calendar-we gave you copies of our research from that day. Fact #2 Docket Public Records Request Of Sprinkel Calendar Reveals One Case For Afternoon Court

After you secured the calendar docket for April 3, 2003 we discovered that Judge Sprinkel listed 1 case for that afternoon: 02-DR-19259- a case that had not appeared on the Orange Co. ICierk computer records apparently because it was an adoption case. By coincidence it also happened to be a case file that could not be viewed to verify anything about the judge's actions taken on the case or even what the time frame was concerning actual court time spent on the case. Fact #3 Adoption Hearing Lasts 3 Hours

Judge Sprinkel's calendar docket says in two separate places that 3 hours was spent on case 02-DR-19259-1 :30 to 4:30 pm. Fact #4 Time Conflict Between 2 Afternoon Hearings On Sprinkel's Court Docket

Lucey and I noticed that a revision had occurred on the ICierk computer calendar for April 3, 2003 which now had 4 more cases listed than we saw before when I gave you a handwritten log of Judge Sprinkel's court docket from that same calendar date. We also noticed a mediation case 92-DR-3304 Gunderson-Martinez, Amy vs. Martinez, Alfred J Jr. scheduled for 2:00 pm with Judge Sprinkel as the presiding judge. We wondered how the judge could have spent 3 hours on adoption case 02-DR-19259 and then have another case scheduled at almost the same time. We decided to check with the courthouse records. Fact#5 No Minutes Posted For 3 Hour Hearing

Lucey and I asked the clerk on the computer in Public Records Rm 320 about the scheduling conflict. She looked up both cases on the computer and told us that the Gunderson-Martinez case 92-DR-3304 had been rescheduled for April 11, 2003. Then we asked her to check and see if there were any minutes on the adoption case 02-DR-3304 for April 3, 2003. First she said it was not an adoption case-it was a termination case. Then she told us there were no minutes for that day. We asked her when the next time minutes were posted and she told us May 14 and June 30. She only saw an amended notice had been filed on April 3, 2003 and that could have been done through the mail or at a very short hearing (so short there were no minutes?).

-2-

April 19,2004

Fact#6

Headers Different, Columns Don't Line Up On April 3 Sprinkel Court Docket Calendar

The headers on Judge Sprinkel's morning and afternoon court calendar docket for April 3,2003 are different. The columns shown on those pages do not line up. Apparently two different forms were used, one for the morning docket and another different one for the afternoon docket. I wanted to see the forms that Judge Hauser was using to check the headers. Thank you for attempting to secure those public records for me. Sprinkel and Hauser work out of the same office suite so I'm fairly confident their JAs are discussing our calendar requests and wondering what it is exactly we are looking for. They also both know the true story of what went down with Stephanie's injunction the afternoon of April 3, 2003. From what we were told by various courthouse employees, a new computer software system was introduced sometime during the summer of '03. In Dec. "03 when you secured Sprinkel's calendar the new forms were now in use and the JA failed to spot the difference, if indeed a switch occurred-the switch being an afternoon calendar with no cases (and the afternoon off) with an afternoon calendar showing an adoption case hearing that lasted 3 hours (1:30 to 4;30 pm). An adoption case that can't be examined, a public record that isn't open to the public. Fact#7 Petition Notarized at 3:58 PM April 3 By Deborah Bonjour

The timestamps on my injunction show 3:58 pm and 5:17 pm. At 3:58 the petition was accepted and immediately notarized with proof of ID presented by Stephanie Howell. At 5:17 it was back down with a stack of injunctions that Hauser had signed since he was the "injunction judge of the week". Injunctions 5310 and 5312, the ones before and after mine (5311) show a timestamp of 5:14. There's also a third timestamp that appears on the cover page of the other injunctions but that does not appear on mine. It's dated April 4, 2003. If we can prove that Judge Sprinkel was indeed out of the courthouse that afternoon by showing that there was no 3 hour adoption case hearing as his calendar saids (remember Lucey and I both heard the courthouse clerk say there were no minutes posted on April 3 for a 3 hour hearing, only an amended notice) then he would have had to sign it before it was notarized. If that's the case then the injunction was never a legal instrument with any lawful standing and everything that followed in that case was an affront to my and Lucey's legal rights. Deborah Bonjour, a friend of Stephanie's, was the deputy clerk who notarized the petition. Consider the possibility that Ms. Bonjour gave Stephanie her petition back (against the rules) so she could personally take it up to Judge Hauser's office. Why? To surreptitiously add the injunction with Judge Sprinkel's signature to her petition so that it would come back down with the stack of injunctions that Hauser signed that afternoon. Fact#8 Judge Hauser Refuses To Sign Stephanie's Injunction

According to Kimberly Sheperd, manager of the injunction office and who was unaware of this case, Judge Hauser told her he didn't sign the injunction because he was friends with Stephanie. On April 10, at my preliminary hearing, Stephanie told the court (with Hauser presiding) that she and Judge Hauser were very good friends and that he had been assisting her on the Patrick Howell child custody case (the same case that incorporated our tapes through the deposition of Stephanie Howell by Patrick Howell on July 31, 2002, nine months before our injunctions were issued). Atty Weeden immediately requested Judge Hauser's recusal from the injunction case and Hauser said for Atty. Weeden to make the motion. But Judge Hauser continued to preside over the case, even going as far as turning the temporary injunction, which was supposed to be renewed every two weeks until a final hearing, into a quasi permanent injunction with his "until further order" notice issued on April 10, the same day of my preliminary hearing, and again on April 29, four days after Judge Hauser recused himself from the case (see Order on Respondents' Motion for Recusal signed by Judge Hauser on April 25). The injunction would remain in this "quasi permanent" state for another 6 months until the issue was forced upon the court by a motion from Atty. Gutmacher.

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
To: Gail Green -- Generalist, Human Resources Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Ave, Orlando, FI 32801 From: Louis Vega &' Lucey Olney, 3617 Foxcroft Circle, Oviedo, FI 32765 407-365-0994
Thursday, January 06, 2005

Dear Ms. Green, ThiS is a publiC records request for any documentation that the Human Resources Office may have on a former Orange County Courthouse employee, Stephanie Howell. We are seeking a copy of Stephanie Howell's entire personnel file. If there are any letters of recommendation written on Stephanie Howell's behalf by Orange County Clerk of Courts, Lydia Gardner, we want copies. We also want a copy of her resignation letter as Lydia Gardner's personal staff attorney. If there are any other repositories or files of information concerning Stephanie Howell, especially any disciplinary reports or actions, please state so - so we can make a public records request for those also. We want a copy of everything related to Stephanie Howell's tenure at the Orange County Courthouse. We will pay for these copies at pick-up. Thank you, Louis Vega & Lucey Olney

Journal Page 1

Public Records Request: Attn. Matt Benefiel, Court Administrator
Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County Courthouse, 425 N Orange Ave, Orlando, FL 32801 From: Lucey Olney, 3617 Foxcroft Circle, Oviedo, FL 32765 407-365-0994 Monday, January 29, 2007

Dear Mr. Benefiel, This is a request pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, Florida Public Records Law. I wish to examine several public records that are maintained by Court Administration 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County Courthouse. (1) The Order of Reassignment which occurred in either Dec. 2002 or Jan. 2003 whereby the cause, case No. 99-DR-2049 Howell vs Howell (reactivated Jan. 1, 2007), was reassigned from Judge Theotis Bronson to Judge George A. Sprinkel. (2) All documentation, memoranda, court filings, particular to that reassignment, from that aforementioned cause, Howell vs Howell, that directly resulted in and/or was a direct result of that Order of Reassignment by the administrative judge of record re: Howell vs Howell 99-DR-2049. This is basically a request for all information on record regarding the how and the why this reassignment took place, and by whose authority it was that caused the reassignment order to be issued. (3) An audio copy of the recording of the Preliminary Hearing re: case no. 03DR-S311, Howell vs Olney/Vega, Temporary Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence, presided by Judge James C. Hauser, the date of which was April 10, 2003, scheduled at 9:30 AM. If all or any of these request is denied, please respond to me in writing, pursuant to Florida Statute 119.07(2)(a), listing the specific statutory Citation for the claimed exemption(s) from disclosure that you assert justify your failure to make the requested information available. Please state with particularity the reasons for your conclusion that the record is exempt. If you determine that all or part of the requested records are not public records subject to inspection, please be aware that Florida Statute 119.07(2)c provides that you shall not dispose of those records for a period of thirty days after the date you receive this request. If you determine that some portions of the requested materials are exempt, please immediately provide me with the portions you deem non-exempt, pursuant to Florida Statute 119.07(2)(a). Understand that I and/or my legal counsel may challenge any assertion that portions of the document are exempt. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (407)365-0994. The courts have determined that your response to this request shall be delayed only by the limited amount of time that it takes to retrieve the requested records and, if appropriate, delete those portions you assert are exempt. With regards,

~[;C~~
Lucey Olney

Miscellaneous Page 1

~o/cff~
wVUtd ~
BELVIN PERRY, JR. CHIEF JUDGE

9!iAtcui£o/ cff~
MATTHEW L. BENEFIEL COURT ADMINISTRATOR (407) 836-2050 ROBIN S. BERGHORN COUNSEL

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION COURT ADMINISTRATION ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 42S N. ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 2130 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802
WWW.NINJA9.0RG

GENERAL

(407) 836-2233 FAX: (407) 836-2299

February 28, 2007

Ms. Lucey Olney 3617 Foxcroft Circle Oviedo, FL 32765 Re: Public Records Request Dear Ms. Olney: This letter is in response to your letter addressed to Mr. Matt Benefiel in which you requested, pursuant to "Chapter 119, Florida Statutes" to examine certain public records as follows: (1) The order of Reassignment which occurred in either Dec. 2002 or Jan. 2003 whereby the cause, case No. 99-DR-2049 Howell vs Howell (reactivated Jan. 1, 2007), was reassigned from Judge Theotis Bronson to Judge George A. Sprinkel. (2) All documentation, memoranda, court filings, particular to that reassignment, from that aforementioned cause, Howell vs Howell, that directly resulted in and/or was a direct result of that Order of Reassignment by the administrative judge of record re: Howell vs Howell 99-DR-2049. This is basically a request for all information on record regarding the how and the why this reassignment took place, and by whose authority it was that caused the reassignment order to be issued. (3) An audio copy of the recording of the Preliminary Hearing re: case no. 03-DR5311, Howell vs. OlneyNega, Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence, presided by Judge James C. Hauser, the date of which was April 10,2003, scheduled at 9:30 AM.

Ms. Lucey Olney February 28, 2007 Page Two Please be advised that the Court is not subject to Chapter 119, and hence, is not required to provide public records pursuant to a request under that Chapter. Nevertheless, in the interest of assisting you with this issue and in the interests of judicial economy, please be advised that any orders would be filed in the court file and you will need to request those records from the Orange County Clerk of Court as that office is the official record keeper. However, as to your requests in paragraphs (1) and (2), I examined the docket in the Howell v. Howell matter and could locate no order of reassignment. It is my understanding that Judge Sprinkel became the judge on this case due to the regular, annual rotation of judicial assignments which occurs every January 1st. Judge Bronson was assigned to a different division while Judge Sprinkel took over Judge Bronson's division. Most, if not all, of Judge Bronson's cases automatically went to Judge Sprinkel. Concerning your request for an audio copy of the proceedings held on April 10,2003, I checked with the court reporter's office and that office has no record of the hearing. If this matter solely involved issuance of a repeat violence injunction as indicated by your letter, there is no requirement to record such matters at public expense. Rather, the litigants would be required to provide a court reporter in order to obtain a record.

s:

Robin S. Berghom General Counsel

o z~ e

SVV\J~ 2:). z._ 2J7 ~ f}erf-o ~
.~

s:-~ %"y

~ '2--1 J

~~;~~cUl I ~:l!VJ/~/ /G;bj ·~ S-2--'1 B ~rrwi,,/bf~" o· S~c,'i '-:-" / 0 0 vv,,h ~~~y. ., • Cc-r
~~1 V ~. DClV7)~
)<1

~l-,
S)
S)o (
0 ~),

~,P~t / DJ~
L

~ tN$VL! s;rc£w

I

co\ b \0
()Iv,r

c ;v;~ 1I~_"+.. ,
".
~
I
.r
I

>k-

*- ~
·

?

f -~
'..
D
f)

1tfJ t
"<a'
tv

I\J N~

*' *
~6

*-

""
V'.

·

00 -, I

~

~ Au
~

-To {hQ,-t/
Q;-~ (

A Ib-; Ie '/

!-fdiRr_

';5

jZD1u~

e..~
,?1~;'

Jo ;"f

53fl

UJ~~'l )( ,2... ~ ~ tr>J.(_ w-

If10cT itO (., ~

c,«.

::tJ~o('"

+-

o •

'0

f'

sv%..~.1~ : I~

'* k, __ _~
\1.\

* -*:-

¥"

*-

.,
0

"NO

Me.

\S;~1
--

e

&.
- ',--

__ ~"
--

Ali
be-~;--e

''I

i Yi uh b n~
lJ

fOr

DvrJ'~3Uj,

-tr~~rtc"Y

c: iY);v'1chvh)- ~lff
c

DJrr

At r; ( ,31
~a-,

20 03

the

-ChGi(

~y

of ~-

lre.c: J.; ::f, eei-; s(_) ~~ hi --f f 11r, Ke ( be(;; re. 0'--"1 "0'-"",,, I j> rO[(JJT/i')"l r p r() ce Ju res: ~ 'vi P I;; ='. a; t /::;0 I/t>nt /J r lto-vs-er.r sf-o.vk: fo look. !/~ d- ouvrrd cP~ be.-5JIO W rt-f-JDI\

b l'CIi' ure. rf- i.. £

A \l-s\Jl\efl- b 'J Uti vsa-

e)<_ce~f- V{JV'S

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
To: Joan Harrelson--Supervisor Domestic Relations Rm. 320 Orange County Courthouse, 425 N Orange Ave, Orlando, FI 32801

From: Louis Vega, 3617 Foxcroft Circle, Oviedo, FI 32765
407-365-0994 September 22, 2004

Dear Ms. Harrelson: This is a request pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, Florida Public Records Law. I am requesting that you provide me with a certified copy of the following information: (1) A complete listing of all court cases on the court docket calendar that came before Judge James C. Hauser on April 3, 2003 accompanied by a listing of the respective length of minutes for each case. (2) A complete listing of all court cases on the court docket calendar that came before Judge James C. Hauser on April 25, 2003 accompanied by a listing of the respective length of minutes for each case. (3) A complete listing of all court cases on the court docket calendar that came before Judge George A. Sprinkel on April 3, 2003 accompanied by a listing of the respective length of minutes for each case. If for some reason Judge Sprinkel did not have a full day in court, please state the time that Judge Sprinkel adjourned his court for the day. (4) The CSI object history report from 1-1-03 to 4-23-03 from court case 1999-DR-002049-0 tracking the actions taken by court personnel regarding the custody of this file while under your supervision in Domestic Relations. If all or any part of this request is denied, please respond to me in writing, pursuant to Florida Statute 119.07(2)(a), listing the specific statuatory citation for the claimed exemption(s) from disclosure that you assert justify your failure to make the requested information available. Please state with particularity the reasons for your conclusion that the record is exempt. If you determine that some portions of the requested materials are exempt, please immediately provide me with the portions you deem nonexempt, pursuant to Florida Statute 119.07(2)(a). If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (407) 365-0994. The courts have determined that your response to this request shall be delayed only by the limited amount of time it takes to retrieve the requested records and, if appropriate, delete those portions you assert are exempt. Thank you. Cc: Lydia Gardner, Orange County Clerk of Courts Chief Judge, Ninth JudiCial Circuit, Belvin Perry, Jr.
BLANK Page 1

J-;rn;t:VI1t.R.e(.CAf'c!~

~~&r;+I~

e...orrt: ..,.)

.s~w? 1Lt-~ Page2of2 W he+er wAefke.-r

MO t:

\50 Y-es~('c~ De___b bt e, <Su. e,
_______

__ ~ ...~ ~ Iq~G" 9. ~

no t- a. \/

q/~::

W~Lc..h

~

Vv ~

~

t5

C\

()_M,d lS ()

f:Y.

~ do~

c1ock,{lJ· CtV\d? ~d ~
.j-

<2ack..

O'h

C VM--f uk-.. .
(5
Ca..v\,c,<2-(j.Qd

~

w~

~~

\~ u~

<.o-;«

t- rrco~

bft
.

S t C-i ~CVt~ u0<.d ~h

MID 'J-.

CJv.J.Q

d~~
C~0.
2/29/2004

Who

Pr€.fcvv<_5
sp?begDate=04%2F03

do~

http://orangeclerk. ocfl.netlEnactWeblEventResult.j

%2F03&endDate=04%2..

¥?J ev. If-'
I

~:5 e;t-c
I

VJ -

------J u5e.5

......-

~~'i"'\rS

\l:J
H-I-

A\-

Covt It'

}4 d__

W\

l

V\ "

fuwAAd -r., t-o
de-r\c....
6tS5t"'St-ec.it'\t--

6~

C0U-i+

So
-

- ~-~
"""""

t5 - Flo~

tn

L-.-rdLa
{:e ~

G~

--

h. e. de A5( ~
Cf'
Ccrw
Q~

wd--h

ds
p~
kQ_~\vvr l~

---

-

""*

-

~~

c\e" v, Of-

r
VV\tV\

'>
0..

VcAA~~.,..~ ,/{)\A 'h_ '" ~
6.

~.;r. L

lliL<-N\_6.

~

Coo

11.-0 I

wv-v-e-s

a

.srI \ e. /

bo~:umd t-D ~
~
,

C$lNL~ J 1--<A \ L.l2_

docJ~,

vu 1-,.0

~e_CV\-e.ss •

we \~

_
_

(!J ~

dw\-eS

t=

.

(51

c ~\-..

·Ii ',I
Ii'

'1\

at- In

INJUNCTION CHECK LIST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCEIREPEAT VIOLENCE

TIME IN:

C\,~
YES NO

D

ARE BOTH PARTIES 18 OR OVER

D ANY VISABLE MARKS OR BRUISES D DO YOU FEEL YOU OR THE RESPONDENT

YES

NO

WILL NEED AN INTERPRETER AT THE FINAL HEARING, WILL YOU AND THE RESPONDENT UNDERSTAND LEGAL TERMS IN ENGLISH

D

Petitioner

D Respon~:nt

YES

NO

D WOULD

YOU LIKE TO HA VE YOUR ADDRESS HELD CONFIDENTIAL. (only if the respondent does not know where you live) YES NO

TIME PAPERWORK REVIEWED:"",-\,'

,GQ

Ie.... I CLOCKED
le-....I

IN PAPERWORK AND INITIALED

SIGNED AND SEALED PAPERWORK

e e
)

NO
NO

I~ I GAVE

ROUTING SLIP TO ROOM 520 FOR SAFETY PLAN AND HAD PETITIONER ESCORTED TO 520. ~\ YE NO SLIP FOR MODIFICATION OR SUPPLEMENTAL YES NO '
c' :,~, OcC,~.,',

D R:O~G

I

'~

(Jeri, f
0

u-Jv fr-

~

r:

~vt
Lf
l-V

of

OJ

i;

t

I/.,_ ''{'fU''Y
II ~

re . u.",rf

c '" ye_ P, 1.Jw

"-7'-;

VJ·r/- ~chA-

s r«
~heckedout ~hecked out Checked out Checked in Checked out Checked out Checked in ~heckedout Checked out pheckedout Checked in Checked in ~heckedout ~hecked in ~heckedout ~eckedout Checl<edout Checked in pheckedout Checked out Checked in Checked out Checked out
~reated

~_CORRI pSRADDY TOCONNEL ~COLEMAN ~OX ~FREDICK ~FLYNN MMCCREE DBONJOUR CGARRETT MGOCOOL KFLYNN MMCCREE ACOlEMAN PTFCDR1 CTFCDR1 PGARRETT KFLYNN FSTRlClK CCORRI SKIPFING CGARRETT PGARRETT PBOTR

817120038:16:08AM lransfered to IOCCIFAMILY SERVICESIFS RETURN CART 81512003 2:36:08 PM lransfered to IOCC/JUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JASIROACH DEBBIE 81512003 11:23:01 AM checked out to IOCC/JUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JASITRACY ANNETTE ~/1512003 7:11:32 AM checked in from IOCCIFAMILY SERVICESIDR RETURN CART 113120035:14:01 PM transfered to IOCClFAMll Y SERVICESIDR RETURN CART ~/1212oo3 2:33:20 PM checked out to IOCC/FAMll Y SERVICESlDR FilE VIEW 51301200311:39:49 ~ecked in from IOCc/FAMll Y SERVICESIDR RETURN CART ~ 5129120035:13:55 PM ~nsfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICESIDR RETURN CART 512912003 5:00:57 PM llransfered to/OCCIFAMllY SERVICESIDR ORDER TRAY 512912003 2:29:41 PM checked out to IOCC/JUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JAS/SPRINKEl GEORGE A IV JUDG ~/1412oo3 5:48:36 PM checked in without being checked out 15/11200312:28:09PM checked in from loceJFAMIL Y SERVICESIDR RETURN CART 1511120039:38:14 AM checked out to IOCCIFAMILY SERVICESIDR RETURN CART 413012003 4:23:32 PM checked in from IOCClJUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JAS/OLSON KATHLEEN 412812003 9:21:58 AM lransfered to IOCCIJUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JASIOLSON !(ATHlEEN ~12312oo310:47:22 llransfered to IOCCICOURT ADMINISTRATIONlRlGGALl DEANA
AM

4/14120038:46:49 AM checked out to IOCC/COURT ADMINISTRATION/SHEPPARD KIMBERLY 1'/11/2003 4:38:57 PM checked in from IOCc/JUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JAS/OLSON KATHLEEN 4/11120037:57:59 AM ~nsfered to IOCClJUDGES AND JA'S/OOMESTIC JUDGES & JAS/OLSON KATHLEEN . 4/10120037:07:40 AM 1&/4120033:45:37 PM 4/4120038:33: 15 AM 413120035:29:13 PM 41312003 4:06:09 PM checked out to IOCCIlAWYERS/FlORIDA BARIWEEDEN ROGER L checked in from IOCCICOURT ADMINISTRATION/RIGGAlL DEANA ~nsfered to IOCc/COURT ADMINISTRATIONIRIGGALL DEANA cheCked out to IOCC/FAMILY SERVICES/GARRETT CHRISTINA Peated in IOCc/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS FILE ROOM/OPEN SHELF DRO-031

r-eforf_JJ,(Ji><J;'J 1~1StL.;( c u s1-o J J Or;-- t ., ) V h c. -h ~ » t-fo We_{)_ V:S Olh~ oj - b R - 5J Ito r-. Je. [e Ve~~
I" )

r.s z:

u" C. b'o"

I }~s-vd

'f-7- 03

Object History

Page 1 of2

Login

§]Requests ]I] Check In

~

Check Out

iii Lookup iiiReports
001 Information SERVICES/FS FILE VIEW

~

Help ".

CS1=tf-2003-DR-005311-0 Action i~hecked out LVU HDALY HDALY EGRANT LAMIC DJOHNSON AKNOX JVELLON NREHLER tvHAMIL tvHAMIL EGRANT tvHAMIL tvHAMIL LVU ~KNOX MNEIL EGRANT iYHARNEY iYHARNEY tvHAMIL tvHAMIL MNEIL MNEIL MNEIL KFLYNN EFREDICK EFREDICK EFREDICK SKIPFING SKIPFING SKIPFING MNEIL MNEIL ~BROOKS EFREDICK EFREDICK MNEIL jlChecked in 'K;hecked out ~hecked ~hecked in out User ID Action Timestamp ~/23/2005 3:54:53 PM checked out to IOCC/FAMILY PM 1/21/20054:50:24 1/21/20054:17:22 19/2/200410:32:38 19/1/200410:12:18 19/1/20049:22:20 17/28/2004 17/28/2004 PM ~/21/2004 ~/21/2004 ~/21/2004 Volume: PM checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS hecked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS hecked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS CLERK/COMBS FILE VIEW FILE VIEW RETURN CART RETURN CART SUSAN RETURN CART

'\_)<I

~

19/2/2004 11 :25:24 AM

AM transfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS AM itransfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS AM hecked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS

K;hecked out K;hecked out ~hecked ~hecked '~hecked I~hecked I~hecked ;~hecked , out in out out in out

19/1/2004 11:41 :59 AM transfered to IOCCITRIAL

FAMILY COURT SERVICES RETURN CART FILE VIEW RETURN CART FILE VIEW RETURN CART RETURN CART JUDGES & JUDGES & RETURN CART

17/28/2004 4: 11 :25 PM checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS 1:08:00 PM ransfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS 12:34:07 hecked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS

4:33:29 PM checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS 3:12:06 PM itransfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS 1:57:54 PM hecked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS

IChecked out iChecked in Checked out Checked in Checked out
i

RETURN CART

1/23/20048:42:51 1/22/20049:30:15 11/24/2003 PM

AM checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS AM checked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS ~hecked in from IOCC/JUDGES WAS/RICHARDSON KIM ~hecked out to IOCC/JUDGES WAS/RICHARDSON KIM

12:16:42 :37

AND JA'S/DOMESTIC AND JA'S/DOMESTIC

11/17/20032:31 PM 11/14/2003 PM 11/14/2003 PM 11/1212003 PM

Checked in

1:46: 12 1:33:46 3:43:25

checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS Fhecked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS ~hecked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS hecked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS hecked in from IOCCITRIAL CLERK/BUCCI CLERK/BUCCI

FILE VIEW FILE VIEW FILE VIEW FILE VIEW NADIA

i

! Checked out
!vhecked in

;Checked out Checked in Checked out ,Checked in
I I

11/12120033:07:53 PM 10/14/2003 PM 9/30/2003 9/25/2003 9/25/2003 PM 3:43:02

10/9/20031:42:19

PM checked out to IOCCITRIAL

NADIA JUDGES &

1:33:11 PM checked in from IOCC/JUDGES UAS/RICHARDSON KIM 2:51 :57 PM ransfered to IOCC/JUDGES KIM 12:41 :49 checked out to IOCC/JUDGES JAS/RICHARDSON KIM

AND JA'S/DOMESTIC

Checked out Checked out :Checked in Checked out
i Cheeked

AND JA'S/DOMESTIC AND JA'S/DOMESTIC

JUDGES & JAS/RICHARDSON JUDGES &

9/25/200312:26:54 PM 9/25/2003 AM 9/19/2003 11 :47:13 3:08: 17 PM

checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS ransfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS hecked out to IOCC/JUDGES JAS/RICHARDSON KIM

FILE VIEW

FILE VIEW JUDGES & DEANA DEANA JUDGES & JUDGES & JAS/HAUSER JUDGES & JAS/HAUSER

out

AND JA'S/DOMESTIC

:K;hecked in ~hecked ~hecked i~hecked out out in

9/19/20033:07:43 19/19/20033:07:13 19/3/20032:48:14 ~/15/2003 ~/13/2003

PM checked in from IOCC/COURT PM ransfered to IOCC/COURT PM hecked out to IOCC/JUDGES ~AS/RICHARDSON KIM

ADMINISTRATION/RIGGALL AND JA'S/DOMESTIC AND JA'S/DOMESTIC AND JA'S/DOMESTIC

ADMINISTRATION/RIGGALL

8:29:52 AM Fhecked in from IOCC/JUDGES WAMES C JUDGE 7:49:51 AM PM hecked out to IOCC/JUDGES ~AMES C JUDGE

:Checked out Checked in Checked out Checked in

8/8/20032:13:00 8/8/200312:00:07

hecked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS

FILE VIEW FILE VIEW RETURN CART

PM checked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS

81712003 11 :28:04 AM checked in from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS

http:// ckfilserv02/tmweblhistory

.asp ?id=5179 500

612412005

INJUNCTION CHECK LIST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCEIREPEAT VIOLENCE

Ob~.YES NO

S "3 \ \

TIME IN:

l\

1

(£)

D

ARE BOTH PARTIES 18 OR OVER

D ANY VISABLE MARKS OR BRUISES D DO YOU FEEL YOU OR THE RESPONDENT
D Petitioner D Respon~~nt D WOULD

YES

NO

WILL NEED AN INTERPRETER AT THE FINAL HEARING, WILL YOU AND THE RESPONDENf UNDERSTAND LEGAL TERMS IN ENGLISH YES NO

YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR ADDRESS HELD CONFIDENfIAL. (only if the respondent does not know where you live) YES NO

TIME PAPERWORK REVIEWED:'-\,'

.ct)

leN \
1G-<.\

CLOCKED IN PAPERWORK AND INITIALED

SIGNED AND SEALED PAPERWORK

e e
r:d, "
YES

NO

NO

I~ I GA VB ROUTING

SLIP TO ROOM 520 FOR SAFETY PLAN AND HAD PETITIONER ESCORTED TO 520. ~NO SLIP FOR MODIFICATION OR suPPLEMENTAL - -. NO-

- io6'~G 0

fa,..

t.997

Civil
Th. civil cover sh •• t and th.

Cover

Sh •• \
coe t e t n ed herein neither repl<!lce refor

Infor.atlon of for

nor supplement quired by t ev, the purpose (See of

the fllln~ This form reporting Instructions

'and service Is required judicial on the

pleadings the use of data the

or other of the Clerk pursuant form.) to

papers as of Court florida

25.075.

workload reverse

Statute

I.

CASE

STYLE (Name of Court) CJ··/Y:) Judge:

Domestic

Relations

Plalntlft&~'K2s,\"--

\\"0\..1-'.(.\\

GJ,d

"s
Oefendant

C"

_,
--..;>

lou_ ~

-J ~1

C".

C-I'\d
'n one box the 1Q0st on I y. tf definitive.> Torts the

Ci~r; ;..
,

r

~

".--'"
"

~:":~l"

~'-J:::

l.t'-"c.~ ()\C\.L~ -J ~~Q._.
( .

~

~

..
_._)

I

rl~;: '
--i'

W

11. TYPE OF CASE

(P I ace case,

an x select

cas~;f:.(~s ';;::;
-4

"

U u,;-!' CO

m~.J)e tt\~n

<,.:

<,

one

typ e

Domestic

Relations dissolution

at her Malpractice

C I v I 1-

.~0

0 Simplified 0 Oissolutlon 0 Support 0 Support 0 URESA 0 URESA OOlQestlc a-other

0
0

Professional Products Auto Other

0

Contracts Condominium property/ Real forecl< Mortgage Eminent Other dome In

lIability neg I I gence neglIgence

-

I v -o Non I v-O

0 0

D D
0
0

I v-o Hon I v-O

violence relatlon~

d 0 fI1.8.$-t-l c
~\L,T-

{d--Ho
SIGNA-TURE OF .~ INITIATING ACTION fOR PARTY -----------------

for.

1.997

Civil
c I v I I cover s u p p t eere n t
by purpose (See I~ ..... of sheet the This reportiny Instructions and form the '~n d Is on

Cover

S~ee\
co nr a t ned herein or the other Clerk to neither p e pe r s of Florida r e e t ec e

Infor.~tlon service of tor required the reverse

nor qulred the

f I I I n!:j

p t e ed t n q s the use e the of

es

r8for

Court

j u d Lc La t

....orklo.!!d
of

c er

pursuant t or e, )

Statute

25.075.

I.

CASE

STYLE <r~ame of Court}

Domestic

Relations

Judge: r'

3\

'IS

r-

c:
Oefendant
, I. (" ("

~"r:
,v

'v '- " ",

(

.

II.

TYPE

Of

CASE

(Place case,

an

x

In

one the

box ~ost

only. definitive.) Torts

If

the

caS?_',tl~~s

m91.le th~n

one

type

select

Domestic

Relations dissolution []

Other Malpractice

CivIl ts
UIU

0 0

Simplified Oissolutlon Support Support URESA URESA

Professional Products Auto Other

o
I v-o Non I V-O

o
[]

Contrac

0
0

o

liability

negligence neg I I gence

-

o

o
[]

Condom I n I Rea I

property/ foreclo! domain

Mort9age EmInent Other

0
',.

I V-O Non

0 0

I v-O

o

OO«lestlc

violence d o m.e s f- l c relations

B---Other

, ''(' '::>.-t_L ,_.

DYes

o

No

OATE

SIGNATURE IKITIATING

OF ACTION

A~~EY

fOR

PARTY ------------------

INJUNCTION CHECK LIST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCEfREPEAT VIOLENCE

O~-)j~/~ . -t::::..
-,.j
oJ \

TIME IN:

L\. \.£
YES NO MARKS OR BRUISES YES NO

D

ARE BOTH PARTIES 18 OR OVER

D ANY VISABLE

D DO YOU FEEL YOU OR THE RESPONDENT D Petitioner D Respon~~nt

WILL NEED AN INTERPRETER AT THE FINAL HEARING, WILL YOU AND THE RESPONDENT UNDERSTAND LEGAL TERMS IN ENGLISH YES NO

D

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR ADDRESS HELD CONFIDENTIAL. (only if the respondent does not know where you live) YES NO

TIME PAPERWORK REVIEWED:\_\'. :-("'. leA.<> I CLOCKED IN PAPERWORK AND INITIALED

C_YE~

IL--<-I

SIGNED AND SEALED PAPERWORK

e
/

NO

NO

Ic·~ GAVE ROUTING I

SLIP TO ROOM 520 FOR SAFETY PLAN AND HAD PETITIONER ESCORTED TO 520. YES \ NO SLIP FOR MODIFICATION OR SUPPLEME;; YES AL NO

G\

D ROUTING

Attention:

Attorney Gutmacher
October 14, 2004

From: Louis Vega

Dear Atty. Gutmacher: How about contacting Patrick Howell's attorney, Mark Rabinowitz (407-849-0300) and requesting the transcripts to the two tapes (copied to CD by Mr. Howell and myself) that Lucey and I were subpoenaed to present on November 18, 2002 in Howell vs Howell 99-DR-2049 and which had been used prior in the deposition of Ms. Howell taken by Atty. Rabinowitz on July 31, 2002. Mr. Howell told me that transcripts had been prepared for use in Howell vs Howell if the court allowed the tapes in. Patrick Howell does not want me to have those transcripts and Atty. Rabinowitz will use whatever legal reason he can to deny us those transcripts. So then you are to use our ace in the hole and tell Mr. Rabinowitz: "Fine, then we'll have to recreate those transcripts in the deposition of Mr. Howell."
If you manage to get those transcripts, we need the CD copies that were

used for the transcribing and we need a copy of the fax that Stephanie Howell sent to Mr. Howell from the offices of Lydia Gardner regarding the settlement that she was trying to extort Patrick Howell with. The fax is mentioned on the courthouse tape of October 18, 2001. Because of the use of Orange Co. facilities/ equipment to send the fax, it is a public record. Judge Hauser signed every injunction April 2, 3, 4 except for mine. He refused to sign Stephanie's sham petition and should have issued an order denying petition (1 have included a sample from April 2). Instead he lets her go "judge shopping" straight to the judge on the Patrick Howell case, Judge Sprinkel who knew full well that Lucey and I were responsible for Ms. Howell's devastating deposition (re: the tapes) and that we were at the courthouse trying to access that same case file 99-DR-2049 on April 1, 2, and 4 (the day we were served) that was being hidden by Ms. Howell since January 2003. On December 1, 2003 you sent me a letter after securing Sprinkel's calendar for April 3, 2003 which showed only 1 case for the afternoon: a 3 hour adoption case. In your letter you state "There is no indication of judicial impropriety." Shortly thereafter, a clerk at the courthouse told Lucey and I that the adoption case was a termination case and that there was no minutes or record of a 3 hour hearing, only an amended notice that was sent out. If Sprinkel presigned the injunction outside of the courthouse for Ms. Howell whereupon she then gets the petition notarized at 3: 58 pm April 3, 2003, it was never a legal instrument. The injunction timestamp says it came back down from Hauser's office at 5: 17 pm with the rest of the injunctions he signed that day.

BLANK Page 1

,,',' ;> Gus~, " :,::.~.,-:. dOlfGt
. \IS

\-\ow~
~~

c<\~

out to IOCCITRIAL CLERK/BRADLEY

PAMELA

in from IOCCfJUDGES AND JA'S/DOMESTIC

JUDGES & JAS/SHEL TON & JAS/SHEL TON

2:13:42

out to IOCC/JUDGES AND

4'11 3
0

Nt/)M.
~u-e .
()O?I~

fd~ '. St18vJ5
( ta
I V\ e,

t

4/2l0~

lu<-~
A.Cill/
l

.. ~~I.s

VY\4~

4 I '"LIe> 3~

f,re..cl.<

fry ON }-joweLLr CVSTVDY rlLf <-\<.~a~ -\'0\ ~ \..)~ lAJ€.. w-w \.d
a f t-e_.,r
I\ ~
1\

cc-P~

C. VV\-\ -e.

1.0 a G k

h on

~c_,\c__ U,? \
(y~

+k.

VJCU'\te..d
loac.....l<...
LuCfL.) l d .

41"3.1

0h

\\ke...

,Checked in ;Checked out Checked in Checked out ;~heckedin ~hecked in ~hecked out ,~hecked in ~hecked out Checked out :Checked in ~hecked in :!Checked out
i

ITOCONNEL JHARRELS CNORMAN CNORMAN TOCONNEL MMCCREE PBRADLEY DCPOWELL ~VU RAI CVELAZQU ~COUCH ~RAMIRE DBARNES JOHNAMES CONVERSION ~ONVERSION

9/5/2002 5:28:41 PM ~ecked 7/30/20025:19:06

in from IOCCICHILD SUPPORT/HARRELSON

JOAN

PM ~ecked out to IOCCICHILD SUPPORT/HARRELSON JOAN 7128/2002 1 :10:16 PM checked in from IOCCICHILD SUPPORT/NORMAN CAROLYN checked out to IOCCICHILD SUPPORTINORMAN CAROLYN 17/23/2002 11 :26:08

~
17/17/20025:18:38 PM checked in without being checked out ~/15/2002 6:09:56 PM checked in from IOCCIDOMESTIC CIVIL/BRADLEY PAMELA 5/14/20024:53:29 PM checked out to IOCCIDOMESTIC CIVILIBRADLEY PAMELA 4/23/2002 3:58:43 PM ~ecked in from IOCCIJUDGES AND JA'S/DOMESTIC JUDGES & JAS/SHEL TON ~ANDI 4/18/2002 2:45:33 PM ~ansfered to IOCCIJUDGES AND JA'SIDOMESTIC JUDGES & JAS/SHEL TON ~ANDI ~17/2002 8:39:09 AM checked out to IOCC/DOMESTIC CIVIL/RAI LISA 10/19/2001 6:29:02 checked in without being checked out PM 10/19/2001 PM 6:09:21 checked in from IOCCIDOMESTIC CIVILIVELAZQUEZ ~ansfered to IOCCIDOMESTIC CIVILIVELAZQUEZ ~ecked CARMEN

10/19/20013:11:00 PM 10/18/2001 PM 12:46:40

CARMEN

Checked out Created Note

out to IOCCIJUDGES AND JA'SIBRONSON THEOTIS JUDGE SHELF DRO-99

f4/23/1999 11 :25:52

created in IOCCIDOMESTIC CIVIL/DR FILE RooM/OPEN checked in from SMITH. BARBARA checked out to SMITH. BARBARA

~
~/11/1999 AM 12:03:00 :Note 3110/1999 12:01 :00 AM

http://ckfilserv02/tmwebfhistory

.asp ?id= 1778084

9/30/2004

._ .....

1999-DR-002049-O Volume: 002 Action lMoved User ID RTORRES Action Timestamp Infonnation 14/19/2004 9:15:34 AM move to /OCC/RECORDS MANAGEMENTIMAIN OFFICElSTORAGElDRO-99 PPEN SHELF from IOCCIRECORDS MANAGEMENTIMAIN bFFICElSTORAGElDRO-99 OPEN SHELF 14/19/2004 9:15:34 AM move to IOCC/RECORDS MANAGEMENT/MAIN OFFICElSTORAGElDRO-99 PPEN SHELF from IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS FILE ROOM/OPEN SHELF DRO~9 ~/20/2003 8:49:15 PM ~ecked in from /OCC/FAMIL Y SERVICESIDR RETURN CART ~120/2003 2:03:29 PM ~ecked 14/15/20034:45:31 PM ~ecked 14/15/20032:17:02 out to /OCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/DR RETURN CART in from /OCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/DR RETURN CART

~oved

~TORRES

~hecked in K;hecked out K;hecked in IChecked out IChecked out Cheeked in K;hecked out ~hecked out K;hecked out IChecked out iCreated

~FLYNN iKSMITH !KFLYNN ~FREDICK ~FREDICK ~HARRELS ~MELGAR [EFREDICK IEFREDICK DBRADDY ~RAMIRE .

PM ~nsfered to /OCC/FAMIL Y SERVICESIDR RETURN CART 14/1112003 2:58:03 PM checked out to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/DR FILE VIEW 14/10/20032:51:50 PM phecked in from IOCC/LAWYERS/FLORIDA BARIHOWELL STEPHANIE A ~/3/2003 9:25:07 AM [transfered to IOCCILAWYERS/FLORIDA BAR/HOWELL STEPHANIE A M2I2003 4:51 :52 PM Itransfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICESIHARRELSON JOAN ~/212003 11:28:29 AM itransfered to IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICESIDR FILE VIEW checked out to /OCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/HARRELSON JOAN ~/31/2003 11:36:55 ~M 12120/2002 11:11:19 created in IOCC/FAMIL Y SERVICES/FS FILE ROOM/OPEN SHELF DR0-99/ ~M

tJoh C.e- 1l1~ C S-:[ f-e'for-tef)h-I'-e~
~e_+LtJe-eh
L- f'

fl11~:(I15

[l.-/'-Oj-WOL
Jays
re, {:' (f_J-

f

3j.Jr/:?-ODL

Pd,)"l)
~ e.

VD Iv rne_ - 0 0 I 6-.1 t- -f1-,_u- c. ct)- c re.fe-h c.ie y: r.e_ P-/I 8 ) 2.002-- \hl v n-,e_- DO ( ol l}_j '2-0 /2-0 0 ')_ J 0 lU fY)e__ - 0 0 2- ' {l.;J~ -h le. W? J" rn ':s-n ~ Q r::-/:e.r 'ft,e,t- UYi-hi we ~r(__ed~ /srue.- Lf-J- O? ?1" cl cJt [(Zfvd c< k c'", ivv) e-:b'Oh b(J.rl'~f1J uS' ho Ot{.ceSY -to (Vb Lt c c f){'£f 0 q -J - 0:;
C Q '"
I tv)

-h1-)+

h.O~c._e_

+hl~ r-efort

VoIU~COOL!

yo-ort:. J.ak

,e

Y\

http://ckfilserv02/tmweblhistory.asp?id=5055500

9/30/2004

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->