Thursday, June 6, 2013

Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait, Florida lawyers, FAILED TO GIVE THIS E-MAIL TO MAGISTRATE JONES AND THEREBY FURTHERED THE FRAUD AND FAILED TO INFORM MAGISTRATE JONES OUR LAWYER TOLD US "payment had been made" that procured the OUTCOME OF VESSEL MISTRESS CASE WITH DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES WHITTEMORE

When The Florida Bar let Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait LIE to Magistrate Jones by saying our Vessel Mistress case was "frivolous" and "vexatious" without disclosing to Magistrate Jones that David and I were the VICTIMS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE'S WITNESS PERJURY, Rhodes and Schwait FAILED TO GIVE THIS E-MAIL TO MAGISTRATE JONES AND THEREBY FURTHERED THE FRAUD AND FAILED TO INFORM MAGISTRATE JONES OUR LAWYER TOLD US "a payment had been made" that procured the OUTCOME OF VESSEL MISTRESS CASE WITH DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES WHITTEMORE: 

"Thanks for the email letter today.

Ihave not heard anything from Jake Munch, and Ido not know whether he is in his office today . We are very slow today with phone contact from attorneys and we have not heard from one insurance adjuster the entire day . Even few clients have called today. It appears everyone is winding down for
Thi:!nksgiving . Ialso know that Mr. Munch routinely closes his office on
Fridays, so it would not be that much of a stretch to close early for the week.

I like the demand letter for insurance . You may be correct about the custodia legis expenses. I see and perform work on quite a lot of maritime insurance claims. If Schryver has not notified whatever insurance he may have had about this claim, they likely will deny it. Iam fighting a couple of these types of insurance-denial claims right now on different facts. But also, marine insurers usually tell me they are under no legal obligation to provide insurance information to me. They may be correct. Iam uncertain an insured has such an obligation, but most times Iconvince them to do so in order that they not prejudice their own coverage, and i n order to avoid me suing them to obtain just the coverage information.

You guys are probably better qualified to do the appeal of the denial of the Motion To Amend. By Judge Whittemore's latest ruling it appears he is saying "I already denied this Motion way back, and I am not going to revisit it". If tha is the case I do not know how the 11th Circuit doesn't remand it to allow leave to amend. This would have to constitute denial of access to the Court. Ido not know what the trial court would have you do at the point you were denied leave to amend (except to state the amount of your claim). Are they suggesting you should have filed another separate lawsuit against the in personam defendants? (which quite obviously would be a waste of money and
resources because we know the situation arose out of the same facts and
transactions, and the cases would have been consolidated anyway.}

I understand the court was a bit frustrated with the number of pleadings in the file and docket, but Ibelieve the court would be hardpressed to say the Plaintiffs had abused their rights to amend their complaint. There may be some confusion about limiting the number of pleadings overall versus limiting the Plaintiffs' right to amend their complaint {especially to name defendants which may or may not be in the case)

I would say you guys go forward with the appeal but I definltely want to stay involved and apprised in the premises of the salvage case. You guys have
more experience doing the appeals than I, especially as it relates to the 11th
Circuit . (Although we did just win reversal of a summary judgment in state
court on a minor case)(And, Ihave won some and lost some in appeals in
general)

It is ridiculous that you guys should have to suffer the prejudice of this witness' perjury (and realistically don't we know why he perjured himself?) (answer : payment had been made). It is unfair that the judge(s) limited your ability to amend the complaint .


Ihad told Jake that if the Court denied the Motion For leave To Amend that the same would be appealed, and at some point, Schryver is going to have to begin paying someone to do his appeal work. Ialso say again that getting tha fraud case going against Hutto in the trial court will put pressure on Schryver (you know he had to have paid Hutto)

fdb

http://us.f525.rnail.yahoo/ .com/ym/ShowLetter?Msgld=4059 __21089727_.1352416_2095_7... 3/26/2007"



No comments:

Post a Comment