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 DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES WHITTEMORE HAD VIOLATED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

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 DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES WHITTEMORE HAD VIOLATED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

"we received the Order on the Motion For Reconsideration on the Order Denying Leave to Amend Complaint.
am forwarding this to you separately.

This is completely confounding . The Court denied the Motion, not on the basis of any statute of limitations but on the fact that Motion For Leave to Amend had already been argued and denied . I remember looking back in the file and seeing that the Court had prohibited you filing anything without permission from the Court (which appears to have lead to some of the multiplication of this case), and granted leave to amend the Complaint but only as to the amount of the claim . I do not understand the basis for that limitation .

I do not understand constitutionally how leave to amend could be denied at that time , nor in keeping with the general civil procedure rules and caselaw in favor of liberally granting amendment to complaints . I certainly see the Court was not happy, apparently. with the number of filings in the case, but this should not have meant that you could not file an amended pleading.

Be this as it may, we can not lament over the reasonings and unfairness. doing so will not bring any relief. We are where we are today, the point is what to do about it from this time forward. (i.e., what is the plan of action from this point onward)

It certainly seems to me that the salvage action needs to be appealed . I am unclear, a bit, on where the in rem appeal stands today. If I understand correctly the USCA dismissed some or all(??) of the Hutto case . As I mentioned , one way to proceed on Hutto is to go after him for fraud and try to frame it in the maritime context so that the court has jurisdiction (Art II. sec 3 of the Constitution). You certainly have damages there because of his fraud .

I would have to do some preliminary research on whether the Court's ruling today is appealable right now .
would believe that it is. but the 11th Circuit does dismiss what they deem to be interlocutory appeals .

we also have the settlement demand out to Schryver right now and he may want to settle the case. (See my email to you discussing settlement paramenters and issues) . As I said however . there is no way he settles the case without all of the case being resolved.

Please let me know what your thoughts are on proceeding forward with this case.

fdb

Frank D. Butler, Esq.
10550 U.S 19 North
Pinellas Park, FL 33782

PINELLAS
727-399-2222
727-399-2202 Fax

HILLSBOROUGH
813-899-2222
813-899-2202 Fax

888-BOATLAW"