Here is Trevor Rhodes, Esq.'s Response untimely filed today under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 11 certifying that his pleading is not frivolous or filed for any improper purpose when he represents IN DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE OF HON. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MAURICE PAUL'S APRIL 30, 2013 ORDER, that it is 'an appeal' and that my Objections to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation filed by May 28, 2013 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER, should be stricken as unauthorized and untimely -- THIS SHOWS THE OPENLY FRAUD ON THE COURT BY WHICH TREVOR RHODES, ESQ. AND BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER Tampa law firm obtained the sanctions "to deter" my Autistic language and behaviors without my being able to see to read any of the pleadings he filed against me to do so, and by which it appears this lawyer and law firm litigate cases against other Florida parties and law firms:
"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DAVID F. PETRANO and
MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO,
Plaintiffs, v.
1:13-cv-00079-MP-GRJ
TREVOR RHODES, et al,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS, TREVOR RHODES, BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER PA, CARL
SCHWAIT AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR’S RESPONSE T O
HON. CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE ’S RECOMMENDATION MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
COME NOW, the Defendants, TREVOR RHODES (“Rhodes”), BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER PA (“BLG”), CARL SCHWAIT (“Schwait”) and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPNAY (“Nationwide”), pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, file this Response and Objection to Plaintiff-Debtor’s Response to Hon. Chief Bankruptcy Judge’s Recommendation Motion for Withdrawal. (Doc. 12). Although the Plaintiffs’ concurrent Chapter 12 bankruptcy is presently stayed, Defendants feel a response is required because the allegations and issues raised in Plaintiffs’ response directly relate to the bankruptcy. In support of their response and objection, Defendants state the following:
1. As this Court is aware, this is a federal court case with a long and convoluted
procedural history but a brief background, highlighting the main points leading up to this response, is necessary.
2. On January 24, 2013, after the Plaintiffs’ filed a complaint and amended complaint against the named Defendants, the Court adopted a report and recommendation, ordered the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case with prejudice and entered final judgment. (Doc. 225, 179 1:12-cv- 00086-SPM-GRJ)
3. On February 4, 2013, it was further recommended that sanctions be awarded due to the frivolous nature of the Complaint. (Doc. 182, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ).
4. Following the entry of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation recommending sanctions, the Plaintiffs’ filed for Chapter 12 Bankruptcy (Doc. 1, 13-10052-KKS). Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy on February 12, 2013 and asserted in their filing that this underlying action was subject to the automatic stay provided in 11 U.S.C.
§ 362. (Doc. 191, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ).
5. Defendants immediately filed a motion seeking to strike the Petranos’ Suggestion of Bankruptcy, correctly pointing out that the automatic stay typically associated with the filing of bankruptcy would not apply in a case where, as here, the debtors were plaintiffs rather than defendants, nor to the pending award of sanctions. (Doc. 192, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ).
6. The Suggestion of Bankruptcy was ultimately stricken. (Doc. 206, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM- GRJ).
7. At a hearing held on April 4, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that no such stay was in Place. (Doc. 73, 13-10052-KKS).
8. On April 16, 2013, Judge Specie entered the Order on Order to Show Cause as to Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem in Plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 Bankruptcy, case number 13- 10052. Judge Specie specifically ordered that “[t]his Chapter 12 case, and all applicable deadlines shall be stayed until further order of the Court to permit the Debtors time to seek a determination in state court as to whether Day-Petrano is incompetent and as to whether, and to what extent, a guardian ad litem should be appointed for Day-Petrano.” Whether from oversight or clerical error, the Plaintiffs did not mention the judge’s Order in their response. (Doc. 80, 13- 10052-KKS).
9. On April 22, 2013, the District Court withdrew the reference with report and recommendation. (Doc. 1).
10. The Plaintiffs’ filed a response, effectively requesting the District Court to take judicial notice of their allegations and deny Judge Specie’s Report and Recommendation Motion to Withdraw Reference, which is itself an appeal and procedurally inappropriate. (Doc. 9).
Memorandum of Law
I. Defendants did not Waive Proof of Claim or Make Judicial Admission
One portion of the Plaintiffs’ allegations in their response filing is that the Defendants have somehow waived their proof of claim by not filing the same before the originally set deadline in the Plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 Bankruptcy. Defendants maintain that they did not waive their proof of claim or make a judicial admission by not filing a proof of claim prior to the bar date because Judge Specie specifically ordered that all deadlines be stayed in the bankruptcy until further order. (Doc. 80, 13-10052-KKS). As such, the Defendants were stayed from filing a proof of claim. Clearly, no judicial admission was made in this case and the only reason Defendants are compelled to respond is because the Plaintiffs are employing tactics to elicit judicial notice from this District on a bankruptcy matter.
Defendants would also submit that the Plaintiffs are attempting to usurp the ruling of the bankruptcy court by essentially requesting judicial notice from the district court and appealing the report and recommendation without any procedural support. On April 16, 2013, the bankruptcy court entered its Order and stated that the Plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 bankruptcy “and all applicable deadlines shall be stayed until further order of the Court…” (Doc. 80, 13-10052- KKS). Directly relating to the proof of claim bar date, Defendants contend that they are not only stayed from filing a proof of claim because of the order, but that the Plaintiffs are ignoring the appropriate appeals process if they so elect to object to the withdrawal of reference.
Finally, even if the Court determines that Defendants proof of claim was not filed timely and it declares judicial notice on a bankruptcy matter, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501(c) states in part that “[i]f a creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor's claim, the debtor or the trustee may file a proof of such claim.” Therefore, the proof of claim is not waived.
II. Defendants did not Fail to File Adversary Complaint
Similarly, the Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants failed to timely file an adversary complaint to determine the dischargeability of their claim. The Defendants maintain that they did not fail to file the adversary complaint to determine the dischargeability of its debt within the sixty (60) days outlined in 11 U.S.C. 523(c) because the entire bankruptcy, including deadlines, was stayed by Judge Specie on April 16, 2013. The sixty (60) days to file the adversary complaint lapsed on May 14, 2013, approximately one month after Judge Specie’s Order. Additionally, the dischargeability of Defendants’ claim, the subject of such an adversary complaint, is the purpose of the withdrawal of reference.
At the risk of being duplicative, the Defendants reiterate that the bankruptcy court, having jurisdiction over this matter, stayed the Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy until further order. (Doc. 80, 13-10052-KKS). The Plaintiffs are simply attempting to usurp the bankruptcy court’s ruling by judicial noticing these matters and ignoring the appropriate procedural and appellate process. The bankruptcy is stayed, therefore the defendants have not failed to file an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of claim.
III. Issue at Bar is not a Core Proceeding and Therefore a Withdrawal of Reference is Appropriate
Finally, Plaintiffs delved into discourse regarding mandatory and permissive withdrawal of reference. First, this matter has already been withdrawn to this Court and the Plaintiffs’ response to Judge Specie’s recommendation is untimely. Second, case law establishes that a “core proceeding” is one that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. See, McCord
v. Papantoniou, 316 B.R. 113 (E.D.N.Y.2004); In re Burger Boys, Inc., 183 B.R. 682 (S.D.N.Y.1994); In re Cossett, 75 B.R. 766 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1987). By extension, matters that are merely related to bankruptcy case are not core proceedings, and thus, although they are within bankruptcy jurisdiction of district court, bankruptcy judge to whom such matter is referred may only propose findings of fact and conclusions of law to assist district court in rendering judgment. See, In re Markos Gurnee Partnership, 182 B.R. 211 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1995).
Conversely, “non-core proceedings” in bankruptcy are those “otherwise related” to case under title 11 which have significant connection to debtor's bankruptcy but do not satisfy the standard for core proceedings in that the proceeding does not arise under title 11 or in a case under title 11. Plaza at Latham Associates v. Citicorp North America, Inc., 150 B.R. 507 (N.D.N.Y.1993).
Additionally, the Defendants object to the absurd allegation that they are forum shopping this matter. The proceeding at bar arose out of the Plaintiffs’ civil suit against the named Defendants and not from their subsequent bankruptcy or other proceedings. As permitted by statute, the bankruptcy court correctly filed a motion to withdraw the reference and this Honorable Court correctly withdrew the reference to render judgment for the sake of judicial economy.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, RHODES, BLG, SCHWAIT and NATIONWAIDE,
request that Plaintiffs’ Response be stricken or denied, as well as any and all other relief deemed just and appropriate, in light of the bankruptcy court’s Order Staying Chapter 12 case, and the numerous delineated reasons.
CERTIFICATE OF LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Carl Schwait, has attempted to confer with pro se Plaintiffs, David F. Petrano and Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, in regards to this matter via email on June 13, 2013, in a good faith effort to resolve the issues presented by Defendants’ response and the relief sought. However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on same.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER P.A.
501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602-5246
(813) 221-1500
Fax No: (813) 222-3066
Attorneys for Defendants Schwait and Nationwide
/s/ Trevor T. Rhodes
Trevor T. Rhodes Florida Bar No: 0020573
BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER P.A.
501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602-5246
(813) 221-1500
Fax No: (813) 222-3066
Email: trhodes@bankerlopez.com
Attorneys for Rhodes, BLG, Schwait and Nationwide
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13th day of June, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, and will send notice via email or U.S. Mail to the following:
David F. Petrano
11502 SE U.S. Hwy 301
Hawthorne, FL 32640
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano 11502 SE U.S. Hwy 301
Hawthorne, FL 32640
Gina G. Smith
Butler Pppas Weihmuller 3600 Maclay Blvd., Suite 101
Tallahassee, FL 32312
/s/ Trevor T. Rhodes
Trevor T. Rhodes Florida Bar No: 0020573
BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER P.A.
501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602-5246
(813) 221-1500
Fax No: (813) 222-3066
Email: trhodes@bankerlopez.com Attorneys for Carl Schwait and Nationwide"
Thursday, June 13, 2013
MORE BIG INSURANCE COMPANY & LAWYER BEATS UP ON SEVERE AUTISM -- Trevor Rhodes, Esq. & Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A. Tampa Law Firm UNTIMELY Response W/O Leave of Court In Disobedience Of Hon. Judge Paul's April 30, 2013 Order Saying It Is an Appeal and My Objections Filed In Compliance With Judge Paul's Order Should Be Stricken As "Untimely"
Hon. Senior United States District Court Judge Maurice Paul Entered An April 30, 2013 Order Ruling Chief Bankruptcy Judge's Report & Recommendation Was NOT AN APPEAL and Ordering I Had Until May 28, 2013 To File Objections, Which I Did
Here is Hon. Senior United States District Court Judge Maurice Paul's April 30, 2013 Order ruling the Chief Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation to Withdraw Reference is NOT AN APPEAL and ordering / authorizing me to file Objections to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation by May 28, 2013, which I did:
"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DAYID F. PETRANO ,
MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO ,
Plaintiffs ,
v. CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00079-MP-GRJ
TREVOR RHODES , et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation to withdraw the reference as to this adversary proceeding and transfer to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. (Doc. 23). The Clerk incorrectly construed this matter as an appeal from a final order of the Bankruptcy Court and filed a briefing scheduling order. In fact, this matter is before the Court on the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation to withdraw the reference as to this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 157(d).
Once the parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and
have been afforded an opportunity to file objections , the Court will consider the matter.
Accordingly , it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The bankruptcy scheduling order (doc. 5) is VACATED.
2. The parties may file objections to the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation on or before May 28, 2013.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April , 2013
s/ Maurice M Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Case No: 1: 12-cv-00009-MP-GRJ"
"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DAYID F. PETRANO ,
MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO ,
Plaintiffs ,
v. CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00079-MP-GRJ
TREVOR RHODES , et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation to withdraw the reference as to this adversary proceeding and transfer to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. (Doc. 23). The Clerk incorrectly construed this matter as an appeal from a final order of the Bankruptcy Court and filed a briefing scheduling order. In fact, this matter is before the Court on the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation to withdraw the reference as to this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 157(d).
Once the parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and
have been afforded an opportunity to file objections , the Court will consider the matter.
Accordingly , it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The bankruptcy scheduling order (doc. 5) is VACATED.
2. The parties may file objections to the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation on or before May 28, 2013.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April , 2013
s/ Maurice M Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Case No: 1: 12-cv-00009-MP-GRJ"
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"
"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"
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"
"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"
Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait, Florida lawyers, FAILED TO GIVE THIS E-MAIL TO MAGISTRATE JONES AND THEREBY FURTHERED THE FRAUD
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:
"From: "fdblawfirm@aol.com"
To: dpetrano@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:52 AMSubject: Re: this is not mary, it's David Petrano, RE: Pickles
What do you want to do in this case with regard to Mr. Pickles? I can send a subpoena D/T, maybe. I am uncertain as to what the trial court view is the status of the case. I thought we viewed the status as you guys have had the in rem part of the case up on appeal for some time now, and the in personam denial of the leave to amend is on appeal. Can we even do anything in the trial court level at this point without running the risk of Rule 11?
Also, Mary had replied that pleading a case against Hutto for the fraudulent testimony would be protected--and I do not know conclusively the answer to that question without researching it--but my next question is OK then, why not plead the case against Schryver for suborning the perjury? There certainly must be a cause of action for that. (You have actual damages in the custodial fees assessed against you) Also, this would have been another possibility--would it not--had the trial court allowed you the chance to amend your complaint. And clearly there would be no time-based or abuse-of-amendment arguments to prohibit such an amendment.
I hope Mary understands that I am for you as clients. ...
I should be hearing back from attorney Munch here in the next bit on whether Schryver wants to settle the case. Presently, there is no offer on the table, nor has there been from the Defendants.
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
STATEWIDE
888-BOATLAW"
(emphasis added).
"From: "fdblawfirm@aol.com"
To: dpetrano@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:52 AMSubject: Re: this is not mary, it's David Petrano, RE: Pickles
What do you want to do in this case with regard to Mr. Pickles? I can send a subpoena D/T, maybe. I am uncertain as to what the trial court view is the status of the case. I thought we viewed the status as you guys have had the in rem part of the case up on appeal for some time now, and the in personam denial of the leave to amend is on appeal. Can we even do anything in the trial court level at this point without running the risk of Rule 11?
Also, Mary had replied that pleading a case against Hutto for the fraudulent testimony would be protected--and I do not know conclusively the answer to that question without researching it--but my next question is OK then, why not plead the case against Schryver for suborning the perjury? There certainly must be a cause of action for that. (You have actual damages in the custodial fees assessed against you) Also, this would have been another possibility--would it not--had the trial court allowed you the chance to amend your complaint. And clearly there would be no time-based or abuse-of-amendment arguments to prohibit such an amendment.
I hope Mary understands that I am for you as clients. ...
I should be hearing back from attorney Munch here in the next bit on whether Schryver wants to settle the case. Presently, there is no offer on the table, nor has there been from the Defendants.
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
STATEWIDE
888-BOATLAW"
(emphasis added).
THE FLORIDA BAR LIKES TO BEAT UP ON FRAGILE X RETARDS WITH SEVERE AUTISM - JEFFREY BROWN, A RETARD - AUTISM BIGOT
The TRUTH about The Florida Bar -- communication I just sent, and I am going to being posting on my blog and disseminating to the Autism community what PIGS and a BASTION of Autism discrimination and ABUSERS The Florida Bar is AND I AM NOT GOING TO SHUT UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:
"Immediately After I Requested To Make A 28 CFR Sec. 35.107 ADA Grievance Over Jeffrey Brown Not Accommodating MY Disabilities, Jeffrey Brown Referred David Petrano To Grievance Committee in Violation Of 42 USC Sec. 12203 - This serves as my Notice Of My Intent To File New Lawsuit Against TFB, Jeffrey Brown, and Grievance Committee, As Well As Initiators of The Bar Complaint Based On Failure To Accommodate My Disabilities By Magistrate Jones, for Money Damages For Intentional Retaliation Intended to Derail My Bankruptcy, Deprive me of my Caregiver, and Inflict Disability Injury On Me When TFB, Schwait, and Gonzalez Are Creditors in my Bankruptcy."
Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait, two Florida Bar members, OUTRIGHT INTENTIONALLY LIED to Magistrate Gary R. Jones (COMMITTED A FRAUD ON THE COURT), by stating:
1.) All Petrano lawsuits all over Florida are "frivolous" and "vexatious" and pro se, citing to The Vessel Mistress and Altenbernd lawsuits; and
2.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones of Magistrate Jenkins report and recommendation ruling Vessel Mistress lawsuit was meritorious;
3.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that Jacob J. Munch filed a notice of false testimony of Theron Hutto and Hutto admitted to knowingly and willfully committing perjury in open court against David and I, and he knew a person with severe Autism cannot tell when someone is lying when he did it;
4.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that David and I were not pro se but had a lawyer, Frank Butler, Esq. in Vessel Mistress case who wrote in his e-mail that it was "ridiculous" the District Judge James D. Whittemore was saddling us with the costs of the witness perjury against us, that Whittemore was unconstitutionally denying us relief on our meritorious complaint and leave to amend, and that the case went against us because "a payment had been made" (YES, WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING FROM FRANK BUTLER, ESQ.);
5.)Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that we asked Whittemore to appoint me a Guardian Ad Litem in Vessel Mistress case (3 pleadings) because of my severe Autism and Fragile X learning disabilities and he refused to even consider the issue; and
6.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that 11th Circuit Judge Charles Wilson entered an Order making the finding my Altenbernd case was "not frivolous."
In the face of this evidence, The Florida Bar REFUSES TO PROSECUTE JACOB MUNCH, TREVOR RHODES, OR CARL SCHWAIT.
Instead, The Florida Bar attacked David by referring him to have HIS license taken away AS THE VICTIM OF THE PERJURY AND THE PAYMENT THAT "WAS MADE" TO PROCURE THE OUTCOME OF THE VESSEL MISTRESS CASE.
While attacking David, The Florida Bar's Jeffrey Brown knowingly refused to give David (and I) Title II ADA extra time accommodations so David could meet his caregiving duties to me, and Jeffrey Brown knew this meant I would not be fed my meals on time, and it would trigger seizures, and that people with Autism and epilepsy have an 800 % risk of sudden death in situations such as this where Jeffrey Brown with The Florida Bar's backing, INTENTIONALLY REFUSED THE ADA ACCOMMODATIONS KNOWING IT WOULD INFLICT A HIGH RISK OF DEATH-FROM-SEIZURE ON ME.
The Florida Bar's public records response shows Jeffrey Brown has NO Title II ADA training at all.
My letter to The Florida Bar, against these background facts, continued:
"Pls. immediately provide me the public records of whether or not Thomas M. Gonzalez and/or Carl Schwait and/or Trevor Rhodes initiated the Bar Complaint against David or have been involved with it in any way that is being referred to a Grievance Committee in 42 USC Sec. 12203 retaliation violation of MY request for accommodations made the same day as the referral.
I am prepared to immediately file my lawsuit and seek the information compelled through discovery in the event TFB records custodian continues to obstruct the public records request.
It is clear there was not enough time for Jeffrey Brown to investigate the response to the inquiry letter David responded to that injured my caregiving before referral to the Grievance committee. It is a clear retaliation against ME whom David cares for from his lawyer income, in retaliation for my asking for ADA accommodations in the Bar complaints I filed as well as to provide witness testimony to Davids and to accommodate my caregiving needs.
I am also going to start posting on my blog about how Jeffrey Brown did this to injure my Autism and he can sue me if he would like, but I am NOT going to take down my posts and I am going to tweet them several times per day to the Autism community.
This is Autism discrimination and abuse.You are a Horrid organization that is a BASTION of Autism discrimination who refuses to protect adults with severe Autism, and selectively prosecutes Autism family members and furthers and encourages your Bar members to discriminate, retaliate, commit fraud, and abuse severely Autistic adults.
The Autism community and the entire United States has a First Amendment right to know what your organization stands for - Autism abuse and discrimination.
Respectfully,
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano"
I personally requested a Title II ADA extra time accommodation from Jeffrey Brown so David could tend my caregiving needs, and Jeffrey Brown responded by WHINING ABOUT THE ADA and referring David to a Florida Bar grievance committee ON THE SAME DAY -- A CLEAR 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203 ADA retaliation.
There were over 100 evidence documents Jeffrey Brown NEVER INVESTIGATED that supported David's response, before ANGRILY REACTING TO THE ADA ACCOMMODATIONS REQUEST BY REFERRING HIM TO GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE - how does a Bar investigator read and investigate a 130 pg response and over 100 evidence documents in only 1-2 days ?
He CAN'T.
Hello Florida Bar, I will SUE YOU AGAIN. I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE YOUR AUTISM ABUSE, AND I HAVE ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING, 28 C.F.R. SEC. 35.130(g).
COME BEAT UP ON A RETARD AGAIN - THE FLORIDA BAR LIKES TO BEAT UP ON FRAGILE X RETARDS WITH SEVERE AUTISM - JEFFREY BROWN, A RETARD - AUTISM BIGOT.
"Immediately After I Requested To Make A 28 CFR Sec. 35.107 ADA Grievance Over Jeffrey Brown Not Accommodating MY Disabilities, Jeffrey Brown Referred David Petrano To Grievance Committee in Violation Of 42 USC Sec. 12203 - This serves as my Notice Of My Intent To File New Lawsuit Against TFB, Jeffrey Brown, and Grievance Committee, As Well As Initiators of The Bar Complaint Based On Failure To Accommodate My Disabilities By Magistrate Jones, for Money Damages For Intentional Retaliation Intended to Derail My Bankruptcy, Deprive me of my Caregiver, and Inflict Disability Injury On Me When TFB, Schwait, and Gonzalez Are Creditors in my Bankruptcy."
Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait, two Florida Bar members, OUTRIGHT INTENTIONALLY LIED to Magistrate Gary R. Jones (COMMITTED A FRAUD ON THE COURT), by stating:
1.) All Petrano lawsuits all over Florida are "frivolous" and "vexatious" and pro se, citing to The Vessel Mistress and Altenbernd lawsuits; and
2.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones of Magistrate Jenkins report and recommendation ruling Vessel Mistress lawsuit was meritorious;
3.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that Jacob J. Munch filed a notice of false testimony of Theron Hutto and Hutto admitted to knowingly and willfully committing perjury in open court against David and I, and he knew a person with severe Autism cannot tell when someone is lying when he did it;
4.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that David and I were not pro se but had a lawyer, Frank Butler, Esq. in Vessel Mistress case who wrote in his e-mail that it was "ridiculous" the District Judge James D. Whittemore was saddling us with the costs of the witness perjury against us, that Whittemore was unconstitutionally denying us relief on our meritorious complaint and leave to amend, and that the case went against us because "a payment had been made" (YES, WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING FROM FRANK BUTLER, ESQ.);
5.)Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that we asked Whittemore to appoint me a Guardian Ad Litem in Vessel Mistress case (3 pleadings) because of my severe Autism and Fragile X learning disabilities and he refused to even consider the issue; and
6.) Trevor Rhodes and Carl Schwait failed to Inform Magistrate Jones that 11th Circuit Judge Charles Wilson entered an Order making the finding my Altenbernd case was "not frivolous."
In the face of this evidence, The Florida Bar REFUSES TO PROSECUTE JACOB MUNCH, TREVOR RHODES, OR CARL SCHWAIT.
Instead, The Florida Bar attacked David by referring him to have HIS license taken away AS THE VICTIM OF THE PERJURY AND THE PAYMENT THAT "WAS MADE" TO PROCURE THE OUTCOME OF THE VESSEL MISTRESS CASE.
While attacking David, The Florida Bar's Jeffrey Brown knowingly refused to give David (and I) Title II ADA extra time accommodations so David could meet his caregiving duties to me, and Jeffrey Brown knew this meant I would not be fed my meals on time, and it would trigger seizures, and that people with Autism and epilepsy have an 800 % risk of sudden death in situations such as this where Jeffrey Brown with The Florida Bar's backing, INTENTIONALLY REFUSED THE ADA ACCOMMODATIONS KNOWING IT WOULD INFLICT A HIGH RISK OF DEATH-FROM-SEIZURE ON ME.
The Florida Bar's public records response shows Jeffrey Brown has NO Title II ADA training at all.
My letter to The Florida Bar, against these background facts, continued:
"Pls. immediately provide me the public records of whether or not Thomas M. Gonzalez and/or Carl Schwait and/or Trevor Rhodes initiated the Bar Complaint against David or have been involved with it in any way that is being referred to a Grievance Committee in 42 USC Sec. 12203 retaliation violation of MY request for accommodations made the same day as the referral.
I am prepared to immediately file my lawsuit and seek the information compelled through discovery in the event TFB records custodian continues to obstruct the public records request.
It is clear there was not enough time for Jeffrey Brown to investigate the response to the inquiry letter David responded to that injured my caregiving before referral to the Grievance committee. It is a clear retaliation against ME whom David cares for from his lawyer income, in retaliation for my asking for ADA accommodations in the Bar complaints I filed as well as to provide witness testimony to Davids and to accommodate my caregiving needs.
I am also going to start posting on my blog about how Jeffrey Brown did this to injure my Autism and he can sue me if he would like, but I am NOT going to take down my posts and I am going to tweet them several times per day to the Autism community.
This is Autism discrimination and abuse.You are a Horrid organization that is a BASTION of Autism discrimination who refuses to protect adults with severe Autism, and selectively prosecutes Autism family members and furthers and encourages your Bar members to discriminate, retaliate, commit fraud, and abuse severely Autistic adults.
The Autism community and the entire United States has a First Amendment right to know what your organization stands for - Autism abuse and discrimination.
Respectfully,
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano"
I personally requested a Title II ADA extra time accommodation from Jeffrey Brown so David could tend my caregiving needs, and Jeffrey Brown responded by WHINING ABOUT THE ADA and referring David to a Florida Bar grievance committee ON THE SAME DAY -- A CLEAR 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203 ADA retaliation.
There were over 100 evidence documents Jeffrey Brown NEVER INVESTIGATED that supported David's response, before ANGRILY REACTING TO THE ADA ACCOMMODATIONS REQUEST BY REFERRING HIM TO GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE - how does a Bar investigator read and investigate a 130 pg response and over 100 evidence documents in only 1-2 days ?
He CAN'T.
Hello Florida Bar, I will SUE YOU AGAIN. I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE YOUR AUTISM ABUSE, AND I HAVE ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING, 28 C.F.R. SEC. 35.130(g).
COME BEAT UP ON A RETARD AGAIN - THE FLORIDA BAR LIKES TO BEAT UP ON FRAGILE X RETARDS WITH SEVERE AUTISM - JEFFREY BROWN, A RETARD - AUTISM BIGOT.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Dealing w/ autism in the legal system - by my husband, David Petrano
To:
"cschwait@dellgraham.com" , "bog8@flabar.org" , "Mary Day- Petrano"
Mr. Schwait,
is there any program or mechanism to train lawyers and judges to effectively communicate or meaningfully deal with adults on the autism spectrum, so to ensure these people receive due process of law whether in tort, contract or civil rights settings? I am sure you agree this is a critical issue which must be addressed in order to meet TFB's goal of attaining "equal access to and availability of legal services" as mentioned in the letter I received from you this morning.
I have first-hand knowledge of what it is to live with an autistic adult, especially in terms of what it is like to experience an "autism meltdown" when autistics and/or their caretakers attempt to seek remedy and redress in the legal system, and are met with attorneys and judges who have no autism awareness training.
In a USDCNDF case where my autistic wife sought UM coverage to pay for medically diagnosed brain injury my wife suffered in an automobile accident, US Magistrate Judge Gary Jones made an intitial factual finding my autistic wife was a licensed attorney and even invited me to commit the felony crime of filing pro hac vice motions to enable her to practice law in USDCNDF, with zero factual foundation to support his finding my wife was a lawyer. This single instance which is commonly referred to among the autism community as an "autistic meltdown" resulted in my autistic wife biting her arms, crying and screaming non-stop for 12+ hours, w/ conditions I can only describe as a prolonged uncontrollable seizure.
In another instance, a licensed FL attorney, Ms. Gina Smith who had first-hand knowledge of my wife's untreated brain injury, autism and propensity to experience severe autism meltdowns, sent Mary and myself a US District Court confer communication regarding Ms. Smith's intent to file a judicial notice motion regarding Florida DHSMV records, which both Mary and I understood as an attempt by Ms. Smith to trigger revocation of our FL drivers licenses based on our respective disabilities. As described above, this confer proffered by Ms. Smith resulted in my autistic wife experiencing another "autistic meltdown" no less severe than described above.
Such fact patterns as described above can only be avoided when attorneys and judges alike, attain autism awareness, so to enlighten lawyers and judges the orders and legal pleadings they file can have horrible, life threatening effects on persons with autism.
Given your position w/ TFB, with your stated goal to "attain equal access to and availability of legal services," it is extremely important for you to realize the present autism epidemic has in fact resulted in many autism caretakers to do unthinkable things because they simply cannot help their autism family members to attain due process of law when seeking to attain autism accommodations or medical treatment.
For example my wife's former caretaker-mother poured gasoline on herself and self-immolated in front of my wife (which according to her suicide note and related letters, she was no longer able help her daughter attain autism disability accommodations with courts and lawyers).
For over a decade, I have had an extremely difficult time providing caretaking duties to my autistic wife which I am ordered to do by Pinellas County Circuit Judge Jack St Arnold, not because my wife "suffers" from autism" but because she "suffers" from what others with no autism awareness training say and do to her whenever she seeks legal redress in courts.
I look forward to your prompt reply to ensure my wife and my other disabled clients attain due process of law by lawyers and judges with actual training in autism and disability awareness, because at this present time, anything I do or say on my wife's behalf or any disabled client in a courtroom setting, is alwaysinterpreted as "shotgun pleading," "without merit," "vexatious," "sanctionable" etc., by judges and lawyers who lack autism training and awareness, to the extent my law license to practice law is in jeopardy.
David F. Petrano, Esq.
Hawthorne Legal Services
11502 SE US Hwy 301
Hawthorne, FL 32640-7720
Phone (727) 808-0446
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)