Saturday, September 22, 2007
http://www.wiredbrain.net/
MOTION/PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS AGAINST THOMAS PFLAUM AND THE ENTERPRISE
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED JURISDICTION JURIS BRIEF
For the reasons stated below, the court finds that as a matter of fact and of law, no jury could find that the respondent have a right to the whole of Melanie Pflaum Estate, nor that the respondents have not infringed the duties of personal representative nor have not actively induce and engaged in a campaign of harassment of the petitioners in order to infringe their clear right to inheritance. The court therefore grants plaintiffs motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
MOTION FOR a petition for writ of prohibition November 5, 2006
A Civil complaint of Denial of Due Process and Civil Liberties leading to Tortious Interference with inheritance, false arrest, and gross Negligence causing serious damages without alternative remedy.
The court shall order a ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in the complaint can be decided upon certain facts and the law without trial. The summary judgment is based upon this motion by the plaintiffs which contends that all necessary factual issues so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party. The opposing party must respond by counter-declarations and legal arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If the court finds there are no triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then summary judgment must be granted as to that cause of action. The theory behind the summary judgment process is to eliminate the need to try settled factual issues and to decide without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion has been made.
Last year the 1DCA 6618 (FSC05-2330) suggested to the 8th Circuit that they should be able to settle the case - After more than a year nothing has been settled. The District Court of Appeal sent to the 8th Circuit a mandate:
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of Florida .WITNESS the Honorable CHARLES J. KAHN, JR. , Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida , First District, and the Seal of said Court done at Tallahassee , Florida , on this 12th day of May 2006.
ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
There is only one way the petitioner can find compensation for the mental anguish incurred from the will contest, and receive justified punitive damages based on the intentional and malicious conduct of the PR except in a summary judgment of a Tort of Interference . Huffey, 491 N. W. 2d 518. the Court must allow the Petitioner to summary judgment in tort because the probate court could not address these damages/ Proponents of the theory that “every wrong should have a remedy” believe that the tort of intentional interference with inheritance is a necessity. Here comes Petitioner Peter Pflaum, with motions to direct a finding of jurisdiction, summary judgment and order default the Personal Representative, Thomas Pflaum for the sum of $850,000 in direct damages the case.
HARASSMENTS, AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE
The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the petitioner by the misconduct of the enterprise, respondents and defendants, individually or severally, as the enterprisers, and co-conspirators and therefore the enterprise (including Merrill Lynch) systematically and continually over the last four years have engaged in a fraudulent enterprise conducted for improper financial gain. They will be liable for all the damages to the injured party, if Judge finds there were joint adventures that created several joint and collective liabilities. The result of this enterprise was to deny the plaintiff the just results of his inheritance from the estate of his mother, Melanie Pflaum.
THE LAW: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
LEGAL ANALYSIS
http://www.archerlaw.com/files/articles/interfere.html
A trial court’s ruling to dismiss for failure of the plaintiff’s motion to state a cause of action is an issue of law, and therefore, our standard of review is de novo. Roos v. Morrison, 913 So. 2d 59, 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). This court “must accept the facts alleged in a complaint as true when reviewing an order that determines the sufficiency of the complaint.” Warren ex rel. Brassell v. K-Mart Corp., 765 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Marshall v. Amerisys, Inc., 943 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(“In determining the merits of a motion to dismiss, is confined to the four corners of the complaint, including the attachments thereto, the allegations of which must be accepted as true and considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”.
The outrageous abuse of the facts and the law by the joint enterprise perpetrated on of the Court which is shocking to the judicial conscience—The gross conflicts of Interests led to violations by the enterprise of Rules 4-8. 4©, (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 4-8. 4(d), (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation). Thomas and Leanne should not profit by their bad behavior and unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an beneficiary citizen of this state. The enterprise must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise. It constitutes a miscarriage of justice—when it appears that the court was influenced by prejudice, corruption, passion, or is clearly in error and mistaken.
To state a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance, the complaint must allege the following elements: (1) the existence of an expectancy; (2) intentional interference with the expectancy through tortious conduct; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Claveloux v. Bacotti, 778 So. 2d 399, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(citing Whalen v. Prosser, 719 So. 2d 2, 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Judge in Whalen clearly explained that the purpose behind this tort is to protect the testator, not the beneficiary:
Whalen, 719 So. 2d at 6.
MOTION/PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS AGAINST THOMAS PFLAUM AND THE ENTERPRISE
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED JURISDICTION JURIS BRIEF
For the reasons stated below, the court finds that as a matter of fact and of law, no jury could find that the respondent have a right to the whole of Melanie Pflaum Estate, nor that the respondents have not infringed the duties of personal representative nor have not actively induce and engaged in a campaign of harassment of the petitioners in order to infringe their clear right to inheritance. The court therefore grants plaintiffs motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
MOTION FOR a petition for writ of prohibition November 5, 2006
A Civil complaint of Denial of Due Process and Civil Liberties leading to Tortious Interference with inheritance, false arrest, and gross Negligence causing serious damages without alternative remedy.
The court shall order a ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in the complaint can be decided upon certain facts and the law without trial. The summary judgment is based upon this motion by the plaintiffs which contends that all necessary factual issues so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party. The opposing party must respond by counter-declarations and legal arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If the court finds there are no triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then summary judgment must be granted as to that cause of action. The theory behind the summary judgment process is to eliminate the need to try settled factual issues and to decide without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion has been made.
Last year the 1DCA 6618 (FSC05-2330) suggested to the 8th Circuit that they should be able to settle the case - After more than a year nothing has been settled. The District Court of Appeal sent to the 8th Circuit a mandate:
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of Florida .WITNESS the Honorable CHARLES J. KAHN, JR. , Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida , First District, and the Seal of said Court done at Tallahassee , Florida , on this 12th day of May 2006.
ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
There is only one way the petitioner can find compensation for the mental anguish incurred from the will contest, and receive justified punitive damages based on the intentional and malicious conduct of the PR except in a summary judgment of a Tort of Interference . Huffey, 491 N. W. 2d 518. the Court must allow the Petitioner to summary judgment in tort because the probate court could not address these damages/ Proponents of the theory that “every wrong should have a remedy” believe that the tort of intentional interference with inheritance is a necessity. Here comes Petitioner Peter Pflaum, with motions to direct a finding of jurisdiction, summary judgment and order default the Personal Representative, Thomas Pflaum for the sum of $850,000 in direct damages the case.
HARASSMENTS, AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE
The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the petitioner by the misconduct of the enterprise, respondents and defendants, individually or severally, as the enterprisers, and co-conspirators and therefore the enterprise (including Merrill Lynch) systematically and continually over the last four years have engaged in a fraudulent enterprise conducted for improper financial gain. They will be liable for all the damages to the injured party, if Judge finds there were joint adventures that created several joint and collective liabilities. The result of this enterprise was to deny the plaintiff the just results of his inheritance from the estate of his mother, Melanie Pflaum.
THE LAW: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
LEGAL ANALYSIS
http://www.archerlaw.com/files/articles/interfere.html
A trial court’s ruling to dismiss for failure of the plaintiff’s motion to state a cause of action is an issue of law, and therefore, our standard of review is de novo. Roos v. Morrison, 913 So. 2d 59, 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). This court “must accept the facts alleged in a complaint as true when reviewing an order that determines the sufficiency of the complaint.” Warren ex rel. Brassell v. K-Mart Corp., 765 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Marshall v. Amerisys, Inc., 943 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(“In determining the merits of a motion to dismiss, is confined to the four corners of the complaint, including the attachments thereto, the allegations of which must be accepted as true and considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”.
The outrageous abuse of the facts and the law by the joint enterprise perpetrated on of the Court which is shocking to the judicial conscience—The gross conflicts of Interests led to violations by the enterprise of Rules 4-8. 4©, (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 4-8. 4(d), (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation). Thomas and Leanne should not profit by their bad behavior and unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an beneficiary citizen of this state. The enterprise must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise. It constitutes a miscarriage of justice—when it appears that the court was influenced by prejudice, corruption, passion, or is clearly in error and mistaken.
To state a cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance, the complaint must allege the following elements: (1) the existence of an expectancy; (2) intentional interference with the expectancy through tortious conduct; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Claveloux v. Bacotti, 778 So. 2d 399, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(citing Whalen v. Prosser, 719 So. 2d 2, 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Judge in Whalen clearly explained that the purpose behind this tort is to protect the testator, not the beneficiary:
Whalen, 719 So. 2d at 6.
