LEVELS OF REALITY – WELL consciousness.

Friday, November 23, 2007

After four years the Probate Case of Melanie Pflaum was closed on Nov. 21st 2007. The judge Toby Monaco accepted a petition for final accounting and discharge over the objections of the brothers, Peter and John. The Personal Representative (PR) brother Thomas get to keep all of the assets and property of the estate and the brothers are disinherited. Melanie’s long term home in Spain is still in limbo and in decay. The 1.5 million reported to IRS estate taxes all belongs to Thomas and his wife, Leanne according to this court.
Peter is ordered not to defend or protect his rights – he has no civil rights or claims to due process.
Justice?
· In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment. The substance of these accusations was that Thomas Pflaum wrongfully procured Merrill Lynch appointment as JTWROS and caused the estate administration to be more expensive. As such, plaintiffs sought, among other things, recompense for all “avoidable probate expenses” and disgorgement of all fees.
Where do I turn for a fair hearing?
http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/unethical_lawyers_should_not_be_paid_to_pervert_corrupt_and_abuse_the_legal_system
I was with my mother when she died at 93 in her home in Javea, Spain in March 2004. She left her estate in equal shares (about 2 million) to her three sons, John my older brother, me (Peter), and my younger brother Thomas, an attorney who was appointed mother’s personal representative in a uncontested will, Thomas had written by his law firm.
Thomas informed by me e-mail (in the record) at the time of our Mother’s death that he and his wife, Leanne, an instructor at the law school UF, were going to keep everything for themselves. (The whole deck of cards) They wrote they had hired a “crack legal team” of Mr. White to be the attorney for the estate and they also employed a trial lawyer, Mr. Hoppe, to attack me and my wife, Mary Anne. Thomas threatens me and my family with very unpleasant actions if I did not agree to abandon my rights, at once. This was a complete shock; Thomas had pretended to be a reliable member of the family but had used his skills to successfully deceive his mother and brothers.
From the time mother died one third of her property belonged to me and is only in trust to Thomas. Thomas claimed venue in his hometown in a friendly court based on a outrageous perjury that mother lived with him in Gainesville (Micanopy) Florida since 1987. Melanie wrote in 2002 that she was not visiting because she did not have a room in Micanopy. She never lived there, had no bank, property, social contacts, in Micanopy. She had her home in Spain, where she had good friends of over 35 years that have written to the court. Melanie visited Peter and Thomas for a few weeks in the 1990’s, she also visited with Aunt Bobby (letter sent to the court) in Lee High acres, with Kay and Virginia in South Florida but lived, domiciled, was at home in Javea (Alicante) Spain, in a substantial house she owned in a planed community and was a member of the El Tosalet Homeowners Association, with water, electric and telephone utilities, in her name and registered with the U.S. State Department in Washington, with the American Council in Valencia, with the American Embassy in Madrid and the IRS as an non-resident American living abroad and paying taxes as a overseas resident since 1965. The court has not cared about these facts.
Mary Anne and our children, Sara and Blaine, visited Melanie in the summers in the 1990’s and are completely familiar with her friends and where and how she lived. Therefore the claim of venue is outrageous and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the truth, ethical constraints, or common decency. They are behaving like the John Cary character a lawyer in the movie “Liar, Liar” whose practice depends on deception and lies.
I have tried over the last four years, to have a hearing on the simple facts and the clear law but have been blocked by the local court which will not make a decision and is very critical of my efforts to claim my property.
Over the last four long years, Thomas and his enterprise have wasted a million dollars of the estate in useless litigation, wasted the courts time with endless diversions, sections, mediation, using their legal skills to abuse the legal system as a weapon to harass me and my wife.
Thomas and Leanne Pflaum and their “crack” legal teams are quite concerned that Peter has been granted indigent status. They have argued that Peter is not insolvent because he has a share of Melanie’s house in Spain. This is so absurd! They have taken all the property including the house and have reported that only a $100 value of the estate. They have driven Peter into poverty by denying him and his family the support he had received for decades from Melanie, This support was almost half of their net income. Since 2005 Peter has only gotten older and deeper in debt with costs and expenses in making his claims against the estate.
The central stratagem in Tom’s “enterprise” is to use their legal skills to deny the beneficiaries their inheritance, and depends on Thomas and his team having overwhelming advantages in the legal system in the trial court in Gainesville, permitting them to take and hold all of the estate of Melanie Pflaum Estate in probate. Peter by necessity is in an asymmetric struggle. They want to make it impossible for Peter to have any chance of justice, a fair hearing, due process, or any way to protect his rights. They have made it very difficult but not impossible.
notice: I need legal help: The case is simple and clear – Peter Pflaum has the facts and the law on his side but the Thomas Pflaum has the favor of the trial court. Process and procedures have completely dominated substance – after four years, there has NEVER been a hearing on the issues in dispute or any court order on the value and distribution of the estate of Melanie Pflaum. Up to a million dollars is being claimed in expenses by the Thomas, Personal Representative (PR), the defendants, on an estate they value at $100.00.
Malpractice and tortious interference will collect more than a million dollars from four substantial and insured lawyers and Merrill Lynch. Relief of more than a million dollars will pay fees on contingency since the plaintiff is indigent – 50% of the first $500,000 plus 40 % of the next $100,000, 30% of the next 100k, 20% of the next 100k, and 10% on the rest 900k plus or more than $350,000 plus Merrill Lynch as part of an enterprise guilty of gross negligence and responsible for punitive damages for egregious, outrageous, flagrant, atrocious, monstrous behavior. The grievously or conspicuously bad or appalling includes the perjured claim of venue based on Melanie living with Thomas in Micanopy, which is grossly offensive to decency, morality, or good taste: it is an outrageous lie; What is flagrant or glaringly or scandalously reprehensible is the failure to do the right thing as an agent for his dead mother and the other two beneficiary brothers and divide the estate into three equal shares: Atrocious extremely wicked or cruel has been the harassment based on greed by Thomas because of his abhorrence of his brothers.
THE COMPLETE CARTOON5 OF THE NEW YORKER
"Leanne Pflaum, will you send someone in here 'who can distinguish right from wrong?"

THE COMPLETE CARTOONS OF THE NEW YORKER

"Mr. Thomas Pflaum may continue to keep all the money. His attorney, Mr. White is a friend of the court." Judge Toby Monaco
Exhibit A-Schedule of Fees
Payee White & Crouch, (estate lawyer) FA Kevin Mangum (accountant) Thomas M. Pflaum (PR)
Language Services, Inc. Don Quinn, Inc. Claus Kellenberger (Lawyer in Spain) Ty Tyson Alejandro Koch Nature of Service Paid to Date
Legal fees1 Mr. White 173,145.98 more to come $12,554.02
Legal fees Thomas Pflaum PR $183,140.00 $ 3,875.00
Personal Rep. Fees $ 16,860.00 Additional Proposed
Accounting Fees $ 30,000.00
Translation services $ 525.00
Handwriting analysis $ 1,625.00
More Legal fees $ 3,300.00
Appraisal fees $ 100.00
Appraisal fees $ 612.00 This does not include Mr. Hoppe of about $200,000 for a total of $650,000 with 1000’s of hours of unbilled charges –
http://www. wiredbrain. net/probateclose. htm

IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 01-2007-NC-47 see http://www.wiredbrain.net/denovo.htm
PETER E. and Mary Anne PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiff, Petitioners v. THOMAS and Leanne PFLAUM, ET AL. Defendants, Respondents
NOTICE IS GIVEN that PETER E. and Mary Anne PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners files a civil complaint DE NOVO to the Court (THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY) the nature of the tort is to determine the right to immediate possession of property. The property in dispute, the estate of Melanie Pflaum, is a constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant as a failure of fiduciary duty claims based on the “continuing torts doctrine.”
Thomas and Leanne were trusted members of the family but shortly after the death announced that they were going to “take the whole deck of cards” and hire really mean lawyers to attack Peter. He has a vast conflict of interest as PR and beneficiary and in proceeding to completely fail his General fiduciary duties– an outrageous act of betrayal and greed.
· Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007) Nos. 4D06-1594 and 4D06-1624
· Melanie Pflaum the deceased hated waste and especially paying fees or legal expenses. She turned to her lawyer and son Thomas to see her children would not experience what she had when her father died in 1965. Thomas and his legal team have committed gross malpractice in creating fees and expenses approaching one million dollars, the vast bulk of which is completely bogus and unnecessary. Peter Pflaum brings an action of malpractice against Bill Hoppe, and Mr. White attorneys for Thomas Pflaum. and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith Inc In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment. The substance of these accusations was that Thomas Pflaum wrongfully procured Merrill Lynch appointment as JTWROS and caused the estate administration to be more expensive. As such, plaintiffs sought, among other things, recompense for all “avoidable probate expenses” and disgorgement of all fees.
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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In the present case, the trial court can issue orders that determined the right to immediate possession of property, here trust assets misused by the defendants to pay for attorney’s fees and witness fees expended not in defense of the trust but only for defendants’ personal gain.
There is only one way the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 in the case.
HARASSMENTS, AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE
The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the Plaintiff 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.
Wrongs: This constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant. The most common such breach is a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is a duty of loyalty and trust owed in probate situations. Where a fiduciary makes a profit in breach of that duty, usually by using privileged information or diverting a profit making opportunity to himself instead of the person to whom the duty is owed, the profit is held on constructive trust for the person to whom the duty is owed.
THE LAW: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE LEGAL ANALYSIS
http://www.archerlaw.com/files/articles/interfere.html
The damages are claimed on the basis of systematic and continued unwanted and annoying actions of the Respondents acting as a joint enterprise, including threats and demands. The purposes of these actions include personal malice, and attempts to force the Plaintiff to give up his legal claims to his inheritance. The respondent announced in e-mail in March 2004 that he was going to apply illegal pressure for material gain and sadistic pleasure by making the Plaintiff and his family anxious or fearful. Such activities are the basis for a lawsuit because they have been shown to be a form of blackmail. The respondent’s action includes a perjured sworn police complaint that caused petitioners arrest on charges that are not criminal and not committed by the petitioner.
ORDER TO PROCEED ON APPEAL WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF COSTS
THIS ACTION came before the Court upon receipt of the Petitioner’s Motion and Application for Determination of Appellate Indigent Status . The Court having reviewed the Motion and file, finds the Petitioner to be indigent. Therefore, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:
The Petitioner is indigent for the purposes of this appeal.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida, on October 24 .2007.
(1) Any indigent person, except a prisoner as defined in s. 57.085, who is a party or intervenor in any judicial or administrative agency proceeding or who initiates such proceeding shall receive the services of the courts, sheriffs, and clerks, with respect to such proceedings, despite his or her present inability to pay for these services. Such services are limited to filing fees; service of process; certified copies of orders or final judgments; a single photocopy of any court pleading, record, or instrument filed with the clerk; examining fees; mediation services and fees; private court-appointed counsel fees; subpoena fees and services; service charges for collecting and disbursing funds; and any other cost or service arising out of pending litigation. In any appeal from an administrative agency decision, for which the clerk is responsible for preparing the transcript, the clerk shall record the cost of preparing the transcripts and the cost for copies of any exhibits in the record. Prepayment of costs to any court, clerk, or sheriff is not required in any action if the party has obtained in each proceeding a certification of indigence in accordance with s. 27.52 or s. 57.082.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY request the clerk of the court to serve the complaint and CERTIFY that a e-mail copy see http://www.wiredbrain.com/ attached electronic copy was sent to the parties, Dr. John Pflaum 2400 E. Bradford Ave. Apt. 905 Milwaukee, WI 53211-4172 by way of Thomas Burke Fax 414 224 8208 Phone 414 305 9237 - 270 0734 Tburke422@aol.com and
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Pflaum & family 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
Micanopy, FL 32667-9802 (Micanopy) 352 466 0252 (1) fax 1 352 466 0251
Represented by Thomas Richard White 352 372 1011 RMW@gate.net Richard White White & Crouch, P.A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville FL 32608 352.372.1011 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates and
NICHOLAS V. PULIGNANO, JR., ESQUIRE for Merrill Lynch MARKS, GRAY, P.A. for Mr. Robert Hayward, Financial Adviser 1200 RIVERPLACE BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207 NPULIGNANO@marksgray.com
And a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail this Friday, October 19, 2007 to Bill Hoppe, P. A. d/b/a The Hoppe Law Firm 2313 N. W. 7th Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 pilaw@hoppelawfirm.com hoppe@hoppelawfirm.com
Signed ________________________________________date____________

Case No. 01-2007-NC-47
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Alachua County Courthouse
201 E. University Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32602-0600

First District Court Of Appeal
Case Number: 1D07-5075 No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A Probate
and Case No. 1 D07- 4242 LC. CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 Civil suit
This action is a companion action and is nearly identical as to the issues, the law, and the facts...

Friday, November 23, 2007
PETER E. and Mary Anne PFLAUM, Pro Se Appellant, Plaintiff, Petitioners v. THOMAS and Leanne PFLAUM, ET AL. Respondents, Defendants, Respondents
REPLY TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Appeal of Non-Final Probate Notice from Alachua County
NOTICE IS GIVEN that PETER E. and Mary Anne PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiff, Petitioners appeals to the First District Court of Appeals the non-final order of this court (THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY) the nature of the order is an appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) appealable non-final orders include those that determine the right to immediate possession of property . This constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant as a failure of fiduciary duty claims based on the "continuing torts doctrine."
Probate, what went wrong? (The law)
What Probate should be:
(Mr. White, the probate attorney wrote in 10/12/2004 a completely false and disingenuous claim) it is my responsibility to guide the personal representative in making sure that all of the estate’s obligations are discharged, in particular that all estate taxes that may be due are paid, that all estate assets are marshaled and properly accounted for, and that proper distribution is made to the beneficiaries as required by the will which has been admitted to probate in Florida. I intend to fulfill that responsibility. However, I do not represent Tom, any more than I represent either of you.”
Mr. White is completely disingenuous and false in this statement as demonstrated over three years in his working only for the interests of Thomas and Leanne and clearly against Peter and Mary Anne in clear violation of his duties as described.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/whiteletter.htm
What happened in Pflaum v. Pflaum? (The Complaint)
March 27th 2004 days after the death of our Mother Melanie Thomas wrote to our great shock “Leanne and I (Thomas) both are resolved to play for the entire deck no matter what. The entire ML (Merrill Lynch) account, the Javea (Tosalet, Spain) house, and all the NT (Northern Trust) funds will be in the pot,- yours as well as mine. Maybe you can win everything. Maybe you will lose everything and will hire really mean lawyers, (Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe) and that’s what I’m doing. I am accumulating lawyers both here and in Spain, and will spend vast sums as needed”. The costs are now about a million dollars that has has been spent on an estate Thomas values at $100. There could have been a settlement of half of what the dispute has wasted. Peter and his family have suffered continuing damage and harassment including a suit for defamation and extortion and Mr. Hoppe having Peter Arrested on a trumped up criminal charge. http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
http://www.wiredbrain.net/thomas.htm
HISTORY: Thomas and Leanne were trusted members of the family but shortly after the death announced that they were going to “take the whole deck of cards” and hire really mean lawyers to attack Peter. He has a vast conflict of interest as PR and beneficiary and in proceeding to completely fail his General fiduciary duties– an outrageous act of betrayal and greed.
http://www. wiredbrain. net/probateclose. htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007 http://www.wiredbrain.net/page2.htm
What should happen? (The remedy and relief)
Over the last four years the trial court has not done its duty as defined by the law and as described in Mr. White’s letter. Therefore, Peter has every reason to believe he can not find justice and relief in Alachua County. The court has ruled that ”All claims, Motions, and other pleadings or papers filed herein by said Peter Pflaum are hereby considered stricken and of no force or effect. 4. Except appropriate appellate filings pertaining to this order, no further pleadings, Motions or papers may be filed herein by said Peter Pflaum pro see Any further actions by said Peter Pflaum herein, including the filing of any papers whatsoever, shall only be taken by an attorney authorized to practice law in Florida.
If the appellate court does not want to replace a trial court it needs to order a replacement – a conserver, curator, a referee, or master to do what needs to be done. The estate is not hard and could be closed in months not years.
The nature of this tort is to determine the right to immediate possession of property. The property in dispute, the estate of Melanie Pflaum, is a constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant as a failure of fiduciary duty claims based on the "continuing torts doctrine." Conflict of interest and duty
A fiduciary must not put themselves in a position where their interest and duty conflict.[4] In other words, they must always serve the principal's interests, subjugating their own preference for those of the principal. The fiduciary's state of mind is irrelevant; that is, it does not matter whether the fiduciary had any ill-intent or dishonesty in mind.
Although one area of growing concern is lawyers wanting to earn a good fee with the client's wishing to keep costs down. Australian High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said; "Delay, like inflation, is sometimes convenient for those who are part of the system.", and " A basic problem of access to civil justice is the remorseless mercantilisation of legal practice." He added that time-based costing was part of the problem. "
Thomas and Leanne were trusted members of the family but shortly after the death announced that they were going to “take the whole deck of cards” and hire really mean lawyers to attack Peter. He has a vast conflict of interest as PR and beneficiary and in proceeding to completely fail his General fiduciary duties– an outrageous act of betrayal and greed.
· Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007) Nos. 4D06-1594 and 4D06-1624
· Melanie Pflaum the deceased (March 5, 2004 in Javea, Spain) hated waste and especially paying fees or legal expenses. She turned to her lawyer and son Thomas to see her children would not experience what she had when her father died in 1965. Over the last four years, Thomas and his legal team have committed gross malpractice in creating fees and expenses approaching one million dollars, the vast bulk of which is completely bogus and unnecessary. Peter Pflaum brings an action of malpractice against Bill Hoppe, and Mr. White attorneys for Thomas Pflaum. and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith Inc In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment. The substance of these accusations was that Thomas Pflaum wrongfully procured Merrill Lynch appointment as JTWROS and caused the estate administration to be more expensive. As such, plaintiffs sought, among other things, recompense for all “avoidable probate expenses” and disgorgement of all fees.
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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In the present case, the trial court can issue orders that determined the right to immediate possession of property, here trust assets misused by the defendants to pay for attorney's fees and witness fees expended not in defense of the trust but only for defendants’ personal gain.
There is only one way the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 in the case.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/page2.htm
HARASSMENTS, AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE
The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the Plaintiff 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.
Wrongs: This constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant. The most common such breach is a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is a duty of loyalty and trust owed in probate situations. Where a fiduciary makes a profit in breach of that duty, usually by using privileged information or diverting a profit making opportunity to himself instead of the person to whom the duty is owed, the profit is held on constructive trust for the person to whom the duty is owed.
THE LAW: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE LEGAL ANALYSIS
http://www.archerlaw.com/files/articles/interfere.html
The damages are claimed on the basis of systematic and continued unwanted and annoying actions of the Respondents acting as a joint enterprise, including threats and demands. The purposes of these actions include personal malice, and attempts to force the Plaintiff to give up his legal claims to his inheritance. The respondent announced in e-mail in March 2004 that he was going to apply illegal pressure for material gain and sadistic pleasure by making the Plaintiff and his family anxious or fearful. Such activities are the basis for a lawsuit because they have been shown to be a form of blackmail. The respondent’s action includes a perjured sworn police complaint that caused petitioners arrest on charges that are not criminal and not committed by the petitioner. http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm http://www.wiredbrain.net/page2.htm
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY request the clerk of the court to serve the complaint and CERTIFY that a e-mail copy see http://www.wiredbrain.com/ attached electronic copy was sent to the parties, Dr. John Pflaum 2400 E. Bradford Ave. Apt. 905 Milwaukee, WI 53211-4172 by way of Thomas Burke Fax 414 224 8208 Phone 414 305 9237 - 270 0734 Tburke422@aol.com and
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Pflaum & family 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
Micanopy, FL 32667-9802 (Micanopy) 352 466 0252 (1) fax 1 352 466 0251
Represented by Thomas Richard White 352 372 1011 RMW@gate.net Richard White White & Crouch, P.A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville FL 32608 352.372.1011 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates and
And a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail this Friday, October 19, 2007 to Bill Hoppe, P. A. d/b/a The Hoppe Law Firm 2313 N. W. 7th Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 pilaw@hoppelawfirm.com hoppe@hoppelawfirm.com

Signed ________________________________________date____________
Dr. Peter E. Pflaum and Mary Anne Watkins-Pflaum
225 Robinson Road
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
For certified and registered: P.O. Box 2176, zip 32170
386 428 9609
http://www.wiredbrain.net/

First District Court Of Appeal
Case Number: 1D07-5075 No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A Probate
APPENDIX

ORDER TO PROCEED ON APPEAL WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF COSTS
THIS ACTION came before the Court upon receipt of the Petitioner's Motion and Application for Determination of Appellate Indigent Status . The Court having reviewed the Motion and file, finds the Petitioner to be indigent. Therefore, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:
The Petitioner is indigent for the purposes of this appeal.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida, on October 24 .2007.
(2) Any indigent person, except a prisoner as defined in s. 57.085, who is a party or intervenor in any judicial or administrative agency proceeding or who initiates such proceeding shall receive the services of the courts, sheriffs, and clerks, with respect to such proceedings, despite his or her present inability to pay for these services. Such services are limited to filing fees; service of process; certified copies of orders or final judgments; a single photocopy of any court pleading, record, or instrument filed with the clerk; examining fees; mediation services and fees; private court-appointed counsel fees; subpoena fees and services; service charges for collecting and disbursing funds; and any other cost or service arising out of pending litigation. In any appeal from an administrative agency decision, for which the clerk is responsible for preparing the transcript, the clerk shall record the cost of preparing the transcripts and the cost for copies of any exhibits in the record. Prepayment of costs to any court, clerk, or sheriff is not required in any action if the party has obtained in each proceeding a certification of indigence in accordance with s. 27.52 or s. 57.082.
MOTION: DOCKET FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
The cases are completely connected at the core and should be joined. The dispute is all about Thomas’ role in probate and his abuse of the legal system to attack Peter. The documents filed (signed and notarized) in one case and the copy attached should be applied to both cases. The petitioner is indigent since 2005, when he lost a family allowance from the estate, he had received for decades of $2000 a month, so was broke last year, with no change in condition except another year older and deeper in debt. Peter is indigent this year and will remain so next year or until this case is fairly heard. He prays the case to be heard following the facts and the law, because it is simple and clearly it will be settled in his favor. The Respondents, Respondents have caused his poverty by taking his property and denying his family support under probate. Thomas and Leanne, attorneys hired Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe to be mean as possible in waging a war of harassments including a law suit for deformation and extortion: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 8™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K THOMAS M. PFLAUM and LEANNE J. PFLAUM, Plaintiffs, vs. PETER PFLAUM, MARY ANNE PFLAUM, and JOHN PFLAUM, Defendants.
And a criminal case: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY,
STATE OF FLORIDA -vs- PETER EDWARD PFLAUM
Division: 3 Judge: GLANT, DAVID A State Filed
Case Number: 01-2005-CF-002238-A http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
An electronic copy of brief must be provided in accordance with AO04-84. See Administrative Order In re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, (. XML) dated September 13, 2004.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/page2.htm
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
cause of action is an issue of law, and therefore, the standard of review is de novo JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS AGAINST THOMAS PFLAUM AND THE ENTERPRISE
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED JURISDICTION JURIS BRIEF
The orders in this case are appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) provides that appealable non-final orders include those that determine the right to immediate possession of property . This Court has previously held that a sum of money is property to which Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) can apply. In Florida Discount Properties, Inc. v. Windermere Condominium, Inc., 763 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), a lessor filed a motion to have disputed rent paid into the registry of the court. Id. at 1084. The trial court denied the motion, and the lessor appealed. Id. On appeal, this Court concluded that the order was an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), because it determined the right to immediate possession of property, i.e., the rent payments. Id. Likewise, in the present case, the trial court orders determined the right to immediate possession of property, here trust assets to be used by trustees to pay for attorney's fees and witness fees expended in defense of the trust. As such, we conclude that this Court possesses jurisdiction over this appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and affirm in all respects without further comment.
MOTION TO COMPEL (TIME HAS RUN OUT) FOUR YEARS
The Plaintiff have complained from the beginning of probate that Thomas had announced his intention to take all the estate for himself and his wife.
“Leanne and I both are resolved to play for the entire deck no matter what. The entire ML account, the Javea house, and all the NT funds will be in the pot,- yours as well as mine. Maybe you can win everything. Maybe you will lose everything and will hire really mean lawyers, and that’s what I’m doing. I am accumulating lawyers both here and in Spain, and will spend vast sums as needed” now about a million dollars on an estate valued at $100 and a settlement of half of what the dispute has cost Thomas. Peter and his family have suffered continuing damage.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/thomas.htm
HISTORY: Thomas and Leanne were trusted members of the family but shortly after the death announced that they were going to “take the whole deck of cards” and hire really mean lawyers to attack Peter and proceeded to do so – an outrageous act of betrayal and greed.

09/06/2007 ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT- 09/04/07 / 09/04/2007 (PROPOSED ORDER) REPORT ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT (ESTATE) Sent on: 09/04/2007 16:18:38
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MOTION TO COMPEL (TIME HAS RUN OUT) FOUR YEARS. 3
09/06/2007 ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT- 09/04/07 / 09/04/2007 (PROPOSED ORDER) REPORT ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT (ESTATE) Sent on: 09/04/2007 16:18:38 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: 6
AUTHORITIES. 6
Litigation History: 9

The enterprise hassled and abused the Plaintiff 14
clearly explained that the purpose behind this tort is to protect the testator, not the beneficiary: 17
Continuing torts doctrine. 17
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. 18
ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW: 19
SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 19
Damages: 21
· Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam, --- 21
· 21
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: (THE ISSUES IN A NUTSHELL) 23
In conclusion, this matter came about as a result of the misconduct of the enterprisers obsessive, personal vendetta. 24
FREEDOM OF DISPOSITION.. 27
CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS. 28

NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE June 22, 2007. 30
“All of the services were necessary to the proper administration of the estate. 30
UNREASONABLE ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS. 32
733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty. –. 33
ATTACKS ON THE PETITIONER: 34
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. 35
General fiduciary duties. 35
BROTHER STEALS INHERITANCE THEN SUES FOR EXTORTION: 36
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE: 37
When do probate proceedings bar a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance?. 37
The central issue is a monumental act of betrayal 37
Thomas abusing the trust the family had in him, 38
SETTING FORTH THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT. 38
CONCLUSION: 41
http://www.wiredbrain.net/page2.htm foundation of the case
http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm The First District Court of Appeals
http://www.wiredbrain.net/appeal.htm Mary Anne in Volusia
http://www.wiredbrain.net/federalappeal.htm Federal case
CASE 6:07-CV-01423-PCF-UAM 9/12/07
http://www.wiredbrain.net/federalcase.htm Papers in Federal Court
http://www.wiredbrain.net/maryanne.htm Mary Anne’s appeal of judgment 1DCA
http://www.wiredbrain.net/falsearrest.htm criminal case
http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
http://www.wiredbrain.net/sumjudgment.htm Summary Judgment 7th Circuit
http://www.wiredbrain.net/tortiousinterference.htm 1DCA and Gainesville Cases
http://www.wiredbrain.net/tortiousinterference.doc
http://www.wiredbrain.net/supremecourt.htm Court of Appeals version of the Supreme Court Case (Jurisdiction denied)
http://www.wiredbrain.net/fsc07-655.pdf Jurisdiction Brief by Petitioner
http://www.wiredbrain.net/appealsfsc.xml BRIEF IN . XML
http://www.wiredbrain.net/appealsfsc.doc BRIEF IN WORD. DOC
http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007
http://www.wiredbrain.net/ds_docket Supreme Court Docket
http://www.wiredbrain.net/docket.htm Probate record
http://www.wiredbrain.net/affidavid.htm Financial Affidavit
STATEMENT OF THE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
RES IPSA LOGUITUR is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "The thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "The thing speaks for itself
The court in Whalen clearly explained that the purpose behind this tort is to protect the testator, not the beneficiary. This is not just about the pain, suffering, damage and years of financial loss and hardships endured by the disappointed beneficiary, his wife and family when his brother bluntly and with written notice stole his inheritance but about the absolute right of Melanie Pflaum to dispose of her property when she died.
Interference with an expectancy is an unusual tort because the beneficiary is authorized to sue to recover damages primarily to protect the testator’s interest rather than the disappointed beneficiary’s expectations. The fraud, duress, undue influence, or other independent tortious conduct required for this tort is directed at the testator. The beneficiary is not directly defrauded or unduly influenced; the testator is. Thus, the common law court has created this cause of action not primarily to protect the beneficiary’s inchoate rights, but to protect the deceased testator’s former right to dispose of property freely and without improper interference. In a sense, the beneficiary’s action is derivative of the testator’s rights.
AUTHORITIES
Florida Statues: Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE: OF ESTATES 732. 6005 Rules of construction and intention 733. 504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal. -A personal representative may be removed and the letters revoked for any of the following causes, and the removal shall be in addition to any penalties prescribed by law: (9) Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole 733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty
REMOVAL OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE; CAUSES FOR REMOVAL. –
FLA. CONST. art. V, § 3(b)(7). For a discussion of the history underlying this provision and the case law, see Robert T. Mann, The Scope of the All Writs Power, 10 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 197 (1982).
FLA. CONST. art. V, § 3(b)(7) with Couse v. Canal Auth. , 209 So. 2d 865, (Fla. 1968) (quoting FLA. CONST. of 1885, art. V (1957)).
E. g. , State ex rel. Watson v. Lee, 8 So. 2d 19, 21 (Fla. 1942).
209 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1968). (quoting FLA. R. APP. P. 4. 5(g)(1) (as amended)). Apparently, the new standard merely expanded jurisdiction. Judge still continued to issue ancillary writs in pending proceedings under its all writs power. See, e. g. , Booth v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1974).
DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla.1981),
Schilling v. Herrera, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 981627 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr 04, 2007)
Anna Nicole Smith's U.S. Supreme Court case revolved around whether federal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate state-law tortious interference claims. Since she won (see here) the expectation has been that more tortious interference claims would be litigated in federal court (see here). With this background in mind, this 3d DCA opinion is especially timely because it explains when probate proceedings will effectively bar such claims in Florida.
In DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla.1981), the Florida Supreme Court articulated the governing rule in Florida as follows: a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance is barred by F.S. 733.103(2) if the plaintiff had an adequate remedy in probate with a fair opportunity to pursue it. By implication, when the plaintiff did NOT have a fair opportunity to pursue his or her claim in probate, the claim is NOT precluded by the rule in DeWitt.
In the linked-to opinion the 3d DCA held that the plaintiff's tortious interference claim was not precluded by DeWitt because the plaintiff was essentially prevented from pursuing his claims in probate. In other words, the claim was not barred because there were two frauds committed in the case. The first against the decedent, the second against the plaintiff. Here's how the 3d DCA articulated its reasoning:
We find that DeWitt is factually distinguishable, and therefore inapplicable. A review of the amended complaint reflects that Mr. Schilling has alleged two separate frauds. The first alleged fraud stems from Ms. Herrera's undue influence over the deceased in procuring the will, whereas the second alleged fraud stems from Ms. Herrera's actions in preventing Mr. Schilling from contesting the will in probate court. We acknowledge that pursuant to DeWitt, if only the first type of fraud was involved, Mr. Schilling's collateral attack of the will would be barred. However, language contained in DeWitt clearly indicates that a subsequent action for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance may be permitted where “the circumstances surrounding the tortious conduct effectively preclude adequate relief in the probate court.” Id. at 219.
http://www.archerlaw.com/files/articles/interfere.html
RE: ESTATE OF LETTIE V. COMBEE, Deceased. LINDA RAE FARMER, et al. , Petitioners, vs. IRMA A. WALKER , et al. , [May 28, 1992} Page 6
Chase Fed. In a subsequent Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sullivan, 127 So. 2d 112 ( Fla. 1960) Appendix two page 5 Appendix two
Survivorship Rights in Joint Accounts, 24 U. Fla. L. Rev. 476 (1972). Page 32 Appendix 2, page 5
Richard e. Warner, Joint Accounts and Decedent’s Estates—An Update, Fla. B. J. , July/Aug. 1987, at Page 5 Appendix two
5, 466 So. 2d 1055 ( Fla. 1 9 8 5 ) Estate of Gainer, 579 So. 2d 739 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1 9 9 1 ) Page 5 Appendix two
Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928) Page 20
Fla. R. App. P. 9. 040©; People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. Reynolds, 571 So. 2d 493 ( Fla. 1 st DCA 1990). Page v
Davison v. Feurerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So. 2d 825 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966). Page 28, appendix 2, page 7, 8
Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 ( Fla. 1999) Page vii
Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void.
1DCA On the court’s own MOTIONS , the complaint/petition filed June 13, 2006 is hereby treated as a petition for writ of prohibition. See Fla. R. App. P. 9. 040©; People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. Revnolds, 571 So. 2d 493 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
We reasoned that establishment of the joint account under these circumstances was an ineffectual attempt to do that which could only be accomplished by a last will and testament. In order for the survivor to prevail, it had to be shown that the creator intended a gift inter vivos at the time the account was opened. (1982 or 2003)732. 6005 Rules of construction and intention. --(1) The intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator’s dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in this part shall apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will. (2) Subject to the foregoing, a will is construed to pass all property which the testator owns at death, including property acquired after the execution of the will. History. -s. 1, ch. 74-106; ss. 33, 35, ch. 75-220; s. 965, ch. 97-102; s. 49, ch. 2001-226.
Litigation History:
The deceased Melanie Pflaum died March 5th 2004 in her long term home in a private development in Javea (Alicante) Spain leaving her estate of about two million dollars in equal shares to her three sons, John (73, Milwaukee) Peter (71), New Smyrna Beach and Thomas appointed personal representative PR (57, Gainesville). Mr. White files letters of administration to Judge Toby Monaco, Alachua County circuit, June 2004, estate taxes in 2005 (Estate taxes showed $1.5 million which was all claimed by Thomas and Leanne; bank accounts, tax refunds, all the property including a Merrill Lynch Account and the family home in Spain) Mr. White applies to close the estate with a value of $100 in July 2007 with expenses of about a million dollars. Peter objected as he did in June 2004 to Thomas acting with a gross conflict of interest and a total lack of fiduciary duties and legal responsibility acting as both as beneficiary and personal representative, Peter also objected to the venue since the deceased never lived there (Thomas’s house in Micanopy) or anywhere in Florida and has been an non-resident American living abroad and paying taxes as a overseas resident since 1965. A letter filed in evidence written in 2002 Melanie says she doesn’t even have a room in Micanopy and will not “visit” since she has to use “Mathew’s room”.
The Plaintiff have complained from the beginning of probate that Thomas had announced his intention to take all the estate for himself and his wife.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/thomas.htm
http://www.wiredbrain.net/emailhighlites.htm
See http://www.wiredbrain.net/whiteletter.htm
HISTORY: Thomas and Leanne were trusted members of the family but shortly after the death announced that they were going to “take the whole deck of cards” and hire really mean lawyers to attack Peter and proceeded to do so – an outrageous act of betrayal and greed.
The plaintiff has objected to the venue in Alachua County, Florida since the deceased never lived in Florida. Thomas made a false and perjured sworn statement when he claimed Melanie lived for years in his and Leanne’s house in Micanopy. Thomas and Leanne both lawyers conspired with their attorneys, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe to subrogate perjury when they repeat the false claim of domicile in sworn statements, in court and in IRS documents.
The Plaintiff claims fraud in the respondent’s claim Melanie lived with them since 1987. Thomas made a false and perjured sworn statement when he claimed Melanie lived for years in his and Leanne’s house in Micanopy. Thomas and Leanne with Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe subrogated perjury when they repeat the false claim in sworn statements, in court and in IRS documents the fraud that Melanie lived with them since 1987. The facts are she did not live, habitat, domicile, or reside anywhere in Florida at any time. Melanie Pflaum was registered with the Local Authorities where she paid property taxes on her long time home in Javea (Alicante) Spain, with El Tosalet Homeowners Association, with water, electric and telephone utilities, with the U.S. State Department in Washington, with the American Council in Valencia, with the American Embassy in Madrid and the IRS as an non-resident American living abroad and paying taxes as a overseas resident since 1965.
In the course of administering Melanie’s estate it became clear Thomas had improperly kept assets of estate for himself. Peter has sued the estate for negligence, conversion, tortious interference with an inheritance, and breach of fiduciary duty.
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.
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.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The misconduct of the enterprise in not made a substantive respond in an adversarial probate case: Peter Pflaum, Plaintiff v. Thomas Pflaum, the principal leader in the misconduct of the enterprise, and Personal Representative; in violation of the rules: the enterprise has not replied to many interrogatives, discovery, petitions to coerce answers or many petitions and motions to have the PR removed for cause, including a gross conflict of interest.
And the enterprise has been unable or unwilling to make an affirmative case and have refused for four years to give any reasons why there are any legal and factual grounds for their stated belief that all the property belongs to them. This belief in the ownership of the property is clear in the
The central issue of the dispute is the claim is that the whole of the Estate belongs to Thomas and Leanne. Since they don’t have a legitimate case in law and the facts are painfully simple and clearly against them, therefore, they attack the Petitioner. Given the circumstances, of course, the Court always has the authority to appoint an administrator ad litem to safeguard the estate if the Court has reason to believe there are important conflicts of interests and/or that the estate assets and administration are endangered or being mismanaged. Thereafter, the Court should promptly entertain the concerns on the merits with respect for the due process rights of all interested parties. The test is” would a reasonable person find the case and process in the courts for the last four years, of Pflaum v. Pflaum rational and fair? The estate is being wasted in almost a million dollars of legal fees and expenses brought about in the process of Thomas Pflaum’s misconduct.
To quote the Last Will of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM
who died (Aged 94) March 5th 2004, in her long term home in Javea Spain Article 4I give all the residue of my estate, real and Personal, of whatever nature and wherever located, which I own at the time of my death, including the proceeds of insurance on my life which may be payable to my estate and I hereby exercise any and all powers of appointment which I have under any trust or otherwise and direct all property subject thereto shall also be disposed, to my husband Irving Peter Pflaum , if he survives me, and if not in equal shares to my sons Thomas Martin Pflaum, Plaintiff Edward Pflaum and John Herbert Pflaum, per stirpes. Page 2 to Page 3
Melanie’s estate is in an uncontested formal will and testament, drafted in Miami (1978) by the firm which was at the time was the employer of Thomas, written by Jordan Burt LLP who was at Paul and Thomson in 1978, signed and notarized at the American Council in Barcelona, Spain. He drafted at the same time the will of Irving Pflaum, which left all his property to Melanie when he died in 1986 and is being hidden and concealed by Thomas, so he can raise phony issue about the house in Spain, he lies about this and about POA from his mother. The WILL required her property to be divided in equal shares among her three sons, John, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a retired PhD clinical psychologist, born in Majorca, Spain, 1934; Plaintiff Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, a retired professor of government, married to Mary Anne, born in Barcelona, Spain, 1936; and Thomas, a lawyer in private practice in his house in Micanopy, Alachua County, Florida, married to Leanne, Thomas was born in Evanston, Illinois, 1950, and was appointed Personal Representative (PR).
The enterprise hassled and abused the Plaintiff

to dishonestly attack the petitioner’s clear claims to his inheritance. There is much more to this case than serious and grave faults of procedures – The Plaintiff and his family are being injured every day by the lack of a family allowance of $2000 a month they received for decades. Peter Pflaum is indigent and filed for bankruptcy. They have been seriously damaged for over four years by this unfair legal process and the acts of the enterprise , Thomas Pflaum Esq. , (the greedy brother), Leanne Pflaum, (who put her name on the money that is absolutely not hers) Mr. White; a Respondent and co-conspirators (Thomas’ probate lawyer who has not only not done his duty but has conspired with Thomas to pervert the legal system for which he has charged more than $200,000) and Mr. Hoppe (Thomas’ and Leanne’s attack lawyer who is paid, at least $200,000 so far, to harass the Plaintiff and his family, with legal tricks including civil and criminal cases). Thomas should not profit by his bad behavior and his lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to a citizen of this state. the enterprise must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent actions.
This joint enterprise of the co-conspirators have over the last four years systematically refused to carry out the testator’s intent and abused the legal system for unjustifiable and illegal financial gain. The Estate is worth about two million dollars. the enterprise has filed on June 22, 2007, a motion to discharge with an inventory of only $100 and expenses of $400,000, plus $200,000 more for Mr. Hoppe; And another for Thomas’s expenses of $200,000 for a total over 2/3 of a million dollars over an estate they claim has only $100 value.
http://www. wiredbrain. net/probateclose. htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007
This makes no sense at all, unless they plan on claiming that they have used up all the estate’s assets in the process of stealing it. They have completely failed in their responsibilities to the law, the Florida bar, their profession, the administration of justice, Thomas’s mother, the deceased, and his brothers, the other beneficiaries. The enterprise knows what they should have done but have chosen to instead to be dishonest and take all the money that testator’s intended to equally divide amongst her children.
Mr. White wrote: “Second, please be clear in understanding that I represent the personal representative of the estate. I do not represent Tom individually, which is a large part of the reason Tom retained Mr. Hoppe in connection with the Florida Bar complaint you filed against him. In my capacity as the attorney for the personal representative,
(Mr. White wrote in 10/12/2004) it is my responsibility to guide the personal representative in making sure that all of the estate’s obligations are discharged, in particular that all estate taxes that may be due are paid, that all estate assets are marshaled and properly accounted for, and that proper distribution is made to the beneficiaries as required by the will which has been admitted to probate in Florida. I intend to fulfill that responsibility. However, I do not represent Tom, any more than I represent either of you. ”
GOD only knows that IF he had done the right thing and what is expected and required by law, then many years of pain, suffering, legal and financial waste; ($700,000) would have been avoided and we all would not be where we are today. In reality, Mr. White only represents Thomas and Leanne, the joint enterprise and co-conspirators in their nefarious schemes to take all the money and attacks the other beneficiaries. They were required to represent and protect the departed and her beneficiaries not attack them, the truth, the legal system and common decency and common sense.
Since Mr. White said he is the petitioner’s representative and attorney there is a claim of malpractice and fraud as a enterprise and co-conspirator since Mr. White has clearly been unethical, corrupt, and dishonest in joining a conspiracy to embezzle by fraud the beneficiary’s property.
Thomas and his wife, Leanne sues Peter, his Wife Mary Anne and brother John for Defamation and extortion in 2005
and makes a criminal report of false report to Children and Family Services that causes Peter to be arrested. http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
Peter Appeals to First District Court of Appeals on a judgment against the Plaintiff of $25,000 made in error and without due process. The plaintiff was found guilty before any evidence was presented or he had any chance to defend himself.
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.
Kravitz v. Levy, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2480538 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep 05, 2007)
Probate is often criticized as being too expensive and slow moving. Why the costs and delay? In large part because the probate code is full of protections against various forms of foul play, including fraud by the person who is primarily responsible for protecting the estate: the personal representative, but these safeguards are limited, and sometimes it can be years - maybe decades - before foul play involving an estate comes to light. Can the family do anything after all this time?
Continuing torts doctrine
In the course of administering Melanie’s estate it became clear Thomas had improperly kept assets of estate for himself. Peter has sued the estate for negligence, conversion, tortious interference with an inheritance, and breach of fiduciary duty.
In the linked-to case the 4th DCA reversed the trial court's dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claims based on the "continuing torts doctrine." The 4th DCA's opinion is extremely useful because it provides a possible road map for attorneys/families pursuing claims that could be decades in the making, which is not unheard of in contested probate proceedings. Here's how the 4th DCA applied the continuing tort doctrine to the breach of fiduciary duty claims in this case:
This case is most like Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). There, a corporation brought an action against its former president claiming that he had repeatedly used corporate funds for his own personal interests. The trial court granted summary judgment on the president's statute of limitations defense, but the appellate court reversed on the claims of breach of fiduciary duty. It explained that the complaint alleged what constituted a continuing tort:
In regard to counts I and II, HRC contends that Mackal's [the former corporate president] behavior constituted continuing torts, for which the limitations period runs from the date the tortious conduct ceases. The continuing torts doctrine is recognized under our state law. See Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Holt, 92 So.2d 169 (Fla.1956). The question of whether Mackal's actions constituted continuing torts precludes the granting of summary judgment as to counts I and II. To what extent, if any, the concept applies to this case is an issue for the trier of fact to decide.
Id. at 447. See also Carlton v. Germany Hammock Groves, 803 So.2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (whether continuing torts doctrine applies to facts of case is for trier of fact). . . . We conclude that material issues of fact remain as to whether Thomas engaged in a continuing tort of breach of fiduciary duty. If so, the statute of limitations would not have begun to run until his death. These issues are for a jury to resolve.
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
The will and testament has played a major role in the establishment of the rule of law and civil society. The formalities are NOT technicalities or bureaucratic rules but fundamental to civilized society throughout human history. The oath and witnesses are of most ancient origin for good reason. The commands of the deceased must be clear, written, and obeyed as bedrock of law, history and civilization. To accept the JTWROS under the conditions of this case is to undermine our culture, political system, judicial authority, and respect for due process because it is so clearly wrong and unfair. The PR is required to distribute the remaining property to the beneficiaries of the decedent as they have been instructed to do so in the will. It is not uncommon for there to be disputes during this process. Peter can make a claim on an estate by petitioning the executor or the court. Since the court rejects the claim, the individual with the claim may file a lawsuit to attempt to prove their claim and collect the money or the objects that they are saying they are entitled to.

ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
There is only one way the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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.
Wrongs: This constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant. The most common such breach is a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is a duty of loyalty and trust owed in probate situations. Where a fiduciary makes a profit in breach of that duty, usually by using privileged information or diverting a profit making opportunity to himself instead of the person to whom the duty is owed, the profit is held on constructive trust for the person to whom the duty is owed.
THE LAW: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE LEGAL ANALYSIS
http://www.archerlaw.com/files/articles/interfere.html
The damages are claimed on the basis of systematic and continued unwanted and annoying actions of the Respondents acting as a joint enterprise, including threats and demands. The purposes of these actions include personal malice, and attempts to force the Plaintiff to give up his legal claims to his inheritance. The respondent announced in e-mail in March 2004 that he was going to apply illegal pressure for material gain and sadistic pleasure by making the Plaintiff and his family anxious or fearful. Such activities are the basis for a lawsuit because they have been shown to be a form of blackmail. The respondent’s action includes a perjured sworn police complaint that caused petitioners arrest on charges that are not criminal and not committed by the petitioner.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
John's theory that Thomas was drug dependent and wrote when under the influence seemed to make sense since nothing else explained what seemed a change in character, either he had been deceptive for years - fooling me, Mary Anne and his mother that he was a good pair of hands so we had complete trust in Thomas and were so shocked by his raw money grab or there was something that happened to make him behave so oddly and badly. He was always something of a spoiled brat as a late child - his mother was in her 40's when he was born - 1950 - and always gave into his demands - breakfast of corn flakes and coke creating hyperglycemia and emotional instability - such children do not understand limits - rules and proper behavior but have boundary problems - what is and what is not acceptable. Maybe he thinks if he makes enough fuss he will get his way.
The most likely theory is that Thomas does not want to face facts and the law and when told he has problems he looks for another lawyer who will agree with his complex and unreasonable theories. For any settlement my terms keep getting higher and will be done without caring what John thinks - but any deal will require Mr. Roby to flesh out and agree, advise and consent. I have NO interest in John's claims - no ticket no laundry and his interests will not be represented. He risks substantial losses because of his dysfunctional behavior. He doesn't care enough to behave correctly so he doesn't care what the outcome might be. He will be required to sign powers of attorney for the sale of Casa Windfall before he can get any other benefit of the estate.
Damages:
· Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam , ---
·
· So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007) Nos. 4D06-1594 and 4D06-1624
· Peter Pflaum brought an action against Bill Hoppe, and Mr. White attorneys for Thomas Pflaum. and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith Inc In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment. The substance of these accusations was that Thomas Pflaum wrongfully procured Merrill Lynch appointment as JTWROS and caused the estate administration to be more expensive. As such, plaintiffs sought, among other things, recompense for all “avoidable probate expenses” and disgorgement of all fees.
The amount of money which a plaintiff claims is 1.5 million for his inheritance and emotional distress based on a claim of malpractice, exemplary damages; punitive damages, these are damages requested because;
Of the defendant's willful acts were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton or grossly reckless. Examples of acts warranting exemplary damages are described below: These damages are awarded both as a punishment and to set a public example. They reward the plaintiff for the horrible nature of what she/he went through or suffered. There have been major awards in egregious (remarkable or outstanding) cases such as described herein,
Peter has the right to appeal non-final possession of estate assets:
The orders in this case are appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and affirm in all respects without further comment.
Thomas and his wife, Leanne sues Peter, his Wife Mary Anne and brother John for Defamation and extortion in 2005 and makes a criminal report of false report to Children and Family Services that causes Peter to be arrested. Peter Appeals to First District Court of Appeals on a judgment against the Plaintiff of $25,000 made in error and without due process. The plaintiff was found guilty before any evidence was presented or he had any chance to defend himself.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
The will and testament has played a major role in the establishment of the rule of law and civil society. The formalities are NOT technicalities or bureaucratic rules but fundamental to civilized society throughout human history. The oath and witnesses are of most ancient origin for good reason. The commands of the deceased must be clear, written, and obeyed as bedrock of law, history and civilization. To accept the JTWROS under the conditions of this case is to undermine our culture, political system, judicial authority, and respect for due process because it is so clearly wrong and unfair.
There has been no final decision in the Probate case. The defamation case made a final judgment in July 2007 based on trial in Feb. 2007 awarded damages to Leanne for defamation against Peter and Mary Anne being appealed to the District Court of appeals. The other parts of Thomas’s case failed. http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm The Supreme Court has denied jurisdiction http://www.wiredbrain.net/supremecourt.htm
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: (THE ISSUES IN A NUTSHELL)
Peter Pflaum makes a motion for sanctions for THOMAS AND LEANNE PFLAUM’S FAILURE to answer discovery; AND INTERROGATIVES; and BILL HOPPE, P.A 2313 N.W. 7"" ROAD GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32607 TEL 352-870-5134 Thomas Pflaum et al have engaged in a four year campaign of harassment of Peter and his wife as part of a conspiracy to steal his inheritance. Thomas and his gang IS charged with Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(a)(l) in that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(d) in that in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
The context of the charges is that Respondent as an attorney, thereafter ex-parte, that an estate in which Respondents are a principal beneficiary and personal representative.
All the cases and issues are clear and simple and match Bar v. Segal Case on all fours corners with names and dates changed:
Before Referee - Circuit Court by Philip Bloom SUPREME COURT THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. DIANE S. SEGAL, misconduct of the ENTERPRISE , RESPONDENTS AND DEFENDANTS
SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 83,352
REPORT OF THE REFEREE The Respondents was charged with Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(a)(l) in that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(d) in that in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
The context of the charges is that misconduct of the enterprise as attorneys, thereafter ex-parte, that an estate in which the respondent is both as a principal beneficiary and personal representative.
In conclusion, this matter came about as a result of the misconduct of the enterprisers obsessive, personal vendetta.

The Estate of Melanie Pflaum was not a difficult Estate to administer; Mrs. Melanie Pflaum's Last Will & Testament was clear, simple, and straightforward. However, Mr. Thomas Pflaum, personal representative, refused to carry out the testator's intent and refused to comply with the explicit provisions of a Will he himself had drafted at his law firm (Paul and Thomson) in Miami in 1978. Specifically, the misconduct of Mr. Thomas Pflaum who refused to distribute any income or property to his brothers, the beneficiaries named in the Will, during a 4-year period; he refused to cause the Estate and Trust taxes to be honestly paid; he refused to cooperate regarding all routine administrative matters.
Mr. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum's actions forced the Plaintiff as to seek his removal as personal representative in 2005 inasmuch as it was apparent that he would not receive any income or property distributions as long as Thomas was involved. It was Mr. Thomas Pflaum who chose to turn Petitioner's resistance into a prolonged litigation.
Thomas could have made distributions or he could have resigned and the matter would have ended there, but he didn’t. Mr. Thomas Pflaum engaged Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe and the protracted litigation and pleadings began. The only possible explanation for Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pflaum’s behavior is obsessive greed on the part of the misconduct of the enterprise, Respondents and defendants, including their attorneys, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe (at p 1)
The conflicts of Interests led to violations by the enterprise, Respondents and defendants 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 his unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an citizen of this state. The enterprise, Respondents and defendants must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.
The conflicts of Interests led to violations by the Respondents 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 his unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an citizen of this state. The Respondents must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.
It is Egregious: outrageous, flagrant, atrocious, monstrous. These adjectives mean grievously or conspicuously bad or appalling; the terms are often used interchangeably. Something outrageous is grossly offensive to decency, morality, or good taste: an outrageous lie; was subjected to outrageous cruelty. What is flagrant is glaringly or scandalously reprehensible: Atrocious means extremely wicked or cruel: Stealing from your brothers is monstrous and describes what is shockingly hideous or frightful: “There was no excess too monstrous for them to commit in pursuit of their greed” and they get away with it because the courts have never heard the case or have read the record but are entirely tied up in procedures that do not protect justice but are used to pervert common sense and offer no protection from abuse.
The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the Plaintiff by the misconduct of the enterprise , Respondents and defendants, individually or severally, as the enterprise rs, 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.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE Over $700,000 has been spent on a estate they claim is of no value. DO YOU HAVE EYES, can you see, DO YOU HAVE EARS, can you hear, DO YOU HAVE A VOICE, can you speak? The Estate is close to two million dollars and includes a substantial property in Spain. June 22, 2007 a year late!
Thomas and Leanne Pflaum did separately, individually and in the form of a joint enterprise with Mr. Hoppe cause a false arrest that deprived Dr. Peter E. Pflaum of his rights and liberty and caused extreme mental distress to him and his family by his arrest on Wednesday Sept 27th 2006.
ARGUMENT:
Here comes Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, the Petitioner, with a prima facie, a legitimate complaint; evident with proof and reasoning; of what is obviously an excruciating violation of basic human decency, the principles of civil law, and in clear violation of common elements of proper procedures and rules. First, Plaintiff should have received his share of the inheritance from his mother, Melanie Pflaum four years ago. Plaintiff has hopes that the judicial system of Florida will hear the case on the facts and the law. If the case is heard on the facts and the merits there would be a remedy for the injustice and damages to the Petitioner. The Respondents (Thomas and Leanne Pflaum) and his attorneys, (Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe), also a Respondent and co-conspirators, have taken the road of attacking the Petitioner. It’s the old adage that in any argument if the facts are on your side you argue the facts, if the law is on your side, you argue the law. If neither the law nor facts are on your side, you blame the Petitioner. It’s very easy to do and the best part is you actually get some people to believe you. It can even hide your own crimes and incompetence.
INHERITANCE:
FREEDOM OF DISPOSITION
The conception of freedom of disposition by wills, familiar as it is in modern England and the United States, both generally are considered common law systems. Something like the English probate is to be found in the rules for breaking the seals of a will in presence of the praetor. Closely connected with the will was the donatio mortis causa, the rules of which have been as a whole adopted in England . An immense space in the Corpus Juris is occupied with testamentary law. The whole of part v. of the Digest (books xxviii. -xxxvi. ) deals with the subject, and so do a large number of constitutions in the Code and Novels.
· Wrongs: This constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the claimant. The most common such breach is a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is a duty of loyalty and trust owed in various situations. Where a fiduciary makes a profit in breach of that duty, usually by using privileged information or diverting a profit making opportunity to himself instead of the person to whom the duty is owed, the profit is held on constructive trust for the person to whom the duty is owed..
· Unjust enrichment: a constructive trust may rise for the benefit of a person who paid an undue amount of money to another; that person who received the money will be regarded as a trustee detaining that money for the benefit of the one who payed it. They can be contrasted with "remedial" constructive trusts, which arise on the date of judgment as a remedy awarded by the court to do justice in the particular case.
· Amendment VIAmendment VIIIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States , than according to the rules of the common law. Dr. Pflaum claims after four years his basic constitutional rights to a timely fair hearing are being denied. The fundamental principal of the establishment of government in theses states are the rights of citizens to equal protection of the law. The facts and law are simple in this dispute about the money in my Mother’s estate. She commanded all her property to be divided in equal shares upon her death in March 2004. She appointed her son Thomas Pflaum, Esq. as her personal representative to faithful carry out her wishes clearly expressed in her will and letter of intent. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum betrayed this trust and took all the money and property for themselves. The IRS form 706 reports 1. 5 million but undervalues the home in Spain by $350,000 at $100,000 which maybe the subject of a criminal tax fraud investigation. Dr. Pflaum believes there is more than reasonable evidence of Judicial Corruption and he has been denied due process in a long list of complaints.
All the issues raised by the enterprise are only blue smoke and mirrors trying to hide the basic reality, i. e. Thomas and his wife taking all three shares of the estate (they value at $100 but in reality is two million) for themselves. The enterprise has actively encouraged the court from making a final judgment, which would be then be subject to appeal. The case could have been closed in the fall of 2005 or assigned to a impartial PR. The Petitioner, positive in the belief in his cause, the facts and the law, became aware of this “in his face” strategy of the enterprise and his compliant court to delay, harassment, threaten and use sanctions to advance his intention of intimidating the Plaintiff and never coming to a final judgment. The tactics of the enterprise hasthe clear intent of taking all the property and using legal tricks to keep what does not belong to them. The Plaintiff has appealed for Justice PRO SE to the best of his ability. The Plaintiff had no choice to seeking appeals or cases in other jurisdictions since there is no chance of a fair hearing in the court in Alachua County. The order by the court forbids the Plaintiff from exercising his civil rights to justice.
CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS
AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND BENEFICIARY WAS HOLDING AND ACQUIRING CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS AGAINST THE ESTATE WHICH CRITICALLY INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE (733. 609) AND WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISING POWER; AND WAS IN BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES, THEREFORE BE REPLACED.
Melanie Pflaum left an estate of about two million dollars which was clearly her money on the day she died, on March 5, 2004 in her long term home in Spain; Melanie had the absolute right to dispose of her property in a proper last will and testament. Her home of 35 years was in Private Community, El Tosalet, Javea , Spain - a property that Thomas the enterprise has valued at $450,000 and has been unwilling to sell despite four viable offers. Her other property includes her Merrill Lynch (M/L) brokerage account in Tallahassee, Florida of about 1. 5 million dollars in 2003 (plus compound earning of about 30% is over two million in 2007) and other assets of over $100,000 and listed in the IRS estate taxes; (2005) and nothing is in the inventory of the Estate, (only $100 value of two prints)
Northern Trust Checking Account Chicago - $11,689 (part of a trust account) set up by Melanie’s parents in 1964. * CAM (CAJA) de Ahorros de Meditarraneo Melanie’s bank in Javea - $19,133* Royal Bank of Scotland - Jersey GB - $30,573* Income tax refund - $10,985* Works of Art, page 10 - $19,230 (in Javea)
Total - $91,610 * Also, Bank of America - Tampa , FL 33622 -5118- approximately $5,500 (This is not on the tax return, but did exist). Account 00127844 4076 the enterprise used a POA (power of attorney) to close the account, pocket the money, change the address from Spain to Micanopy, then claim the account at his home as evidence that his mother lived in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pflaum, where in fact she had no property or even a room of her own. The evidence that Melanie Pflaum lived and was resident, domiciled in Spain not Florida, is beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE June 22, 2007
shows costs of over $500,000 (not including Mr. Hoppe, and a claim by Thomas the PR for $200,000 so a grand total of $700,000) has been spent on a estate they claim is of $100 value. DO YOU HAVE EYES, can you see,
DO YOU HAVE EARS, can you hear, DO YOU HAVE A VOICE, can you speak? The Estate is over two million dollars and includes a substantial property in Spain. The Financial Statement was only made June 22, 2007 and is a year late!
The misconduct of the enterprise ’s claims made on June 22, 2007 by Mr. White who erroneously and falsely stated under oath in the PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES (He has been paid $173,145. 98 so far) and in the face of all reality, truth, evidence and the law nevertheless claims about the million dollars wasted from the estate that:
“All of the services were necessary to the proper administration of the estate.
Plaintiff has expended professional time for the preparation and filing of this petition and will expend further professional time and costs in this proceeding.
Inasmuch as the probate assets were insufficient to pay any legal fees, all the impact of legal fees will be borne by Thomas M. Pflaum, who does not object to this petition. If there had been additional probate assets, the impact of legal fees would be borne by the residuary beneficiaries named below. Because the legal fees are being paid by Thomas M. Pflaum, individually, if assets come into the estate in the future, the legal fees should be appropriately borne by the residuary beneficiaries and paid from such estate assets.
The only persons other than Plaintiff having an interest in this proceeding and their respective addresses are:
Thomas Martin Pflaum, Personal Representative and residuary beneficiary 17306 S. W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, FL 32667 Peter Pflaum, residuary beneficiary 225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 John H. Pflaum, residuary beneficiary 2400 E Bradford Ave, Apt 905 Milwaukee, WI 53211-4172
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. ” Signed by Mr. White
The plot of the enterprise is clear: To dissipate all the estate in legal and administration then “DISCOVER” there is money BUT SURPRISE ! it has been used up by these corrupt practice and there is nothing left for the other beneficiaries. The expenses were NOT legal costs but used in the dishonest effort to take everything for the enterprise and defraud the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, PETER PFLAUM moves that THOMAS PFLAUM, LEANNE PFLAUM, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe be ordered to pay $875,000 damages and as full and final settlement of Peter Pflaum’s just claims on the estate
Here comes the PETITIONER, Dr. Peter E. Pflaum PhD (PRO SE) at the age of 70 years, a retired professor of Public Administration and government. The Plaintiff has never before been involved in litigation and has been PRO SE from necessity only. Melanie Pflaum, her son Plaintiff and his wife Mary Anne trusted Thomas, as a son, a brother, and as an attorney to do the right thing as administrator of the estate. He was completely trusted by his mother to carry out her wishes when she died. It came as a great shock, after months of taking care of his 94 year old dying mother, Plaintiff returned from Spain in March of 2004 (Melanie) to be informed (March 27, 2004) by his brother (Thomas) and his sister-in-law, Leanne (both attorneys) that the enterprise were going to take for themselves, everything in the estate.
They said in e-mails in the record that they would “play for the whole deck” and hire at great expense “really mean lawyers” to attack Petitioner’s rights to an equal share of the property their mother left to her three sons in her will. This is exactly what has happened, Thomas and Leanne have kept two million in assets, and four years later there is made in the probate of the estate.
The attacks on the Plaintiff include a civil suit for defamation and extortion, and having the Plaintiff arrested on resulting from Thomas’s false sworn police statement.
The Plaintiff has moved for the removal of the PR for cause over several years. An alternative has been a petition to the court since 2004 to consider MOTIONS for removal of the PR for cause as he no longer qualified because of overwhelming conflict of interests, and gross neglect of legal responsibilities under law. The Codicil of Melanie’s appointed the Lewis State Bank in the case Thomas and Leanne are not able to serve. The Lewis state bank was bought by the Nation’s Bank which was bought by Bank America which accepts its duties as successor institution and would do a professional job.
the enterprise has refused to act on this and all other of the Petitioners Motions and petitions. the enterprise has been begged to act because of the extensive evidence of misconduct that cries out for the appointment of a curator with or without notice and hearing to take hold of the property in contest and report to the Court on how to quickly and with due diligence and proper process; the new PR could close the estate and distribute the results to the beneficiaries.
Thomas and Leanne owe Plaintiff extensive damages to remedy the harm they has caused. This is a claim against Thomas as PR and as a lawyer and as a person. • Specifics- What the Respondents have done (and not done and left undone) the facts and the law.
UNREASONABLE ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS.
In the Probate case the misconduct of the court has ruled that ”All claims, Motions, and other pleadings or papers filed herein by said Peter Pflaum are hereby considered stricken and of no force or effect. 4. Except appropriate appellate filings pertaining to this order, no further pleadings, Motions or papers may be filed herein by said Peter Pflaum pro see Any further actions by said Peter Pflaum herein, including the filing of any papers whatsoever, shall only be taken by an attorney authorized to practice law in Florida. Should said Peter Pflaum violate the provisions of this order, he shall be assessed a fine of $300 per violation which shall be taxed upon MOTIONS of any party or by the court’s own initiative. Continued violations may be punishable by contempt and may result in incarceration
In the civil case (by the same enterprise ) without a hearing ordered “As to Defendants Peter Pflaum and Mary Anne Pflaum, the court has entered a default judgment against said Defendants on the defamation and civil extortion claim. Thus, as to said Defendants, their liability having been established, the trial will proceed on the issue of damages only. This was based on sanctions not a hearing of the facts. (Sanctions were based on events in 2005 and clearly set up to sandbag the defendants. ALL NOT TRUE and not based on any hearing of the facts) SEE APPENDIX TWO CASES
733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty. –
Motions were denied for the court to recuse himself, based on gross prejudice for the enterprise and bias against the Petitioner, The case presented by the plaintiff is sufficient evidence to show that two or more people are involved in a joint enterprise.
BASIC RIGHTS: A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. The Plaintiff appealed the lower courts denial of his claims as beneficiary to his mother’s estate. The Plaintiff is being denied justice by the lack of any hearing on the merits of the case, a chance to present the facts and the law about the dispute. Over the last four years, there has been a complete lack of any meaningful judicial decisions on the critical issues. The lower courts have made no substantial decisions. The way to discover who is right and who is wrong is to hear the facts and review the law.
The public policy issue is that the baby boomers’ parents are dying and leaving estates This case is an example of how the system does not properly work. The rights of beneficiaries are not protected and estates are exploited by unscrupulous agents, lawyers, relatives, financial advisors without proper regulation or supervision. This probate crisis undermines the public trust in the whole judicial system and the rule of law, as more people discover how complex, absurd and unfair the process can become. One in five boomers has horror stories about inheritances. Having experienced the stress of taking care of elderly parents, then the painful death of their parents and sometimes faults of the medical system, they now often face years of litigation at great expense as the estate is exploited by the legal and financial services systems. 87
ATTACKS ON THE PETITIONER:
CAUSING HARASSMENT and ABUSE the enterprise CAUSED DAMAGE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS CAUSING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF by the enterprise AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE misconduct of the enterprise.
the enterprise has been allowed to freely operate a campaign of harassment to force the plaintiff to surrender his claims. This campaign included a civil suit for defamation and extortion, a case basically dismissed by a civil jury and a judgment has been entered as of Saturday, August 03, 2007. AND for four years the enterprise has attacked the Plaintiff with complaints as to an imagined false report to the Department of Family and Children Services (DCF), claims of invasion of privacy, monetary sanctions, forced mediation, fines, and a long record of judicial abuse.
A criminal case was filed and the Plaintiff was arrested based on a false affidavit by Thomas and Leanne at the sheriffs office and the State Attorney Office in Alachua County. May 2005 case was dismissed in August but Mr. Hoppe continued to use it as evidence in November, December and January 2006. There is no such offence in civil or criminal law. That the report made May 16th of 2005 by Teresa Oldenburg (DFCS) Gainesville of was not a False Report of Child abuse using FS 39. 205 (which does not apply) or a felony was in error. The sworn complaint of the victims was false and without evidence.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
ISSUE: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE
the enterprise CAUSED DAMAGE WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED
The Personal Representative. (PR) Thomas is who also a beneficiary and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate and in fact have stolen all the assets. The cause of the litigation is the failure of the personal representative (PR), because of greed and a gross conflict of interests, to faithfully carry out the wishes of the deceased who cannot represent herself.
General fiduciary duties
Were The Courts, Merrill Lynch and or Thomas doing their General fiduciary duties? Benjamin Cardozo, while sitting on the Court of Appeals of New York made perhaps the most famous description of fiduciary duties in Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928):Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. In its essence this case makes a distinction between form and substance. Generally, the law recognizes three major fiduciary duties:1. duty of loyalty, i. e. a fiduciary must not place his own interests ahead of the departed and the beneficiary’s interest;2. duty of care, i. e. a fiduciary must exercise an amount of care appropriate to manage the beneficiary’s interest; and3. duty of disclosure, i. e. a fiduciary must disclose certain information to the beneficiary. Fiduciary law is particularly relevant to the law of trusts, partnerships, agency, and corporate officers and directors. Fiduciary duties are always particularized to the actual relationships they occur in, and often they can be modified (or even waived) by contract. (1) A personal representative’s fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this duty. In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of or failure to exercise a personal representative’s powers, the Court shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorney’s fees.
By 2003, Melanie, aged 94, could no longer handle her affairs. Thomas being fully aware of her condition had her sign papers (including power of attorney) without the ability to consent. He has used these documents to take everything of her property, including $100,000 reported to IRS as bank accounts, art works, government payments, without any inventory going to the estate. Thomas Pflaum clearly has a conflict of interests as big as all outdoors. He can not fairly administer the estate while at the same time claiming the whole amount. He is attacking the other beneficiaries while he is required to look after their interests. Thomas (PR) and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate, in fact, have stolen all the assets.
Melanie Pflaum’s long time residence in Javea, Spain, is part of the estate. She lived in her home there since 1969. The home could have been sold for cash (300,000 euros free and clear after expenses) FOUR times since her death, but Thomas and Leanne blocked all sales each time. The house (from recent descriptions from the neighbors to us personally) is in disrepair; some windows are boarded up and some are broken out - Squatters squat frequently. This is an abomination and an embarrassment to Plaintiff and his family and to our country.
BROTHER STEALS INHERITANCE THEN SUES FOR EXTORTION:
The grounds for tortious interference with inheritance include the lack of possibility when a probate proceeding does not have the potential to provide full redress of any damages suffered by a plaintiff, and some courts will require that the probate court proceeding be completed before a tort action may be brought. The attached order of the probate court in the 8th circuit bars Plaintiff from further claims and denies all the issues, so it is over as far as the Plaintiff is concerned. Some fundamental questions:
The core of a functional civilization is self regulation, either guilt or shame and professional and social pressures creating a context of good social behavior. Despondently, the legal system has become for some lawyers, a game of only what you can get away with - the only issue is the material damages of getting caught. It is not how you play the game but only winning by any means necessary. If the law is against them (the estate should be divided three ways within four years) they argue the facts, and since the facts are also against them (there is a clear conflict of interests, and Melanie did not live with them in Micanopy) they attack the other side.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE:
the enterprise CAUSED DAMAGE WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE.
When do probate proceedings bar a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance?
Schilling v. Herrera, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 981627 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr 04, 2007)
There is sufficient evidence in the exhibits of our plea to preserve the assets under contest. The Law[1] The Plaintiff has a valid claim is tortious inference with inheritance, and a number of states are now recognizing the claim. This is a claim that one will beneficiary intentionally interfered with the free will of the decedent so that he or she made a testimentary disposition in the JTWROS that wrongfully excluded the claimant from an inheritance, and that the claimant would have inherited absent the wrongful conduct.
The central issue is a monumental act of betrayal
where Thomas, acting as the PR for his deceased mother and with responsibilities for the other beneficiaries who are his brothers, announced in an e-mail days after Melanie’s death, that he and his wife, Leanne, (a misconduct of the enterprise ) also an attorney, were taking everything in Melanie’s estate for themselves.
The grounds for tortious interference with inheritance include the lack of possibility when a probate proceeding does not have the potential to provide full redress of any damages suffered by a Petitioner, and some courts will require that the probate court proceeding be completed before a tort action may be brought. The attached order of the probate court in the 8th circuit bars Peter from further claims and denies all the issues.
Thomas abusing the trust the family had in him,
SUMMARY: In March 2004 Melanie Pflaum (94) died in her long term home in Javea Spain. She left a formal and uncontested will (1978) giving equal shares of all he property among her children. The will was drafted at the law firm of Thomas Pflaum and sign in the counsel in Barcelona. She appoints her son Thomas Pflaum as personal representative. Thomas and his wife Leanne are attorneys and live in Micanopy Hammocks south of Gainesville Florida. After the death Thomas and his wife decided to take the whole estate and so notified Peter Pflaum.
Thomas appointed Mr. White a enterprise and co-conspirator as attorney for the estate and filed letters of administration in the 8th Circuit Court (July 2004) in Gainesville based on the perjured claim that Melanie lived with them in Micanopy. Since then there has never been a hearing of the will and the claims of the descendents.
Peter Pflaum has filled inches of motions, petitions, pleading and arguments, documents and evidence with no effect. He has gone to appeal and filed cases wherever he can. Plaintiff seeks a hearing on what is the intent of the deceased, and what should be done.
SETTING FORTH THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT.
The mental condition of the enterprise Thomas and Leanne Pflaum create additional doubts of their fitness to manage and preserve the assets of the estate. Thomas Pflaum suffers from illusions and delusions. In the attached e-mails he claims he was empowered by the decedent who had given all of her estate to him and his wife. Thomas and his wife Leanne, both attorneys, were fully cognizant that documents obtained when the decedent had no ability to give consent were fraudulent. He imagined Melanie lived with him in his home in Micanopy. He displayed paranoid tendency in a belief that the Plaintiff schemed against him, was in fact extorting him from his money, and the Plaintiff conspired with others creating a great danger, defamed his and Leanne’s character, and, therefore, the behavior of others explained why he and Leanne were entitled to all of the estate. These statements are so far from the truth, objective reality, and common sense as to bring his judgment and capacity into serious doubt.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: I, Plaintiff Edward Pflaum PRO SE, son and heir to Melanie Sophia Pflaum’s estate MOVE that the personal representative of the deceased be ordered by the court to disclose and reveal to his or her best knowledge and belief all assets past and present of the late Melanie Sophia Pflaum and as her personal representative all assets and income received from the late Melanie Sophia Pflaum. Prior and previous inventory has not been forthcoming and is still only $100. 00. The deceased had a residence in Spain . She had several bank accounts, investment accounts, and valuable personal possessions, MOTIONS to review and declare inventory in the estate - including the Merrill Lynch.
Sanctions: the enterprise and his attorneys have lied and deceived the Court in matters of critical substance in order to pervert the course of justice, he has tampered with documents (Bank of America Account) he has illegally used POA, and with the intent to obstruct justice. The Bank of America (attached) would be a respected, competent and neutral replacement. Thomas is claiming an asset of the estate that places him in a conflict as personal representative and he should be replaced. Mr. White and Thomas Pflaum have failed in their duties and described by Mr. White.
MOTIONS to restore to my family an allowance of $2000 a month because of serious financial stress and bankruptcy.
MOTIONS to compel Mr. Hoppe to return Melanie Pflaum’s letter of intent of June 2003. 106
The Plaintiff makes MOTIONS for the enterprise to affirm and agree there is a danger that the decedent’s property is likely to be wasted, destroyed, or removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court and therefore orders Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith, Inc. to freeze or suspend the account’s) of Thomas and Leanne Pflaum and demand Merrill Lynch to verify what is currently in the account’s).
Since the enterprise are holding and acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that have interfered with the administration of the estate as a whole, the Court can protect the assets while the case is under litigation. When it is necessary, the Court may appoint a curator after formal notice to the person apparently entitled to letters of administration. The curator may be authorized to perform any duty or function of a personal representative. If there is great danger that any of the decedent’s property is likely to be wasted, destroyed, or removed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and if the appointment of a curator would be delayed by giving notice, the Court may appoint a curator without giving notice. The core of Petitioner’s argument is that Thomas’s strategy is to avoid a final judgment and just keep the money by fraud, making appeal difficult. Summary judgment for relief; An alternative the Court could consider is MOTIONS for removal of the PR as no longer qualified because of conflict of interests, and gross neglect of legal responsibilities under law. The Codicil of Melanie’s will appoint the Lewis State Bank in the case Thomas and Leanne are not able to serve. The Lewis state bank was bought by the Nation’s Bank which was bought by Bank America which accepts its duties as successor institution and would do a professional job.
Because of the extensive evidence of misconduct the Court should appoint a curator without notice and hearing to take hold of the property in contest and report to the Court on how to quickly and with due process close the estate and distribute the results to the beneficiaries. Thomas and Leanne owe Plaintiff extensive damages to remedy the harm he has caused. The claim by the Plaintiff is for $1,500,000 in direct financial damage AND PAIN, SUFFERING and punitive damages. This includes but is not limited to the original amount in the estate divided three ways, including a fair assessment of the house in Spain, with interest over four years and direct costs over the last four years. The damages in pain and suffering by the Plaintiff and his family over these years have been real and substantial and will require a remedy.
The PR is required to distribute the remaining property to the beneficiaries of the decedent as they have been instructed to do so in the will. It is not uncommon for there to be disputes during this process. Peter can make a claim on an estate by petitioning the executor or the court. Since the court rejects the claim, the individual with the claim may file a lawsuit to attempt to prove their claim and collect the money or the objects that they are saying they are entitled to. If there is a lawsuit, the court is more inclined to treat the probate process more formally, which makes the process much more difficult as it must approve of every single transfer of property in the will. How to avoid probate Unfortunately, probate can take quite awhile. It is not common, however for the probate process to take more than four years and for all property not to be distributed.
CONCLUSION:
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF:
A motion for damages of $875,000 against a joint enterprise of Thomas Pflaum, Leanne Pflaum and their attorneys, Mr. Hoppe and Mr. White assessed by this court because the outrageous abuse of the facts and the law by the joint enterprise perpetrated on of the 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.
REMEDY: RELIEF:
PETER PFLAUM, PRO SE makes a claim against the Petitioner, THOMAS M. PFLAUM, his claims for damages against them the for One and one half millions dollars ($1,500,000) for Summary: $861,000 as Petitioner’s share of his mother’s estate in 2004 ($500,000) plus interests over four years is 25% ($125,000) and INCLUDES $140,000 claims on one third of the abandoned the property in Spain . Another $100,000 for legal and other direct expenses, loss work, and mental distress, $380,000 in false arrest, pain and suffering, and time spent on these cases. They are charged with grand larceny of a million dollars or more by fraud. In the furtherance of a joint enterprise they have committed perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice and public corruption. Causing the presentation of false testimony rises to the level of subornation because the attorneys used the material as part of the testimony to make the case and forward the enterprise . Punitive damages made up the total of $1. 5 million. There are additional claims against Mr. White of $200,000 as all the fees he has charged in the enterprise and the same for Mr. Hoppe. All the enterprise should be stripped of their ill gotten gains.
PETITIONS AND MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF $861,000 FOR THE Plaintiff FROM the enterprise
RULE 5. 020. PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION; MOTIONS Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void. The Plaintiff moves the records be included as correspondence because almost everything put in evidence is in the record and does not need to be copied.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a e-mail copy and floppy with a electronic copy was sent to the parties, Dr. John Pflaum 2400 E. Bradford Ave. Apt. 905 Milwaukee, WI 53211-4172 by way of Thomas Burke Fax 414 224 8208 Phone 414 305 9237 - 270 0734 Tburke422@aol.com and
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Pflaum & family 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
Micanopy, FL 32667-9802 (Micanopy) 352 466 0252 (1) fax 1 352 466 0251
tmpflaum@aol.com LJPflaum@aol.com pflaum@law.ufl.edu
Represented by Thomas Richard White 352 372 1011 RMW@gate.net Richard White White & Crouch, P.A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville FL 32608 352.372.1011 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates and
NICHOLAS V. PULIGNANO, JR., ESQUIRE for Merrill Lynch MARKS, GRAY, P.A. for Mr. Robert Hayward, Financial Adviser 1200 RIVERPLACE BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207
And a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail this Friday, November 23, 2007 to Bill Hoppe, P. A. d/b/a The Hoppe Law Firm 2313 N. W. 7th Road Gainesville, Florida 32607

Signed ________________________________________date____________

Certificate of Compliance This brief was prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font.
Signed __________________________
An electronic copy of brief must be provided in accordance with AO04-84. See Administrative Order In re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, (. XML) dated September 13, 2004.

06/25/2007 UNSIGNED PROPOSED DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED- ORDER OF DISCHARGE
06/25/2007 PETITION FOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S FEE
06/25/2007 PETITION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
06/25/2007 FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
06/25/2007 PETITION FOR DISCHARGE
06/25/2007 NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE
06/25/2007 NONTAXABLE CERTIFICATE AND RECEIPT FOR ESTATE TAX
06/25/2007 ESTATE TAX CLOSING DOCUMENT
06/25/2007 COVER LETTER DATED 06/21/07 0.00
Dr. Peter Pflaum, PRO SE 225 Robinson RoadNew Smyrna Beach, FL 32169386 428 9609 PETITIONER
V. Leanne Pflaum, Esq. and Thomas Pflaum, Esq. respondents and co-conspirators
17306 S. W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, Florida 32667-9802 Tele 352 466 0252 And Richard White, a respondent and co-conspirator,
White & Crouch, P. A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville, FL 32608 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates RESPONDENTS
Probate of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM
File No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A

MOTION TO DISMISS SANCTIONS AGAINST PETITIONER AND FILE COUNTER-CLAIM
APPEAL FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Florida Supreme Court CASE NO: SC07-655 has received on 3/20/2007 a Petition for Writ of Prohibition as an Appeal from the District Court of Appeal 1 D06-6618 (Defamation And Extortion Lower Tribunal No. CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K) Former CASE NO. 1DCA06-3240, 1D06-2762, and 1DCA05-5830, DCA05-5212, 2005-CA-2363

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
(THE ISSUES IN A NUTSHELL)
The case is brought under discretionary jurisdiction or “reviews,” as an “appeal,” constituting a broad type of “appellate” jurisdiction because the Court is reviewing actions taken by lower courts. Jurisdiction over discretionary review cases is invoked in the state constitution granting the Supreme Court of Florida authority to issue “all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction. ” Petition for Writ of Prohibition as an Appeal from the District Court of Appeal 1 D06-6618 is a Common-law certiorari authority to review and correct actions by a lower tribunal that violates the essential requirements of the law where no other adequate remedy exists.
Bar v. Segal Case on all fours corners with names and dates changed:
Before Referee - Circuit Court Judge Philip Bloom SUPREME COURT THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. DIANE S. SEGAL, Respondent
SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 83,352
REPORT OF THE REFEREE The Respondent was charged with Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(a)(l) in that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(d) in that in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
The context of the charges is that Respondent as an attorney, thereafter ex-parte, that an estate in which Respondents are a principal beneficiary and personal representative.
In conclusion, this matter came about as a result of the Respondents obsessive, personal vendetta. The Estate of Melanie Pflaum was not a difficult Estate to administer; Mrs. Melanie Pflaum’s Last Will & Testament was clear, simple, and straightforward. However, Mr. Thomas Pflaum, personal representative, refused to carry out the testator’s intent and refused to comply with the explicit provisions of a Will he himself had drafted at his law firm (Paul and Thomson) in Miami in 1978. Specifically, the respondent, Mr. Thomas Pflaum refused to distribute any income or property to his brothers, the beneficiaries named in the Will, during a 4-year period; he refused to cause the Estate and Trust taxes to be honestly paid; he refused to cooperate regarding all routine administrative matters.
Mr. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum’s actions forced the petitioner as to seek his removal as personal representative in 2005 inasmuch as it was apparent that he would not receive any income or property distributions as long as Thomas was involved. It was Mr. Thomas Pflaum who chose to turn Petitioner’s resistance into a prolonged litigation.
Thomas could have made distributions or he could have resigned and the matter would have ended there, but he didn’t. Mr. Thomas Pflaum engaged Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe and the protracted litigation and pleadings began. The only possible explanation for Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pflaum’s behavior is obsessive greed on the part of the Respondents and, subsequently, their attorneys, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe” (at p 1)
The conflicts of Interests led to violations by the Respondents 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 his unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an citizen of this state. The respondents must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/fsc07-655.pdf Jurisdiction Brief by Petitioner
http://www.wiredbrain.net/appealsfsc.xml BRIEF IN . XML
http://www.wiredbrain.net/appealsfsc.doc BRIEF IN WORD. DOC
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2007/601-800/index.shtml
http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm
The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: (THE ISSUES IN A NUTSHELL) i
Bar v. Segal Case on all fours corners with names and dates changed: ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii
AUTHORITIES. iv
ARGUMENT: vi
PROHIBITION, WRIT OF –. vii
INTRODUCTION.. 1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 1
CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 1
ISSUE ONE: HARASSMENT and ABUSE.. 1
To quote the Last Will of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM... 3
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS BY PETITIONER.. 6
DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.. 6
CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS. 7
BASIC RIGHTS: A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY.. 12
ATTACKS ON THE PETITIONER: 13
ISSUE FOUR: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE.. 14
III CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. 16
General fiduciary duties. 16
The Story BROTHER STEALS INHERITANCE THEN SUES FOR EXTORTION: 19
#INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE; 20
USE_OF_JTWROS IN MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT. 21
SETTING FORTH THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT. 23
CONCLUSION: 26
REMEDY: RELIEF: 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. 27

AUTHORITIES
Florida Statues: Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE: OF ESTATES 732. 6005 Rules of construction and intention 733. 504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal. -A personal representative may be removed and the letters revoked for any of the following causes, and the removal shall be in addition to any penalties prescribed by law: (9) Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole 733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty
FLA. CONST. art. V, § 3(b)(7). For a discussion of the history underlying this provision and the case law, see Robert T. Mann, The Scope of the All Writs Power, 10 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 197 (1982).
FLA. CONST. art. V, § 3(b)(7) with Couse v. Canal Auth. , 209 So. 2d 865, (Fla. 1968) (quoting FLA. CONST. of 1885, art. V (1957)).
E. g. , State ex rel. Watson v. Lee, 8 So. 2d 19, 21 (Fla. 1942).
209 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1968). (quoting FLA. R. APP. P. 4. 5(g)(1) (as amended)). Apparently, the new standard merely expanded jurisdiction. The Court still continued to issue ancillary writs in pending proceedings under its all writs power. See, e. g. , Booth v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1974).
RE: ESTATE OF LETTIE V. COMBEE, Deceased. LINDA RAE FARMER, et al. , Petitioners, vs. IRMA A. WALKER , et al. , Respondents. [May 28, 1992} Page 6
Chase Fed. In a subsequent Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sullivan, 127 So. 2d 112 ( Fla. 1960) Appendix two page 5 Appendix two
Survivorship Rights in Joint Accounts, 24 U. Fla. L. Rev. 476 (1972). Page 32 Appendix 2, page 5
Richard e. Warner, Joint Accounts and Decedent’s Estates—An Update, Fla. B. J. , July/Aug. 1987, at Page 5 Appendix two
5, 466 So. 2d 1055 ( Fla. 1 9 8 5 ) Estate of Gainer, 579 So. 2d 739 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1 9 9 1 ) Page 5 Appendix two
Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928) Page 20
Fla. R. App. P. 9. 040©; People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. Reynolds, 571 So. 2d 493 ( Fla. 1 st DCA 1990). Page v
Davison v. Feurerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So. 2d 825 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966). Page 28, appendix 2, page 7, 8
Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 ( Fla. 1999) Page vii
Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void.
1DCA On the court’s own MOTIONS , the complaint/petition filed June 13, 2006 is hereby treated as a petition for writ of prohibition. See Fla. R. App. P. 9. 040©; People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. Revnolds, 571 So. 2d 493 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
We reasoned that establishment of the joint account under these circumstances was an ineffectual attempt to do that which could only be accomplished by a last will and testament. In order for the survivor to prevail, it had to be shown that the creator intended a gift inter vivos at the time the account was opened. (1982 or 2003)732. 6005 Rules of construction and intention. --(1) The intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator’s dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in this part shall apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will. (2) Subject to the foregoing, a will is construed to pass all property which the testator owns at death, including property acquired after the execution of the will. History. -s. 1, ch. 74-106; ss. 33, 35, ch. 75-220; s. 965, ch. 97-102; s. 49, ch. 2001-226.
The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the petitioner by THE RESPONDENTS, 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 the court 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.
ARGUMENT:
ISSUE ONE: HARASSMENT and ABUSE. . 1 Pages 3, 21
WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE A MISTAKE AND ERRED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT ARGUMENT 1: CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS (HARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE)
ISSUE TWO: PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW pages 5, 15, 20
WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS MISTAKEN AND ERRED IN HOLDING EX PARTE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING, DENYING THE PETITIONER TIMELY RESPONSE TO CHARGES AND ALLOWING THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT TO WRITE COURT ORDERS INCLUDING UNJUSTIFIED SANCTIONS AND FINDING NOT BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW; SHOWING GROSS BIAS AGAINST PETITIONER AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT
ISSUE THREE: CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS. AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE Page 7, 16, 24
WHETHER THE COURT WAS MISTAKEN AND ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE RESPONDENT AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND BENEFICIARY WAS HOLDING AND ACQUIRING CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS AGAINST THE ESTATE WHICH CRITICALLY INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE (733. 609) AND WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISING POWER; AND WAS IN BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES, THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN REPLACED
ISSUE FOUR: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE. . Page 15, 23, 28
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED AND WAS MISTAKEN WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED.
ISSUE FIVE: TORTUOUS UNJUSTIFIED DELAY Page 19, 20
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS MISTAKEN AND IN ERROR IN NOT HEARING THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF THIS PROBATE CASE OR MAKING A DECISION ON ITS MERITS IN A TIMELY MANNER; A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY THAT CAUSED SERIOUS MATERIAL HARM TO THE PETITIONER.
ISSUE SIX: INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE USE_OF_JTWROS IN MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT. . Page 20, 30
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE.
PROHIBITION, WRIT OF –
The name of a writ issued by a superior court, directed to the judge and parties of a suit in an inferior court, commanding them to cease from the prosecution of the same, upon a suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court.
The writ of prohibition may also be issued when, having jurisdiction, the court has attempted to proceed by rules differing from those which ought to be observed, or when, by the exercise of its jurisdiction, the inferior court would defeat a legal right.
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.
The FSC (FSC05-2330) said about this case last year ”The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby transferred, pursuant to Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1999), to the First District Court of Appeal. The transfer of this case should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits of the petition, nor as a determination that the transferee court has jurisdiction or that the petition has been properly denominated as a petition for writ of mandamus. The transferee court should not interpret the transfer of this case as an indication that it must or should reach the merits of the petition. The transferee court shall treat the petition as if it had been originally filed there on the date it was filed in this Court. Any determination concerning whether a filing fee shall be applicable to this case shall be made by the transferee court. Any and all pending Motions in this case are hereby deferred to the transferee court. “
The Uniform Probate Code
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) in 1969. This was intended to facilitate uniformity in probate codes throughout the United States.
In the face of widespread criticism of the present American probate institution, the adoption of a uniform, and in most cases, less expensive system of settling a decedent’s estate is deemed desirable. The UPC is based on the major premise that the probate court’s appropriate role is to be available to assist in the settlement of an estate when assistance is requested or required rather than to impose its unsolicited supervision to enforce every detailed formality upon completely non-contentious Probate Takes Time- It can take up to two years. (In this case, four years) The beneficiaries generally get nothing in the intervening period unless the judge Okays an allowance for the family.
INTRODUCTION
Here comes Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, the Petitioner, with a prima facie, a legitimate complaint; evident with proof and reasoning; of what is obviously an excruciating violation of basic human decency, the principles of civil law, and in clear violation of common elements of proper procedures and rules. First, Petitioner should have received his share of the inheritance from his mother, Melanie Pflaum four years ago. Petitioner has hopes that the judicial system of Florida will hear the case on the facts and the law. If the case is heard on the facts and the merits there would be a remedy for the injustice and damages to the Petitioner. The Respondents (Thomas and Leanne Pflaum) and his attorneys, (Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe), also respondents and co-conspirators, have taken the road of attacking the Petitioner. It’s the old adage that in any argument if the facts are on your side you argue the facts, if the law is on your side, you argue the law. If neither the law nor facts are on your side, you blame the Petitioner. It’s very easy to do and the best part is you actually get some people to believe you. It can even hide your own crimes and incompetence.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
More ARGUMENTS, ISSUES, CAUSES, and COUNTS: in Appendix three
CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
HARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE in the PROCESS IN THE LOWER COURTS:
IN the course of the proceedings, and the disposition in the lower tribunal; the judge in the probate case made it clear to all, since September 2005, that the law or the facts did not apply in his court. He ordered, in the face of all common sense, evidence, the law and reality, that Respondent Thomas Pflaum had no conflict of interest and Melanie was domicile in Micanopy. The court has allowed attacks on the Petitioner include a civil suit for defamation and extortion, and having the Petitioner arrested on felony charges resulting from Thomas’s false sworn police statement and the result of improper interference in the legal process by his attorneys, Mr. Hoppe and Mr. White.
ISSUE ONE: HARASSMENT and ABUSE
WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT ARGUMENT AND COUNT 1: CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS (HARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE)
The trial court was in error and made a clear mistake when it’s Order of June 22, 2006, the Court erroneously found that Peter Pflaum rather than Thomas and the enterprise had engaged in a protracted conspiracy of willful, deliberate, persistent, and contumacious disregard and violations of the facts and the law and intentional abuse of the judicial process. To the contrary of Thomas Pflaum’s lies; Peter Pflaum honestly claims: Thomas Pflaum et al have engaged in a four year campaign of harassment of Peter and his wife as part of a conspiracy to steal his inheritance.
REFERENCE [1] CASE ONE PROBATE 38
The Respondents have not made a substantive respond in an adversarial probate case: Peter Pflaum, Petitioner v. Thomas Pflaum, Respondent, and Personal Representative; in violation of the rules of : The Respondent have not replied to many interrogatives, discovery, petitions to coerce answers or many petitions and motions to have the PR removed for cause, including a gross conflict of interest.
And Respondents have been unable or unwilling to make an affirmative case and have refused for four years to give any reasons why there are any legal and factual grounds for their stated belief that all the property belongs to them. This belief in the ownership of the property is clear in the
PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 70
http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm the papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007:
The central issue of the dispute is the claim is that the whole of the Estate belongs to Thomas and Leanne. Since they don’t have a legitimate case in law and the facts are painfully simple and clearly against them, therefore, they attack the Petitioner. Given the circumstances, of course, the court always has the authority to appoint an administrator ad litem to safeguard the estate if the court has reason to believe there are important conflicts of interests and/or that the estate assets and administration are endangered or being mismanaged. Thereafter, the court should promptly entertain the concerns on the merits with respect for the due process rights of all interested parties. The test is” would a reasonable person find the case and process in the courts for the last four years, of Pflaum v. Pflaum rational and fair? The estate is being wasted in almost a million dollars of legal fees and expenses brought about in the process of Thomas Pflaum’s misconduct.
The Petitioner claims that the behavior of the trial judge is clearly state action. The state in the form of the trial judge has aided and abetted the Respondents taking the Petitioner’s property. The court has grossly failed to provide that the laws are faithfully executed. The Petitioner has a claim against the Respondents for negligence, malfeasance, misconduct, or wrongdoing, especially aided by a public official. He claims against the State because he can prove his legitimating expectation that his mother’s estate would be distributed according to law; except for the willful actions of the Respondents in the conspiratorial abuse of the legal system, the Petitioner was deprived of his property by a joint enterprise of the Respondents, their lawyers and the Civil Courts of the State.
To quote the Last Will of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM
who died (Aged 94) March 5th 2004, in her long term home in Javea Spain Article 4I give all the residue of my estate, real and Personal, of whatever nature and wherever located, which I own at the time of my death, including the proceeds of insurance on my life which may be payable to my estate and I hereby exercise any and all powers of appointment which I have under any trust or otherwise and direct all property subject thereto shall also be disposed, to my husband Irving Peter Pflaum , if he survives me, and if not in equal shares to my sons Thomas Martin Pflaum, Petitioner Edward Pflaum and John Herbert Pflaum, per stirpes. Page 2 to Page 3
Melanie’s estate is in an uncontested formal will and testament, drafted in Miami (1978) by the firm which was at the time was the employer of the Respondent Thomas, by Jordan Burt LLP who was at Paul and Thomson in 1978, signed and notarized at the American Council in Barcelona, Spain. He drafted at the same time the will of Irving Pflaum, which left all his property to Melanie when he died in 1986 and is being hidden and concealed by Thomas, so he can raise phony issue about the house in Spain, he lies about this and about POA from his mother. The WILL required her property to be divided in equal shares among her three sons, John, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a retired PhD clinical psychologist, born in Majorca, Spain, 1934; Petitioner Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, a retired professor of government, married to Mary Anne, born in Barcelona, Spain, 1936; and Thomas, a lawyer in private practice in his house in Micanopy, Alachua County, Florida, married to Leanne, Thomas was born in Evanston, Illinois, 1950, and was appointed Personal Representative (PR).
The estate came from Melanie’s parents and from her grandparents and, if not perverted would be in the fourth and fifth generation. (see appendix three, The history of the money) The estate paid for higher education including the University of Chicago law degree Thomas has abused to violate more than a century of legal and family tradition. After four years, the material issues of this case have never been heard or decided ON ITS MERITS by any court at any time. History of the money 90
The respondents have used and abused the court to dishonestly attack the petitioner’s clear claims to his inheritance. There is much more to this case than serious and grave faults of procedures – The Petitioner and his family are being injured every day by the lack of a family allowance of $2000 a month they received for decades. Peter Pflaum is indigent and filed for bankruptcy. They have been seriously damaged for over four years by this unfair legal process and the acts of the Respondents, Thomas Pflaum Esq. , (the greedy brother), Leanne Pflaum, (who put her name on the money that is absolutely not hers) Mr. White; respondents and co-conspirators (Thomas’ probate lawyer who has not only not done his duty but has conspired with Thomas to pervert the legal system for which he has charged more than $200,000) and Mr. Hoppe (Thomas’ and Leanne’s attack lawyer who is paid, at least $200,000 so far, to harass the Petitioner and his family, with legal tricks including civil and criminal cases). Thomas should not profit by his bad behavior and his lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to a citizen of this state. The respondent must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.
This joint enterprise of the respondents and co-conspirators have over the last four years systematically refused to carry out the testator’s intent and abused the legal system for unjustifiable and illegal financial gain. The Estate is worth about two million dollars. The Respondent have filed on June 22, 2007, a motion to discharge with an inventory of only $100 and expenses of $400,000, plus $200,000 more for Mr. Hoppe; And another for Thomas’s expenses of $200,000 for a total over 2/3 of a million dollars over an estate they claim has only $100 value.
http://www. wiredbrain. net/probateclose. htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007 APPENDIX TWO PART TWO 64
This makes no sense at all, unless they plan on claiming that they have used up all the estate’s assets in the process of stealing it. They have completely failed in their responsibilities to the law, the Florida bar, their profession, the administration of justice, Thomas’s mother, the deceased, and his brothers, the other beneficiaries. The Respondents know what they should have done but have chosen to instead to be dishonest and take all the money that testator’s intended to equally divide amongst her children.
Mr. White wrote: “Second, please be clear in understanding that I represent the personal representative of the estate. I do not represent Tom individually, which is a large part of the reason Tom retained Mr. Hoppe in connection with the Florida Bar complaint you filed against him. In my capacity as the attorney for the personal representative,
(Mr. White wrote in 10/12/2004) it is my responsibility to guide the personal representative in making sure that all of the estate’s obligations are discharged, in particular that all estate taxes that may be due are paid, that all estate assets are marshaled and properly accounted for, and that proper distribution is made to the beneficiaries as required by the will which has been admitted to probate in Florida. I intend to fulfill that responsibility. However, I do not represent Tom, any more than I represent either of you. ”
GOD only knows that IF he had done the right thing and what is expected and required by law, then many years of pain, suffering, legal and financial waste; ($700,000) would have been avoided and we all would not be where we are today. In reality, Mr. White only represents Thomas and Leanne, the joint enterprise of the respondents and co-conspirators in their nefarious schemes to take all the money and attacks the other beneficiaries. They were required to represent and protect the departed and her beneficiaries not attack them, the truth, the legal system and common decency and common sense.
Since Mr. White said he is the petitioner’s representative and attorney there is a claim of malpractice and fraud as a respondent and co-conspirator since Mr. White has clearly been unethical, corrupt, and dishonest in joining a conspiracy to embezzle by fraud the beneficiary’s property.
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
The Petitioner appealed the lower courts denial of his claims as beneficiary to his mother’s estate. The Petitioner is being denied justice by the lack of any hearing on the merits of the case, a chance to present the facts and the law about the dispute to an impartial court. Over the last four years, there has been a complete lack of any meaningful judicial decisions on the critical issues. The lower courts have made no substantial decisions. The Petitioner claims this is equal to having his complaints dismissed without a hearing. For years the record will show that Respondents and the trial court has refused to respond to the Petitioner’s pleas, petitions, and Motions. The Respondents have not presented any affirmative replies or actions to settle the dispute or move the courts to make any findings on the issues in dispute. There is no sign that there will ever be a final judgment in the trial court or in 1DCA. There has been no progress in making an inventory of the estate which is still $100 over four years. The Respondents have shown a clear intent to obtain by fraud all the property in the estate by perverting the course of justice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS BY PETITIONER
DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW
WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN HOLDING EX PARTE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING, DENYING THE PETITIONER TIMELY RESPONSES TO CHARGES AND ALLOWING THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT TO WRITE COURT ORDERS INCLUDING UNJUSTIFIED SANCTIONS AND FINDING NOT BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW; SHOWING GROSS BIAS AGAINST PETITIONER AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT
l PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 53
The case is not fundamentally about who did what to whom in the process of litigation, or as the respondents claim, the faults of the Petitioner in seeking justice, but only the failure of the personal representative (PR), because of greed and a gross conflict of interests, to faithfully carry out the wishes of the deceased. who in not being represented to see the testator’s intent is honored since the PR refuses to comply with the explicit provisions of her Will. The central issue is a monumental act of betrayal where Thomas, acting as the PR for his deceased mother and with responsibilities for the other beneficiaries who are his brothers, announced in an e-mail days after Melanie’s death, that he and his wife, Leanne, (a Respondent) also an attorney, were taking everything in Melanie’s estate for themselves. Thomas stated in the same e-mail that they were hiring “really mean lawyers” to support the illegal ownership of the entire estate and to attack his brothers. The Respondent is clearly in a really big conflict of interest.
The history of the law, Inheritance: 87
civil courts and judicial administrative code was largely based on inheritance. From ancient Babylon , through Greek and Roman law, ecclesiastical or Church Law, and the British Common Law the legal transfer of property after death was a major part of the legal system and a foundation of organized society. Transfer of property took up a major part of the pillars of American common law. This case is about the wishes of the departed, Melanie Lowenthal Pflaum, and the ability of the judicial system in the State of Florida to respect the ancient tradition of passing property from generation to generation.
All the issues raised by the respondents are only blue smoke and mirrors trying to hide the basic reality, i. e. the Respondent and his wife taking all three shares of the estate (they value at $100 but in reality is two million) for themselves. The Respondents have actively encouraged the trial court from making a final judgment, which would be then be subject to appeal. The case could have been closed in the fall of 2005 or assigned to a impartial PR. The Petitioner, positive in the belief in his cause, the facts and the law, became aware of this “in his face” strategy of the Respondents and his compliant court to delay, harassment, threaten and use sanctions to advance his intention of intimidating the petitioner and never coming to a final judgment. The tactics of the Respondents have the clear intent of taking all the property and using legal tricks to keep what does not belong to them. The Petitioner has appealed for Justice PRO SE to the best of his ability. The Petitioner had no choice to seeking appeals or cases in other jurisdictions since there is no chance of a fair hearing in the lower court in Alachua County. The order by the Trial Court forbids the Petitioner from exercising his civil rights to justice.
SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY ISSUE THREE: HISTORY 2004-2005 79
CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE RESPONDENT AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND BENEFICIARY WAS HOLDING AND ACQUIRING CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS AGAINST THE ESTATE WHICH CRITICALLY INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE (733. 609) AND WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISING POWER; AND WAS IN BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES, THEREFORE BE REPLACED.
Melanie Pflaum left an estate of about two million dollars which was clearly her money on the day she died, on March 5, 2004 in her long term home in Spain; Melanie had the absolute right to dispose of her property in a proper last will and testament. Her home of 35 years was in Private Community, El Tosalet, Javea , Spain - a property that Thomas the Respondent has valued at $450,000 and has been unwilling to sell despite four viable offers. Her other property includes her Merrill Lynch (M/L) brokerage account in Tallahassee, Florida of about 1. 5 million dollars in 2003 (plus compound earning of about 30% is over two million in 2007) and other assets of over $100,000 and listed in the IRS estate taxes; (2005) and nothing is in the inventory of the Estate, (only $100 value of two prints)
Northern Trust Checking Account Chicago - $11,689 (part of a trust account) set up by Melanie’s parents in 1964. * CAM (CAJA) de Ahorros de Meditarraneo Melanie’s bank in Javea - $19,133* Royal Bank of Scotland - Jersey GB - $30,573* Income tax refund - $10,985* Works of Art, page 10 - $19,230 (in Javea)
Total - $91,610 * Also, Bank of America - Tampa , FL 33622 -5118- approximately $5,500 (This is not on the tax return, but did exist). Account 00127844 4076 The Respondent used a POA (power of attorney) to close the account, pocket the money, change the address from Spain to Micanopy, then claim the account at his home as evidence that his mother lived in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pflaum, where in fact she had no property or even a room of her own. The evidence that Melanie Pflaum lived and was resident, domiciled in Spain not Florida, is beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE June 22, 2007 APPENDIX TWO PART TWO 64
shows costs of over $400,000 (not including Mr. Hoppe, and a claim by Thomas the PR for $200,000 so a grand total of $700,000) has been spent on a estate they claim is of $100 value. DO YOU HAVE EYES, can you see, DO YOU HAVE EARS, can you hear, DO YOU HAVE A VOICE, can you speak? The Estate is over two million dollars and includes a substantial property in Spain. The Financial Statement was only made June 22, 2007 and is a year late!
The respondent’s claims made on June 22, 2007 by Mr. White who erroneously and falsely stated under oath in the PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES (He has been paid $173,145. 98 so far) and in the face of all reality, truth, evidence and the law nevertheless claims about the million dollars wasted from the estate that:
“All of the services were necessary to the proper administration of the estate.
Petitioner has expended professional time for the preparation and filing of this petition and will expend further professional time and costs in this proceeding.
Inasmuch as the probate assets were insufficient to pay any legal fees, all the impact of legal fees will be borne by Thomas M. Pflaum, who does not object to this petition. If there had been additional probate assets, the impact of legal fees would be borne by the residuary beneficiaries named below. Because the legal fees are being paid by Thomas M. Pflaum, individually, if assets come into the estate in the future, the legal fees should be appropriately borne by the residuary beneficiaries and paid from such estate assets.
The only persons other than petitioner having an interest in this proceeding and their respective addresses are:
Thomas Martin Pflaum, Personal Representative and residuary beneficiary 17306 S. W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, FL 32667 Peter Pflaum, residuary beneficiary 225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 John H. Pflaum, residuary beneficiary 2400 E Bradford Ave, Apt 905 Milwaukee, WI 53211-4172
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. ” Signed by Mr. White
The plot of the enterprise is clear: To dissipate all the estate in legal and administration then “DISCOVER” there is money BUT SURPRISE ! it has been used up by these corrupt practice and there is nothing left for the other beneficiaries. The expenses were NOT legal costs but used in the dishonest effort to take everything for the enterprise and defraud the petitioner.
Further, the Court was in error when it found that PETER PFLAUM had willfully attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court and upon the parties to this case by proffering as real a forged document containing a purported signature of the deceased which is, in fact, a signature which was traced from another document containing the deceased's signature. The facts are that the signatures do NOT match and the finding was based on perjured evidence of a paid “expert” Handwriting analysis $1,625 without notice or time to respond. APPENDIX ONE COURT CASES 1 50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
As a result of the above the Court erred when it ordered that no further pleadings, motions, or papers may be filed herein by PETER PFLAUM.
WHEREFORE, PETER PFLAUM moves that THOMAS PFLAUM, LEANNE PFLAUM, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe be ordered to pay $875,000 damages and as full and final settlement of Peter Pflaum’s just claims on the estate
Here comes the PETITIONER, Dr. Peter E. Pflaum PhD (PRO SE) at the age of 70 years, a retired professor of Public Administration and government. The Petitioner has never before been involved in litigation and has been PRO SE from necessity only. Melanie Pflaum, her son Petitioner and his wife Mary Anne trusted Thomas, as a son, a brother, and as an attorney to do the right thing as administrator of the estate. He was completely trusted by his mother to carry out her wishes when she died. It came as a great shock, after months of taking care of his 94 year old dying mother, Petitioner returned from Spain in March of 2004 (Melanie) to be informed (March 27, 2004) by his brother (Thomas) and his sister-in-law, Leanne (both attorneys) that the Respondents were going to take for themselves, everything in the estate.
They said in e-mails in the record that they would “play for the whole deck” and hire at great expense “really mean lawyers” to attack Petitioner’s rights to an equal share of the property their mother left to her three sons in her will. This is exactly what has happened, Thomas and Leanne have kept two million in assets, and four years later there is made in the probate of the estate.
The attacks on the petitioner include a civil suit for defamation and extortion, and having the Petitioner arrested on resulting from Thomas’s false sworn police statement.
The Petitioner has moved for the removal of the PR for cause over several years. An alternative has been a petition to the trial court since 2004 to consider MOTIONS for removal of the PR for cause as he no longer qualified because of overwhelming conflict of interests, and gross neglect of legal responsibilities under law. The Codicil of Melanie’s appointed the Lewis State Bank in the case Thomas and Leanne are not able to serve. The Lewis state bank was bought by the Nation’s Bank which was bought by Bank America which accepts its duties as successor institution and would do a professional job.
The court has refused to act on this and all other of the Petitioners Motions and petitions. The court has been begged to act because of the extensive evidence of misconduct that cries out for the court to appoint a curator with or without notice and hearing to take hold of the property in contest and report to the court on how to quickly and with due diligence and proper process; the new PR could close the estate and distribute the results to the beneficiaries.
Thomas and Leanne owe Petitioner extensive damages to remedy the harm they has caused. This is a claim against Thomas as PR and as a lawyer and as a person. • Specifics- The respondent has done (and not done and left undone) the facts and the law.
UNREASONABLE ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS. APPENDIX ONE COURT CASES 1 37
In the Probate case the judge has ruled that ”All claims, Motions, and other pleadings or papers filed herein by said Peter Pflaum are hereby considered stricken and of no force or effect. 4. Except appropriate appellate filings pertaining to this order, no further pleadings, Motions or papers may be filed herein by said Peter Pflaum pro see Any further actions by said Peter Pflaum herein, including the filing of any papers whatsoever, shall only be taken by an attorney authorized to practice law in Florida. Should said Peter Pflaum violate the provisions of this order, he shall be assessed a fine of $300 per violation which shall be taxed upon MOTIONS of any party or by the court’s own initiative. Continued violations may be punishable by contempt and may result in incarceration
In the civil case (by the same judge) without a hearing ordered “As to Defendants Peter Pflaum and Mary Anne Pflaum, the Court has entered a default judgment against said Defendants on the defamation and civil extortion claim. Thus, as to said Defendants, their liability having been established, the trial will proceed on the issue of damages only. This was based on sanctions not a hearing of the facts. (Sanctions were based on events in 2005 and clearly set up to sandbag the defendants. ALL NOT TRUE and not based on any hearing of the facts) SEE APPENDIX TWO CASES
733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty. –
Motions were denied for the Judge to recuse himself, based on gross prejudice for the Respondents and bias against the Petitioner, The case presented by the plaintiff is sufficient evidence to show that two or more people are involved in a joint enterprise.
BASIC RIGHTS: A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HEARING THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF THIS PROBATE CASE OR MAKING A DECISION ON ITS MERITS IN A TIMELY MANNER; THAT CAUSED SERIOUS MATERIAL HARM TO THE PETITIONER.
MORE SAD FAMILY HISTORY: 94

“Justice delayed is justice denied”. The Petitioner appealed the lower courts denial of his claims as beneficiary to his mother’s estate. The Petitioner is being denied justice by the lack of any hearing on the merits of the case, a chance to present the facts and the law about the dispute. Over the last four years, there has been a complete lack of any meaningful judicial decisions on the critical issues. The lower courts have made no substantial decisions. The way to discover who is right and who is wrong is to hear the facts and review the law.
The Petitioner claims this is equal to having his complaints dismissed without a hearing. The case for jurisdiction is about protecting the integrity of the Judicial System in the State of Florida. The issue of is the ability of the courts to fairly adjudicate probate in accordance with the law and the rules. The Petitioner has been denied his inheritance for over four years. The review of the record will show a pattern of abuse and harassment. The system of justice must do better in providing a fair and timely resolution of what is in this case, not a complex problem. The trial court has ignored statuary time limits, rules, and laws requiring an inventory and has filed completely incomplete progress reports, and has refused to provide required statements of assets.
A Practice that must be stopped: Judicial Abuse using the same court to bring cases that attack one of the parties;
The public policy issue is that the baby boomers’ parents are dying and leaving estates This case is an example of how the system does not properly work. The rights of beneficiaries are not protected and estates are exploited by unscrupulous agents, lawyers, relatives, financial advisors without proper regulation or supervision. This probate crisis undermines the public trust in the whole judicial system and the rule of law, as more people discover how complex, absurd and unfair the process can become. One in five boomers has horror stories about inheritances. Having experienced the stress of taking care of elderly parents, then the painful death of their parents and sometimes faults of the medical system, they now often face years of litigation at great expense as the estate is exploited by the legal and financial services systems. Inheritance: 87
ATTACKS ON THE PETITIONER:
44. ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT.
The Trial Court has allowed the Respondents to freely operate a campaign of harassment to force the plaintiff to surrender his claims. This campaign included a civil suit for defamation and extortion, a case basically dismissed by a civil jury and no judgment has been entered as of Saturday, August 04, 2007. AND for four years the Respondents have attacked the Petitioner with complaints as to an imagined false report to the Department of Family and Children Services (DCF), claims of invasion of privacy, monetary sanctions, forced mediation, fines, and a long record of judicial abuse.
HISTORY 2004-2005 79 TIME LINE: DEFAMATION CIVIL SUIT.. 84
A criminal case was filed and the petitioner was arrested based on a false affidavit by Thomas and Leanne at the sheriffs office and the State Attorney Office in Alachua County. May 2005 case was dismissed in August but Mr. Hoppe continued to use it as evidence in November, December and January 2006. There is no such offence in civil or criminal law. That the report made May 16th of 2005 by Teresa Oldenburg (DFCS) Gainesville of was not a False Report of Child abuse using FS 39. 205 (which does not apply) or a felony was in error. The sworn complaint of the victims was false and without evidence.
CASE THREE: CRIMINAL FALSE REPORT TO DCF 44
The offer by the state of PTI, (pre trial intervention or diversion) or pretrial settlement in the criminal case was not made in writing but was reported to Petitioner and Mary Anne by the public defender as including conditions set by the alleged “victims. ” Thomas and Leanne Pflaum. It included an admission of guilt by Petitioner . The offer included a condition of a default in a probate case. The offer included the condition that Petitioner drops all claims for his right to his inheritance and that Petitioner drops all other civil claims against Thomas and Leanne Pflaum regarding their taking the estate for themselves. It is highly improper for the state to take sides in a civil case and become a tool of blackmail of one of the parties. It is clear this criminal case is being used to further the economic interests of Thomas and Leanne. This offer was then denied by a false statement by the state attorney in open court.
The petitioner, Dr. Peter E. Pflaum was offered a material incentive and threatened with material harm by the plaintiff’s lawyers and the State Attorney; State of Florida, by way of State Attorney, Mr. Colaw appeared to have conspired with Thomas Pflaum, his attorney Mr. Hoppe in an improper and illegal collusion to blackmail the Petitioner.
Mr. Hoppe has raised a false forgery charge and other issues from the probate case. This complaint is based on a which has denied the Petitioner his basic civil rights. In the furtherance of the tortious interference with the Petitioner inheritance of his one third share of (Melanie Pflaum) his mother’s estate of two million dollars, the Respondents committed a series of action to deny the Petitioner his civil rights, due process, and equal protection of the laws.
CASE TWO: DEFAMATION and EXTORTION 41
MORE DETAIL: FAULTS IN THE PROCESS:
ISSUE FOUR: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED.
When Thomas acknowledged that he has no case - that the law and the facts require a just distribution of his mother’s estate - he adopted a policy conducted by Mr. Hoppe to attack the petitioner. The Judge was in error in allowing this policy full space to operate. It must have worked before for these lawyers to file false cases, without merit, cause or jurisdiction (poorly reasoned: frivolous, flimsy, foolish: shallow, superficial) but then use the cases to make a series of demands, motions, petitions, sanctions and general harassment with interrogatives, discovery, as threats and battement of the opposition. The court was in clear error to allow this constant irritation or allow one party to torment persistently the other side. The Judge was in error in allow Mr. Hoppe to wear out; exhaust, to impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks to go forward over four years.
The Judge allowed the misuse of Case Management meeting where the Respondents lawyers discussed a wide range of non germane issues without the inconvenience of opposition and signed orders not related to the subjects heard. Peter Pflaum was not on the notice list even after he made a specific request to get notice. Here is a short list of some of the other faults in the supervision of the cases by The Hon. Toby Monaco . While the judge is responsible for the civil process in their court the lawyers are also to be held accountable for improper or even illegal behavior even when allowed by a court bent over in their favor. The process has not been even close to fair and equal. The court has shown a clear preference and favor for Thomas and his team and strong prejudice against Petitioner . The Judge should have rescued himself more than two years ago. EXHIBITS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.. 77
The Judge should have compelled Thomas and Mr. White a respondent and co-conspirator to produce a real inventory and is in error by letting four years to pass with an outrageously false inventory of $100. The Judge was in error and prejudiced in allowing Thomas Pflaum to act as Personal Representative when he is disqualified by law because of his claim to the whole estate.
The Judge was in error and prejudiced in accepting a false affidavit that Melanie Pflaum lived in Micanopy. The affidavit contained perjured (The Bank of America Statement) and tampered documents (The M/L forms) and IRS estate tax forms, (where the Respondent claimed Melanie lived in Micanopy since 1987) the evidence to the contrary was beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing. A letter by Melanie in November 2002 proves she did not even have a room in Thomas’s house in Micanopy, in direct contradiction to Thomas Pflaum’s lies. The petitioner submitted overwhelming evidence proving the domicile issue.
See http://www. google. com/search?hl=en&rls=com. microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=Melanie+Pflaum&btnG=Search
III CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
ISSUE: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED
l PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 53
The Personal Representative. (PR) Thomas is who also a beneficiary and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate and in fact have stolen all the assets. The cause of the litigation is the failure of the personal representative (PR), because of greed and a gross conflict of interests, to faithfully carry out the wishes of the deceased who cannot represent herself.
General fiduciary duties
Were The Courts, Merrill Lynch and or Thomas doing their General fiduciary duties? Benjamin Cardozo, while sitting on the Court of Appeals of New York made perhaps the most famous description of fiduciary duties in Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928):Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. In its essence this case makes a distinction between form and substance. Generally, the law recognizes three major fiduciary duties:1. duty of loyalty, i. e. a fiduciary must not place his own interests ahead of the departed and the beneficiary’s interest;2. duty of care, i. e. a fiduciary must exercise an amount of care appropriate to manage the beneficiary’s interest; and3. duty of disclosure, i. e. a fiduciary must disclose certain information to the beneficiary. Fiduciary law is particularly relevant to the law of trusts, partnerships, agency, and corporate officers and directors. Fiduciary duties are always particularized to the actual relationships they occur in, and often they can be modified (or even waived) by contract. (1) A personal representative’s fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this duty. In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of or failure to exercise a personal representative’s powers, the court shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorney’s fees.
By 2003, Melanie, aged 94, could no longer handle her affairs. Thomas being fully aware of her condition had her sign papers (including power of attorney) without the ability to consent. He has used these documents to take everything of her property, including $100,000 reported to IRS as bank accounts, art works, government payments, without any inventory going to the estate. Respondent Thomas Pflaum clearly has a conflict of interests as big as all outdoors. He can not fairly administer the estate while at the same time claiming the whole amount. He is attacking the other beneficiaries while he is required to look after their interests. Thomas (PR) and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate, in fact, have stolen all the assets.
Melanie Pflaum’s long time residence in Javea, Spain, is part of the estate. She lived in her home there since 1969. The home could have been sold for cash (300,000 euros free and clear after expenses) FOUR times since her death, but Thomas and Leanne blocked all sales each time. The house (from recent descriptions from the neighbors to us personally) is in disrepair; some windows are boarded up and some are broken out - Squatters squat frequently. This is an abomination and an embarrassment to Petitioner and his family and to our country. MORE FAMILY HISTORY: 94
The trial judge ordered in the face of all the fact and the law and all reality and the requirement justice that Respondent Thomas Pflaum had no conflict of interest and Melanie was domiciled in Micanopy. The Judge ordered mediation without agreement and with no hope of progress, in a case of extortion that was not proper, in a manner that was improper, and he has allowed the Respondents attorneys to write court orders, and based on their manipulations order false sanctions against Petitioner . The trial court would not compel or require Respondent Thomas Pflaum or Leanne to answer interrogatives or discovery while compelling the same against the petitioner. The court allowed Mr. Hoppe to harass Petitioner and his wife Mary Anne in endless procedures and complaints, sanctions and motions. Decisions were made before hearing both sides. The court allowed the Respondent Thomas Pflaum and his lawyers to write the court orders before the Petitioner had time to respond or even before hearing and before the facts were known. These cases include a false charge of forgery, a false charge of contempt, a false criminal case, and a false civil case.
EXHIBITS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 77
There were several private meeting ex parte (case management) without notice and many other violations of simple due process. Here comes Dr. Peter E. Pflaum with the claim that the court has no discretion in removing the Personal Representative (PR), Thomas Pflaum for a gross conflict of interest. The respondent has not done anything to see that the Estate is managed according to law and on the other had has done everything to take it all for himself and his wife. The bulk of the estate was in an account with Merrill Lynch. It is the duty of the PR to see this property of the deceased is included in the estate as it should be according to law. At the same time Thomas claims it as his property. IT is impossible that Thomas can act on both sides of this dispute and must be removed according to law. Thomas is clearly holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole disqualifies the Thomas as the PR
33. 504 The respondent has failed to account for the sale of property or to produce and exhibit the assets of the estate when so required. Thomas Pflaum has committed perjury when he signed a sworn statement notarized by Mr. White who committed subordination of perjury as a respondent and co-conspirator in the bold faced lie that Melanie Pflaum lived (resided, domiciled) in Alachua County at the Pflaum home in Micanopy, claimed in the case of IRS since 1989. The venue for the letters of administration in probate (2004) was based on this false sworn claim of residence, domicile or even presence in the county. This is completely untrue. They further argue that Melanie Pflaum was competent to sign and make an informed decision to agree to the JTWROS on the Merrill Lynch Client Relationship Agreement in November 2003 and to was competent to execute several powers of attorneys (POA). [exhibit C in May until Nov. 2003 Thomas sends Melanie several POA which she signs without the ability to read or understand, a copy of address and return envelope Thomas Pflaum, Attorney at law used sends and provides for Melanie to return to him. . Petitioner was in Javea from late Aug to end of Oct 2003 and sees Melanie sign long detailed POA as was the caregiver Tulia. Petitioner has asked for theses POA in discovery, and has tried to subpoenaed from Thomas and Northern Trust, without success. #EXHIBITS 77

Thomas Pflaum must have believed the POA Melanie signed and he submitted as evidence of her domicile were valid and were signed when Melanie was competent. If she was competent the POA was unnecessary if she since she was not competent then there should have been a conserver who would have had a clear duty to protect Melanie’s assets. Thomas Pflaum clearly believes that he has the legal right using these powers obtained by fraud, POA used to take and hold all of the property including bank accounts, tax refunds and all other of Melanie’s assets. CONDITION OF MELANIE WHEN PAPERS WERE SIGNED.. 91
After Melanie died on March 5th 2004 he declared in e-mail (in exhibits) on March 27th that he and Leanne intended to take everything Melanie owned and would abuse the legal process to keep it all with a crack and expensive legal team. [exhibit E page 32] This is exactly what has happened with the guidance of Mr. White a respondent and co-conspirator and the friendly help of a Judge that bent over in their direction. Mr. Hoppe’s role is to run along the sidelines and throw sand in the face of the petitioner and try to trip the opposition with legal tricks. So far it has been working but a great expense, ($700,000) pain and suffering, waste of resources and abuse of the judicial process.
“If you have the facts on your side and honest conviction in your heart, you rarely lose by fighting for your idea all the way. ” WIT & WISDOM FROM LEO BURNETT
The Story BROTHER STEALS INHERITANCE THEN SUES FOR EXTORTION:
ISSUE FIVE: A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HEARING THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF THIS PROBATE CASE OR MAKING A DECISION ON ITS MERITS IN A TIMELY MANNER; A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY THAT CAUSED SERIOUS MATERIAL HARM TO THE PETITIONER.
The grounds for tortious interference with inheritance include the lack of possibility when a probate proceeding does not have the potential to provide full redress of any damages suffered by a plaintiff, and some courts will require that the probate court proceeding be completed before a tort action may be brought. The attached order of the probate court in the 8th circuit bars Petitioner from further claims and denies all the issues, so it is over as far as the petitioner is concerned. Some fundamental questions:
The core of a functional civilization is self regulation, either guilt or shame and professional and social pressures creating a context of good social behavior. Despondently, the legal system has become for some lawyers, a game of only what you can get away with - the only issue is the material damages of getting caught. It is not how you play the game but only winning by any means necessary. If the law is against them (the estate should be divided three ways within four years) they argue the facts, and since the facts are also against them (there is a clear conflict of interests, and Melanie did not live with them in Micanopy) they attack the other side.
#INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE;
THE LAW: Tortious Interference 58
ARGUMENT_4:_TORTIOUS_INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE; ISSUE FIVE: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE. See APPENDIX THREE THE LAW
The Petitioner seeks damages including attorney fees, the value of the Petitioner’s work time, compensation for the mental anguish incurred from the will contest, and punitive damages based on the intentional and malicious conduct of the Respondents. Huffey, 491 N. W. 2d 518. The court allowed the Petitioner to proceed 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 and order default the Personal Representative, Thomas Pflaum for the sum of $850,000 in the lower court case.
There is sufficient evidence in the exhibits of our plea to preserve the assets under contest. The Law[1] The Petitioner has a valid claim is tortious inference with inheritance, and a number of states are now recognizing the claim. This is a claim that one will beneficiary intentionally interfered with the free will of the decedent so that he or she made a testimentary disposition in the JTWROS that wrongfully excluded the claimant from an inheritance, and that the claimant would have inherited absent the wrongful conduct.
USE_OF_JTWROS IN MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT
ISSUE SIX: INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE
COUNT FIVE: JTWROS the LAW 55
73. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE. See APPENDIX THREE FOR THE LAW
When Melanie died (March 5, 2004) the account was changed again to 719-46275 from 719-46081 the account at the time of Melanie’s death because Melanie was removed and now shows only Thomas and Leanne. Madrid sent the report of the death of American Citizen on April 21 2004, - during May the account was changed. The document showing the change Client relationship agreement has a forged address claiming Melanie living in Micanopy where she had not been for years (not since 9/11 2001) and never lived, resided or was domiciled. (NOTE: Florida - Davison v. Feurerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966).
The property in question is in a Merrill Lynch account which was held jointly with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) and now claimed as the sole property of Thomas Pflaum. (Was 2. 5 million in 2000) JTWROS is not under some conditions a probate asset; the first and most important issue is to ask the court to rule that it is included in the estate for the reason of fraud given in this document. Probate has venue in Leon County Florida because the money is in Merrill Lynch (M/L) (Broker Robert Hayward of a Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship (JTWROS) account in Tallahassee , Leon County, Florida, Melanie signed this arrangement without any understanding of the difference, when or if it was changed. and how it was done. There is no evidence of gift tax consequences upon the creation of a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship (JTWROS). Banking law does not apply to broker accounts- stocks and bonds.
In 1985 or 1986 after Irving Pflaum, Melanie’s husband of over 50 years and father of Petitioner and Thomas, died the initials JTWROS were added to the account. M/L has no record of this transaction. In 2003, Melanie is now 94 years old, Thomas sends to her in April and she signed in May a “Merrill Lynch Client Relationship Agreement. ” [exhibit A] This document is of a legal size (or bigger) multi- page document with pages with several carbon copies of a form – self cc. Thomas and Leanne signed this document in November, of 2003, some six months after Melanie signed it. The first copy goes to M/L and ends up in storage in New Jersey; the second copy goes to the financial advisor, Mr. Robert Hayward. ; the third is kept by the client, Thomas and Leanne Pflaum. After many requests, subpoenas, deposition, threats of contempt of court M/L has not provided readable copies of this document.
In July and August 2005 the petitioner subpoenaed the documents and went to deposition in Tallahassee that established the account which existed at the time of Melanie’s death (the one set up in November 2003 that added Leanne) If Thomas and Leanne argue that the JTWROS was long standing (it appears to be added to the account about the time of father’s death in 1985) they have to overcome the fact there is no record that could show how it was set up and if any of the legal requirements to override a last will and testament were followed. Mr. Hayward testified that it was for convenience only (clearly if Melanie was injured or sick and needed emergency funds, Thomas would be in a position to help after the death of his father). Thomas NEVER made a single transaction on the account from 1985 to 2003. (Phone call to Mr. Hayward) It had no joint function except in case of emergency and there was no emergency until late in 2003.
The records provided by M/L could not be read – were reduced more that 150% and repeated requests (starting at the deposition on Aug 2nd 2005) to provide legible copies have had no response. Finally in Sept 2005, Peter Pflaum called to local M/L office and asked for the form that arrived the next day. We could see that the JTWROS box WAS NOT CHECKED on either copy though you can’t read the text, you can clearly see if a box is checked. JTWROS was not applied for but granted regardless – on this Thomas took 1. 4 million of money not belonging to him. This is called in common language theft and the method fraud. [exhibit A] #EXHIBITS 77
MOTIONS to review and declare inventory in the estate - including the Merrill Lynch Account because there has been a clear attempt at a testamentary devise without complying with the strict requirements of the statute and would be a nullity. Therefore the Merrill Lynch account was simply in the name of Melanie Pflaum at her death and as such is an asset of the estate. The PR files taxes and has a duty to ask for an extension of time if there are delays. They have only done so June 22, 2007 a year late and Petitioner has complained for four years about endless delays and stalling tactics. Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole makes Thomas ineligible to serve as PR.
[2]This complaint is based on a pattern of legal and judicial abuse over four years which is based on a pattern of legal and judicial abuse which has denied the Petitioner his basic civil rights. In the furtherance of the tortious interference with the Petitioner inheritance of his one third share of (Melanie Pflaum) his mother’s estate of two million dollars, the Respondents committed a series of action to deny the Petitioner his civil rights, due process and equal protection of the laws. MOTIONS FOR a petition for writ of prohibition November 5, 2006
SETTING FORTH THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT.
Here comes Peter Pflaum , Petitioner, with MOTIONS to remove the Personal Representative, Thomas Pflaum and with evidence in the attached annex of our plea to preserve the assets under contest. The mental condition of the Respondent Thomas and Leanne Pflaum create additional doubts of their fitness to manage and preserve the assets of the estate. Thomas Pflaum suffers from illusions and delusions. In the attached e-mails he claims he was empowered by the decedent who had transferred all of her estate to him and his wife. Thomas and his wife Leanne, both attorneys, were fully cognizant that documents obtained when the decedent had no ability to give consent were fraudulent. He imagined Melanie lived with him in his home in Micanopy. He displayed paranoid tendency in a belief that the Petitioner schemed against him, was in fact extorting him from his money, and the Petitioner conspired with others creating a great danger, defamed his and Leanne’s character, and, therefore, the behavior of others explained why he and Leanne were entitled to all of the estate. These statements are so far from the truth, objective reality, and common sense as to bring his judgment and capacity into serious doubt.
The basic principle of American governance in our Constitution is separation of powers, because concentration of power in any one person or institution is dangerous to freedom. To adapt James Madison
James Madison 97
If judges were angels, no appeals would be necessary. If angels were to judge men, neither external nor internal controls on courts would be necessary. In framing a judicial system which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the judges to control the courts; and in the next place oblige them to control themselves. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. Dr. Peter E. Pflaum web site
An independent judiciary is critical to a constitution system that protects individual rights. The basis of the lack of external supervision and the quality of respect for judicial decisions, the behavior of trial judges and just outcomes depends on the professional self-regulation. The internal balance of power in the judicial system depends on the appeals process from lower to higher courts. It is up to appeals courts to control unfair courts run by corrupt, prejudiced, bad judges or some outside powers will begin to intervene.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: I, Petitioner Edward Pflaum PRO SE, son and heir to Melanie Sophia Pflaum’s estate MOVE that the personal representative of the deceased be ordered by the COURT to disclose and reveal to his or her best knowledge and belief all assets past and present of the late Melanie Sophia Pflaum and as her personal representative all assets and income received from the late Melanie Sophia Pflaum. Prior and previous inventory has not been forthcoming and is still only $100. 00. The deceased had a residence in Spain . She had several bank accounts, investment accounts, and valuable personal possessions, MOTIONS to review and declare inventory in the estate - including the Merrill Lynch. THE REST OF THE STORY: 104
Sanctions: Respondent and his attorneys have lied and deceived the court in matters of critical substance in order to pervert the course of justice, he has tampered with documents (Bank of America Account) he has illegally used POA, and with the intent to obstruct justice. The Bank of America (attached) would be a respected, competent and neutral replacement. Thomas is claiming an asset of the estate that places him in a conflict as personal representative and he should be replaced. Mr. White and Thomas Pflaum have failed in their duties and described by Mr. White. MOTIONS to restore to my family an allowance of $2000 a month because of serious financial stress and bankruptcy.
MOTIONS to compel Mr. Hoppe to return Melanie Pflaum’s letter of intent of June 2003. Background: of contrary intent 106
The Petitioner makes MOTIONS for the court to affirm and agree there is a danger that the decedent’s property is likely to be wasted, destroyed, or removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court and therefore orders Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith, Inc. to freeze or suspend the account’s) of Thomas and Leanne Pflaum and demand Merrill Lynch to verify what is currently in the account’s).
Since the Respondents are holding and acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that have interfered with the administration of the estate as a whole, the court can protect the assets while the case is under litigation. When it is necessary, the court may appoint a curator after formal notice to the person apparently entitled to letters of administration. The curator may be authorized to perform any duty or function of a personal representative. If there is great danger that any of the decedent’s property is likely to be wasted, destroyed, or removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court and if the appointment of a curator would be delayed by giving notice, the court may appoint a curator without giving notice. The core of Petitioner’s argument is that Thomas’s strategy is to avoid a final judgment and just keep the money by fraud, making appeal difficult. Summary judgment for relief; An alternative the court could consider is MOTIONS for removal of the PR as no longer qualified because of conflict of interests, and gross neglect of legal responsibilities under law. The Codicil of Melanie’s will appoint the Lewis State Bank in the case Thomas and Leanne are not able to serve. The Lewis state bank was bought by the Nation’s Bank which was bought by Bank America which accepts its duties as successor institution and would do a professional job. PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES. 53
Because of the extensive evidence of misconduct the court should appoint a curator without notice and hearing to take hold of the property in contest and report to the court on how to quickly and with due process close the estate and distribute the results to the beneficiaries. Thomas and Leanne owe Petitioner extensive damages to remedy the harm he has caused. The claim by the Petitioner is for $1,500,000 in direct financial damage AND PAIN, SUFFERING and punitive damages. This includes but is not limited to the original amount in the estate divided three ways, including a fair assessment of the house in Spain, with interest over four years and direct costs over the last four years. The damages in pain and suffering by the Petitioner and his family over these years have been real and substantial and will require a remedy.
CONCLUSION:
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF:
A motion for damages of $875,000 against a joint enterprise of Thomas Pflaum, Leanne Pflaum and their attorneys, Mr. Hoppe and Mr. White assessed by this court because the outrageous abuse of the facts and the law by the joint enterprise perpetrated on of the trial court which is shocking to the judicial conscience—The gross conflicts of Interests led to violations by the Respondents 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 respondents must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise. It constitutes a miscarriage of justice—when it appears that the trial judge was influenced by prejudice, corruption, passion, or is clearly in error and mistaken.
The estate is being wasted by almost a million dollars of legal fees and expenses brought about in this enterprise of Thomas Pflaum’s and his attorney’s misconduct. Thomas has filed papers on June 22, 2007 to close the estate with a total value of $100 thereby showing the extent of mismanagement, abuse, fraud, lunacy, displayed in his role of personal representative in his mother’s estate of two million dollars left in equal shares to her children.
REFERENCE APPENDIX TWO PART TWO 64

REMEDY: RELIEF:
PETER PFLAUM, PRO SE makes a claim against the Petitioner, THOMAS M. PFLAUM, his claims for damages against them the for One and one half millions dollars ($1,500,000) for Summary: $861,000 as Petitioner’s share of his mother’s estate in 2004 ($500,000) plus interests over four years is 25% ($125,000) and INCLUDES $140,000 claims on one third of the abandoned the property in Spain . Another $100,000 for legal and other direct expenses, loss work, and mental distress, $380,000 in false arrest, pain and suffering, and time spent on these cases. They are charged with grand larceny of a million dollars or more by fraud. In the furtherance of a joint enterprise they have committed perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice and public corruption. Allowing the presentation of false testimony rises to the level of subornation because the attorneys used the material as part of the testimony to make the case and forward the enterprise. Punitive damages made up the total of $1. 5 million. There are additional claims against Mr. White of $200,000 as all the fees he has charged in the enterprise and the same for Mr. Hoppe. All the respondents should be stripped of their ill gotten gains.
PETITIONS AND MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF $861,000 FOR THE Petitioner FROM THE Respondents
RULE 5. 020. PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION; MOTIONS Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void. The Petitioner moves the records be included as correspondence because almost everything put in evidence is in the record and does not need to be copied.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail this Friday, November 23, 2007 to Bill Hoppe, P. A. d/b/a The Hoppe Law Firm 2313 N. W. 7th Road Gainesville, Florida 32607
Signed ________________________________________date____________
Certificate of Compliance This brief was prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font. Signed __________________________

Labels: After four years the Probate Case of Melanie Pflaum was closed on Nov. 21st 2007

# posted by Unknown : 11/23/2007 02:30:00 AM

LEVELS OF REALITY – WELL consciousness.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Links

Archives