Saturday, November 24, 2007
The most important principle of a free society is “equal justice under law.” Everything else depends on all citizens being subject to the law and no one being above the law. Democracy can not function as a cast system with Brahmans and untouchables. The defendants whole case is based on the cynical belief, derived from a century of collective legal practice, of the reality of the legal profession and therefore being in an advantaged and privileged position before the law, the ideal equality become just another urban legend; They were convinced from the beginning in 2004 that they would win because they have superior resources (a crack legal team and 100’s of thousands of dollars to pay for fees wrongly coming from their control and mismanagement of the disputed property which is held in trust, therefore they are able to misuse Peter’s property against him). Thomas must believe Peter can’t win or even have a chance because he lacks the money and ability to defend himself with expensive lawyers. He has invested almost a million dollars in the belief that might is right and civil rights have no power in court.
The principle of equal justice has been replaced de facto with the principle of money wins, tricks of the trade prevail, unscrupulous legal teams do not need to worry about the law, the facts, or the due process rights of citizens, Sad but true and all too common causing the low esteem the public has of our courts and lawyers. In personal injury cases the pot of gold in insurance claims and contingency makes it possible for average citizens to take on strong legal teams. In probate and many other civil and criminal cases this is not an option. Peter has contacted 100’s of attorneys over the last three years, begging for help and offering generous terms but without any result. When the legal community does not see where the money will come from, they are not interested – yet Peter is ordered to get a lawyer or have his case dismissed without a hearing.
The victory of the defendants depends on the Plaintiffs not having a fair chance. They control the trial court, they know the trick of the trade, they have every advantage and the plaintiff has none. They argue that Peter is not indigent because under Spanish law he has a claim on one third of his mother’s home. The reason they make a big issue of indigency is because they want the plaintiff to be unable to defend himself because the defendants have driven him into poverty.
The law is against the defendants: The estate of Melanie Pflaum requires in the uncontested will for the assets to be divided equally among her three sons. (John. Peter and Thomas) The facts are against them: Melanie lived in Spain not Micanopy, the personal representative, Thomas Pflaum has a conflict of interests as big as all outdoors as beneficiary who claims the whole estate for himself and his wife and sues and attacks his brothers he is to by law required to protect as representative of the estate with clear responsibilities to the other beneficiaries; but all that doesn’t matter if Peter can’t get a hearing of his case and Thomas is successful in his remorseless attacks on the plaintiff.
Peter’s desperate and incompetent attempts to find a court for a fairly impartial hearing of the cases are now being used against him as a noxious litigant because he is not an attorney but pro se. He has been ordered to hire a lawyer whom he can’t pay, he is denied a hearing and his pleading struck, he is found guilty and sanctioned for procedural errors that the defendants caused – he has been “set-up” or sandbagged by Thomas who is treating his brothers severely or unjustly– Peter is subject to all the tricks of a real mean trial lawyer, Mr. Hoppe who has been paid a quarter of a million dollars to make Peter and his wife, Mary Anne miserable, Peter and his wife have been harassed with civil suits, a false arrest, and years of demands, orders, and hearing all one-sided and totally unfair because he will not surrender his inheritance to the superior forces allied against him.
The essence of this case is that Dr. Peter Pflaum came into one third of the estate of his mother, Melanie Pflaum, the day she died in March 4, 2004 in her home in Javea Spain. By a uncontested will Melanie left her property in equal shares among her three sons, John, of Milwaukee, WI, Peter of New Smyrna Beach, FL and Thomas of Micanopy FL the Personal Representative. (PR) Under Spanish law the three sons are equal and own 1/3 of the house and property wherever located. The estate is held in trust for four years and misused by the trustee.
The principle of equal justice has been replaced de facto with the principle of money wins, tricks of the trade prevail, unscrupulous legal teams do not need to worry about the law, the facts, or the due process rights of citizens, Sad but true and all too common causing the low esteem the public has of our courts and lawyers. In personal injury cases the pot of gold in insurance claims and contingency makes it possible for average citizens to take on strong legal teams. In probate and many other civil and criminal cases this is not an option. Peter has contacted 100’s of attorneys over the last three years, begging for help and offering generous terms but without any result. When the legal community does not see where the money will come from, they are not interested – yet Peter is ordered to get a lawyer or have his case dismissed without a hearing.
The victory of the defendants depends on the Plaintiffs not having a fair chance. They control the trial court, they know the trick of the trade, they have every advantage and the plaintiff has none. They argue that Peter is not indigent because under Spanish law he has a claim on one third of his mother’s home. The reason they make a big issue of indigency is because they want the plaintiff to be unable to defend himself because the defendants have driven him into poverty.
The law is against the defendants: The estate of Melanie Pflaum requires in the uncontested will for the assets to be divided equally among her three sons. (John. Peter and Thomas) The facts are against them: Melanie lived in Spain not Micanopy, the personal representative, Thomas Pflaum has a conflict of interests as big as all outdoors as beneficiary who claims the whole estate for himself and his wife and sues and attacks his brothers he is to by law required to protect as representative of the estate with clear responsibilities to the other beneficiaries; but all that doesn’t matter if Peter can’t get a hearing of his case and Thomas is successful in his remorseless attacks on the plaintiff.
Peter’s desperate and incompetent attempts to find a court for a fairly impartial hearing of the cases are now being used against him as a noxious litigant because he is not an attorney but pro se. He has been ordered to hire a lawyer whom he can’t pay, he is denied a hearing and his pleading struck, he is found guilty and sanctioned for procedural errors that the defendants caused – he has been “set-up” or sandbagged by Thomas who is treating his brothers severely or unjustly– Peter is subject to all the tricks of a real mean trial lawyer, Mr. Hoppe who has been paid a quarter of a million dollars to make Peter and his wife, Mary Anne miserable, Peter and his wife have been harassed with civil suits, a false arrest, and years of demands, orders, and hearing all one-sided and totally unfair because he will not surrender his inheritance to the superior forces allied against him.
The essence of this case is that Dr. Peter Pflaum came into one third of the estate of his mother, Melanie Pflaum, the day she died in March 4, 2004 in her home in Javea Spain. By a uncontested will Melanie left her property in equal shares among her three sons, John, of Milwaukee, WI, Peter of New Smyrna Beach, FL and Thomas of Micanopy FL the Personal Representative. (PR) Under Spanish law the three sons are equal and own 1/3 of the house and property wherever located. The estate is held in trust for four years and misused by the trustee.
