LEVELS OF REALITY – WELL consciousness.

Petition: EMERGENCY RELIEF; INJUNCTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
News Release: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How
Monday, December 31, 2007
Peter E. Pflaum, New Smyrna Beach
Who
Thomas Pflaum Esq. an appellate attorney working out of his home in Micanopy, Florida was named as personal representative (PR) in the will of his mother, Melanie, when she died on March 5th 2004, leaving an estate of about two million dollars. He hired Mr. Richard White as the attorney for the estate.
What
Melanie’s will divide the estate into equal shares among her three sons, John, Peter, and Thomas. Thomas e-mailed his brother, Peter on March 27th 2004, when Peter returned for taking care of his dying Mother in Spain; Thomas wrote that he and his wife Leanne Frank Pflaum, Esq. were going to take everything for themselves; it came as a great shock and was completely unexpected. Thomas was trusted and monumentally betrayed that trust. He hired a really mean lawyer, Mr. Bill Hoppe to torment and make miseries for Peter and his family, including a civil suit for extortion and defamation and a bogus criminal charge of making a false report to DCFS (Family and Children’s Services).
Where
Melanie lived, since 1969, in El Tosalet, a private community in Javea, Alicante, Spain. Thomas perjured himself by swearing under oath that Melanie lived with him in Micanopy. This ridiculously false claim of domicile allowed Thomas to pick a very favorable local probate judge, The Hon. Toby S. Monaco, in Gainesville.
Why
Thomas has embezzled all the property in the estate by spending a million dollars to corrupt, abuse, pervert the court. The probate was closed on Nov. 29th 2007 with an inventory of $100 and expenses of $700,000. The motive is greed, maybe revenge for imagined family issues, but who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Thomas and Leanne? The last four years show a pattern of irrational behavior, a total disregard for his duties to his mother or brothers, legal or professional ethics, and the breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment.
When
The letters of administration were filed in June 2004 and time ran out in June of 2006 but the court ignored time limits, and the law and the facts including a grotesque conflict of interest Thomas being both the PR and beneficiary who believed all the property belonged to him. The IRS estate taxes in 2005 show 1.5 million with doggy accounting. By September 2005 it because absolutely clear that the court was fixed and only made judgments in favor of Thomas and none for Peter. The score is about 30 to 0. The judge then excluded Peter from claims of his inheritance, ordered a useless mediation, and signed a series of sanction orders written by Mr. Hoppe, which continues to today.
How
Since Thomas owned the Judge, the road to appeal or finding a neutral court to hear the case is very hard. Peter, going Pro Se, because he was driven into poverty tried the best he could to get a fair hearing – believing that the salvation of the legal system is in juries.

U.S. Constitution: Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In 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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
First District Court Of Appeal
Case Number: 1D07-6102
Final Notice from Alachua County
Peter E. and Mary Anne Pflaum vs. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, et al.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2004-CP-0770, 2005-CA-2363
IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 01-2007-CA-4714
PETER E. PFLAUM, ET AL, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners
v. THOMAS and Leanne PFLAUM Esq.s, ET AL. Richard White Esq., Bill Hoppe Esq., Defendants, Respondents
PETITION TO DENY MOTION TO DISMISS, and move to trial
These people would rather climb a flagpole and tell a lie than stand on the ground and say the truth. Probate Estate stolen by lawyer brother ASK ME
This the story of four well paid lawyers, Thomas and his wife Leanne Esq., Bill Hoppe a vicious trial lawyer, and Mr. White a probate attorney thieving by fraud two million dollars of property they have in trust with the estate of Melanie Pflaum. They have spent thousands of hours and hundred thousands of dollars doing what they must know is wrong. Melanie the mother of John, Peter and Thomas, died in March 2004 and left her estate, she had received from her grandfather, to her three sons. The youngest son, Thomas as an attorney was put in charge of an uncontested will, as personal representative to execute the will of his mother and take care of his brothers. Thomas in a great act of betrayal decided to take everything for himself, deifying the trust his mother and family had in him and screw his brothers, Peter and John. He decided he could do this evil because he is a lawyer and knows how to screw people and he hired other lawyers to pile on the victims of their abuse. He hired Mr. White the probate lawyer to fix the court and Mr. Hoppe to torment Peter and his family. Thus goes justice in America…when no attention is paid to reality, the law and the facts but only process corrupted by unethical lawyers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS See http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm for the whole story. Here is the story:
Unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system
http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/pflaum_v_pflaum_is_a_case_study_in_what_happens_when_the_trial_judge_is_completely_in_the_hands_of_o unethical lawyers.
by wiredbrain in non-fiction> opinion on Dec. 17, 2007 at 11:23am
http://www.thisisby.us/register.php?r=9688
LIES, deceptions, fibs, intentionally misleading statements and some whoppers
1.) A critical and sworn perjury is a completely false claim that Melanie lived with Thomas in Micanopy near Gainesville Florida. Based on this absurd claim they claimed venue and could pick their judge who would always rule in their favor and never for the other side, and four years, Judge Monaco has done everything they wanted..
2.) They attack Peter’s claim of indigency with the argument that under Spanish law he owns a third of Melanie’s house in Spain. They also make thousands of dollars in claims against him for defamation, extortion, sanctions, legal fees, etc but have not attempted to make claims against this asset because they have screwed it up when they interfered with a legitimate expectation of inheritance. It has no current value to Peter because it is part of the property they have stolen. Peter’s claim for relief is a claim against stolen property held in a constructive trust by Thomas and his wife, including 1.5 million with Merrill Lynch, 1/3 of $450,000 from the house, and a third of other $100,000 assets reported in the 1.5 million 2005 estate tax report. The enterprise reports when it closed Nov. 29th 2007 the estate is worth $100 and has charges by Thomas and Mr. White of more that a million for managing the estate.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007 and closed Nov. 29th 2007.
3.) They claim Peter got $648,000 from his mother’s estate – without any reality. They ignore his claim for family allowance; and the loss of this income has driven him into poverty. So they drive him into poverty and debt and then claim he is not indigent.
They make up a criminal case based on a offense that doesn’t exist: false report to DCF and corrupted the Sherriff into filing charges and used improper influence with Mr. Colaw, assistant state attorney, to sign an arrest warrant with $50,000 bail so they could put Peter in jail to blackmail him and his wife. http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
4.) There are dozens of small and bigger lies critical to the obstruction of justice and abuse of the legal system. They then claim Peter is in contempt of the law because he has tried to get a hearing on the case working PRO SE by trial and error. Mr. Hoppe lies for the enterprise as a matter of style.
Pflaum v. Pflaum is a case study in what happens when the trial judge is completely in the hands of one side. Equity demands an impartial court and doesn’t stand a chance when there is bias, prejudice, and likely corruption. The most important criteria for civilized society is the rule of law. Most of the populations of the planet still lacks an independent legal system but live under more or less under tyrannical leaders – but a independent court depends on honest judges.
Thomas Pflaum and his wife Leanne both lawyers, hired Mr. White for hundreds of thousands of dollars, as the local probate attorney so he could influence the local probate Judge, Toby Monaco. Thomas hired Mr. Hoppe, also for hundreds of thousands of dollars, to attack and harass Peter and his family and deny them their inheritance. So far it has worked and no one cares! http://www.wiredbrain.net/summons.htm
Petitioner move to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court.
Petitioners' move in Support of Writ of Mandamus or Writ of Certiorari Admin. 2.160(J) F.S. 38.10 and make a motion to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Petition for a Writ of Prohibition are treated as supplements to the petition. The petitioners have shown a clear legal right to the reinstatement of
CASE NO: SC07 655 Case Number: 1D07-6102
they are entitled to mandamus relief. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (stating that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, petitioner shows clear legal right to performance of requested act of probate according to the last will and testament of Melanie Pflaum,, that respondent has indisputable legal duty to fairly perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists). To the extent that the petition seeks issuance of a writ prohibiting the Honorable Toby S. Monaco from presiding over further proceedings involving petitioners, the petition is facially sufficient.
Mr. White now complains falsely that in 19 cases the plaintiffs has suffered adverse ruling. All but four were dismissed or closed on purely procedural grounds; the remaining is a tort of malpractice in Gainesville, a case of false arrest and damages in Volusia county, and an appeal of the probate case and civil suit of defamation and extortion to the First District court of Appeal the rest were closed over the last four years as the plaintiff PRO SE sought justice. White knows better but cares not a wit for the truth or has any sense of justice only how much he can sock it to his clients. Hubris, Greed and hate motivate the defendants and will be the cause of their downfall. TABLE OF CONTENTS
He has been paid by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from ever having a fair hearing. He and Mr. Hoppe have done what they are paid to do, obstruct justice, pervert justice, and attack the plaintiffs. AT NO TIME HAS ANY COURT EVEN HAD A HEARING ON THE MERITS! Thomas has never presented an affirmative response to Peter or explained why all the money is his; to any court at any time. The enterprise never made an appearance in a dozen of the cases cited some of which were opened by the clerk of the court not requested by the plaintiffs. Ten were dismissed on procedures issues mostly because issues of fees and indigency. THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NEVER HAD A DAY IN COURT SO MUST BRING THIS ACTION. The defendants have stolen his property and attacked him and his family. They come to the court for more sanctions with very dirty hands.
In the complaint, plaintiffs assert the claim of one-third of the estate is his property inherited in March 2004 from his mother. This property is held in trust by Thomas Pflaum, the Estate attorney, Mr. White and the probate court. The trustees caused a 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. And under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) appealable 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." TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. NOTICE IS GIVEN that PETER E. PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners files a petition and motion for JURY trial to the Court (THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY) the nature of the trial 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.” 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 the plaintiffs. The Respondents must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.
The American judicial system assumes the law and the facts will be tried at the court of original jurisdiction. Appeals depends on faults in the process. When the lower court makes a complete mess of the facts and the law, due process is ignored and the facts and the laws are abused. Peter has faced for four long years the outrageous abuse of this judge and it continues even after the probate case is closed – with an inventory of $100 (first reported in June 2004) and expenses and claims by Thomas and his legal team of about one million dollars. If you do not find this suspicious I have some Florida real estate to sell you.
APPEAL OF ORDER
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 fair and 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 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 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
The complaint is clear and states a cause of action against Thomas Pflaum, Leanne Pflaum, and their attorneys Mr. Hoppe and Mr. White as well as Merrill Lynch – any difference in form is clerical and of no substance - RULE 5.020. PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION; MOTIONS
(a) Forms of Pleading. 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.
(b) Petition. A petition shall contain a short and plain statement of the relief sought, the grounds therefor, and the jurisdiction of the court where the jurisdiction has not already been shown.
(c) Motions. Any other application to the court for an order shall be by written motion, unless made orally during a hearing or trial. The motion shall state with particularity the grounds therefor and shall set forth the relief or order sought.
(e) Verification. When verification of a document is required, the document filed shall include an oath, affirmation, or the following statement:
“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.”
Monday, December 31, 2007 SIGNED
___________________________________
Thomas Pflaum et al (defendants) are wrong in an attempt to add to damages ALREADY set by a jury by calling them sanctions: and is not timely – appeal of a jury award must be made on Feb 6th 2007 and entered 8/17/2007 within 10 days.
Judge Monaco MUST recuse himself as he has become part of the dispute and Judge Roundtree heard the case with a jury. Judge Monaco was in error when he ordered sanctions against the defendants which made a fair trial impossible and these issues are under appeal to the first district court of appeals.
Judge Monaco is extremely prejudiced, bias and has over the last four years granted all the motions and petitions by Thomas Pflaum and none of Peter Pflaum (plaintiff) – the trial court decisions have been made before the hearing and written by Mr. Hoppe.

THE CLERK OF THE COURT
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Mr. Jon S. Wheeler
301 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1850
LC No. 2005-CA-2363 Defamation 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.
Judge Robert E. Roundtree PRESIDED OVER A TRIAL ON Feb. 5 and 6, 2007 and a judgment granted on
08/17/2007 COUNT CLOSED Civil Count No. 4 PFLAUM, MARY ANNE 08/16/2007 COVER LETTER DATED 08/15/07 0.00
08/16/2007 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO MARY ANNE PFLAUM (CLOSES) 08/15/07 / RER - FOR THE SUM OF $10,200.00
08/16/2007 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PETER PFLAUM (CLOSES) 08/15/07 / RER - FOR THE SUM OF $15,200.00
08/13/2007 LETTER DATED 8/11/07 TO JUDGE ROUNDTREE FROM PETER E. PFLAUM & MARY ANNE WATKINS PFLAUM
08/13/2007 (FAX) MOTION TO DISMISS ALL COUNTS WITH PREJUDICE AND COSTS AND OTHER SANCTIONS BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFFS MISCONDUCTS
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...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 8TH 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,
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AT HEARING
Plaintiffs, vs.
PETER PFLAUM, MARY ANNE PFLAUM, and JOHN PFLAUM,
Defendants. STATE OF FLORIDA SHERIFF:
TO: Peter Pflaum
225 Robinson Road
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Honorable Toby Monaco, Judge of said Court at the Alachua County Courthouse. County Justice & Family Center, 201 East University Avenue, Room 416. Gainesville, Florida, for a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions set for January 16. 2008 at 11 :00 a.m.
If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of Court.
You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorney and unless excused from this subpoena by this attorney or the Court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2007 .
BY BILL HOPPE (Fla. Bar #104607) 2313 N.W. 7th Road Gainesville, Florida 32607 (800) 487-9060
In accordance with the American Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact Ellis D. Pettigrew at the Dade County Courthouse, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130, no later than seven (7) days prior to the proceeding at (305)375-2006(Voice), or (305)375-2007(TDD).
Unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system
Civil Liberties and the Law See http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm for the whole story.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions of libel, slander, defamation and the first amendment. This is an internet publication by Peter Pflaum. Peter declares and swears that it is the whole truth and not subject to court orders written by Mr. Hoppe (Brother Thomas’ lawyer) and signed by Judge Monaco. These orders lack due process, are clearly illegal and unconstitutional. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S THOMAS AND LEANNE PFLAUM never gets a hearing while they pile sanctions upon sanctions.
Here comes Peter Pflaum with objections – my evil brother Thomas Pflaum and his wife Leanne have stolen my inheritance, caused me to be arrested on false charges, have tormented my family for four years. The suit in this case is just part of that harassment. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the stolen assets to pay Mr. Hoppe to torment me. Now he has the audacity to complain about a few e-mails.
To get justice, one must do justice – Thomas hands are not only covered in dirt but are the hands of a bandit and liar.
Peter Pflaum, a retied professor sues lawyer brother, Thomas over their mother’s estate. Melanie Pflaum, an internationally known author, lived in Javea, Spain. She left an estate of several million when she died in March 2004 to be divided among her three sons. The estate was closed four years later Nov. 29th 2007 by the Probate court in Gainesville, FL. with inventory of $100 and expenses of a million dollars.
Peter claims in papers filed in DeLand and Gainesville that Thomas acting as the representative of his mother misused his position to steal all the assets. The suit claims that Thomas, a lawyer, and his attorneys took advantage of a system where they misused the rules and prevented a hearing of the case on its merits.
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam,, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007) Nos. 4D06-1594 and 4D06-1624
For four long years the Probate court in Gainesville, Florida mismanaged the estate of Melanie Pflaum. The Hon. Judge Toby Monaco was influenced by prejudice, corruption, bias, and is clearly in error and mistaken in a gross miscarriage of justice. Thomas Pflaum and his legal team, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe 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 is bringing this action of malpractice against Thomas, Leanne Pflaum, Bill Hoppe, and Mr. White all attorneys.
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.
Summary: The estate is simple and clear. Thomas Pflaum the personal representative and his wife announced at the time of death their intent to take everything and hire really vicious lawyers to expedite the theft. The conspiracy includes the attorneys have stolen everything with the assistance of the judge. On Nov. 29th they closed the 2 million dollar estate after four years with a net disclosed value of $100 and grossly excessive costs of 1 million with nothing left for the other beneficiaries, Brother Peter (the author) and Brother John.
In the complaint, plaintiffs assert the claim of one-third of the estate is his property inherited in March 2004 from his mother. This property is held in trust by Thomas Pflaum, the Estate attorney, Mr. White and the probate court. The trustees caused a 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. And under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) appealable 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 should be a process where the will, intent, and desires of those who have died are followed. The joint enterprise completely failed in their duties when they stole the estate using perjury, (where Melanie lived) fraud (false inventory) and deception (civil suit and criminal case). http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
I am Peter E. Pflaum a retired professor of government living with my wife, Mary Anne Watkins – Pflaum who has worked for a long time with the Volusia School system. We have lived for 25 years in New Smyrna Beach in east central Florida, 20 miles north of Kennedy Space Center, and 20 miles south of Daytona Beach. Our two children, both valedictorians and merit scholars, are in college and graduate school. Blaine, a national merit finalist, is in his second year in the honor college FAU, Jupiter and Sara is in her third year in the Royal College of veterinary science in Edinburgh, Scotland. We are a middle class family with no history of legal disputes or any problems with the law
In March of 2004 my mother Melanie Lowenthal Pflaum. died at the age of 94 in her long term home in El Tosalet, a planned community in Javea, Spain – on the Capo de Nao between Alicante and Valencia. My younger brother Thomas, a appellate attorney and his wife, Leanne, an instructor at the Law School UF live outside Gainesville in Micanopy Florida. Thomas was appointed in the will (he had written in 1978) to be personal representative (executor) of her estate of about two million dollars. The will required the estate to be divided in equal shares among Melanie’s three sons, John (73) a retired psychologist in Milwaukee, Peter (71), and Thomas (57). The main assets of the estate were a Merrill Lynch Account (1.5 million) set up by Melanie’s parents and going back several generations and a house in Javea. ($450,000)
I was with my mother when she died at 94 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 in 1978.
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.
Mr. White is a good friend of the court . When the law is against you argue the facts, when the facts you argue the law and if the law and the facts are against you – then attack the other side.
She never lived in Micanopy, 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, Melanie 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 or the law but has been in to pocket of Thomas and his team. TABLE OF CONTENTS
The case that fits the issues on all fours is:
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 led by Thomas Pflaum, Esq. and his wife Leanne Pflaum. Esq. and their lawyers Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe acting as a joint enterprise, perpetrated on the all too willing Probate Court 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.
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; 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 the Respondent as an attorney, thereafter ex-parte, in which Respondents are both 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 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.
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!
The Court HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY MISINFORMED BY Mr. White that no notice of hearing on objections to the Petition for Discharge was served within the time prescribed by Fla. Prob. R. 5.401 (d). THEREFORE Peter lost everything.
http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm
RULE 5.401. RULE 5.401. OBJECTIONS TO PETITION FOR DISCHARGE OR FINAL ACCOUNTING NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE
FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
PETITION FOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE’S FEE
MADE 6/26/2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Here comes Peter Pflaum, PRO SE a beneficiary respondent with objections to the Petition for Discharge, to the Final Accounting, to the compensation paid or proposed to be paid, or to the proposed distribution of assets, and will serve a copy thereof on Petitioner’s attorney, whose name and address are set forth below, and on all other interested persons. THIS objection is in writing and states with particularity the item or items to which the objections are directed and states the grounds on which the objections are based. A notice of hearing on the objections is served with the filing of the objections.
If in an alternative honest and fair universe the Personal Representative of the deceased and the attorney for the estate after they were notified of objections THEY would set a hearing. Instead this gang of thieves waited 90 days and come to court with dirty hands and say “too bad the time ran out” and we get to keep the stolen property and our hundreds of thousands in fees paid to pervert Melanie’s intent and NOT taking care of their duties but seeing that the brothers Peter and John were illegally disinherited. The Judge as always over the last four years, just signs orders written by Mr. Hoppe without hearing or giving any consideration of the other side.
PETER E. and Mary Anne PFLAUM, Pro Se Appellant, Plaintiff, Petitioners v. THOMAS and Leanne PFLAUM, ET AL. Respondents, Defendants, Appellee
Friday, December 07, 2007
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.”
First District Court of Appeal 1D07-6102 includes
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...
Revised Appeal of Final Probate Notice from Alachua County REVISED NOTICE IS GIVEN that PETER E. and Mary Anne PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiff, Petitioners appeals to the First District Court of Appeals the final order of this court (THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY) The nature of the appeal is the final order which after four years the Probate Case of Melanie Pflaum closed on Nov. 29th 2007, (attached) by Judge Toby Monaco granting a petition for final accounting and discharge over the objections of the brothers, Peter and John.
The estate is closed with a value of one hundred dollars ($100) with up to a million dollars outstanding expenses that the personal representative Thomas Pflaum claims against the estate which was reported at 1.5 million in the IRS estate taxes 2005, valuing the house in Spain as $100,000 now reported at near $400,000. The probate courts order grants Thomas the complete estate and in effect disinherited his brothers and is therefore a successful taking of everything for himself and his wife, Leanne as they planned for since 1984. There are claims against the estate for thousands of hours of fees by Thomas, and other expenses which will use up any assets and leave NOTHING for the other beneficiaries.
Section 737.403(2), Florida Statutes, was amended effective July 1, 2005. Section 737.403(2)(e) now provides, in pertinent part:
(2) If the duty of the trustee and the trustee’s individual interest or his or her interest as trustee of another trust conflict in the exercise of a trust power, the power may be exercised only by court authorization.... Court authorization is not required for any of the following:
(e) Payment of costs or attorney’s fees incurred in any trust proceeding from the assets of the trust unless an action has been filed or defense asserted against the trustee based upon a breach of trust. Court authorization is not required if the action or defense is later withdrawn or dismissed by the party that is alleging a breach of trust or resolved without a determination by the court that the trustee has committed a breach of trust.
§ 737.403(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied).
Probate, what went wrong? The probate court was in error including but not limited to:
Failed to deal with gross conflict of interest
Failed to recognize the facts and the law with regard to venue and the domicile of the deceased
Failed to deal with corollary suits and harassment of the plaintiffs by Mr. Hoppe with the clear intent of intimidation
failed to notify beneficiaries of case management hearing, other actions taken ex parte, Sept 29th 2005 A case management Hearing held in secret without notice which issued orders for sanctions
Failure to act or even acknowledge plaintiffs motions and orders and estate assets including written objections and request for hearing to the petition to close estate and expenses
Failed to require realistic status reports and never sent copies to beneficiaries
Failed to provide temporary distributions causing Peter to be indigent
Was bias and unfair and Judge refused to recuse after persuasive evidence of prejudice
The court made illegal and outrageous orders for sanctions based on untested claims of “forgery” and lack of cooperation in disputed mediation
Never responded, or had a hearing on repeated motions starting on July 17th 2004 where Peter Pflaum files complaint vs. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, a respondent and co-conspirator, containing objection to PR, inventory, and venue including objection to Merrill Lynch account not being included in inventory because it lacked formalities and necessities to override the will.
Sept 17th 2005 complaint by Peter Pflaum PRO SE with objection to inventory and appeal of order to deny removal of the PR with discovery and Interrogatories to Thomas Pflaum and Merrill Lynch the court never enforced discovery or many interrogatives against the defendant but many times had sanctions against the plaintiffs who had to file and file again.
(The law) What Probate should be: TABLE OF CONTENTS
(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 TABLE OF CONTENTS
What happened in Pflaum v. Pflaum? (The Complaint)
http://www.wiredbrain.net/criminalcase.htm
http://www.wiredbrain.net/thomas.htm
http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007 http://www.wiredbrain.net/page2.htm See http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm for the whole story
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.
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 send the case back to 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. “. 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.
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. TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
After four years the Probate Case of Melanie Pflaum was closed on Nov. 29th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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____________

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 plaintiffs wave interrogatives, discovery and move to JURY trial as soon as possible. After four years the case and the facts are mature.
Witnesses: The defendants: Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, their lawyers Mr. Hoppe and White – Mary Anne Watkins Pflaum and plaintiffs reserve the right to call the estate accountant, Mr. Hayward of Merrill Lynch and other unnamed parties -
The issues for the Jury are:
Did Thomas Pflaum abuse his role as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melanie Pflaum? (Y/N)
Did Leanne Pflaum falsely claim ownership of a major asset of the estate without authority? (Y/N)
Do these (M/L) assets belong to the estate? (Y/N)
Did Mr. White fail in his duties as attorney for the Estate? (Y/N)
What damages does Mr. White owe the plaintiffs? Amount________________
Did Mr. Hoppe harass the plaintiffs? (Y/N)
What damages does Mr. Hoppe owe the plaintiffs? Amount___________________
Are the expenses’ claimed against the estate justified? (Y/N)
Are the legal fees justified as being in the interest of proper administration of the estate? (Y/N)
Does Thomas Pflaum owe money from his inheritance to Peter Pflaum and what is the amount of the fair claim on the estate? _____________________dollars
Is the Merrill Lynch account part of the estate? (Y/N)
Are the defendant guilty of an action of malpractice. Did Bill Hoppe, and Mr. White attorneys for Thomas Pflaum. and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith Inc, guilty of the 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 (Y/N)
AMOUNT______________________. Thomas____________White ________________Hoppe___________________
What is the value of the direct damages? ________________ Thomas____________White ________________Hoppe___________________
What is the amount of indirect damages – pain and suffering? _______________________
Thomas____________White ________________Hoppe___________________
What is the amount of punitive damages _____________________________
Thomas____________White ________________Hoppe___________________
Copies of the exhibits are in the possession of the defendants.
2. Court Papers to close the estate and claims of expenses, fees, and other costs - No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A Probate petition for final accounting and discharge over the objections of the brothers, Peter and John.
3. The estate is closed with a value of $100.00 with up to a million dollars outstanding expenses that the personal representative Thomas Pflaum claims against the estate which was reported at 1.5 million in the IRS estate taxes 2005, valuing the house in Spain as $100,000 now reported at near $400,000. The probate courts order grants Thomas the complete estate and in effect disinherited his brothers and is therefore a successful taking of everything for himself and his wife, Leanne as they planned for since 1984. There are claims against the estate for thousands of hours of fees by Thomas, and other expenses which will use up any assets and leave NOTHING for the other beneficiaries.
4. Melanie signs blank Merrill Lynch agreement in May 2003 exhibits; subpoena A1 the illegible form from Merrill Lynch with Melanie’s signature A2: Page with Leanne, a respondent and co-conspirator, signature Nov. 11th 2003, Thomas and Leanne, a respondent and co-conspirator, new agreement with Merrill Lynch adding Leanne A3 the complete agreement with page you can read
5. B1 Mary Anne and Blaine visit Melanie in June and July 2003, Melanie’s letter, and B2 Mary Anne’s background letter. (The issue in forgery charge)
6. C in Sept until Nov. 2003 Thomas sends Melanie several POA which she signs, a copy of address and return envelope Thomas Pflaum, Attorney at law sends and provides, Petitioner is in Javea from late Aug to end of Oct 2003 and sees Melanie sign long detailed POA.
7. D Melanie Pflaum dies in Spain , March 5th 2004 – Exhibit the death certificate D2 2/27/04 Merrill Lynch balance D3 account statement at time of death. Petitioner is in Javea from Feb. to March 25th 2004
8. E Thomas e-mail “whole deck of Cards” March 27th 2004 page 32
9. E1 VERIFICATION Peter Pflaum , E2 Mary Anne (Watkins) Pflaum sworn statement of the truth and nothing but the truth
10. E3 E-mails March 16, 2004 (page 1,2) E3-b March 19, 2004, E3-c (page 4,5) E4 March 21, b and c (pages 6-8) March 23, (pages 9,10) March 24, (pages 11 – 15)
11. E5 March 25, (pages 16 – 22) E5a to E5 e
12. E6 March 26, (pages 23 – 26) E6 a to E6 c
13. E7 March 27 – 28 page 32 has the deck of cards statement
14. E8 proposed contract March 2004, E8 b Dear John; letter
15. F The copies of the will and codicil
16. G Tullia statement of Melanie’s condition (other letters) G2 Helen Brown, G3 Peggy Rivas-Micoud
17. H Mr. Whites letter, in Oct 12, 2004
18. Inventory of $100 $750,000 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
19. I May 9th 2005 Notice of Federal Estate Taxes IRS estate taxes
20. J financial records from Merrill Lynch (The claim of copied signature)
21. Deposition in Tallahassee of Mr. Hayward, Merrill Lynch
22. Oct 24, 2005 K Thomas Pflaum’s false documents on domicile K2 2003 Income tax, K3 2004 IRS, K4 Social Security, K5 Bank of America, (Javea) K‘16 B of A (Micanopy) K7 Melanie IRS for real
23. Letter from Melanie Pflaum saying she does not have a room in Micanopy
24. Number1 HYPERLINK "http://www.wiredbrain.net/ThomassupremecourtML.jpg"Merrill Lynch Form2. Leanne, a respondent and co-conspirator, claim on 1. 5 million3. 3a IRS form 7064. 3b notice Thomas claim of $1,352,5375. 3c Thomas claim of joint ownership of $1,796,1586. 3d Various property taken by Thomas7. 3e more property and this is not all8. 3f more taking of estate assets9. 4-1 Verification by Peter Pflaum 10. 4-2 Verification by Mary Anne Watkins Pflaum11. 5 Codicil to the will12. 6 Letter from Bank of America
25. 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.
26. Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007) Nos. 4D06-1594 and 4D06-1624
27. 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.
28. 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. There is no reasonable explanation of why the Judge, Toby Monaco, is so bias in favor of Thomas and his enterprise and so prejudiced against Peter except the possibility of corruption.
29. 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.
30. 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
31. 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.
32. There is only one way the Appellants 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 Appellants 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 Appellants 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
33. The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the Appellants by the misconduct of the enterprise, Appellees 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 Plaintiffs the just results of his inheritance from the estate of his mother, Melanie Pflaum.
34. 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 Appellees acting as a joint enterprise, including threats and demands. The purposes of these actions include personal malice, and attempts to force the Appellants 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 Appellants 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
35. 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
Registered Agent, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1200 S. PINE ISLAND ROAD
PLANTATION FL 33324
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-CA-4714
Clerk of the Circuit Court Alachua County Courthouse
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Labels: and How, News Release: Who, What, When, Where, Why