Monday, January 07, 2008
Petition: EMERGENCY RELIEF; INJUNCTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
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., ET AL. Richard White Esq., Bill Hoppe Esq., Defendants, Respondents
News Release: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How
Monday, January 07, 2008
Amendment 7 – U.S. Constitution
Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. 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.
PETER E. PFLAUM, ET AL, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners
v. THOMAS and Leanne PFLAUM, ET AL. Richard White, Bill Hoppe, Defendants, Respondents
PETITION TO DENY MOTION TO DISMISS, and move to trial
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.”.
1. NOTICE IS GIVEN that PETER E. PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners files a petition and motion for JURY trial to the Court 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.
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.
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. In or before 2003 Thomas formed a joint enterprise to defraud his Mother and brothers. Leanne Pflaum was added by Mr. Robert Hayward of Merrill Lynch to an account in order to pervert Melanie’s will. Mr. White filed a bogus claim of domicile in Micanopy as part of this conspiracy of constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment.
There has not been two minutes during the last four years when the issues were heard on the merits. For the reasons stated in http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm , the case as a matter of fact and of law, is so clear that no jury could find that Thomas and Leanne have a right to the whole of Melanie Pflaum Estate and nothing left for brother John and Peter, nor that they have not infringed the duties of personal representative nor have not actively induce and engaged in a campaign of harassment.
What
Melanie’s will divided 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 to Peter and his family because it was completely unexpected. Thomas was trusted because he did a good job of pretending to be trustworthy. He replaced honor with legal tricks and lies when he monumentally betrayed the trust placed in him as a citizen, as a lawyer, as a son and as a brother. 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 having him arrested on 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, his legal or professional ethics, and is guilty in 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 spurious accounting. Peter claims interest charges over four years of 30% on the original property and direct financial costs and damages adds up to 1.5 million with punitive damages. 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 30 to 0. The judge has excluded Peter from claims of his inheritance, ordered a useless mediation, and signed a series of sanction orders written by Mr. Hoppe, harassment that continues today. Thomas has made a mockery of the practice of law, the judicial system, and common sense.
How
Since Thomas controls the Judge, the road to appeal or finding a neutral court to hear the case is very tough. Peter, going Pro Se, because he was driven into poverty tried the best he could to get a fair hearing – and now coming to believe that juries are the salvation of the legal system. The judges have allowed Thomas and his nasty legal team to torment Peter and his family for four years and “pile on” with Mr. Hoppe’s lies to harass the innocent Peter, who only wants justice and a fair hearing to claim his inheritance, by the guilty Thomas who has stolen the property of his brothers, and gets away with it becaue they are lawyers and have money. Justice is denied when process overrules substance and there is not even the appearance of equal treatment by a dishonest judge.
The last will and testament is a basic contract within civilization requiring due respect for the traditional foundations of property, families, estates and the law. The customs of decency are the source of all laws, but often violated in the practice of American commercial law.
Civilization declines without the traditions of respectful behavior, to others, to knowledge, to institutions, to family, and to the law. Our liberty and freedom of action according to our will “within the limits of the law” must be impartially and equably applied. When common decency has no meaning in practice, we all will be found to be in contempt of court. This case is a blatant example of legal abuse where lawyers exploit the system with a shocking lack of a decent respect for morality and ethics.
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.
The plaintiffs wave interrogatives, discovery and move to JURY trial as soon as possible. After four years the case and the facts are mature. FOUR FOUR YEARS, NO COURT HAS HEARD THE CASE ON THE MERITS; THE PLAINTIFFS REQUIRE A FAIR HEARING AND A REMEDY.
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., ET AL. Richard White Esq., Bill Hoppe Esq., Defendants, Respondents
News Release: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How
Monday, January 07, 2008
Amendment 7 – U.S. Constitution
Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. 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.
PETER E. PFLAUM, ET AL, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners
v. THOMAS and Leanne PFLAUM, ET AL. Richard White, Bill Hoppe, Defendants, Respondents
PETITION TO DENY MOTION TO DISMISS, and move to trial
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.”.
1. NOTICE IS GIVEN that PETER E. PFLAUM, Pro Se Plaintiffs, Petitioners files a petition and motion for JURY trial to the Court 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.
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.
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. In or before 2003 Thomas formed a joint enterprise to defraud his Mother and brothers. Leanne Pflaum was added by Mr. Robert Hayward of Merrill Lynch to an account in order to pervert Melanie’s will. Mr. White filed a bogus claim of domicile in Micanopy as part of this conspiracy of constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment.
There has not been two minutes during the last four years when the issues were heard on the merits. For the reasons stated in http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm , the case as a matter of fact and of law, is so clear that no jury could find that Thomas and Leanne have a right to the whole of Melanie Pflaum Estate and nothing left for brother John and Peter, nor that they have not infringed the duties of personal representative nor have not actively induce and engaged in a campaign of harassment.
What
Melanie’s will divided 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 to Peter and his family because it was completely unexpected. Thomas was trusted because he did a good job of pretending to be trustworthy. He replaced honor with legal tricks and lies when he monumentally betrayed the trust placed in him as a citizen, as a lawyer, as a son and as a brother. 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 having him arrested on 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, his legal or professional ethics, and is guilty in 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 spurious accounting. Peter claims interest charges over four years of 30% on the original property and direct financial costs and damages adds up to 1.5 million with punitive damages. 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 30 to 0. The judge has excluded Peter from claims of his inheritance, ordered a useless mediation, and signed a series of sanction orders written by Mr. Hoppe, harassment that continues today. Thomas has made a mockery of the practice of law, the judicial system, and common sense.
How
Since Thomas controls the Judge, the road to appeal or finding a neutral court to hear the case is very tough. Peter, going Pro Se, because he was driven into poverty tried the best he could to get a fair hearing – and now coming to believe that juries are the salvation of the legal system. The judges have allowed Thomas and his nasty legal team to torment Peter and his family for four years and “pile on” with Mr. Hoppe’s lies to harass the innocent Peter, who only wants justice and a fair hearing to claim his inheritance, by the guilty Thomas who has stolen the property of his brothers, and gets away with it becaue they are lawyers and have money. Justice is denied when process overrules substance and there is not even the appearance of equal treatment by a dishonest judge.
The last will and testament is a basic contract within civilization requiring due respect for the traditional foundations of property, families, estates and the law. The customs of decency are the source of all laws, but often violated in the practice of American commercial law.
Civilization declines without the traditions of respectful behavior, to others, to knowledge, to institutions, to family, and to the law. Our liberty and freedom of action according to our will “within the limits of the law” must be impartially and equably applied. When common decency has no meaning in practice, we all will be found to be in contempt of court. This case is a blatant example of legal abuse where lawyers exploit the system with a shocking lack of a decent respect for morality and ethics.
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.
The plaintiffs wave interrogatives, discovery and move to JURY trial as soon as possible. After four years the case and the facts are mature. FOUR FOUR YEARS, NO COURT HAS HEARD THE CASE ON THE MERITS; THE PLAINTIFFS REQUIRE A FAIR HEARING AND A REMEDY.
