Saturday, February 19, 2011

Office of Governor Rick Scott, Jason Harell, Kira Frye - Petition for an Executive Order Appointing a Special Prosecutor for the iViewit Companies

Petition for an Executive Order Appointing a Special Prosecutor for the iViewit Companies and Eliot Bernstein's formal Criminal Complaint submitted for Criminal Prosecution to the State of Florida Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption Case No. SC-09-1910

Request for Meeting with Governor Scott pursuant to discussion with the Governor's Staff on Tuesday Feb. 8th 2011 .

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Tenth Judicial Curcuit Court - FLorida - RONNIE MICKENS - GLORIA J. MICKENS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________________

APPEAL NO.: 10-15181-F
DISTRICT COURT NO.: 8:10-cv-2083-T-26EAJ

___________________________________

RONNIE MICKENS and
GLORIA J. MICKENS
Appellants/Plaintiffs

vs.

TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, et al.
Appellees/Defendants

____________________________________

Appeal from the United states District Court
For the Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division

_____________________________________

APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF

_____________________________________

PRO SE
Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens
6420 Odom Road
Lakeland, Florida 33809
(863) 853-5991


Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Curcuit Court, et, al.
Case No.: 10-15181-F


U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

WE hereby disclose the following to this Court’s interested persons order.

1.) the name of each person, attorney, association of persons, firm, law firm, partnership, and corporation that has or may have an interest in the outcome of this ___ including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates,parent corporations, publicly-traded companies that own 10% or more of a party’s stock, and all other identifiable legal entities related to any party in the case:
Allen Damron Construction Company
Roger A. Alcott
Robert E. Biasotti
Mark A. Brown
Robert M. Brush
Elaine P. Canady
Daryl Casanueva
Allen Damron
Debra L. Damron
Carlton Fields, P.A.
Marsha Faux
Benjamin Hardin
C-1 of 4
Jerry Hill
Joseph G. Jarret
Elizabeth A. Jenkins
Grady Judd
Harvey A. Kornstein
Annette Marie Lang
J. David Langford
Richard A. Lazzara
Lisa Lott
Michael D. Martin
Bill McCollum
Robert McDonald
Paul H. McLester
Steve D. Merryday
Gloria J. Mickens
Ronnie Mickens
Cecelia M. Moore
Don Pell
Polk County Property Appraiser’s Office
Polk County School Board
Polk Courty Sheriff’s Office
Polk County State Attorney’s office
C-2 0f 4
Robert M. Quinn
Edith F. Rewis
Glenn A. Reynolds
Mark A. Schabacker
Second District Court of Appeals
Stewart Information Service Corporation (SISCO)
Stewart Title Company
Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc.
Tenth Judicial Circuit Court
2.) the name of every other entity whose publicly-traded stock, equity, or debt
may be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings:
[No List]
3.) the name of every other entity which is likely to be an active participant in the
proceedings, including the debtor and members of the creditors’ committee
(or twenty largest unsecured creditors) in bankruptcy cases:
4.) the name of each victim (individual or corporation) od civil and criminal conduct
alleged to be wrongful, including every person who may be entitled to restitution:
Ronnie Mickens
Gloria J. Mickens
We hereby certify that, excpt as disclosed above, we are unaware of any actual or potential conflict of interest involving the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to
C- 3 of 4
this case, and will immediately notify the Court in writing on learning of any such conflict.
C- 4 of 4
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 28-1 (c), Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens respectfully request Oral Argument because we believe that it would greatly assist Appellants and this Court in resolving Appellants’ appeal.








i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND
CORPORRATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT……………………………………..C-1
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT……………………………………i
TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………….ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..v
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES…………………………………………………………1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW……………………………………………………………8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………………… 13
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENTS………………………………………………...20
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………………… ..21
I. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE
PREMATURELY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ PRIOR AND PRESENT FEDERAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES FOR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE…………………………………..21
II. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE PREMATURELY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ PRESENT FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SERVED AND UN-SERVED
ii
GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE, ELEVENTH AMENDMENT JUDICIAL AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITIES..................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………………………29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………………………. 29


iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Exxon Mobile,
544 U.S. 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517……………………1,2,8,9,20,21,22,23,26,28

Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738………………………………..25

Lance,
546 U.S. at 464, 126 S. Ct. 1198…………………………………………21

Lassiter v. Ala. A&M Univ.,
28 F.3d 1146, 1184 (11th Cir. 1994)(en banc)……………………………25

Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit,
181 Fed. Appx. 865, 872-73 (11th Cir. 2006)…………………………….24

Nicholson v. Shafe,
558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009)………………………….1,2,8,9,20,21,23,26,28

Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale,
Cite as 279 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002)…………………………………….24

Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed. 2d 90……………………………………………22,25


iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
A. This is a civil action for among other things, fraud, fraud upon the court, denial of due process, equal protection and freedom of speech, conspiracy, stigmatization, race and retaliation discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent conveyance, equitable estoppel, negligence, breach of construction contract, cancellation of deeds, quiet title, slander of title, conversion of title and for violation of rights protected by the Civil Rights Acts.
B. This action is instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C Section 1985 ©, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, and 18 U.S.C Section 242, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-68. Plaintiffs seeks legal and equitable relief including but not limited to compensatory and punitive damages.
C. This is an action for damages exceeding $50,000.00 the minimum jurisdictional amount for this court.
D. Appellants contend that the District Court has original, federal question, diversity, pendent, ancillary, subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this case sub judice.

v
APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517 and this Court’s decision in NICHOLSON v. SHAFE, Cite as 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) overruled, or made void the District Court Judge and this Court panel’s prior order and un-published opinion in Case No.; 05-01115CV-T-26-EAJ, because Appellants commenced filing Appellants’ prior and instant Federal Complaint before the state court proceedings ended in the three “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulently de-consolidated and consolidated, un-related and interrelated lawsuits and judgments scheme that was fashioned by the Appellees to obstruct Appellants from progressing Appellants’ indisputable claims in the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case.
2. Whether Exxon Mobile and this Court’s decisions in Nicholson v. Shafe bars the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from applying to Appellants new complaint because Appellants commenced this case before the litigation of the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case ended and because the Appellees’ supplanted the consolidated, interrelated case with “confusing”, “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, un-related/interrelated, de-consolidated/consolidated lawsuits to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and free speech.

3. Whether the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ Complaint pursuant to Rooker-Feldman because the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant judgments in favor of the non-governmental Appellees and lacked jurisdiction to conspire 6. Whether the “confusing”, “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,to commit fraud, fraud upon the court and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and freedom of speech.
1
4. Whether the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated state claims and new state and federal claims against the consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees and new state and federal claims against the governmental Appellees pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to deprive Appellants’ of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and freedom of speech.
5. Whether Judge Ralph Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration took precedent over Judge Kornstein’s “confusing” “muddled to say the least.” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent,
de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits and re-consolidated the three interrelated lawsuits and made void the “confusing,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated judgments obtained by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, fraud upon the court and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and free speech. ” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated state court orders and judgments conclusively prove that the District Court dismissed Appellants’ complaints in violation of Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Shafe, whether the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated parties and issues between Appellants and the interrelated non-governmental Appellees have been litigated and adjudicated in state court, whether the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, un-related/interrelated, de-consolidated/consolidated lawsuits’ judgments were the result of the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, fraud upon the court, treason against the constitution to
2
avoid granting relief to Appellant based on a void ab initio quit-claim deed procured by the interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
7. Whether the Appellants filed responses in opposition to the State Attorney, Stewart Title Guaranty, Stewart Title of Polk, Canady, Rewis, Damron Construction, Allen Damron and Debra Damron, and Property Appraiser’s motions to dismiss.
8. Whether Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s perjury, contradictions, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, conspiracy, scheme to defraud, fraud, grand theft, notary crimes, fraudulent conveyance, false pretenses, “fraud upon the court,” estopps it from denying Appellants’ complaint allegations and from filing a consolidated motions to dismiss on behalf of itself, Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc., Canady, Rewis, Allen Damron Construction Company, Allen and Debra Damron because of their internally contradictory and fraudulent relationships and interests with each other.

9. Whether the Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution prevented the consolidated/re-consolidated interwoven case or parties, issues and claims from being litigated and adjudicated.
10. Whether the Appellees, the District Court Judge and this Court’s prior panel contradicted and misrepresented that the 2nd DCA reversed and remanded for the entry of a new judgment because Judge Strickland’s’ adjudicated findings on the merits or judgment on the merits of Appellants’ fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of construction causes of action against Appellee Damron Construction was unsupported by the record or unsupported by Appellants’ pleadings, the factual and lawful evidence and un-requested by Appellants or either party.
3
11. Whether the District Court Judge prejudiced Appellants and deprived Appellants of due process and equal protection by improperly dismissing Appellants’ Complaints pursuant to Rooker-Feldman, judicial and qualified immunities before the 10th Judicial Circuit Court filed a required motion to dismiss or an answer and before the process server, served the 2nd DCA’s and Sheriff the summon and complaint.
12. Whether the District Court Judge prejudiced and deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, process server fees and cost when he dismissed Appellants’ Complaints pursuant to Rooker-Feldman and judicial and qualified immunities before a process server who had sought his assistants and who had been pre-paid several times to serve the 2nd DCA and the Sheriff, who had refused to accept proper service on numerous occasions.

13. Whether the District Court Judge dismissed Appellants’ indisputable causes of action against indisputable Appellee criminal and civil wrongdoers, based on race.
14. Whether the 10th Judicial Circuit Court and the 2nd DCA ‘s Judges committed fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution in violation of their subject-matter jurisdiction and eleventh amendment/judicial immunity.
15. Whether the 10th Judicial Circuit and the 2nd DCA’s decisions and rulings were produced by conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason and are in essence decisions and ruling at all, and can ever become final.
16. Whether the 10th Judicial Circuit and the 2nd DCA’s lost their subject matter jurisdiction and judicial immunity and whether their judgments became void as a result of their conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution.
4
17. Whether Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidation/consolidation of the consolidated interrelated lawsuits that he fraudulently “severered” based on the pretext that the lawsuits or parties and issues were not the same/different/un-related/distinct/independent, was a departure from the essential requirements of the law and a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
18. Whether fraud vitiates every transaction into which its enters applies to judgments as to contracts and other transactions
19. Whether an officer of the court orders and judgments are void, of no legal force or effect when he commits “fraud upon the court”.

20. Whether the District Court Judge deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech when he prematurely and erroneously assumed that Appellants were alleging misconduct against the State Attorney in the scope of his prosecutorial or government advocate role and not his investigative role.
21. Whether District Court Judge deprived Appellants of due process and equal protection when he dismissed new indisputable state and federal claims and causes of action against consolidated interrelated, indispensable Appellees and issues.
22. Whether the state court judgments granted in favor of the non-governmental Appellees was based on facts, issues, and claims that was noticed, alleged, pled and litigated by consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees in a case.
23. Whether Judge Strickland adjudication on the merits of Appellants’ fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of construction contract causes of action entitles Appellants to the protection of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of
5
the case against the interrelated non-governmental Appellees as a matter of law.
24. Whether the non-governmental Appellees obtained multiple fraudulent orders
and judgments based on the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, fraud upon the court and treason against the constitution without subject matter jurisdiction.

25. Whether the Appellees’ “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated judgments can be used to bar the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

26. Whether the non-governmental Appellees’ admissions of violations of criminal statutory laws entitles Appellants to the protection of preclusion laws as a matter of law against the consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
27. Whether the Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason to deprive Appellants of fourth, fifth, seventh and fourteenth amendment rights without subject-matter jurisdiction.

28. Whether the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court,” and treason against the constitution obstructed the Appellants from joining, consolidating and litigating against the interrelated governmental Appellees and issues in a state court proceeding.

29. Whether Judge Strickland adjudication of Allen Damron Construction Company guilty of committing fraud in misrepresenting the nature of a quit-claim deed, fraud in the execution of a quit-claim deed, fraud inducement and fraud in the formation and
6
performance of a construction contract is supported by the record and the law of the case.
30. Whether Damron Construction quit-claim deed is void ab initio and is the
essential issue of the consolidated, interrelated case or parties and issues.
31. Whether the Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution when they conspired and agreed to permit Allen Damron Construction Company to fraudulently conveyed Appellants’ private real property to Stewart Title Guaranty Company via a Special Warranty Deed without due process, equal protection, a court order or subject matter jurisdiction while Appellee Stewart Title was fraudulently purporting to Foreclosure a mortgage and/or enforce an Equitable Lien against Appellants without subject matter jurisdiction, jurisdictional standing, a right of action, cause of action and without clean hands.

32. Whether the arbitrary, “confusing,” pre-textual, “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits scheme and judgments obstructed Appellants progress and prosecution of the three consolidated, interrelated, interwoven, intertwined, or inextricably tied together lawsuits or parties and issues as one case.


APPELLANTS STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW
1. At the time of the filing of the prior action and this instant action at bar, the consolidated/re-consolidated interrelated case has not been litigated in the 10th Judicial Circuit Court Case Nos.: 1997CA-000455, 1998CA-001152, 1998CA-002977 and the three “confusing,””muddled to say the least.” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent,
de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments have not ended, or no judgments at all because of the Appellees’ fraud, therefore Rooker-Feldman do not divest the District Court of it subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case at bar because the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court,” treason and “confusing.” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments obstructed Appellants from progressing the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case or parties and issues against the non-governmental Appellees.

3. Pursuant to Nicholson v. Shafe and Exxon Mobile, the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ un-litigated and un-adjudicated consolidated, interrelated state and federal claims against the interrelated Appellees pursuant to Rooker-Feldman.
4. Pursuant to Nicholson v. Shafe and Exxon Mobile the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ prior and present distinct complaints pursuant to Rooker-Feldman.
5. The District Court Judge knew that the two un-related state court judgments were not consolidated or interrelated and was obtained by the Appellees fraud, “fraud upon the court,” and that Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants’ Motion for
8
Rehearing and Reconsideration re-consolidated the Appellees fraudulent de-consolidated interrelated case or parties and issues.
6. The District Court erred when it misrepresented that the state court judgments were based on merits of issues and causes of action that the consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees noticed, alleged, pled and litigated.
7. Appellants Mickens filed responses in opposition to Appellees, State Attorney, Stewart Title, the Damrons and the Property Appraiser’s motions to dismiss.
8. Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, it’s employer/employee, principal/agency relationships and interests with Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis and it’s fraudulent subrogee/subrogor, mortgagee/mortgagor, Quit-Claim Deed/Special Warranty Deed, grantee/grantor and plaintiff/defendants relationships with Allen and Debra Damron and Damron Construction.bars it from being entitled it to a foreclosure/equitable lien judgment and a $234,584.64 Rescission/Sanction judgment or any relief against Appellants.

9. The non-governmental Appellees agreed that Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration re-consolidated the three “confusing” muddled to say the least” internally contradictory, fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits that illegally traveled in three separate files.
10. The Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to intentionally, negligently, and fraudulently misrepresent that the 2nd DCA reversed Judge Strickland’s findings on the merits of Appellants fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of
9
contract causes of action when they fraudulently misrepresented that Judge Strickland’s findings were un-supported by the record or the pleadings, evidence and Appellants.
11. The District Court Judge improperly dismissed Appellants’ distinct Federal Complaint pursuant to Rooker-Feldman to deprive Appellants of due process and equal protection safeguards against the 10th Judicial Circuit Court, the 2nd DCA and the Sheriff’s failure to file a required answer or a 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss.

12. The District Court deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, fees and costs when it dismissed Appellants’ distinct Federal Complaint before Appellants’ pre-paid process servers served Appellants’ summon and complaint on the sheriff and the 2nd DCA and before the 10th Judicial Circuit filed a required answer or a motion to dismiss.
13. The District Court Judge decision to dismiss Appellants’ new, distinct Federal Complaint conflicts with the Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Shafe decisions.
14. The 10th Judicial Circuit Court and the 2nd DCA Judges conspired and agreed with each other and with the other Appellees to fraudulently sever/de-consolidate/split the three consolidated interrelated case, or parties and issues to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech in state and federal court.

15. Judge Kornsteins “confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments can never be final judgments because the “severance” were based on the pretext that the three consolidated, interrelated lawsuits were simultaneously consolidated and de-consolidated and un-related and related/interrelated or simultaneously not identical and identical in parties and issues.
10
16. The governmental Appellees lost their judicial and qualified immunities when they conspired and agreed with each other and with the non-governmental Appellees to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution to cover-up the non-governmental Appellees’ quit-claim deed fraudulent conveyance and to fraudulently convey Appellants’ private real property from the Damrons to Stewart Title without subject matter jurisdiction and to fraudulently imposed purported rescission of contract without subject matter jurisdiction and to fraudulently sanctioned Appellants $234,584.64 for the cost of materials and labor and to grant a fraudulent foreclosure/equitable lien against Appellants in favor of Stewart Title and to illegally seize and eject Appellants from Appellants property and to false arrest and imprison Appellant Ron Mickens.

17. Judge Artiglierre’s findings and the doctrine of stare decisis conclusively proved that Judge Kornstein’s “severance” of the consolidated, interrelated case was a departure from the essential requirements of the law and a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
18. The multiple, different, unsupported, contradictory, fraudulen,t de-consolidated/consolidated judgments are not final judgments.

19. The non-governmental Appellees judgments are void because all the Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud and “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution when they imposed purported rescission of contract without subject matter jurisdiction for rescission of contract being invoked and sought.

20. State Attorney Jerry Hill, the Property Appraiser and Sheriff in their investigative roles conspired and agreed with their subordinates and with other Appellees to intentionally, negligently and fraudulently deprive Appellants of life, reputation, job,
11
real and personal property in violations of well-established statutory laws and constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech.

21. The District Court dismissal of Appellants’ complaint deprived Appellants of litigating indisputable claims against Appellees in one case or lawsuits.

22. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order overturned Judge Kornstein’s different, “confusing” “muddled to say the least” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated judgments granted in favor of Allen Damron Construction Company/Stewart Title Guaranty Company in Case No. 1997CA-000455 and in favor of Stewart Title Guaranty Company in Case No.: 1998CA-002977 because the judgments were obtained by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud on the court” and treason against the constitution.

23. Judges, Strickland, Moore, Prince and Atrtiglierre’s findings entitled Appellants to the protection of res judicata, collateral estoppel and the law of the case.
24. Judge Alcott conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution in violation of his subject matter jurisdiction when he aborted Judge Artiglierre’s re-consolidation order and re-imposed Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits” judgments.

25. As a matter of preclusion and statutory laws, the Appellees’ admitted fraudulent misrepresentations bars them from denying Appellants indisputable causes of action.
26. As a matter of law, Appellants are entitled to a final judgment on indisputable claims and causes of action against the non-governmental and governmental Appellees.
12
27. The Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court and treason against the Constitution to deprive Appellants of due process, etc.
28. Allen Damron, Debra Damron, Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis have never litigated as parties the issues, claims or causes of action alleged against them by Appellants in any case or lawsuits.
29. The non-governmental, interrelated, indispensable Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud to procure a quit-claim deed from Appellants and to encumber Appellants property with an invalid mortgage.
30. Judges, Strickland and Moore findings that Allen Damron Construction Company’s committed fraud to procure a quit-claim deed and to fraudulently encumber Appellants’ property without Appellants knowledge or consent is the law of the case.

31. The Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to fraudulently dismiss Allen Damron Construction, Allen Damron and Debra Damron, the defendants/cross defendants and to dismiss Stewart Title-Polk, Canady and Rewis, the defendants/third party defendants and to fraudulently convey Appellants’ property to Stewart Title Guaranty Company via a Special Warranty Deed without a court order or subject-matter jurisdiction, pending a fraudulent foreclosure/equitable lien action against Appellants.

32. The 2nd DCA panel opined in their January 23, 2009, Opinion that Judge Kornstein’s orders and judgments were “confusing” and “internally contradictory.”
33. In Case No.: 1998CA-001152, Appellants’ complaint against Allen Damron and Debra Damron in still pending in the ‘confusing,” muddled to say the least.” ‘internally contradictory” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits.
13
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Circuit State Court Judge, J. Tim Strickland adjudicated Allen Damron Construction Company guilty of fraud in misrepresenting the nature of a quit-claim deed, fraud inducement, fraud in the execution of a quit-claim deed and fraud in the formation and performance of a construction contract. Based on Appellants’ fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of construction contract causes of action, the factual and lawful testamentary and documentary evidence, Judge Strickland adjudicated Damron Construction’s quit-claim deed void ab initio because of it’s fraud. Allen Damron Construction Company conspired and agreed with the other above styled non-governmental Appellees to commit fraud to procure a quit-claim deed and to encumber Appellants property with an invalid mortgage without Appellants’ knowledge or consent.

Judge Cecelia M. Moore adjudicated that Allen Damron Construction Company fraudulently obtained and maintained a claim to fee simple title to Appellants’ property and used that claim to gain an unfair advantage as to what materials and features would be included in the house and as leverage to force Appellants to accept features in their house that they did not want. Judge Moore adjudicated Allen Damron Construction Company guilty of fraud, “ordered and adjudged that final judgment is hereby entered against Allen Damron Construction Company on it’s complaint.”
Ironically, Judge Moore, without subject matter jurisdiction, arbitrarily and fraudulently imposed Rescission of Contract to deprive Appellants of relief against the interrelated non-governmental Appellees based on the determination that the quitclaim deed was void ab initio. On appeal and cross appeal both parties agreed that Judge
14
Moore fundamentally erred and that neither party invoked the court’s subject matter jurisdiction for Rescission. Both parties agreed that her Order to rescind the contract was arbitrary, capricious, un-available, un-necessary, based on a pretext, un-sought, un-desired and outside the scope of the 2nd DCA’s Mandate. Judge Moore negligently and fraudulently misrepresented that “Appellants essentially sought and desired to rescind the contract.” The 2nd DCA panel conspired and agreed to commit “fraud upon the court” when it affirmed a judgment that it had already ruled that it could not affirm, a judgment unsupported by the pleadings, the evidence and objected to by both parties.
Judges, Richard Prince and J. Dale Durrance consolidated the three interrelated, interwoven, intertwined or inextricably tied together state court lawsuits or parties and issues based on the conditions that the three lawsuits were the same, interrelated, or identical in parties, facts, issues, transactions, claims and causes of action.
Judge Harvey A. Kornstein conspired and agreed with the other governmental and non-governmental Appellees to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason when he imposed a “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidation/consolidation, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, freedom of speech, based on race in state and federal court. Judge Kornstein conspired and agreed with the other Appellees and illegally ordered the Clerk to maintain three separate files based on the pretext that the three consolidated, interrelated lawsuits were not the same, distinct, different, independent, un-related or not identical in parties, facts, issues, claims and causes of action . Judge Kornstein contradictorily and fraudulently, de-consolidated the
15
consolidated, interrelated lawsuits and ordered the parties to continue to reflect in the pleadings that the three lawsuits were still consolidated with each other.
Judge Kornstein conspired and agreed with the Appellees to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason, when he obstructed the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case and caused confusion with internal contradictions to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech. In furtherance of Judge Kornstein’s conspiracy, he illegally dismissed indispensable non-governmental Appellees and aborted interrelated parties, issues and claims. Judge Kornstein illegally or fraudulently required that the consolidated, interrelated case travel in three separate files.

Judge Kornstein lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose Judge Moore’s arbitrary and capricious Rescission of Construction Contract remedy and judgment to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, relief and free speech.
Judge Kornstein fraudulently granted Damron Construction, the losing party, a fabricated Order and Judgment On Motion For The Entry Of Final Judgment against Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens for Failure to Permit Discovery in the fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated Case No.: 1997CA-000455 while purporting to be consolidated and interrelated with Case Nos.: 1998CA-001152 and 1998CA-002977.
Judge Kornstein fraudulently de-consolidated/consolidated the consolidated, interrelated case to fraudulently grant Damron Construction, the losing party, a $234, 584.00 Sanction for the purported Costs of materials and labor against Appellants for purportedly violating a court order to inspect property that both parties agreed were arbitrary and capricious. Judges, Prince and Durrance’s Orders to consolidate the three
16
interrelated lawsuits based on the condition of identical interrelated parties and issues had already made the court’s arbitrary and capricious order to inspect property void.
Judge Kornstein conspired and agreed with the Appellees to permit the Damrons to fraudulently convey Appellants ’private real property via a Special Warranty Deed to Stewart Title Guaranty Company without jurisdiction. Judge Kornstein dismissed the Damrons, the mortgagor defendants/cross defendants and Stewart Title-Polk, Canady, Rewis, third party defendants from Stewart Title’s fraudulent Foreclosure/Equitable Lien lawsuit. Case No.: 1998CA-002977. Judge Kornstein, without subject matter jurisdiction granted Stewart Title Guaranty a foreclosure/equitable lien judgment against Appellants.

Ironically, the Damrons fraudulently conveyed Appellants’ property to Stewart Title Guaranty Company without a court order then Judge Kornstein permitted Stewart Title Guaranty Company to subsequently, shockingly and fraudulently foreclose on Appellants without a mortgage and without the Damrons, Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis as parties. Judge Kornstein lacked jurisdiction over the real property and the Damrons when he dismissed the Damrons, the fraudulent mortgagors/owners who fraudulently conveyed the property to Stewart Title pending litigation.
Judge Kornstein committed “fraud upon the court” when he dismissed Damron Construction, Allen Damron, Debra Damron, Stewart Title of Polk, Elaine P. Canady and Edith F. Rewis from the de-consolidated/consolidated Case No.: 1998CA-002977 while purporting that it was consolidated and interrelated with Cases Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-001152 traveling in separate files.
The DAMRONS and Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s conspired and agree to
17
co-fraudulently conveyed Appellants’ property on April 14, 2004 without a court order. Judge Kornstein and Stewart Title fraudulently pretended that it had a foreclosure/equitable lien action against Appellants. On May 14, 2004, Judge Kornstein fabricated a Trial Order with fabricated findings to stigmatize Appellants to justify a fraudulent foreclosure. The Trial Order’s fabrication were not based on consolidated, interrelated parties, issues and claims that were noticed, alleged, pled and litigated by Appellants and the consolidated interrelated non-governmental Appellees.

Judge Kornstein granted different, contradictory, fraudulent judgments against Appellants in Case Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977 while contradictorily representing that the three interrelated lawsuits were de-consolidated/consolidated.
On June 14, 2005, Judge Artiglierre granted an Order on Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration over the non-governmental Appellees objections. Judge Artiglierre’s Order overturned Judge Kornstein’s contradictory severance/consolidation and fraudulent judgments and re-consolidated the interrelated lawsuits or case.

On June 5, 2005 and September 10, 2010, Appellants commenced new federal complaints before the state court’s consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case has been litigated or ended. The state court’s docket record conclusively proves that the consolidated, interrelated state court proceedings did not and have not ended. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration in Case No.: 1998CA-001152 re-consolidated the consolidated, interrelated case with Cases Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977. Judge Artiglierre’s Order overruled and made void the two fraudulent judgments
18
granted in the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated split lawsuits’ scheme. The judgments were not based on the merits of the consolidated interrelated parties, facts, issues, transactions, claims and causes of actions that had been noticed, alleged and pled by the consolidated interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
On September 12, 2008, the non-governmental Appellees filed a fraudulent cross-appeal of Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order re-consolidated the interrelated lawsuits or parties and issues over the Appellees objections.
Subsequent to Judge Artiglierre’s Order that re-consolidated the interrelated lawsuits, Judge Alcott committed ‘fraud upon the court” when he aborted Judge Artiglierre’s Order and reverted back to imposing Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, split lawsuits’ scheme to deprive Appellants due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
On November 19, 2009 and December 03, 2009, Judge Alcott committed “fraud upon the court” when he granted Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis a fraudulent summary and final judgment based on purported collateral estoppel. Judge Alcott wholly relied on Judge Kornstein’s “confusing” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory” fraudulent, severed/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme. Collateral Estoppel does not lie when parties and issues are severed/de-consolidated and dismissed based on the pretext of being different, un-identical or un-related. Judge Alcott granted Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis judgments to benefit them for fraud.
19
Judge Alcott granted collateral estoppel based on Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, un-related/interrelated,
de-consolidated/consolidated, lawsuits’ scheme. Judge Kornstein de-consolidated the consolidated, interrelated lawsuits based on the pretext of being different, or un-related lawsuits. Judge Alcott in Case No.: 1998CA-001152 fraudulently granted collateral estoppel, a summary and final judgment to Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis who were dismissed as parties in Cases Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977.
The Appellees conspired and agreed to keep the case in a permanent state of confusion, internal contradictions, and fraud to prevent Appellants from progressing or prosecuting Appellants indisputable claims or causes of action. The governmental Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud to obstruct Appellants from being granted relief based on a void ab initio quit-claim and special warranty deed procured by the interrelated non-governmental Appellees’ conspiracy and fraud.

The Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud and “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of relief, life, reputation, job, real and personal property, without due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
The Appellees imposed Judge Kornstein’s“confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, relief and free speech in state and federal court. The litigation of the consolidated, interrelated parties and issues were obstructed by the Appellees’ fraud.
20

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Appellants Mickens arguments on appeal are summarized in two statements.
First, pursuant to Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Schafe, Appellants commenced and filed Appellants prior and present federal complaints before the state court proceedings can be lawfully ended in the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme and the un-litigated consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated lawsuits or case, therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine do not bar the District Court Judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction against the non-governmental and governmental Appellees.

Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine do not bar the District Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction based on the reason asserted in Argument I and the fact that the governmental Appellees are not entitled to judicial/absolute or qualified immunities because the state court judges and the constitutional officer conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court,” treason against the Constitution without subject-matter jurisdiction. The constitutional officers lost the protection of their qualified immunity when they intentionally, recklessly, wantonly, shockingly, negligently and fraudulently violated well established statutory laws and constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech based on race. The State Attorney conspired and agreed in his role as an investigator with his subordinate investigators and the other Appellees to deprive Appellants of life, real and personal property, reputation and job in violation of well established statutory laws and Appellants’ constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech, based on race. .

21
ARGUMENTS I
THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE DISMISSED APPELLANTS PRIOR AND PRESENT COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES FOR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER FELDMAN DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court clarified in Exxon Mobile that the state court must have rendered judgment before the district court proceedings commenced. In explaining the scope of Rooker-Feldman, Exxon Mobile clarified that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name.” Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517. In saying so, the Supreme Court limited the Rooker-Feldman doctrines to its roots—the unique facts of the Rooker and Feldman cases.

After Exxon Mobile, however, the relevant inquiry is not whether the Rooker Feldman doctrine applies to state trial court judgments but whether the entry of judgment in a state trial court marks the end of state proceedings for purposes of Rooker-Feldman. In Exxon Mobile, a unanimous Supreme Court warned the lower courts that they had extended Rooker-Feldman far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases.

In Nicholson v. Shafe, cited as 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) this Court heeded the Supreme Court warning by confining the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to instances where the state proceedings have ended, in line with both the Rooker and Feldman cases. A year after Exxon Mobile, the Supreme Court referred to it as a “limited doctrine.” See Lance, 546 U.S. at 464, 126 S.Ct. 1198 (“Neither Rooker nor Feldman elaborated a rationale for a wide-reaching bar on the jurisdiction of lower
22
federal courts, and our cases since Feldman have tended to emphasize the narrowness of the Rooker-Feldman rule”) After all, “[s]ince Feldman, [the Supreme Court] has never applied Rooker-Feldman to dismiss an action for want of jurisdiction.” Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. at 287, 125 S.Ct. 1517.

The 7th Circuit stated “ a decision produced by “fraud upon the court” is not in essence a decision at all, and never become final.” “Fraud upon the Court” make void the orders and judgments of that court.” “It is also clear and well-settled that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. (The maxin, “that fraud vituates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions’). “When any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court,” the orders and judgments of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.”

The Supreme Court has also held “that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.” “Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.” Justice Doyles, “if (federal judges) breaks the law, they can be prosecuted.” Justice Black, “Judges, like other people, can be tried and convicted and punished for crimes. “When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are not voidable, but void, and of no legal force or effect.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed.2d 90.

Appellants Mickens progress or prosecution of the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated, inextricably tied together state case was obstructed by the Appellees’ conspiracy to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution
23
in violation of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court,” treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of real and personal property, reputation, job and life in violation of well established statutory laws, due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.

In state court Case No.: 1998CA-001152, Judge Arttiglierre’s found that the parties and issues were interrelated and explained in his June 14, 2005, Order, how Judge Kornstein fraudulently schemed to “put Appellants in a box” or to deprive Appellants of life, liberty and property without due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech in state and federal courts. Judge Artiglierre’s footnote explained:

Judge Durrance ordered the cases consolidated on May 26, 2001, and Judge Kornstien later “clarified” that Order over Plaintiffs’ objection. See Order of Consolidation dated September 24, 2003. Regrettably, that Order does little to clarify the relationship of the cases. The Order does not sever the cases but instead appears to instruct the Clerk to maintain three separate files. The Order requires that the pleadings continues to reflect that the instant case is consolidated with 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977.

Judge Kornstein’s fraudulent schemed put the un-litigated, consolidated, interrelated case into a endless state of confusion, internal contradictions and fraud. Judge Kornstein split the consolidated, interrelated case into three fraudulent, contradictory, un-related lawsuits. He fraudulently ordered the parties to misrepresent in the pleadings that the three interrelated lawsuits were consolidated.

The fraudulent, contradictory, de-consolidated/consolidated proceedings cannot ever end or become final pursuant to Exxon Mobile and this Court’s decisions in Nicholson v. Shafe. Appellants Mickens contend that Exxon Mobile and this Court in Nicholson v. Shafe overruled, overturned and made void the District Court and this Court’s prior un-published decisions
24
in Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit, 181 Fed.Appx. 865, 872-73 (11th Cir. 2006).
WHEREFORE, Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens pray that this court reversed and remand the District Court Judge’s Final Order(s) dismissing Appellants new federal complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldmant Doctrine.

ARGUMENT II
THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE PREMATURELY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ PRESENT FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SERVED AND UN-SERVED GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE, THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT JUDICIAL AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITIES

Appellants Mickens adopt and incorporate ARGUMENT I into ARGUMENT II asserting the same reasons why the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is improper to bar the District Court Judge from exercising his subject-matter jurisdiction to grant Appellants a jury trial on Appellants’ new federal complaint against all above styled Apllellees.
. In ROWE v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Cite as 279 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002), this Court found that “conspiring to violate another person’s constitutional rights violates Section 1983.” The District Court deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, free speech and process servers fees. Appellants Mickens alleged that the state courts’ judges conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution in violation of their subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court improperly dismissed the 10th Judicial Circuit Court pursuant to Rooker-Feldman before they filed a required motion to dismiss or an answer. He improperly dismissed Appellants’ federal complaint against the 2nd DCA pursuant to
25
Rooker-Feldman before Appellants’ process server served the 2nd DCA’s. The District Court prevented the 10th Judicial Circuit, 2nd DCA and Sheriff from becoming parties.
“When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judges loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are not voidable, but void, and of no legal force or effect.” “When a judge know that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed.2d 90.
The 10th Judicial Circuit and the 2nd DCA Judges lost their judicial immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction when they conspired to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court,” and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of well established rights of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech, based on race.

Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738; Lassiter v. Ala. A&M Univ., 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir. 1994)(en banc). The State Attorney in his investigative role lost his qualified immunity, when he conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to negligently and fraudulently misrepresent that Appellants conveyed property via a quit-claim deed to Damron Construction.

The State Attorney in his investigative role conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to subject Appellants to organized, real estate, mortgage, mail and wire fraud, schemes to defraud, grand theft, false pretenses, forgery, notary crimes, conversion, false arrest, false imprisonment,
26
fraudulent conveyance, obstruction of justice, perjury, torture and RICO crimes without due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech, based on race..

The District Court improperly granted the State Attorney and the Property Appraiser 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss pursuant to Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The State Attorney as an investigator lost his qualified immunity when he conspired and agreed to violate Appellants rights to due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
The Polk County Property Appraiser conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to commit fraud to deprive Appellants of life, job, reputation, real and personal property in violation of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech based on race. The District Court misrepresented that Appellants filed two responses in opposition to the Appellees’ Motions To Dismiss. Apparently, the District Court failed to consider Appellants’ Responses in Opposition with Affidavits to the Appellees motions to dismiss.

The District Court deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech when he improperly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to prevent service of Appellants’ summon and complaint on the Polk County Sheriff. The Polk County Sheriff lost his qualified immunity when he conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to commit fraud to deprive Appellants’ of job, reputation, real and personal property without due process, equal protection, redress, free speech and statutory laws.

The governmental Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution by covering-up and subjecting Appellants to the non-governmental Appellees organize, real estate, mortgage, mail and wire fraud, scheme to defraud, grand theft, etc., to deprive Appellants of life, reputation, job, real and
27
personal property in violation of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
Pursuant to Exxon Moblie and Nicholson v. Shafe, the Supreme Court and this Court opined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was improper to bar the District
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction because the state proceeding had not and has not ended up to this date. Appellants Mickens federal complaints were commenced before the consolidated and re-consolidated interrelated case has been litigated. The Appellees conspired and agreed to abort the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case and supplanted it with a “confusing”, “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated split lawsuits’ scheme that was fashioned to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech. Clearly, judgments procured by fraud cannot ever become final judgments.

Judge Kornstein fraudulently severed/de-consolidated the three consolidated, interrelated case based on the pretext that the three consolidated, interrelated lawsuits were distinct, different or not identical in parties and issues. Judge Kornstein’s conspired to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution to obstruct the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case and to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and free speech in state and federal court.

WHEREFORE, Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens pray that this Court reverse and remand for a jury trial against all of the above styled Appellees.
CONCLUSION
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does or attempts to defile the court itself, or is a
28
fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjuding cases that are presented for adjudication. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by “fraud upon the court” is not in essence a decision at all, and never become final.” “Fraud upon the Court” make
void the orders and judgments of that court.” It is also clear and well settled that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding.

The Appellees’s conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution obstructed not completed or ended the state court’s consolidated, interrelated case, therefore pursuant to Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Shafe the Rooker-Feldman doctrine do not bar the District Court Judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The District Court and the Appellees fraudulently misrepresented that the state court’s consolidated, interrelated case or parties and issues were consolidated, litigated and adjudicated. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration exposed Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme to obstruct the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case in state and federal court.
Appellants Mickens’ consolidated, interrelated issues, claims and causes of action based on a void ab initio quit-claim deed against the interrelated non-governmental Appellees were obstructed from being litigated and adjudicated by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution without subject matter jurisdiction in state and federal court..
29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
WE CERTIFY, that this brief complies with the type volume limitation of FED R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B). WE HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY, that this brief complies with the type face requirement of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(b).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBT CERTIFY that a copy of hereof has been furnished by U.S. mail to Helen Brewer Fouse, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 501 East Kenedy Boulevard, Ste. 1100, Tampa, Florida 33602; Michael D. Martin, Attorney for Appellee, Property Appraiser, P.O. Box 367, Lakeland Florida 33802-367; Jonathan B. Trohn, Attorney for Polk County Sheriff, 1701 South Florida Avenue, P.O. Box 2369 (33806), Lakeland, Fla. 33803; Robert E. Biasotti, CARLTON FIELDS, P.A., 200 Central Ave., Suite 2300, St. Petersburg, Fla. 33701; Putnam, Creighton & Airth, P.A., Lisa Lott, P.O. Box 3545, Lakeland, Florida 33802-3545 on this _____ day of January 2011.

Respectfully Submitted

_________________________________
Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens




Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Friday, January 28, 2011

FREDERICK T. LOWE

Dear Mr. Cox!
Today is 1/7/11 the start of a new year. My friend who prefers not to be named in this e-mail and I, Clorinda Dalfo thought we had not a prayer until we just happened to see on Google the article dated 1/5/2010 which we read with great interest.
For two years my unnamed friend and I tried to communicate with our so called attorney, named FREDERICK T. LOWE out of Tampa. Not only that he took $21,000 from us but he did not have a license to file for bankruptcy in the Southern District Court which he claimed expertise and contracted to do.
I have all the documents to prove the wrong doing of this "attorney"
FREDERICK T. LOWE.
Very unfortunate for me, I was swindled by attorney FREDERICK T. LOWE, I did not know where to turn, so I filed a complaint against FREDERICK T. LOWE with the Florida Bar and The Florida Grievance Committee.
I furnished The Florida Bar with the overwhelming proofs of MR. FREDERICK T. LOWE wrong doings, under the supervision of my attorney friend, only, to get a signed letter from Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel, Attorney Consumer Assistance Progrem, dated December 22, 2010, with the shocking and unbelievable phoney explanation that my complaint narrows down to a fee dispute and The Florida Bar is not involved in fee disputes.
Annemarie Craft or The Bar is overlooking the fact that Mr. FREDERICK T. Lowe had no license or the knowledge to perform what he was contracted for.
I can go on and on with details as to how The Florida Bar and The Grievance Committee not only ignored me, but never acknowledge my attorney friend who is still in a state of shock as to the unprofessional and unbelievable way The Florida Bar and The Grievance Committee closed out on my case in made "the attorney" FREDERICK T. LOWE
in the right to take over $21,000 and not to do a thing and walk away with justice on his side and not mine.
"THIS IS JUSTICE IN THE STATE FLORIDA?"
What can I do if anything to help others to avoid corruption within our state and to see that we get justice.
My case started in 2007 with FREDERICK T. LOWE and ended in disbelief with the letter from The Florida Bar dated 12/22/10, dismissing my case. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE.?
Seeking Legal Help and Justice.
I will be glad to talk to anybody concerning justice and my case.
My phone number is 561 860-7156
Clorinda

Friday, December 10, 2010

Florida Dr. Dennison Reed Perjures Himself in Protecting Corrupt ex Proskauer Rose Attorney Christopher Wheeler as HE Steals his Grandkid

Corrupt Florida Dr. Dennison Reed Perjured himself today as Dennison Reed testified in court and convinced ALL that Dr. Dennison Reed is a Hired Thug to Cover Up the Crimes of the Christopher Wheeler Family by setting up an Ex-Wife and taking "the Kids" Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm, has special connection to commit the biggest of Crimes.

Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm had a Deadly DUI and paid off the Victim for his Silence, and used the Florida Court Connectionhe had to get NO RECORD .. no jail time and all kinds of special favors and Now Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm is uses those same corrupt Florida Court Connections to STEAL his Own Grandchildren from their mother.Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm is using Social Service, Child Protective Services and every dirty trick to make the Mother look "Crazy" and to take these kids from there mother.

Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm is a PROVEN Crook and is involved in a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft over the iViewit Technology,
while
Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm was suppose to be protecting the Iviewit Technology Inventors.

Christopher Wheeler Esq
. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm is involved in Massive Shareholder Fraud.
Christopher Wheeler Esq. is named in an SEC Complaint and a 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit.

and Now Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of Corrupt Proskauer Rose has hired a Corrupt Florida Dr. Dennison Reed to Lie about Lynn Wheeler the Ex Wife of Christopher Wheeler Esq.'s son. In order to STEAL her Children. And the Corrupt Florida CourtsPROTECT Proskauer Rose Cronies at ALL COSTS.

Dr. Dennison Reed of Florida, Flat Out Lies under Oath for Pay from Christopher Wheeler Esq. formerly of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm .



www.DeniedPatent.com
the Iviewit Stolen Technology Story
more on the Iviewit Story


posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger


Friday, December 3, 2010

Robert Krutko - Government Corruption - False Imprisonment in Florida.

"THE KRUTKO CASE: COMMERCIAL BOAT THEFT, GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN THE SUNSHINE STATE

Prologue: In Key West, Florida – At The End of the Road

I never had the opportunity to meet Robert Krutko although over the past four years I have spoken with him hundreds of times. I thought the story he related to me merited a book and told him so on many occasions. Although he agreed, it was left to me to edit this report from an untidy pile of e-mails. .

On Veterans Day 2010, my wife, her sister, and friends were enjoying drinks on a late fall afternoon in Sloppy Joe’s Bar in downtown Key West as passengers from the Bahamian-flag cruise ship M/V Carnival Fascination out of Jacksonville when sirens sounded, motorcycle engines roared, and police cleared the streets in advance of the city’s Veterans Day parade.
The parade was impressive for a town of its size – 25,478.

Marchers from Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard units, and just about every other conceivable organization including the Veterans organizations, High School, Fire Department, Sheriffs Department, Girl Scouts, Knights of Columbus, ROTC, the Red Cross with marching bands, fire trucks, police units, floats, towed rescue boats and unique vehicles of every description marched through the crowds packing the sidewalks on the main street – Duval Street – in a tribute to our nation’s veterans.

It was a marvelous display of patriotism and civic pride from small-town America for some 5,000 passengers and crew from the two foreign-flag cruise ships in port for the day. Alongside the passing parade, the cash registers were ringing in dozens of local bars, souvenir stores, and tourist attractions – a real Chamber of Commerce extravaganza for this town that capitalizes on its local history fed by the frenzy of the tourist industry.

However, there is a much darker side to Key West for those who drive U.S. Route 1 south the hundred or so miles from Florida City to Key West. Almost the entire route passes through the “Conch Republic” – a.k.a. Monroe County – that still manages to be an empire all to itself although nominally a part of the United States of America. As you drive south as we did in May 2009 from a TSAC meeting in the American Maritime Officers’ school in Dania, FL, you are aware that there is only one highway into and out of Key West.

This is a story of what happened literally “at the “end of the road” at Zero Duval Street, the end of U.S. Highway 1. This is America’s first federal numbered highway running from Calais, ME on the Canadian Border through New York, Washington, Miami and on to the tip of Key West. I regret that this story will not make the citizens of Key West proud of some of their citizens or public officials in the City of Key West, Monroe County, or the state of Florida.

This story has three parts that I will try to keep as separate as possible. The allegations in each part of this story cry out for justice. It is our role to bring attention of our readers to the facts as we see them. In doing so, we will exercise our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press. However, it will be up to attorneys to argue the merits of each case.

— Part 1 – Theft of the Reef Cat owned by Robert and Laura Krutko’s Corporation.

— Part 2 – City of Key West Damages Krutko’s Business by Selective Enforcement of City Ordinances.

— Part 3 – The Conspiracy Leading to Robert Krutko’s False Imprisonment.

Background of Our Association’s Involvement

Our Association speaks to the concerns of approximately 126,000 “limited tonnage” merchant mariners who serve on small passenger vessels, uninspected passenger vessels, tugs, towboats, oilfield supply vessels and other workboats. We are a voluntary membership association supported by dues and donations of our members.

We are not and never have been a labor union although we welcome participation of union members in our activities open to all mariners. We also welcome small vessel owners and operators as this report indicates.

On Feb. 3, 2007 our Association received a call from Mr. Robert Krutko, the owner of a small passenger vessel that had operated out of a marina at Zero Duval Street in Key West, Florida.

In a 154-minute phone conversation, Robert explained how his boat, that represented his life’s savings, had been stolen, burned but not destroyed, and then sold illegally. Robert lost his homes in Florida and Ohio as a result of his business’ failure and turned his full attention to recovering his assets using the only tools available to him. As a result, he would learn many hard lessons, some of which we will relate in this report.

The story Robert told was incredible, and he asked if our Association could help him in any possible way. With my past experience in owing commercial vessels and understanding our Association’s inability to dispense legal advice, I suggested that Robert hire a good admiralty attorney. Since his boat was a Coast Guard-Inspected small passenger vessel, I suggested that he work through the Coast Guard Documentation Office in Falling Waters, West Virginia, and the Seventh Coast Guard District in Miami. Based on this and other conversations, I contacted various Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security officials.

Following our advice, Robert contacted a number of attorneys. However, since his stolen boat represented his “nest egg,” this left him with the task of finding an attorney who would handle his case on a “contingent-fee” basis.

PART 1 – THEFT OF THE REEF CAT

Incredible – But is it True?
Robert’s story was incredible, but the question we had to answer before taking the first step was: “Is it true?
Our Association hears dozens of stories from commercial mariners on a wide variety of subjects as our 73 Newsletters and 229 reports clearly show. Certainly Robert’s story was unique. We are not lawyers (although a number of our members are), nor are we investigators. We do not want to be in the position of publishing something that is false or misleading. |

From the beginning, I noted that Robert did a great deal of telephoning and was a skilled and talented user of the internet. He used his skills to obtain information from public officials at all levels of government. Although it was clear that a crime had been committed, most of the authorities he contacted were not interested in investigating the matter. Robert also contacted dozens of attorneys seeking their assistance.

Their names fill my telephone records. He contacted many different branches of Florida state government not only at the local level but in the state capital at Tallahassee and in offices throughout the state. He spoke to dozens of officials in the City of Key West and in Monroe County. He also spoke with a number of Coast Guard officials. The overwhelming response from these government officials was to cover their tracks. Robert kept our Association informed although there was little we could do for him without verification.

Our Association regularly comments upon news events that concern our mariners – in this case, small passenger vessels or “T-boats.” I also edit and publish the T-Boat Handbook (ISBN 1-933186-18-6) that explains the rules and regulations that govern small passenger vessels and write the textbooks and taught the license preparation course for Small Passenger Vessel officers.

I have operated these vessels with a Coast Guard license since 1955. There are approximately 6,000(1) small passenger vessels in U.S. waters operated by our “limited tonnage” mariners. [(1) Proceedings of the Marine Safety Council, Jan-Mar. 2002.]
The fact that Robert’s story was picked up by a local journalist in the Florida Keys boosted the credibility of those things that Robert passed on to me through March 2007.

AN OUTSTANDING LOCAL NEWSPAPER REPORT SUMMARIZED THE THEFT

[Source: Article by Dennis Reeves Cooper, Ph.D., Editor, Key West – The Newspaper (KWTN). NMA comments added.]

In October 2006, Kevin McCarthy, a commercial boat operator from of Amelia Island (in northeast Florida), drove down to Key West to look at a 45-foot boat being offered for sale by the Ocean Key House Resort. He looked at the boat, talked to a broker and was ready to offer the asking price of $110,000.

Then he learned that the hotel was planning to auction off the boat. So he checked with hotel General Manager Steve Boswell and the hotel’s attorney, Alan Eckstein.

“I wanted to make sure that the hotel really owned the boat,” McCarthy told Key West the Newspaper (KWTN) this week. “They told me that they had taken possession of the boat after the owner had defaulted on his dockage payments.”

So McCarthy authorized his broker to bid on the boat – and he got it for $71,000. And he got a purchase sales agreement from Attorney Eckstein.
McCarthy motored the boat up to Islamorada and left it there for 10 days for cleaning and servicing. Then he and his wife returned to the Keys to take the boat up to Amelia Island.
“We were nearing Miami when both engines quit on us,” he said. “And while we were waiting on a tow, I got a call on my cell phone from Robert Krutko, who identified himself as the former owner of the boat. He told me, ‘You are on my stolen vessel.’

“He said that the Ocean Key House had stolen the boat from him and had illegally resold it,” McCarthy said.

“I didn’t know what to think, so while we were being towed to Miami, I called Attorney Eckstein. He reassured me that everything was okay. Then I checked with a Miami maritime lawyer recommended by the towboat driver. After listening to my story, he told me that I had probably bought a stolen boat.”

McCarthy said he had already made arrangements for extensive servicing in Ft. Lauderdale, so he had the boat towed there and, back home, consulted with another maritime lawyer in Jacksonville.

“He agreed with the Miami lawyer and, after some more research, he wrote Eckstein a letter demanding that they return my $71,000,” McCarthy said. “It took them a couple of weeks, but they finally sent me the money.”

Last December, the Ocean Key House sued Krutko in federal court, alleging that he owes the hotel more than $60,000 in dockage fees. Krutko has counter sued, alleging grand theft.
Krutko said that, in June of 2005, he and his wife bought an existing sunset cruise and snorkeling business based at the Ocean Key House Resort marina.

The deal included the boat.

“We were paying $3,000 per month for dockage on a month-to-month basis,” he said. “But we soon learned that we were losing thousands of dollars because the concierges at the hotel were referring business to our competitors. I complained to General Manager Boswell and he promised to put a stop to it. But nothing changed.”

Then, the hurricanes of September and October 2005 blew through, and many of the docks and walkways at the hotel were destroyed.

“The hotel had ordered all boats out of the marina before the storms but, after Wilma, we were allowed to return because our slip was intact,” Krutko said. “But we were not required to pay rent for a couple of months because the marina was not operational.”
But by December, when the walkways in the marina had been repaired, he and his wife had decided to move the boat, put it up for sale and move on.

“But Boswell begged us to stay, even offering six months free rent because of the storms and the problems the concierges had caused us,” Krutko said. “But the problem never got any better.”
So, a few days before the six-month free rent deal expired, Krutko said that he had an employee move the boat out of the hotel marina, up to his home on a canal on Cudjoe Key, 23 miles away.
“But it was decided that there wasn’t enough room to put the boat at my dock, so he anchored it out in the bay,” Krutko said.

But, the next day, the boat was missing, and Krutko filed a theft report with the Sheriff’s Office. Deputies reported that a call had come in from a neighbor who said the boat was adrift and that he had called the Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC).

An FWC officer found the boat and a Sea Tow boat showed up at the same time. Then a call came in from the Ocean Key House. Hotel officials reportedly told the officer that the boat had broken loose in the marina and that it should be returned to the hotel.

“Incredibly, the FWC officer released the boat to the hotel, rather than having it towed to a secure location until the owner could be found,” Krutko said. “It didn’t seem to occur to the officer to question how the boat could have ‘drifted’ from the Ocean Key House to a location 23 miles up the Keys!”

A Sheriff’s deputy reportedly later found the boat chained to the dock at the hotel marina. Upon questioning, hotel employees reportedly told the deputy that the hotel had a lien on the boat, but they could not produce any paperwork to support that claim.

“The Sheriff not only bought that bogus claim, a deputy called me and told me it was now a civil matter,” Krutko said.

Not long after that, the hotel sold the boat to Kevin McCarthy.

McCarthy said that, even though the hotel returned his purchase price to him, he is still out thousands of dollars for other expenses associated with buying and moving the boat. “I am watching Robert’s lawsuit against the hotel,” he said. “When he wins his suit, I’m next in line.”
Krutko calls the hotel’s lawsuit “outrageous”.
“They are even suing for dockage fees during the time, after the storms, when the hotel didn’t have any docks.” he said.
He said he is also disappointed in State Attorney Mark Kohl, who refused to accept his grand theft complaint against the hotel. “Why can’t he see grand theft when it’s staring him right in the face?”
While the lawyers wrangle, the boat remains in the custody of federal marshals in a Ft. Lauderdale marina, continuing to run up dockage bills.

[NMA Comment: This story is both interesting and on-going. The Coast Guard Documentation Office refused to document the vessel without a clear title. However, local Coast Guard investigators still refused to investigate the theft and damage to the boat by arson. The Coast Guard apparently avoided explaining why they have jurisdiction yet refuse to investigate. Even the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General found serious shortcomings in Coast Guard “investigations.” See NMA Report #R-429-M.]

[NMA Comment: Months after Kevin McCarthy purchased Krutko’s “Reef Cat” at Eckstein’s illegal auction, Robert finally contacted McCarthy and only then learned his boat was damaged by fire while in Ocean Key Resort’s care and custody at Key West. Although the fire was investigated as arson, not a single city, county, or state officer contacted Robert to let him know his property had burned.]

Further Verification
A licensed and bonded Florida yacht broker, who – for privacy reasons – we will identify only as Mariner #148 was contacted by Robert who had asked the Florida Yacht Brokers Association Members for assistance. Mariner #148 investigated the matter in depth and quickly determined that Robert's story was credible.

His report (below) convinced us that Robert’s story as reported in the newspaper essentially was true. The broker submitted his formal written report to Robert who passed it along to our Association. His report, presented with his permission, follows:

Definitions
FS 326.006 "Broker" means a person, who for or in expectation of compensation: sells, offers, or negotiates to sell; buys, offers or negotiates to buy; solicits or obtains listings of; or negotiates the purchase, sale, or exchange of, yachts for other persons.

FS 328.17 Non Judicial Sale of Vessels: Although The State of Florida provides for a non-judicial sale of a vessel for non-payment of fees, there would need to be proof of such fees. In this case, Complainant Krutko claims that “No written lease agreement” existed and therefore any seizure under FS 328.17 would not be valid.

Findings
This case is being presented on behalf of Robert and Laura Krutko / "Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc". and Captain Kevin McCarthy of "Amelia River Cruises and Cumberland Sound Ferry Services," who have been victimized on multiple levels as a result of the failures of Florida Law Enforcement Officials, Private Citizens, Private Attorneys, the State of Florida Legal System, and the United States Federal Legal System, some of whom have systematically engaged in what appears to be inattention to facts, ineptness, illegal acts, neglect, official misconduct, cover up and outright deceit.

The facts are as follows:

1. May 10, 2005 - Laura Krutko acquires 1989 "Corinthian" Reef Cat, HIN: KR145008E989 along with purchase of Florida Corporation "Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc.

2. May 10, 2005 – May 31, 2006 "Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc., operated out of "Ocean Key Resort," Zero Duval Street, Key West Florida, until 31 May 2006, where the above "Corinthian" was docked with no written dockage agreement between "Ocean Key Resort" and "Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc." It should be especially noted that following the devastation caused by the storms/Hurricanes of 2005, it has been reported that dockage agreements that had been in place were suspended by the Ocean Key Resort due to the fact that the docks were impassable and business had declined.

3. July 13, 2005 - USCG DOC#: 948314 in effect for "Reef Snorkeling Adventures Inc."

4. 13 April 2006 – “Reef Snorkeling Adventures Inc.” gives Central Listing to United Yacht Sales" Peter Schmidt, Broker of record, Randy Rode listing broker for above "Corinthian".

5. 31 May 2006 –“Reef Snorkeling Adventures Inc. employee Andrew Porter relocates above "Corinthian" to Cudjoe Key Bay, from "Ocean Key Resort" anchoring same until a dock can be located after it was determined that the vessel would not fit behind the Cudjoe Key, Florida residence of the Krutko family.

6. 31 May 2006 – Melvin Herlehey, an Engineering Technician who works on the Key West Navy Base calls authorities after, being notified by his wife that the above described "Corinthian" was dragging its anchor and drifting close too his dock.

7. 31 May 2006 /1406 HRS Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Law Enforcement Officer Seth Wingard is dispatched to the scene.

8. 31 May 2006 – Melvin Herlehey, after being advised by one of the responders to the scene, that the boat had been observed docked at "the Ocean Key Resort Marina," and to assist FWC officer Wingard, he calls "the Ocean Key Resort" and speaks to manager Steven Boswell. Mr. Herlehey was transferred to a Mr. John Evans, and believes after speaking with John Evans, who related a story of how one of his disgruntled employees had taken the boat, that John Evans was in fact the vessel's owner.

9. 31 May 2006 – Steven Boswell solicits John Evans who has a marine business at the "Ocean Key Resort" to respond to Cudjoe Key Bay and retrieve "Corinthian". Mr. Evans later submits a bill for services rendered to the vessel, including the time he spent retrieving the vessel, even though he possessed no written court order or repossession licensing.

10. 31 May 2006 – John Evan arrives at the Cudjoe Key Bay and falsely identifies himself to Officer Wingard as the vessel's owner. After hot-wiring the vessel, Mr. Evans leaves with the vessel.

11. 31 May 2006 – Andrew Porter at the direction of Robert Krutko, files a stolen vessel report with the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, case #MCSO06OFF005101.

12. 13 October 2006 – Captain McCarthy goes to the Marathon Boat and Yachts Office in Marathon, Fl. and speaks with United Yacht Sales, Salesperson/Broker Lawrence Pirritino and expressed and interest in the Corinthian.

13. 13 October 2006 - Captain McCarthy views vessel at the Ocean Key Resort and advises Salesperson/Broker Pirritino that he is interested in the boat. Broker Pirritino writes up a "Purchase and Sales agreement,” with no purchase price filled in, which he gives to Captain McCarthy to take with him.

14. 17 October 2006 - Key West Florida attorney Alan Eckstein allows the vessel to be auctioned and sold, under Florida State Statute 328.17 after seizing the vessel under Florida State Statute for what he claimed were outstanding dockage fees owed by "Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc." to "The Ocean Key Resort", although and still to this day Mr. Krutko, reports that no written lease existed between "The Ocean Key Resort" and "Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc." and that he was a month to month tenant and owes no money.

15. 17 October 2006 - At the auction/sale, in absentia, Captain Kevin McCarthy is represented by Salesperson Broker Lawrence Pirritino. It has been reported that the broker of record at United Yacht Sales, Peter Schmidt, had advised his Salesperson/Broker, Pirritino, that he could not represent the client, Captain McCarthy, under the United Yacht Sale, Inc. umbrella and would have to do it on his own.

16. 17 October 2006 - It was also related that Lawrence Pirritino, who according to Captain McCarthy was acting as his Broker, successfully bids for the Corinthian on behalf of Captain McCarthy. Even though the opening bid was $61,000.00 and Lawrence Pirritino may have been the only bidder, he raised the bid to $71,000.00 and was awarded the vessel on behalf of his client. In the sale agreement, apparently prepared by Attorney Alan Eckstein, Lawrence Pirritino was referred to as "Broker," again substantiating that he was acting in the capacity of a "Broker" for his client Captain McCarthy during the auction/sale/negotiating process.

17. 06 November 2006 - Captain McCarthy wires broker Lawrence Pirritino a ten percent commission of $7,100.00 to Broker Pirritino to c/o "Fin and Fly Marine," as instructed. At that time, it would appear that Lawrence Pirritino acted in the sale of a vessel; received a commission for the sale, and if he was not operating under the umbrella of United Yacht Sales, Inc. would have needed his own State of Florida Broker's License, as well as the appropriate Escrow account, etc due the fact that as far as Captain McCarty was concerned Lawrence Pirritino was acting on his behalf as a licensed broker and was paid for same.

If it could be concluded that Lawrence Pirritino was improperly instructed by his Broker of Record, Peter Schmidt to work on his own, and if it could be construed that as such, Salesperson/Broker Pirritino was still operating under the auspices of United Yacht Sales, Inc, then one would have to wonder if in fact, United Yacht Sales, Inc., would have to assume responsibility for their Salesperson/Broker Perritino and have taken control of the funds sent in as commission by client Captain Kevin McCarthy.

18. 16 November 2006 - Captain McCarthy, while en route from the Keys to Amelia Island with the Corinthian, was boarded in Ft. Lauderdale, where and when it was determined by local law enforcement personnel, that the paperwork he possessed for the vessel was improper. He agreed to berth the boat in Ft. Lauderdale at Firstt Performance Marine, until the paperwork could be sorted.

19. 28 November 2006 – Captain McCarthy's Jacksonville, Florida Attorney Howard T. Sutter transmits a Letter to attorney Alan Eckstein demanding that Captain McCarthy's $71,000.00 is returned and "Re-delivery of Vessel."

20. 01 December 2006 - Captain McCarthy's $71,000.00 was returned by Attorney Alan Eckstein. Salesperson/Broker Lawrence Pirritino agreed to return his commission, which he did by making payments over the next year.

21. Following the failed attempt to reclaim his vessel, Robert Krutko learned that on behalf of "Seaboard Associates Limited Partnership" (Ocean Key Resort), Ft. Lauderdale attorney, Robert D. McIntosh, filed for and received a U.S. Department of Justice United States Marshals’ Service order #0:07-cv-60001-JEM Document 11 and the vessel was subsequently seized and later auctioned off. It was reported that attorney Robert D. McIntosh on behalf of his client, "Seaboard Associates Limited Partnership" acquired the vessel at auction for $10,000.00.

Robert Krutko explained that at that point he was too ill and had no funds to stop the sale of the vessel by the U.S. Marshals Service. However, Robert did file a response pro se (in his own name) to the Federal court and a counter suit in federal court. Judge Martinez ruled the suit could not move forward because the “Reef Cat” was owned by the Krutko’s Florida corporation and would have to be represented in court by legal counsel.

Case Overview
Per the sale agreement dated May 10, 2005, Laura Krutko (acting as President) purchased Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc., a Florida Corporation which included a 1989 "Corinthian" 45' Reef Cat, catamaran.(1) . Following the purchase and until May 31, 2006, the vessel was docked at the Ocean Key Resort Marina, located a Zero Duval Street, Key West, Florida, during which time, the vessel was used as a commercial dive/cruise boat. [(1)USCG DOC# 948314/July 13, 2006, HIN: KR145008E989.]

According to Robert Krutko, he had a verbal agreement with the marina owners as to dockage and due to loss of business following Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina, along with personal health issues decided to sell the boat.

The boat was subsequently centrally listed with United Yacht Sales, (Broker of Record Peter Schmidt, in April of 2006 by Salesperson/Broker Randall Rode.

On May 31, 2006, at about 11:00 hours, Andrew Porter, who was an employee of the Krutkos, went to the Ocean Key Marina to retrieve the vessel. He then relocated it to the Krutko's residence on Cudjoe Key, 23 miles from Key West, where it would remain while for sale. Mr. Krutko related that Andrew Porter determined upon arrival to the canal where the Krutko home was located, that the vessel was, in fact, too large to fit behind the residence without causing a navigation problem to other vessels in the area. Subsequently Mr. Porter anchored the vessel in the Cudjoe Key Bay, until another location for the boat could be located.

Due to strong winds, the vessel's anchorage was compromised, and the vessel began drifting towards the residence of Mr. Melvin Herlehey, an Engineering Technician, who works at the U.S. Navy Base, Key West. When Mr. Herlehey's wife notified him of the situation, he responded to the scene and subsequently contacted the authorities. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Law Enforcement Officer Seth Wingard, was dispatched to the scene and according to dispatch records arrived on scene at 15:06:28 hours, May 31, 2006. Note, this was documented in a photograph, showing a "Tow Boat US" was also on the scene at that time.
In an effort to assist, Mr. Herlehy contacted the Ocean Key Resort after being informed by one of the responders at the Cudjoe Key Bay scene, that the vessel had been observed at the Ocean Key Resort Marina in the past. Mr. Herlehey called the Ocean Key Resort and apparently spoke to a manager, Mr. Stephen Boswell, inquiring about the boat's owner. Mr. Boswell transferred the call to Mr. John Evans who advised Mr. Herlehey that a disgruntled employee had taken HIS boat and he was very happy that Mr. Herlehey had called him. Mr. Herlehey was under the impression that Mr. Evans was the owner of the vessel after that telephone conversation.
Apparently, manager Boswell authorized Mr. John Evans to go to the scene and retrieve the vessel.

Mr. Evans, who apparently rented space at the marina as well, and had no ownership interest in the Corinthian, responded to the scene by boat, accompanied by an unknown person. Upon his arrival, he apparently convincingly identified himself as the boat’s lawful owner to Officer Wingard. Without furnishing any proof of lawful ownership of the vessel, he was allowed to take the boat, which he did, after hot-wiring the engines’ ignitions, which should have been viewed as an immediate red flag as to Mr. Evan's claim of ownership.

This is a crucial element, because if Officer Wingard had in fact substantiated that Mr. Evans was not, in fact, the owner of the vessel and further had not allowed him to take the vessel, this complaint would probably not been necessary. It is this key element which is paramount to the next series of events which prohibited the Krutko family from retaining their vessel. It should be noted that later that night, on 31 May 2006, per the request of Mr. Krutko, Andrew Porter reported the vessel as stolen to the Monroe County Sheriff's Office.(1) [(1)MCSO Case# 06CAD053621.]

Mr. Evans returned the vessel to Ocean Key Resort and was subsequently paid over $4,000.00 after submitting a bill to the resort for repossessing the boat and providing other services. After the boat was returned to the resort marina, and with the assistance of Key West Attorney, Alan Eckstein, a sale of the vessel was orchestrated on behalf of the Ocean Key Resort. The vessel was sold to a Captain Kevin McCarthy of Amelia Island, Florida, who purchased the vessel in good faith from the sale/auction on or about Oct. 17, 2006, for $71,000.00.
Mr. McCarthy was not present at the auction/sale, but was, in fact, represented by United Yacht Sales Salesperson/Broker Lawrence Pirrentino. Pirrentino, it was later learned, was advised by Peter Schmidt, the Broker of Record, that he would have to act on his own for the sale and not run the paperwork through United Yacht Sales.

Note again, that the Krutko's vessel was centrally listed for sale with United Yacht Sales approximately seven months earlier and, prior to this auction/sale, was still currently listed as their broker at the time of the sale. This would mean that the Krutko’s own brokerage also would represent a buyer for the very same boat. However the Krutkos notified the brokerage firm months before that the boat had been stolen! It should also be noted that United Yacht Sales Salesperson/Broker Lawrence Pirritino did, in fact, receive a commission for representing the buyer, Captain Kevin McCarthy, during this sale, which he subsequently agreed to return after it was agreed that Attorney Alan Eckstein had improperly sold the vessel to Captain McCarthy. Krutko later exposed Pirrentino on the internet, and the broker settled with him privately.

On Nov. 16, 2006, after taking possession of the vessel and incurring repair expenses, Captain McCarthy was boarded in Ft. Lauderdale by the U.S. Coast Guard and local law enforcement personnel while on his journey north to Amelia Island from the Keys. According to Captain McCarthy, it was determined by law enforcement officials that Captain McCarthy had not received appropriate sale documentation allowing him to legally take possession of the vessel, and it was suggested that he leave the boat at a local marina until he could contact an attorney and address the issue as to whether or not the boat had been legally purchased by him. The boat was left at First Performance Marina in Ft. Lauderdale on a per diem basis by Captain McCarthy.

Captain McCarthy then retained Attorney Howard T. Sutter, a Jacksonville, FL, attorney. Mr. Sutter successfully negotiated with Mr. Eckstein to return Captain McCarthy's money, less significant repair and storage expenses, after he argued that Attorney Eckstein improperly orchestrated the auction/sale and allowed the Krutko's Coast Guard documented and inspected vessel, to be purchased improperly pursuant to a Florida state statute.(1) At this point we now have another victim; Captain Kevin McCarthy! [(1)FS 328.17, which state statute, in his stated legal opinion, was clearly superseded by 46 U.S. Code §31307 and §31342 in establishing maritime liens.]
Following that event, a Federal Marshal Arrest was placed against the vessel with the assistance of a Ft. Lauderdale attorney, Mr. Robert D. McIntosh, working on behalf of the Ocean Key Resort. McIntosh also filed with the court and was granted permission for his client to be able to purchase boat at auction. The boat was subsequently auctioned and was purchased for around $10,000.00 by attorney McIntosh on behalf of the Ocean Key Resort. The boat was then sold by the resort and is now owned by Sea Experiences Charters, Inc., 801 Seabreeze Blvd., in Ft. Lauderdale.

At the time of the U.S. Marsha’s auction/sale, Mr. Krutko was too ill to interact with Federal authorities in an effort to fight the sale, nor did he have the financial ability to hire an attorney.

Mr. Krutko made numerous complaints to authorities, to no avail.

He complained to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, the Key West Police Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office, the Assistant State Attorney's Office in Monroe County, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Florida Department of Business Professional Regulation, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and others.. In his words – “Nobody gave a damn.”

The Krutko family has suffered on numerous levels, mentally, morally, financially and physically.

In addition, Captain McCarthy, an innocent boat buyer ran up considerable expenses and has still not been made whole.

Facts and Actions That Call for Review
Many of the decisions that were made in this case were based on a false assumption that the Ocean Key Resort's Key West Attorney, Alan Eckstein, had followed proper procedure in attempting to seize the Reef Snorkeling Adventures Inc.Corinthian Reef Cat under Florida Statute 328.17. In retrospect, it seems apparent that attorney Eckstein's seizure and subsequent auction/sale was in fact ill conceived and improperly executed.

Once it was determined that attorney Eckstein had erred, should the authorities who were misled to think that the Corinthian had been properly repossessed by John Evans and subsequently seized and sold by Alan Eckstein and his Ocean Key Resort client, have filed criminal charges on those responsible for each illegal act?

Has the initial act of allowing John Evans to take possession of the Corinthian tainted this case from the onset to the present day? Did the failure of authorities to rectify these mistakes, in the eyes of the aggrieved parties, result in justice being denied?

1. Did FWC Officer Wingard fail to properly follow up the case and seek criminal charges against John Evans for misrepresenting himself as the owner of the Corinthian, hot-wiring same, and removing same without permission of the lawful owner or the proper authorization including a State of Florida Repossession License?

It may also be of importance to check to see if Officer Wingard completed any type of investigative report as may have been required by the policies and procedures of his department. Note: John Evans billed and apparently received compensation for the recovery of the Corinthian.

2. Should charges be considered against Ocean Key Resort manager Steven Boswell for his role in a scheme to defraud "Reef Snorkeling Adventures Inc." ultimately resulting in their loss of the vessel, as well as Captain Kevin McCarthy's loss?

3. After the Monroe County Sheriff's Office was notified of the illegal seizure of the vessel, did they fail to take the appropriate action, which resulted in an improper seizure by their local attorney Alan Eckstein and his subsequent improper auction/sale and transfer of the Corinthian to innocent victim, Captain Kevin McCarthy?

Did their failure to take appropriate action result in losses for both Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc. and Captain Kevin McCarthy? Did the inaction of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office result in John Evans getting away with misrepresenting his ownership of the vessel, and taking property that did not belong to him? John Evans received a fee for retrieving the vessel although he had no court order or repossession authority?

4. Key West Attorney Alan Eckstein, for his role in improperly seizing and auctioning for sale the Corinthian, the ownership of which was transferred improperly to Captain Kevin McCarthy, resulted in Reef Snorkeling Adventures Inc. loss of their vessel as well as the ultimate loss of around $20,000.00 by Capt. Kevin McCarthy.

5. Should charges be considered against Broker Lawrence Pirritino/Fin and Fly Marine for his role in the representation of buyer Captain Kevin McCarthy in the sale of the Corinthian and his demand for and receipt of a $7,100.00 commission, without having his own brokerage license and escrow account, if it is found that Lawrence Pirritino was illegally acting outside the scope of his or a valid State of Florida Yacht and Ship Brokers License?

An "Investigative Report" (Case#: 2007 03 8311) was completed by Louise Sokol, Investigation Specialist 1 and Victoria Bedford of The Yacht & Ship Section, the investigators on behalf of victim/complainant Robert Krutko, regarding United Yacht Sales and the brokers involved. Concentrating on just the actions of broker Lawrence Pirritino, in Capt. McCarthy's opinion as stated on 17 October 2009, he believed that Lawrence Pirritino was acting on his behalf as a broker at the sale and was subsequently paid a ten percent commission for same.

It should be clear that Lawrence Pirritino participated in the sale of the vessel, negotiated on behalf of his client Capt. Kevin McCarthy, and received a commission for same. This fact was even supported by attorney Alan Eckstein's purchase and sale agreement wherein he refers to Lawrence Pirritino as "Broker."

Conclusion: The Yacht and Ship Brokers Division should conduct an investigation for Capt. Kevin McCarthy, as to broker Lawrence Pirritino's participation during the sale of the vessel on his behalf while acting as his negotiating broker. Capt. McCarthy has not been made whole and has never been compensated for his additional $20,000.00 out of pocket expenses.

6. Regarding the above referenced Yacht and Ship Broker Division report, it can be concluded that the report is filled with numerous inaccuracies. In page two of this official State of Florida report, the report does, however, substantiate the theft complaint that Robert Krutko initially made, wherein that John Evans was identified as an employee and that the resort was the owner. We know that that was not true.

This is the key element. It was as a result of that action, the intentional taking of the vessel, grand theft, by a person (John Evans) who was not the owner, or authorized by the owner to take possession of the vessel that has tainted every action thereafter.

Could it be assumed that failures of authorities, up and down the chain, to understand this fact is at the root of the entire failure to render justice regarding this case? The denial of this fact and subsequent refusal to take the appropriate actions against wrongdoing is tantamount to turning one’s back on the principles of the American Justice System, a system that has come again under fire, and whose inaction and/or wrong doings can not be tolerated at any level. ¢.

[NMA Comment: We reiterate that the failure of the proper authorities at all government levels – city, county, and state – precipitated the crises detailed in the remainder of this report.]

The Second Victim – Captain Kevin McCarthy

This is an e-mail from Capt. Kevin McCarthy who bought the Reef Cat at Alan Eckstein’s allegedly illegal sale in Key West. He provided his story to Dennis Ward, Esq.., the State Attorney for Monroe County, Florida. Captain McCarthy was lied to and made to believe the property he purchased at attorney Eckstein’s auction was his to sell – and it was not! His story is contained in this e-mail with only minor editing for spelling and grammar:

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin
To: dennisward@aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: Key West nightmare

Dear Dennis,
My name is Kevin McCarthy I own and operate Amelia River Cruises & Charters in Fernandina Beach, Florida. In the fall of 2006 my wife and I drove to Key West to look at a few commercial tour boats that were for sale. We looked at a 45' 49 passenger U.S. Coast Guard Inspected vessel that was chained to the dock at the Ocean Key House Resort. The asking price was $110,000 the broker informed me that there were outstanding dock fees and that is why the vessel had been chained to the dock.

I expressed an interest and told the broker that I would make an offer in a week or so. Two days latter the broker called to inform me that the vessel was to be auction off the very next morning at the Ocean Key House Resort and that the hotel had taken possession of the vessel for the delinquent dock fees and the starting bid would be $61,000.

The next morning I called the Resort and spoke with the manager Mr. Steve Boswell I asked him if in fact the vessel was to be auctioned off that morning his response was yes and then he handed the phone to his attorney Allen Eckstein. I asked Mr. Eckstein if the Resort now owned the vessel and if there were any other outstanding leans on the vessel.

Mr. Eckstein told me that the Resort did now own the vessel and that there were no other outstanding leans. I them called the broker to ask if he could attend the auction on my behalf. I authorized him to bid up to $71,000 plus a 10% broker fee for him. At 10:15 that morning I received a call form the broker that the boat was mine for $71,000. I received a bill of sale from attorney Eckstein and took possession of the vessel.

After a month in dry dock and with about $20,000 in repairs my wife and I were sailing our new tour boat from Marathon Key north to Amelia Island Florida. We stopped in Miami that first night and I received a phone call from Mr. Robert Krutko. Robert explained to me that I did not own the vessel and that it had been stolen from him.

I then called Attorney Eckstein he assured me that the vessel was in fact mine and the everything had been done lawfully, My next call was to a Maritime Attorney in Miami I explained my situation to him, His first question to me was did the Resort arrest the vessel and was there a U.S. Marshal at the auction -- my answer was no. The Attorney then told me that I in fact could not own the vessel and that the transaction in his opinion was not done properly.

By this time we were on our way to Ft. Lauderdale and I had made arraignments to stop at First Performance Marina for some engine repair. Just as we were pulling in to the marina we were boarded by the U.S. Coast Guard and then the Broward County Sheriffs Department They looked at my bill of sale they both told me that the bill of sale was not worth the paper it was written on. I then made arraignments with the marina to leave the boat there and we returned to north Florida that was the last time I saw the boat and I was out $91,000. I then hired an attorney in Jacksonville and after about a month of haggling the resort did return my purchase price of $71,000 and the broker did return his 10% fee.

I am out at lest $20,000 and the whole ordeal has been a nightmare. I am convinced that the Ocean Key House Resort, Mr.Steve Boswell, Attorney Allen Eckstein, and Mr. John Evans the young man that hot-wired and then removed the vessel from Cudjoe Bay and returned it back to the resort all participated in the Grand theft of this vessel. I am also convinced that had the Monroe County Sheriff's Department the F.W.C and the States Attorney's office in Key West had done their jobs I would not have had to endure this nightmare. Mr. Krutko and I do not have the financial wherewithall to go after this type of injustice, and I am very disappointed in the way this has been handled by those governmental organization that are sworn to up hold the laws in this state.

Sincerely
Kevin McCarthy

@@[NMA Comment: The Krutkos begged a number of federal, state, and local government agencies to look into the theft their boat.

Robert Krutko, who lives in Ohio, legally recorded numerous phone conversations with various Florida police officials (http://copsconfirmtheft.podbean.com/) who confirmed the fact that “Grand Theft” properly characterized the crime that took place and that the perpetrators should be in jail. Nevertheless, Monroe County officials insist that the foregoing is a “civil” rather than criminal matter and failed to conduct an appropriate investigation.]

PART 2 – SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CITY ORDINANCES

The Krutko’s family business, “Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc.” operated from a small boat basin at the end of Duval Street (i.e., Zero Duval St.) behind the Ocean Key House Resort. There is direct access from Duval Street to the boat basin and the Sunset Pier basin where food and drinks are served that forms the left side of the small basin. The small marina serves commercial tour boats and a jet ski business and stands on a state-leased water bottom.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) controls the terms of the seabed property lease to the hotel. The hotel, in turn, sub-leases space as concessions to commercial vessels that cater to the tourist trade.

These vessels attract tourists who use the hotel’s other facilities including food and beverages. It is this prime business location that draws upon the annual flow of 2,120,999 tourists1) that visit Key West annually.

However, there is a serious shortage of vehicular parking spaces at the hotel and throughout the entire downtown area. In addition, we observed that the commercial vessels utilizing the marina are not well protected from seas and swells that could adversely affect small passenger vessel operations. [(1)2009 figures from Monroe County Tourist Development Council.]

Court papers filed on behalf of Robert by the Cochran Firm on Sept. 29, 2009 describe his claims against the City of Key West. This matter has not yet gone to trial.

[Sources: Article in the Florida Keys Keynoter, Marathon, FL, by Sean Kinney. Apr. 28, 2010 and lawsuit filed in Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 29, 2009.]

Background
The “Reef Cat,” a Coast Guard-inspected small passenger vessel, owned by Robert and Laura Krutko’s business was stolen and later sold in a conspiracy hatched in Key West. When the new owner of the stolen boat found that the Coast Guard would not re-document the vessel, he demanded and received his purchase price back. At the same time that the vessel’s true owners attempted to bring the thieves to justice, they also alleged that the City of Key West violated their civil rights by “selective enforcement” of city ordinances causing their business enterprise to fail.

Regardless of its attraction as a tourist Mecca, Key West is a small town in the middle of nowhere at the end of the famous Overseas Highway – a very long road and 125 miles away from Miami, the state’s largest city. Like many other small towns, there is a “Good Old Boy” network that exercises its political power at the end of the famous Overseas Highway. Yet, the scope of this scandal spread beyond the actions of local authorities and appears to implicates the non-feasance or malfeasance of a number of state and Coast Guard officials as well.
Laura and Robert Krutko of Galloway, Ohio, operated a charter service in 2005 called Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc. In the $11.5 million federal lawsuit filed last month, Miami-based attorneys allege city officials "selectively enforced” its municipal code against the Krutkos, and in doing so brought about the failure of their business enterprise.

The Krutkos purchased a 45-foot catamaran to offer dive charters and were licensed by the City of Key West to carry only 24 passengers despite the vessel’s Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection whose authorized capacity was 49 passengers. That restriction was based on a decision by city licensing officials, who tied the boat capacity to available off-street parking. They allowed three riders for each of eight parking spots, which comes out to 24 total.

[NMA Comment: When the Krutko’s business failed, a group of local businessmen obtained permission from the City of Key West to put their larger catamaran cruise boats with a capacity of 256 passengers in his exact same slip without changing any city ordinances. In response to Krutko’s complaint of “selective enforcement” of city ordinances, the same individuals filed a civil libel suit against Krutko. Yet the city allowed them (i.e., Fury Management et al) to continue to operate under the same ordinance without the restrictions the City had forced upon Krutko.]

[NMA Comment: Krutko filed complaints with a code enforcement officer named Jency Probst. Her investigation was summarized in the following e mail to Key West City Attorney Shawn Smith.]

Hi Shawn,
I think it would be prudent on the part of the City to allow Gail the opportunity to review the existing file regarding Zero Duval and the parking issues at this location prior to a license being issued to the Fury for their catamaran. Carolyn has been using 'historic' information to base her decision on. However, the parking situation in this area has dramatically changed with the drastic reduction of parking spaces at Mallory Square. As she stated, Ocean Key House at one time, leased parking spaces from the City in Mallory Square (there use to be a gate to the parking lot). To allocate 70 percent of the existing parking spaces for waterfront-based activities would seem erroneous in light of the fact that there are only 70 parking spaces at this location (which is 70 percent of what is required for the rooms) as it is.

The reason that they have valet parking is to obtain 33 additional spaces (part of a variance). Essentially, they have no additional parking spaces available for any activity or business.
Thanks, Jency

[NMA Comment: The Code Enforcement Officer told the City Attorney that Gail, the same city employee that licensed the “Reef Cat” for less that half its capacity used “historic information.” This did not stop her from licensing Fury Management to operate boats carrying four (4) times the “Reef Cat” capacity on two larger commercial catamarans without any additional parking spaces for any activity or business.]

Nature of Claims in the Krutko’s Lawsuit
Selective Enforcement; Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983; Violations of the Commerce Clause; Anti-Trust; Corrupt/Deceptive Business Practices.
The time when, the place where, and the manner in which the claim arose was as follows:
On or about June of 2005 Reef Snorkeling Adventures, Inc. (hereinafter "claimant") became a licensed business operated in Key West, Florida with the business address of Zero Duval Street, Key West, Florida 33040.

At that time, claimant bought both the business and a forty-five (45) foot catamaran which could transport upwards of 49 passengers. The claimant sought to operate as a charter for snorkeling and sunset excursions to which it would gain clientele through local hotels, resorts, foot traffic and booking agents. The claimant's principal place of operations and where it docked its vessel was located in Ocean Key Resort at Zero Duval Street. From this location patrons could access the vessel and be transported into navigable waters and snorkel and/or participate in a sunset excursion.
On or around June of 2005, claimant filed for licensing with the City of Key West in regards to occupancy on the vessel. Claimant's vessel could support forty-nine (49) patrons at any one time, and claimant was told by the Key West Licensing Bureau prior to its application that said number of patrons would be approved. However, upon receiving the license, the number of patrons allowed on the vessel at any one time was twenty-four (24) patrons.
When claimant complained to the Bureau about the reduction, it was told that according to Key West Municipal Ordinance the City of Key West must limit any operation similar to that of claimant's due to the lack of parking available in that area; that for every three patrons, one parking spot must be available. Therefore, given the number of available parking spaces in that particular area the City of Key West could only license claimant for 24 patrons at one time (i.e., nine (9) parking spaces).

Claimant operated the business under the restraints of the City of Key West's licensure with dismal results. As a direct result of the city's application of this ordinance, claimant's sales could not meet its liabilities and claimant was forced to voluntarily dissolve its business in June of 2006.
Soon after claimant's business was dissolved, the City of Key West granted a new license to Fury Water Adventures, Inc., a locally-owned business with identical characteristics of claimant's. Fury Water Adventures, Inc. docked and operated its vessel from the exact location as claimant (Zero Duval Street in the Ocean Key Resort). At that same time Fury Water Adventures, Inc. was granted licensing by the City of Key West for ninety (90) patrons at any one time. Only a short time later the City of Key West increased that amount to one hundred twenty-six (126) patrons. As of the date of this letter, Fury Water Adventures, Inc. operates two vessels from that same location, the newer vessel is licensed by the City of Key West to operate with up to one hundred twenty-seven (127) patrons at any one time. Therefore, in total, the City of Key West has allowed and licensed a similar business, in the same location as claimant's business, to operate with two hundred fifty-three (253) patrons at any one time when there have been no substantial changes to parking in that area.

It is claimant's contention and belief that the City of Key West selectively enforced its municipal ordinance upon claimant who at the time was not a Key West native. Claimant contends and believes that the City of Key West was influenced by local business and effectively ensured claimant's business would not be able to function to its full capacity thereby creating a situation where there would be little recourse for the claimant but to move or risk dissolution.

The items of damage or injuries claimed: loss of profits; loss of business opportunity; loss of personal and business property; pain and suffering; doctor's care; loss of consortium; and that by reason of the aforesaid, claimant has been damaged in the sum of ELEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($11,500,000.00) DOLLARS. This amount does not include any amount over and above what could be gained through litigation and punitive damages if applicable.

The undersigned claimant therefore presents this claim for payment. You are hereby respectfully notified that unless it is paid within the time provided by law from the date of presentation to you, the claimant intends to commence action on this claim.¢

[NMA Comment: A knowledgeable local resident, upon reading of the lawsuit, researched local background issues, visited City Hall, checked existing ordinances and stated in a blog: “…the licenses given to Fury (Management) were illegal under the City Code…” and “I hope the city doesn’t assume with the Krutko’s case the same cavalier attitude it maintained throughout the Duck Tours case…It all makes me wonder if any of it would have happened it there had been a seasoned lawyer on the dais.”]

PART 3 – THE CONSPIRACY LEADING TO ROBERT KRUTKO’S FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

Reef Snorkeling Adventure went out of business in June 2006 and Fury Catamarans, owned by several prominent local businessmen including local Key West attorney Michael Halpern, took over their space at Zero Duval St. Fury was, soon thereafter, licensed to carry 126 passengers.
City Attorney Shawn Smith didn't return a request for comment explaining what changed to allow Fury to accommodate so many more riders. But in September, Smith said to the Keynoter that the lawsuit, cited above – then just an initial filing – was "frivolous."

In ancillary legal action, Halpern and the other principles at Fury sued Robert Krutko for alleged cyber stalking and harassment. Halpern, in court documents, alleges that Krutko threatened he would "destroy [Fury's] reputation on the Internet" by way of blog entries, posts on consumer sites and phony press releases. Documents also allege threatening phone calls.

Two months after the Cochran Law Firm filed a notice of suit against the City of Key West, on Sept. 11, 2009 Monroe County 16th Judicial Circuit Judge David Audlin issued an injunction for protection and temporary restraining order on behalf of Fury Management, Inc, and local attorneys Michael Halpern, and Alan Eckstein, and John Evans (local jet-ski operator and alleged boat thief) and others against “Robert M. Krutko, his agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert and participation with him to cease, desist, directly or indirectly, sending any electronic mail and electronic communication” against the operators of the “Fury” concession.(1) [(1)Case #09-CA-001494-K.] .
Robert described some of his blogging to me on occasion, but I had neither the time nor inclination to engage in blogging individually or on behalf of our Association. On occasion, I received copies via e-mail but neither contributed to nor encouraged this method of expression. Nevertheless, as our Association’s Editor, I am convinced that the Constitution expresses freedom of expression in any form including electronic and that libel laws are in place to protect individuals and corporate entities against statements that are proven to be false.

[NMA Comment: Judge Audlin ordered Robert Krutko, who lives near Columbus, Ohio, to appear in his courtroom in Key West. Robert did not appear to answer these charges. As a result, the Judge ordered him extradited from Ohio to answer the charges against his ”blogging” activities. He was incarcerated for approximately 6 months in Ohio and Florida. That adventure is described “in his own words.”]

[NMA Comment: Robert Krutko blew the whistle on “Fury Management, Inc.” for operating illegally on state bay-bottom leased property which he discovered during his inquiry. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found the complaints valid and fined Fury Management and Ocean Key Resort to protect wildlife reserve property. In retribution, Fury and others filed suit against Krutko to silence him and deny him use of the internet.]

The Extradition Experience In His Own Words
In mid-November 2010, Robert Krutko responded by e-mail to a number of our questions regarding his business background and his extradition experience. We organized these replies with subtitles and edited this section for clarity and major grammar and punctuation. Robert was in poor health throughout this period and reported being diagnosed with a mass on his lung and liver.

Past Business Resume
I have owned and operated a number of small businesses from hot dog carts to food establishments to building my own sports bar from ground up which I sold for a profit. I then entered into the pressure washing business and started from nothing and built it from ground up to one of the largest residential pressure washing companies in Ohio.

I was doing in excess of 250,000 plus per year and got burned out after about ten years and over 45,000 washes completed. I did state contracts, county contracts as well as residential washing. I even had the city of Columbus trash truck contract which we washed weekly – there were many trucks. I did the Franklin County courts parking garage once a year including all City of Columbus school buses which were done once a year over a 2 week period getting them ready for their yearly inspections by the state troopers.
I took my wife to Key West once because I went there as a kid with my parents. We decided to invest in a house outside Key West and open a business so we could get it going then when my kids graduated from high school move there full time and live. This was all stolen from us.

Columbus, Ohio
TO THE FEW OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HELP MY FAMILY THANK YOU.
BELOW IS A SUMMARY THAT HAUNTS ME DAILY AND NIGHTLY I WANT TO PUT IN WRITING SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT I'VE BEEN THROUGH.
IN EARLY NOVEMBER 2009 I WAS SURROUNDED BY F.B.I. AND COLUMBUS POLICE AND CUFFS PUT ON MY HANDS WHICH I NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE. AFTER TAKEN DOWNTOWN, THE F.B.I. TRIED TO QUESTION ME BUT I ALWAYS SAW ON T.V. NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY, SO I DIDN'T.
AFTER BEING TAKEN TO A HOLDING CELL I WAS STILL IN SHOCK BUT WAS LATER TAKEN TO DORM. I REMEMBER CALLING MY WIFE REGULARLY BECAUSE NOT ONLY WAS I SCARED I NEVER WAS AFFORDED A TOOTH BRUSH FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE WEEKS MAYBE MORE. LATER AFTER BEING TAKEN TO COURT SEVERAL TIMES, I WAS INTRODUCED TO SHACKLES IN WHICH I HAD TO WEAR TO AND FROM COURT INCLUDING IN COURT.

THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK OF IS I WISH I WAS DEAD – THIS CANT BE HAPPENING TO ME. EACH TIME WE WERE TAKEN TO COURT WE WERE ALL TOLD BY DEPUTY'S TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND DO NOT TALK TO THE JUDGE OR WE "WILL YANK YOU OUT OF THE COURT". WOW, I THOUGHT WE CANT TELL A JUDGE OUR STORY....

I REMEMBER ONE DAY BEING TAKEN OFF THE BUS AND WHILE IN CUFFS AND SHACKELS ENTERING THE JAIL THERE WERE 3-4 DEPUTYS WHICH WOULD GREET THE COURT BUS LOAD TO REMOVE CUFFS ETC. ONE OLDER DEPUTY I REMEMBER YELLING OUT "WHAT IN THE HELL IS THIS MAN (ME) DOING IN SHACKELS. AFTER LOOKING AT MY PAPERWORK AND ASKING ME WHY I WAS THERE, I TOLD HIM IT WAS A CIVIL CASE THAT STEMMED INTO FUGATIVE FROM JUSTICE, I REMEMBER HIM TELLING DEPUTYS "GET THE DAMN CUFFS AND SHACKELS OFF THIS MAN" AND ALSO SAID "WHO IN THE HELL PUT THEM ON HIM TO BEGIN WITH. I WANTED SO MUCH TO HUG THIS MAN AND TELL HIM THANK YOU BUT I DIDNT.( BUT I DID SMILE AND THINK TO MYSELF THIS GUYS SEES THE B.S. GOING ON HERE)

ONE OTHER INCIDENT I STILL SEE EVERY DAY AND NIGHT AND CAN EVEN SMELL YET TODAY WILL SHOCK SOME OF YOU BUT ALTHOUGH I’M IN TEARS RIGHT NOW I FEEL I NEED TO TELL IT.

I WAS PUT INTO A HOLDING CELL NEAR THE FRONT DOORS OF THE JACKSON PIKE ENTRANCE TO THE JAIL. I CANNOT REMEMBER WHY I WAS THERE BUT THERE WERE 3 OF US IN THERE. THIS IS A SMALL CELL WITH ICE COLD BLOWING AIR ON YOU AND YOU ARE PUT IN WITH BARELY NO CLOTHES ON ITS ABOUT 30-40 DEGREES IN THERE. ANYWAY ONE DAY WHILE I WAS SLEEPING, AND THE OTHERS ON THE ICE COLD FLOOR SLEEPING I HEARD A LOUD RUMBLE AND GURGLE.

WHEN I AWOKE THE OTHER 2 INMATES WERE POUNDING FOR GUARDS WHICH THERE WERE ATLEAST 5 AT THE DESK ONLY 50 FEET AWAY. THE GURGLEING WAS A TOILET OVERFLOWING AT ABOUT 2 FEET HIGH, NON-STOP OF URINE AND FECES.

THE SMELL WAS VERY BAD. AS I AWOKE WITH 2 OTHER INMATES YELLING FOR HELP GUARDS WERE WALKING BY LAUGHING SAYING "HEY YOU PIECES OF SHIT, DEAL WITH IT" ...

WITHIN A COUPLE MINUTES WE WERE COVERED IN URINE AND FECES WITH ABOUT 3" INCHES ON THE FLOOR. ONE INMATE TOLD US TO TAKE OFF OUR BLANKETS (WHICH IS KIND OF STIFF AND USED IT TO PUSH THE URINE AND FECES OUTSIDE UNDER THE DOOR INTO THE MAIN LOBBY WHERE THE GUARDS WERE SO WE DID.)

AFTER THEY SAW THIS, THEY FINALLY UNLOCKED THE DOORS AND GOT INMATES TO MOP THE FLOOR. BY THIS TIME OUR FEET-AND SIDES OF OUR BODYS FROM SLEEPING ON THE FLOOR WERE COVERD IN THIS MESS. THEY REMOVED US INTO INDIVIDUAL CELLS WHERE WE WERE MADE TO EAT- AND SLEEP WITH NO SOAP OR NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO WASH UP. THIS LASTED FOR ABOUT A WEEK.

I WILL SAY THE ONE THING THAT KEPT ME GOING DURING THIS WAS MY TWO VISITATION DAYS IN COLUMBUS JAIL WHERE MY WIFE NEVER MISSED A VISIT AND SITTING ON THAT CHAIR LOOKING THROUGH A GLASS AND TALKING THROUGH A HOLE TO MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE IS SOMETHING I’LL NEVER FORGET.

AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS BAD AND JUST A SMALL PART OF WHAT IVE BEEN THROUGH.

Extradition from Columbus, Ohio to Key West

WHEN I LEFT COLUMBUS OHIO JAIL AND WAS SHOVED INTO A 1 TON VAN LOADED WITH PRISONERS AND NO ROOM TO EVEN MOVE WE MADE MANY STOPS DOWN TO FLORIDA.

WE DROPPED PRISONERS OFF AND PICKED UP BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. WE STAYED AT SEVERAL JAILS OVERNIGHT SO THE TRANSPORT PEOPLE COULD SLEEP.

ON MY LAST DROP OFF, THE EXTRADITION PEOPLE TOLD ME I WOULD NOT BE PICKED UP BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO BE TRANSPORTED SOME OTHER WAY.

THEY WOULD NOT TELL ME WHEN OR HOW BUT SAID I WAS ON HOLD AND IT WAS SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO BROOKSVILLE, FLORIDA.

THAT NIGHT OF BEING IN JAIL AND NOT KNOWING WHEN I WAS GOING TO LEAVE I WAS VERY ILL. FINALLY LATER THAT DAY OTHER PRISONERS SAW I WAS SICK AND COULDN'T EAT AND POUNDED ON OUR DOOR TO GET THE GUARDS.

THE GUARD SHOWED UP AND THEY TOOK ME TO THE JAIL NURSE. SHE CHECKED MY VITALS AND SAID I SHOULD SIT OUT IN THE MAIL HALL BY THE GUARDS TOWER AND GET SOME FRESH AIR AND IF I GOT WORSE, ASK FOR HER. A WHILE LATER I GOT VERY BAD AND SHE SAW ME AGAIN .

AFTER BEING CHECKED AGAIN, SHE SAID I WAS VERY PALE AND MY VITALS WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE SO SHE MADE A PHONE CALL AND TOLD WHOMEVER I NEEDED AN AMBULANCE. MY CHEST WAS HURTING AND IT WAS HARD TO BREATHE..
AN AMBULANCE CAME, AND I WAS SHACKLED AND CHAINED TO THE GURNEY WITH DEPUTY'IES FOLLOWING IN SQUAD CARS.

WHEN WE GOT TO THE HOSPITAL, THE DOCTOR LADY COME INTO MY ROOM AND TOLD ME AND THE GUARD I WAS GOING TO BE ADMITTED FOR FURTHER TESTS. HE CALLED THE EXTRADITION TRANSPORT PEOPLE TO NOTIFY THEM IT WAS THEIR JOB TO GET SOMEONE TO GUARD ME WHILE I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL.

WHEN I GOT SET IN MY ROOM, THE GUARDS WERE ROTATING 12 HOUR SHIFTS AND MOST COMING FROM THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. MOST WERE NICE, BUT ONE HEAVY SET JACKASS WAS KIND OF RUDE.

ONE DAY WHEN THE DOCTOR CAME IN TO GET ME UNCHAINED FROM THE BED TO MOVE ME FOR EXAMS, THE JACKASS COULDN'T GET THE SHACKLES OFF MY LEGS AND HIS KEYS DIDN'T WORK.

HE ASKED IF I COULD JUST BE MOVED IN MY BED AND THE DOCTOR SAID NO WAY BECAUSE IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY WHERE I HAD TO BE PUT ON ANOTHER TABLE ETC THEY COULDN'T DO IT.

THEY CALLED HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE TO SEE IF THEY COULD CUT THE CUFFS AND SHACKLES OFF ME AND THEY DIDN'T. T HEY CALLED THE LOCAL SHERIFF FROM THE JAIL AND DEPUTY'S CAME OVER WITH THEIR KEYS TO SEE IF THEY WOULD WORK; AND THEY DIDN'T.

AT THIS TIME A SWEET NURSE WHO WAS WATCHING THIS ALL TOLD THE JACKASS GUARD THIS WAS INHUMANE AND UNSAFE AND HOW HE COULD CHAIN SOMEONE UP AND NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEM OUT.

I EVEN THINK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED AND FINALLY SOMEONE WHOM I CAN’T REMEMBER BROKE ME FREE. THE HOSPITAL NURSES AND DOCTORS APOLOGIZED.

ONE OF THE OTHER EXTRADITION OFFICERS WHOM I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WAS NICE, ALLOWED ME TO USE HIS PERSONAL CELL PHONE ON VALENTINE’S DAY AND MY BIRTHDAY TO CALL MY WIFE WHICH I KNOW HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO DO. BUT HE REALIZED BY THE TRANSPORT PAPERWORK I WAS NOT A THREAT AND THIS WAS A JOKE...

ALL THIS CAN BE DOCUMENTED BY THE HOSPITAL WHICH IM PRETY SURE WAS BROOKVILLE GENERAL IN BROOKVILLE FLORIDA..

Jail in Key West

AFTER BEING EXTRADITED TO KEY WEST, I WAS PUT IN A MEDICAL LOCKDOWN FOR AT LEAST SEVERAL WEEKS. I WAS TOLD ONE DAY I WAS GOING TO BE PUT INTO GENERAL POPULATION. I WAS TAKEN TO GENERAL POPULATION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT SO EVERYONE WAS ASLEEP.

THAT NEXT MORNING AT BREAKFAST, SEVERAL MEN APPROACHED ME AS I WAS GETTING JUICE AND ONE ASKED ME IF I WAS THE INFAMOUS KRUTKO THATS BEEN POSTING ON THE INTERNET AGAINST HALPERN, EVANS AND OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS. WHEN I TURNED TO ASK WHO WAS ASKING THEY WALKED AWAY.

WITHIN AN HOUR A GROUP OF GUYS FORMED TOGETHER AT THE BACK OF THE DORM YELLING STUFF TO ME LIKE "KRUTKO IS A DEAD MAN."

THEY WERE ALSO YELLING" EVERYONE FILL YOUR SOCKS WITH SOAP, HE’S NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH THE NIGHT."

A GUARD I BELIEVE NAMED KIP HEARD THE YELLS AND I FILED A WRITTEN REQUEST TO HIM AT THIS SAME TIME FOR PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WHICH HE HAD GUARDS COME AND GET ME.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON’T KNOW, IN KEY WEST PROTECTIVE CUSTODY IS IN THE SAME LOCK DOWN DORM AS THE WORST OFFENDERS.

YOU STAY LOCKED DOWN 24-7 AND ONLY ALLOWED TO GET OUT 3 DAYS A WEEK FOR 1 HOUR.

THIS TIME IS TO BE USED FOR RECREATION, SHOWERS, AND PHONE CALLS. CALLS HERE ARE ABOUT $5 PER MINUTE. THE CELL IS ABOUT 5’ X 7’....

SEVERAL OTHERS WHO I KNEW WERE OUTSIDE AND ON MY SIDE WERE ALSO ON MY MIND DAILY AND HELPED ME BE STRONG...

I REMEMBER ONE OF THE EXTRADITION OFFICERS STAYING IN MY ROOM AT THE HOSPITAL AND WISHED ME HAPPY BIRTHDAY. HE WAS A RETIRED COP WORKING FOR THIS COMPANY WHEN NEEDED AND APOLOGIZED SINCE I WAS BEING CHAINED LIKE THIS FOR THE B.S. CASE. .

HE ALSO LET ME USE HIS CELL PHONE SEVERAL TIMES INCLUDING MY BIRTHDAY TO CALL MY WIFE BECAUSE HE SAW HOW UPSET I WAS. HE WAS A GREAT GUY JUST LIKE BRETT....

DURING MY JAIL TIME, WITHIN A MONTH BEFORE I BONDED OUT, I WAS CALLED BY A GUARD THAT CAME INTO OUR DORM. HE YELLED “KRUTKO” IN WHICH I GOT UP AND ANSWERED HIM. HE TOLD ME YOU HAVE A VISITOR IN WHICH I WAS CONFUSED BUT FIGURED IT MAY BE AN ATTORNEY ON MY BEHALF OR CAPT AL, A FRIEND OF MINE IN KEY WEST. WHEN I ASKED THE GUARD ON THE WAY DOWN THE HALL WHO IT WAS HE KEPT SAYING, “I DONT KNOW.”.

Forced Deposition Without Legal Representation

I WALKED INTO A ROOM WITH 5-6 INDIVIDUALS, A COURT REPORTER, AND SEVERAL GUARDS I BELIEVE WERE SERGEANTS..

THEY TOLD ME TO SIT AT A DESK IN FRONT OF A MAN LOOKING AT ME. THE MAN ASKED IF I KNEW WHO HE WAS I SAID “NO” BECAUSE AT THIS TIME I WAS VERY WEAK AND JUST DIDN’T RECOGNIZE HIM. HE SAID. “MY NAME IS MICHAEL HALPERN AND I’M HERE TO DEPOSE YOU.”

I TOLD HIM MY ATTORNEY APPOINTED TO ME DIDN’T MAKE ME AWARE OF THIS AND HE SAID HE WROTE JOE VREDEVELT A LETTER AND JOE SAID HE WASNT REPRESENTING ME BUT TREAT ME WITH RESPECT. I TOLD HALPERN A COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY WAS PROVIDED TO ME AND I WANTED TO SPEAK TO HIM – AND HE SAID “NO.”.

THE GUARDS AND HIM TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
FOR ABOUT 30-60 MINUTES HE WAS ASKING ME GENERAL INTERNET QUESTIONS WHICH I ANSWERED. MANY OF HIS QUESTIONS I COULD NOT ANSWER AND TOLD HIM I COULD NOT REMEMBER OR DIDN’T HAVE FILES IN FRONT OF ME TO GIVE HIM A CORRECT ANSWER. AT THIS TIME.

I WAS VERY HUNGRY AND WEAK SO I TOLD THE SERGEANT I WOULD LIKE LUNCH BECAUSE I WASNT FEELING GOOD. HE TOLD EVERYONE TO BREAK FOR LUNCH AND IT WOULD CONTINUE AFTER LUNCH.

IT WAS ABOUT NOON WHEN WE TOOK OUR BREAK. I WENT BACK TO MY DORM AND ATE LUNCH QUICKLY AND CALLED MY COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY WHICH I SPOKE TO HIS SECRETARY AND THEY TOLD ME WHEN I WAS CALLED BACK DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION BECAUSE HALPERN DID NOT NOTIFY HIM ABOUT THIS DEPOSITION.

I WENT BACK AROUND 2 PM WITH HALPERN AND THE OTHERS IN THE ROOM. HALPERN TOLD ME TO LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF I KNEW ANYONE IN THERE. I SAID NO THE PEOPLE I CAN REMEMBER THERE WAS HALPERN, SAUNDERS, AND-EVANS- THERE WERE ONE OR TWO OTHERS;

AND I WASNT SURE IF IT WAS ECKSTEIN AND MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE. THEY WERE ALL LAUGHING AND MAKING COMMENTS WHEN I ANSWERED QUESTIONS ESPECIALLY THE MAJORITY OF QUESTIONS I SAID I DID NOT REMEMBER.

AT THE AFTERNOON SESSION WITH HALPERN WHEN I TOLD HIM MY ATTORNEY SAID NOT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS HE WAS FURIOUS AND ASKED A GUARD TO GET HIM AN OUTSIDE LINE SO HE COULD CALL HIM. HE CALLED ON SPEAKER PHONE IN FRONT OF ME SO EVERYONE COULD HEAR...

THE ATTORNEY TOLD HIM HE HAD NOT GOTTEN A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO ME AND THAT HE HAD A RIGHT TO DO SO BEFORE BEING QUESTIONED..

HALPERN ARGUED WITH HIM BUT THE ATTORNEY DIDN’T BUDGE AND HALPERN SAID HE WOULD HAVE ME SANCTIONED BY THE JUDGE IF I DIDNT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THE ATTORNEY SAID, “DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO, BUT I ADVISED MY CLIENT TO SAY NOTHING. . AFTER HANGING UP, AND EVERYONE IN THE ROOM INCLUDING GUARDS HEARD THIS, HALPERN CONTINUED TO ASK QUESTIONS TO ME AND I TURNED AROUND IN MY SEAT IGNORING HIM AND ASKED THE SGT. GUARDS TO PLEASE TAKE ME BACK TO MY DORM I WAS DONE WITH QUESTIONS..

THE GUARDS IGNORED ME AND ALLOWED HALPERN TO CONTINUE HARASSING ME. EVEN THOUGH HIS DEPOSITION WAS ABOUT HIS CIVIL LAWSUIT I WAS SHOCKED WHEN HE WAS ASKING ME QUESTIONS ABOUT SEX WITH MY WIFE AND OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CIVIL SUIT BUT THE SGT, GUARDS WERE GETTING A KICK OUT OF SEEING ME IN PHYSICAL PAIN AS WELL AS HALPERN BEING IN MY FACE.

Back Home in Ohio
NOTE- SEVERAL WEEKS AGO AT APPROXIMATELY 2 AM MY FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS WERE WAKEN BY A LARGE CRASH, AND POLICE WERE CALLED.

IT WAS DISCOVERED A BRICK WAS THROWN THROUGH MY BACK SLIDING GLASS DOOR WITH A NOTE THREATENING MY FAMILY WITH THE WORDS, “KEY WEST AND DEAD” USED.

A SHORT PERIOD EARLIER I ALSO RECIEVED AN E-MAIL FROM A STATE OFFICIAL, AFTER SPEAKING TO THEM BY PHONE, TELLING MY FAMILY TO "SLEEP WITH ONE EYE OPEN "

Here We Go Again
I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW A WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR ME TODAY FOR $20,000. MY PROBATION OFFICER I JUST SPOKE TO TELL ME THIS AND THEY KNOW I DONT HAVE THE $20K....

Our Association Requests Governor Strickland of Ohio to Stay Extradition
December 18, 2009
Honorable Ted Strickland
Governor of Ohio
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6108

Via FAX to: 614-466-9354
Subject: Proposed Extradition of Robert Krutko from Ohio to Florida

Dear Governor Strickland,
I am writing to you on behalf of Robert Krutko, a resident of Galloway, Ohio, to request that you act to prevent Mr. Krutko’s extradition to Monroe County, Florida.
Mr. Krutko is a businessman from Ohio who established a charter boat business in Key West, Florida. Unfortunately, the vessel, a 45-foot catamaran that was documented and inspected by the Coast Guard as a “small passenger vessel” under 46 CFR Subchapter T, was stolen from him and subsequently sold illegally in Florida.

This vessel represented the investment of most of Mr. Krutko’s life savings and the loss of use of this vessel effectively shuttered his business and cost him the remainder of his assets and the results of his life’s work.

In 2008, Mr. Krutko located our website on the internet and told me his story. Our Association was founded in 1999 by the AFL-CIO and four national maritime unions as the Gulf Coast Mariners Association. We are now independent but continue to speak on behalf of approximately 126,000 “limited tonnage/lower-level” merchant mariners, such as those that Mr. Krutko formerly employed on his vessel. I have been licensed by the Coast Guard for 54 years and formerly owned and operated passenger ferries in New York and oilfield support vessels in Louisiana. I clearly understand and acknowledge the depth of the problems that Mr. Krutko faces.

In March 2008, I published the attached article [Enclosure #1] reprinted from a local weekly newspaper in Monroe County, Florida, in our Association’s Newsletter #46. You will find the article remains posted on our national website. I also put Mr. Krutko in touch with representatives of both the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security – agencies our Association normally deals with.

Ever since his boat theft, I have spoken with Mr. Krutko on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. However, I can state unequivocally that Mr. Krutko made extraordinarily diligent efforts to find an attorney to represent him in this very complex case. Recently, he obtained the assistance of a retired police investigator who has considerable professional maritime expertise.

He investigated the case locally in south Florida and his investigation supported the thrust of the article our Association used in [Enclosure #1]. Subsequently, and as a direct result of this documentation, Mr. Krutko succeeded in obtaining professional legal representation in his civil case against the parties that conspired to steal his boat by a nationally-known law firm in the Miami area. I furnished a copy of this important documentation to the Larson law firm in Ohio that now represents Mr. Krutko in his extradition case.

One of the most outstanding things Mr. Krutko’s investigator exposed was the total and possibly criminal lack of responsiveness of law enforcement personnel both in Monroe County and in a number of executive agencies within the state government to the theft of Mr. Krutko’s property. Instead, the police, STATE Attorney, and an assortment of state executive branch departments chose to ignore Mr. Krutko’s claims. Mr. Krutko, for several years without any legal representation until very recently, was forced to shoulder the whole burden of defending himself by any and all means possible.

Mr. Krutko, who now has adequate legal representation in Florida, is preparing to file a civil suit in Florida on the merits of his case. We believe that this issue needs to be determined first
Mr. Krutko cannot be expected to protect his interests while jailed in Ohio. After our discussions and the facts revealed over the past three years, I believe that Mr. Krutko’s life and health will be in grave danger if he was extradited to Monroe County, Florida.
Consequently, I urge you to release Mr. Krutko from custody in Ohio so that he may finally use the only opportunity that has presented itself since I have known him to exercise the benefit of adequate legal representation and to attempt to recover damages resulting from the theft of his assets and to enjoy the Christmas season with his family in Ohio.

Very truly yours,
Richard A. Block
Master #1186377, Issue #9
Secretary, National Mariners Association

[NMA Comment: Although a non sequitur, our Association was never provided with the courtesy of a response, and Governor Strickland was not re-elected in 2010. Robert’s extradition to Florida followed.]

The Threat of a Second Extradition
In order to obtain release from Jail in Key West on June 10, 2010 and return to his family in Columbus, Ohio, Robert was told by a local lawyer in Key West that he would have to plead guilty to the “internet” charges and remove all information that remained on internet within 10 days.

In order to comply, he sent certified mail letters to the many websites he utilized. However, at least one of those websites, Ripoffreport.com, has a firm policy that they will never remove information submitted to them.

When Robert was unable to have this website remove the information he submitted, his tormentors went back to the 16th Judicial District Court in Monroe County where charging him with a violation of probation. The court ordered a Court hearing for Monday Nov. 22, 2010 and issued a warrant for his appearance.

Essentially, by ordering Robert to do something that was beyond his ability to accomplish without the cooperation of the owner of the website, the judge ordered Robert in to do something clearly beyond his ability. He again asked for our help.

We sent two letters. The first letter was to www.ripoffreport.com

November 19, 2010
Via Certified Mail
Mr. Ed Magedson
Founder, Ripoff Report
P.O. Box 310
Tempe, AZ 85280

Dear Mr. Magedson,
Our Association is a voluntary, non-profit mariner advocacy group that acts on national maritime issues that affect over 126,000 “limited tonnage” merchant mariners. We deal with Federal rather than state issues best outlined in our Report #R-350, Rev. 5 available on our website. On this occasion, however, I bring to your attention an apparent travesty of justice in Monroe County aimed at one of our mariners, the owner of a commercial Coast Guard-inspected small passenger vessel that was stolen in Monroe County, Florida..

The boat owner, Mr. Robert Krutko, used your website to post information about the theft.
An individual with impressive credentials verified essential key elements of this story of the theft as it appeared in a local paper – and we support it. [Enclosure #1]
Nevertheless, Mr. Krutko is being persecuted by lawyers representing plaintiffs in a conspiracy to steal, damage, and then sell his boat (that they never owned), destroy his reputation, cripple his business following a damaging hurricane, see that he never returned to Florida and apparently seek to cause him great bodily harm. Our Association takes these threats to our mariners seriously.

Mr. Krutko’s postings on your site have led to his arrest in his home in Ohio in December 2009, his extradition from Ohio to Florida in February 2010, and a forced “confession” in June 2010 in the Monroe County Court in Key West. During this time, he faced incredibly poor conditions in jail and physical and mental harassment at the hands of his persecutors. He related this information to me in his own words. [Enclosure #2]

Mr. Krutko faces a repeat performance as the plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit [Enclosure #3] claiming a violation of probation that he did not remove the postings from your website. In fact, your policy that he forwarded to me this afternoon clearly states that you will NOT remove any such postings.

We respect your policies which are clear and direct. We agree that Mr. Krutko is responsible for what he posted. In fact, already has been severely punished. However, we are concerned for his mental wellbeing and his physical health (he suffers from a “mass” in his lung and liver). It is clear that his tormentors are prepared to punish him for something he cannot correct. We can do little more than make you aware of these facts. However, I want to make it clear that Mr. Krutko is not a common criminal although he has been treated as such.

We cannot understand how things like this can happen in America.
We are not lawyers. However we have filed a request with the President of the Florida Bar Association to look into this situation and plan to address this matter with the Attorney General of the United States as a civil rights matter.

Very truly yours,
s/Richard A. Block, B.A., M.S.
Master #1186377, Issue #9
Secretary, National Mariners Association

[NMA Comment: Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. We find the website provider’s policies are clear and understandable.

The purpose of our letter was to make the website aware of the situation Mr. Krutko faced as a result of his postings to their website. We did not question or ask them to change their policy. Freedom of expression – including opinions – is a constitutional issue in the domain of a qualified attorney.]

The second letter was to the President of the Florida Bar Association asking for their assistance:

November 17, 2010
Hon. Maryanne Downs
President, Florida Bar Association
King, Blackwell, Downs, & Zehnder, PA
P.O. Box 1631
Orlando, FL 32802 -1631

Subject: Reporting a Possible Abuse of Process and False Imprisonment in Monroe County.
Via Fax to: 407-648-0161

Dear Ms. Downs,
Our Association is a voluntary, non-profit mariner advocacy group that acts on national maritime issues that affect over 126,000 “limited tonnage” merchant mariners. We deal with Federal rather than state issues best outlined in our Report #R-350, Rev. 5 found on our website. On this occasion, however, I bring to your attention an apparent travesty of justice in Monroe County aimed at the owner of a commercial Coast Guard-inspected small passenger vessel.

I approach you as the President of the State Bar Association to alert you to this issue and solicit your assistance as I believe these assertions reflect discredit upon the legal profession in the State of Florida.

This matter concerns Mr. Robert Krutko, a resident of Hilliard, Ohio, whose passenger vessel, – that represented his business, and sole means of livelihood was stolen from his residence near Key West. His story, as written by a local journalist and reprinted in our Association’s national Newsletter #70 (May-June 2010) is interesting. His allegations were researched by a highly respected and professionally competent Florida yacht broker, and to the best of my knowledge and belief are true. [Enclosure #1] Although factually important, this enclosure is presented as background information and not the purpose of this letter.

Robert Krutko, the victim of the boat theft, sought legal help in the state of Florida. His problem centers around the fact that the theft left him indigent. All of his savings were tied up in his stolen boat and business. Unable to obtain legal assistance from 2007 to the present on a contingent-fee basis, Robert used the internet as his only available tool to inform the world of the facts of the theft and subsequent treatment. In doing so, he angered a number of wealthy and powerful people in Key West.

Last year Mr. Krutko, while residing in Ohio, was ordered to appear before Judge David Audlin of the 16th Judicial Circuit in Monroe County to answer for his internet postings. It is my understanding that this was a civil and not a criminal case. Mr. Krutko is indigent, in poor health with cancer of the lung and liver, and was unable to afford the trip from Ohio to Key West.
For his failure to appear in court, a warrant was issued for his arrest under the heading: “Fugitive from justice/Fleeing jurisdiction.”

Mr. Krutko disputed this by telling me that he had not even been in Monroe County since January 2006. He was arrested and jailed in Columbus as a “fugitive” from justice and extradited to Key West. Our Association tried to intervene on his behalf by writing to Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio. Nevertheless, he was extradited and jailed before Christmas 2009 for failure to appear and remained in jail until June 10, 2010.

While in jail, after his life was threatened by inmates, he was immediately extracted from the prison population, and spent considerable time in the hospital ward where his cancer was confirmed.

In June, in order to obtain release and return to his wife and children in Ohio, a local lawyer persuaded Mr. Krutko to plead guilty to the internet charges. In order to be released on probation, he agreed to remove, within 10 days, his controversial internet postings. Mr. Krutko did his best to carry out the judge’s orders but at least one internet site (e.g., the “Rip-Off Report”) [Enclosure #3] refused to make an exception to their published policy and honor his request to remove his controversial postings. Consequently, there was nothing that Mr. Krutko could do about it.

Mr. Krutko recently received an affidavit (Case #09MM2409K) [Enclosure #2] that was sworn out by plaintiff attorney Michael Halpern stating that Mr. Krutko was in violation of his probation. His probation officer stated that a warrant for his arrest was issued on November 17th. Since he is indigent, and based upon past treatment, he has a reasonable expectation that he again will be arrested in Ohio and extradited to Monroe County where he is expected to appear Tuesday, Nov. 22. He expects to be incarcerated for a year since he will be unable to post a $20,000 bond.

Since I am not an attorney, I consulted our Association’s attorney, Mark Ross, Esq. He reviewed this case in depth and called into question the conduct of the judge. Unfortunately for Mr. Krutko, Mr. Ross cannot practice law in Florida. Nevertheless, he spoke at length with Michael Brownlee, Esq. of the Fisher law firm in Orlando (407) 422-1880.

Both attorneys believe there is something seriously wrong in the way that the Circuit Court has handled this matter. I respect their opinion and, on my own initiative, prepared this letter.

I respectfully request that you contact Mr. Brownlee for a professional review of these allegations to determine whether they merit the attention of the Florida Bar Association.

I spoke with Mr. Krutko a number of times today. It would be a gross understatement to say that he is highly distraught at the prospect of being incarcerated for a second time for his internet postings that are now in the public realm beyond his ability to delete. I believe his previous incarceration was more than adequate punishment for his desperate use of the only tools available to him at the time. I believe he did try to follow our recommendations to find a lawyer to handle his case on a contingent-fee basis.

I believe that the plaintiffs are using the court in Monroe County to harass and dissuade Mr. Krutko from taking legal action to resolve the theft of his boat as described in [Enclosure #1.] Their reach apparently extends beyond Florida. Several weeks ago at about 2:00 AM, Mr. Krutko, his family and neighbors were awakened when a brick was thrown through his back sliding glass door with a threatening note with the words “Key West” and “dead” used. He reported this to the local police. Earlier, he told me he received an e mail from a disgruntled state official following a phone call telling his family to “sleep with one eye open.”

I greatly appreciate your time in reviewing this complaint on behalf of this mariner and hope to hear from Mr. Brownlee on the merits of this complaint.

Very truly yours,
s/Richard A. Block

HAS IT COME TO THIS POINT IN 21st CENTURY AMERICA WHERE NOBODY GIVES A DAMN?


VERY IMPORTANT NOTES…

THIS FAMILY HAS WENT THROUGH HELL AND BACK JUST TRYING TO GET THE JUSTICE THEY DESERVE. ONE STATE OFFICIAL WHOS AGENCY WAS INVOLVED IN THIS COVERUP SPOKE TO KRUTKO ON THE PHONE AND ADVISED HIM THAT IF HIS RECENT BLOGS AND POSTS ABOUT HER HURT HER FAMILY BUSINESS OR REPUTATION HE WOULDN’T LIVE TO REGREAT IT.

A FEW MINUTES LATER SHE SENT AN E MAIL FROM HER OWN CORPORATE COMPUTER TELLING ROBERT AND HIS FAMILY TO “ SLEEP WITH ONE EYE OPEN “

IT IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL THE ABOVE, ALTHOUGH HARD TO BELIEVE IS DOCUMENTED BY KRUTKO AND HE HAS EVIDENCE TO BACK ALL THIS UP..


SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS IN FLORIDA INCLUDING A RETIRED SOUTH FLORIDA POLICE SARGEANT, AND A VERY REPUTABLE FLORIDA ATTORNEY HAVE INVESTIGATED THIS FULLY AND CONFIRMED THIS IS ALL TRUE.

ANYONE IN THE MEDIA WANTING TO COVER THIS HORRIFIC STORY CAN FEEL FREE TO CALL THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THEMSELVES TO DISCUSS THIS.

RETIRED SGT BRETT SAGENKAHN- 954-205-2417
MIKE BROWNLEE- ATTORNEY- 407-701-7918

YOU MAY ALSO CONTACT CAPTAIN RICHARD BLOCK OF THE NATIONAL MARINERS ASSOCIATION
985-851-2134

ONE OTHER AMAZING POINT YOU WONT BELIEVE IS A HIGH RANKING STATE OFFICIAL TIED IN WITH A POLICE AGENCY THAT INVESTIGATED THIS STORY HAS NOT ONLY WENT TO THE LT. GOVERNORS OFFICE ON THIS FAMILYS BEHALF TELLING THEM HER AGENCY TRIED TO COVER THIS UP, BUT SPOKE TO THE RETIRED SOUTH FLORIDA SGT.

AND TOLD HIM DIRECTLY- THE KRUTKOS WERE SEVERELY VICTIMIZED AND ALTHOUGH HER AGENCY MADE A MISTAKE IN THIS, THEY HAVE ALSO COVERED THIS UP…… "

Source of Post and Full Document

posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com