IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
ORLANDO DIVISION

RE:

MARK E. SCHMIDTER and JULIAN HEICKLEN,
Plaintiff(s)

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant

CASE #: 6:12-CV-1102-ORL-31-KRS

Heicklen and Schmidter v. State of Florida
Appellate Case # 5D113036
changed to 6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS

Re: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of FL,
 in and for Orange and Osceola Counties
Case # 48–2011–CF–8856–O

NOTICE OF MOTIONS
MOTION FOR     DENYING
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses
Three MOTIONS FOR ETHICAL SANCTIONS

_________________
Julian Heicklen
Plaintiff
Counsel Pro Se
36 Rachel Immenu #2
Jerusalem, Israel   93228
E-mail: jph13@psu.edu


______________
Date   

A. HISTORY

1. On April 11, 2013, Plaintiff received an E-mail from Defense Counsel Jamie Moses stating “We need a response from you by April 15 at noon, so if we do not hear from you, we will represent to the court that you will advise the court of any objection you might have.”  It also stated that a copy of the proposed amended answer was attached. However there was no attachment (Exhibit A).
2. On April 13, 2013 Plaintiff Heicklen replied to get a copy of the amended document since it was not attached to the E-mail from Counsel Moses (Exhibit B).
3. On April 16, 2013, Counsel for Plaintiff Schmidter, Adam Sudbury, notified the defense attorneys that he too did not possess a copy of the proposed amended answer (Exhibit C).
4.On April 16, Counsel Jamie Moses submitted “MOTION for leave to file Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses by Belvin Perry, Jr. (Moses, Jamie).” The Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses by Belvin Perry, Jr. (Moses, Jamie) was attached (Exhibit D).
5. On April 17, 2013 Judge Roy B. Dalton accepted both the Motion and the Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses document for the Court.
6. On the same date, April 17, 2013, the Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses Complaint was entered into court record (Exhibit F).
7. The first time that Plaintiff Heicklen saw either document was on April 18, 2013.

B. RESPONSE TO RENEWED MOTION

8. In Item 3 of Defendants’ Motion, they state that they wish ”...to assert several additional defenses, including, but not limited to, the defenses of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (and resulting lack of subject matter jurisdiction), absolute judicial immunity, and qualified immunity.”
9. Amendment XI to the United states Constitution states: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
10. Plaintiffs did not commence nor prosecute the State of Florida.  The State of Florida. commenced and prosecuted the Plaintiffs.  Thus Amendment XI is not relevant.
11. Absolute Judicial Immunity is defined as: “A judge's complete protection from personal liability for exercising judicial functions” (The Free dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+Immunity).
12. It does not include criminal actions.  For example: if a judge is sitting on the bench trying a case, one of the lawyers is irritating him, he pulls out a gun, shoots the lawyer and kills him.  The judge is not exempt from being tried for murder.
13. In our case, Plaintiff Heicklen is claiming that Judge Perry and the three Florida  appellate judges have committed perjury by knowingly lied to subvert Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, which they have taken an oath to uphold (CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, http://www.ablelegalforms.com/canons/judicialcode.html, page 1, paragraph 3).
14. Absolute judicial immunity does not apply.
 15. The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" [Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)].
 16. Qualified immunity does not apply here, because all 4 judges knowingly punished Plaintiffs for exercising their constitutional rights.
 17. In item 5, Defendants refer to Bush v. Washington Mutual Bank, F. A., 177 Fed. Appx 16 (11th Cir. 2006).
 18. Bush v. Washington cites Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) which states “the doctrine of judicial immunity applies both to actions for damages and suits seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.” It does not include criminal actions.
 19. In Item 5, Defendants also include Cuyler v. United States District Court 2011 WL 5525935, *2, n.7 (M.D Fla. Nov. 14, 2011).  This case “discusses judge’s impartiality, and disqualification would rarely be appropriate.”  It is not relevant to our case.
20. Item 5 also refers to Ronet v. Foster, 2006 WL 1980273, *2, (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2006). This reference  did not match any Google documents.
 21. Item 5 also refers to Fuller v. Truncale, 50 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).  Petitioner Fuller was attempting to overturn a non-criminal court decision.  It is not applicable to our case.
 22. In Item 6, Defendant refers to the Florida Appeals Court held the administrative order constitutional.  But the order is not constitutional, so that the argument is invalid.
 23. Item 7 is so vague and general, that it is impossible to comment.  There is no specific argument in its favor.
 24. Item 11 is irrelevant because it deals with judicial immunity claims.  Plaintiffs are charging all four judges with criminal activity, so that judicial immunity is irrelevant.
 25. In reference to item 12, Plaintiff Heicklen is not charging Defendant’s motion as disruptive.  He claims that it is not relevant.
 36. Item 13 states correctly that Plaintiff Heicklen never provided the requested consent/objection.
 27.The reason was that Plaintiff Heicklen did not receive the document until after it was submitted. even though he requested it in his e-mail of April 12, 2013 (Exhibit B).


C. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED
AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 28. Plaintiff Heicklen does not have a copy of the complaint to which Defendants refer, so that he cannot respond to all the allegations.
 29. Plaintiff Heicklen has no comments on Items 1-4.
 30. Plaintiff Heicklen disagrees with Item 5 for 2 reasons:

a. Amendment XI only applies if Plaintiffs commenced or prosecuted the case against the government.  In this case, it was the government that commenced or prosecuted the suit against Plaintiffs.
b. 42 U. S. C 1983 states that actions can be initiated in federal court if a declaratory decree has been violated.  It is commonly used if an individual’s civil right has been violated. Specifically the law states:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

 31. Plaintiff Heicklen claims that all 4 judges are guilty of the crime of perjury (See Heicklen submission of March 19, 2013, MOTION TO DECLARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2011-03 (posted at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/ADMIN._ORDER_2011-03_unconstitutional_3-19-13.html).
 32. Item 6 and 8-14 are not contested.
 33. Re Item 7, Plaintiff Heicklen disagrees because Amendment XI only covers judicial error, not criminal actions (See above discussion).
 34. Plaintiff Heicklen cannot comment on the issues in Count I and II, because he does not have that information.
 35. Responses to the Expressive Conduct Order:

a. The time manner, and place restrictions are not valid, because they can only be made “either by statute or by regulations issued pursuant to 40 U. S. C. § 13l” [United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983)].  They cannot be made by court order.
b. There is no reason given or even to believe that the Expressive Conduct Order may serve a significant government interest, but it does violate two important Constitutional interests: freedom of speech and the jury’s duty to judge the law as well as the facts.
c. Plaintiff’s claims regarding the Expressive Conduct Order are not moot, because the state courts knowingly have committed perjury by declaring the Expressive Conduct Order constitutional based on  U. S. Statute 40 U. S. C. §13k, which the U. Supreme Court declared to be unconstitutional in United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983).
d. The Expressive Conduct Order may not be overbroad or vague, but it is unconstitutional.
 
36. The argument that courthouse plazas and sidewalks are non-public forums is incorrect for several reasons:
a. In United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983), the grounds were found to be public forums.
b. Public demonstrations are routinely held on court plazas.
c. Any person is permitted to be on court plazas distributing all kinds of literature in spite of  U. S. Regulation 41 CFR Sec 102–74.415(c), which prohibits distribution of literature on any federal government property without a permit. 
d. Plaintiff Heicklen has done it 65 times at 40 federal courthouses and 17 times at 9 county court houses.  He was not prevented from doing so, except  on 14 occasions he was cited for violating U. S. Regulation 410 CFR §102–74.415(c).  However he did not pay the fines, nor appear at the court hearings.  Twelve of the citations at 2 different courthouses (Manhattan, NY and Newark, NJ) were dismissed.  The other 2 citations at Springfield, MA and Santa Ana, CA were never enforced, even though Plaintiff returned to each area on a future occasion.  A detailed discussion of these events is posted at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/FIJADemonstrations.html
e. In U. S. v. Julian Heicklen Cr. 1154  the U. S. District Court for the Southern District in Manhattan, NY upheld Plaintiff Heicklen’s right to distribute FIJA literature on the court plaza and grounds, and dismissed the jury tampering case against him (http://constitution.org/jury/pj/10-cr-01154-KMW_order.pdf).
f. The Expressive Conduct Order is not constitutionally permitted.
g. Defendant is not protected from liability because his action did violate established Constitutional law!!
h. Defendant’s actions were not objectively reasonable because they were upholding jury integrity.  In fact they were violating jury integrity by withholding the truth that Plaintiffs were distributing. Plaintiff Heicklen knows of no U. S. Supreme Court case which prohibits jurors from being informed of that duty.  The Sparf case [Sparf v. U.S. 156 U.S. 51 (1895)]  says the judge is not required to inform the jurors.  It does not prevent the judge or anyone  else from so informing jurors.  Twenty four State constitutions have jury nullification written in their constitutions. The Florida Constitution is not so specific, but Section 43.26, Part e of the Florida Statutes instructs the chief judge: “To do everything necessary to promote the prompt and efficient administration of justice in the courts over which he or she is chief judge.”  It does not require juries to uphold the law.  Plaintiff Heicklen is not aware of any state constitution that requires juries to uphold the law.  That is a fiction that judges promulgate and sometimes ignore.  Twice Plaintiff Heicklen has had judges dismiss cases against him in the interest of justice.  The two incidents occurred in the county court of Centre County, PA and in the New York County criminal court in Manhattan, NY.
i. Defendants, as state court judges, do not have judicial immunity for felony offenses.  In fact they probably do not even have any judicial immunity for activity outside the courthouse building.

37. Item 12 claims that the U. S. District Court lacks jurisdiction by virtue of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which states that U.S. Federal Courts are jurisdictionally barred from deciding cases decided exclusively on state grounds. The doctrine rests on the premise that state courts are the authority on state laws, and Federal Courts may not decide cases based on state law unless a Federal issue is raised separately (http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Rooker-Feldman_Doctrine).
38. However a federal issue is raised here, namely the violation of Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution.  Thus Rooker-Feldman is inapplicable.
39. Item 13 claims that Plaintiffs “...are not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief concerning Defendant’s actions because they have an adequate remedy at law...”
40. That remedy at law is 42  U. S. C. 1983, which must be decided by a federal court.
41. In Item 14, Defendant claims that “Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit are barred by the Full Faith and Credit Law, 28 U.S.C. §1738.”
42. 28 U.S.C. §1738  states:

“The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.”

“The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

    Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”

43. It has no application to the current case.
44. In Item 15, Defendant claims that “...Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of comity.”
45. “Judicial comity is the granting of reciprocity to decisions or laws by one state or jurisdiction to another. Since it is based upon respect and deference rather than strict legal principles, it does not require that any state or jurisdiction adopt a law or decision by another state or jurisdiction that is in contradiction, or repugnant, to its own law” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/comity).
46. 42 U.S.C. §1983 is not a law of the State of Florida , so judicial comity does not apply.
47. In Item 16, Defendant claims that “...Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.”
48. Collateral estoppel is “relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel).
49. In Item 17, Defendant claims “...there is no longer an actual controversy between the parties; accordingly, Plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief and have, thus, failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
50. This litigation is not based on a different cause of action.  It has uniformly been based on the grounds that both court orders are  unconstitutional because they violate Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution.
51. Res judicata is defined as: [Latin, A thing adjudged.] A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Doctrine+of+res+judicata).
52. Res judicata does not apply here, because 42 U. S. C. §1983 could not be litigated in state courts.
53. The statement in Item 17 is not true. Plaintiff Heicklen has stated many claims against Defendant.
54. In Item 18, Defendant claims that: “Any damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by reason of their own wrongful acts and conduct and their willful resistance to the Defendant in the discharge and attempt to discharge the duties of his office.
55. Defendants’ actions were not wrongful.  Free speech is guaranteed by Amendment I of the U. S. Constitution, Section 4 of Article I of the Florida Constitution, and United States v. Grace, 461 US 171 (1983).
56. Plaintiff Heicklen proudly admits his willful resistance to Defendant Perry, because of  Defendant’s unlawful behavior.
57. Defendant Perry was not attempting to discharge the duties of his office, but to violate the duties of his office in three ways.  These are:

a. Trampling on the free speech rights of Plaintiffs
b. Preventing jurors from gaining the knowledge that they may judge the law as well as the facts
c. Preventing jurors from learning that if they decide to uphold the law, it is not the law as given by the judge, which is sometimes incorrect (e.g. as given by the 4 state judges involved in this case).  It is the law in the written statute.  If the judge does not provide the jurors with the written statute, there is reasonable doubt, and the jurors must acquit.

58. In item 19, Defendant Perry claims that Plaintiffs failed to act reasonably, but he does not state how.  It is a gratuitous statement with no evidence.  There is no reason to reduce or bar Plaintiffs‘ claims based on this statement.
59. In Item 20, Defendant claims he is immune from suit pursuant to Florida Statute §768.28(9)(a).
60. Florida Statute §768.28(9)(a) states in part: 

“No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its subdivisions shall be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant in any action for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any act, event, or omission of action in the scope of her or his employment or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.”

61. Defendants  “... acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights...” 
62. Therefore Defendants’ argument is false.

D. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

63. Judge Perry falsified his defense in his petition based on United States v. Grace when he claimed that it upheld the constitutionality of U. S. Statute 40 U. S. C. §13k.
64. On fact United States v. Grace had declared 40 U. S. C. §13k to be unconstitutional.
65. Judge Perry is under oath to uphold the Constitutions of both the State of Florida and the United States.
66. Since Judge Perry knowingly lied to violate his oath, he is guilty of perjury.
67. The three judges on the appellate Court made the same error.
68. Thus they also are guilty of perjury.
69. In his submission of April 14, 2013, Counsel Moses said that Plaintiff Heicklen did not respond, a statement that he knew to be false.
70. Neither Counsel Sudbury nor Plaintiff Heicklen had received copies of the submission prior to April 14, 2013, when the submission to the Court was made.
71. Plaintiff Heicklen did not receive the document until April 16 (Exhibit D), and did not see it until April 18.
72. Counsel Fisher signed the Amended Response, which is based on the statements of the 4 state judges regarding 40 U. S. C. §k, which he knew to be false.
73. Thus both counsels for the defense should be removed from this case, and perhaps be barred from further practicing law, either temporarily or permanently.
74. Judge Roy B. Dalton of the U. S. District Court made the hasty decision to accept the defense motion to submit an amended complaint on April 17, 2013 (Exhibit E), before either Plaintiff had the opportunity to respond.
75. There was no apparent reason for such a hasty decision.
76. Thus Judge Roy B. Dalton has shown partiality in this case, and should be replaced by another judge.

E. MOTIONS

77. Plaintiff Heicklen moves that Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses  submitted by Defendant be denied.
78. Plaintiff Heicklen moves that the decisions of the four Florida State judges be ignored, since they are perjured decisions.
79. Plaintiff Heicklen moves that Counsels for the Defense, Jamie Moses and John Fisher, be removed from this case, because they have knowingly submitted false information.
80. Plaintiff Heicklen moves that U. S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton be removed and replaced by another judge, since he has indicated partiality to the Defendant.

F. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    Plaintiff Heicklen certifies that copies of this document entitled:

NOTICE OF MOTIONS
MOTION FOR     DENYING
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses
Three MOTIONS FOR ETHICAL SANCTIONS

has been submitted separately by E-mail as attachments to both counsels for the defense and  to  Counsel Sudbury for Plaintiff Schmidter on April 25, 2013.

CC: Adam Sudbury, Adam.Sudbury@SudburyLaw.net
John Fisher, jfisher@fisherlawfirm.com
Jamie Moses, jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com

_________________
Julian Heicklen
Counsel Pro Se

_________________
Date       

G. EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A:  4-11-13 @8:21 pm: original letter from defense: Attached is the proposed amended answer.
 
We need a response from you by April 15 at noon, so if we do not hear from you, we will represent to the court that you will advise the court of any objection you might have.

Exhibit B: 4-12-13 @ 8:20:58 PM GMT+03:00 pm: Heicklen reply to get copy of amended answer since it was not attached.

Exhibit C: April 16, 2013 9:03:54 PM GMT+03:00.
 Adam Sudbury also missing original.

Exhibit D:    April 16, 2013 10:33:52 PM GMT+03:00: MOTION for leave to file Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses by Belvin Perry, Jr. (Moses, Jamie).  The Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses by Belvin Perry, Jr. (Moses, Jamie) was attached as an Exhibit.

Exhibit E: 4/17/2013. (HAD)  4/17 @ 6:50 pm For the Court, Judge Roy B. Dalton accepts both the Motion and the Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses.

Exhibit F: April 17, 2013 10:24 pm GMT+03:00.  Amended ANSWER and affirmative defenses to [1] Complaint by Belvin Perry, Jr.(CH) entered into court record.

EXHIBIT A

On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:21 PM, Jamie Moses wrote:


Gentlemen,
 
As you may recall, the court denied our motion for leave to file amended answer without prejudice to determine if we still wanted to file an amended answer after its recent rulings.  We have determined we do still want to file an amended answer (like the one previously served minus any references to Count II).  Do you have an objection?
 
If we do not hear from you by noon on Monday, April 15, 2013, we will represent to the court you object to the motion.
 
Jamie Billotte Moses, Esquire
Board Certified Appellate Specialist
Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath,
Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P. A.
390 North Orange Avenue
Suite 2200
Post Office Box 712
Orlando, Florida 32802-0712
407-843-2111
407-422-1080 (Facsimile)
www.fisherlawfirm.com

 
CONFIDENTIAL : The information in this email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not and must not read, print, forward, use or disseminate the information contained herein. Although this email (and any attachments) are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses or defects and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising or resulting in any way from its receipt or use. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please reply to the sender and include this message and then delete this message from your inbox and your archive and/or discarded messages files. Any unintended disclosure of legally privileged and/or confidential information that may have occurred is inadvertent and does not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or confidentiality. Thank you.
IMPORTANT: Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P. A. utilizes spam and junk e-mail filtration applications in its e-mail information systems. These applications may prevent or delay delivery of certain e-mail communications. If you do not receive a timely response to an e-mail communication, please contact the intended recipient via telephone at 407-843-2111.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Pursuant to Treasury Department Circular 230, this is to advise you unless we otherwise expressly state in writing, e-mail communications, including all attachments, from this firm are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. If you wish to engage this firm to provide formal written advice as to federal or state tax issues, please contact the sender.
 
 From: Jamie Moses [mailto:jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:20 PM
To: Julian P Heicklen
Cc: Adam H. Sudbury; John Fisher; Stephanie Preston
Subject: RE: Middle District Case

EXHIBIT B

From: Julian P Heicklen [mailto:jph13@psu.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013, 8:20:58 PM GMT+03:00
To: Jamie Moses
Cc: Adam Sudbury; John Fisher; Stephanie Preston
Subject: Re: Middle District Case
Hi:
 
I am not sure to what you are referring.  Please send a pdf of the amended answer, so that I can look at it.
I will respond one way or the other, but it may not be by April 15. However it will be soon thereafter.
 
Yours in freedom and justice—Julian Heicklen


EXHIBIT C

     Adam Sudbury <adam@sudburylaw.net>
    Subject:     RE: Middle District Case
    Date:     April 16, 2013 9:03:54 PM GMT+03:00
    To:     Jamie Moses <jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com>, Julian Heicklen <jph13@psu.edu>
    Cc:     John Fisher <jfisher@fisherlawfirm.com>, Stephanie Preston <spreston@fisherlawfirm.com>
    Security:     Signed (Adam H. Sudbury)

Jamie/John:
 
I am missing your initial disclosures from my file.  May I trouble you to provide an additional copy by e-mail?
 
v/r
Adam
 
Sudbury Law, PL
424 E Central Blvd # 307
Orlando, FL 32801-1923
P: (407) 395-4111
F: (407) 395-4023
E: adam@sudburylaw.net
 
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and may be attempting to collect a debt.  If so, any and all information provided will be used for that purpose.

This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.2510-2521 and (a) is or may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE; (b) is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein.  If you are not the intended recipient, an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, using, copying, or distributing any part of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact SUDBURY LAW, PL immediately and take the necessary steps to delete the message completely from your computer system.  The receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not waive the attorney-client privilege; neither will it constitute a waiver of the work product doctrine.

The specific facts that apply to your case may result in a different outcome than would be anticipated by you.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Regulation 31 C.F.R. 10, 10.35, be advised that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any Federal Tax advice contained in this communication, including attachment(s), is not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Exhibit D

April 16, 2013 10:30:57 PM GMT+03:00. 
Initial correspondence with defense attorney

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Moses, Jamie on 4/16/2013 at 3:30 PM EDT and filed on 4/16/2013

Case Name:        Schmiter et al v. Perry
Case Number:    6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS
Filer:                  Belvin Perry, Jr
Document:        49
Number:


Docket Text:
MOTION for leave to file Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses by Belvin Perry, Jr. (Moses, Jamie)

6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Adam Harold Sudbury     adam@sudburylaw.net, inbox@sudburylaw.net

Jamie Billotte Moses     jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com, choward@fisherlawfirm.com

John Edwin Fisher     jfisher@fisherlawfirm.com, msheets@fisherlawfirm.com

Julian P. Heicklen     jph13@psu.edu

6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS Notice has been delivered by other means to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1069447731 [Date=4/16/2013] [FileNumber=11108061-
0] [9f1c43f0517d6c6f7c65b8a9aaa15599a6fb634200540d2359706918669923ca52
5d75df00da97d73ab4d96036e66e4eddfa7553961a00ca76eed076d9b59c26]]

 Exhibit E

4/17/2013. (HAD)  4/17 @ 6:50 pm ENDORSED ORDER granting [49] Defendant's Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter Defendant's Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses attached to the motion (Doc. 49, pp. 11-17) as a separate entry in the docket. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/17/2013. (HAD)  4/17 @ 6:50 pm
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

Middle District of Florida

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 4/17/2013 at 11:55 AM EDT and filed on 4/17/2013

Case Name:              Schmidter et al v. Perry
Case Number:          6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS
Filer: Document:    50(No document attached)
Number:

Docket Text:
ENDORSED ORDER granting [49] Defendant's Renewed Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter Defendant's Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses attached to
the motion (Doc. 49, pp. 11-17) as a separate entry in the docket. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/17/2013. (HAD)

6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS Notice has been electronically mailed to:

John Edwin Fisher jfisher@fisherlawfirm.com, msheets@fisherlawfirm.com

Jamie Billotte Moses jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com, choward@fisherlawfirm.com

Adam Harold Sudbury (Terminated) adam@sudburylaw.net, inbox@sudburylaw.net

Julian P. Heicklen jph13@psu.edu

6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS Notice has been delivered by other means to:

Exhibit F

April 17, 2013 10:24 pm GMT+03:00.  Amended ANSWER and affirmative defenses to [1] Complaint by Belvin Perry, Jr.(CH)

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

Middle District of Florida

Notice of Electronic Fili
ng

The following transaction was entered on 4/17/2013 at 3:23 PM EDT and filed on 4/17/2013

Case Name: chmidter et al v. Perry
Caase Number: 
6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS
Filer: Belvin Perry, Jr
Document: 51
Number:

6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS Notice has been electronically mailed to:

John Edwin Fisher jfisher@fisherlawfirm.com, msheets@fisherlawfirm.com

Jamie Billotte Moses jmoses@fisherlawfirm.com, choward@fisherlawfirm.com

Adam Harold Sudbury (Terminated) adam@sudburylaw.net, inbox@sudburylaw.net

Julian P. Heicklen jph13@psu.edu

6:12-cv-01102-RBD-KRS Notice has been delivered by other means to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[
STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1069447731 [Date=4/17/2013] [FileNumber=11112477-
0] [24cb6b9bc3fea9dc6e03b9817918b5edb64c8f2a4cbc560d4d2bdfaf13567ca4a6
b4673746775fbe4dd5e68138383044092e7e8a050eda806c8237329652a92a]]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Consectetur adipiscing elit
Eset eiusmod tempor incidunt et labore et dolore magna aliquam. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerc. Irure dolor in reprehend incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse molestaie cillum. Tia non ob ea soluad incommod quae egen ium improb fugiend. Officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda et tam. Neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam is nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet.

Duis aute in voluptate velit esse
Cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. At vver eos et accusam dignissum qui blandit est praesent. Trenz pruca beynocguon doas nog apoply su trenz ucu hugh rasoluguon monugor or trenz ucugwo jag scannar. Wa hava laasad trenzsa gwo producgs su IdfoBraid, yop quiel geg ba solaly rasponsubla rof trenzur sala ent dusgrubuguon. Offoctivo immoriatoly, hawrgasi pwicos asi sirucor. Thas sirutciun applios tyu thuso itoms ghuso pwicos gosi sirucor in mixent gosi sirucor ic mixent ples cak ontisi sowios uf Zerm hawr rwivos. Unte af phen neige pheings atoot Prexs eis phat eit sakem eit vory gast te Plok peish ba useing phen roxas. Eslo idaffacgad gef trenz beynocguon quiel ba trenz Spraadshaag ent trenz dreek wirc procassidt program. Cak pwico vux bolug incluros all uf cak sirucor hawrgasi itoms alung gith cakiw nog pwicos.

Plloaso mako nuto uf cakso dodtos
Koop a cupy uf cak vux noaw yerw phuno. Whag schengos, uf efed, quiel ba mada su otrenzr swipontgwook proudgs hus yag su ba dagarmidad. Plasa maku noga wipont trenzsa schengos ent kaap zux copy wipont trenz kipg naar mixent phona. Cak pwico siructiun ruos nust apoply tyu cak UCU sisulutiun munityuw uw cak UCU-TGU jot scannow. Trens roxas eis ti Plokeing quert loppe eis yop prexs. Piy opher hawers, eit yaggles orn ti sumbloat alohe plok. Su havo loasor cakso tgu pwuructs tyu InfuBwain, ghu gill nug bo suloly sispunsiblo fuw cakiw salo anr ristwibutiun. Hei muk neme eis loppe. Treas em wankeing ont sime ploked peish rof phen sumbloat syug si phat phey gavet peish ta paat ein pheeir sumbloats. Aslu unaffoctor gef cak siructiun gill bo cak spiarshoot anet cak GurGanglo gur pwucossing pwutwam. Ghat dodtos, ig pany, gill bo maro tyu ucakw suftgasi pwuructs hod yot tyubo rotowminor. Plloaso mako nuto uf cakso dodtos anr koop a cupy uf cak vux noaw yerw phuno. Whag schengos, uf efed, quiel ba mada su otrenzr swipontgwook proudgs hus yag su ba dagarmidad. Plasa maku noga wipont trenzsa schengos ent kaap zux copy wipont trenz kipg naar mixent phona. Cak pwico siructiun ruos nust apoply tyu cak UCU sisulutiun munityuw uw cak UCU-TGU jot scannow. Trens roxas eis ti Plokeing quert loppe eis yop prexs. Piy opher hawers, eit yaggles orn ti sumbloat alohe plok. Su havo loasor cakso tgu pwuructs tyu.