Connect with us

Federal Judges

LIF Editorial: Drug Smugglin’ Coast Guard and Attorney Sentenced to Probation

James Heyward Silcox III was a Commander in the US Coast Guard and part-time wholesale drug smuggler. His claims to the Fl. Bar he’s an addict LIF found to be unavailing.

Published

on

When the Coast is Clear, Let All the Criminal Lawyers Go Free

JUL 1, 2021
Silcox’s last known address on his February 2021 Fl. Bar Affidavit. The property was sold the following month.

LIF was alerted to Heyward Silcox when the Florida Bar  issued their July 2021 list of misconduct. After reading the Bar’s paperwork, one would think that Heyward went wayward on a drug addiction.

The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court decided to revoke his license for five years but allow him to reapply as Heyward Silcox was very remorseful and grateful for a second chance.

As part of his rehabilitation, he would complete addiction counseling etc.

However, after LIF’s investigation,  Silcox has clearly committed perjury. He is a lyin’ lawyer. The charge itself is clear on the it’s face, he was a king pin distributing the large quantities of Tramadol, a narcotic, to others for distribution and sale based on the quantities in question.

What you will read in the following article is how Silcox imported wholesale quantities of Tramadol from 2017 until his arrest in 2019, a narcotic. What’s fantastical but true is at the same time he’s assistant trial counsel for the Coast Guard, prosecuting a case where appellant was convicted of four specifications of wrongful use of a controlled substance (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and oxycodone).

See United States v. Kenneth MOLINARY, No. 1440 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2017).

Nowhere did LIF find any disclosure of these facts, including the government. (We’ll correct this article if we are mistaken, just holla’). It’s also unclear if he was slapped, prosecuted or disbarred by the Coast Guard internally before his resignation or it was deemed ‘moot’ upon his resignation.

It gets more incredulous after his arrest. Silcox is provided with a Public Defender and the prosecution have to arrange a conference with the judge to submit him into retaining his own criminal attorney.

His wife is Lieutenant Commander Emma Silcox who serves as the Base Miami Beach Comptroller. Here’s the job description, the budget she oversees is in the Billions.

Yet her husband’s greed and combined $300,000 annual salaries would not prevent him from trafficking, apparently to fund a new retirement home and related investments and not a falsely claimed addiction.

The icing on the cake is this trusted attorney, JAG and Commander was surfin’ the dark web to purchase his illegal narcs and paying for it with crypto.

In obtaining relief from the Fl. Bar complaint, Silcox’s affidavit in his Petition to the Fl. Bar included;

I, Petitioner, would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the Florida Bar for its compassion, patience, guidance, and resources, in facilitating my recovery through the exhausting and unpleasant last ~18 months, as I retired from the military, resolved my case, and relocated to Florida. Regardless of whether this Petition is approved, and regardless of whether I earn readmission in five years, I and my family are forever grateful for – and humbled by – the Bar’s support. As we say in recovery, “I cannot start my new future until I give up all hope of a better past.” I own my criminal conduct, and that dark time serves as a constant reminder in keeping my recovery strong and permanent. The Bar has been a tremendous advocate in starting this new, healthy, humble, chapter in my life.

Signed on 22 February, 2021.

Apparently, Silcox claims the same skills as Judge Kenneth “Magic” Marra of S.D. Fl., in that he can predict the future… However, the entry of judgment and sentencing did not happen in the California criminal case until June 2, 2021.

We now know that Mr Silcox  ‘retired’ 18 months before his Feb 2021 affidavit which would be around the time of his indictment in August 2019. It is unclear why he joined the Florida Bar in March of 2018.

Whether Mrs Silcox is still employed by the Department of Homeland Security  is  unknown as we publish this alarming true story.

Judge Jon S. Tigar

Alameda Resident Pleads Guilty To Illegally Importing Narcotics (Yep, this DOJ Headline is Very Understated)

According to the government, Silcox used end-to-end encrypted communication applications and email services to communicate with his overseas suppliers and his downstream domestic customers and used crytpocurrency to make payments.

JUN 29, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 1, 2021

United States v. Silcox

(4:19-cr-00491)

District Court, N.D. California

OAKLAND –James Heyward Silcox III, pleaded guilty to all three counts in an indictment charging him with illegally importing controlled substances, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Tatum King, Coast Guard Investigative Service Special Agent in Charge Kelly Hoyle, and Customs and Border Protection Director of Field Operations Brian J. Humphrey.

Silcox entered the guilty plea without a plea agreement.  The plea was accepted by the Hon. Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge.

Silcox, 42, of Alameda, Calif., was originally charged by complaint on September 18, 2019.  The complaint alleged that he illegally imported Tramadol from Singapore and Germany to post office boxes he held.  Tramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance and narcotic.

Silcox, a U.S. Coast Guard Commander, was arrested on the complaint on September 17, 2019, at Coast Guard Island, in Alameda.

During the change of plea hearing, the government advised the court of evidence that Silcox began purchasing tramadol in 2017 online from an unknown person he believed was in Singapore.

The government offered further evidence that Silcox had received shipments of tramadol from three separate overseas suppliers from 2017 to 2019, and sent shipments to downstream buyers of 500-1000 pills per month, which Silcox received from his overseas suppliers at his P.O. boxes.

LIF Comment: So he’s not a drug addict, he’s a drug dealer.

According to the government, Silcox used end-to-end encrypted communication applications and email services to communicate with his overseas suppliers and his downstream domestic customers, and used crytpocurrency to make payments.

LIF Comment: In 2018 he was admitted to the Florida Bar as an Attorney.

On September 26, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Silcox charging him with three counts of importation of a Schedule IV narcotic drug, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(6).  Pursuant to the guilty plea, Silcox pleaded guilty to all three counts.

Silcox faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, and a fine of $250,000, for each count in the indictment.

However, any sentence would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

His next court appearance has been set for September 25, 2020, which is a status hearing concerning the sentencing.

LIF Update: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Sentencing held on 5/28/2021 for James Heyward Silcox, III (1). Committed to a term of 3 years probation, to be served concurrently with terms imposed on Count(s): 1, 2 and 3; $300.00 special assessment; $5,000.00 fine

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah E. Griswold is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Mimi Lam.

The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Homeland Security Investigations; the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area-Transnational Narcotics Team (HIDTA-TNT); the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General; and the Coast Guard Investigation Service.  The prosecution is part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force National Heroin Initiative to combat the opioid crisis.

U.S. District Court
California Northern District (Oakland)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cr-00491-JST All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Silcox

Magistrate judge case number: 4:19-mj-71534-MAG
Date Filed: 09/26/2019
Date Terminated: 05/28/2021

Plaintiff
USA represented by Sarah Elizabeth Griswold
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California
150 Almaden Blvd.
Suite 900
San Jose, CA 95113
408-535-5061
Fax: 408-535-5081
Email: Sarah.Griswold@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US AttorneyKaren D. Beausey
U.S. Attorney’s Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36055
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 436-6598
Fax: (415) 436-7234
Email: karen.beausey@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
01/14/2021 41 ORDER granting 40 Stipulation to Continue Sentencing as to James Heyward Silcox III (1) Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 14, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
04/16/2021 43 CLERK’S NOTICE SETTING IN-COURTROOM ZOOM HEARING. Sentencing set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. All counsel shall appear in person. All persons attending the hearing must take the pre-screening questionnaire here: http://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CAND-COVID-19-Pre-Screening-Questionnaire.pdf This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts .gov/jst

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Sentencing set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, Courtro om 1, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

04/16/2021 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING as to James Heyward Silcox, III, filed by USA, James Heyward Silcox, III. (Griswold, Sarah) (Filed on 4/16/2021) Modified on 4/19/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2021)
04/19/2021 45 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 44 Stipulation To Continue Sentencing as to James Heyward Silcox III (1).(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2021) (Entered: 04/19/2021)
04/19/2021 46 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Sentencing set for 5/28/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, – Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Sentencing set for 5/28/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, – Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is n o document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2021) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

04/19/2021 47 MOTION for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture by USA as to James Heyward Silcox, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Preliminary Order of Forfeiture)(Beausey, Karen) (Filed on 4/19/2021) Modified on 4/20/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2021)
05/21/2021 48 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by USA as to James Heyward Silcox, III (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Griswold, Sarah) (Filed on 5/21/2021) (Entered: 05/21/2021)
05/21/2021 49 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by James Heyward Silcox, III (Levinsohn, Michael) (Filed on 5/21/2021) (Entered: 05/21/2021)
05/28/2021 50 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 47 Motion for Forfeiture of Property as to James Heyward Silcox III (1).(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2021) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
05/28/2021 51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Sentencing held on 5/28/2021 for James Heyward Silcox, III (1). Committed to a term of 3 years probation, to be served concurrently with terms imposed on Count(s): 1, 2 and 3; $300.00 special assessment; $5,000.00 fine (Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado). (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2021) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
06/02/2021 52 JUDGMENT in a Criminal Case as to James Heyward Silcox, III. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 2, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2021) (Entered: 06/02/2021)

Heyward Silcox III, 22 Tulip Lane, Apt. 307, Cocoa Beach, disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective 30 days following a May 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2018)

On or about June 26, 2020, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Silcox pleaded guilty to three counts of illegal importation of a controlled substance, specifically the Schedule IV narcotic Tramadol.

Prior to his plea, Silcox successfully completed a chemical dependency treatment program on March 6, 2020.

Silcox has also signed a two-year contract with Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.

(Case No: SC21-290)

OAKLAND — Federal prosecutors have secured a grand jury indictment against a U.S. Coast Guard commander who was arrested and charged in an alleged scheme to smuggle drugs in from Singapore.

James Silcox III, 41, was indicted Sept. 26 on three charges of importation of a Schedule IV narcotic, court records show. The criminal complaint against him alleges he received three shipments of Tramadol, a controlled substance and narcotic, to post office boxes over the summer.

Schedule IV drugs are defined by the federal government as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence.

According to the criminal complaint, on July 11, an 865-gram package from Singapore headed for an Alameda post office box was flagged by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the U.S. Postal Service’s international mail facility at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. Officers at the postal service’s San Francisco airmail facility intercepted another 650 200-milligram tablet Tramadol package from Singapore on Aug. 28, before receiving another package Sept. 13 that held 458 grams of Tramadol.

Silcox has requested the services of the federal public defender’s office, but prosecutors are fighting the move, saying that

James Silcox and his wife — who is also a commander in the U.S. Coast Guard — make a combined $300,000 in “annual take-home pay” and are building a retirement home in Florida.

“That a defendant would rather not spend his money on an attorney does not mean he is ‘financially unable’ to obtain counsel,”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Griswold wrote in a memorandum opposing Silcox’s retention of a public defender.

Silcox pleaded not guilty to the charges at a Sept. 30 arraignment hearing, court records show. He was released from jail the same day the charges were filed, according to the docket.

Public Defender Removed from Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Winn Levinsohn

Emma Silcox, Lieutenant Commander, United States Coast Guard

Board of Director at the National Women’s Council. The Council is dedicated to developing and empowering women of all background, classes, and ages.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Appellate Circuit

Judge Jill Pryor on a Panel about Judicial Recusals? That’s a Contradiction, Right There.

Judge Cooke has a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants.

Published

on

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 20-13674
Non-Argument Calendar

JAMES BUCKMAN, MAURICE SYMONETTE,

versus
LANCASTER MORTGAGE CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.,
as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement series rast 2006-A8,

SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

U.S. TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees,

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

OCT 7, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 7, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-24184-MGC

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

James Buckman and Maurice Symonette (“Buckman and Symonette”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their second amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

They argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias by dismissing their case because they had filed a motion for an additional three-day extension of time and the district court provided a window for responses to the motion by the defendants, but then dismissed the case before the responses were due.1

After review, we affirm.

1 Over four months after filing their notice of appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed two motions for recusal of the district court judge, arguing that she had a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants. (LIF: THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DEUTSCHE BANK)

The district court denied the motions.

Buckman and Symonette did not file an amended or new notice of appeal following entry of that order.

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion for recusal.

See McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that, although we liberally construe notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 to include orders not expressly designated, that allowance does not extend to an order that was not entered when the notice of appeal was filed);

see also LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837–38 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that we lacked jurisdiction over a post-judgment order awarding attorney’s fees where the motion for attorney’s fees was not filed until after the notice of appeal and the plaintiff failed to file an amended notice of appeal from the order awarding fees).

I. Background

In October 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a pro se 45-page complaint against eight defendants including numerous banks, a mortgage company, the Security and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Treasury, and other entities, raising numerous claims including:

(1) quiet title;
(2) slander of title;
(3) unjust enrichment;
(4) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
(5) fraud and concealment;
(6) violation of timely assignment and lack of consideration;
and
(7) various violations of several Florida statutes.

Thereafter, in December 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a 51-page amended complaint asserting a total of 11 causes of action.

On July 24, 2020, the district court, sua sponte, struck the amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

The district court set forth the pleading rules in its order, and provided that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2020 to file a second amended complaint.

The district court emphasized that, in the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs are required to make a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Plaintiffs must also state each theory of liability separately “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The newly amended complaint should clearly delineate which factual allegations and cited laws are relevant to the asserted cause of action.

This includes specifying which Defendant is liable under each cause of action and which Defendant is implicated in each factual allegation.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice or other appropriate sanctions.

On July 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to file their second amended complaint. The district court granted the motion and ordered that the second amended com- plaint be filed on or before August 6, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking three more days to file their second amended complaint. On the same date, after filing their extension motion, they filed their second amended complaint.

The 92-page second amended complaint added 4 new causes of action and suffered from many of the same issues as the first amended complaint.

On August 17, 2020, the district court dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint explaining that the second amended complaint “does not cure the defects that required striking of the initial Complaint.”

This appeal followed.2

2 Following the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court, which was denied. However, they do not raise any arguments related to the denial of their motion for re- consideration in their brief. Accordingly, the district court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration is not before us.

II. Discussion

Buckman and Symonette argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias when it dismissed their case with prejudice while their motion for extension of time was pending.

Specifically, they argue that the district court docketed their motion for a three- day extension of time to file the second amended complaint and set “responses due by 8/20/2020,” but then dismissed the case before that date.

They also raise arguments related to the merits of their underlying claims.

The district court did not err in dismissing the case. On the day the second amended complaint was due, Buckman and Symonette filed the request for a three-day extension of time, but they then filed a second amended complaint the same day.

The filing of the second amended complaint on the day it was due mooted the motion for an extension of time and the related re- sponse period.

Once the second amended complaint was filed, there was nothing left for the district court to do except review the complaint to determine whether the plaintiffs corrected the previously identified pleading issues.

To the extent that Buckman and Symonette’s brief could be liberally construed as challenging the district court’s dismissal of the second-amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading, we review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion.

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)

(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”).

“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.”

Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324.

Rule 8 requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10 requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b).

Rule 10 further provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b).

We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun pleadings.

See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading, a district court must give him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2018).

The district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun rule so that the plaintiff can remedy his next pleading.

Id.

Where, as here, the plaintiff is provided fair notice of the specific defects in his complaint and a meaningful chance to fix it but fails to correct the defects, the district court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.

Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice because Buckman and Symonette failed to correct the pleading defects.

Id.

Consequently, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Debt Collector

Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed Lined Up to Award Sanctions including Attorney Fees Against Attorney Lee Segal

Florida Federal Courts are on the run from LawsinFlorida.com but despite your games, we’re here and the people are too, watchin’.

Published

on

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

(8:21-cv-02130)

District Court, M.D. Florida

SEP 10, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 28, 2021

Florida Federal Courts are really tryin’ hard to hide which case and which judge is gonna screw lawyer Lee Segal for standing up to that German Bank, the straw man known as Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, but we’re all over them and they cannot hide the corruption from the people… We support Segal.

Federal judges take note, you should be sanctioning the corrupt bank for it’s decades of deception and lies. Otherwise, you’re just part of the ochlocracy and and Outlaw in a dirty black robe.

UPDATE: OCT 7, 2021

ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant has represented that, as of September 30, 2021, Plaintiff still has not properly effected service of process on it. (Doc. # 38).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file by October 15, 2021, a status report concerning its efforts at service of process, or, if it has effected service, file proof of such service on the docket.

If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Court’s directive, the Court may issue a show-cause order pursuant to Local Rule 3.10.

Based upon its review of the record, the Court also sets aside the requirement for the parties to file a case management report at this time. If the Defendant is properly served in this case, the Court will enter an order setting a new deadline regarding that report.

Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/7/2021.

FL. FEDERAL COURT SWITCHES AGAIN... READ THE HISTORY, CLICK THE IMAGE

ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 33) is hereby referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/21/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/21/2021)

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:21-cv-02130-VMC-JSS

 

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Assigned to: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Case in other court:  Florida Southern, 2:21-cv-14039

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Petitioner
Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. represented by Lee Segal
Segal & Schuh Law Group, PL
18167 US Hwy 19 N Ste 100
Clearwater, FL 33764
727-824-5775
Fax: 888-672-7347
Email: lee@segalschuh.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Respondent
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee represented by Jason H. Okleshen
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
777 S Flagler Dr Ste 300E
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6167
561/650-7900
Fax: 561/655-6222
Email: okleshenj@gtlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBeth Ann Norrow
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
450 S Orange Ave Ste 650
Orlando, FL 32801
248-670-0353
Email: norrowb@gtlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/10/2021 27 ORDER Granting 22 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 9/10/2021. See attached document for full details. (cds) [Transferred from flsd on 9/10/2021.] (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/10/2021 28 Case transferred in from District of Florida Southern; Case Number 2:21-cv-14039. File received electronically (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/10/2021 29 TRANSFER IN from the Southern District of Florida. Case assigned to District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. New Case Number: 8:21-cv-2130-VMC-JSS. (JNB) (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/10/2021 30 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant removed this case on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Yet, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. The notice of removal merely states that Plaintiff is “is a dissolved Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Bellaire Bluffs, Florida.” (Doc. # 1). But “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, “[t]o sufficiently allege the citizenships of” a limited liability company, “a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.” Id. Accordingly, to establish that complete diversity exists, Defendant must file an amended notice of removal listing the citizenships of all the members of Plaintiff by September 17, 2021. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/10/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/15/2021 31 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee re 1 Complaint, 30 Order; NOTICE OF REMOVAL (AMENDED). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – FLIP Sunbiz Filing and Articles of Dissolution, # 2 Exhibit B – DBNTC Corp Exist Records)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/15/2021)
09/15/2021 32 ENDORSED ORDER: Counsel are directed to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, and by September 29, 2021, file a completed Case Management Report. The Court believes that six to eight months is a sufficient period of time to conduct discovery in the vast majority of cases. If the parties believe that more than eight months will be needed to complete discovery, the parties should provide the Court with a detailed explanation as to why additional time is needed and a timeline for the discovery that is planned. After the Case Management Report is filed, the Court will determine whether a Case Management Hearing is necessary before entry of a Case Management and Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/15/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/15/2021)
09/20/2021 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Test Cases, # 2 Exhibit 2 – DBNTC-BNYM Cases, # 3 Exhibit 3 – Docket, # 4 Exhibit 4 – Show Cause Order, # 5 Exhibit 5 – Response to Order to Show Cause, # 6 Exhibit 6 – Dismissal and Re-Filed Complain, # 7 Exhibit 7 – Affidavit of CT Corp)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/20/2021)
09/20/2021 34 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice regarding 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Segal Filings on behalf of 4417 Rudde, # 2 Exhibit 2- Segal Filings on behalf of Ziferryn Ventures, # 3 Exhibit 3- Segal Filings on behalf of George Weber, # 4 Exhibit 4- Segal Filings on behalf of Carla Turner-Hahn, # 5 Exhibit 5- Segal Filings on behalf of Anna Lofgren, # 6 Exhibit 6 – Segal Filings on behalf of Michael and Marcia Haulsee, # 7 Exhibit 7- Segal Filings on behalf of Jacaranda)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/20/2021)
09/20/2021 35 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice regarding 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Kaye Pinellas County Case 20-2097 Docket, # 2 Exhibit 2 – Kaye Okechobee Case 20-CA-148 Docket, # 3 Exhibit 3 – Segal Affidavit)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/20/2021)
09/21/2021 36 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 33) is hereby referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/21/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/21/2021)

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:21-cv-02130-VMC-JSS

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Assigned to: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Case in other court:  Florida Southern, 2:21-cv-14039

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Entered # Docket Text
09/21/2021 36 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 33) is hereby referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/21/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/21/2021)
09/30/2021 37 ENDORSED ORDER: Pursuant to the Court’s order entered on September 15, 2021 (Doc. # 32), the parties were required to file a case management report by September 29, 2021. Based on a review of the docket, a case management report has not been filed. The parties are directed to file a case management report by October 6, 2021. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/30/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/30/2021)
09/30/2021 38 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee re 26 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Order on Motion to Remand Order on Motion to Strike Order on Report and Recommendations, 37 Order Notice of Lack of Service of Process on Defendant and Notice of Defendant’s Compliance with Case Management (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Order Adopting Recommendation (Quashing SOP), # 2 Exhibit B – Email to Lee Segal)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:21-cv-02130-VMC-JSS

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Assigned to: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Case in other court:  Florida Southern, 2:21-cv-14039

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/30/2021 38 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee re 26 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Remand, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Report and Recommendations, 37 Order; Notice of Lack of Service of Process on Defendant and Notice of Defendant’s Compliance with Case Management. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Order Adopting Recommendation (Quashing SOP), # 2 Exhibit B – Email to Lee Segal)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/30/2021)
10/07/2021 39 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant has represented that, as of September 30, 2021, Plaintiff still has not properly effected service of process on it. (Doc. # 38). Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file by October 15, 2021, a status report concerning its efforts at service of process, or, if it has effected service, file proof of such service on the docket. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Court’s directive, the Court may issue a show-cause order pursuant to Local Rule 3.10. Based upon its review of the record, the Court also sets aside the requirement for the parties to file a case management report at this time. If the Defendant is properly served in this case, the Court will enter an order setting a new deadline regarding that report. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/7/2021. (SGM) (Entered: 10/07/2021)
Continue Reading

Appellate Circuit

A Chiefly Notorious 3-Panel Doubles Up On the Award of Sanctions Against a Pro Se Litigant

We order Watkins to pay double the costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and to assess those fees and double costs against Watkins.

Published

on

The Triple Panel Doubles Up On the Pro Se

 REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 18, 2021

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-11573

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-04345-ELR

ROBERT L. WATKINS, PRO SE

Plaintiff – Appellant,

versus

CAPITAL CITY BANK & GUARANTY,

As a defendant as it had merged with FMB, EDWARD J. TARVER,

successor in interest to Farmers and Merchants Bank,

GOODMAN, MCGUFFEY, LLP, ROBERT LUSKIN,

KEVIN C. PATRICK,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

(September 15, 2021)

Before WILLIAM ‘SO MANY LIES’ PRYOR, Chief Judge, BERT ‘REPUTATION IS EVERYTHING’ JORDAN and BRITT ‘NO JUDICIAL OATH’ GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Robert Watkins appeals pro se the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to his former attorney, Edward J. Tarver, Capital City Bank & Guaranty, and its counsel, Goodman McGuffey, LLP, Robert Luskin, and Kevin C. Patrick. We affirm.

Watkins abandoned any challenge he could have made to the dismissal of his complaint and to the order awarding the defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs. Despite obtaining four extensions of time from this Court and an opportunity to correct his deficient brief, Watkins chose to relabel his complaint as his initial brief.

Watkins does not dispute that his claims against all the defendants were untimely, see O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, and barred by res judicata.

He also does not dispute that the defendants were entitled to the expenses they incurred to defend against a complaint he filed after two federal judges warned him that “continuing the pursuit of frivolous litigation may result in sanctions, injunction, and/or other appropriate relief.”

“We read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” but Watkins has abandoned his opportunity to contest the dismissal of his complaint or the award of sanctions against him. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

The defendants jointly request that we sanction Watkins for pursuing a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.

Rule 38 states, “If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” Id.

The defendants argue that Watkins has badgered them for almost two decades, this appeal constitutes the sixth time he has forced them to respond to “the same claims” in this Court, and this appeal “is without legal merit and presented to further harass [them] and needlessly increase the costs of litigation.”

Watkins has not responded to the motion.

Rule 38 exists “to assess just damages in order to penalize an appellant who takes a frivolous appeal and to compensate the injured appellee for the delay and added expense of defending the district court’s judgment.” Burlington N. R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1, 7 (1987).

Watkins’s serial litigation warrants an award to the defendants for their expenses in defending this appeal. See United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1133 (11th Cir. 2008) (sanctioning pro se litigant).

We order Watkins to pay double the costs the defendants have incurred in this appeal and remand with instructions for the district court to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees and to assess those fees and double costs against Watkins.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Watkins’s complaint and the award for the defendants’ expenses in the district court, we AWARD SANCTIONS of double costs and attorneys’ fees to the defendants under Rule 38 for this appeal, and we REMAND for the district court to assess reasonable attorneys’ fees and double costs for the defense of this appeal.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2021 LawsInFlorida.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware | Caricatures by DonkeyHotey