Donald P. Day Fraud in Collier Court

Susan A. filed this request with the Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, FL.
Est. Completion None
Status
Partially Completed

Communications

From: Susan A.

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Florida's Sunshine Law (Fla. Stat. secs. 119.01 to 119.15 (1995)), I hereby request the following records:

Seeking a certified copy of:

(1) the entire court file in a matter appearing on the Collier Court website filed by Naples Attorney Donald Day, known as: "SUSAN J ALYN vs STATE OF FLORIDA DEPT OF HIGHWAY," --

https://apps.collierclerk.com/Public_Inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112001CA0004100001XX&CT=CV
Style: SUSAN J ALYN vs STATE OF FLORIDA DEPT OF HIGHWAY
Uniform Case Number: 112001CA0004100001XX Filed: 01/30/2001
Clerks Case Number: 0100410CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: OTHER CIRCUIT CIVIL WRIT Disposed: 05/13/2002
Judge: SHENKO, JAMES R Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:
Next Court Date: 00/00/0000 Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 08/01/2014 Appealed:

and:

(2) evidence of payment of the court filing of this alleged appeal -- as no payment was ever made by myself, Susan J Alyn, nor do I know of any payment that has ever been made by any attorney to file this alleged appeal with any court.

This "appeal" is allegedly appealing a Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing, however note the following facts:

1) I have never been informed of any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing;
2) I have never attended any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing;
3) I have never paid for any transcript of any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing;
4) I have never discussed with any attorney any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing;
5) I have never been aware that any attorney named Donald Day or any other attorney has ever attended any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing on my behalf; and
6) to my knowledge, there was never any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing.

Consequently, to my knowledge, since there does not exist any actual Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing, there can not factually or legally exist any possible "appeal" of any Dept of Motor Vehicles hearing. Thus, I believe this "appeal" is actually a piece of fraud filed by Naples attorney Donald Day acting at the request of others who wish to harm me, because I am a witness to public corruption, and such court filing of this "appeal", if such a court file exists, is intended solely for the purpose of defaming me.

The requested documents, if such exist, will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I would request your response within ten (10) business days. And, again, I ask that you include evidence of payment for the
court filing of this allegedly existing "appeal."

Sincerely,

Susan Alyn

From: Lisa S. Price

Ms. Alyn,

Your request for records has been received and attached you will find information as to how you may obtain the copy of the referenced file. In response to your second questions concerning filing fees there is no charge to file a Writ of Certiorari which is what was filed.

Lisa Price
Supervisor – Collier County Clerk of Court
239-252-2651

From: Susan A.

To Ms. Price, Supervisor - Collier County Clerk of Court:

The document you attached (1) omits the page count, and (2) omits the cost.

Please review and re-send with completed information if anything exists on file. Otherwise, let me know there is nothing actually on file and the court website is showing fabricated information.

Thank you.

Susan Alyn

From: Jill M. Lennon

Ms Alyn,

Attached you will find copies of all the documents filed in case 01-CA-410.

Jill Lennon
Director of Courts
239-252-8102

Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com

This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message.

Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helpdesk@collierclerk.com, quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain.

Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.

From: Susan A.

Dear Jill Lennon, Director of the Court,

I specifically requested public records which are certified --
yet you have not yet disclosed the fee and I have not yet paid the fee. Consequently, I do not know why you have emailed documents and claimed these are "confidential" documents.

What is the fee for certifying the entire court file I requested, which consists of public records which as I stated will be made available to the public?

Your court directions state that certified records can not be provided by email. Consequently, please state the total fee if any such records actually exist, and please do not tell me these public records are confidential, again, if any such records exist.

If no such records actually exist and can not therefore be certified, please clearly state such.

I have no idea what you emailed or why, when I requested certified public records -- and I have yet to receive the fee amount and have yet to pay the required fee.

Thank you.

Susan Alyn

From: Susan A.

PS The case number online is as follows:
Clerks Case Number: 0100410CA

Your email states a different case number: 01-CA-410.

It appears you made an error.

From: Jill M. Lennon

I used the Uniform Case Number, you used the old format. It is the same case. I sent the documents to you so that you can determine what the cost will be. Lisa stated in her e-mail that there are 97 pages. That is $97.00 for the copies. If you want each document certified, it is $2.00 per document. You have the documents so you can figure out the cost. If you want each document certified, there are 18 so it will be an additional $36.00.

The standard disclaimer at the bottom of our e-mails states that some of the information may be privileged. These documents are not confidential and can be viewed on our website.

From: Susan A.

Dear Jill M. Lennon:

Your email to me is erroneous on several counts.

First of all, Ms. Price sent a blank court form which required her to complete the blank spaces showing the page count and the total cost -- but she not complete it.

Then Ms. Price stopped writing, and you stepped it.

You are now demanding I do Ms. Price's job -- and I am not doing it.

You or Ms. Price need to do the job of filling in the court document which Ms. Price emailed to me.

You or Ms. Price need to count any pages. You or Ms. Price need to fill in the blanks.

Then you need to email that document, filled in, to me.

And not an email telling me "I send the documents so that you can determine what the cost will be."

And not making false claims such as "Lisa states in her e-mail that there are 97 pages."

She stated no number whatsoever. You are the first to state a number, yet -- you still won't write the number on the official court form.

Also, please do not state in an email to a consumer or taxpayer who pays your salary a sentence like this: "You have the documents so you can figure out the cost."

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing on file at the court.

Finally, your email states:
"This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s)."

My understanding is that email to a public official at the court is a public record.

As I have asked for a certified copy of a public record which I believe either does not exist at the court or is a stack of forgeries, I am not "counting" the documents myself or figuring out the cost myself. That is Ms. Price's job. She has not yet done her job, because she has not yet filled out the official blank document she attached to her email to me.

If Ms. Price or you wants to complete the court form, showing how many pages, and at what total cost, please do so, in response to my polite request.

Please do not evade your duties by sending me email which is erroneous, and please ask Ms. Price not to send any more blank court forms.

I expect the court form to be filled out by a court employee showing the number of pages on file at the court, and the total cost of a certified copy of this file, or, in the alternative, a statement explaining there is really nothing on file at the court in this matter.

Thank you. (By the way, how many emails now is this and we are still at step 1 in this process? And why are you violating your court's procedures on the blank document sent to me by Ms. Price, stating you do not email copies when the request is for certified copies? I asked for certified copies - so you should not be emailing documents to me until pay the fee, and I can not pay the fee until Ms. Price completes the court document or discloses there is no file under this case number. Hope this is clear and it is not asking too much that Ms. Price actually do her job, and that you allow Ms. Price to do her job. Thank you again. )

Susan Alyn

From: Jill M. Lennon

Attached is the form. Often when the cost is high, people prefer to look through the documents to see if they really want copies of everything. This was done to be helpful to you. Ms. Price had an appointment this afternoon and I did not want you to have to wait until tomorrow to get your answers. If you read Ms. Price’s e-mails again, you will see that she responded within your e-mail by typing her answers in red next to your questions.

From: Susan A.

TO Jill M. Lennon:

I looked again at Ms. Price's one brief email to me. I see nothing in red, and no answers to any questions, as I did not ask any questions. Consequently, I do not know what you are talking about.

However, I notice your latest email to me omits explaining why you sent documents via email -- when your court form states you do not respond with documents to requests to certified copies of records via email. Apparently you are not following your court's procedures.

Yet, I see from an online Naples Daily News article you have worked in the Collier Court system for what sounds like decades, so you well know that a request for certified copies should not result in emailed documents as you wrongly did.

In my opinion, I do not think you stepped in because Ms. PRice had an appointment this afternoon. (She could have responded to me tomorrow.)

Rather, I think you stepped in because Ms. Price knows something is wrong here. Perhaps Ms. Price knows that the documents to this file are not kept in any court file, but instead, in some person's desk drawer, because these documents are forgeries.

That is why Ms. Price sent a blank form, because she does not want to be the one held accountable for charging me money for forgeries stored in a drawer instead of telling me the court file is empty or that the documents are stored in a drawer. I am sorry but that is my belief as to what is going on here. That is why you, the director, had to suddenly step in.

That is my opinion and belief, because I know there was no "hearing" for which any "appeal" could be filed in court.

I will pay the money, to obtain a certified copy of these forgeries, and then I will turn over these forgeries to the FBI.

Thank you for finally attaching a filled out court form. I will let them know you are the one accountable for doing what I am sure is selling me either a stack of forgeries, or, blank papers.

I am sorry and sad to have to say these things, but I am merely stating what I know and believe is the truth. It would not be the first time that forgeries or a stack of blank paper has been sent to me instead of requested certified public records.

Thank you for finally filling out the form. (It only took how many emails here to get a completed form showing page number and cost?)

Good day to you, Ms. Lennon.

Susan Alyn

---------------------------
Excerpts from article below:

...those clerks are cross-trained," Lennon said.

Clerks who can do it all are only one of the solutions, though.

....she is creating an increasingly efficient and convenient clerk's office.

http://www.naplesnews.com/community/collier-citizen/collier-courts-director-jill-lennon-technology

New Collier Clerk of Courts director, Jill Lennon, finds efficiencies in latest technology

ELIZABETH KELLAR
3:26 PM, Nov 18, 2009
Half-empty boxes occupy Jill Lennon's new office at the Collier County Courthouse. Lennon moved into the space several weeks ago, but unpacking all those cartons hasn't been easy.

There is just too much else to do.

"I go non-stop with people in my office, the telephone ringing, with problems and just big plans," she said.

Lennon is Collier's new director of courts, although she's not a stranger to the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dwight E. Brock. She was hired 22 years ago as a felony clerk.

From there, she was promoted to supervisor and eventually promoted again and again.

"They just kept piling it on until now; I've got it all," Lennon said, with a laugh.

Most recently, Lennon was the assistant director of criminal courts, a title that's still on her business cards — like the moving boxes, she hasn't had time to update the cards. Instead, her days, which begin at 7 a.m., are consumed by a massive push to simplify and streamline the internal workings of the clerk's office, a process that means overhauling old methods and introducing new technology.

She answers e-mails and phone calls, troubleshoots and attends meetings, all with the hope that she is creating an increasingly efficient and convenient clerk's office.

The public can already appreciate some aspects of the effort. An area of the courthouse's first floor has been reinvented as a full-service customer payment area that eliminates much of the need for trips to other parts of the building. There will soon be a kiosk where the public may look up court and land records, too.

Prior to the creation of this area, a person might have to visit more than one place in the courthouse to make a payment, which could be both confusing and time-consuming. Everything was specialized and compartmentalized, but no longer, Lennon explains.

"Now, you walk in and you go right to the customer service counter and those clerks are cross-trained," Lennon said.

Clerks who can do it all are only one of the solutions, though. The clerk's office also has a new computer system that brings a smile to Lennon's face every time she mentions it. It's a tremendous improvement over the previous system, which required users to memorize and input an array of complicated codes. Some of those codes were obvious, Lennon notes; others definitely were not.

As a result, it could take up to a year to fully train a new clerk. By contrast, the new system is so straightforward it may be taught to a clerk over the phone.

"Our new system thinks for us," she said. "It's completely different."

It's not the only thing that is different. Lennon recalls what it was like when she first served as a felony clerk, two decades ago. Clerks wrote everything by hand or used typewriters. The arrival of the first word processing system was extremely exciting, she recalls.

"There were no computers in the courtroom," she said. "And now we're almost paperless in the criminal courtrooms."

Being paperless means that once information is received in the clerk's office, it is scanned into the system, and a backup copy is kept for records. With some departments, paperless is already a reality; traffic, for example, went fully paperless 10 years ago. In other areas, Lennon is still hoping and working for an electronic revolution. She would like to see e-filing offered to local attorneys, and even change the way affidavits are issued for probation violations, replacing the paper process with e-mails.

Streamlining is especially important in the clerk's office in view of the recent foreclosure crisis.

Three years ago, the clerk's office recorded as many foreclosures in 12 months as they now must record in only one. As compared to other legal proceedings, foreclosures can produce a staggering amount of paperwork — files that are two inches thick aren't unusual — and it must all be processed by the clerk's office.

Lennon knows that's a backlog waiting to happen, which isn't what she wants. Her goal is to continue to trim the turnaround time for all kinds of cases, and to exceed the state's performance measures. For example, the Daily News' Web site posts recent Collier County arrest information and notes that the case may be followed online at the clerk's office within five to seven days; Lennon says it's actually within two to three days.

Despite all this simplifying, complications do find their way into her office.

"You would think after all these years, we would have the answer to every situation that could come up," she said. "But that's not true."

What is true, though, is that Lennon is not slowing down after 22 years.

"I'll always have new visions and want new things," she said.

Contact Elizabeth Kellar at liz@elizabethkellar.com.

From: MuckRock

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find enclosed a check for $133.00 to satisfy the fee associated with the attached request.

Thank you.

From: Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court

A copy of documents responsive to the request.

From: Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court

A cover letter granting the request and outlining any exempted materials, if any.

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on July 6, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

From: Jill M. Lennon

The copies were mailed on Monday.

From: Susan A.

Dear Jill Lennon:

I hope whatever you sent was certified.

Also, just for the record, I think what is happening here is called mail fraud. Because: these are bogus documents. I have had to
send money via US mail to obtain a certified copy of these bogus documents. And, what I will be receiving for my money
sent in the US mail is: a stack of fraud.

I think you know this is mail fraud, Ms. Lennon, and that is the actual reason why you violated procedures you sent to me,
and emailed copies of these bogus documents -- when you knew I had request certified copies. You don't want me to pay the
cost of certifying these bogus documents because: you know these documents are bogus. You would rather just email these
docs to me, for free, without certification, so you do not have to get involved with mail fraud.

I am sorry, but it seems to me: if the court is more than happy to accept bogus documents from corrupt attorneys.
then, the court personnel should know it is running the very real risk of someday being asked to certify bogus documents.
and receive money by mail, and send out by mail the certified bogus documents after receiving the money by mail.

Perhaps there could be some new procedures put in place so that mail fraud does not continue to be one of the job duties
of someone working for the Collier County Court. Just a polite suggestion, and I do mean to be polite in suggesting that.

Susan Alyn

From: Susan A.

I notice page 27 is blank - this should have been a notary swearing the witnesses appeared before the notary.

Also, I never paid for any transcript. Nor was I ever asked to do so, nor told of any transcript.

I was also never notified of any hearing, and I do not believe any hearing took place.

This is the first time I am seeing all this fraud filed in the court.

It is very disturbing to me. It is my belief this is fraud, and, mail fraud.

Susan Alyn

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on July 6, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

From: Marni Scuderi

I have received your follow up email regarding requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>. If I understand your
email correctly, you have received the public records which you requested and are now discussing the following
questions/comments regarding those records.

On Aug. 3, 2015:
I notice page 27 is blank - this should have been a notary swearing the witnesses appeared before the notary.

Also, I never paid for any transcript. Nor was I ever asked to do so, nor told of any transcript.

I was also never notified of any hearing, and I do not believe any hearing took place.

This is the first time I am seeing all this fraud filed in the court.

It is very disturbing to me. It is my belief this is fraud, and, mail fraud.
Susan Alyn

The statutory obligation of the custodian of public records is to provide access to, or copies
of, public records. A custodian is not required to give out information from the records
of his or her office or produce an employee, such as the financial officer, to answer questions regarding
the financial records of the town. AGO 92-38. Cf. In re Report of the Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, 825
So. 2d 889, 898 (Fla. 2002) (the custodian of judicial records “is required to provide access to or
copies of records but is not required either to provide information from records or to create new
records in response to a request”).

Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your follow up email of August 18, 2015 regarding this request and if you have received
all documents requested in this particular request.

Marni M. Scuderi, Esquire

Public Records Coordinator for
Collier County Clerk of Courts
3315 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102
Naples, Florida 34112-5324
(239) 252-2725

From: Susan A.

I think the crux of my concern is that these documents fail to meet the legal definition of a "public record" in Florida. To begin with, here is what I am reading:

http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#14

What is a public record?

The Florida Supreme Court has determined that public records are all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. They are not limited to traditional written documents. Tapes, photographs, films and sound recordings are also considered public records subject to inspection unless a statutory exemption exists.
---------------------------

According to the above, public records concern matters of "official" business. This is outright fraud. There is nothing "official" about an attorney who is pretending to have gone to a hearing, fabricating a transcript, and then fraudulently filing such fabricated documents along with other fabricated
in a court. These records do not "perpetuate, communicate or formalize" any "knowledge" -- rather, these fabricated documents seek to perpetuate communicate and formalize complete and total fraud.

From: Susan A.

Just to be clear:

I think the crux of my concern is that these documents fail to meet the legal definition of a "public record" in Florida. To begin with, here is what I am reading:

http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#14

What is a public record?

The Florida Supreme Court has determined that public records are all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. They are not limited to traditional written documents. Tapes, photographs, films and sound recordings are also considered public records subject to inspection unless a statutory exemption exists.
---------------------------

According to the above, public records concern matters of "official" business.

By contrast, what is posted at the court is not "official." Rather, this is outright fraud. Again: There is nothing "official" about an attorney who is pretending to have gone to a hearing, fabricating a transcript, and then fraudulently filing such fabricated documents along with other fabricated
documents in a court.

Consequently, these records do not "perpetuate, communicate or formalize" any "knowledge" -- rather, these fabricated documents seek to perpetuate communicate and formalize complete and total fraud.

What is the remedy for this type of fraud? I think law enforcement has to be involved to prosecute the fabrication of public records. Your court system of accepting such fraudulent filings without any fees does not help. This is the first time I have ever even seen these fabricated documents. An actual client would have received and approved and been informed by an attorney of the existence of such. This was not the situation here. Instead, an attorney was on a mission for another person, not me, and fabricated public records which are false to perpetually defame me.

I was falsely arrested on a DUI, and later I had taken a urine test proving I was not DUI, and I was never arraigned nor ever had my day in court due to other fraud by this attorney. He should be in jail by now by all his forgery, fraud and fabrication of public records, and other wrongful acts, and how he abuses the court and the court system for purposes that are not in any way whatsoever "legal."

I feel sorry for anyone who lives or visits Collier County with this type of fraud by an attorney allowed to take place. And, it is in fact "allowed" by the courts in Florida because no one will investigate it or stop it.

I have had my say here. In short, these are not "public records" because these documents have nothing to do with any "official" business; rather, only with fraud.

From: Susan A.

By the way -- I have asked another agency to remove the fabricated documents of Donald Day because: such documents are not public records, but rather: fraud.

If I were to write a letter to Collier Court Clerk Dwight Brock of the Collier County Court telling him in a notarized statement this batch of documents is complete fraud, would he consider removing such from the court website and the court?

The other agency did remove Donald Day's fraud from their official records, because again: fraud is not "official" business; rather, it is fraud.
That other agency is Lee County Public Schools. And again, they removed Donald Day's fraud from their files. They don't want fraud in their files.

What is Dwight Brock's position on fraud? Does he allow it or does he remove it?

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on July 6, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

From: Marni Scuderi

Please feel free to send all correspondence to Dwight Brock at:

Dwight E. Brock
Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Administration Department
3315 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 102
Naples, FL 34112-5324

Sincerely,
Marni Scuderi

Marni M. Scuderi, Esquire

Public Records Coordinator for
Collier County Clerk of Courts
3315 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102
Naples, Florida 34112-5324
(239) 252-2725

This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at 239-252-2725) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.

From: Susan A.

I understand what you wrote here below -- but page 27 is still blank - do you have a completed page 27? Showing a notary swearing that witnesses appeared? Otherwise, a copy of this page 27 was not provided.
----------
The statutory obligation of the custodian of public records is to provide access to, or copies
of, public records. A custodian is not required to give out information from the records
of his or her office or produce an employee, such as the financial officer, to answer questions regarding
the financial records of the town. AGO 92-38. Cf. In re Report of the Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, 825
So. 2d 889, 898 (Fla. 2002) (the custodian of judicial records “is required to provide access to or
copies of records but is not required either to provide information from records or to create new
records in response to a request”).

From: Marni Scuderi

Good morning. You received the entire public record which you requested. Pursuant to Florida Statute 28.13, the clerk of the circuit court must maintain all papers and electronic filings in the clerk’s office and may not allow the removal of filed documents without leave of the court. You requested a document from within a court file as a public record, and we have provided that document as it is filed in our office.

Sincerely,
Marni Scuderi

Marni M. Scuderi, Esquire

Public Records Coordinator for
Collier County Clerk of Courts
3315 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102
Naples, Florida 34112-5324
(239) 252-2725

This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at 239-252-2725) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.

From: Susan A.

Since this form remains blank and not filled out (page 27 is an incomplete, blank form), and since the form itself is highly material -- as I believe there really was no hearing, which is the same thing this blank form is saying -- then, I think, at best, the final status of this request is "Partially Complete."

(And, I still think there remains an issue over the fact this entire batch of documents is actually a pile of fraud -- and therefore not public records at all.)

From: Susan A.

I notice the Collier County Court site does not mention public records anywhere except at the very end of a 2-page FAQs section, where Court Clerk Dwight Brock's "policy" is posted as a pdf file -- wherein he claims the department heads under him have a duty to ensure public records "must be examined for accuracy, completeness..."

The documents in this public record on this thread are not "accurate" -- as I never authorized or requested anyone, including Donald Day, to "appeal" to the court any decision of any license suspension hearing.

The text below is from:
https://www.collierclerk.com/faqs/faqs-continued

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS

Is it possible to view or get copies of public/official records by making a public records request

Yes. It is the policy of the state of Florida that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. Providing access to public records is a duty of each agency in accordance with Florida Statute 119. Public records requests apply to all court records as provided in the court rule 2.420 Public Access to Judicial Branch Records. Also, Florida Statute FS 286.011 governs public access to public meetings.

Collier County Clerk of Courts: Public Records Policy (pdf)

From: Susan A.

I am beginning to look closer at all this fraud.

Beginning on page 1, there is a violation of the FL Rules of Civil Procedure.

I have never before seen this appeal or this page 1 Cover Sheet, known as Form 1.997, but I now see this very first page has no signature and no name of any attorney filing this [bogus] appeal -- in violation of FL Rules of Civil Procedure and FL Rules of Judicial Administration, as explained below.

The clerk who received this unsigned document should have rejected it pursuant to the FL Rules of Civil Procedure, which state at page 252 of 267 at Rule 1.900 Forms for the Instructions to Attorneys filling out this Form 1.997:

"ATTORNEY OR PARTY SIGNATURE." Sign the civil cover sheet. Print legibly the name of the person signing the civil cover sheet. Attorneys must include a Florida Bar Number. Insert the date the civil cover sheet is signed. SIGNATURE IS A CERTIFICATION THAT THE FILER HAS PROVIDED ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THE CIVIL COVER SHEET, AND HAS READ AND COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.425.

----------------------

Well, there is no signature. There is no certification And there is no accurate information on this civil cover sheet, as I never agreed to appeal any decision of any license suspension hearing. ( I never attended one. I never received any notice of one. I never paid for any transcript (thought a transcript is cited in this bogus appeal.)

Any clerk in the Collier Court should have been able to see there was no signature on this cover sheet.

One would never know from reading all this fraud that the status of my false arrest was NO CHARGES FILED because of a physical battery I suffered by Naples Police caught on police videotape, and the fact I took a urine test and was clean, of course.

Since there was no probable cause to arrest me, this bogus appeal was filed by Donald Day, a former prosecutor, to cover up what actually happened -- and to give the police a big public platform with lots of bogus docs and forgeries so that they can pretend they had probable cause and imply I was convicted when in fact: NO CHARGES WERE FILED.
That was the actual final disposition of this matter. Due to: An illegal battery, a false arrest, false imprisonment, and an innocent person -- and, a lot of corruption that was going on.

From: Susan A.

As I continue to go through this file, what I am discovering is that the "97 pages" sent in response to this request to MuckRock do not match the 2-page list of "Dockets" (at 20 entires per page) currently online at the court website.

I will list what is listed online in "Dockets" -- and what is missing from this certified court file.

Here is the online court "Dockets" --

https://apps.collierclerk.com/Public_Inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112001CA0004100001XX&CT=CV

From: Susan A.

The last entry online is this:

"07/20/2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK OF COURTS, FROM SUSAN ALYN"

But there is no such correspondence in the court file sent to MuckRock a week later on 7/27/15.

What is the Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock claiming I wrote to him about this file? I would like to see it in this file because I don't know what he is talking about with this "7/20/15" Docket entry online.

Since there is no corresponding entry in the court file sent to MuckRock, something seems rather off here.

From: Susan A.

The online Docket also lists a "7/06/2015 Request for copies"
but without identifying who is making the request.

Is that referring to this MuckRock request? No "7/06/15 request" was provided in the court file here on MuckRock.
----------

From: Susan A.

In addition, compare what MuckRock received for this request for public records verses what is shown online currently under "Dockets" for this matter at the court site:

MuckRock received 97 pages total.

1) Page 90 to 95 (out of a total of 97 pages) of this court file provided to MuckRock concerns an order allegedly signed by a Judge Hayes, on a date of "May 13, 2002."

2) Page 96 is a 1-memo dated "May 29, 2012" having nothing to do with this matter.

3) The last page, page 97, provided to MuckRock, is a 1-page letter from ProPublica dated "July 25, 2014."

The above doesn't match what is currently shown in the "Dockets" listed for this matter at the court website, which is listed as follows:

The May 13, 2002 Order allegedly signed by Judge Hayes is listed -- but look what follows online (a bunch of documents not sent to MuckRock):

05/13/2002 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI S/HAYES 5/13/02

07/11/2003 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: HUGH D HAYES TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 07/03/2003

06/30/2004 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: DANIEL R MONACO ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/19/2004

07/01/2006 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: DANIEL R MONACO TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/18/2004
06/29/2007 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: HUGH D HAYES ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 06/20/2007

04/09/2012 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2012, FROM JUDGE HUGH D HAYES TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

06/30/2012 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

03/03/2014 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2014, JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT TO JUDGE JAMES R SHENKO

07/01/2014 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE SHENKO, JAMES R

08/01/2014 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK, FROM PROPUBLICA (ABBIE NEHRING)

07/06/2015 REQUEST FOR COPIES

07/20/2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK OF COURTS, FROM SUSAN ALYN
------------

Uh, shouldn't the online "Dockets" currently listing allegedly existing documents for this matter match what was sent in this matter?

From: Susan A.

Here's where I am reading "Dockets" online -- currently listing above non-existent documents:

https://apps.collierclerk.com/Public_Inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112001CA0004100001XX&CT=CV

Why isn't the online list of Docket documents matching what docs were sent to MuckRock?

From: Susan A.

What IS all this shown online? There are no matching documents. The matter was disposed of in May 2002.

What are all these online "docket" listings dated from 2003-2014 a year after the matter is disposed by Judge Hayes???

07/11/2003 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: HUGH D HAYES TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 07/03/2003

06/30/2004 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: DANIEL R MONACO ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/19/2004

07/01/2006 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: DANIEL R MONACO TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/18/2004
06/29/2007 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: HUGH D HAYES ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 06/20/2007

04/09/2012 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2012, FROM JUDGE HUGH D HAYES TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

06/30/2012 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

03/03/2014 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2014, JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT TO JUDGE JAMES R SHENKO

07/01/2014 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE SHENKO, JAMES R

From: Susan A.

Now let's see if the current online "Dockets" listing -- prior to what appears to be an order signed by a Judge Hayes in May 2002 -- match what was sent to MuckRock here.

From: Susan A.

I can already tell it is not going to match, as explained below. Here is the Docket as currently listed online at the court site:

01/30/2001 CIVIL COVER SHEET

01/30/2001 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

02/09/2001 AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY

02/09/2001 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE S/HAYES 2/9/01

02/12/2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

02/12/2001 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MARY ELLEN CLARK OBO DEPT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY &
MOTOR VEHICLES

02/22/2001 MOTION TO DISMISS OBO DEF

02/27/2001 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY RESPONDENT OBO PETITIONER SUSAN ALYN

03/08/2001 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL OF KATHY A JIMENEZ

03/19/2001 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTARY AUTHORITY OBO RESPONDENT

04/04/2001 WRIT OF CERTIORARI CASE

04/08/2002 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
S/HAYES 4/8/02

05/01/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK

05/01/2002 APPENDIX (SUPPLEMENTAL)

05/01/2002 ANSWER BY DEF

05/13/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH COPY OF RESPONSE AND
SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

-------

05/13/2002 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI S/HAYES 5/13/02
---------
etc.

From: Susan A.

I will be posting the court website's online "Docket" and the corresponding 97 page numbers of the 97 pages sent to Muckrock -- when such corresponding pages exist -- below.

You will see there is not a match. There should be a match, it seems to me. But there is not.

From: Susan A.

Here's what the online court Docket currently states online, as compared to the 97 total pages sent by the court to MuckRock for this $133.000 public records request:

----------
1) Online it states:

01/30/2001 CIVIL COVER SHEET

(Page 1 of 97 is an unsigned civil cover sheet I have never seen before this MuckRock request, not demanding a jury trial, and I would always demand a jury trial by the way.)

------------------

2) Online the court web site the Docket states:

01/30/2001 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Page 2-32 of 97 pages received by MuckRock appears to be the fraud filed by Naples Attorney Donald Day, meaning he is filing a document without any authorization from me, allegedly his client in this, as I never authorized him or any attorney to appeal any decision of the FL Dept of Motor Vehicles, since I did not even know about any decision allegedly from the FL Dept of Motor Vehicles. Here on MuckRock is the first time I have seen all this fraud from Donald Day.)
--------------

3) Online at the court site under "Dockets" it states:

02/09/2001 AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY

(Page 33 out of 97 pages received by MuckRock appears to be an Affidavit of Service (stamped "Feb 9, 2001) by the Court Clerk Dwight Brock to Judge Hayes, but I have seen no such affidavit of service by Donald Day to FL HSMV.)

------------

4) Online at the court site under Dockets it states:

02/09/2001 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE S/HAYES 2/9/01

(Pages 34 and 35 of 97 pages sent to MuckRock herein seems to be the same 1-page document sent twice to MuckRock.)

---------------------
5) Online at the court site "Dockets" section it states:

02/12/2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

(It may be that the above is referring to page 37 out of 97 pages sent to MuckRock.)

----------

6) Online at the court site "Dockets" section it states:

02/12/2001 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MARY ELLEN CLARK OBO DEPT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY &
MOTOR VEHICLES

(Page 36 out of 97 total pages sent to MuckRock appears to match the above.)
---------------------

7) Online at the court's "Dockets" section it states:

02/22/2001 MOTION TO DISMISS OBO DEF

(Pages 38-40 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appear to match the above doc.)

--------------

8) Online at the court's Dockets section it states:

02/27/2001 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY RESPONDENT OBO PETITIONER SUSAN ALYN

(Of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock by the court, Pages 41 - 43 (and note until receiving it on MuckRock, I have never seen nor read this response allegedly from me, nor approved this fraud, nor known of it, nor authorized it, as I never authorized anyone to appeal any decision of any FL Dept of Motor Vehicles and I never attended any hearing nor paid for any transcript or knew anything about it, and I suspect it never happened) appears to match the docket's title.)
------------------

9) Online at the court's Docket section it states:

03/08/2001 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL OF KATHY A JIMENEZ

(Pages 44-45 of 97 pages sent to MuckRock appears to match the above w/ a certificate of service included.)

---------------------

10) Online at the court's docket section it states:

03/19/2001 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTARY AUTHORITY OBO RESPONDENT

(Pages 46 - 47 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appear to match the above.)

--------------------

11) Online at the court's docket it states:

04/04/2001 WRIT OF CERTIORARI CASE

(Page 48 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appears to match the above)

----------------

12) Online at the court's Docket section it states:

04/08/2002 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI S/HAYES 4/8/02

(Pages 49 - 51 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appear to match the above, including a 1-page certificate of service from the court clerk to attorneys)

----------

To be continued below...

From: Susan A.

Before I continue -- why does it take one year for a judge to make a decision? The case above at 11) is dated: "4/4/2001" while the order at 12) above is dated: "4/4/2002."

By 4/4/2002 any one-year license suspension of a a fake arrest happening in 10/2000 for not blowing (because I suffered a battery from police which I notice is never mentioned in these docs, and I took a urine test and was not DUI in any way whatsoever as I was clean, and that is why the final disposition was NO CHARGES FILED) is already over in 10/2001.

So, now-- six months LATER? -- is when Donald Day's fraud is resulting in this "order" -- ?

One would think if this were a real case, and not fraud, the matter would have ended prior to the one year suspension to have any meaning.

But here, and online, I am seeing: it goes on forever...

From: Susan A.

Actually it's "4/8/02" (not "4/4/02") but my point is the same. So this fraud sits around for one year. Hmm.

From: Susan A.

I will continue by repeating 11) and 12) here to emphasize my point above, of this fraud sitting around for one year:

-----------------------------------------
11) Online at the court's docket it states:

04/04/2001 WRIT OF CERTIORARI CASE

(Page 48 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appears to match the above)

----------------

12) Online at the court's Docket section it states:

04/08/2002 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI S/HAYES 4/8/02

(Pages 49 - 51 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appear to match the above, including a 1-page certificate of service from the court clerk to attorneys)

-----------

13) Online at the court site the "Docket" then states:

05/01/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK

(Page 52 out of 97 pages sent to MuckRock appears to be this letter from FL to this Judge Hayes.)
----------------

14) Online at the court site the "Docket" then states:

05/01/2002 APPENDIX (SUPPLEMENTAL)

(This appears to go on from Page 53 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock, all the way to: page 63. And what a bunch of lies in these documents!!!)

------------------------

15) Online at the court site the "Docket" states:

05/01/2002 ANSWER BY DEF

(This appears to begin at page 64 and continue to page 70, (with page 70 being a certificate of service) and consists of a bunch of lies on documents I am seeing for the first time here on MuckRock,.

------------------------------

16) Online at the court site the "Docket" states:

05/13/2002 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO JUDGE WITH COPY OF RESPONSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

(This is odd, Page 71-89 of the 97 pages on MuckRock repeats all the previous documents from the state to the judge (pages 52-70 on MuckRock) beginning with the letter. All the lies get posted again. And there is no response or answer from the fraud Donald Day.)

-------------------

17) Online at the court site the "Docket" states:

05/13/2002 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI S/HAYES 5/13/02

(This order appears to be pages 90-95 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock.)

-----------------------------------------
Now here is where everything gets very weird (as if all this fraud wasn't weird enough):

---------------
--- Online at the court site the "Docket" OMITS and FAILS to state what this document is at Page 96 of the 97 pages sent to MucKRock.

-- Yet, Page 96 of the 97 pages sent to MuckRock appears to be a one-page internal court memo dated "May 29, 2012" -- about ten years after the May 2002 order above at 17).
----------------------

And this weirdness:

Online at the court site the "Docket" states as follows -- but there are no corresponding documents sent to MuckRock for any of this:

-------------

18): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

07/11/2003 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: HUGH D HAYES TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 07/03/2003

-----------
19): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

06/30/2004 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: DANIEL R MONACO ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/19/2004
------------
20): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

07/01/2006 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: DANIEL R MONACO TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/18/2004
---------------
21): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

06/29/2007 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: HUGH D HAYES ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 06/20/2007
--------------
22): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

04/09/2012 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2012, FROM JUDGE HUGH D HAYES TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

-----------
23) Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

06/30/2012 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

-------------

24): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

03/03/2014 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2014, JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT TO JUDGE JAMES R SHENKO

--------------
25): Online at court site but not sent to Muckrock:

07/01/2014 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE SHENKO, JAMES R

------------
Then, after all that weirdness is this:

26) Online at the court site under "Dockets" it states:

08/01/2014 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK, FROM PROPUBLICA (ABBIE NEHRING)

(Page 97 of 97 pages total sent to Muckrock appears to match this ProPublica letter.)
-------------

27) Then, online at the court site under "Dockets" it states:

07/06/2015 REQUEST FOR COPIES

(However, there is nothing corresponding in the 97 pages sent to MuckRock.)

----------

28) Finally, online at the court site under "Dockets" it states:

07/20/2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK OF COURTS, FROM SUSAN ALYN

(However, there is nothing corresponding to this in the 97 pages sent to MuckRock. And, I did not write nor email nor send any correspondence to Clerk of Courts on 07/20/2015 so why is this stating I did? Is it so that someone else can write something -- and forge my name?)

I am guessing the reason all those judges' memos are on the docket is so that anyone seeking this docket can be told by the clerks in person: "The judge has it now, so you can't inspect it or have it." Thus, they have to keep judges' names on the docket for decades on end with this much fraud on file at the court in this matter.

But this public records request is actually incomplete.
I will make a list of how it doesn't match and request completeness so that the outer docket matches what was sent to MuckRock, and note the error: I did not write to the "Clerk of Courts 7/20/2015" as erroneously and falsely stated on that docket currently online.

It took a lot of emotional stamina and strength for me to read all the fraud in this file, as I am seeing it, for the first time, here on MuckRock. It is unbelievable to me this can happen to an innocent person. But it did: This incredible stack of fraud -- in a court file. With no due process rights whatsoever for me, no right to be heard, ever, nothing.

From: Susan A.

To Whom It May Concern at Collier County Court:

Regarding this public records request I made via MuckRock --
After reviewing all 97 pages you sent in response to this request, for which I paid $133.00 for certified copies, I find that what you sent does not match the online docket listings for this matter.

Collier Court Clerk Dwight Brock has a posted policy for filling public records requests is, as he claims online, that the court responds "accurately."

However, there are numerous discrepancies between:
(a) what the court sent to MuckRock in response to my request; and (b) what is posted online in the online Docket listing.

Specifically:

1) The Director of the Court Jill Lennon claims this file was sent to MuckRock on Monday, July 27, 2015:
---------------
From: Jill M. Lennon
07/29/2015
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request: Donald P. Day Fraud in Collier Court
The copies were mailed on Monday.
---------
Yet, the online Docket listing for this matter currently states:

"07/20/2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO CLERK OF COURTS, FROM SUSAN ALYN"

However, I never sent any correspondence to Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock on 7/20/15, and none was included in this file.

Consequently: Please delete that entry from the online docket listing.

In addition:

2) There are numerous entries in the online docket listing -- dated 2003-2014 -- which do not have any corresponding documents in this file sent to MuckRock, for a matter which had the last order issued in May 2002.

Here below are the online entries for which no documents exist; and no documents are warranted since this matter's last order date is May 2002:

Consequently, please delete these entries from the online docket listing:

07/11/2003 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: HUGH D HAYES TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 07/03/2003

06/30/2004 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: DANIEL R MONACO ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/19/2004

07/01/2006 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: DANIEL R MONACO TO: LAWRENCE D MARTIN ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 04/18/2004

06/29/2007 DIVISION JUDGE REASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM: LAWRENCE D MARTIN TO: HUGH D HAYES ORDERED BY HUGH D HAYES ON 06/20/2007

04/09/2012 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2012, FROM JUDGE HUGH D HAYES TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

06/30/2012 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT

03/03/2014 SCHEDULED JUDGE REASSIGNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. EFFECTIVE: 07/01/2014, JUDGE FREDERICK R HARDT TO JUDGE JAMES R SHENKO

07/01/2014 PER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE SHENKO, JAMES R
----------

(3) Also, in addition to the incomplete Civil Cover Sheet, without a signature of an attorney, there is a violation of FL Rules of CIvil Procedure, and as previously noted, a page requiring an affidavit (page 27) is blank.

(4) On page 96 of 97 pages sent to MuckRock, there is a memo dated 2012 -- ten years after the last order was issued in May 2002 in this matter -- which appears to be an internal memo having nothing to do with this matter and which does not appear on the docket.

Because the contents of the file you sent to MuckRock do not match the online Docket listing, and Court Clerk Dwight Brock requires "accuracy" according to his public records policy posted online, and as I am requesting you conform the online docket listing to match what is actually inside this file as states above, the status of this matter is actually PARTIALLY COMPLETE.

Please let me know when you have fixed the online docket to match the contents of this file you sent. Thank you.

Susan Alyn

Files

pages

Close