Preview
ey
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEEN JUDICIAL cIRCULES
Seo
EN
IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA a>
oe
—f
CIVIL DIVISION
NOEL VINCENT THOMAS )
PRO SE LITIGANT )
PLAINTIFF ) CASE NO.
#24- 904211
- VS -
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY
AND MOTOR VEHICLES,
MIKE STACY, DHSMV, IG,
STEPHANIE D DUHART,
DHSMV, MS )
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, )
MARIE T RIVES, FLORIDA, AG, )
FLORIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR )
GENERAL, )
DEFENDANTS )
COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1) Plaintiff, Noe! Vincent Thomas, bring this action for the violations of state
and federal laws against Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles and its divisions and officials for the claims of fraud,
conspiracy and negligence and failure to provide due process.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2) This action is:for the claims of fraud, negligence and conspiracy and the
due process clauses pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.041, and the Florida
Constitution l4rt. 1 § 9.
3) Under the Flerida laws does this action arises and this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Statute § 26.012(2)(a).
4) This venue is'proper in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court because the
alleged acts occurred within these boundaries and Plaintiff resides in
Tampa, Florida, and the business and transactions are native to this
jurisdiction in pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.011.
PARTIES INVOLVED
1) Plaintiff resides in Tampa, Florida and is a U.S. veteran who is currently
retired and live in low-income housing under the HUD-VASH program.
2) Defendant Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
(DHSMV) isla state government agency who regulates traffic related
issues. ||
1
|1
|
3) Defendant Florida DHSMV, Inspector General is an investigative
division of Florida DHSMV.
4) Defendant F lorida DHSMYV, Bureau of Records, Division of Motorist
Services is a record division of Florida DHSMV.
5) Defendants Florida Attorney General is a statewide elected official
directed by Florida Constitution to serve as the chief legal officer for the
state of Florida.
6) Defendants Florida Chief Inspector General is a state investigative agency
whose duty is to oversee the proper operations of state agencies.
STATEMENT OF CASE
In the year of 1998, Alabama and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) officials conspired to place an illegal hold on Plaintiffs driver license for
over twenty years without legal predication (See E-4,8,13), and after consistent
attempts by way of telephone to force them to provide exonerating documents to
justify their action or correct the problem, they still failed to comply. And this
prolonged and torturous experience caused severe loses and damages, which
violated Plaintiff's, United States Constitutional 8" Amendment Right, that states
“nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted or Florida Constitution Art. 1, §
17, which asserts, the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, yet here is clear evidence of
abuse and misuse of aithority for retaliatory purposes without legal or moral
justification. After years of unsuccessful endeavors of contacting the Defendants,
by way of phone, the Plaintiff, began sending certified letters to multiple Alabama
and Florida state officials to attempt to apply more pressure directly on them and
|
| 2
|
|
|
!
|
1
|
some responded, and others refused (See E-9,10,11), yet they all decided to
conspire to cover up the violations by ignoring the facts and began fabricating false
government documents. Once all state remedies were exhausted Plaintiff, filed a
civil suit in the U.S. District Court, on October 9, 2018, to address the miscarriage
of justice perpetrated by the Defendants. And on February 14, 2019, the U.S.
Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation(R&R) to deny Plaintiff's,
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his complaint for the stated
reasons of failure to satisfy the threshold pleading requirements, the immunity to
which several “not all” the defendants were entitled under the eleven amendment
and failure to state a viable federal claim. Plaintiff then filed an objection to the
R&R and amended his complaint on February 27, 2019, and on April 18, 2019, the
US. District Judge overruled Plaintiff’s, objection motion and dismissed his
amended complaint and then ordered Plaintiff, to file a second amended complaint
without a logical reason to do so. And on April 30, 2019, Plaintiff, complied with
the court’s orders and on September 20, 2019, the U.S. Magistrate Judge filed a
second R&R and Plaintiff, responded on October 4, 2019, then on January 13,
2019, the case was completely dismissed. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and an appointment of counsel motion, in the United
States Court of Appeals on January 21, 2020, and on January 27, 2020, Plaintiff,
received an instructional letter from the U.S. Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office, and
on February 3, 2020, Plaintiff, received another letter from the Clerk of the U.S.
Court of Appeals, informing him to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Then on February 10,,2020, Plaintiff, received yet another letter from the Clerk of
the U.S. Court of Appeals telling him to file a certificate of interested persons and
on May 4, 2020, Plaintiff's, motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied by the
1
3
{
|
; U.S. Court of Appeals land on June 5, 2020, Plaintiff's, complaint was dismissed
for want of prosecution because Plaintiff, failed to pay the filing or docket fees.
|
After the dismissal of Plaintiff's, federal civil complaint, he somewhat became
semi- financially stable and he filed multiple action stemming from the same
incident that initiated this process, into the Hillsborough County Small Claims
Court (HCSCC), and one of the cases being, civil number 21-CC-018676, filed on
February 25, 2021. Plaintiff, provided the HCSCC, with numerous exhibits and a
lengthy statement of claim clarifying those documents, yet the Defendants, failed
to file a single document to refute Plaintiff's, allegations but instead filed a motion
to dismiss and a request for judicial notice on March 29, 2021, that was not in
compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1.140(a)(1) that gave
the time limit requirement of 20 days to respond or answer the complaint, then on
April 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Then on May 17, 2021, the HCSCC held the pre-trial hearing and on May 20,
2021, the HCSCC ordered mediation and on June 18, 2021, both parties met in
mediation in an attempt to negotiate terms of agreement to facilitate the resolution
of the complaint and on September 20, 2021, the final hearing was scheduled and
on September 22, 2021, Defendants filed a notice of substitution of counsel and on
October 26, 2021, the first final hearing was held, wherein Plaintiff was denied due
process and access to the court by the HCSCC refusal to allow Plaintiff the
opportunity to present evidence and utilize laws and statutes in his own defense.
And on February 1, 2022, the HCSCC rendered an order granting in part the
Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which denied three of their defense elements which
are as follows: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) improper venue; (3) statute of
limitations, and granted the Defendants the fourth defense element, which was,
4
!
|
|
Plaintiff allegedly failed to state a claim and ordered him to amend his complaint.
And on February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim and on
February 18, 2022, the Defendants new legal representative filed a notice of
appearance, a motion for extension of time and a notice of related action, then on
February 23, 2022, the HCSCC granted the Defendant’s motion for extension of
time to respond to Plaintiff ‘s amended statement of claim, in which they never did
but instead filed a second motion to dismiss and on March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed
a response to that motion, which received no reply or action from the HCSCC, or
the Defendants. Then on March 21, 2022, the HCSCC, entered some type of order
that was immediately removed from the court records, which Plaintiff believe was
a ruling in his favor but due to the dire consequences of such a decision it was
purposedly withdrawn. Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite on April 20, 2022, to
remedy the confusion of the above stated error but that motion only produced
greater problems because the clerk of the court stamped on Plaintiffs motion to
expedite the reception date of April 20, 2022, then another reception date of May
3, 2022, was also stamped on that same document then the words, set hearing was
stamped on the above-mentioned motion with a hand written date of April 27,
2022, and it further displayed a hand-written note setting May 24, 2022, asa
second hearing date, so it was obvious that the HCSCC was attempting to illegally
force Plaintiff into a hearing without complying with Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.440(c), which required the court to enter an order fixing a date for
trial, but no such order was ever issued. Then on April 29, 2022, the Defendants
filed a notice of hearing and on May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions
on opposing counsel due to the conspiratorial plans between the HCSCC and the
Defendants because no orders were issued by the court fixing a trial date for such.
5
|1
And on May 24, 2022, the illegal second final hearing was held but Plaintiff
refused to participate ih that course of action and the Defendants and the HCSCC
had already threaten Plaintiff that if he did not attend the May 24, 2022, hearing,
judgment would be held against him for failure to appear, but no such orders were
ever issued due to the hearing being illegal, which violated state laws, mainly,
Florida Constitution (F.C) Art. 1, § 9, which states, no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law and F.C. Art. 1, § 21, which
asserts, the court shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice
shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Then on June 8, 2022, HCSCC
issued an order denying the Defendant’s second motion to dismiss and on July 26,
2022, HCSCC filed a notice of final hearing and on July 29, 2022, the Defendants
filed an affidavit and on August 2, 2022, the HCSCC held a third in person final
hearing, in which the Trial Court asserted that it was an evidentiary hearing,
scheduled for only 30 minutes and Plaintiff was never allowed to defend himself
due to the Trial Court constant interruptions into his presentation. And in the
above-stated final hearing the Trial Court filed a Court ticket with the following
instructions and possible future actions written thereon: (1) Defendants moves for
direct verdict; (2) Court reserves ruling; (3) Plaintiff was unresponsive to Court
questions; and (4) Court to enter order. Due to the criminal behavior of the
Defendants and the Court, Plaintiff sent the same complaint and exhibits by way of
U.S. certified mail, to the Florida Chief Inspector General Office (FLCIGO), (See
E-34), and on July 22, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from the afore-stated Florida
official, who refused to investigate the matter after receiving overwhelming
evidence that the Deféndants had violated the law and referred the matter back to
the perpetrators of the crimes and asserted that the FLCIGO did not have
‘ 6
1
{
|
jurisdiction over out of state or law enforcement agencies nor over court and
criminal matters but is| statutorily required to investigate and hold accountable all
state actors for their wrongful participation in criminal misconduct (See E-35).
Then on February 10, 2023, the Trial Court issued a notice of intent to dismiss for
lack of prosecution on the Court’s own motion, and this was after the fact that the
HCSCC took a six-month hiatus from all Court activities related to this case and
failed to make a timely Court ruling, or decide on the Defendant’s direct verdict or
enter some type of Court order. The HCSCC notice of intent stated the following:
pursuant to the applicable rules of the Court, because no activity by filing of
pleadings, order of Court or otherwise has occurred on the record of the above-
style action for a period of at least six months, said action shall be dismissed unless
good cause in writing is filed at least five days before the date of hearing set forth
below. This action by the HCSCC is criminal in nature because it was attempting
to forcibly dismiss Plaintiff's claim without rendering a final judgment, so on
February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to show good cause, a motion to
expedite proceedings and render final judgment, a request for entry of default with
affidavit and a motion for default judgment with affidavit in support of such. Then
on February 23, 2023, the HCSCC filed final judgment for the Defendants
asserting that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, although he filed a
statement of claim on February 25, 2021, with 41 pages of exhibits, and on April
1
21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss with 16
exhibits, then on February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim
with 9 exhibits, then on March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the
Defendant’s second motion to dismiss with 4 exhibits and on May 23, 2022,
, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanction on opposing counsel with 4 exhibits attached
7
yet, the HCSCC alleged Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence. And then on
March 3, 2023, Plaintiff file a motion for rehearing and on March 22, 2023, the
HCSCC, denied that motion and on March 27, 2023, Plaintiff file a notice of
appeal in the HCSCC along with an affidavit of indigent status, in which the Court
granted and the decision of the HCSCC was affirmed by the Second District
Appeals Court. And further due to the HCSCC failure to resolve the complaint in a
timely and justified manner, Plaintiff filed this same civil action into the U.S.
District Court on July 15, 2022, and within less than two weeks the Court issued an
order asserting that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, failed to comply with federal
tules of civil procedure and failed to state the basis for the court jurisdiction, even
though a related action was pending in that same court for about one year and a
half and a connected lawsuit to this action was pending in the HCSCC, for almost
two years but the U.S. District Court was able to render a complex litigation
decision in a short period of time without reviewing or examining the complaint or
its supporting exhibits. And further in the July 27, 2022, order from the U.S.
District Court, it gave Plaintiff the option to amend his complaint by correcting the
alleged defects and on August 8, 2022, the amended complaint was filed and on
August 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court filed a report and recommendation (R&R)
and on August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objection to the R&R. Then on
September 8, 2022, the U.S. District Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate
Judge R&R, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the
complaint and closed the case and on September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal with the U.S. District Court and on September 16, 2022, the U.S. District
Court filed its second R&R and on September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed his second
objection to the U.S. District Court R&R and on October 5, 2022, the U.S. District
8
|I
|
|
Judge adopted the second R&R and denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis into the U.S. Appeals Court. Then on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Court of
Appeals denied Plaintiff? s appeal and on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition
for panel rehearing and on January 26, 2023, the Clerk of the U.S. Court of
Appeals denied the panel rehearing motion and on February 27, 2023, the
complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution because Plaintiff failed to pay the
filing fees.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, was involved in an accident in Gulf Breeze, Florida in the year 1987
and the victims apparently was not satisfied with the insurance settlement, so they
hired a lawyer who eventually visited Plaintiff, to try and negotiate some terms of
agreement, but to no avail, his efforts were futile, and that attorney then made
some vile threats to Plaintiff, that he would Somehow pay for his refusal to
cooperate. Now the Defendants have consistently insinuated that the victim’s
lawyer and the default judgment were figments of Plaintiffs imagination but in
their motion to dismiss filed in the HCSCC on March 29, 2021, they were
repeatedly referencing the terms, private Florida attorney, unnamed Florida
attorney and unnamed private personal injury attorney (See, E-1,2,3), which
confirms that the Defendants know the identity of that individual and is currently
engaged in some type of illegal activities with said attorney because Plaintiff never
mentioned any personal characteristics of the victim’s lawyer, so this is proof
positive that a conspiratorial scheme was being implemented. And further doing
that period Plaintiff, was incarcerated and was released in July of 1994, whereupon
he renewed his driver license at Mobile, Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles
9
i
(DMV), without any complication. Then in the year of 1998 Plaintiff, was allowed
to pay the renewal feed for his driver license and at that time no violations
appeared in the Alabama DMV electronic records, that indicated any future
problems but after illegally confiscating Plaintiffs, funds they sent him a letter
informing him that a hold had been placed on his driver license without any
supporting documentation or explanation of why this was occurring or without any
due process procedures being allowed pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution, which declares, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and no state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges, or immunities of a citizen of
the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the law, respectively. Once Plaintiff, contacted Alabama DMV
concerning the subject matter, they told him that Florida Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) put the hold on his driver license and that he would
have to get in touch with those officials to resolve the issue. Plaintiff then began
communications with Florida DHSMV, and they said that Alabama DMV initiated
the hold on the driver license, while Alabama claimed the reverse and this process
went on for several days until finally Alabama DMV stated that the reason for the
hold was because of a default judgement stemming from the Florida accident that
occurred in the year 1987, yet neither of those agencies provided proof to support
that claim (See E-4). After the Plaintiff, became frustrated by the lack of
transparency, he started researching the statutes of limitation on default judgements
in both states and discovered Florida Statutes (F.S.) 95.11(1) and Code of
Alabama 6-2-32, which showed the limitation to be twenty years and since there
|
10
was no lawyers or organizations willing to assist Plaintiff, in the matter, he was
forced to pursue this course of action on his own. Throughout the twenty-year
period Plaintiff, contacted the errant officials and persistently requested for a
solution to the problem but received none, so after the alleged default judgement
expired, he began sending certified letters to different types of government
officials, agencies, departments and divisions, seeking their help in alleviating the
ongoing violations (See E-7,8,9,12,13). The fact of the matter is, Plaintiff's,
Alabama driver license was never legally cancelled, revoked or suspended and
neither Alabama nor Florida DMV can produce legal documents proving
otherwise. The Defendants provided a document to Plaintiff dated February 1,
2012, which displayed a driver’s license being suspended on September 5, 1989,
and a default judgment pending (See E-4), which proves the Defendants and the
victim’s attorney conspired to use an illegal document “(default judgment)” to
commit intra and interstate crimes by falsifying and fabricating government
documents to deny Plaintiffs driver privileges for over twenty years. In
relationship with the above-mentioned document the Defendants provided several
other exhibits that displayed significant information, namely, the falsified driver
license expiration date of July 16, 1998, and it is important to note that Plaintiff
never had driver license in Florida until May 10, 2019, (See E-4,5,6,18,19), so that
information is falsely manufactured and proves that both Alabama and Florida
DMV coordinated and conspired to deny driver’s privileges to Plaintiff due to the
fact, that July 16, 1998, is the exact date that the illegal hold was placed on
Plaintiffs driver license. And further demonstrated in the afore-mentioned
documents is more faulty information relating to dates and actions, specifically,
November 6, 2009, where a Florida driver license was cancelled and April 29,
li
|
2009, another Florida driver related item was suspended, then on September 5,
1989, another Florida driver related item was suspended and a default judgment
filed (See E-4,5), and both of those exhibits were issued on the respective dates of
February 1, 2012 and July 16, 2013, yet May 10, 2019, was the first time that
Plaintiff was ever issued driver license in the State of Florida. Then on June 26,
2018, Plaintiff received an email from Alabama Law Enforcement Agency
(ALEA), Driver License Division (DLD), Chief Deena L Pregno asserting false
allegations and insinuating that Plaintiff had a Florida identification card and an
Alabama driver license at the same time in the year of 1998, without providing
documents to support those accusations (See E-8). In the June 26, 2018, email
ALEA, DLD, Chief, stated that she spoke to someone at Florida DHSMV to try
and track down why Florida DHSMV had reported Plaintiff's driver privileges as
being suspended, and'here at this point, this must be stated, that the very action by
ALEA, DLD, Chief, is criminal because this is the same agency that placed the
hold on Plaintiff's driver license on July 16, 1998, and then reinstated them on
June 26, 2018, yet was requesting information from another state DMV agency
concerning the suspension status of Plaintiff's Alabama driver license, in which
ALEA, DLD, is partially responsible for the denial of such (See E-8). Basically, it
was a total impossibility for Florida DHSMV to have provided Alabama DMV,
with information relating to Plaintiff's driver license since he never had driver
license in Florida until May 10, 2019, and secondly he did not live in Florida until
the early part of the year 2000, so Plaintiff had no residence in the state during that
period of time in question, which means he could not possess a driver license or an
identification card from Florida in the year of 1998. After sending certified
complaints to multiple government entities Plaintiff received a letter from Florida
12
|
{
!
‘
|
|
DHSMY\V, Inspector General Office (1.G.) dated July 27, 2018, acknowledging the
reception of Plaintiffs complaint with its supporting documents and it further
stated that after investigating the Alabama DMV, action of placing the illegal hold
on Plaintiff's driver license, it determined that the problem did not originate with
Alabama DMV, but rather emanated from Florida DHSMV, Division of Motorist
Services (MS) (See E-12). Unfortunately, Florida DHSMV, I.G. response was to
refer the matter back to the perpetrator of the violations who had refused to
properly respond, comply or correct the problem and this was after Plaintiff had
clearly identified those officials and agencies who were involved in the
misconduct. Plaintiff received a letter dated August 31, 2018, from Florida
DHSMY\V, (MS), claiming to have rectified some fictitious error that they asserted
occurred when their system showed Plaintiff's I.D. card as being cancelled, when it
had only expired, and this was the year of 2018 when this letter was mailed to
Plaintiff (See E-13). And attached to the August 31, 2018, letter of Florida
DHSMV, (MS), was a three-year driver’s record history printout, that covered the
time period of January 30, 2014, to August 31, 2018, and nowhere on that
document does it shows any driver’s items being cancelled, revoked, suspended or
expired (See E-14). Florida DHSMV, failed to produce an accurate and complete
driver’s history, which would show and prove Plaintiff never had any legal issues
with his driver license or ID. card but displayed on the above-stated government
printout was a false and fabricated original license issue date of August 6, 1987,
yet, Florida DHSMV only provided Plaintiff with a three-year driver’s history,
while asserting they have information on Plaintiff dating back 30 years to the time
of August 6, 1987, but in reality is the time period that Plaintiff had a car accident
in Gulf Breeze, Florida (See E- 14,18,19). After the Florida DHSMYV, Inspector
13
|
General failed to investigate the criminal conduct of both Alabama and Florida
DMY\, Plaintiff sent a complaint and supporting evidence by way of certified mail,
to the Florida Attorney General Office on August 28, 2018, (See E-20), and on
September 13, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from the Florida Attorney General
Office who refused to investigate obvious fraud violations but instead conspired
with the perpetrators by inappropriately insinuating that Plaintiff was complaining
about some basic driver license issue, when in reality, Plaintiff distinctively alleged
that Alabama and Florida DMV conspired to falsify and fabricate government
documents and committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions (See E-21). Once all
state remedies were exhausted Plaintiff filed a civil action in the federal court on
October 9, 2018, and on January 13, 2020, the case was dismissed and on January
21, 2020, it was appealed and on June 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint for want of prosecution due to the failure to pay the filing
fees. Plaintiff decided to acquire more detail information pertaining to his driver’s
history, so he requested a lifetime driver’s history from Alabama DMV, dated
December 23, 2020. (See E-17), and ordered a driver’s record transcript from
Florida DHSMV, date January 11, 2021, (See E-18), and on March 29, 2021, the
Defendants filed a request for judicial notice in the HCSCC, with a fabricated
government driver’s history document attached (See E-J9). All the above-
mentioned driver’s history documents are supposed to be historical records and
contain accurate and complete information, but they all fail to show and prove that
Plaintiff's driver license or I.D. card was ever suspended, revoked, cancelled or
expired. If this Court will examine Florida DHSMV transcript of driver’s record
| (See E-17) and the driver's record that was attached to the Defendant’s request for
judicial notice (See Et 4), and the driver’s history record dated March 29, 2021,
|
14
(See E-19), this Court wil discover false and fabricated information under the
heading of “Alabama original license issued”, which has a date of August 6, 1987,
displayed therein. Plaintiff filed his Alabama driver’s license abstract or history
document in this Court’s records and according to that document the earliest
issuance date of Plaintiff’s Alabama driver license on file is August 4, 1994, (See
E-17) so, where did Florida DHSMV, get that false information since Alabama
records only dates back to the year of 1994? After obtaining the necessary
documentation to prove that the Defendants violated states and federal laws
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the HCSCC, on February 25, 2021, where he filed an
eight-page statement of claim along with 41 pages of exhibits that supported all his
allegations or causes of action and since the documents were filed with the Trial
Court, the Appeals Court had access to that information, but suffice to say, the
Defendants failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a), which
required an answer to the summons and complaint within 20 days after services of
the original process, but instead of properly responding to the complaint the
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a request for judicial notice on March 29,
2021, and on April 21, 2021, Plaintiff responded to that motion to dismiss. And
due to the gravity of the evidence in this case and the magnitude of the criminal
implications involved in the outcome of these proceedings the Defendants had to
change legal counsel three times, and is now represented by the Florida Attorney
General who not only have possession of all the false and fabricated government
documents filed into the Trial Court by Plaintiff, but also has access to all of
Florida DHSMV, records and files relating to this action but refused to investigate
the criminal conduct of the Defendants or to prosecute them for those violations.
! Then on October 26, 2021, HCSCC, held the second final hearing, wherein
| 15
|
|
Plaintiff was denied due process of law and access to the court by the HCSCC
refusal to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence and utilize laws in his
own defense. Even though Plaintiff was not allowed to effectively represent
himself, the evidence was so overwhelming that the HCSCC rendered an order on
February 1, 2022, granting in part the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which denied
three of the defense elements of their argument, which are as follows: (1)
sovereign immunity; (2) improper venue; and (3) statute of limitations, and all of
these are complex litigation issues that could not be resolved in the HCSCC but the
Defendants was granted the fourth element, which was the HCSCC alleged
Plaintiff failed to state a claim and ordered him to amend his complaint and on
February 10, 2022, he fully complied with those orders. And on February 23, 2022,
the HCSCC, granted the Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to respond to
Plaintiff's amended statement of claim, in which they never did but instead filed a
second motion to dismiss on March 9, 2022, and Plaintiff responded to that motion
on March 14, 2022, which received no reply from the HCSCC or the Defendants.
Then the HCSCC and the Defendants conspired to force Plaintiff into an illegal
hearing without complying with the proper procedures, pursuant to Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.440(c), which requires the court to enter an order fixing a
date for trial, but no such order was ever issued. On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a
motion to expedite and based upon the written and stamped information on that
document by the clerk of the HCSCC which showed a stamped reception date of
April 20, 2022, then imprinted on that same document was a reception date of May
3, 2022, and these are two different dates of receiving the same document (See E-
22), which probably means the motion to expedite was in the custody of two
different clerks for apparently two distinct purposes. And further the words, “set
16
|
hearing” was stamped on the motion to expedite, with a hand written date of April
27, 2022, anda signature and it further exhibited a hand written note setting May
24, 2022, as a second hearing date without ever holding the April 27, 2022,
hearing, so that information was not legally binding and no official orders had been
issued from the court establishing either of the above-mentioned hearing dates as
directives (See E-22,23). Because of the corruption perpetrated by the Defendants
and the HCSCC, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion for sanctions on opposing
counsel due to the conspiratorial scheme between all parties involved to compel
Plaintiff into an illegal hearing without the HCSCC issuing orders for the
commencement of such an activity, which Plaintiff refused to participate in that
course of action. Then on May 24, 2022, the HCSCC held the illegal second final
hearing and filed a court ticket attempting to justify its future action, of claiming
Plaintiff failed to appear at a hearing that was never ordered by the HCSCC and in
fact the Court endeavored to personally call Plaintiff several times during the
hearing and logged those efforts into the court records, which is not normal court
practices (See E-24). The HCSCC knew that the May 24, 2022, final hearing was
illegal, so the Court and the Defendant’s counsel began sending Plaintiff a chain of
emails on May 25, 2022, and June 8, 2022, attempting to reschedule the hearing
and ignoring the charge of failure to appear (See E-25,26a,b,c,d). But in the May
25, 2022, emails from the Defendant’s counsel they were asserting that the
HCSCC reserved ruling and requested that the Defendant’s counsel upload a
proposed order to the Court, which contained the following grounds for dismissal:
(1) Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing; (2) the Defendants qualify for
sovereign immunity, in which the HCSCC rejected both because the May 24, 2022,
1
|1 final hearing was illegal (See E-27). Also on June 8, 2022, the HCSCC filed an
| 17
|1
order denying the Defendant's second motion to dismiss submitted to the Court on
March 9, 2022, and according to that order, it appears that the specific purpose of
the May 24, 2022, second final hearing was to review the Defendant’s motion to
dismiss, which was totally problematic in nature because Plaintiff had filed several
motions, in which the Trial Court refused to entertain (See E-28a,b). In that June 8,
2022, order the HCSCC, asserted that after reviewing the Plaintiff's amended
statement of claim and the response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Court
arrived at its conclusion and further stated that the only reason that the Court
previously dismissed Plaintiff's statement of claim was based on pleading
sufficiency, with leave to amend (See E-28a,b). The HCSCC further asserted in the
June 8, 2022, order that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss alleged two grounds as
a basis for dismissal and they are as follows: (1) failure to provide statutory notice;
and (2) failure to state'a cause of action,; Plaintiff must at this point acknowledge
that the HCSCC failed to give any opinion on the statutory notice argument but it’s
obvious Plaintiff met that requirement due to the overwhelming evidence
presented. The HCSCC continued to assert in the June 8, 2022, order that
Plaintiff's amended statement of claim is still not a beacon of clarity, the Court
finds it to be sufficient enough to meet the pleading requirement in small claim
matters (See E-28a,b) so, here Plaintiff met the only remaining requirement
specified by the HCSCC which meant Plaintiff was the prevailing party and should
have been immediately awarded compensation for damages but instead of comply
with the law the HCSCC set a date for another final hearing. On June 9, 2022, the
HCSCC sent Plaintiff an email in response to his email quoting a judicial cannon,
' which asserted, the code of judicial conduct provides that a judge shall not initiate,
1
| permit, or consider ex: 4)| parte communication, or consider other communications
18
1
made to the judge outside the presence of parties concerning a pending or
impending proceeding. This cannon has been clearly violated since there were
communications occurring between the HCSCC and the Defendants that was
affecting the outcome of the case and all the court records and emails support this
allegation and the illegal arrangement of the May 24, 2022, final hearing is only
one example of such violations (See E-29). Then on July 17, 2022, Plaintiff sent a
complaint with supporting exhibits to the Florida Chief Inspector General Office
(FLCIGO), (See E-30), and on July 22, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from the
FLCIGO claiming to not have jurisdiction over court and criminal matters and
further stated that they did not have jurisdiction over out of state or law
enforcement agencies, while at the same time declaring the chief inspector is to
carry out the statutorily required investigative duties and responsibilities, and to
promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in the agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Governor (See E-31a,b). The refusal to investigate the criminal
and conspiratorial action of a Florida state agency by the FLCIGO, violates Florida
and federal laws because the afore stated agency committed crimes in multiple
jurisdictions, therefore the FLCIGO is required by law to hold them accountable
for such actions. Then on July 26, 2022, the HCSCC filed a notice of a final
hearing and on July 29, 2022, the Defendants filed an affidavit and on August 2,
2022, the HCSCC held a third in person alleged evidentiary hearing, in which
Plaintiff was denied due process of law by the HCSCC scheduling that hearing for
only thirty (30) minutes after giving the Defendants two years to concoct a legal
defense to justify the dismissal the case and further by not allowing Plaintiff to
defend himself due to the HCSCC Trial Judge constant interruptions into his
presentation. The HCSCC attempted to assist the Defendants throughout the two-
| 19
|
1
|
year legal process but failed to accomplish that objective due to the overwhelming
evidence presented by Plaintiff and was forced to deny the Defendant’s motions to
dismiss twice on the grounds of; (1) sovereign immunity; (2) failure to state a
claim; (3) expiration of the statute of limitations; (4) improper venue; (5) failure to
state a cause of action; and (6) failure to serve statutory notice. But the Defendants
were granted their legal defense argument of Plaintiff failed to meet the pleading
standard and gave him twenty days to amend his statement of claim and on
February 10, 2023, Plaintiff complied. And then in the second final hearing on
May 24, 2022, the HCSCC rejected all the Defendant’s legal defense grounds by
denying their second motion to dismiss and accepted Plaintiff's amended statement
of claim and asserted that it met the pleading requirements for small claims matter,
which meant, Plaintiff was the prevailing party but was denied the award of
damages. Once the Plaintiff succeeded in overcoming the pleading requirements
and after the HCSCC failed to make a conclusive decision in the August 2, 2023,
third final hearing and after its six months hiatus from court activities, the HCSCC
entered a notice of intent to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of prosecution and gave
Plaintiff 14 days to file a motion to show good cause and on February 17, 2023, he
complied with those instructions, even though the burden of proof was on the
HCSCC due to the fact that Plaintiff was the prevailing party and it was the Court
responsibility to bring the case to a final resolution. Also on February 17, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, request for entry of default with
supporting affidavits and a second motion to expedite and on February 23, 2023,
the HCSCC filed a final judgment order asserting that Plaintiff failed to provide
sufficient evidence to ineet his burden of proof, although the action was pending in
that Court for two years and Plaintiff filed 41 pages of exhibits, 12 different
|1
20
motions, which one of them being the amended statement of claim, in which the
HCSCC alleged meet the pleading requirements in small claims matter and based
on the HCSCC acceptance of that one document, it alone was sufficient evidence
to meet the burden of proof. During the above-mentioned proceedings and due to
the continuous disrespect and violation of the law Plaintiff sent the identical
complaint and exhibits by way of certified U.S. mail to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Florida Attorney General and the Florida Judicial Qualification
Commission, on June 16, 2022, yet all those agencies refused to intervene in
criminal conduct of the Defendants and the Court (See E-32,33,34). Due to the
corrupt activities of the HCSCC Plaintiff filed a complaint into the U.S. District
Court on July 15, 2022, and on July 27, 2022, the federal court issued an order
attempting to dismiss the case and gave Plaintiff an option to amend his complaint
and on August 8, 2022, he complied with those instructions and on August 17,
2022, the U. S. District Court filed a report and recommendation (R&R) and on
August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. Then on September 8,
2022, the U.S. District Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge‘s
R&R, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the complaint
and closed the case. On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
US. District Court and on September 16, 2022, that Court filed a second R&R and
on September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second objection to the R&R and on
October 5, 2022, the U. S. District Court adopted the second R&R and denied
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis into the U. S. Court of Appeals.
Then on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff's appeal and
on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for panel rehearing and on January
26, 2023, the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the panel rehearing and on
|
21
|
February 27, 2023, dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution because
Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fees.
FRAUD - (CAUSE OF ACTION 1)
1) Florida DHSMV and Alabama LEA, DLD, refused to properly respond or
resolve Plaintiff's complaint pertaining to the illegal hold placed on his driver
license on July 16, 1998, by utilizing fabricated information on falsified
government documents, namely, an alleged default judgment without providing
proof of such (See E-4).
2) Florida DHSMV provided Plaintiff with false government documents dated
February 1, 2012, and July 16, 2013, that contained fabricated information, which
was furnished to them by Alabama LEA, DLD, and it displayed Plaintiff's driver
license being suspended on September 5, 1989, then on November 6, 2009, it
showed a Florida driver license being cancelled and finally on April 29, 2009,
another Florida driver related item was suspended, yet Plaintiff never received
driver license in the state of Florida until May 10, 2019, (See E-4,5).
3) On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff sent certified complaints with supporting exhibits to
the following agencies: ALEA, DLD; Alabama LEA Title VI Program
Coordinator; and Florida Consumer Advocate (See E-7). Then ALEA, DLD, sent
Plaintiff a fabricated email dated June 26, 2018, which was making inaccurate and
untrue assertions and insinuating Plaintiff had an Alabama driver license and a
Florida identification card at the same time in the year of 1998, without providing
proof of such (See E-8). And then conspired with Florida DHSMV to concoct a
story that claimed, Florida DMV system reported Plaintiff's I.D. card as a driver
|
22
{
|
|
license from another state, when in fact Plaintiff never lived or had an I.D. card in
Florida until the early 2000’s and only received driver license in that state on May
10, 2019. So, the above email proves that Alabama and Florida DMV were
conspiring to commit fraud by falsifying government documents and sending them
via electronic and U.S. mail across state lines (See E-8,13).
4) In the year 1994, Plaintiff renewed his Alabama driver license without any
problems then in the year of 1998, he was permitted to pay the renewal fees and
cleared the background check but a few weeks later he was sent a letter from
ALEA, DLD, denying Plaintiffs driver privileges without explanation or the
return of the process fees that they confiscated, thereby committing fraud by
illegally extorting funds without providing goods and services (See E-4,5,8,13).
Then on July 23, 2018, Plaintiff contacted multiple government agencies and
officials within ALEA, DLD, and Florida DHSMV, by way of certified mail (See
E-9,10,11), requesting information and the conduction of an investigation into the
criminal activities of the above stated agencies and on July 27, 2018, Plaintiff
received a letter from Florida DHSMV, Inspector General Office acknowledging
the reception of Plaintiff's complaint and supporting evidence, but that government
letter was purposefully designed or fabricated to misled and misrepresent the facts
of the criminal conduct of the Defendants, that was discovered during the
investigation but refused to prosecute or report the matter to the proper authority
but instead referred the matter back to the perpetrators of the crime (See E-12).
5) Florida DHSMV, Inspector General Office, forwarded Plaintiff’s complaint and
exhibits to the Florida DHSMV, Division of Motorist Services (MS), and Plaintiff
then received a letter dated August 31, 2018, wherein Florida DHSMV, MS, made
|
23
all kind of false statements, such as claiming that a fictitious error occurred, when
Florida DHSMV attempted to update Plaintiff driver’s history, which allegedly
mistakenly showed Plaintiff Florida ID. card as being cancelled, when it had only
expired. And further the Florida DHSMV MS, asserted falsely that Plaintiff
driver’s record was updated to reflect the correct information (See E-13). Plaintiff
never possessed an I.D. card from Alabama but did have driver license issued from
the years of 1979 to 1998 and move to Florida in the early part of the year 2000
and was issued a I.D. card around that same period and was issued his first Florida
driver license on May 10, 2019. Therefore the Florida DHSMV, MS, August 31,
2018, letter was false and fabricated because Plaintiff did not possess an I.D. card
from any state during that time period and to prove the falsity of the afore stated
letter, is the fact that Florida DHSMV, MS, attached a three year corrected driver’s
record printout to the August 31, 2018, letter and nowhere on that document does it
show any item being suspended, cancelled, revoked or expired (See E-14).
6) Further Plaintiff requested and received a lifetime history of his Alabama driver
license, dated December 23, 2020, (See E-17), and then Plaintiff ordered a
Preview
ey IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEEN JUDICIAL cIRCULES Seo EN IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA a> oe —f CIVIL DIVISION NOEL VINCENT THOMAS ) PRO SE LITIGANT ) PLAINTIFF ) CASE NO. #24- 904211 - VS - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, MIKE STACY, DHSMV, IG, STEPHANIE D DUHART, DHSMV, MS ) FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) MARIE T RIVES, FLORIDA, AG, ) FLORIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR ) GENERAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1) Plaintiff, Noe! Vincent Thomas, bring this action for the violations of state and federal laws against Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and its divisions and officials for the claims of fraud, conspiracy and negligence and failure to provide due process. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2) This action is:for the claims of fraud, negligence and conspiracy and the due process clauses pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.041, and the Florida Constitution l4rt. 1 § 9. 3) Under the Flerida laws does this action arises and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Statute § 26.012(2)(a). 4) This venue is'proper in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court because the alleged acts occurred within these boundaries and Plaintiff resides in Tampa, Florida, and the business and transactions are native to this jurisdiction in pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.011. PARTIES INVOLVED 1) Plaintiff resides in Tampa, Florida and is a U.S. veteran who is currently retired and live in low-income housing under the HUD-VASH program. 2) Defendant Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) isla state government agency who regulates traffic related issues. || 1 |1 | 3) Defendant Florida DHSMV, Inspector General is an investigative division of Florida DHSMV. 4) Defendant F lorida DHSMYV, Bureau of Records, Division of Motorist Services is a record division of Florida DHSMV. 5) Defendants Florida Attorney General is a statewide elected official directed by Florida Constitution to serve as the chief legal officer for the state of Florida. 6) Defendants Florida Chief Inspector General is a state investigative agency whose duty is to oversee the proper operations of state agencies. STATEMENT OF CASE In the year of 1998, Alabama and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) officials conspired to place an illegal hold on Plaintiffs driver license for over twenty years without legal predication (See E-4,8,13), and after consistent attempts by way of telephone to force them to provide exonerating documents to justify their action or correct the problem, they still failed to comply. And this prolonged and torturous experience caused severe loses and damages, which violated Plaintiff's, United States Constitutional 8" Amendment Right, that states “nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted or Florida Constitution Art. 1, § 17, which asserts, the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, yet here is clear evidence of abuse and misuse of aithority for retaliatory purposes without legal or moral justification. After years of unsuccessful endeavors of contacting the Defendants, by way of phone, the Plaintiff, began sending certified letters to multiple Alabama and Florida state officials to attempt to apply more pressure directly on them and | | 2 | | | ! | 1 | some responded, and others refused (See E-9,10,11), yet they all decided to conspire to cover up the violations by ignoring the facts and began fabricating false government documents. Once all state remedies were exhausted Plaintiff, filed a civil suit in the U.S. District Court, on October 9, 2018, to address the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the Defendants. And on February 14, 2019, the U.S. Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation(R&R) to deny Plaintiff's, motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his complaint for the stated reasons of failure to satisfy the threshold pleading requirements, the immunity to which several “not all” the defendants were entitled under the eleven amendment and failure to state a viable federal claim. Plaintiff then filed an objection to the R&R and amended his complaint on February 27, 2019, and on April 18, 2019, the US. District Judge overruled Plaintiff’s, objection motion and dismissed his amended complaint and then ordered Plaintiff, to file a second amended complaint without a logical reason to do so. And on April 30, 2019, Plaintiff, complied with the court’s orders and on September 20, 2019, the U.S. Magistrate Judge filed a second R&R and Plaintiff, responded on October 4, 2019, then on January 13, 2019, the case was completely dismissed. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, motion to proceed in forma pauperis and an appointment of counsel motion, in the United States Court of Appeals on January 21, 2020, and on January 27, 2020, Plaintiff, received an instructional letter from the U.S. Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office, and on February 3, 2020, Plaintiff, received another letter from the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals, informing him to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Then on February 10,,2020, Plaintiff, received yet another letter from the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals telling him to file a certificate of interested persons and on May 4, 2020, Plaintiff's, motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied by the 1 3 { | ; U.S. Court of Appeals land on June 5, 2020, Plaintiff's, complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution because Plaintiff, failed to pay the filing or docket fees. | After the dismissal of Plaintiff's, federal civil complaint, he somewhat became semi- financially stable and he filed multiple action stemming from the same incident that initiated this process, into the Hillsborough County Small Claims Court (HCSCC), and one of the cases being, civil number 21-CC-018676, filed on February 25, 2021. Plaintiff, provided the HCSCC, with numerous exhibits and a lengthy statement of claim clarifying those documents, yet the Defendants, failed to file a single document to refute Plaintiff's, allegations but instead filed a motion to dismiss and a request for judicial notice on March 29, 2021, that was not in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1.140(a)(1) that gave the time limit requirement of 20 days to respond or answer the complaint, then on April 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Then on May 17, 2021, the HCSCC held the pre-trial hearing and on May 20, 2021, the HCSCC ordered mediation and on June 18, 2021, both parties met in mediation in an attempt to negotiate terms of agreement to facilitate the resolution of the complaint and on September 20, 2021, the final hearing was scheduled and on September 22, 2021, Defendants filed a notice of substitution of counsel and on October 26, 2021, the first final hearing was held, wherein Plaintiff was denied due process and access to the court by the HCSCC refusal to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence and utilize laws and statutes in his own defense. And on February 1, 2022, the HCSCC rendered an order granting in part the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which denied three of their defense elements which are as follows: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) improper venue; (3) statute of limitations, and granted the Defendants the fourth defense element, which was, 4 ! | | Plaintiff allegedly failed to state a claim and ordered him to amend his complaint. And on February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim and on February 18, 2022, the Defendants new legal representative filed a notice of appearance, a motion for extension of time and a notice of related action, then on February 23, 2022, the HCSCC granted the Defendant’s motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff ‘s amended statement of claim, in which they never did but instead filed a second motion to dismiss and on March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to that motion, which received no reply or action from the HCSCC, or the Defendants. Then on March 21, 2022, the HCSCC, entered some type of order that was immediately removed from the court records, which Plaintiff believe was a ruling in his favor but due to the dire consequences of such a decision it was purposedly withdrawn. Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite on April 20, 2022, to remedy the confusion of the above stated error but that motion only produced greater problems because the clerk of the court stamped on Plaintiffs motion to expedite the reception date of April 20, 2022, then another reception date of May 3, 2022, was also stamped on that same document then the words, set hearing was stamped on the above-mentioned motion with a hand written date of April 27, 2022, and it further displayed a hand-written note setting May 24, 2022, asa second hearing date, so it was obvious that the HCSCC was attempting to illegally force Plaintiff into a hearing without complying with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c), which required the court to enter an order fixing a date for trial, but no such order was ever issued. Then on April 29, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of hearing and on May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions on opposing counsel due to the conspiratorial plans between the HCSCC and the Defendants because no orders were issued by the court fixing a trial date for such. 5 |1 And on May 24, 2022, the illegal second final hearing was held but Plaintiff refused to participate ih that course of action and the Defendants and the HCSCC had already threaten Plaintiff that if he did not attend the May 24, 2022, hearing, judgment would be held against him for failure to appear, but no such orders were ever issued due to the hearing being illegal, which violated state laws, mainly, Florida Constitution (F.C) Art. 1, § 9, which states, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and F.C. Art. 1, § 21, which asserts, the court shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Then on June 8, 2022, HCSCC issued an order denying the Defendant’s second motion to dismiss and on July 26, 2022, HCSCC filed a notice of final hearing and on July 29, 2022, the Defendants filed an affidavit and on August 2, 2022, the HCSCC held a third in person final hearing, in which the Trial Court asserted that it was an evidentiary hearing, scheduled for only 30 minutes and Plaintiff was never allowed to defend himself due to the Trial Court constant interruptions into his presentation. And in the above-stated final hearing the Trial Court filed a Court ticket with the following instructions and possible future actions written thereon: (1) Defendants moves for direct verdict; (2) Court reserves ruling; (3) Plaintiff was unresponsive to Court questions; and (4) Court to enter order. Due to the criminal behavior of the Defendants and the Court, Plaintiff sent the same complaint and exhibits by way of U.S. certified mail, to the Florida Chief Inspector General Office (FLCIGO), (See E-34), and on July 22, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from the afore-stated Florida official, who refused to investigate the matter after receiving overwhelming evidence that the Deféndants had violated the law and referred the matter back to the perpetrators of the crimes and asserted that the FLCIGO did not have ‘ 6 1 { | jurisdiction over out of state or law enforcement agencies nor over court and criminal matters but is| statutorily required to investigate and hold accountable all state actors for their wrongful participation in criminal misconduct (See E-35). Then on February 10, 2023, the Trial Court issued a notice of intent to dismiss for lack of prosecution on the Court’s own motion, and this was after the fact that the HCSCC took a six-month hiatus from all Court activities related to this case and failed to make a timely Court ruling, or decide on the Defendant’s direct verdict or enter some type of Court order. The HCSCC notice of intent stated the following: pursuant to the applicable rules of the Court, because no activity by filing of pleadings, order of Court or otherwise has occurred on the record of the above- style action for a period of at least six months, said action shall be dismissed unless good cause in writing is filed at least five days before the date of hearing set forth below. This action by the HCSCC is criminal in nature because it was attempting to forcibly dismiss Plaintiff's claim without rendering a final judgment, so on February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to show good cause, a motion to expedite proceedings and render final judgment, a request for entry of default with affidavit and a motion for default judgment with affidavit in support of such. Then on February 23, 2023, the HCSCC filed final judgment for the Defendants asserting that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, although he filed a statement of claim on February 25, 2021, with 41 pages of exhibits, and on April 1 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss with 16 exhibits, then on February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim with 9 exhibits, then on March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant’s second motion to dismiss with 4 exhibits and on May 23, 2022, , Plaintiff filed a motion for sanction on opposing counsel with 4 exhibits attached 7 yet, the HCSCC alleged Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence. And then on March 3, 2023, Plaintiff file a motion for rehearing and on March 22, 2023, the HCSCC, denied that motion and on March 27, 2023, Plaintiff file a notice of appeal in the HCSCC along with an affidavit of indigent status, in which the Court granted and the decision of the HCSCC was affirmed by the Second District Appeals Court. And further due to the HCSCC failure to resolve the complaint in a timely and justified manner, Plaintiff filed this same civil action into the U.S. District Court on July 15, 2022, and within less than two weeks the Court issued an order asserting that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, failed to comply with federal tules of civil procedure and failed to state the basis for the court jurisdiction, even though a related action was pending in that same court for about one year and a half and a connected lawsuit to this action was pending in the HCSCC, for almost two years but the U.S. District Court was able to render a complex litigation decision in a short period of time without reviewing or examining the complaint or its supporting exhibits. And further in the July 27, 2022, order from the U.S. District Court, it gave Plaintiff the option to amend his complaint by correcting the alleged defects and on August 8, 2022, the amended complaint was filed and on August 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court filed a report and recommendation (R&R) and on August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objection to the R&R. Then on September 8, 2022, the U.S. District Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge R&R, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the complaint and closed the case and on September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court and on September 16, 2022, the U.S. District Court filed its second R&R and on September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed his second objection to the U.S. District Court R&R and on October 5, 2022, the U.S. District 8 |I | | Judge adopted the second R&R and denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis into the U.S. Appeals Court. Then on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff? s appeal and on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for panel rehearing and on January 26, 2023, the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the panel rehearing motion and on February 27, 2023, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fees. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, was involved in an accident in Gulf Breeze, Florida in the year 1987 and the victims apparently was not satisfied with the insurance settlement, so they hired a lawyer who eventually visited Plaintiff, to try and negotiate some terms of agreement, but to no avail, his efforts were futile, and that attorney then made some vile threats to Plaintiff, that he would Somehow pay for his refusal to cooperate. Now the Defendants have consistently insinuated that the victim’s lawyer and the default judgment were figments of Plaintiffs imagination but in their motion to dismiss filed in the HCSCC on March 29, 2021, they were repeatedly referencing the terms, private Florida attorney, unnamed Florida attorney and unnamed private personal injury attorney (See, E-1,2,3), which confirms that the Defendants know the identity of that individual and is currently engaged in some type of illegal activities with said attorney because Plaintiff never mentioned any personal characteristics of the victim’s lawyer, so this is proof positive that a conspiratorial scheme was being implemented. And further doing that period Plaintiff, was incarcerated and was released in July of 1994, whereupon he renewed his driver license at Mobile, Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles 9 i (DMV), without any complication. Then in the year of 1998 Plaintiff, was allowed to pay the renewal feed for his driver license and at that time no violations appeared in the Alabama DMV electronic records, that indicated any future problems but after illegally confiscating Plaintiffs, funds they sent him a letter informing him that a hold had been placed on his driver license without any supporting documentation or explanation of why this was occurring or without any due process procedures being allowed pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution, which declares, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges, or immunities of a citizen of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, respectively. Once Plaintiff, contacted Alabama DMV concerning the subject matter, they told him that Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) put the hold on his driver license and that he would have to get in touch with those officials to resolve the issue. Plaintiff then began communications with Florida DHSMV, and they said that Alabama DMV initiated the hold on the driver license, while Alabama claimed the reverse and this process went on for several days until finally Alabama DMV stated that the reason for the hold was because of a default judgement stemming from the Florida accident that occurred in the year 1987, yet neither of those agencies provided proof to support that claim (See E-4). After the Plaintiff, became frustrated by the lack of transparency, he started researching the statutes of limitation on default judgements in both states and discovered Florida Statutes (F.S.) 95.11(1) and Code of Alabama 6-2-32, which showed the limitation to be twenty years and since there | 10 was no lawyers or organizations willing to assist Plaintiff, in the matter, he was forced to pursue this course of action on his own. Throughout the twenty-year period Plaintiff, contacted the errant officials and persistently requested for a solution to the problem but received none, so after the alleged default judgement expired, he began sending certified letters to different types of government officials, agencies, departments and divisions, seeking their help in alleviating the ongoing violations (See E-7,8,9,12,13). The fact of the matter is, Plaintiff's, Alabama driver license was never legally cancelled, revoked or suspended and neither Alabama nor Florida DMV can produce legal documents proving otherwise. The Defendants provided a document to Plaintiff dated February 1, 2012, which displayed a driver’s license being suspended on September 5, 1989, and a default judgment pending (See E-4), which proves the Defendants and the victim’s attorney conspired to use an illegal document “(default judgment)” to commit intra and interstate crimes by falsifying and fabricating government documents to deny Plaintiffs driver privileges for over twenty years. In relationship with the above-mentioned document the Defendants provided several other exhibits that displayed significant information, namely, the falsified driver license expiration date of July 16, 1998, and it is important to note that Plaintiff never had driver license in Florida until May 10, 2019, (See E-4,5,6,18,19), so that information is falsely manufactured and proves that both Alabama and Florida DMV coordinated and conspired to deny driver’s privileges to Plaintiff due to the fact, that July 16, 1998, is the exact date that the illegal hold was placed on Plaintiffs driver license. And further demonstrated in the afore-mentioned documents is more faulty information relating to dates and actions, specifically, November 6, 2009, where a Florida driver license was cancelled and April 29, li | 2009, another Florida driver related item was suspended, then on September 5, 1989, another Florida driver related item was suspended and a default judgment filed (See E-4,5), and both of those exhibits were issued on the respective dates of February 1, 2012 and July 16, 2013, yet May 10, 2019, was the first time that Plaintiff was ever issued driver license in the State of Florida. Then on June 26, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA), Driver License Division (DLD), Chief Deena L Pregno asserting false allegations and insinuating that Plaintiff had a Florida identification card and an Alabama driver license at the same time in the year of 1998, without providing documents to support those accusations (See E-8). In the June 26, 2018, email ALEA, DLD, Chief, stated that she spoke to someone at Florida DHSMV to try and track down why Florida DHSMV had reported Plaintiff's driver privileges as being suspended, and'here at this point, this must be stated, that the very action by ALEA, DLD, Chief, is criminal because this is the same agency that placed the hold on Plaintiff's driver license on July 16, 1998, and then reinstated them on June 26, 2018, yet was requesting information from another state DMV agency concerning the suspension status of Plaintiff's Alabama driver license, in which ALEA, DLD, is partially responsible for the denial of such (See E-8). Basically, it was a total impossibility for Florida DHSMV to have provided Alabama DMV, with information relating to Plaintiff's driver license since he never had driver license in Florida until May 10, 2019, and secondly he did not live in Florida until the early part of the year 2000, so Plaintiff had no residence in the state during that period of time in question, which means he could not possess a driver license or an identification card from Florida in the year of 1998. After sending certified complaints to multiple government entities Plaintiff received a letter from Florida 12 | { ! ‘ | | DHSMY\V, Inspector General Office (1.G.) dated July 27, 2018, acknowledging the reception of Plaintiffs complaint with its supporting documents and it further stated that after investigating the Alabama DMV, action of placing the illegal hold on Plaintiff's driver license, it determined that the problem did not originate with Alabama DMV, but rather emanated from Florida DHSMV, Division of Motorist Services (MS) (See E-12). Unfortunately, Florida DHSMV, I.G. response was to refer the matter back to the perpetrator of the violations who had refused to properly respond, comply or correct the problem and this was after Plaintiff had clearly identified those officials and agencies who were involved in the misconduct. Plaintiff received a letter dated August 31, 2018, from Florida DHSMY\V, (MS), claiming to have rectified some fictitious error that they asserted occurred when their system showed Plaintiff's I.D. card as being cancelled, when it had only expired, and this was the year of 2018 when this letter was mailed to Plaintiff (See E-13). And attached to the August 31, 2018, letter of Florida DHSMV, (MS), was a three-year driver’s record history printout, that covered the time period of January 30, 2014, to August 31, 2018, and nowhere on that document does it shows any driver’s items being cancelled, revoked, suspended or expired (See E-14). Florida DHSMV, failed to produce an accurate and complete driver’s history, which would show and prove Plaintiff never had any legal issues with his driver license or ID. card but displayed on the above-stated government printout was a false and fabricated original license issue date of August 6, 1987, yet, Florida DHSMV only provided Plaintiff with a three-year driver’s history, while asserting they have information on Plaintiff dating back 30 years to the time of August 6, 1987, but in reality is the time period that Plaintiff had a car accident in Gulf Breeze, Florida (See E- 14,18,19). After the Florida DHSMYV, Inspector 13 | General failed to investigate the criminal conduct of both Alabama and Florida DMY\, Plaintiff sent a complaint and supporting evidence by way of certified mail, to the Florida Attorney General Office on August 28, 2018, (See E-20), and on September 13, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from the Florida Attorney General Office who refused to investigate obvious fraud violations but instead conspired with the perpetrators by inappropriately insinuating that Plaintiff was complaining about some basic driver license issue, when in reality, Plaintiff distinctively alleged that Alabama and Florida DMV conspired to falsify and fabricate government documents and committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions (See E-21). Once all state remedies were exhausted Plaintiff filed a civil action in the federal court on October 9, 2018, and on January 13, 2020, the case was dismissed and on January 21, 2020, it was appealed and on June 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for want of prosecution due to the failure to pay the filing fees. Plaintiff decided to acquire more detail information pertaining to his driver’s history, so he requested a lifetime driver’s history from Alabama DMV, dated December 23, 2020. (See E-17), and ordered a driver’s record transcript from Florida DHSMV, date January 11, 2021, (See E-18), and on March 29, 2021, the Defendants filed a request for judicial notice in the HCSCC, with a fabricated government driver’s history document attached (See E-J9). All the above- mentioned driver’s history documents are supposed to be historical records and contain accurate and complete information, but they all fail to show and prove that Plaintiff's driver license or I.D. card was ever suspended, revoked, cancelled or expired. If this Court will examine Florida DHSMV transcript of driver’s record | (See E-17) and the driver's record that was attached to the Defendant’s request for judicial notice (See Et 4), and the driver’s history record dated March 29, 2021, | 14 (See E-19), this Court wil discover false and fabricated information under the heading of “Alabama original license issued”, which has a date of August 6, 1987, displayed therein. Plaintiff filed his Alabama driver’s license abstract or history document in this Court’s records and according to that document the earliest issuance date of Plaintiff’s Alabama driver license on file is August 4, 1994, (See E-17) so, where did Florida DHSMV, get that false information since Alabama records only dates back to the year of 1994? After obtaining the necessary documentation to prove that the Defendants violated states and federal laws Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the HCSCC, on February 25, 2021, where he filed an eight-page statement of claim along with 41 pages of exhibits that supported all his allegations or causes of action and since the documents were filed with the Trial Court, the Appeals Court had access to that information, but suffice to say, the Defendants failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a), which required an answer to the summons and complaint within 20 days after services of the original process, but instead of properly responding to the complaint the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a request for judicial notice on March 29, 2021, and on April 21, 2021, Plaintiff responded to that motion to dismiss. And due to the gravity of the evidence in this case and the magnitude of the criminal implications involved in the outcome of these proceedings the Defendants had to change legal counsel three times, and is now represented by the Florida Attorney General who not only have possession of all the false and fabricated government documents filed into the Trial Court by Plaintiff, but also has access to all of Florida DHSMV, records and files relating to this action but refused to investigate the criminal conduct of the Defendants or to prosecute them for those violations. ! Then on October 26, 2021, HCSCC, held the second final hearing, wherein | 15 | | Plaintiff was denied due process of law and access to the court by the HCSCC refusal to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence and utilize laws in his own defense. Even though Plaintiff was not allowed to effectively represent himself, the evidence was so overwhelming that the HCSCC rendered an order on February 1, 2022, granting in part the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which denied three of the defense elements of their argument, which are as follows: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) improper venue; and (3) statute of limitations, and all of these are complex litigation issues that could not be resolved in the HCSCC but the Defendants was granted the fourth element, which was the HCSCC alleged Plaintiff failed to state a claim and ordered him to amend his complaint and on February 10, 2022, he fully complied with those orders. And on February 23, 2022, the HCSCC, granted the Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's amended statement of claim, in which they never did but instead filed a second motion to dismiss on March 9, 2022, and Plaintiff responded to that motion on March 14, 2022, which received no reply from the HCSCC or the Defendants. Then the HCSCC and the Defendants conspired to force Plaintiff into an illegal hearing without complying with the proper procedures, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c), which requires the court to enter an order fixing a date for trial, but no such order was ever issued. On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite and based upon the written and stamped information on that document by the clerk of the HCSCC which showed a stamped reception date of April 20, 2022, then imprinted on that same document was a reception date of May 3, 2022, and these are two different dates of receiving the same document (See E- 22), which probably means the motion to expedite was in the custody of two different clerks for apparently two distinct purposes. And further the words, “set 16 | hearing” was stamped on the motion to expedite, with a hand written date of April 27, 2022, anda signature and it further exhibited a hand written note setting May 24, 2022, as a second hearing date without ever holding the April 27, 2022, hearing, so that information was not legally binding and no official orders had been issued from the court establishing either of the above-mentioned hearing dates as directives (See E-22,23). Because of the corruption perpetrated by the Defendants and the HCSCC, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion for sanctions on opposing counsel due to the conspiratorial scheme between all parties involved to compel Plaintiff into an illegal hearing without the HCSCC issuing orders for the commencement of such an activity, which Plaintiff refused to participate in that course of action. Then on May 24, 2022, the HCSCC held the illegal second final hearing and filed a court ticket attempting to justify its future action, of claiming Plaintiff failed to appear at a hearing that was never ordered by the HCSCC and in fact the Court endeavored to personally call Plaintiff several times during the hearing and logged those efforts into the court records, which is not normal court practices (See E-24). The HCSCC knew that the May 24, 2022, final hearing was illegal, so the Court and the Defendant’s counsel began sending Plaintiff a chain of emails on May 25, 2022, and June 8, 2022, attempting to reschedule the hearing and ignoring the charge of failure to appear (See E-25,26a,b,c,d). But in the May 25, 2022, emails from the Defendant’s counsel they were asserting that the HCSCC reserved ruling and requested that the Defendant’s counsel upload a proposed order to the Court, which contained the following grounds for dismissal: (1) Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing; (2) the Defendants qualify for sovereign immunity, in which the HCSCC rejected both because the May 24, 2022, 1 |1 final hearing was illegal (See E-27). Also on June 8, 2022, the HCSCC filed an | 17 |1 order denying the Defendant's second motion to dismiss submitted to the Court on March 9, 2022, and according to that order, it appears that the specific purpose of the May 24, 2022, second final hearing was to review the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was totally problematic in nature because Plaintiff had filed several motions, in which the Trial Court refused to entertain (See E-28a,b). In that June 8, 2022, order the HCSCC, asserted that after reviewing the Plaintiff's amended statement of claim and the response to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Court arrived at its conclusion and further stated that the only reason that the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's statement of claim was based on pleading sufficiency, with leave to amend (See E-28a,b). The HCSCC further asserted in the June 8, 2022, order that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss alleged two grounds as a basis for dismissal and they are as follows: (1) failure to provide statutory notice; and (2) failure to state'a cause of action,; Plaintiff must at this point acknowledge that the HCSCC failed to give any opinion on the statutory notice argument but it’s obvious Plaintiff met that requirement due to the overwhelming evidence presented. The HCSCC continued to assert in the June 8, 2022, order that Plaintiff's amended statement of claim is still not a beacon of clarity, the Court finds it to be sufficient enough to meet the pleading requirement in small claim matters (See E-28a,b) so, here Plaintiff met the only remaining requirement specified by the HCSCC which meant Plaintiff was the prevailing party and should have been immediately awarded compensation for damages but instead of comply with the law the HCSCC set a date for another final hearing. On June 9, 2022, the HCSCC sent Plaintiff an email in response to his email quoting a judicial cannon, ' which asserted, the code of judicial conduct provides that a judge shall not initiate, 1 | permit, or consider ex: 4)| parte communication, or consider other communications 18 1 made to the judge outside the presence of parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding. This cannon has been clearly violated since there were communications occurring between the HCSCC and the Defendants that was affecting the outcome of the case and all the court records and emails support this allegation and the illegal arrangement of the May 24, 2022, final hearing is only one example of such violations (See E-29). Then on July 17, 2022, Plaintiff sent a complaint with supporting exhibits to the Florida Chief Inspector General Office (FLCIGO), (See E-30), and on July 22, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from the FLCIGO claiming to not have jurisdiction over court and criminal matters and further stated that they did not have jurisdiction over out of state or law enforcement agencies, while at the same time declaring the chief inspector is to carry out the statutorily required investigative duties and responsibilities, and to promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor (See E-31a,b). The refusal to investigate the criminal and conspiratorial action of a Florida state agency by the FLCIGO, violates Florida and federal laws because the afore stated agency committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions, therefore the FLCIGO is required by law to hold them accountable for such actions. Then on July 26, 2022, the HCSCC filed a notice of a final hearing and on July 29, 2022, the Defendants filed an affidavit and on August 2, 2022, the HCSCC held a third in person alleged evidentiary hearing, in which Plaintiff was denied due process of law by the HCSCC scheduling that hearing for only thirty (30) minutes after giving the Defendants two years to concoct a legal defense to justify the dismissal the case and further by not allowing Plaintiff to defend himself due to the HCSCC Trial Judge constant interruptions into his presentation. The HCSCC attempted to assist the Defendants throughout the two- | 19 | 1 | year legal process but failed to accomplish that objective due to the overwhelming evidence presented by Plaintiff and was forced to deny the Defendant’s motions to dismiss twice on the grounds of; (1) sovereign immunity; (2) failure to state a claim; (3) expiration of the statute of limitations; (4) improper venue; (5) failure to state a cause of action; and (6) failure to serve statutory notice. But the Defendants were granted their legal defense argument of Plaintiff failed to meet the pleading standard and gave him twenty days to amend his statement of claim and on February 10, 2023, Plaintiff complied. And then in the second final hearing on May 24, 2022, the HCSCC rejected all the Defendant’s legal defense grounds by denying their second motion to dismiss and accepted Plaintiff's amended statement of claim and asserted that it met the pleading requirements for small claims matter, which meant, Plaintiff was the prevailing party but was denied the award of damages. Once the Plaintiff succeeded in overcoming the pleading requirements and after the HCSCC failed to make a conclusive decision in the August 2, 2023, third final hearing and after its six months hiatus from court activities, the HCSCC entered a notice of intent to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of prosecution and gave Plaintiff 14 days to file a motion to show good cause and on February 17, 2023, he complied with those instructions, even though the burden of proof was on the HCSCC due to the fact that Plaintiff was the prevailing party and it was the Court responsibility to bring the case to a final resolution. Also on February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, request for entry of default with supporting affidavits and a second motion to expedite and on February 23, 2023, the HCSCC filed a final judgment order asserting that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to ineet his burden of proof, although the action was pending in that Court for two years and Plaintiff filed 41 pages of exhibits, 12 different |1 20 motions, which one of them being the amended statement of claim, in which the HCSCC alleged meet the pleading requirements in small claims matter and based on the HCSCC acceptance of that one document, it alone was sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof. During the above-mentioned proceedings and due to the continuous disrespect and violation of the law Plaintiff sent the identical complaint and exhibits by way of certified U.S. mail to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Florida Attorney General and the Florida Judicial Qualification Commission, on June 16, 2022, yet all those agencies refused to intervene in criminal conduct of the Defendants and the Court (See E-32,33,34). Due to the corrupt activities of the HCSCC Plaintiff filed a complaint into the U.S. District Court on July 15, 2022, and on July 27, 2022, the federal court issued an order attempting to dismiss the case and gave Plaintiff an option to amend his complaint and on August 8, 2022, he complied with those instructions and on August 17, 2022, the U. S. District Court filed a report and recommendation (R&R) and on August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. Then on September 8, 2022, the U.S. District Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge‘s R&R, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the complaint and closed the case. On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the US. District Court and on September 16, 2022, that Court filed a second R&R and on September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second objection to the R&R and on October 5, 2022, the U. S. District Court adopted the second R&R and denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis into the U. S. Court of Appeals. Then on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff's appeal and on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for panel rehearing and on January 26, 2023, the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the panel rehearing and on | 21 | February 27, 2023, dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fees. FRAUD - (CAUSE OF ACTION 1) 1) Florida DHSMV and Alabama LEA, DLD, refused to properly respond or resolve Plaintiff's complaint pertaining to the illegal hold placed on his driver license on July 16, 1998, by utilizing fabricated information on falsified government documents, namely, an alleged default judgment without providing proof of such (See E-4). 2) Florida DHSMV provided Plaintiff with false government documents dated February 1, 2012, and July 16, 2013, that contained fabricated information, which was furnished to them by Alabama LEA, DLD, and it displayed Plaintiff's driver license being suspended on September 5, 1989, then on November 6, 2009, it showed a Florida driver license being cancelled and finally on April 29, 2009, another Florida driver related item was suspended, yet Plaintiff never received driver license in the state of Florida until May 10, 2019, (See E-4,5). 3) On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff sent certified complaints with supporting exhibits to the following agencies: ALEA, DLD; Alabama LEA Title VI Program Coordinator; and Florida Consumer Advocate (See E-7). Then ALEA, DLD, sent Plaintiff a fabricated email dated June 26, 2018, which was making inaccurate and untrue assertions and insinuating Plaintiff had an Alabama driver license and a Florida identification card at the same time in the year of 1998, without providing proof of such (See E-8). And then conspired with Florida DHSMV to concoct a story that claimed, Florida DMV system reported Plaintiff's I.D. card as a driver | 22 { | | license from another state, when in fact Plaintiff never lived or had an I.D. card in Florida until the early 2000’s and only received driver license in that state on May 10, 2019. So, the above email proves that Alabama and Florida DMV were conspiring to commit fraud by falsifying government documents and sending them via electronic and U.S. mail across state lines (See E-8,13). 4) In the year 1994, Plaintiff renewed his Alabama driver license without any problems then in the year of 1998, he was permitted to pay the renewal fees and cleared the background check but a few weeks later he was sent a letter from ALEA, DLD, denying Plaintiffs driver privileges without explanation or the return of the process fees that they confiscated, thereby committing fraud by illegally extorting funds without providing goods and services (See E-4,5,8,13). Then on July 23, 2018, Plaintiff contacted multiple government agencies and officials within ALEA, DLD, and Florida DHSMV, by way of certified mail (See E-9,10,11), requesting information and the conduction of an investigation into the criminal activities of the above stated agencies and on July 27, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Florida DHSMV, Inspector General Office acknowledging the reception of Plaintiff's complaint and supporting evidence, but that government letter was purposefully designed or fabricated to misled and misrepresent the facts of the criminal conduct of the Defendants, that was discovered during the investigation but refused to prosecute or report the matter to the proper authority but instead referred the matter back to the perpetrators of the crime (See E-12). 5) Florida DHSMV, Inspector General Office, forwarded Plaintiff’s complaint and exhibits to the Florida DHSMV, Division of Motorist Services (MS), and Plaintiff then received a letter dated August 31, 2018, wherein Florida DHSMV, MS, made | 23 all kind of false statements, such as claiming that a fictitious error occurred, when Florida DHSMV attempted to update Plaintiff driver’s history, which allegedly mistakenly showed Plaintiff Florida ID. card as being cancelled, when it had only expired. And further the Florida DHSMV MS, asserted falsely that Plaintiff driver’s record was updated to reflect the correct information (See E-13). Plaintiff never possessed an I.D. card from Alabama but did have driver license issued from the years of 1979 to 1998 and move to Florida in the early part of the year 2000 and was issued a I.D. card around that same period and was issued his first Florida driver license on May 10, 2019. Therefore the Florida DHSMV, MS, August 31, 2018, letter was false and fabricated because Plaintiff did not possess an I.D. card from any state during that time period and to prove the falsity of the afore stated letter, is the fact that Florida DHSMV, MS, attached a three year corrected driver’s record printout to the August 31, 2018, letter and nowhere on that document does it show any item being suspended, cancelled, revoked or expired (See E-14). 6) Further Plaintiff requested and received a lifetime history of his Alabama driver license, dated December 23, 2020, (See E-17), and then Plaintiff ordered a