# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In re Holbrook > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386001_1159%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 2004 - **Citation:** 541 U.S. 1029 ## Text Suprerie Court, U.S. FILED No. 031242FER 2 7 2004 OFFICE OF THE Ginn In The Supreme Court of the Anited States In re DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Petitioner. PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION DIANE L. HOLBROOK Petitioner Post Office Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (772) 545-9793 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Issuance by the Court of an Extraordinary Writ authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is not'a matter of right, but of discretion. The writ will be in aid of support of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circum- stances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other Court because of abuses of judicial power where judge refuses to take some actions he is required to take. Another case, judge takes some action he is not empowered to take from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters over which it has cognizance or usurping - matters not within its jurisdiction to hear or determine. The Florida Bar, Fla., 329 So.2d 301, 302. A writ issued by a superior court, directed to the judge and parties of a suit in an inferior court, commanding them to cease from ... , upon a suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court. The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of man- damus directing the restoration of the complainant to rights or privileges of which she has been illegally de- prived. Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts Rule 60(a) and Rule 60(b), State Of Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 1.500. Defaults and Final Judgments Thereon (a) By the Clerk, and Rule 1.500(e) Final Judgment, and Rule 1.540. Relief from Judgment, Decrees, or Orders (a) Clerical Mistakes, and Rule 1.540(b)(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or ii QUESTION PRESENTED — Continued excusable neglect; and Rule 1.540(bX3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresenta- tion, or other misconduct of an adverse party. Case #1 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari and Petition For Rehearing No. 01-31 Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, a foreign corporation and Case #2 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari and Petition For Rehearing No. 02-1613 Diane L. Holbrook v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., a foreign corporation would be the two other cases presenting the same question(s) as in Case #3 Diane L. Holbrook v. Eileen Buchmann, ET AL. from lower tribunal No. 4D03-187. A different case involving Cases No. CL92-306, CL93-350 and CL96-7 in the Circuit Court Of Fauquier County of the State of Virginia for conflict of interest and fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party in regards to the writ of mandaraus. 1. Are clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, a violation of Rules of Civil Proce- dure Rule 1.540(a), Rule 1.500(a) and Rule 1.500(e), as well as, a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(a) and Rule 55(a)? y 2. Is Judge William L. Roby chargeable with any abuse of his power, when judge takes some conflict action of Judge Ben L. Bryan, Jr.’s Order regarding Docket Call and judge refuses to take some action he is required to take? Do his actions constitute an abuse of discretion or were his actions a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect pursuant to the fact that an adverse Seen lil QUESTION PRESENTED - Continued party prepared the Order and mailed it to the Court for his signature? Do these actions fall under Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1) and Rule 1.540(b)(3)... mis- representation, or other misconduct of an adverse party? 3. Is Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire by preparing Order(s) and mailing it to the Court for judge(s) signa- ture(s) containing misrepresentation or other miscondvrt, being an adverse party, chargeable with abuses of judicial power? 4. Is Lowry Jock Miller, Esquire by Ex Parte pro- ceedings and by preparing Order for Judge William Shore Robertson’s signature with alleged fraud, misrepresenta- tion, or other misconduct under guidelines of conflict of interest, being an adverse party, chargeable with abuses of judicial power? iv RULE 20.3 LISTING Petitioner submits the following list of interested persons and a complete list of Respondent’s affiliates and parent corporations not previously presented to the Su- preme Court of the United States as a continuation: Administrative File American States (as THE Carrier) Birch, Honorable Judge Stanley F. (U.S. COA 11th Cir- cuit) Bryan, Jr., Honorable Judge Ben L. (19th Judicial Circuit) Buchmann, EiJeen (Respondent) Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Florida Circuit Court of Fauquier County in Virginia Commonwealth Of Virginia Fauquier County Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney Dill, Daniel F., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent) District Court of Appeal Fourth District of Florida Espy, Alan Clayton, Esquire (Counsel for Respondent) Farmer, Chief Honorable Judge Gary M. (COA 4th Dis- trict) | Farmer, Honorable Judge C. J. (COA 4th District) First Floridian Insurance Company (as THE Carrier) Gunther, Honorable Judge J. (COA 4th District) RULE 20.3 LISTING - Continued Hunter, Carlin T. (as Administrator of the Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook, et al.) Krathen, Honorable Judge David H. (COA 4th District) Marcus, Honorable Judge Stanley (U.S. COA 11th Circuit) Metzger, Elizabeth A., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent) Miller, Lowry Jock, Esquire (Counsel for Respondent) Miller, Miller, Kearney & Geschickter, LLP (Law Office for Respondent) Mortell, III, Edwin E., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent) Office of the State Attorney 19th Judicial Circuit of Flor- ida Oswald, Jon L. (as interested owner and/or President) Oswald, Jon L. (as registered agent) Other (any state clerk of court/court administrator — Stuart, Martin County, Florida) Peterson, Bernard, Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, P.A. (law office for Respondent) Potts, Jr., H. Russell (Senator of Fauquier County) Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc., a Florida Corp. Roby, Honorable Judge William L. (19th Judicial Circuit) Rogers, Coleman, Pendas, Knapp & Dill, P.A. (law office for Respondent) RULE 20.3 LISTING — Continued SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies (as THE Carrier) Second Housing Corp. Et Al. or Sugar Pines Homeowner’s Association and/or Sugar Pines, Inc., all Florida Corporations (Respondent(s)) Seropian, Diran V., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent) State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (as THE Carrier) United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit United States Department of Justice — Civil Division — Washington, D.C. United States District Court Southern District of Florida United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion — Miami 1 PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION Diane L. Holbrook respectfully petitions for an ex- traordinary writ of mandamus and/or prohibition to review the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States entered in this proceeding on December 1, 2003 Appendix 71 and Appendix 72, as well as, Appen- dix 73 and Appendix 74. This is supported by United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98 (1957) for common law by introducing the District Court Of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District on December 10, 2003, Appendix 7 and January 23, 2004, Appendix 1. ¢ OPINIONS BELOW The opinion to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District Appendix 1 and Appendix 7 that gives rise to this petition presenting the same question(s) that this present case has. United States uv. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98; ... Orders of denying were vacated and decided so that the present case might be disposed of consistently with two other cases then pending and presenting the same question(s). Supreme Court of the United States Cases No. 01-31 and No. 02-1613. 4 JURISDICTION The Supreme Court of the United States entered its Order of Denial on December 1, 2003 Appendix 71. Pursu- ant to Supreme Court Rule 13.1, this petition has been filed within 90 days of the Denial of Rehearing. The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth 2 District presents the same question. Furthermore, there is a conflict of interest at the Florida Supreme Court level because the presiding judge has been the defense counsel for the Supreme Court of the United States Case No. 01-31. The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The writ will be in aid of support of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circum- stances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other Court. + CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE Pursuant to Federal Constitution of the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV Section 1, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Part IV(a) and Part IV(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and Case United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98 (1957) for common law Order denying Certiorari(s) and Rehearing(s) vacated and Decided. | 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 23, 2004, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District denied Petitioner’s Rehearing and denied Petitioner’s Rehearing En Banc. See Appendix 1 thru 28. Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire has been writing the Orders for Judge William L. Roby to sign. See Appendix 29 thru 35. On January 15, 2003, the Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. See Appendix 36 thru 67 involving Rules of Civil 3 Procedure Rule 1.540(a), Rule 1.500(a), Rule 1.500(e), and Rule 1.540(b)(1). Please notice that the Trial Schedule — Civil Division sheet was Faxed to Maggie who is Judge William L. Roby’s Assistant stating that cases specially set herein for dates subsequent to December 2 are not re- quired to attend the December 2 Docket Call. Also noting that on December 16, 2002 (the beginning of my 3 days Jury Trial dates) I, as Plaintiff, was at Court Room A... for Jury Trial and did not see any of the Defendants nor their Counsels on that day.... I have witnesses before January 15, 2003. On January 15, 2003 I filed a Notice of Appeal. If this case goes to the Florida Supreme Court, I would immediately Recuse Judge Raoul Cantero, III, because he was the Nationwide Insurance Company Defendant’s Counselor. Before Petitioner filed the Rehear- ing, after November 12, 2003 Order was signed, Petitioner filed with the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit Appendix 68 thru Appendix 70 for a window of correction to the November 12, 2003 Order before the deadline for filing the Rehearing into the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District. Pertaining to Allied Van Lines, Inc., a Foreign Corpo- ration, See appendix 75 thru 88 for additional regards to be related to Case No. 02-1613. Judge K. Michael Moore issued an Order Requiring Response of which both parties responded to within time allowed. However, United States Magistrate Judge obviously ignored the Notice Of Refusal To Proceed Before A United States Magistrate Judge dated signed August 8, 2001. Keep in mind that the Order Requiring Response was signed by a United States Dis- trict Judge K. Michael Moore and not any Magistrate Judge of parallel authority. 4 Pertaining to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Com- pany, a Foreign Corporation, See Appendix 89 thru 109 for additional regards to be related to Case No. 01-31 for the Rehearing portion of better explanation of Jurisdiction issues. Also, notice that Supreme Court of the United States filing of “Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari” was received hand delivered on June 15, 2001 being AFTER June 6, 2001 Order from Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. involv- ing this issue. Totally different case, Allied Van Lines, same Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. DENIED Clerical Court Mistakes to be Corrected AGAIN on February 27, 2002. Pertaining to Case No. 01-31 see Appendix 110 thru 117. Also, see Appendix 118 thru 129 involving approxi- mate $5,300.00 losses on Disciplinary-Resigned Attor- ney(s) who are in business. Pertaining to Cases CL92-306, CL93-350 and CL96-7 involving conflict of interest see Appendix 143 thru 177. Pertaining to Case No. 01-31 see Appendix 130 thru 137. Pertaining to Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. (in part) see Appendix 138 thru 142. Remainder Appendix 178 thru 186 are more issues that are self explained throughout. To this date, I have not gotten my restitution that was Ordered to do so and neither addressed letters have been answered. Consumer Services of Florida closing their file is reasons why cases end up in Court! REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT County Court versus Federal Court jurisdiction issues within Petition for Writ of Certiorari/Petition for Rehear- ing, Case No. 02-1613. Because of Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire’s Motion For Entry Of Order Of Final Dismissal with Prejudice appears to follow the guidelines of involving Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(3). See Appendix 14, Appendix 29 thru 32. Lowry Jock Miller, Esquire representing Nationwide Insurance Company on retainer went against Nationwide Insurance Company by representing Lisa Holbrook, as his client, as plaintiff. Conflict of interest, which explains why he received $25,000 when he lost the case and owed for sanctions. . CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Diane L. Hol- brook respectfully requestfully requests that the petition for an extraordinary writ of mandamus/prohibition should be granted. Respectfully submitted, DIANE L. HOLBROOK Petitioner Post Office Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone (772) 545-9793 App. 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, P.O. BOX 3315, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33402 January 23, 2004 CASE NO.: 4D03-187 L.T. No.: 01-937 CA DIANE L. HOLBROOK v. EILEEN BUCHMANN, ET AL. Appellant/Petitioner(s), Appellee/Respondent(s). BY ORDER OF THE COURT: ORDERED that appellant’s motion filed December 18, 2003, for rehearing is hereby denied; further, ORDERED that appellant’s motion filed December 23, 2003, for rehearing en banc is hereby denied. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order. Served: Diane L. Holbrook Edwin E. Mortell, III Diran V. Seropian Alan Clayton Espy Elizabeth A. Metzger Daniel F. Dill cd /s/ Marilyn Beuttenmuller [SEAL] MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, Clerk Fourth District Court of Appeal App. 2 MANDATE from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT This cause having been brought to the Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause as may be in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable GARY M. FARMER, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day. DATE: February 13, 2004 CASE NO.: 4D03-187 COUNTY OF ORIGIN: Martin T.C. CASE _NO.: 01-937 CA STYLE: DIANE L. HOLBROOK V. EILEEN BUCHMANN, ET AL. /s/ Marilyn Beuttenmuller [SEAL] MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, Clerk Fourth District Court of Appeal ORIGINAL TO: Marsha Ewing, Clerk cc: Diane L. Holbrook Elizabeth A. Metzger Alan Clayton Espy Daniel F. Dill cs App. 3 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard/P. O. Box 3315 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401/West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3315 CASE NO.: 4D03-187 L. T. No.: 01-937 CA DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Appellant, Vs. EILEEN BUCHMANN, SERVE ALSO: First Floridian Insurance Company Claims Department (as THE Carrier); PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, SERVE ALSO: SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies American States (as THE Carrier); SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, SERVE ALSO: JON L. OSWALD as REGISTERED AGENT. Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President of Second Housing Corporation Et Al. or Sugar Pines Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc., App. 4 SERVE ALSO: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Claims Department (as THE Carrier), Appellees. MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Filed Dec. 23, 2003) Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, moves the Honorable Court for Rehearing En Banc being timely filed pursuant to Rules Of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.330 within 15 days of an order attached. Pursuant to Florida Rules Of Appel- late Procedure Rule 9.331(a) Determination Of Causes In A District Court Of Appeal En Banc questioning whether the case is of such exceptional importance or that such consideratioi is necessary to maintain uniformity in the Court’s decision. This outcome could affect different outcomes on Case # 00-026 CA, Case # 98-969 CA, Case # 99-615 CA, Case # 00-751 CA, Case # 01-001 CA, Case # 01-148 CA, Case # 00-733 CA, Case # 01-836 CA, Case # 02-102 CA, Case # 02-174 CA, Case # 01-565 CA, Case # 99-230 CA, Case # 00-773 CA, Case # 02-171 CA, Case # 00-206 CA, Case # 01-379 CA, Case # 01-703 CA, Case # 01-893 CA, Case # 01-351 CA, Case # 98-939 CA, Case # 00-896 CA and # 01-499 CA before out of Court settle- ments and after December 2nd Docket Call, Case # 02-112 CA, Case # 00-830 CA all being cases scheduled for trials from December 2nd, 2002 thru December, 24, 2002 be- cause Case No. 01-937 CA would set a new first impres- sion case resulting into a Common Law affect simply because of Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1). Otherwise, Judicial Administration Rules Rule 2.071(a) Use of Communication Equipment. App. 5 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, respectfully requests the Honorable Court to Grant Re- hearing En Banc and decide upon the attached Motion For Rehearing, as well as, Affidavit of Diane L. Holbrook In Support Of Final Order Of Final Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiff With Prejudice and to Grant Final Judgment by vacating Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and vacating Order of Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary Judgment as grounds shown. /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof has been furnished to Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410; Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, ROGERS, COLE- MAN, PENDAS, KNAPP & DILL, P.A., Post Office Box 3427, Orlando, Florida 32802-3427; Elizabeth A. Metzger, Esquire/Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, PETERSON, BERNARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., 301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, Florida 34994; Diran V. Seropian, Esquire, PETERSON, BER- NARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., Post Office Drawer 15700, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 by certificate of mailing receipt of by United States mail, on this 23rd day of December, 2003. App. 6 /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook Post Office Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (772) 545-9793 App. 7 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Appellant, Vv. EILEEN BUCHMANN, PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, and SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellees. CASE NO. 4D03-187 Decision filed December 10, 2003 “ Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Ben L. Bryan and Wil- liam L. Roby, Judges; L.T. Case No. 01-937 CA. Diane L. Holbrook, Hobe Sound, pro se. Daniel F. Dill of Rogers, Coleman, Pendas, Knapp & Dill, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Eileen Buchmann. Alan C. Espy, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc. Elizabeth A. Metzger of Peterson, Bernard, Vanden- berg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, Stuart, for appellee Second Housing Corporation. App. 8 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and KRATHEN, DAVID H., Associate Judge, concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING. App. 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard/P. O. Box 3315 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401/West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3315 CASE NO.: 4D03-187 L. T. No.: 01-937.CA DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Appellant, vs. EILEEN BUCHMANN, SERVE ALSO: First Floridian Insurance Company Claims Department (as THE Carrier); PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, SERVE ALSO: SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies American States (as THE Carrier); SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, SERVE ALSO: JON L. OSWALD as REGISTERED AGENT. Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President of Second Housing Corporation Et Al. or Sugar Pines Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc., App. 10 SERVE ALSO: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Claims Department (as THE Carrier), Appellees. MOTION FOR REHEARING Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, moves the Honorable Court for Reversal of Order of Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and Reversal of Order of Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, moves the Honorable Court to Grant a Final Order of Final Judgment in full favor of the Plaintiff with Prejudice. As grounds thereof, the Plaintiff would show as follows: 1. See (R.Vol.I,pg.1) showing statue of limitation was met of Complaint on or about October 29, 2001 and all summons were served and received as well as filed at the Court. See (R.Vol.I,pg.4-5) and (R.Vol.I,pg.192-197) Regis- tered Agent is Jon L. Oswald listing on the Insurance Blank Endorsement as follows: Second Housing Corpora- tion & Sugar Pines Company A FL Corp (etc.) as one entity by using & (and). Regarding Rules of Civil Proce- dure Rule 1.540(a) Clerical Mistakes pertaining to De- faults as follows: (a) August 8, 2002 of (R.Vol.I,pg.85-89) Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant(s) Motion for Summary Judgment, along with Request To Produce For In- spection And Copying. To this date, Defendant(s) had not made arrangements with Plaintiff to inspect and copy. App. 11 (b) August 20, 2002 of (R.Vol.I,pg.108) verbal-Order by the Honorable Judge Ben L. Bryan, Jr. states “will produce minutes for Plaintiff’s request.” To this date, Plaintiff has not received any documents requested to produce. The Defendant(s) has Defaulted. (c) August 20, 2002 of (R.Vol.I,pg.314-315) Order Granted included break down list of THE one entity and in addition states interest from the date of occur- rence on all medical expenses, as well as reimburse- ments, and also punitive damages against the insurance(s) from policy holder(s). Etc., results (R.Vol.I,pg.118). Amended Complaint was timely filed (R.Vol.I,pg.118) dated August 27, 2002. Amended Complaint was done before September 4, 2002 Hear- ing and unanswered to this date by Second Housing Corporation ET AL. etc.. (d) Under Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1), Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary Judgment (R.Vol.I,pg.173) is a mistake supporting for a Reversal because September 4th, 2002 is subse- quent date to August 8th, 2002, August 20th, 2002 and August. 27th, 2002. The Defendant(s) has De- faulted to this date. 2. See (R.Vol.II,pg.341-350) for December 2nd, 2002. See (R.Vol.I,pg.269) whereas Honorable Judge William L. Roby noting: “Judge called her @ 772-545-9793.” See attached Judicial Administration Rules Rule 2.071(a) Use of Communication Equipment. With this Motion For Rehear- ing filing is an Affidavit of Diane L. Holbrook in Support of Final Order of Final Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff with Prejudice with attachment of (R.Vol.II,pg.341 and 349 dated September 20th, 2002 TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVI- SION quoting “All counsel ... are to be present on the day their case is scheduled, whether it be the #1 case or a backup case.” On next paragraph quoting “Cases specially App. 12 set herein for dates subsequent to December 2 are not required to attend the December 2 Docket Call.” Under Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1) “Judge enters dismissal for FTA” is a mistake supporting for a Reversal because December 16th, 17th, and 18th, 2002 JURY TRIAL Dates are dates subsequent to December 2nd Docket Call. 3. Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire’s Order should have read Final Judgment For the Plaintiff with Prejudice due to Defendants failure to attend Jury Trial Dates because later on December 18th, 2002 is subsequent date to De- cember 16th, 17th, and 18th, 2002 whereas Plaintiff was present at Court on the days their case was scheduled for Jury Trial and did not see any of the Defendants or their Counselors. Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice is a mistake supporting for a Reversal because TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVISION dated September 20th, 2002 comes before December 2nd, 2002 and Plaintiff was present for Jury Trial starting December 16th, 2002 before scheduled time of 9:00a.m.. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order Vacating Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and Vacating Order of Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary Judgment and Order Granting Final Order of Final Judgment in Full Favor for Plaintiff with Prejudice for the reasons set forth above. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof has been furnished to Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630, Palm Beach Gardens, ae ° App. 13 Florida 33410; Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, ROGERS, COLE- MAN, PENDAS, KNAPP & DILL, P.A., Post Office Box 3427, Orlando, Florida 32802-3427; Elizabeth A. Metzger, Esquire/Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, PETERSON, BERNARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., 301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, Florida 34994; Diran V. Seropian, Esquire, PETERSON, BER- NARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., Post Office Drawer 15700, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 by certificate of mailing receipt of by United States mail, on this 23rd day of December, 2003. /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook Post Office Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (772) 545-9793 App. 14 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO: 01-937 CA DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Plaintiff, v. EILEEN BUCHMANN, et al., Defendants. / FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE This matter was previously dismissed by the Court on December 18th, 2002. The order stated that it was without prejudice but since the statute of limitations had run, the Plaintiff could not refile this case. An appeal was subsequently taken of the court’s order of December 18th, 2002 which is presently pending before the Fourth District Court of Appeals. In order to proceed with the appeal, a final order is needed for appelie- ( ) OLES-99r- 19S “Ud -_ — e oO IS6rC Ty ‘Que oe oe / : Oz¢E-Z9% (196 brs CEO “Lidell occeccmee en an i / ELIA-9L9-Lb3-l = SeRUNCD YowEg wed @ Sent UEPUI ‘eOM) IS ‘UNVeYy SUES UOISIAIG JO1Ieg WIOJIUN "Ne ‘Apoysny ‘siAq ‘SUNSME| S32 1MONYM ..Aqqog,, “> LHAGOY a ebueyd owen ‘uondopy ‘eaonig ‘Ad)}drujueg Jatwaus uopesedesg juewNs0g je6e7 , eye. fo prbozried pf uepruyoe, je6e7 payed ue6Sey ‘y nods 1@6%C EPUOlY ‘22491g YOY peoy Aemptw IS2M OOLY Ne ! ae 48 ft X3non> EO | 3no Wwe Sa I i "S27 GAC | LNBWAVd a SY ( J f usvo EES | nnooow 2 fy oat Anau uOSYS S¥v1100 Z " iii _— a ee (0 a, seg ‘| $ O1StLg ON ee eins AL Ae S \ SS \ 3 LAs +} ! . = x & Q SN\—s S ee #320.00 |q*- NERY . ten 3:00P ND . 8 sl SES gbos.wé6 0504.8 693. y.... 10009754508. \\ SX a. TS anananiog fob.” rAts + 49 S sy —aN XX | i ar I) 1 > “A x = SS r \ OBS > Yd >. * — > Y oS —_ | é6t IF : , ; b b U/ | TISI-SLPEE |J PUNOS 20H got! OL O29/vi 11-8 ZISI xOg ‘O'd I6T ! £6-10 WOOUPIOH ANVIG Y ‘ ! 2WOH 1WO9TM.=——— —-—— App. 117 [Yellow Pages] Paralegals AAA Paralegal 3361 S U S Highway 1 Ft Pc......... 595-5106 [Noticed Same Address as A Paralegal of Fla.] AA PARALEGAL OF FLORIDA DIVORCE ¢ BANKRUPTCY ¢ PATERNITY NAME CHANGE e¢ ADOPTIONS e¢ CHILD SUPPORT [Sounds Great] Certified & Licensed [Pd-In-Full] 3361 S US Hwy 1 Ft Pc 465-8376 [Per Demand] ACCESS PARALEGALS [Left Message with phone # Did Not Return Call.] In Business Since 1989 Incorporations ¢ Divorce Legal Documents Prepared 10075 Federal Hwy #144 Pt St Lucie 334-4000 Assisted Legal Services [Notice Same Address As “A Paralegal of Fla.”] 3361 S US Hwy 1 Ft Pc [Called-Disconnect] 465-8017 Legal Aide-Paralegal Service [Called-Disconnect] 336-8260 App. 118 DIANE L. HOLBROOK v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION APPEAL NO. 00-10141-CC STATEMENT OF ISSUES MERITING EN BANC CONSIDERATION I. The Panel Opinion Contains A Material Factual Mistake About What My Brief Primarily Involved Starting From The Beginning And Ending Before The Panel Started In Referring To February 2, 1999 On II. The Panel Opinion Shows Miscommunication By Not Referring To Plaintiff's Notice Of Clarification Re- garding Motion For Extensions Issues (i.e. Preparing And Filing A Second Amended Complaint May Not Be Necessary) (1) App. 119 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 98-14246- CIV-DAVIS MAGISTRATE JUDGE: v. LYNCH DIANE L. HOLBROOK, ) ) ) ) NATIONWIDE MUTUAL MOTION TO RECUSE ) ) ) Plaintiff, INSURANCE COMPANY, a FOREIGN CORPORATION, Defendant. COMES NOW Diane L. Holbrook, the plaintiff, and respectfully states: 1. That Raoul C. Cantero, III, the defendant’s counsel was the law clerk to Honorable Edward B. Davis in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida in Miami, Florida. See Attached Exhibit I. 2. Since Raoul C. Cantero, III, the defendant’s counsel was employed in the Miami, Florida Division, I am requesting an assigned at random to the judges of the West Palm Beach District Court because of the following reasons stated: a. Court ORDER signed March 18, 1999 clearly states that the Defendant and Plaintiff both filed on the same day of which I agree with. However, the same Order with Clerical mistake of records and errors shows both filed on March 4, 1999. See Attached Exhibit J. I was clearly at the United States District Court in Miami, Florida on March 5, 1999 and I was also in the Records Room on second floor. App. 120 b. On the crucial time for filing and Rule 5.2D. Service of pleadings and papers states “Service by delivery after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed to have been made on the next business day.” Therefore, under Rule 60(a) Relief from ORDER due to clerical mistakes and a new previously presented Order to go with Motion to Correct ORDER and Grant judgment by Default of Naturalization. Extension of Time had expired on March 4, 1999 within which to file its response and March 5, 1999 was too late resulting in default judgment should have been granted. Crucial time for filing should not be shown the day before or even the day after actual filing because of results affecting final ORDERS. c. The Honorable Judge’s Secretary answered the door on the eleventh floor and directed me to the Clerk of Filing to go through with my papers on March 5, 1999. She may have kept record as minutes of daily occurrence. d. With papers must be filed in the office where the Judge is located because that is where the file stays, I am also hand delivering to the court, and Raoul C. Cantero, III, the defendant’s counsel was not em- ployed in the West Palm Beach, Florida Division, are primary reasons for file to be transferred to United States District Court Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach. WHEREFORE, your plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook prays that the Honorable Chief Judge Edward B. Davis recuse himself from all further matters pertaining to these proceedings against Diane L. Holbrook, and that in the place and [in]stead of the Honorable Judge another App. 121 Federal Court Judge from West Palm Beach Division be assigned for these proceedings. Respectfully Submitted. Diane L. Holbrook /s/ Diane L. Holbrook /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Plaintiff — Pro Se PO Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Phone: 561-545-9793 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this 5th day of April, 1999 to: Eric N. Assouline, Esq./Raoul G. Cantero, [III,] Esq. Adorno & Zeder, P.A. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1600 Miami, Florida 33133 /s/ Diane L. Holbrook /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook App. 122 PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES ADORNO & ZEDER A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SUITE 1600, 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 * * * RAOUL G. CANTERO, III, born Madrid, Spain, August 1, 1960; admitted to bar, 1986, Florida. Education: Florida State University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1982); Harvard University (J.D., cum laude, 1985), Phi Beta Kappa; Phi Kappa Phi. Fulbright Scholar, 1987, Law Clerk to Honorable Edward B. Davis, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 1986-1987. Member, Planning and Zoning Board, City of Coral Ga- bles. Member, Board of Directors, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Member: Dade County Bar Associa- tion; The Florida Bar (Member, Appellate Rules Commit- tee); Catholic Lawyers Guild; Cuban-American Bar Associations. LANGUAGES: Spanish. EXHIBIT I App. 123 In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Proceedings include all events. APPEAL 2:98cv14246 Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual INTAPP 4/7/99 20 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Diane L. Holbrook of [18-1] order. EOD Date: 03/24/99; Filing Fee: $105.00; Re- ceipt #:800321; Copies to USCA and Coun- sel of Record. (ga) [Entry date 04/09/99] 4/12/99 21 ORDER denying [19-1] motion for recusal of district judge (signed by Judge Edward B. Davis on 4/10/99) CCAP (aa) [Entry date 04/13/99] 4/12/99 22 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE The plaintiff shall have 10 days from the date stamped on this order to show cause why the Defen- dant’s Motion to Dismiss, Motion te Strike, Motion for Definite Statement should not be granted for plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 7.1C of the Local Rules (signed by Judge Edward B. Davis on 4/10/99) CCAP (aa) [Entry date 04/13/99] 4/13/99 23 NOTICE of Unavailability from 5/10/99 through 6/18/99 by Diane L. Holbrook (aa) [Entry date 04/14/99] 4/13/99 24 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Diane L. Holbrook of [15-1] order. EOD Date: 02/25/99; Filing Fee: $FEE NOT PAID;; Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (ga) [Entry date 04/15/99] App. 124 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEAL CASE NO. :00-10141-CC DIANE L. HOLBROOK, ) DC DKT NO. Plaintiff ‘ 98-14246 CV-EBD . ) MOTION TO NATIONWIDE MUTUAL ) REINSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) caves PROCESS FOREIGN CORPORATION, ) WITH EVIDENCES ; ) SHOWING GOOD Defendant. ) CAUSE COMES NOW Diane L. Holbrook, the plaintiff/Pro Se, and moves this Honorable Court for reinstatement Appeal process with evidences showing good cause as follows: 1. On February 23, 2000, Plaintiff hired Racin & Boncek, P.A. law firm to do complete Appeal and final judgment from 11th Circuit United States Court of Appeals regarding appeal is- sues only. See attached Agreement For Repre- sentation. 2. In May, 2000, Plaintiff talked to Court Of Appeals Clerk who informed Plaintiff that there was no record of Counsel and records show that Plaintiff has always been Pro Se to date. Coun- selor did not notify record of Counsel and Cer- tificate of Interested Persons And Corporate Disclosure Statement for requirements for record. 3. Pro Se Appellant’s failure to comply with formal requirements for Appellate Briefs did not justify dismissal of appeal in civil rights case. F.R.A.P. Rule 28, 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 13-1 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A.; 42 App. 125 U.S.C.A. § 1983. See attached ORDER states ENTRY OF DISMISSAL because appellant has failed to file the record excerpts. 4. Plaintiff called Lawyers Membership Record and Legal Departments on May 5, 2000 and discovered as follows: a) Edward Boncek Lic. No. 58701 is not active as of April 3, 2000 because of Discipli- nary resigned. b) John Author Racin Lic. No. 45624 has 4 separate cases with a case pending Supreme Court and 3 more on there way for Disciplinary actions. 5. Racin & Boncek, P.A. law firm cashed out $5,300.00 of my written checks to them. 6. Clarence Maddox, Court Administra- tor/Clerk of Court in Miami received a letter from me on May 24, 2000 and I’ve waited 14 days for response or reply. This and for the foregoing reasons the Pro Se Plain- tiff/Appellant, Diane L. Holbrook, prays that this Court will reinstate Appeal process by reversing the ORDER of Entry Of Dismissal and process the complete package of Brief and Record Excerpts enclosed with this mailing. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached. App. 126 Respectfully Submitted, Diane L. Holbrook /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Plaintiff Pro Se Appellant P O Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: 561-545-9793 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this 8th day of June, 2000 to: Eric N. Assouline, Esq./Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq./ ADORNO & ZEDER, P.A. Natalie J. Carlos, Esq. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1600 Miami, Florida 33133 /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook App. 127 Diane L. Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound FL 33475-1512 June 28, 2000 RE: 00-10141-CC Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. DC DKTNO.: 98-14246 CV-EBD CC: CC: CC: CC: CC: Diane L. Holbrook Raoul G. Cantero III Clarence Maddox Eric Nissim Assouline Administrative File App. 128 United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Thomas K. Kahn In Replying Give Number Clerk Of Case And Names of Parties ; June 28, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES RE: 00-10141-CC Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. DC DKTNO.: 98-14246 CV-EBD The following action has been taken in the referenced case: The enclosed order has been ENTERED. APPELLEE’S BRIEF IS DUE 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER (JULY 28, 2000). ENCLOSED IS THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF. Sincerely, THOMAS K. KAHN, Clerk Reply To: Jenifer Alexander (404) 335-6172 MOT-2 [1999] #| # z App. 129 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10141-CC (Filed: June 28, 2000) DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation C/O Robert CiWetzel, Esq. Registered Agent, 800 Graves Mill Road, P.O. Box 10669, Lynchburg, Virginia, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ORDER: Appellant’s “Motion to Reinstate” her appeal is GRANTED /s/ {Illegible] UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE App. 130 Diane L. Holbrook P O Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793 PRESIDENT George W. Bush Attn: Agency Liaison Room #592 The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Chief Of Commander; I'm requesting an appointment to see you personally in May, 2001 being before June 18, 2001 deadline for me to file and pay filing fees to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in hopes that you will have my case be one of the 85 chosen cases to be trial and hear by the Supreme Court Judges. I am a ProSe as a Plaintiff against an Insurance Company who, by law and rules of the lower court, had won against the Insurance Company over two years ago! The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 cases a year and only 85 are chosen. It would be injustice against me to not be one of the 85 chosen ones. It is a District Court clerical error resulting into a chain reaction of occurrences. Furthermore, I do not have an attorney and Lowry Jock Miller has a Brian M. Madden, Esquire listed to appear in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County on May 8th, 2001 as my attorney whom I do not have a contract with and don’t know what he looks like. Need to get this out fast. We'll talk later and hopefully all these documental evidences will encourage you to Order the Supreme Court to have me picked as one of the 85 Cases to be heard even though I'm Pro-Se. “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” is engraved over the doors of the Supreme Court in marble. You * * * App. 131 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No. 98-14246-CIV-MOORE DIANE L. HOLBROOK, ants ORDER OF vs. REFERENCE TO NATIONWIDE MUTUAL MAGISTRATE INSURANCE COMPANY, (Filed Jun. 4, 2001) Defendant. / PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Flor- ida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lynch to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to Plaintiffs Rule 60(a) Motion, filed May 15, 2001. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of May, 2001. /s/ K. Michael Moore K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE copies provided: United States Magistrate Judge Lynch Diane Holbrook, pro se PO Box 1512 Hobe Sound, FL 33475 Raoul G. Cantero III, Esq., Counsel for Defendant App. 132 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DIANE L. HOLBROOK, CASE NO. “aor 98-14246-CIV-MOORE Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(a) MOTION (DE #58) (Filed Jun. 6, 2001) THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the aforementioned Motion, and this Court having reviewed the Motion, and noting that this case was closed and final judgment entered on December 15, 1999, and further noting that Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and further noting that on January 19, 2001 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of this Court, and further noting that on April 9, 2001 the Eleventh Circuit issued its mandate and denied Plaintiffs motion for a stay of the issuance of mandate pending petition for writ of certiorari, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Rule 60(a) Motion is DENIED. App. 133 DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 6th day of June, 2001. /s/ Frank J. Lynch, Jr. FRANK J. LYNCH, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: Diane L. Holbrook, Pro Se Raoul G. Cantero, Esq. App. 134 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DIANE L. HOLBROOK, ) Petitioner, ~-— V. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, Respondents. ee eee CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that today, October 25, 2001, I delivered (mailed), in quantities itemized, copies of the PETITION FOR REHEARING (1 volume) in the above- entitled matter to the following counsel of record: (file 40 copies) (FILED BY HAND DELIVERY) 3 copies to: 3 copies to: Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq. Clarence Maddox Eric N. Assouline, Esq. Clerk of Court, Natalie J. Carlos Court Administration Adorno & Zeder, P.A. US. District Court 2601 South Bayshore Drive Federal Courthouse Square Suite 1600 301 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-5413 Miami, Florida 33128 (305) 858-5555 (MAILED FIRST CLASS) (MAILED FIRST CLASS) App. 135 3 copies to: ~ Remaining copies to: (6) Lowry J. Miller Diane L. Holbrook Miller, Miller, Kearney P.O. Box 1512 & Geschickter, LLP Hobe Sound, Florida 10400 Eaton Place 33475-1512 Suite 312 (561) 545-9793 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (703) 218-1300 (MAILED FIRST CLASS) THIEL PRESS 1319 Naylor Court, N.W. (at 10th & “O” Streets) Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 328-3286 By: /s/ Roger Thiel Subscribed to and sworn before me this __ day of ___, 19__ Notary Public. My commission expires: App. 136 Diane L. Holbrook P. O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (561) 545-9793 December 7, 2001 Attention: Yvonne Cedeno, Court Clerk’s Operations Supervisor United States District Court Federal Courthouse Square 301 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33128-7788 Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation Case No.: 98-14246-CIV-MOORE (was EBD) Appeal Case No.: 00-10141-CC Dear Yvonne Cedeno: There is a clerical mistake on record arising from over- sight, See January 29, 1999 #8 and also see January 19, 1999 #5 and January 19, 1999 #6. Pursuant to Rule 60(a) with Request To Clerk To Enter Default after correction has been made upon record. Please also notice that on August 27, 1999, the Defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation in Paragraph 1. only, clearly agrees with Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook that they were served on December 21, 1998 and not on January 12, 1999 as the record indicates. With both sides in agreement in writing and also signed by the Defendant themself and states in Procedural History by Defendant with all attachments contained as APPENDIXs within enclosed Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to this letter. Plaintiff is asking for the mistake to be corrected by this Court pursuant to Rule 60(a) and also to Rule 55(a) to be entered in default of naturalization because the motion to App. 137 extend time was presented to this Court after time expired and after Default Judgment against Defendant by Diane L. Holbrook, Plaintiff. This and for the foregoing reasons the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, prays that this Court will correct and issue thru naturalization by laws provided within to allow the Plaintiff to Reinstate in the Appeal process with corrected records to reverse and receive the entitled to Default Judgment against the Defendant. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook — Plaintiff P. O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (561) 545-9793 App. 138 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami, F1 33131 [LOGO] One Biscayne Boulevard 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700 Miami, Fl 33131 PH: (305) 530-4491 Diane L. Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512 Re: Correspondence Dear Ms. Holbrook: We have received your inquiry of pro se discrimination: EEOC has authority to investigate complaints of employ- ment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin or disability against certain employ- ers, employment agencies and labor organizations. Your letter indicates that the situation you describe is not covered by the laws we enforce, therefore we have no authority to handle the matter you raised. Your inquiry has been examined for possible referral to another source of assistance. However, we are unable to identify another source which we believe would be assis- tance to you. This does not mean that there is no govern- mental or private agency which could assist you, but we are not aware of any based on the information you pro- vided. App. 139 We regret that we are unable to be of assistance to you in this matter. Sincerely, /s/ Susan Diaz 5/21/02 Susan Diaz Date Investigator App. 140 ACLU AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA April 30, 2002 Complaint #02-03-0060 Diane Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Dear Ms. Holbrook, Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLU). We have carefully reviewed your recent request, and regret to inform you that we are unable to offer you legal assistance. In declining to represent you the ACLU is not passing judgment on the merits of your case. We suggest that you contact a private attorney. We understand how difficult it can be to obtain legal counsel. The Florida Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service can direct you to an appropriate attorney. You may contact the Lawyer Referral Service by calling 1-800-342-8011. Once again, thank you for writing to the ACLU of Florida. We wish you success in resolving your difficulties. Sincerely, /s/ S Brion Sophie Brion Intake Coordinator App. 141 Diane L. Holbrook Post Office Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (772) 545-9793 October 14, 2003 Attention: Carey Codd WPEC 1100 Fairfield Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Dear Carey Codd (the Court Reporter) Per our telephone conversation on October 13, 2003, I’ve enclosed a copy of Supreme Court of the United States Petition for Writ of Certiorari pertaining to receiving positive Media coverage behind me all the way before October 31, 2003 deadline of filing in the Court for RE- HEARING! A copy of the October 6, 2003 letter of denied signed by William K. Suter, Clerk of the Court does not give reasons why. I called (202) 479-3011 on the date I received this letter and left message with my address and telephone number requesting reasons to der:=d and asking why denied when County Court verses F+ ieral Court was an issue of question of jurisdiction pertaining to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1337. To this moment, he has not personally returned my call. I’m in great immediate need of a positive Media supporting me all the way from a very professional, very well addressed excellent presentation giver to the Media like yourself! Hopefully, everything that you promised me will have so far been completed to be able to proceed forward by re a a a re a a ae ee OOOO E CGO EE —— — EEE eel ch eelmh error -r App. 142 televise as the next step. Please keep me in contact of your progress and good luck!! Sincerely Yours, /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Telephone: (772) 545-9793 P. S. I’m an afternoon person. App. 143 Diane L. Holbrook P O Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793 President George W. Bush Attn: Agency Liaison Room #592 The White House Washington D. C. 20502 Dear Chief Of Commander; Commander and Chief; I’m requesting an appointment to see you personally about the injustice within the Judiciary and Judicial system towards Pro-Se as plaintiff within the court system. Within this folder is documental evidences and telephone records of some of the things that transpired on my hus- band and his brother’s death. VERY VERY BRIEF: 1. Lowry Jock Miller has Nationwide Insurance Co. on retainer. 2. Lowry Jock Miller took Lisa Dutcher AKA Lisa Holbrook as a plaintiff corresponding with Nationwide Insurance Co.. 3. Lowry Jock Miller’s close attorney friend is Robin C. Gulick and according to my telephone notes of exact transpired in general conversations, Lowry Jock Miller took care of his bill to be my husband’s administrator. 4. Trooper indicated to Rose Snidow that Dale (my hrother-in law) driving. My sister Denise took telephone conversations at the very beginning because I was dis- traught over my husband and brother-in law’s death. 5. Fauquier Hospital had my husband as John Doe. The State Trooper who was in charge of an accident at the App. 144 same location back in the end of October, 1991 and also never seen or knew my husband or his brother identified the bodies. We have no relatives who live in Virginia. To make a long story of events short. The Chief Medical Examiner had the wrong bodies and was contacted per- sonally by me as well as the insurance company and thru the court system as you can see by telephone records of which some of them are enclosed and COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC.. Nothing was done about it from insurance company, attorneys and the presiding Judge William Shore Robertson himself. I went into the Court System Pro-Se (representing myself) within a timely matter before the statute ran out. 6. My Motion For Judgment was very simular to Lowry Jock Miller’s Motion For J udgment for the exception of that Dale was driving as per the Trooper assigned to the case at the very beginning. Lowry Jock Miller immediately tried to demurr my case and then dismiss. Exhibits of documents shows how he illegally got it dismissed with Judge William Shore Robertson’s help by taking the administrator off in the middle of litigation. 7. Ihave no closure of my husband’s death!!! It has been over seven years and by law he is declared dead. You are the only one who can see justice thru and make a point of law that this never ever happens to a person who repre- sents themself again! 38 Documental Exhibits attach Respectfully and Sincerely Yours Is it possible to have a per- = /s/ Diane L. Holbrook sonal appointment in May, Diane L. Holbrook 2001 or ASAP!!!! Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793 App. 145 Lowry Jock Miller received $25,000.00 as a settlement. ($6,500 for him) [See Sept. 2, 1993, whereas Lowry Miller lost the case and owed for sanctions. His client on retainer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, (conflict of interest with his representation Adm’r of the Estate of Dale B. Holbrook) got a settlement reward for a case he lost and owed sanc- tions on.] ooo _Certificate_of_Service_ I hereby certify that a true and correct copy to prose- cute appeal was handed on May 21, 1997 to: Miller, Miller, Kearney & Geschickter, LLP 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 312 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook App. 146 [LOGO] U. S. Department of Justice Civil Division Washington, D.C. 20530 MAY 23 2001 Ms. Diane L. Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512 Dear Ms. Holbrook: Your letter to President Bush of April 25, 2001, regarding your complaint against the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company has been referred to the Civil Divi- sion, Department of Justice for response. Unfortunately, the demands on the President as he works for a better America make it hard for him to meet with everyone he wishes. We apologize for any inconvenience our delay in responding may have caused. The United States Department of Justice, as the federal agency representing the United States govern- ment, cannot provide legal advice to or represent private individuals, except under certain limited conditions, which are not present in this instance. Under our Constitution, the Judicial Branch is separate and independent from the Executive Branch. The Department of Justice, as part of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, has no authority over the judicial branch’s handling of cases. We suggest that you continue to seek private counsel or contact the agency listed below for advice and assistance: App. 147 Broward County Bar Association 1051 S.E. Third Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Cynthia R. White, Director Phone: (954) 764-8040 Fax: (954) 764-8060 An alternative would be to contact a local law school which has a clinical program. We hope this information is helpful and regret we cannot assist you further. Sincerely, /s/ (Megible] COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE CIVIL DIVISION App. 148 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY CARLIN T. HUNTER, Adm’r. of the ) Estate of DALE B. HOLBROOK, ) Plaintiff, v. ) ROBIN C. GULICK, Adm’. of the Estate of EDWARD JESSE HOLBROOK, Defendant. ) Law No. CL-92-306 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Filed Sep. 2, 1993) COMES NOW the defendant, by counsel, and moves this Court for an Order dismissing this case for failure to make discovery and for an Order awarding sanctions for the filing of this Motion, and for his reasons states as follows: 1. The attached Motion to Compel Production of Certain Documents was filed and noticed for Motions Day on August 10, 1993. 2. The day prior to that date, counsel for the defen- dant spoke with counsel for the plaintiff and was promised a response to the production request. 3. Pursuant to that understanding and representa- tion of plaintiffs counsel, the Motion was taken off the docket and an Order was forwarded to plaintiffs counsel on August 16, 1993. To this date, there has been no re- sponse to that Motion despite repeated attempts to contact plaintiffs counsel. App. 149 In addition, defense counsel has requested various deposition dates for taking of plaintiffs experts. Plaintiffs counsel has not taken any steps toward obtaining any convenient dates. There is a discovery cut-off of September 20, 1993, in this case. In light of plaintiffs not providing the docu- ments requested within the required period of time, the defendant is greatly prejudiced in the defense of this action. For these reasons the defendant would move the Court for an Order dismissing this case for failure to make discovery, and also request the Court award sanctions for having to file and argue this Motion. ROBIN C. GULICK Adm’r. of the Estate of EDWARD JESSE HOLBROOK By Counsel SLENKER, BRANDT, JENNINGS & JOHNSTON By: /s/ Joseph D. Roberts Joseph D. Roberts VA Bar ID #12261 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed September 1, 1993 to: Lowry J. Miller, MILLER, MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER, 2701 N. Pershing Dr., Arlington, VA 22201-1499, counsel for plaintiff. /s/ Joseph D. Roberts Joseph D. Roberts App. 150 PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES MILLER, MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22201 * * * LOWRY J. MILLER, born San Diego, California, November 15, 1937; admitted to bar, 1967. Virginia. Education: University of Richmond (B.A., 1960; LL.B., 1967), Phi Delta Phi. Member: Arlington County, The Virginia and American Bar Associations; Virginia State Bar; Virginia Association of Defense Lawyers; Virginia Trial Lawyers Association. [Lt. Col., USMCR]. PRACTICE AREAS: Domestic Relations Law; Insurance Law; Per- sonal Injury Law. * * * REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS: Government Employees Insurance Co.; ... Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co.; Nationwide Insurance oa App. 151 COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. Diane’s Deposition of this accident, that you know of, that was at your home after you went in the Rehab unit? A. My husband and Dale. Q. Other than your husband and Dale, that was the only ones that you knew; no one else was staying there, or anything like that? A. No, sir. Q. Now, there has been some questions about the autopsy that was done here and the report seems to apparently be slightly inaccurate in some manner; could you tell me, on the date of the accident, approximately how much your husband weighed? A. 220 pounds. Q. Why do you know that? A. Because he wears the same exact pants size as he has for a while. Q. At one time had he weighed a lot more or a lot less, and you knew that he had come to that approximate weight? A. No, sir. Q. What was his height? A. Five foot, eight inches tall. Q. Now, the autopsy of your husband indicates that he weighed 274 pounds; were you told that? That is obviously inaccurate, is that correct? App. 152 A. Itis obviously not him. Q. It is either not him or that is inaccurate, is that correct? MR. ROBERTS: Well, it is either not him or it is an mistake, I mean, it won't get you anywhere. Q. Have you checked out to see, why the, at anyway, you have gone to investigate why the autopsy report seems to be inaccurate? A. Ihave been to two different Chief Medical Exam- iner’s Office, one in Richmond and one in Fairfax. Q. You have, and what has been the result of that? A. The one in Richmond assured me that the scales are accurate, and it would absolutely not be, not even 30 pounds difference, in any way, shape, or form, and I was just using that as an example. Q. Did you ask anybody whether this was a typo- graphical error? A. Iwas very upset at the time and I know I went to both Chief Medical Examiner’s Offices and I do not re- member word for word. Q. When did you do this? A. Right at, shortly after I had received the paper- work. Q. Was that after this lawsuit was filed, or was this before the lawsuit was filed? A. When was this lawsuit filed? Q. In October of ’92. App. 153 A. Way before October of ’92. Q. Did you look at the complete autopsy of what was supposed to be your husband’s autopsy report and the photographs? A. I did not receive the photographs until I received the interrogatories packages; that is the first time I saw the diagrams. Q. Iam speaking of the photographs at the autopsy, did you ever review any of those? A. You mean the diagrams of the body? Q. No, the photographs of the body? A. No, sir. MR. ROBERTS: Did you ever provide those to us? MR. MILLER: I do not have them, and I do not know that they exist either, but usually they do. MR. ROBERTS: I know you subpoenaed them and you said you sent me everything they had. Did Bayer take photographs? MR. MILLER: Yes, I was just down there recently and I noticed there were photographs, of which were not produced in that case either, and come to think about it, your firm, no, it was not your firm. CONTINUATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER: Q. Just to, and these are not easy questions to answer, I understand, but you do know, or do you believe App. 154 that your husband did die in this accident that is in this lawsuit? A. Yes, because he would be home if he was not. Q. You went to his funeral, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see, view his body before? A. No, sir. Q. Closed casket? A. Yes, sir. Q. In regard to the scarring, did your husband have some prominent scars on his body? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were they located? A. There has been several of them. He has had neck surgery. Q. Neck surgery, alright. A. He had the left arm wrist surgery, and he had major back surgery. Q. Let me go a little slower on this. His neck sur- gery, is that in the front of his neck, or in the back of his neck, the scar? A. In front of his neck. Q. On the left wrist surgery, was that a carpel tunnel release, type of a thing? App. 155 Yes, sir. So there was a slash? > oO Pp All the way from up here, all the way down. Q. Okay, those two, what was the neck surgery he had, where the scar was? A. Hehad.... MR. ROBERTS: You said major back surgery. A. Major back surgery. Q. There was a scar; would that be his lower back, or upper back, or do you recall where the scar was? A. Lower back. Q. Approximately how long was that? A. Approximately, (the witness indicated measure- ment.) Q. So you are talking about a foot, 12 inches, is that correct? A. Well, I do not have a ruler, but it is about like this. Q. Do we agree that is 8 to 12 inches? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. A. He had another scar. Q. Where was that? A. It is right here, and it is about the size of a half dollar. App. 156 Q. You indicated on his left buttocks cheek? A. Well, it is where the leg and the hip and the back leg part. Q. Do you know what caused that, or was that a natural, was he born with that? A. No, he was not born with it, because it 1s a regu- lar scar. Q. Do you know what caused that? A. No, this scar was there before we got married. Q. The scene where this accident occurred, about how far was that from your home? A. Less than five miles. Q. That was an area that your husband drove on numerous occasions before this time, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he originally from this area? A. No, sir. Q. Where is he originally from? A. He was born in Kentucky. Q. When did you all move to this area? A. 1986-87 should be 1987 because he started work in Virginia at the beginning of 1987. Q. You have lived at that same address throughout this period of time? pis) etal aba are ae ta a ini we Sapte ach Peres Seeks . ? ene bie ht aad is App. 157 ae , : — kg re ee ee SD Oe pouiwexy ot 5S ydI2H a ‘OD Ss ju2p222q WeSSBA - _— ves = ) \ — WS -> Boys [ ¥\BX%NU* Satay [PBs AONE ONE oe ets fo) \ ais ee Y> yore 4A ) * enn OM A in tae ee a eno\\e fk RQ. si adel 2D rs, > \> \) e Na : ay | ad welarws Nal Fg \Y , ) agli, | & 3} a: —~ © -P ©& F&F O& FP O P Oh, we got married in September of ’82, I’m sorry. And how long did he work for Pawling Corporation? Until 1989. And was he laid off or fired or what happened? Out on disability. What type of disability? New York State Disability. What was his injury? His leg, he had pins and screws. App. 161 [Wrong Body. No obvious scars noted on Body Dia- gram.] [15] A No. 2 He did not? A No. Q What did he do from 19 — when he was let go from Pawling Corporation in 1989, where did he go? A He didn’t go anywhere, he was on New York State Disability, he couldn’t work. Q Okay, as long as he was taking the disability he couldn’t work; is that right? A Yes. Q And he just stayed at home then? A Yes. Q And your testimony is that he stayed home with the children? A Yes. And when did he decide to move to Virginia? July. Q A Q July of what, what year? A 91. App. 162 Q Okay. Do you recall when in ’89 he was let go from Pawling, in other words was it the winter, summer, spring, do you? A He didn’t return to work because of his injury. * * * [18] [illegible] to what he was doing, he needed to be trained in a different area. Q Okay. A He was doing physical labor, he could not go [illegible] to that. [Photo of Dale cutting down Oak Tree.] Q Okay. Well, can you tell me how it came about, you tell him March of 1991 that he should move out? A Yes. Q And your testimony here today under oath is, did that because you wanted him to get back to work to get trained? Is your answer yes? A Yes. Q And that’s the only reason? A Yes. Q It had nothing to do with any physical abuse of [illegible]. A No. Q Or the children? A No. App. 163 Q Did you ever report any physical abuse of you the children to any authorities? A Yes. Q When was that? * * * [28] MR. ROBERTS: Weren't you living as husband and wife — MR. JOSHI: Let me just clarify for the record, youre talking about ’83 to ’89 at one point; are you chang- ing the time frame? BY MR. ROBERTS: Q Weren’t you living as husband and wife from ’83 to "89? A Yes. Q Okay, That’s the period of time that I’m talking about now. The ’89 to 91 period of time I think you’ve already testified that you never saw him drink any- thing? A No. Q So, he basically had no drinking problem even so much as a couple of beers after the accident at the Pawling Corporation? A Not while he was working there. Q Or that you heard about? A No. App. 164 Q Am Icorrect, you didn’t hear anything about it? A Yes. App. 165 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (SEAL) YOUR PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE IN VIRGINIA IS SUSPENDED UNTIL YOU TAKE THIS FORM TO D.M.V. FOR REINSTATEMENT OFFICIAL RECEIPT LOUDOUN GENERAL DISTRICT TRAFFIC DATE: 03/11/91 ACCOUNT: TIME: 11:32:19 107GT91000986-00 CASHIER: LAL RECEIPT: 91000006730 REG: LD09 TYPE: FULL PAYMENT ACCT OF: RECD: HOLBROOK, DALE B. HOLBROOK, DALE B. CHECi: $99.00 CHARGE: NODL DESCRIPTION OPER: 400-78-4837 (DMV) 1: TRIAL: 02/12/91 CODE DESCRIPTION: 2: OFFENSE: 01/04/91 PAID CODE DESCRIPTION PAID 110 FINES & 229 CHMF 2.00 FORFEITURES ~ 75.00 112 PROCESS FEE ——-20.00 140 PROCESSING FEE 2.00 TOTAL TENDERED: $ 99.00 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $ 99.00 TOTAL CHARGE AMT: $ .00 CLERK OF COURT: ANN WILLINGHAM App. 166 VIRGINIA: IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY In re Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook, deceased File No. CWF92-219 ORDER CAME THIS 12th DAY OF MARCH, 1996, Carlin T. Hunter by counsel, upon the motion of Carlin T. Hunter for the entry of an order permitting Carlin T. Hunter to resign as administratrix; and IT APPEARING that reasonable notice of said motion has been provided to the parties in interest; and IT APPEARING that there is no reasonable basis for denial of said motion; it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motion of Carlin T. Hunter for permission to resign as administratrix of the estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook is hereby granted. ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1996. /s/ William Shore Robertson JUDGE App. 167 I ask for this: Seen and agreed: /s/ Lowry J. Miller /s/ Lisa Marie Holbrook Lowry J. Miller, Esquire Lisa Marie Holbrook 2701 N. Pershing Drive Post Office Box 562 Post Office Box 1480 Millerton, N.Y. 12546 Arlington, Virginia for herself and for 22210-0780 Nicole Holbrook, V.S.B. No. 5070 Dale B. Holbrook, Jr. Counsel for Carlin T. Hunter and Amber Holbrook cc: Martin Miller Holbrook 3/13/96 VIRGINIA: IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY, MAR 13 1996 This order/deeree of the Court entered MAR 12 1996 is this day recorded in the current eourt/will book of this county. Teste: /s/ Wm. D. Harris. Clerk CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Notice and Motion For Permission To Resign, together with the proposed order, were mailed, first class postage prepaid, to Lisa Marie Holbrook, for herself and for Nicole Holbrook, Dale B. Holbrook, Jr. and Amber Holbrook, at P.O. Box 562, App. 168 Millerton, New York 12546, on the 26 day of danvary February, 1996. /s/ Lowry J. Miller Lowry J. Miller [Envelope Information] (Filed: Mar. 22, 1996) CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT FAUQUIER COUNTY 40 CULPEPER STREET WARRENTON, VA 22186 RETURN TO FORWARDING TIME SENDER HAS EXPIRED Ms. Lisa Marie Holbrook Post Office Box 562 Mitterten, New-York 17546 App. 169 February 24, 1997 (Filed Apr. 8, 1997) JUDGE c/o Wm. D. Harris-Court Clerk Circuit Court of Fauquier County 40 Culpeper St. Warreton, Virginia 20186 ph (540) 347-8610 Subject: Recoup Expenses due to change of Court Appointed Administrator - Case: CL96-7 Dear Sir: No one informed me, until a “Motion to Quash” notice for the hearing on February 11, 1997 was mailed out, of the following: On March 12, 1996 (After this suit was in litigation), the judge (on the case) and the lawyer changed the Court Appointed Administrator, who is the secretary to the lawyer for Lisa Marie Dutcher a.k.a. Lisa Marie Holbrook. Note: The secretary to the lawyer was previously “SERVED” with legal documents since she was the as Administrator of record in November 16, 1994 on this case. The change of Court Administrator occurred after I paid out $12.00 plus $9.60 plus $326.00 for a total of $347.60 to have the Administrator served. I also incurred additional expenses for Travel: $398.00 plus Treasure Coast Airport Shuttle: $29.00 plus Car Rental: $132.07 etc.. Approxi- mate Total: $906. dollars. Since I was notified of this after the “Motion to Quash” (which effects this case greatly) I feel all costs from the date of November 18, 1993 should be reimbursed to me forthwith by the court. It is the faults of the Court and the App. 170 lawyer for not giving “reasonable notice of said motion has been provided to the parties in interest” resulting on statute of limitation for Lisa Marie Dutcher a.k.a. Lisa Marie Holbrook, of when I was informed had already been expired. It is my opinion that the court should rule the full amount of “Motion for Judgment” in my favor. Obviously the “change” of Court Administrator was done to delay and confound this case I expect a reply to this matter within 21 days or this matter will be considered “legally concluded” in my favor. Sincerely, /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook P. O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed, first class postage prepaid, on April 8, 1997, to: MILLER, MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER, LLP 10460 Eaton Place, Suite 312 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook App. 171 Insurance Company c/o Robert C. Wetzel, Esq. 800 Graves Mill Road Lynchburg, Virginia 24506 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY DIANE L. HOLBROOK, * As Administrator of the * Estate of Edward Jesse Holbrook * * a, * AT LAW NO. CL96-7 Vv. . LISA MARIE DUTCHERaka. LISA MARIE HOLBROOK, . As Administrator of the ‘ Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook i" or * CARLIN T. HUNTER, : As Administrator of the . Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook, et al. . Defendant. * SERVE ALSO: * Nationwide Mutual : * * * * MOTION NOT TO QUASH & MOTION NOT TO DISMISS COMES NOW Diane L. Holbrook, the Plaintiff, and moves for the entry of the full amount of “Motion for Judgment” as well as amended motion for judgment in plaintiffs favor for the above-styled case and states in support thereof as follows: App. 172 1. Alleged signature that appeared on the document dated March 12, 1996 does not show that she had been married since June, 1995. 2. Alleged signature may not have been “Seen and agreed:” as stated. 3. See letter attachments previously filed on April 8, 1997 dated February 24, 1997. COURT RELIEF OF PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE COSTS COMES NOW Diane L. Holbrook, the Plaintiff, and states in support thereof as follows: 1. On April 8, 1997, I was informed about there being no excuse for not having an attorney because there is legal aid services. I do not qualify for legal aid services. 2. Due for my not being qualified for legal aid ser- vices, I request for past, present, and future costs occurred for my defense. Diane L. Holbrook By /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Of Plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook P. O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (561) 545-9793 agen App. 173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed on April 23, 1997, to: MILLER, MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER, LLP 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 312 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook [Envelope Information] (Filed: Mar. 22, 1996) CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT FAUQUIER COUNTY 40 CULPEPER STREET WARRENTON, VA 22186 RETURN TO FORWARDING TIME SENDER HAS EXPIRED Ms. Lisa Marie Holbrook Post Office Box 562 Millerten,_New York 42546 App. 174 [Information From Christmas Card Envelope Diane Holbrook Received] Dutcher PO Box 223 Wingdale NY 12594 Diane Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound FL 33475-1512 App. 175 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY DIANE L. HOLBROOK, * ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE * OF EDWARD JESSE HOLBROOK * Plaintiff, AT LAW NO. CL96-7 Vv LISA MARIE DUTCHER, a.k.a. LISA MARIE HOLBROOK, As Administrator of the Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook, Defendant. * *£ *& &€ & Ee EH F MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW Lowry J. Miller, Esquire, appearing specially on behalf of Lisa Marie Dutcher, a.k.a. Lisa Marie Holbrook, and moves for the entry of an order of dismissal of the above-styled wrongful death action with prejudice, on the grounds set forth below: 1. Dale Bruce Holbrook, the alleged tortfeasor in this cause, is deceased, having died on the date of the accident alleged in this wrongful death suit. 2. Under Virginia law, the plaintiff may not sue a dead man and may only sue the lawful personal representative, to- wit, the Administrator of the Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook. 3. Lisa Marie Dutcher, a.k.a. Lisa Marie Holbrook, is not and has never been the personal representative of Dale Bruce Holbrook, and therefore this cause should be dismissed with prejudice. ] [1] App. 176 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY DIANE L. HOLBROOK, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD JESSE HOLBROOK, Plaintiff, %* &£ & & & & AT LAW NO. , CL96-7 Vv. CARLIN T. HUNTER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE | OF DALE BRUCE HOLBROOK, et al., , Defendants. * ORDER THIS CAUSE came on this 21st day of May, 1997, to be heard upon the motion to dismiss of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; upon the motion not to allow dis- missal and the motion to reverse the motion to quash originally sustained filed by the plaintiff, pro se, and, after argument by counsel for Nationwide and by the plaintiff; IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that the motion to dismiss should be granted, the motion not to allow dis- missal should be denied, and the motion to reverse the motion to quash should be denied; it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motion to dismiss is hereby granted, the motion not to dismiss is hereby denied, and the motion to reverse the motion to quash is hereby denied; and this cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice. (1] App. 177 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY DIANE L. HOLBROOK, As Administrator of the Estate of Edward Jesse Holbrook Plaintiff, Vv. LISA MARIE DUTCHER a.k.a. LISA MARIE HOLBROOK, As Administrator of the Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook or CARLIN T. HUNTER, As Administrator of the Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook, et al., Defendant. SERVE ALSO: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company c/o Robert C. Wetzel, Esq. 800 Graves Mill Road Lynchburg, Virginia 24506 AT LAW NO. CL96-7 * © & €& ® ¥ ¥ FF FH HF HE RK HE KF HH HK OK OF TO PROSECUTE APPEAL (Filed: May 21, 1997) I retain, Diane L. Holbrook, Plaintiff, of P.O. Box 1512, City of Hobe Sound, County of Martin, State of Florida, to perfect and prosecute an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court on May 21, 1997, in the case of Diane L. Holbrook, As Administrator of the Estate of Edward Jesse Holbrook v. Lisa Marie Dutcher a.k.a. Lisa Marie Holbrook, As Administrator of the Estate of Dale App. 178 Bruce Holbrook or Carlin T. Hunter, As Administrator of the Estate of Dale Bruce Holbrook, et al. with serve also Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, at law No. CL96- y 2 Diane L. Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 By: Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook _Certificate_of_Service_ I hereby certify that a true and correct copy to prose- cute appeal was handed on May 21, 1997 to: Miller, Miller, Kearney & Geschickter, LLP 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 312 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook App. 179 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (SEAL) FAUQUIER COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY [Names Omitted In Printing] August 20, 2001 Ms. Diane Holbrook P.O. Box 1512 Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512 Re: Commonwealth vs. James Alan Cribb Sentencing Date: July 23, 2001 Dear Ms. Holbrook: I enclose herewith a copy of the Court’s order of July 23, 2001, reflecting its final ruling in the above matter. As you will see at the bottom of Page 2, the Court ordered restitution in the specific amount of $1392.54 and in that same paragraph specifically sets forth the sen- tence. The defendant will have six months to pay his Court costs ($1096.00) and then will begin the payment of restitution to you. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, /s/ Yates Palmer Yates Palmer Victim-Witness Coordinator App. 180 Diane L. Holbrook Post Office Box 1512 Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (772) 545-9793 October 22, 2003 Commonwealth Of Virginia Fauquier County . Office Of The Commonwealth’s Attorney 40 Culpeper Street Warrenton, Virginia 20186 Telephone: (540) 347-8714 Dear To Whom Concern; I, Diane L. Holbrook, called twice on October 13, 2003 approx. 4:00 p.m. at (540) 347-8714 and left messages on the answer machine for the Victim-Witness Coordinator including Case name and number involving specifically — non-payment of restitution since July 23, 2001 sentencing and Order by the Court by Judge Jeffrey W. Parker to immediately start payment of restitution after required to pay the Court costs of 6 months. It has been over 2 years, but less than 3 years of sentence imposed for probation. Therefore, I’m demanding 8% interest compounded daily since date of July 23, 2001 Order and sentencing by the Court. Re: James Alan Cribb SSN: 262-29-5975 DOB: 10/11/55 White male Commonwealth vs. James Alan Cribb Criminal Nos. Cr01-3 &4,46 ——— ae App. 181 Respectfully Yours, /s/ Diane L. Holbrook Diane L. Holbrook Post Office Box 1512> Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512 Telephone: (772) 545-9793 January 13, 2004 H. Russell Potts, Jr. Senator of Fauquier County Dear H. Russell Potts, Jr. I, certified mail return receipt signed received this letter to the Commonwealth of Virginia. To this day, I, Diane L. Holbrook, have not received any correspondence from them or the Fauquier County Court. Please use your power to see to it that I receive my restitution plus 8% interest compounded daily since date of order as stated. Respectfully Yours, /s/ Diane L. Holbrook [This was faxed by Mr. Mr. Mail Box to 1-540-665-8399 on 01-13-04 at 10:46.] App. 182 (SEAL) Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services CHARLES H. BRONSON, Commissioner Tallahassee, Florida November 13, 2003 Division of Consumer Services 2005 Apalachee Pkwy Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 Phone: 1-800-HELP-FLA URL: http://www.800helpfla.com _ Refer To: 0310-36157 /HH DIANE HOLBROOK PO BOX 1512 HOBE SOUND, FL 33475-1512 Subject: COATES TIRE Dear DIANE HOLBROOK: In response to your complaint, we have received the enclosed reply stating the position of the business in this matter. After a review of the business response, we have | closed our file. As mandated by s.570.544, Florida Statutes, the Division of Consumer Services serves as the clearinghouse for consumer complaints. The authority of the Department in this matter is limited to informal mediation of disputes. In our capacity as mediators, we have made an effort to assist you in reaching an agreement by facilitating an exchange of irformation between you and the business. Florida law does not authorize this agency to order re- funds or reimbursements for damages, force a settlement, or provide legal services. a NENA ne mer RE CTE App. 183 Thank you for contacting the Department with your complaint. Please contact us if you need assistance on any’ other consumer related issue in the future. Sincerely, /s/ Hilda Hines Hilda Hines Senior Consumer Complaint Analyst 850-410-3764 / 1-800-435-7352 (Florida Only) E-mail: hinesh@doacs.state.fl.us App. 184 (SEAL) Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services CHARLES H. BRONSON, Commissioner Tallahassee, Florida October 28, 2003 Division of Consumer Services 2005 Apalachee Pkwy Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 Phone: 1-800-HELP-FLA URL: http://www.800helpfla.com Refer To: 0310-36157 /HH DIANE HOLBROOK PO BOX 1512 HOBE SOUND, FL 33475-1512 Re: COATES TIRE Dear DIANE HOLBROOK: This is to acknowledge receipt of your cumplaint against the above-referenced business and to advise you that we have begun the informal mediation process, as mandated by section 570.544(3), Florida Statutes. We mailed the business a copy of your complaint, along with a request that the business respond to your grievance. Please be aware that this process may take between 60 and 90 days. Vv App. 185 Please include the reference number displayed above on future correspondence, and address any questions or concerns to my attention. Sincerely, /s/ Hilda Hines Hilda Hines Senior Consumer Complaint Analyst 850-410-3764 / 1-800-435-7352 (Florida Only) E-mail: hinesh@doacs.state.fl.us App. 186 Time Limits for Filing a Charge A charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation in order to protect the charging party’s rights. [Note: Dec. 3, 2001 Rehearing Denied in Supreme Court May 11, 2002 is less than 170 days.] This 180-day deadline may be increased up to 300 days if the charge also is covered by certain state or local anti-discrimination laws. Under all laws enforced by EEOC, except the EPA, a charge must be filed with EEOC before going to court. These time limits do not apply to complaints under the EPA. However, since many EPA complaints also raise Title VII sex discrimination issues, it may be better to file charges under both laws within the time limits given. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386001_1159%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.