Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Schafler v. Fairway Park Condominium Ass'n

03 53% JUL 2.5 2003

LIN 17k

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DR. PEPI SCHAFLER

Petitioner

v

FAIRWAY PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

and each individual member of the board

INDIAN SPRINGS MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

and each individual member of the board

NASON, YEAGER, GERSON, WHITE,LIOCE & SCOTT

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Pepi Schafler, BA, MSSS, JD, PhD

642 Preakness Drive

Walnut Creek, California 94596

Telephone: 925-938-8743

Facsimile: 925-938-6026

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

As the owner of a condominium apartment in Palm Beach County

Florida, petitioner’s property rights run with the land. There is the

large development called Indian Springs located in Boynton Beach,

and more than 20 subdivisions therein, one of them being Fairway

Park. Although in title for the past 22 years, petitioners is not now

nor has ever been a Florida resident. . The property is used for an

occasional vacation, and is leased during the winter season to help

defray the considerable costs of ownership. Both the subdivisioiis

and the larger development have condominium and maintenance

associations in which every property owner is a shareholder. Their

duties and responsibilities are the grass and flowers, pools, tennis,

courts, golf courses, roads and the exterior of the buildings. Fees

are collected from everyone to enable them to meet their duties.

These fees bring in between $10.000.000-$12.000.000 annually.

The boards of the associations are drunk with power in having that

large amount of money “under their control” for which they have :

never ever, since the creation of the development in 1978 provided

a financial statement or accounted in any way, and use it as their

personal piggy bank. Asking for an accounting statement, brings

down the wrath, and having all this money available they can harass

anyone they want. Petitioner hay sought accountability, and though

never received any, has been on a list to be harassed. Since December

2001, respondents have alienated and figuratively occupied her property.

Petitioner has suffered harm and injury, and a significant monetary loss.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Were petitioner’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional

rights to substantive due process , equal protection and property nghts

violated by the District Court?

2. By the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ?

3. Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals review de novo?

4. Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals impermissibly

discriminate against petitioner by having someone other than

Article III Judges read pro se appeals?

5. Is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision inconsistent,

trivializing , and not on point?

6. Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrongfully deny

petitioner her right to oral arg»ment pursuant to F.R.A.P. Rule 34?

7. Did the District Court misstate, misapply and misinterpret the

holdings of this Honorable Court?

8. Does the District Court’s “valuation” of the claim at instant

conflict with holding of this Honorable Court as well as other circuits

on this subject ?

9. In doing so did the District Court substitute it’s own opinion for the

opinion of this Honorable Court, and preempt the opinion of a jury?

10. Did the District Court wrongfully dismiss the claim for other reason?

11. Was the decision in the matter at instant by District Court Judge Hurley

of the Palm Beach Division of the Florida District Court influenced by his

allegedly having received numerous campaign contributions from

respondents throughout his more than 20 years of running for office in

Palm Beach County until being appointed to the District Court, and

should he have recused himself?

12. Is Judge Hurley’s decision filed with inconsistencies?

13. Has petitioner’s condominium apartment been unlawfully

“occupied” without right , privilege or compensation, and therefore

also alienated the covenant that runs with the land?

14.May the condominium and maintenance associations that are formed

to take care of the lawns, flowers, pools, the athletic venues, and

are therefore in contractual servitude to the property owners interfere

with the use of an owner’s real property at wili?

il

15. May the associations convert a clause “right of first refusal”

for lease or purchase of private property, into an instrument of

extortion?

16. Have they done so in the matter at instant?

17. Does counsel for the associations have a duty to represent

all the property owners, as there is no rank or standing,

and all are equal?

18. Does counsel have a duty to be truthful with the association

officers to curb their interest in harassment and abuse as a result

of what they perceive is their own omnipotence?

19. Do they exploit the sociology of the population at Indian

Springs for personal gain?

20. Has counsel for the all the members i.e. the property owners

done that ?

21. Has counsel for the associations subverted the interest of the

property owners, i.e. the members tin order to generate income

hours for themselves through billable hours?

22. If respondent alleged a debt by petitioner, should they have

to provide evidence of same, or is “because I say so sufficient”?

23. If respondents allege a debt, did they violate 15 U.S.C. # 1692

and # 1692 (a) the fair debt collection act.

lil

RULE 29.6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

STATEMENT

Petitioner hereby declares that there are no

corporate interests involved in this matter.

iil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Jurisdiction by this Honorable Court

Decisions in the lower courts

Statement of facts

ARGUMENT

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals violated

petitioner’s rights to substantive due process , equal

protections as well as her civil rights.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals violated

petitioner’s right to oral argument

The Court of Appeals did not address the core issue:

real property titled ownership rights vs those

in contractual servitude

The District Court dismissed the claim on two

counts which are in conflict with each other

Federal Jurisdiction i

The standard applied by the District Court regarding

the amount in controversy to meet federal jurisdiction

requirements conflict with holding by this Honorable

Court. The District Court sought to preempt the jury.

The District Court applied the wrong standard in

granting a Rule 12 (b) (6) motion in conflict with

the holdings of this Honorable Court

Despite a fiduciary duty that compels otherwise, the

respondent associations use the enormous amounts

of money collected as fees as their private piggy bank ,

spending at will for political influence among other

On information and belief District Court Judge Hurley

who decided this matter had received campaign

contributions from respondents

Nason, Yeager , Gerson, Lioce and Gregory Scott

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

15 USCA #1692 a, b, c,j,k,

There are compeling issues of public interest

in this matter

Conclusion

oN = =

14

17

17

AUTHORITIES

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

that guarantees the right to property, substantive due process of law and

equal protection of law is mentioned throughout.

Article III , Section 2 of the Constitution

28 USCA #1651 (a)

28 USCA # 1254 (i)

15 USC #1962 a, b,c, j, k,

FRCP Rule 12 (b) (6)

FRCP Rule 8

Florida State Code Title 40 Condominiums Rule 718-111

Akos Sierkiewiecz v Sorema N.A., 534 US 506 (2000)

Allbright v Oliver, 510 US 266 (1994

Ares v Cypress Park Garden Homes ,

696 So 2nd 885 (Fla App 1997)

Berheim v Litt 79 F 3rd 318 (2nd Cir. 1996)

Board of Regents v Roth , 408 Us 564 (1972)

Bolin v Story, 225 F 3rd 1234 (11th Cir 2000)

Brooks v City of Winston Salem , 85 F 3rd 178 (4th Cir 1996)

Craig v Boren 429 US 190 (1976)

A Comprehensive Theory of Condominium Tort

Liability , 39 U. Fla. L. Rev 877 (1987)

Connecticut v Doehr 501 US 1, (1991)

Conley v Gibson, 355 US 41 (1957)

Crossley v Lieberman , 86 F2nd 566(3rd Cir. 1989)

Davis , next friend of la Shonda D, v Monroe

County Board of Education et al 526 US 629 911th Cir 1999)

Florida v Rodriguez 469 US 1, (1984)

Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67, (1972)

Glenwood Light & Water Co. v Mutual Light,

Heat & Water Co. 239 US 121 (1915)

Goldberg v Kelly , 397 US 254 (i970)

Horton v Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 367 US 348 (1961)

Law of Property Owners Associations ,

R . Natelson 429 (1989)

11111]

|

Marbury v Madision , 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Mathews v Eldridge , 424 US 319(1976)

Mississippi & Missouri R.R. v Ward

67 US 92 (2 Black 485 )91862)

Neder v United States , 119 S.Ct. 1827 (1999)

Newman v Boehm , Pearlstein & Bright Ltd

119 F 3rd 477 ( 7th Cir 1997)

Perry v Sinderman , 408 US 593 (1972)

Regents of University of California v Bakke

438 US 265 (1978)

Report of the Commission on Revision of the Federal

Court Appellate System , Structure, and Internal

Procedure: Recommendations for Change (1975)

Sandlin v Shapiro & Fishman 919 F Supp 413 (1996)

Siera Club v Morton , 405 727 (1972)

Sheuer v Rhodes , 416 US 232 (1974

Singleton v Wulff, 428 US 106 (1976)

St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v Red

Cab Co., 303 US 238 (1938)

Summitt Health Ltd. v Pinhas , 500 US 322 (1991 )

Tumey v Ohio , 273 US 510, (1927)

eeeeeee

1111111

JURISDICTION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT

FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Article III Section 2, of the United States Constitution vests

the Supreme Court with the judicial power and jurisdiction

to all cases and controversies in law and equity, and appellate

jurisdiction to same. Pursuant to 28 USCA # 1651 (a) the

Supreme Court and all courts established by an Act of Congress

may issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of their

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the principles and the

usage of law. Pursuant to 28 USCA # 1254 (i) cases in the Court

of Appeals may be reviewed by Wnit of Certiorari granted upon

the petition of any party to a civil or criminal case, before or after

rendition of judgment. In the present matter the lower courts have

misinterpreted , misstated and misapplied holdings by this

Honorable Court. As the Honorable Justice Stevens said in

Florida v Rodriguez , 409 US 1, (1984), “ as the court of last resort

in the federal system , we hold supervisory authority and therefore

must occasionally perform pure error correcting functions in

federal litigation. “

DECISIONS IN THE LOWER COURTS

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc

on May 6, 2003 , from a decision by the same Court dated

March 7, 2003. The District Court for the Southern District of

Florida dismissed the claim on April 26, 2002.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner is the owner of a condominium apartment in Boynton Beach

Florida, located in Palm Beach County Florida , in the Indian Springs

development , and the subdivision of Fairway Park within. This ownership

dates back about 22 years , at first with a former spouse, later through a

trust. At the time of purchase petitioner resided in Buffalo New York,

which has very harsh winters, and occasionally going somewhere warm

was important. No longer residing in a cold climate the apartment has

been use for an occasional vacation. Most significantly for a number of

years it has been leased for the winter months. The annual leasing income

generated heips defray the not insignificant cost of ownership. The yearly

expenses include the mortgage payment, taxes, water, power, telephone,

a monthly fee to the Fairway Park condominium association, a quarterly

fee to the Indian Springs maintenance association, an annually paid for

maintenance service for all home repair, cleaning service , and

replacement for things worn or no longer appealing looking. The interior

of the apartment is attractive, 100% furnished and fully equipped. The

subdivision is of Fairway Park, is nice, as is the whole Indian Springs

development. The leasing period of the apartment is for somewhere

around Thanksgiving through March or April, or starting the first day

of the new year for 3-4 months.

The seasonal renters usually reside in the states with cold winters, are

most often retired or part time retirees, financially comfortable to be

able to afford this. People seeking to winter in Florida come there in

late August or September to find a place, and enter into the initial

arrangements , deposit etc. This is done through realtors and the same

realtor has been in charge of leasing petitioner’s apartment for many

years. An exceptionally nice, competent person, who knows the “drill”

i.e. what need to be done when: The renters referred to as “snow birds”

are -for a variety of reasons - a very welcome sight in the state of Florida,

in the communities, and at Indian Springs. They come with ready money

to spend in the cities and towns, they patronize the restaurants, shops, malls,

the sports and entertainment venues , and much, much more. In addition

to bringing sales tax revenue to the state, the renters also pay a special

Florida “bed tax” 10% of the cost of the lease. Yet they require no municipal

or community services. The snow birds are quite welcome in the

development as well not only for companionship and social interest, but

2

they also become property owners after being exposed to the

environment. Five out of petitioner last six tenants purchased

property there. There are about 20 or so subdivisions in Indian Springs.

Some are for single detached homes, some for townhouses, i.e.

attached home, and then are the apartments buildings who are one

story “garden type “; in some parts of the country they are referred to

as horizontal town houses These are common in warm and resort

settings. There is 2 downstairs apartment and an upstairs each with

separate entrances, and this long building holds 8 of those. A road

runs through the development accessible to all, but the subdivisions

have manned security gated access only. Residents and renters after

they are there have an electronic chip attached to their car-which opens

a dedicated gate, while all others are prevented from entering. Either

a name is added to the list at the security gate, or if an invitee the gaie

telephones to verify this with the resident. ‘The sociological profile

of the residents is the profile of the aging anywhere: loneliness,

isolation, rejection, disrespect, illness , fear of catastrophic illness ,

which is not changed by the lovely surroundings , their personal

afluence. Petitioner was friendly with a lovely couple next door who

albeit in their early eighties fit this profile. they were not ill, educated,

afluent, with many interests, but the burden of loneliness, rejection,

disrespect had become too much to bear, so one evening they went to

bed, took a variety of narcotic containing medications , put plastic bags

over their heads and went to sleep. Their bodies were not discovered for

many days.

Although real property values have increased significantly in the state of

Florida, this is not true for Indian Springs, where the property values have

decreased by 50%. This is not because of some inherent flaw with the

property, but rather the people who are on the boards ef the subdivisions

as well as the board of Indian Spring. The Palm Beach Post had a full page

investigative report about this matter and attributed it to the shady deals

involving the associations, real estate transactions, self dealing and money.

There is a lot of money involved , millions of dollars. The Indian Springs

Maintenance Association is alleged to take in about $10.000.000-12.000.000

million dollars per year. The Fairway Park Condominium Association

about $750.000.

Both Associations : Indian Springs maintenance asociation, and the

Fairway Park condominium association, are “mafia” like organizations :

secretive, corrupt, lawless, abusive, use the property owners money to

purchase political and social favors, and generally use as their trust

fund. Petitioner, as an original owner has never ever received

an accounting statement in 22 years, neither has anyone else. The

State of Florida Condominium Stattutes Rule 718-111 requires

that an annual financial statement audited by a certified public

accountant must be provided to each proeprty owner, by both

associations of which each property owner is a shareholder-member.

Furthermore, four times per year each property owner has to be

provided with a statement of his/her account . None of those two

state requirements have ever been met. If one asks to see the financial

records, just for asking, one gets harassed, sort of black listed , and

shuned. Having decribed the sociological profile of the resident

population, this Honorable Court can see that they are not going to

ask questions. Everyone is aware that they are in the clutches of

something akin to an “organized crime sindicate”, but in the hierarchy

of probiems this one can be solved with money, so they do not ask

questions. About 40% of the property owners that are not residents,

also avoid demanding financial accounting, because it is too difficult to

pursue long distance. Several years ago petitioner did demand some

financial statements , which she ofcourse was not provided with, and

to force compliance it is a legal process. Petitioner could not follow

through because it was too dificult not being in loco, having other

professional and personal responsibilities. But her name and face were

placed on a “do harass list “, and show her who is “boss”.

Both associations have been under the control of the same men-they are all

men since the start despite allegedly holding elections. There have been

people challenging these “elections”, yet inexplicably the same despised

individuals are back. Only death removes them. These retired men that

are in charge of Indian Springs and Fairway Park, have in their life in some

northeastern state been automobile salesmen , dentists, shoe salesmen, had

businesses, some have been forced out of their business by their children,

and suddenly they are in control of multi million dollar bank accounts for

which they have successfully avoided accounting, and they are totally drunk

with their power, and fully prepared to abuse it, becuse this money will buy

them avoidance of accountability. They use the property owners money to

provide legal representation, so they do not nuch care.

4

The monthly and quarterly fees paid to Fairway Park and Indian Springs

have quadrupled in the past 22 years. It is unlikely that the alleged illegal

immigrant’s worker’s wages have quadrupled. There surely is another

recipient to be found. The only financial information the property owners

receive is really an annual demand.. It says : last year the lawn maintenance

oe amount, this year it will cost ........... amount. There are a few other

categories presented the same way. Then it goes on to say those that last year

paid xxx dollars per month, will pay xxxx dollars per month this year.

Periodically property owners receive a notice that has a heading of :

“Special Assessment” and demanding a sum of money, without any

explanation of why , and includes a warning: pay by such and such a date

or else there will be interest. This is not unlike mafia or other extortion

attempts by other gangs that say, give me this amount of money or else....

petitioner had asked why-which the sin committed and has been singled out

for harassment.

The condominium rules include” a right of first refusal clause”’(Appendix 1)

This first refusal option -cCOmmon in many condominium rules- has in the

rules for Fairway Park and Indian Springs been re christened “approval “ and

turned into a business: the associations charge of fee for this. But there is

nothing of legal significance therein just harassment. A Comprehensive

Theory of Condominium Tort Liability , A. Freyfogle, 39 U. Fla L. Rev.

877 (1987). Also a source of income for the members of the boards. Realtors

comply with the right of first refusal, and pay the fees so that the corrupt

cronies can pocket some money, although private arrangements are routinely

made. When someone leaves a name at the gate and says :” my aunt Sue and

uncle Harry are going to stay here for awhile, and the name is added to the list

of entrants and even secure a chip for them, the bombast of the associations

is ignored.

Respondents Nason Yeager et al are a law firm, and one of their -either

member or employee named Gregory Scott is the attorney for the associations,

and since petitioner is a member and shareholder of the associations arguably

he represents petitioner-as well. Theoretically there are no legal disputes by

and for the associations, other than the grass and flower contract or the pool

cleaning contract. They have no other legitimate function, but a lot of

illegitimate ones. But then counsel instigates a lot misconduct , fraud , abuse,

lies , and injury to nurture their self interest :”billable hours “ and money.

Their activities are of dubious validity, and are in violation of Florida’s

Rules of Professional Conduct, but generate billable hours.

5

Allegedly Respondent Gregory Scott receives $100.000 per year in legal

fees, not all for reading the pool service contract, mostly to harass property

owners .Counsel plays an interesting three fold game of deceit or something

akin to that by advising the associations who have a fiduciary duty to the

property owners not to squanders their fees on matters other than the

maintenance, that they need not comply with the State of Florida

Condominium Rules violating Florida Bar Rules of professional conduct

Rule 4.-1.13 and still collect billable hours for the bad-advise given. In

Florida many of the condominium disputes include as defendants the

attorneys for the association.

In the autumn of 2001 because of 9/11 the Florida winter season looked

very grim there was despair. Cancellations were coming in in droves and the

outlook was dismal because among other reason for same people feared

flying. But “snowbirds” drive their cars to Florida or take the “auto train”.

The realtor working on petitioner’s behalf located a tenant whose tenancy

was to start on January 1, 2002, through March 31, 2002. The rental was

going to generate $7.000 in rent, for three months, in addition the tenants

pay all the utilities , Florida taxes and other fees, and the extorted fee _

for the right of refusal. The intent to lease was signed in late September

(Appendix 2)and a deposit was provided. The tenant was represented by

an agent from the city of Boca Raton. The tenants were a retired school

teacher and her husband a dentist. As time neared the tenant provided a

variety of checks for fees, and on November 5, 2001 the realtor submitted

the tenants names in compliance with the “right of first refusal” , which has

to happen in 30 days. They either accept petitioner’s tenant or provide a

substitute , so that petitioner’s property right is not compromised.(Appendix 1)

Petitioner was getting the condominium ready had it cleaned, the carpets

shampooed, the appliances and air conditioner inspected and petitioner

guaranteed a temporary country club membership for the tenant .Petitioner

was going to Berlin and Brussels on December 24 and wanted it all to be

ready, and had suggested to the realtor that she tell the tenants they may

come earlier to welcome the New Year in Florida Although expecting

routine acceptance, the two agents began to be a bit concerned. Petitioner’s

agent went to the association office on December 8 , 2001 to inquire about

it, and was told that it will be signed over the weekend.

6

Ee

The realtor continued to follow up and the two associations and

“our counsel” never quite provided a straight and direct statement

about the “first refusal” whther it would be petitioner’s tenant choice

or a substitute. There was some back and forth and finally petitioner

was informed that she owes $844 to the associations, and unless she

pays that, the tenant would not be permitted entry. No documents were

provided as evidence of this debt, but rather:” because I say so”. If

petitioner were close by, and not committed to be in Europe she would

have sought the assistance of the Palm Beach County Sherriff and

personally escorted the tenants in and out since what was asked of her

was pure lawless extortion, and no one without just cause, not the least

those in contractual servitude may alienate petitioners property. Because

it would cause harm and greatly inconvenience numerous people , on

December 17, 2001 petitioner dispatched a check for $844 by overnight

carrier to the realtor. (Appendix 4) The realtor took the check to the

association office ,and inquired when she may inform the tenant’s

representative, that they may continue packing their car for the drive to

Boynton Beach. The realtor was told that the board had to “think about it’

As is the custom, the tenants prepay the seasonal rental, security deposit,

taxes, and other fees which is held in escrow by the real estate agent. A

further manifestation of the despicable and putrid thinking by the members

of the board how abusive and corrupt they are ,and how they overstep their

authority, how they have harass people, this petitioner especially, was yet

to come. On December 19, 2001 the realtor received a faxed demand to

invade the escrow-which is a crime -and send each association a check for

$480. (App. 5) otherwise the tenant would not have entry to the rented

apartment. These corrupt sleazy crooks were not going to let them

enter. This was more than one could tolerate-asking someone to commit

a crime on their behalf. On December 20, 2001 the realtors and the tenant

wre notified that they did not have a place to spend the winter months in

Florida. The perfidy and depravity of all respondent is outrageous and

shocking. They do not care: the boards of the associations obviously

knew that they would be liable for their misconduct and for petitioner’s

loss but they do not care: they are spending the associations money ,.

not their own therefore they may indulge their dementia. As for “our

counsel- they just know billable hours”. Respondents unlawfully

occupied petitioner’s property deprived her of same, defamed her and

caused her harm and loss because she resisted extortion. The Indian

Springs and Fairway Park associations manage the property ; ownership

7

i.e. the unit owners own the property .All the respondents in their

collective misconduct and malfeasance of interfering with petitioners

property rights seem to have forgotten that. This represents imperinissible

and unreasonable alienation of title. The respondents are in contractual

servitude only. Condominium Tort Liability. 39 Univ. of Fla L.Rev 872

(1987). In December 2001 petitioner sought injunctive relief and specific

performance relief from the Palm Beach County Court. The Court denied ,

holding that petitioners relief is damages.

The misconduct and malfeasance by all the respondents in the matter a

instant is also not in the public interest. While these men may have sat

around chuckled and rejoiced that they harmed the petitioner and “they

showed her who is boss, and that asking for financial records, and not

sending money when we demand it, and asking why, and she will not do

it again, their actions offend and harm the public interest. The state

and everyone in it has an interest in promoting itself, in people coming,

spending money, acquiring property, creating employment opportunities

creating additional tax revenue , and believe that their interests are

protected according to law. This corrupt “condominium mafia” does

nothing to further those goals, and just offends those goals.

ARGUMENT

Petitioner’s Constitutional rights to substantive due process, equal

protection and her right to property were violated. They were

violated in the District Court, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals. Like wise both Courts misstated and misapplied the

holdings of this Honorable Court .

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED

PETITIONER’S RIGHTS TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS,

EQUAL PROTECTION, AS WELL AS HER CIVIL RIGHTS.

The eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not review this appeal de

novo therefore the Court suborned violation of petitioners equal

protection and substantive due process rights. The court noted that

petitioner did not assert this violation in the lower court is ill stated.

ees ae aN

The instant claim was dismissed by the District Court on summary

adjudication misstating and misinterpreting holdings by this Honored

Court, which was not foreseeable to petitioner. hence huw could she

file allegation, on future actions by the Court. Petitioner was discriminated

against by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals because she is a pro

se litigant . This is a Constituional violation to substantive due process

and equal protection. In Bolin v Story 225 F3rd 1234 (11th Cir 2000),

quoting the testimony of former Chief Judge s Joseph Hatchet and Gerald

Tjoflat at a march 28 1998 public hearing of the Commission of Structural

Alterations for the Federal courts of Appeal in Atlanta Georgia, stating

“that it has been cleraly established that appellate court judges in the

eleventh circuit routinely do not read pro se briefs. They read the

summaries made for them. There is nothing in the Constitution that

permits two classes of litigants, differentiated by occupation. This

policy also represents unacceptable disdain and disrespect by the Court

of Appeals for pro se litigants. Different standards are unacceptable.

Article III of the Constitution entitles petitioner to have Article II

judges read and hear her appeal, and her plea for relief. Subordinates

and court employees within the system as “summarizers” is not

acceptable. This policy also sends a message to the “readers” of lesser

worthiness of the issues before them. Who ever summarized the instant

appeal did not pay attention to details , made inapplicable statements ,

and reflected a desire, if not also a direction to affirm the lower court

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED

PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO ORAL ARGUMENT.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure # 34 sates that “oral argument

must be allowed in every case unless a panel of three judges who have

examined the briefs and record unanimously agree that oral argument is

unnecessary. Any statement in the brief about the need for oral argument

will be given due consideration. The decision to dispense with oral

argument must be unanimous. Petitioner had requested oral argument.

It is noteworthy that since pro se appeals are read by individuals other

than the judges, it is unclear who decided to dispense with oral argument.

The Court dispensed with oral argument in the matter at instant without

prior notice, therefore there was no opportunity to object, although there

is not reason to believe it would have made a difference. The Report of

the Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System

Structure and Internal Procedure : Recommendations for Change (1975)

noted that many judges find the opportunity for a personal exchange makes

9

a difference in the result. Petitioner was disadvantaged by being denied

the opportunity for oral argument. The circuit rule that all panel judges

must read the briefs and the record before dispensing with oral argument

is inconsistent and in conflict with the testimony by chief judges Hatchet

and Tjoflat that pro se briefs are not read by the Article II] judges . This

suggests that the instant appeal was decided by court employees or

whoever the designated “readers were. This is unconstitutional, and a gross

violation of petitioner Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment nights.

THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ADDRESS THE CORE

ISSUES: REAL PROPERTY TITLED OWNERSHIP RIGHTS

VS THOSE IN CONTRACTUAL SERVITUDE

It is clearly evident that whoever read petitioner’s appeal, was trying

hard to affirm the District Court. It may however be that this individual

- there is confirmation it was not an Article II] Judge from the chief judges-

did not understand the substantive issue of the claim: an unlawful

alienation of a title holders real property by those in voluntary

contractual servitude. Also whether a person in title to real property

must first comply with extortion attempts from those in servitude, to

have free access and enjoyment to ones own property.

A condominium is a form of concurrent real estate property ownership

that runs with the land. Condominium ownership is defined in spatial

terms. Each condominium owner holds title to a particular unit, and an

undivided interest in the common elements as a co-owner with all the

other unit owners . Common elements include the land, the structural

parts of the buildings, and the common recreational areas and venues.

Real property ownership is generally inviolate against all except those

with superior title , and those rights are guaranteed by the laws and the

Constitution of the United States. Every property owner in Indian Springs

and Fairway Park are members -shareholders of the condominium and

maintenance associations, whose duty it is to manage the common areas

of lawns, parking, the streets, the sports venues. They are in voluntary

contractual servitude to the property owners. Nevertheless the Indian

Springs and Fairway Park associations have given themselves

permission to act like a government or some other authority-perhaps

divine , accord themselves authority over the ownership rights of the

property owners in title, and alienate petitioner’s property. Self created

entitlement.

10

a ee ae een Se eet eee,

3 |

The Indian Springs and Fairway Park associations have created a small

business for themselves. Whereas the condominium rules provide the

associations with the nght of first refusal of a lease or purchaser,

(Appendix 1) after 30 days they must either agree with the choice

submitted or provide an alternate, the associations have renamed this

process the “approval” process and each charge a fee. Pursuant to

the condominium rules and their 30 day window, thereafter they are

simply responsible to the property owner for the loss. It has been

two years that petitioner’s apartment has not been leased because

of respondents misconduct , and they have made no attempt at

compensating petitioner for her losses. The Eleventh Circuit in its

affirmation said :”well they could approve a tenancy and they did not

and it was within their authority”. The reader who summarized

this did not pay attention or understand.

This Honorable Court has held that property rights are also liberty

rights and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has

both prc cedural and substantive content. In a series of cases all

different in factual content this court articulated a right to due process.

In Goldberg v Kelly 397 US 254, (1970), Perry v Sindermann, 408 US

593 (1972), Board of Regents v Roth 408 US. 564 (1972), Fuentes v

Shevin, 407 US 67 (1972), Connecticut v Doehr US 1 (1991). Therefore

if the associations have anointed themselves into some governing i

authority, they must comply with the law. They had a duty to provide

all the documentary evidence that there is a debts outstanding, when it

was created, comply with 15 USCA #1692, “The Fair Debt Collection

Act “ and if petitioner did not comply than pursue the legal avenues :

available to everyone. Seizing and occupying petitioner’s property was

lawless extortion and respondents must be accountable .It is unfortunate

that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reader did not notice all of the

above mentioned. The eleventh Circuit was also silent on the dismissal

of this claim by the District Court , and doing so on two conflicting

holdings.

In the answer to petitioner’s claim, respondents did not deny petitioner’s

allegations, therefore that averment must stand. They did however fill

numerous pages with diversionary statements and cases dealing with ;

breweries, finance companies, and automobile dealerships., a securities }

dealer. All this to create confusion in the court, a paper overload and

billable hours,

1]

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CLAIM ON

TWO COUNTS WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER

The District Court dismissed the claim on two issues; lack of federal

jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy , and through granting a ~

Rule 12 (b0(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. These

holdings are inconsistent with the facts articulated by the court in it’s

order, and they are in conflict with each other.

FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Petitioner claimed complete federal jurisdiction based on diversity of

citizenship and the amount in controversy. Diversity because petitioner

is a California citizen, and the amount in controversy meets the

$ 75.000 requirement. Petitioner having lost $10.000 in rental income

is seeking same, plus additional expenses and damages.* Petitioner is

seeking punitive damages and damages in tort as well for all the other

harms and injuries. petitioner claimed $75.000 each from the three

respondents in the title of the claim, 840.000 each from the various

members of the boards of the associations and the law firm. This

involves an additional 22 or more individuals .Although respondents

created an avalanche of ridiculous theories why there is no diversity

in citizenship, the District Court held there is diversity in citizenship.

The Court however took issue with the amount in controversy.

THE STANDARD APPLIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT

REGARDING THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY TO MEET

FEDERAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS , CONFLICTS

WITH HOLDINGS BY THIS HONORABLE COURT. THE

DISTRICT COURT SOUGHT TO PREEMPT THE JURY.

Federal Courts have generally considered the amount in controversy

in a complaint to be from zero to whatever the complaint says.

In Horton v Liberty Mutual Ins. Co 367 US 348 (1961), The Honorable

Justice Black speaking for this Honored Court noted : “the general

federal rule has long been to decide what the amount in controversy

*Petitioner has continued to incur additional significant losses by not being able to

lease the apartment . Obviously realtor do not wish to embroil themselves and their

clients in the horrible events that took place., although petitioner had received a lot

of encouraging messages from realtors, and residents of Indian Springs with “go get

these miserable crooks” or “] have been waiting for years someone to get them”.

12

is from the complaint itself”. In St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v Red

Cab Co, 303 US 238 (1938), this Honorable Court held that the

determinant of the amount in controversy is plaintiffs good faith claim,

and that to justify dismissal it must appear to a legal certainty that the

claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount. The inability by

plaintiff to recover the jurisdictional amount or any amount does not

shew bad faith or oust the jurisdiction. For 150 years this Honorable

Court has held that the amount in controversy is what the plaintiff says

it is. Mississippi & Missouri R.R. v Ward 67 US 92 (2 Black 485) (1862),

Glenwood Light and Water Co. v Mutual Light , Heat & Power Co.

239 US 121 (1915).

The dismissal by the District Court is based on flawed analysis and is in

conflict with the holdings of this Honorable Court , that the amount in

controversy is the amount sought in the complaint. The District Court

acknowledged petitioner’s $10.000 or more loss, but questioned the

amount in damages sought. In doing so the Court preempted the

prerogatives of a future jury and it’s decision, and noted that the damages

could amount to over one million dollars, which a jury is never going to

award. The District Court did not know that , nor has the court been privy

to the evidence yet. The court based this only on the complaint , a Rule 8

notice pleading. The District Court erred in basing a damage recovery on

an “all or nothing at all “ concept, zero to over one million dollars. A jury

would have a wide range of choices between those two points. There are

about twenty two or so respondents, and if a jury award 1 $.2000 from each

in addition to the loss already acknowledged by the court, the amount in

controversy is met. The “either or” view of damages is error, is flawed,

unrea!‘stic, and represents disturbing impermissible bias on the part of

the court.

THE DISTRICT COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN

GRANTING A RULE 12 (b) (6) MOTION IN CONFLICT WITH

THE HOLDINGS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.

For the purpose of a FRCP Rule 12 (b) (6) motion, all allegations are

presumed true, all doubts and inferences are resolved in the pleader’s

favor, and the pleading is viewed in the light most favorable to the pleader.

Allbright v Oliver, 510 US 266, (1994), Sheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232,

(1974), Bernheim v Litt, 79 F 3rd 318, (2nd Cir 1996), Brooks v City of

Winston Salem, 85 F 3 rd, 178, (4th Cir 1996).

13

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless

it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v Gibson.

355 US 41 (1957). This Honorable Court has held that the legal

sufficiency to avoid a Rule 12 9b)(6) motion to dismiss is the truth

of the material facts as alleged in the complaint. Summit Health Ltd. v

Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991). “On this complaint we cannot say beyond

doubt that (petitioner) can prove no set of facts in support of her claim

which would entitle her to relief’. Davis next friend of La Shonda D v

Monroe County Board of Education et al , 526 US 629 (11th Cir 1999).

In Akos Sierkiewiccz v Sorema , 534 US 506 ( 2000 ) this Honorable

Court held that it is incongruous to require that a plaintiff in order to

survive a 12 (b) (6) motion, to prove more than he would to succeed on

the merits, when the complaint satisfies the requirements of FRCP 8(a)

notice pleading, giving the opponent fair notice as to the basis of the claim.

The dismissal by the District Court based on the amount in controversy

and the failure to state a claim are unwarranted, inaccurately interpret

the facts , are in conflict with each other, in conflict with the holdings of

this Honorable Court and can only be attributed to gross impermissible

bias by the Court. It is otherwise just not credible . In challenging the

amount in controversy the court recognized petitioner’s loss of $10.000,

it is the amount of damages that the Court challenged. Therefore to then say

there is a failure by petitioner to state a claim , when this Honorabie Court

has articulated that the standard to survive a 12 (b) (6) motion is notice that

has been filed and the basis of the claim, is error and unacceptable bias.

DESPITE A FIDUCIARY DUTY THAT COMPELS OTHERWISE, THE

RESPONDENT ASSOCIATIONS USE THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF

MONEY COLLECTED AS FEES, AS THEIR PRIVATE PIGGY BANK

SPENDING AT WILL FOR POLITICAL INFLUENCE AMONG OTHER

Respondent associations are a big business that functions like the “mafia”

or other corrupt organizations and associations like that,. They have violated

the law for decades, never ever provided an annual financial statement as

required by law, or any other form of disclosure. Fairway Park which one of

about twenty subdivisions of Indian Springs takes in about $750.000 per

year in dues without ever having accounted where this money gone. Indian

Springs has an alleged annual intake of $10.000.090-$12.000.000, again

without ever having provided any required accounting or financial statement.

14

To the men that oversee the spending of these funds , men who prior

to retirement where insurance salesmen in New Jersey, or shopkeepers,

this is a very heady and seductive event leading them to distort the reality

of their power and to uncontrolled abuse. After all, whatever they do,

there is legal counsel they do not have to pay for with personal funds.

Consequently the misconduct is rampant , both financial and otherwise

their conduct is secretive, they harass anyone they wish , often with

impunity. Petitioner has previously been harassed , suffered harm and

financial loss, but because of the time or expense it would involve could

not hold them accountable .It is a known fact that malfeasants select

the individuals they wish to harm. The State of Florida Statute # 718.111

governs all issues related to condominiums . The statute mandates annual

verified accounting statements, along with four individual property account

statements annually. There has never ever been one provided since the

inception of the development. Petitioner has periodically demanded an

accounting which of course was never complied with and led to requital.

It would have required legal action on petitioner’s part, which she

could not engage in at the time. But the associations nevertheless have

petitioner on their harassment list just for seeking some accounting.

Just like the mafia: they retaliate against those that ask questions. These

collected funds in addition to paying for pools and flowers, are the piggy

bank of the association board members, who among other, make political

campaign contributions to candidates on all levels, but certainly local.

ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

HURLEY WHO DECIDED THIS MATTER, HAD RECEIVED

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RESPONDENTS.

Before becoming a District Court Judge in 1994, Judge Hurley has been

an elected office holder in Palm Beach County. Starting in the early

1970 ties with running for assistant county attorney, and thereafter

every couple of years another office to seek, another campaign, another

election. He held a number of local elected positions On information

and belief , the respondents contributed to Judge Hurley‘s campaign

funds. As a result petitioner believes that judge Hurley was biased in

favor of respondents and the District Court decision reflects that. The

District Court decision is inconsistent holding that a) the amount in

controversy is not met because the certainty of the claim is only for

$ 10.000, b) granting a motion to dismiss because there is no claim

15

on which relief can be granted. These holdings contradict each other,

and are in conflict with the holdings of this Honorable Court. Judge

Hurley was biased. This Honorable Court has noted that for 50 years

it has held that a person is entitled to an unbiased court. Tumey v Ohio

273 US 510, (1927), Neder v United States , 119 S Ct. 1827 (1999).

Petitioner was entitled to an unbiased court.

NASON, YEAGER,GERSON, LIOCE, AND GREGORY SCOTT

The above named respondents are a law firm that is hired to represent

thie Fairway Park condominium association, along with the other

subdivisions and the Indian Springs maintenance association. It is

a fairly common occurrence in the state of Florida where condominiums

are ubiquitous to include the representing counsel, or law firm as equally

responsible for the misconduct of the associations because of the roles

they play in same, and they pay damages. That is also true in other circuits

but is ubiquitous in Florida because of the prevalence. Condominium and

maintenance associations are voluntary associations limited to the property

owners in the developments, who are both shareholders and members.

Boards of these associations are property owners, shareholders, elected

in theory at least- to be on the board to be responsible for the maintenance

of the common areas, and are in contractual servitude to the property

owners. The election process is murky, because the same people have

been on the board since the creation of the development, and leave by

death only. The described large amounts of money have perverted the

association boards, into believing themselves to be an omnipotent

governing authority ignoring the laws, and secure that they have legal

representation they personally do not pay for. The law firm , and a man

named Scott who is the “account holder “ so to speak, whose job is

to review pool and iawn contracts, and other mainter.ance, expanded

his billable hours and has fostered, encouraged and suborned their

lawlessness. Nason et al are aware that their clients are in violation of

the Florida condominium laws. They never account for the money that

is collected because they are abusive and lawless. They are in constant

litigation, and the members who by law have to be notified, never are..

On information and belief Nason et al receive $100.000 per year to cover

up the lawlessness. Nason , Scott et al represent all the shareholder

members, and have an ethical and professional duty to represent them

responsibiy. If they are unable to do so, than they must withdraw, not

16

cheat. Scott has persuaded himself and tells so to others that he represents

the “corporation”, not the members. Nonsense. There is no corporation.

The property owners association differs from a corporation because it is

not an entrepreneurial enterprise. *Law of Property Owners Associations”

R. Natelson , 429 (1989) . Gregory Scott through his irresponsible and

unprofessional conduct shares the blame for the trespass and alienation of

petitioner’s property and are therefore equally liable for damages.An

attorney member of the Bar ,pursuant to the code of ethics and the Florida

Bar rules of profeessional responsibility is supposed to counsel clients

to be respectful of the rights of others and obey the law, and not cause

harm to to others. Despite Gegory Scett’s self determined status aas

“corporate counsel” , the reality is otherwise. He is all memebers’c counsel,

and their monthly maintenance fees pay for his billable hours. He knew

that alleging a debt on petitioners part, was bogus, an extortion attempt,

and he provided no evidence otherwise. . He knew that his fraudulent

shenanigans would cause harm and loss to petitioner.

THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT:

15 USCA #1692 a, b, ¢, j, k.

Had there been a legitimate debt owed by petitioner to respondents

there is a process that needs to be followed, which includes accurate

evidence of same, and what, when , where it was incurred. Instead

respondents engaged in an extortion ambush . Pay ,or else we will

take your property.!5 USCA #1692 a,b,c,j,k, provides for statutory-

damages for violations of this act, which includes the liability of

attorneys involved.Newman v Boehm, Pearlstein & Bright Ltd. ,

119 F 3rd, 477 (7th Cir. 1997), Crossley v Lieberman 86 F2nd 566

(3rd Circ. 1989), Sandlin v Shapiro & Fishman 919 F, Supp 4131996)

,Ares v Cypress Park Garden Homes, 696 So 2nd 885 (Fla App 1997)

Nason Yeager ,Gerson, Lioce and Gregory scott are all liable to petitioner.

THERE ARE COMPELING ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC

INTEREST IN THIS MATTER

The malfeasance evidenced in the matter at instant did not exist

in a vacuum Rather it reached across the country into three or more

states with consequences in each, and for everyone involved. The

loss of the rental income was obviously noticed, and that affected

petitioner’s money spending on other goods and services at home

in California. The tenants from New York City, who came to Floridaf

17

in August 2001 to locate a suitable apartment for the winter month,

invested time, effort and money in that endeavor. Relying on the

ordinary commerce and real property business rules of conduct,

and assuming all the parties to the transaction were responsible , they

signed a contract. This was facilitated by realtors representing the

tenant and a realtor representing petitioner, which bridged the

3500 mile divide. The tenants were satisfied, petitioner was quite

satisfied, the realtors were going to earn their commissions, and

significant beneficiaries were in the state of Florida, and the State

of Florida itself. The state is anxious to increase tourism , to

increase the part time or full time population, especially a targeted

population. This specific population requires no services, does

not burden law enforcement, pay a tax to the state for being there ,

in addition to the sales taxes, and come with time and money to spend.

They are consumers of restaurants, malls, sports, entertainment, other

personal services, and even become investors in the business of the

State, providing employment opportunities for the population. The

state of Florida legislature has created rules and laws protecting the

interests of condominium owners because they are a big part of the

state’s economy through the owners or the occupiers. But for more

than two decades since the Indian Springs development was created

with it’s subdivisions of Fairway Park and other, the rules and laws

have been ignored. Respondents have created their own.

In Sierra v Morton , 405 US 727 (1972) this Honorable Court has -

held that a plaintiff must show a direct and personal injury or harm

by the action he/she is complaining about to have standing , and

petitioner-plaintiff has proven that. But petitioner also believes that

the circumstances of this complaint permit petitioner to raise the

issue of the rights of others pursuant to Singleton v Wulff, 428 US .

106 (1976), and Craig v Boren 429 US. 190 (1 976). Respondents

should be held liable to the realtors who lost commissions , to the

tenants for any harm and expenses they incurred in connection with

this shameless and abusive incident. “‘ The very essence of civil liberty

certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the

protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. “ Marbury v

Madision , 5 US (1 Cranch ) 137, (1803).

18

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s right to equal protection was violated by the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals where Article II] judges do not read pro

se appeals. This honorable Court has held in Regents of University

of California v Bakke ,438 US 265 (1978) that “guarantee of equal

protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual

and something else when to another.” The Court of Appeals did

not review the appeal de novo; in fact if there was a standard review,

it was to trivialize. Petitioner’s due process rights to procedural and

substantive due process were violated. There can be no right to

liberty without rights to property Substantive due process applies to

deprivation of interests in property and liberty , both protected by the

Fourteenth Amendment. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970),

Perry v Sinderman, 408 US 593 (1972), Board of Regents v Roth,

408 US 564, (1972). Once there is deprivation of property or liberty

in order to determine the necessary procedural safeguards, this

Honorable Court has articulated in Mathews v Eldridge , 424 US

319, (1976) that there are certain considerations to be included,

such as : a) the private interest affected b) the risk of erroneous

deprivation of such interest, c) the government interest.

Petitioner’s property was essentially seized and occupied. Unless

this Honorable Court intervenes, petitioner will be left without

redress for her loss. Petitioner believes that there is a strong

government interest in real property ownership. but especially this

form of ownership-condominium ownership in the state of Florida

where this state also has an economic interest to further. There is

also a protected interest in interstate real property transactions.

For all the above noted reasons this Court should grant this

Petitions for Certiorari.

July 19, 2003

Pepi Schafle-# BA, MSSS, JD, PhD

19

APPENDIX

Order denying en banc review

Order Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming District Court

Order District Court

State of Florida Condominium Statute # 718.111

Indian Springs and Fairway Park rules of “first refusal”

Application for tenancy and lease

Communications with Respondent Nason, Yeager et al

The demanded check fo $ 844

The extortion and escrow invasion attempt from the realtor

Notification to tenants and realtors of impossibility of

compliance with rental agreement.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No: 02-13317-BB

DR. PEP] SCHAFLER

Plaintiff-Appellant

VS.

FAIRWAY PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

AND EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD

INDIAN SPRINGS MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

AND EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD

NATHAN EARL NASON et al

Defendants-Appellees

DECISION

The petition for Rehearing is denied .

Entered for the Court; May 6, 2003

s/s Susan Harrell Black

United States Circuit Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No-02-133317 , Non -Argument calendar

March 7, 2003 ( Do not publish)

Dr. PEP] SCHAFLER

Plaintiff-A ppellee

VS

FAIRWAY PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

and each individual member of the board

INDIAN SPRINGS MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

and each individual member of the board

NASON, YEAGER LIOCE et al

Before: DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS. Circuit Judges.

Relevant points:

1. The appellate opinion nowhere mentions that petitioner is the

property owner

2. The appellate opinion does not mention that this is about real

property rights and improper alienation

3 The appellate opinion discusses business relationship, citing

breweries and other major enterprises as on point and analogous

to petitioner renting her real property for the winter season.

4. The appellate opinion -whoever wrote it -did not properly

identify the relationship of a property owner and the associations

which are in contractual servitude to the property owners, and they

may not occupy petitioner’s property.

5. The appellate opinion says “the association had the right of

“approval” and they did not approve .

6 The appellate opinion does not address the two causes on which the

the District Court based it’s dismissal : lack of federal jurisdiction

because the amount in controversy allegedly was not met citing

petitioner’s entitlement to a lot less than the demand, while also

granting a Rule 12 (b) (6) motion for failure to state a claim..

7. The total opinion is incoherent.

AFFIRMED the District Court.

Oe

UNITED S’ Av US STRICT COURT

SOUTHER DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No: 02-80127-Civ HURLEY-LYNCH

PEPI SCHAFLER April 26, 2002

Plaintiff

Vv

FAIRWAY PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

and each individual member of the board

INDIAN SPRINGS MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

and each individual member of the board

NASON , YEAGER, WHITE, LIOCE & SCOTT

Defendants

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS” MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

This is a 10 page decision largely analyzing and responding to

respondents’ replies to the complaint which were diversionary in

nature, making all sort of ridiculous assertions.

The conclusions and the opinion of the Court:

The Court said it must dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rule 12 (b) (6) for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

The Court continued If plaintiff were successful in some of the

unlawful acts alleged , the court finds that no reasonable jury would

award the damages that plaintiff seeks which could amount to

$1.000.000 or more, since plaintiff suffered over $10.000 in loss,,.

therefore plaintiff can not reach the jurisdictional amount. The court

noted that plaintiff did not provide evidence in her complaint for some

individual wrongful act alleged.

Complaint dismissed. s/s DANIEL T.K. HURLEY

District Court Judge.

FLORIDA REAL PROPERT LAW

CONDOMINIUMS: RULE 718.111

718.111 The term association means the entity responsible for the

operation of the common elements owned in undivided shares by

the property owners.

The associations must maintain accounting records in accordance

with good accounting practices for a minimum of seven years.

a. accurate , itemized and detailed records of all receipts and expenditures

b. a current account and a monthly, bimonthly or quarterly statement of

the account for each unit

d. all contracts for work to be performed ; bids for work to be performed

Financial statement. Within 60 days following the end of the fiscal or

calendar the board of the association shall mail or furnish by personal

delivery to each unit owner owner a complete financial report of actual

receipts and expenditures for the previous 12 months. Ther report should

show receipts by each account and expenditures by each as well, including

but not limited to:

(a) costs for security

(b) management fees and expenses associated with same

(c) taxes

(d) costs for recreational and sports facilities

(e) costs for refuse collections and utilities

(f) costs for lawn care and building maintenance and repair

(g) insurance

(h) costs of salaries and administrative expenditures

(i) general reserves , maintenance reserves, and depreciation reserves

(j) all other, including large purchases, judgment etc. etc.

INDIAN SPRINGS

FAIRWAY PARK CONDOMINIUMS

Condominium documents.

Each property owner shall own an undivided interest in the common

property of Fairway Park, and Indian Springs.

SECTION XXIl

In order to assure a Community of congenial and responsible*

apartment owners and thus protect the value of the apartments , the

following rules shall apply:

1 Sale or lease

No apartment owner may dispose of his apartment by sale or lease

without approval of the board of the association which approval

shall be obtained in the following manner:

a. Written notice to association shall be given each and every time an

apartment owner intends to lease or sell his/her apartment to include

the name and address of the intended purchaser or lessee, the terms

of the transaction , and any additional information that may reasonably

be requested

b. The association has 30 days after receipt of the notice to either

approve the proposed tenant or purchaser, or furnish to the

apartment owner a purchaser or lessee selected by the association

The terms of the substitute lessee or purchaser shall be as favorable

to the apartment owner as those provided in the notice to the

association. The purchaser or lessee chosen by the association shall

have 30 days to complete the transaction . If the association

approves the offering, such approval shall be in writing and in

recordable form, signed by two directors, and delivered to lessee

or purchaser. Failure of the board to grant approval or to furnish

a substitute lessee or purchaser within 30 days after the notice is

received shall constitute approval , and the association is required

provide the lessee or purchaser a written approval signed by

two directors.

* no investigation is done, other then providing identity information and assuring that

no children under 18, and the tenant-purchasers age. They prefer them to be over 50.

EERO PAPE BOE EDAD LES LSE he OAL REMI A,

Application for occupancy

Lowell Unter DDS , retired Dentist age 70

Harriett Goodhart.. retired teacher age 67

Address: 75-64 195th Street, F lushing New York,

Application dated October 28, 2001

*The Indian Springs maintenance association and the

Fairway Park condominium association have impermissibly

decided one nice day to fill their piggy banks by charging

a fees for this “right of first refusal “. therefore the following

checks were attached and submitted :

* Citibank check number 2807, dated October 28, 2001

amount $50 to Indian Springs maintenance association

signed Unter and Goodhart

Bank of New York Check number 1347 , dated October 28, 2001

amount $50 to Fairway Park Condominium Association

signed Unter and Goodhart.

APPLICATION FOR TENANT’S ONE TIME TRIAL

COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERSHIP PRIVILEGES

Name of Indians Springs homeowner: Dr. Pepi Schafler

Indian Springs address: 5780 F airway Park Court #204

other address: 642 Preakness Drive , Walnut Creek, California

Lease period 1.1, 2002-3.31 2002 (lease attached)

Declaration by home owner: | acknowledge that I am responsible for

unpaid club charges and damages to the club , if the tenant hoes not

pay them s/s Dr. Pepi Schafler

Declaration by tenant: they assume responsibility for all charges and

to comply with the rules. s/s Unter and Goodhart

Date November 7, 2001

RESIDENTIAL LEASE

Between the owner Dr. Pepi Schafler and

tenants: Lowell Hunter and Harriet Goodhart

for Apartment 204, 5780 Fairway Park Court, Boynton Beach,

Palm Beach County Florida.

Monthly rental : 2.200 dollars

security deposit 1 month rent

tenant pays all utilities,

tenant pays Florida bed tax. and other incidental fees.

s/s Harriet Goodhart

Lowel Hunter

Pepi Schafler

Dated ; October 16, 2001

DR.. PEPI SCHAFLER

642 Preakness Drive December 17, 2001

Walnut Creek, California , 94596

Gregory Scott

Nason Yeager, et al Via fax

1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.

West Palm Beach Fla, 3340]

Re: Rental of Apt 204, 5780 F airway Park Court

Dear Mr. Scott:

I am shocked at your professional negligence, irresponsibility, lack

of concern., if not also misconduct regarding the tenancy in the

above identified property. What are you thinking? On November 5, 2001

the realtor submitted the proposed tenants names, a rather routine matter.

There had been no response for one month. The realtor contacted the

office and was told “ you mean the lawyer has not notified you”? The

clerk was rather stunned at your negligence. How was someone to learn

things :from the tooth fairy? the bogey man? What are we members paying

you for? This morning I was informed by the realtor that ISMA is

holding up the tenancy “approval” because they allege that I owe some

fees. To the best of my knowledge ISMA has no right to have an opinion

about this , but also I do not owe any fees. Provide the records and if]

owe any fees, I will pay them immediately. For 20 years I have requested

financial statements , Teceived none as yet , and was harassed for

asking. To the best of my knowledge the tenants are packing , loading

their car to drive to Florida . Let me remind you again of the

consequences of the shenanigans that J believe you instigate : the

tenants will not have heir chosen and contracted for place to spend

the winter, I will lose a significant amount of money in the lost rental

and other , two realtors will lose commissions , the country club will have

lost money and a member, the State of Florida will have lost tax revenues

and business income through the plentiful spending by these “snowbirds”,

tourism will suffer. Should anyone be pleased that their association fees

pay for your “wisdom”?

Sincerely

s/s Dr. Pepi Schafier

CHECK

Washington Mutual Bank check number 935

Dated: December 17, 2001

To: Indian Springs maintenance association

amount : 844 dollars

name on check: Dr. Pepi Schafler, signed by same.

DEMAND THAT REALTOR INVADE THE

ESCROW, COMMIT A CRIME, AND SEND

RESPONDENTS MONEY

From: Vicki Martin

Associastion’s Office Manager

Fairway Park,& Indian Spring

December 20, 2001

To: Linda Chasis

Century 21-Sunland Realty

Via Fax To: 561-439-5475

Re Pepi Schafler , Disapproval of lease by Indian Springs

maintenance association.

Comments:

Below are the fees that Pepi Schafler owes the attorney:

Fairway Park attorney fees $450.00

Late fee 10.00

Total due $460.00

Indian Springs main. assoc: $500

2 separate checks made out to the prospective associations please

cc: Gregory Scott

Dr. Pepi Schailer

642 Preakness Drive

Walnut Creek, California 94596

December 20, 2001

To: Linda Chasis

Century 21-Sunland Realty

Re: 5780 Fairway Park Court, Apt 204

Rental to Goodhart and Unter

Dear Linda:

] am really sorry that things did not work out and yet you tried

soo hard , and worked so diligently. I hope you understand that

I can not submit to this terrorism. They have always terrorized me

because they believe that I am always challenging them, asking

questions they do not want to answer, and am not intimidated by

them. This last is a clear conspiracy.

The Viagra Mafia of the Condo associations and ISMA (Indian

Springs)will be held accountable in the future. On my return I will

move in the direction I need to go. As Ronald Reagan used to say:

“it is not over until the fat lady sings”.

I continue to appreciate your being wonderful.

As ever, pepi

Dr. Pepi Schafler

642 Preakness Drive

Walnut Creek, California 94596

December 20, 2001

To: Arvida Realty Services:

Boca Raton, Florida

Re: 5780 Fairway Park Court Apt 204

Rental to Goodhart and Unter

Due to circumstances not under our control the above rental from 1/1 2002-

3/31 2001 will not be able to go forward.

The fault lies neither with Linda Chasis who is a wonderful person , who

has tireless and extremely diligent in this matter , hor with me. The fault

lies with the terrorism of the Viagra mafia of the Fairway Park

and Indian Springs associations. If I were living in Florida rather than =~

California, I would escort the tenants in with the assistance of a

Palm Beach sheriff's deputy. But I am not, so in the future it will be

federal court for them. ;

1 am indeed truly sorry about this development.

Very Truly Yours

Pepi Schafler.