About Jason Halle

I enjoy spending my time making websites, blogging, spending time with my three fantastic dogs and being with Bob Schneider.

Strike Peter Halle’s Sanctions
avatar

Motion to Strike Sanctions

Click for Richman Greer Bio

A motion was made to strike sanctions due to false statements made by Richman Greer Attorneys.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 502011CPOO5095XXXXSB

 

JASON HALLE, Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER HALLE, Defendant.

__________________________ /

PLAINTIFF JASON HALLE’S MOTIOIN TO STRIKE PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 10 OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FILED ON JANUARY 7, 2015

Plaintiff, Jason Halle, pursuant to Rule 1.140(f) of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court to strike paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 of Defendant Peter Halle’s Motion for Sanctions. In support Plaintiff states as follows:

  1. In ¶ 1 of the Defendant’s motion he fabricates that, “Since that initial filing, Plaintiff amended his complaint five times and attempted to amend a sixth time.”
  2. The Plaintiff has only amended his complaint successfully three times during this action as confirmed by the docket and the court’s orders. They are as follows:
    1. On February 22, 2012, the original complaint was amended with the First Amended Complaint by entitlement.
    2. On May 30, 2012, the Defendant stipulated to the entry of an agreed order on plaintiff’s motion to obtain leave of court to amend his First Amended Complaint and file his Third Amended Complaint. (Exhibit A) On June 4, 2012, the Honorable James Martz signed the agreed upon order. (Exhibit B)
    3. The Defendant prepared an agreed order on plaintiff’s motion to obtain leave of court to amend his Third Amended Complaint and file his Fourth Amended Complaint. On April 16, 2013, the Honorable David E. French sign the agreed upon order. (Exhibit C)
  3. No other amendments were allowed by or filed with this Honorable Court.
  4. It is total fabrication that the Plaintiff amended his complaint five times. It is not supported by the docket or the orders of the Honorable Court in this case. It follows that the Plaintiff could not have attempted to amend his complaint for a sixth time as the Defense states, since he only had successfully amended his complaint three times. These false and inflated numbers of amendments claimed by the Defense in ¶ 1 should be stricken as the statements are untrue and designed to be impertinent, inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.
  5. In ¶ 2 the Defense claims, “The trial court orally stated that it was dismissing the complaint with prejudice because Plaintiff had numerous chances to try and state a cause of action and he repeatedly failed to do so”. There was a court reporter at his hearing. There is no reference to the court having made such a statement on the record. There are no motions to dismiss that were granted that would suggest this was true. This totally false statement is a fabrication and is designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s claim is totally unsubstantiated and should be stricken from the motion.
  6. Again, in ¶3 of the Defendant’s motion he fabricates that the Plaintiff sought to amend his Complaint for a sixth time. Please refer to Plaintiff’s ¶’s 1-4 above. This is another totally false statement fabricated and designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s claim is again totally unsubstantiated and should be stricken from the motion.
  7. In ¶ 4 Defendant states that, “In his appeal, Plaintiff sought to divert the appellate court’s attention from his pleading deficiencies by baselessly attacking Defendant Peter Halle’s counsel, John G. “Jay” White, III, with unfounded claims that Mr. White mislead this court at the hearing on the motion to dismiss”.
  8. This is untrue and as one can clearly see in the transcript of the hearing, White fraudulently told the Court, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit D, page 11, lines 14-18)
  9. The Plaintiff did not baselessly attack Mr. White as the Defense claims. As the transcript confirms, Mr. White clearly did try to mislead the court with fabricated, untrue statements. ¶ 4 should be stricken as it is not true, it is impertinent and is designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.
  10. The Defendant again gives impertinent information in ¶ 10 that is designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff by stating, “This Court then determined that a dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, especially in light of the fact that repeated opportunities afforded Plaintiff to amend his complaint to state a cause of action.” It is not even clear exactly what the Defense counsel is trying to state here.
  11. Only Mr. White stated at the hearing that there had been dismissals for failure to state a cause of action. The only person in a Trial Court that has the authority to determine if a complaint fails to state a cause of action is the judge at a hearing on a motion to dismiss. There had not been one dismissal granted by a trial court judge as confirmed by the docket or one dismissal amendment afforded the Plaintiff after his first dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. This is also confirmed by the docket.
  12. Paragraph 10 needs to be stricken because it is unclear, untrue, impertinent, and designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court strike ¶’s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 of Defendant Peter Halle’s Motion for Sanctions, because they are impertinent, not true and they are designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.

And for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

JASON HALLE, Pro Se

This motion is a public record and is filed with the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.

Florida Inheritance denied to disabled senior
avatar

Senior Citizen is denied Florida inheritance by legal system

DENIED

DENIED

Disabled Florida senior becomes impoverished due to malicious actions of politically connected Washington, DC and Florida legal experts

Justice, Freedom, equal access to the law. None of these seem to be working for Jason Halle, a disabled senior citizen that resides in Wilton Manors, Florida.

Jason’s father, Edward Halle, knew his son Jason was legally disabled and was struggling with life threatening health issues each day of his life. Edward Halle wanted to be sure his son Jason had comfort and economic security after he and his wife Elaine Halle were gone. The documents that Edward paid his attorney Ronald Siegel of Boca Raton, Florida to create in order to accomplish this turned out to be worthless.

Edward Halle named his older son Peter Halle to act as Trustee. He was proud Peter became an attorney and told Jason this would save on attorney’s fees and would make the process easier for Jason.

But the money Peter Halle was supposed to disburse to Jason never materialized. First there were excuses. Then a promise the money would be disbursed. Then years of Peter Halle ignoring Jason’s requests for his Florida inheritance. This has been going on since 2007.

Peter Halle is now a retired attorney. He was a partner in the famous Washington, DC, law firm Morgan Lewis. His wife is Carolyn Lamm, also a Washington, DC, attorney and a partner at White & Case. Carolyn Lamm is a past President of the American Bar Association and was voted one of Washington’s 100 most powerful women in 2011. Peter and Carolyn Lamm regularly had Senators and Congressmen to their Washington, DC, home and even Hilary Clinton had been a guest.

So why didn’t Peter Halle disburse the money or attend to the many other fiduciary duties that he was required to perform under Florida law? I would guess that when you are as wealthy and powerful as he and his wife Carolyn Lamm are, you start to believe that you are above the law.

In 2011, Peter Halle was still ignoring Jason’s requests for his inheritance. Two letters from attorneys that Jason hired to plead on his behalf had no success. Jason Halle decided he would need to find an attorney to take his brother to court and compel him to follow the laws of the State of Florida. One lawyer wanted a $60,000.00 retainer. All the other lawyers Jason interviewed were not interested in taking the case when they realized how powerful and connected his brother Peter Halle and his wife Carolyn Lamm are.

Jason naively believed that this was an open and shut case and that the law was 100% on his side. Jason filed a Pro Se Complaint (without the aid of an attorney) against his brother in the 15th Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, on November 4, 2011. His brother Peter responded by hiring the Richman Greer law firm of Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida to represent him and fight Jason with every legal trick known to the profession in order to obstruct Jason from obtaining his Florida inheritance. Peter Halle kept ignoring the Florida laws that were designed to protect beneficiaries like his brother Jason. The whole defense of the lawsuit was frivolous and without merit or basis in law or fact.

Charles H. Johnson of the Miami office was hired back in 2008, so Jason could no longer contact his brother directly and had to go through Peter’s attorney. Then Michael J. Napoleone became involved in 2011, to represent Peter Halle in court. Then more attorneys became involved including John G. White, III. A whole law firm began fighting against Jason Halle to stonewall him from receiving his inheritance. I know this all sounds like fiction, but it is not. Court documents will substantiate all of the facts about the legal actions that ensued.

After over three years of Jason Halle spending days at a time in law libraries, writing legal briefs, motions and creating numerous other documents and after numerous court appearances Jason believed he was holding his own. Peter Halle did not appear once in court during the proceedings. Jason even won an appeal Peter’s attorney’s started in the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida regarding jurisdiction. Quite an accomplishment for a Pro Se litigant.

Fraud Upon the Court

Then the unthinkable happened. On August 28, 2013, John G. White, III of Richman Greer committed fraud upon the court. That is the legalese way to say he lied to the Judge during the hearing held on that date. As a direct result of those lies, the Honorable David E. French dismissed the case!

They now want Jason Halle to pay the legal fees of the attorneys that lied in court

Now Peter Halle’s attorneys have filed a motion to compel Jason to pay the Richman Greer legal bill of $200,000.00 PLUS. That’s right, the court has dismissed the case and Peter Halle is now trying to stick Jason Halle with the $200,000.00 PLUS legal bill to pay his lawyers that won by lying in court to get the case dismissed. Jason still doesn’t have his Florida inheritance, and by dismissing the case the court has ruled that Peter Halle never has to pay Jason a cent of his inheritance as a result of the lies the Richman Greer attorneys told in court and wrote in legal briefs.

How can a person fight against such wealth, power and lies? Jason is still trying, but no attorney in Florida has offered to help him. No media outlet has offered to help let the public know about the injustice of the Florida legal system. Nobody seems to think it is unusual that the rich and powerful can produce any results they want in a court room.

Edward Halle

Edward Halle, father of Jason Halle and Peter Halle

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer Bar Complaint

Michael J. Napoleone

Richman Greer

Bar Complaint Filed on November 30, 2014

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Michael J. Napoleone Bar Complaint – November 30, 2014

Mr. Michael J. Napoleone, a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, was an attorney for the Defense in the matter of Jason Halle v. Peter Halle, L. T. Case No. 502011CP005095XXXXSB, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. 4DCA13-3796.

Mr. Napoleone’s misconduct and perjury was a result of trying to cover up the misconduct and perjury of his partner, Mr. John George White, III, also a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, and also an attorney for the Defendant. He also was trying to win the case without regard for Rule 4-3.3 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct: Candor Toward the Tribunal.

Mr. White gave false and perjurious testimony during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This hearing resulted in the Honorable David E. French of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Dismissing a Complaint with Prejudice and causing me, the Plaintiff in this action, serious injury.

Mr. White testified before the Court on that day, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit A, page 11, lines 14-18)

Mr. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”

On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.” Mr. White let his false and fabricated testimony stand and have its full impact on the court.

Only a trial court judge can dismiss a complaint by issuing an order granting a motion to dismiss and no such orders were ever issued in this case before the Hearing on August 28, 2013.

On January 6, 2014, in an Initial Brief for the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, I stated “During the hearing on August 28, 2013, Mr. White, the counsel for the Appellee openly and blatantly lied before the Honorable Court. He falsely claimed that the Appellant, ‘keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.’” (Exhibit B, page 8, last paragraph)

“In fact, only one lawsuit was ever filed with this or any other court. No complaint that was ever filed with the leave of the lower court was ever dismissed for any reason except at the hearing on August 28, 2013.” (Exhibit B, page 9, ¶1)

“I replied to Mr. Whites lies, ‘This is the first motion to dismiss (based solely on lack of cause of action) that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth….’” (Exhibit B, page 9, ¶2)

On February 21, 2014, Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White filed Appellee’s Answer Brief. They responded to my Initial Brief by stating, “Appellant’s Initial Brief seeks to divert attention from his repeated failure to state a cause of action after many opportunities to do so, by attacking Peter Halle’s counsel, John G. “Jay” White, III by claiming Mr. White ‘blatantly lied before the Honorable Court.’ (IB.8) Appellant cites to Mr. White’s representation that Appellant ‘keeps filing lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed,….’ As part of his request for a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. White did not ‘lie,’ as Appellant alleges in his ad hominem attack.” (Exhibit C, page 8, ¶1)

Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White continued in their brief with erroneous and false explanations of how five separate complaints were dismissed. Yet Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White did not cite multiple orders granting motions to dismiss before August 28, 2013. The reason for this is because no such orders exist. Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White successfully confused the court by suggesting that they, the opposing counsels, had the legal authority to dismiss complaints and the trial court judge was no longer needed in the legal process to decide if a complaint has not stated a cause of action or should be dismissed.

Mr. Napoleone was lead counsel on this case and he knew that there had been no dismissals in this case before the hearing on August, 28, 2013. Yet he gave false information and perjured himself in the Answer Brief to maintain the deceptive illusion that there had been previous dismissals as Mr. White had testified.

Mr. Napoleone was well aware of the fact that he was providing the court with further false and perjurious information about Mr. White’s false testimony at the hearing on August 28, 2013. He made no attempt to take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal as required by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. (Exhibit D)

Mr. Napoleone is in violation of the following Florida Rules of Professional Conduct:

  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) A lawyer shall not knowingly: offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(a) Prohibits the lawyer from violating the rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
  1. Rule 4-8.4(c) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(d) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Mr. Napoleone has caused serious injury due to his false testimony, perjury and by not making any effort to remedy the situation of the serious injury he had caused me.

Mr. Napoleone’s intention was to mislead the court without regard for the potential injury that could reasonably be foreseen at the time as a result of his misconduct.

Under the Florida Bar Standards for Lawyer Sanctions disbarment is appropriate under 5.11(f) and 6.11(a-b).

The false and perjurious testimony was very prejudicial and damaging.

After the Florida Bar has had an opportunity to investigate this complaint, I ask that the findings be forwarded to the appropriate District Attorney for criminal prosecution under the Florida Statutes §837.07(1)(3) which classifies perjury in official proceedings as a felony of the third degree.

The Florida Statutes §837.07(1-2), Recantation as a defense, does not apply as Mr. Napoleone does not meet either of the requirements of the statute.

This is the body of a public record on file at The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

 

John G. White, III, Bar Complaint
avatar

John G. White, III

Richman Greer Shareholder

Bar Complaint filed on November 22, 2014

John. G. White, III, Richman Greer shareholder

John G. White, III, Richman Greer shareholder

Bar Complaint – November 22, 2014

Mr. John George White, III, a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, and attorney for the Defendant, gave false and purjurious testimony during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This hearing resulted in the Honorable David E. French of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Dismissing a Complaint with Prejudice and causing me, the Plaintiff in this action, serious injury.

Mr. White testified before the Court on that day, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit A, page 11, lines 14-18)

Mr. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”

On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.”

Mr. White did not take this opportunity to change, modify or further explain his false and purjurious testimony. He let it stand and have its full impact on the court.

This is a very simple situation. Only a trial court judge can dismiss a complaint by issuing an order granting a motion to dismiss.

If Mr. White can provide the orders from the court that show complaints had been dismissed prior to October 28, 2013, then he is not guilty of giving false and purjurious testimony to the court. But, Mr. White will not be able to produce court orders showing that multiple orders were granted involving motions to dismiss before October 28, 2013, because they don’t exist.

Mr. White cannot use the defense that he did not know his testimony was false and purjurious. How could any attorney be so completely unprepared and not have knowledge of the basic facts when going into a hearing? In addition, I have many documents that show Richman Greer knew Mr. White’s testimony was false and purjurious, yet no one from Richman Greer or Mr. White himself, took reasonable remedial measures to disclose the fact to any tribunal as required by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.

As per the Florida Bar’s instructions, I have not included the many documents that show Richman Greer was aware of Mr. White’s false and purjurious testimony but they are available upon request.

Mr. White is in violation of the following Florida Rules of Professional Conduct:

  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) Prohibits a lawyer from offering testimony that the lawyer knows to be false. The lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
  1. Rule 4-3.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(a) Prohibits the lawyer from violating the rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
  1. Rule 4-8.4(c) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(d) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

If Mr. White cannot produce the court orders that would substantiate his testimony, then he was not giving true testimony but instead was fabricating the existence of evidence that does not exist.

Mr. White has caused serious injury due to his false testimony, perjury and by not making any effort to remedy the situation or the serious injury he has caused me, the Plaintiff.

Mr. White’s intention was to mislead the court without regard for the potential injury that could reasonably be foreseen at the time as a result of his misconduct.

Under the Florida Bar Standards for Lawyer Sanctions disbarment is appropriate under 5.11(f) and 6.11(a-b).

This fabricated and perjurious testimony was very prejudicial and damaging.

After the Florida Bar has had an opportunity to investigate this complaint, I ask that the findings be forwarded to the appropriate District Attorney for criminal prosecution under the Florida Statutes §837.07(1)(3) which classifies perjury in official proceedings as a felony of the third degree.

The Florida Statutes §837.07(1-2), Recantation as a defense, does not apply as Mr. White does not meet either of the requirements of the statute.

This is the body of a public record on file at The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Richman Greer Fraud Upon the Court
avatar

Richman Greer

John G. White, III Motion

Richman Greer, John G. White, III, Motion

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 502011CPOO5095XXXXSB

JASON HALLE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER HALLE,

Defendant.

__________________________ /

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

            JASON HALLE, Pro Se, moves this Honorable Court as follows:

  1. To relieve the Plaintiff from the Order of the Honorable Court Dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice that was signed by the Honorable David E. French on September 25, 2013. (Exhibit A).
  2. During the hearing held on August 28, 2013, which resulted in the Order of September 25, 2013, Mr. John G. White, III, opposing counsel, committed intrinsic fraud upon the court, was guilty of misrepresentation and other misconduct of an adverse party. As a direct result of this fraud upon the court, the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed with Prejudice. This prevented the plaintiff from presenting his case due to the fraud and deception practiced by his adversary.
  3. Relief is sought under Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party…from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:…(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;…This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
  4. As of the date of serving this motion the status of this case is pending.
  5. John G. White, III, opposing counsel, committed intrinsic fraud upon the court, was guilty of misrepresentation and other misconduct of an adverse party during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This is the hearing that resulted in the Honorable Trial Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice on September 25, 2013. (Exhibit A)
  6. White fraudulently told the Court during the hearing, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit B, page 11, lines 14-18)
  7. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”
  8. On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.”
  9. White did not take this opportunity to change, modify or further explain his intrinsically fraudulent testimony. He let it stand so it would have its full impact on the court.
  10. The record of the court in this action confirms the following:
    1. The motion to dismiss the Original Complaint was for lack of jurisdiction. As a result of a hearing on this motion, on February 21, 2012, the Honorable Judge Martz ordered a 30 day continuance so the parties could engage in limited discovery on jurisdiction. (Exhibit C)
    2. The First Amended Complaint had a Motion to Dismiss filed on February 29, 2012. There was never a hearing on Defendant’s motion.
    3. The Second Amended Complaint was never followed by a Defense Motion to Dismiss
    4. The Third Amended Complaint had a Defense Motion to Dismiss served on June 19, 2012. It was DENIED by the Honorable Court on March 26, 2013. (Exhibit D)
  11. When the Fourth Amended Complaint was before the Honorable Court on August 28, 2013, ZERO motions to dismiss had been granted by the court. But, Mr. White fraudulently stated, “they keep getting dismissed”, instead of giving a true statement that ZERO complaints had been dismissed by the court in this case before the hearing on August 28, 2013.
  12. The plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing so that opposing counsels may have the opportunity to present court orders for motions to dismiss that were granted by the court before August 28, 2013, in order to substantiate their statements. The trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on opposing counsel’s statements after plaintiff objected to them.
  13. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his complaint before the court so as to state a cause of action as a direct result of Mr. White’s intrinsic fraud and deception practiced upon the court.
  14. Only a Trial Court Judge has the authority to determine if a complaint states a cause of action. This happens at a hearing. Only a trial court judge can grant a motion to dismiss.
  15. Dynasty Express v. New General Rent-A-Car,675 So.2d 235, 240 (Fla. 4d DCA 1996) “A party seeking relief on the basis of [fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct] has an obligation to raise this issue as soon as is reasonably possible… On the other hand, if the party only becomes aware of the fraud after final judgment the fraud should be asserted in either a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530 or [a motion for relief from final judgment under] Rule 1,540(b), depending on the time the fraud is discovered. In either case, however, the party asserting such fraud is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue.”
  16. Stella v. Stella, 418 So.2d. 1029, 1030 (Fla. 4d DCA 1982) “Although we find the motion of the wife to be less than artfully drawn and the statement of her position to the trial court and now on appeal to be less than clear-cut, we conclude that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her allegations of fraudulent conduct…. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on the wife’s motion.”
  17. Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 65 So. 3d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) which states: “Public policy favors the liberal amendment of pleadings, and courts should resolve all doubts in favor of allowing the amendment of pleadings to allow cases to be decided on their merit…. A denial of leave to amend a pleading is an abuse of discretion….”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from the Honorable Court:

To vacate its Order of September 25, 2013, as it was based on intrinsic fraud upon the court, misrepresentation and misconduct by opposing counsel during the hearing on August 28, 2013.

Plaintiff respectfully further requests leave of the court to amend his complaint.

And for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

JASON HALLE, Pro Se

This motion is a public record and is filed with the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.

Motion to Strike
avatar

Richman Greer

Michael J. Napoleone

John G. White, III

Click here to read the motion.

In the motion the following allegations were made:

“Mr. John G. White, III, a member of the Richman Greer Law firm, gave false and damaging information during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This is the hearing that resulted in the Honorable Trial Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice.”

“No previous motion to dismiss had been granted by the Trial Court.”

“The rest of the many dismissals reported to the Courts by the Richman Greer attorneys and the statements to the Courts that many complaints lacked a cause of action were false and fabricated by Richman Greer attorneys. They were not a result of rulings by Trial Court Judges.”

This motion is a public record and is filed at the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Click here to read more about the Lawsuit

Motion for Rehearing
avatar

Motion for Rehearing

On October 23, 2014

Click here to read Motion for Rehearing

When the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida gave a decision of PER CURIAM AFFIRMED, I was really pretty surprised. I thought I had made my case.

In the Motion for Rehearing I pointed out that the ruling was in direct opposition to at least eight prior Appellate Court Rulings and gave citations to back up my claim.

I also pointed out that the amendment process had not been abused as Michael J. Napoleone, an attorney at Richman Greer had charged in his brief to the court. I also pointed out dependencies between the claims or Michael J. Napoleone of Richman Greer and what I believed to be the truth.

Click here to read more about the Lawsuit

Happy Birthday Bob Schneider
avatar

Happy Birthday

Bob Schneider

Bob Schneider

Bob Schneider

Bob Schneider has been a wonderful partner with me for more than 34 years. I wish him the best on this birthday and hope he has many, many more.

Monty, Chelsea and Eloise also asked me to make sure that I mention they send their love too.

One of Bob's Birthday Cakes

One of Bob’s Birthday Cakes.

I send all my love to Bob on his Birthday, as I do every day.

Nathan and Raphael Klarfeld are Married
avatar

Nathan Klarfeld

and

Raphael Klarfeld

are married at

Temple Bat Yam

in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Nathan Klarfeld and Raphael Klarfeld are married.

Nathan Klarfeld and Raphael Klarfeld are married.

It was a beautiful ceremony. It was amazing to see the families and friends of both grooms come together in love and support of Nate and Raphie. It was wonderful to see a same-sex couple partake in the institution of marriage just like any other citizens of the United States.

Unfortunately, as of this date, same-sex marriage is still against the law in the State of Florida. Nate and Raphie previously traveled to California to obtain a legal marriage. They wanted to have a ceremony in their faith with the love and support of their loved ones and the ones that love them.

The rabbi of Temple Bat Yam was warm, supportive and did a superb job. This was the first same-sex marriage performed at Temple Bat Yam. Totally awesome.

Bob and I were honored to be at the ceremony and wonderful reception afterwards.

Jason Halle and Bob Schneider at the wedding of Nathan and Raphael Klarfeld.

Jason Halle and Bob Schneider at the wedding of Nathan and Raphael Klarfeld.

It was a magnificent day for the Klarfelds, their family and friends, and the United States of America.

Jason Halle & Bob Schneider Anniversary
avatar

Jason Halle & Bob Schneider

celebrate

34 years together

Jason Halle & Bob Schneider celebrating their 34th Anniversary.

Jason Halle & Bob Schneider celebrating their 34th Anniversary.

Jason Halle and Bob Schneider met in New York City on June 1st, 1980. Neither of us had a clue that 34 years later we would be together living in Wilton Manors, Florida with our three wonderful dogs, Monty, Chelsea and Eloise.

During these years Jason Halle and Bob Schneider were lucky enough to live in many different places around our wondrous country. San Francisco, West Hollywood, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley AZ, Philadelphia, and Marlton NJ were where we lived after meeting in New York City and now.

Wilton Manors, FL has been home for about 20 years now and it is a wonderful place to live. It’s a little hot during four months in the summer, but it has a perfect climate the other eight months of the year. Our home has four different A/C units and a generator, so we manage to stay cool no matter what’s going on outside in Wilton Manors.

We want to thank our friends, family, neighbors and members of our community for the many wonderful wishes and beautiful acknowledgements of our relationship.

Jason Halle and Bob Schneider are having a wonderful time on this planet and we hope to be together for many more years and to keep enjoying all the wonderful people and canines in our life.

We hope we will someday be able to get married in the State of Florida. What a fantastic thing that would be after all these years!

Leave and Read Comments